You go first, how long will this continue.
Offline Once again the fighting has started up again in Palistine. You get pee shooter rockets, accusations that Hammas is using the population as human sheilds. You get Isreal over reacting. And death and continued fighting on both sides. When is the nation crap and religious crap and politics going to stop?
Every decade since I was born in 66 this has been an issue. I am so sick of this shit and neither side is getting anywhere. Palistine has to give up on it's theocratic politics, and self police and get the violent people out of it's population. Isrial needs to give up on it's invasions and settlements.
It sickens me that people don't get tired of war and violence. How many humans on either side have to die before it becomes clear that it is futile? Neither side is gong anywhere. Humans are involved on both sides.
There was a time when someone could make a case that they were on the right side of history. But I do not see that. All I see is both sides playing victime lo9oking for excuses for more violence. I wish the international community would step in and settle this with peace keeping forces. Palistinians should not live in a prison, their every day civiliians should not be starved to death. But at the same time they also should not be held hostage by those in power.
Isreal needs to give up on a Jewish state and simply be a westerinized secular state. Palistinians need to purge their rulers of the theocrats and zealots. All labels aside flesh is flesh and death is death and this has been going on for far too long and has affected the entire global community for fart too long.
I am tired of the excuses. Both sides are baging their heads against the wall and getting nowhere simply pissing the other side off more. Is a boarder or a tradition or label so important as to fail to realize that in the end when someone dies on either side, you are STILL killing another human being.
We are mpt ;;ovomg om any nobal age of conquest anymore. The world is round, not flat. What you do Palistinians to Isreal has an affect on the world. What you do Isreal to Palistinians has an affect on the world. The selfishness and war sickens me because it seems to be nothing more than a cry for attention trying to get the rest of the world to side with one side.
PLEASE FUCKING STOP! You are just two groups of people on a populated planet of 7 billion. Please tell me what right either of you have to turn our planet into your childish game of capture the flag. It is my hope that the international commun9ity instead of chosing sides, SHAMES both sides int o cooperations.
There has been no end to this shit and I am beyond caring at this point as an outsider who has no horse in the race. This all stems from evolution and nothing more. We side as humans with that which we are familure with and defend it from outside threats. The problem is that there is an utter failure of the WORLD, not just both sides, BUT THE WORLD, to put enough pressure on both sides.
ENOUGH! What right does either side after all this and no end in sight have to cry "poor me". Reea;;y? You'd both take a scorched earth policy and drag the region and possibly the entire world int a war over what?
There should be no two state solution. I am at the point where I think both of you need to have your asses kicked, your leaders arrested and repl,aced with sane secular leaders.
Regardless of which side I lean to, I am not going to take sides when clearly both sides are ussing the same stupid tactics that simply perpetuate this needless conflict.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
- Login to post comments
- Login to post comments
Quote me, give me the post # so I can go back and make sure you aren't taking my words out of context.
#129 "Of course I can say that is wrong." You, who believe that morals are subjective can't tell someone their morals are wrong. Do you even understand the difference between subjective and objective. Can you define them for me? Your viewpoint is inconsistent and defies what we know to be logic.
For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse. Romans 1:20
So Jc loves chaos. He wants convicted murderers and pedophiles and transgressors of the law to roam free. And your worldview is supposed to be a good thing?
For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse. Romans 1:20
Lee, I'm sorry that you have such reading and comprehension issues with the things you post.
No, I don't want those people you describe to roam free. Nor do I want them tortured eternally.
As I said, my morals are better than your God's.
Would you like to answer my question now? When God killed and ordered killing did he or did he not intend for it to happen?
Is your God a murderer or are you going to change your definition?
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes. (Romans 10:4)
Now before faith came, we were held captive under the law, imprisoned until the coming faith would be revealed. So then, the law was our guardian until Christ came, in order that we might be justified by faith. But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian, for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith. (Galatians 3:23-26)
But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ. For he himself is our peace, who has made us both one and has broken down in his flesh the dividing wall of hostility by abolishing the law of commandments expressed in ordinances, that he might create in himself one new man in place of the two, so making peace, and might reconcile us both to God in one body through the cross, thereby killing the hostility. (Ephesians 2:13-16)
For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse. Romans 1:20
Apparently Lee you are the one who does not understand the difference between subjective and objective. What is inherent of the idea of subjectivity that means a person cannot make a judgement using a subjective basis? Please explain it to me, because as I pointed out you make subjective judgments every day of your life.
Furthermore, I have specifically asked you to give me an objective definition of murder, you have failed to do so, rather you gave me a very subjective one (paraphrasing:"it is in your heart"
. How can you claim that morals are objective when you cannot objectively define your moral standards?
If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X
And reality tells us nothing comes from nothing. We exist so therefore something that is eternal created us. Life only comes from life so logically there is something or someone that had to create the first life etc otherwise we get infinite regression which is only possible conceptually.
Never mind how the universe is expanding how did it get here? You don't know what happened before the universe began expanding? Oh, I see, so you have faith just like I do but you trash Christians for believing in something we can't see or supposedly know but you place your faith in something you can't see or know. Isn't that a double standard?
For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse. Romans 1:20
Case 1) A white man unlawfully murders a black man simply for the color of his skin because the white man had an evil heart.
Case 2) A masked intruder breaks into a home in the middle of the night and a person in the home picks up a shotgun and kills intruder.
In case 1 we call it murder in case 2 we call it self defense simply by the intent. Intent determines how we define it. That's why there are degrees of murder etc. All our hearts are defective. Before God regenerates us we have a heart of stone and we go our own way and we are at war with God. After we are indwelt by the holy spirit we hate sin and we love God's commands because of the power of His word and spirit in our lives. It's impossible to follow God's commands without His presence in our lives. He didn't make our hearts messed up. When He created us everything was good. Satan deceived Adam and Eve and they went their own way and listened to Satan rather than God. Wages of sin is death.
For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse. Romans 1:20
1. You can't describe your God as a something therefore he is indistinguishable from nothing. Yet you claim he created all things. So you, in fact, believe that something came from nothing. Why do you stand against reality?
2. Not knowing something does not imply having faith. Note that blacklight did not posit an idea to explain the universe's beginning. He left that to you and your "I don't know how this worked so Goddidit".
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
I agree, no one does anything without reason. What would be God's reason for condemning someone to hell? Yes, disobedience is a good reason and disbelief is disobeying God. He commands everyone to repent and believe. I don't follow your analogy because I think it is an inaccurate one. Your implying that God left or is hiding Himself when in truth it is us who have turned and left Him and gone our own way.
For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse. Romans 1:20
I thought you atheists where supposed to know your bible better than Christians?
And he said to them, “Go into all the world and proclaim the gospel to the whole creation. Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned. (Mark 16:15-16)
For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse. Romans 1:20
case 2 - You deliberately purchase a weapon and the ammunition for it, then you leave it lying around the house loaded for the express purpose of shooting (and murdering) person(s) unknown. Just how premeditated is this?
Mind, I personally have no problem with murdering in self defense. But call it what it is - a deliberate murder of someone who may or may not be a total stranger.
You have choices - it is either semantics or it is situational. I choose situational as I prefer to call it what it is. Murder. Someone was alive and now they are dead and if I pulled the trigger, I have just murdered someone. It may be justified as they may be armed and threatening my life or property - but they are still dead.
Have I ever shot someone? No. I came real close once. Would I? I'd have to purchase a weapon first and I am too cheap to do so. Let alone I have no desire to redecorate the house. (You will need to repaint and recarpet. The smell and stain can not be cleaned out easily.) Given the right justification and circumstances, likely I would.
Have I ever lied, you asked. Sure. I wouldn't tell someone they looked like a hippopotamus in their new dress, even if they did. Have I ever stolen? Not that I recall - but it is possible I picked up a pen at work or at a store counter and forgot to put it back. Or some other sort of mistake. Have I ever screwed around? Sure, when I was a lot younger. Am I going to hell for these transgressions? Who cares. I'd rather be in hell than heaven anyway. Who would want to spend eternity with Tammy Faye Bakker? Or some other televangelist or John Calvin or .... you.
-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.
"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken
"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.
Yes Jc, according to your logic that's exactly what you want. Your morals can't be better than God's due to your presupposition that morals are subjective. Ok Jc, here is a little scenario let's see if you can logically follow this. Let's say a man lies to his child. What's going to be his punishment? Probably nothing right? He lies to his wife. He's going to be sleeping on his couch for a week. He lies to his boss. He is fired. He lies to the cops. He goes to jail. He lies to God. He goes to hell. Tell me what is changing in this scenario?
For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse. Romans 1:20
Re:: Lee is suggesting most of the board is mistaken on God.
No offense intended, I try to appreciate Lee a great deal, by I think I can anticipate most people would not wish to have a discussion about origins of the universe in this thread. First cause arguments would be like a one on one with Kirk Cameron. Hi JcGadfly. EVERYONE is beset with a lack of definitions, people couldn't know much with his presentation of non-existent definition for [for] God. Who's to say 'the Supreme being' of this thread wasn't an omniscient "Black-hole"? What do you mean ? Theories are important, so dont get all Twd39 on this board. If you want to talk about origins I dont think you can do that and morality at the same time now can you? I am thinking of Professor Hawking, he is widely known outside of the field of cosmology. You know, for a guy who emphatically does not believe, Professor Hawking certainly has beaten the odds in terms of mortality :
[quote ]Steven hawking wrote : .. when I began my research. But I felt that the research area of elementary particles, at that time, was too like botany. Quantum Electrodynamics, the theory of light and electrons that governs chemistry and the structure of atoms, had been worked out completely in the 40s and 50s. Attention had now shifted to the weak and strong nuclear forces".[ /quote]
[quote ] Steve hawking wrote: "My work on black holes began with a Eureka moment in 1970, a few days after the birth of my daughter, Lucy. While getting into bed, I realised that I could apply to black holes the causal structure theory I had developed for singularity theorems. In particular, the area of the horizon, the boundary of the black hole, would always increase. When two black holes collide and merge, the area of the final black hole is greater than the sum of the areas of the original holes. This, and other properties that Jim Bardeen, Brandon Carter, and I discovered, suggested that the area was like the entropy of a black hole. This would be a measure of how many states a black hole could have on the inside, for the same appearance on the outside. But the area couldn't actually be the entropy, because as everyone knew, black holes were completely black, and couldn't be in equilibrium with thermal radiation.There was an exciting period culminating in the Les Houches summer school in 1972, in which we solved most of the major problems in black hole theory.[ /quote]
Under certain conditions when wed that once a dying star had contracted to a certain radius, there would inevitably become a singularity, a point where space and time came to an end. Somewhat of an icon like Hawking reached a singularity of infinite density. But in fact, the equations had been 'solved' only for the collapse of a perfectly spherical star. Most thinks in nature are not perfect, a real star wouldn't be exactly spherical now. Hawking states, "If Lifshitz and Khalatnikov were right, the departures from spherical symmetry would grow as the star collapsed, and would cause different parts of the star to miss each other, and avoid a singularity of infinite density". Penrose showed they were wrong. Small departures from spherical symmetry will not prevent a singularity.
Based on the no boundary proposal, Hawkin pictures the origins of the universe, as like "the formation of bubbles of steam in boiling water", I read. Quantum fluctuations lead to "'the spontaneous creation of tiny universes'", as he puts it, essentially out of nothing due to the quirkier parts of some of these theories. But, Science exploration. According to him, Most of the universes collapse to nothing, but, he states : "'a few that reach a critical size, will expand in an inflationary manner, and will form galaxies and stars, and maybe beings like us'"(end quote). Yes, I know for almost three decades, Leonard Susskind and Hawking have been going at it in the clash of the titans. So what? Hawking should be given a chance over anyone engaging in plain avoidance tactics. With BlackLight in this example.