|
Post by Gene on Jan 28, 2011 19:29:30 GMT -5
Well FINALLY we agree on something. By all means, ask President Clinton to set the accepted moral standard. I think his sense of morality is spot-on. There are many examples of laws where there is no belief in god. What do laws and morality have to do with each other? Morality: accepted moral standards
Tell me, in this Venus Project Utopia, sorry, Beyond Utopia, who will 'set' an accepted moral standard, Mr. Clinton? Who, do you have an idea?
How is the world to 'unite' on an accepted moral standard unless it's written down or explained and understood by the whole world without question?
I remember talking to you about this some years back, and the Holocaust came up. We argued about the German Christians who hid Jews in their attic, and when the SS came to ask them about it, they lied. Remember I said I could not lie, nor could any real Christian lie to cover the fact.
So once again, once the laws are abolished (and it is almost at that point today) who will set the MORAL STANDARD? What will be the standard that an Arab, a Jew, a Negro, an atheist, a homosexual, a thief, a professional hit man (doctor/nurse) a child molester, a wife abuser, an elderly woman, an elderly man, the sick and the crippled, the handicapped could willingly accept?
|
|
|
Post by rational on Jan 28, 2011 20:32:28 GMT -5
Correction; 'without belief in the only God, through His Son Jesus Christ there is no law, and where there is no law, morality suffers.' According to statistics, Christians outrank Atheists in USA jails. Guess that law isn't working so well. I would like to see those statistics. Is this just because there are many more christians or is stating that the ratios is different?
|
|
|
Post by rational on Jan 28, 2011 21:07:21 GMT -5
rational, let me get this straight, does the question you are asking have a correct answer? if it does, then what is it? It does have a correct answer. It is the answer that, at the end of the day, leaves the most people alive. You have said that triage worked for the best for each individual. So make your choice and explain how that was best for the two that you did not pick. No, it doesn't need a triage manual. All you have to do is triage the victims so at the end of the day you have the most people alive. I can tell you you were mistaken in believing that triage was for the benefit of all individuals.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Jan 28, 2011 21:21:52 GMT -5
i am working on what the question is, then i will answer the question. The question is which one would you select, as the triage person, to get the first ride. all three individuals are not patients, until they are getting hospital care?[/quote] patient - A sick, injured, wounded, or other person requiring medical and/or dental care or treatment.I just provided the definition to answer this. I can't believe the lengths you will go to in an attempt to get out of answering the question. The question was: Which of the victims do you select to get the first ride?
|
|
|
Post by rational on Jan 28, 2011 21:26:15 GMT -5
There are many examples of laws where there is no belief in god. What do laws and morality have to do with each other? Morality: accepted moral standards <snip> I asked you a question and you replied with 5 questions and no answer. I will wait for your answer.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Jan 28, 2011 21:36:26 GMT -5
I didn't know what sucking chest wound is, but it sounded like an open chest/lung involvement, so I deemed it most serious. A sucking chest wound is when the chest cavity has a leak (say from being hit with a fast moving projectile) and when the diaphragm moves down instead of drawing air into the lung through the airway air rushes in through the wound. It usually results in a collapsed lung. The fix is to cover the wounds in such a way to allow air to leave the chest cavity through the wound but not allow air to enter the cavity through the wound. Some sort of plastic material taped on 3 sides works well. Of course, if it's a hole the size of your fist....
|
|
|
Post by rational on Jan 28, 2011 22:15:56 GMT -5
Rational quote; "There are many examples of laws where there is no belief in god." Where? The jungles of Africa, or South America? The Australian Aborigines? The Muslim countries? The India-Indians? The American Indians? The Filipino's deep in the jungles? Where? They all worship a form of God or even gods. You are trying to change the playing field in the middle of the game. My response was in regard o this line from you: Correction; 'without belief in the only God, through His Son Jesus Christ there is no law, and where there is no law, morality suffers.' So your mentioning the other gods is meaningless since you were referring only to your god. It sounds like the bottom line you are trying to put forth is that without your god there are no morals. Is this accurate? That we can discuss. I am not going to get into trying to address a wide ranging, ever changing, unsupported barrage of ideas. Pick a topic and once we have addressed it, then move on.
|
|
|
Post by ariandgabe on Jan 28, 2011 22:35:06 GMT -5
ariandgable said: "Fred won't have to do that, even Holocaust surviving Jews deny the Holocaust, if they didn't they would surely have repented by now and accepted their Messiah. By them helping further the Venus Project by helping destroy all moral laws, their love for money they actually speed up their next Holocaust. But this time, they will not be able to blame God, but only themselves. They'll be playing the funny movie 'Religulous' by Bill Maher to them as they lead them into the death chambers. All naked in line they'll listen to their famous talk show host Howard Stern asking; "do you take it up your a__? Come on honey, take it off... yeah..." God will listen to their last laugh... on themselves. God help us, and His People the Jews. Lord, when will the scales be lifted?" This is so ignorant it's nearly unbelievable that someone would post it. Perhaps you might explain what you meant by this?? Maybe you should have asked the question first; "Perhaps you might explain what you meant by this??" and then make your comment. Kind of makes me wonder if your willing to hear me elaborate on this.
You do know these Jews and what they do for money?
*Howard Stern - radio trash of global proportion- mocks morality *Bill Maher - TV, comedy, talk show host, mocks Christianity *Jerry Springer - TV trash of global proportion- the instigator of immorality *Jewish lawyers (too many to list) will take any case for the money even if they know they're guilty. Thus I label them; 'the destroyers of Gods moral laws' *Einstein - the inventor of the Atom Bomb- initiator of Armageddon *Elie Weasel - Holocaust survivor, God hater, the friend of the world And the list goes on and on...
If they would have read only the Old Testament, they would know that by the sixth chapter of Genesis God destroys mankind because of such degenerate behavior, and warns His People to keep looking toward Him and He will bless them. If not, well, read the rest of the OT, they get punished.
They're bringing upon themselves the next big one.
I do not hate the Jews, nor the Germans, nor the Italians, nor the Hungarians, nor any man. I say this because I love them and hate to see what they're bringing upon themselves.
Is that more clearer to you? Are you Jewish? God, sorry G_d be with you, and may His Son shine His light upon you.
Odon
|
|
|
Post by ariandgabe on Jan 28, 2011 22:39:28 GMT -5
Well FINALLY we agree on something. By all means, ask President Clinton to set the accepted moral standard. I think his sense of morality is spot-on. And this comment comes from someone who has already taken the word 'Change' too literally. Thank you Gene.
|
|
|
Post by ariandgabe on Jan 28, 2011 22:44:58 GMT -5
Rational quote; "There are many examples of laws where there is no belief in god." Where? The jungles of Africa, or South America? The Australian Aborigines? The Muslim countries? The India-Indians? The American Indians? The Filipino's deep in the jungles? Where? They all worship a form of God or even gods. You are trying to change the playing field in the middle of the game. My response was in regard o this line from you: Correction; 'without belief in the only God, through His Son Jesus Christ there is no law, and where there is no law, morality suffers.'
So your mentioning the other gods is meaningless since you were referring only to your god.
It sounds like the bottom line you are trying to put forth is that without your god there are no morals. Is this accurate? That we can discuss.
I am not going to get into trying to address a wide ranging, ever changing, unsupported barrage of ideas. Pick a topic and once we have addressed it, then move on. O.K. Rational, that's fair. So lets stick to 'morals' and ' morals given down to us by God and His Son Jesus Christ. Fair enough? Or am I changing the playing field again?
|
|
|
Post by rational on Jan 28, 2011 23:05:54 GMT -5
O.K. Rational, that's fair. So lets stick to 'morals' and ' morals given down to us by God and His Son Jesus Christ. Fair enough? Rather than building on the premise that morals were handed down by god why don't you present the data you have that supports your premise that the only 'correct' morals come from god? That would, of course, imply that atheists cannot have any morals. Show us your supporting data:
|
|
|
Post by ariandgabe on Jan 28, 2011 23:37:17 GMT -5
Atheist Morals vs Gods morals from the Bible First, why would anyone who has made himself to believe that he evolved from a rock through time, by the way of a monkey, and who will soon die and be forever gone create morals that would benefit all of mankind? Even if he did, it would have to change day to day to make his survival in this short life on earth as full as possible, which we both know would (and does) turn kayotic to his fellow species. Nature itself teaches us Gods laws. Animals live acording to these laws. It is man who has reasoning who fights against Gods laws found in nature. Man kills for sport, greed, envy, hate and so on, even if his way of life is edequate, or even if it's real good. Man is the only creature that openly rebels against his Creator. You are trying to pull me to your views, that man is just another animal, but he is not. If that was so, we would never have this conversation. We'd be humping each others leg to show effection for each other. But man is never satisfied, so how in the world could two people come up with an 'accepted moral standard', or MORALITY without an authority to guide them? Sure, you could say that you can, but you are free to lie too. What is a lie, you might ask? One atheist will say one thing and the other another. I see no way to have free universal morals in an atheistic world. Unless regressing to animal behavior (eating your young etc.) would be an acceptible standard for you. Your turn...
|
|
|
Post by rational on Jan 29, 2011 0:08:35 GMT -5
You do know these Jews and what they do for money? *Howard Stern - radio trash of global proportion- mocks morality *Bill Maher - TV, comedy, talk show host, mocks Christianity *Jerry Springer - TV trash of global proportion- the instigator of immorality *Jewish lawyers (too many to list) will take any case for the money even if they know they're guilty. Thus I label them; 'the destroyers of Gods moral laws' *Einstein - the inventor of the Atom Bomb- initiator of Armageddon *Elie Weasel - Holocaust survivor, God hater, the friend of the world And the list goes on and on... Einstein was not the inventor of the atomic bomb. He did not work on the Manhattan Project. The idea and patent for nuclear chain reaction and the bomb belong to Leo Szilard. In addition to the jewish people you listed there are: *Aaron Cohen - Father of two girls. Works at Walmart during the day and is a security guard for HP in the evening. *David Stein - Lives in Brooklyn with his wife, a school teacher. *Dana Greene - Waitress in NYC *Paul Silva - programmer for Microsoft Come on - who do you think can make the longer list? Your antisemitic list or my list of ordinary people of jewish descent? Interested in presenting data to support Noah's arc and the flood? Your values are very clear from your posts.
|
|
|
Post by 2 on Jan 29, 2011 0:12:09 GMT -5
i am working on what the question is, then i will answer the question. The question is which one would you select, as the triage person, to get the first ride. all three individuals are not patients, until they are getting hospital care? patient - A sick, injured, wounded, or other person requiring medical and/or dental care or treatment.I just provided the definition to answer this. I can't believe the lengths you will go to in an attempt to get out of answering the question. The question was: Which of the victims do you select to get the first ride? [/quote] are you discussing victims or patients? how can you define an injured person as a patient, if the requirement of being under hospital care is not met. many people are injured, once they are a patient, they are receiving the best care that that institution supplies at that time. i can't believe you keep skirting the real issue, every patient is getting the best care available.
|
|
|
Post by ariandgabe on Jan 29, 2011 0:27:20 GMT -5
O.K. Rational, that's fair. So lets stick to 'morals' and ' morals given down to us by God and His Son Jesus Christ. Fair enough? Rather than building on the premise that morals were handed down by god why don't you present the data you have that supports your premise that the only 'correct' morals come from god? That would, of course, imply that atheists cannot have any morals. Show us your supporting data: I can do this by pointing to other religions and pagan beliefs who rejected my God of the Bible. Even countries like the Muslims have turned to debased minds. Supporting data: In Afganistan, a young man had sex with his neighbors wife, and since their laws of the Koran are unclear or conflicting, they turn to their elders for decisions. Since the young man had sex with a married woman, the woman would normally be at fault. But the woman is a rich mans wife, so punishing her is out of the question. So what are they to do? Someone must be punished. The elders of the town got together and decided to punish the boys sister. Shes a female, so it made sense to them. They told the family to bring their daughter to the town center for interrogation. There behind closed doors, the town elders raped and beat the girl really bad. Naked and shamed they took the girl and paraded her down the main street of the town where people threw rocks and yelled at her. Now tell me what moral standard would you apply to this case once this New World Utopia is in operation? Remember, don't use laws given by my God, but rationalize a Moral standard that would be universally accepted in a One World Utopia. Thanks.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Jan 29, 2011 0:43:34 GMT -5
Atheist Morals vs Gods morals from the Bible First, why would anyone who has made himself to believe that he evolved from a rock through time, by the way of a monkey, and who will soon die and be forever gone create morals that would benefit all of mankind? I don't know anyone who believes this so I cannot answer the question. Can you supply a reference to any person who believes they evolved from a rock? What requires this constant change? What laws? Survival of the fittest? Can you enumerate some of these laws and then provide data that shows how they came from god? Have you ever seen a well fed cat with a mouse or a vole? Could be because man is the only creature that has created a 'creator'. I am not trying to pull you anywhere. I am just asking you to support the things you consider to be facts. Are you saying that man is the only animal that communicates? Well, let's see. You believe that god provided morality. Where did god get his moral code? Surly you do not believe it was just a set of arbitrary rules that god picked from the air, do you? If they are arbitrary, what makes them superior to a moral code that Jeff smith (the man next door) pass on to his neighbors? Arbitrary is arbitrary. And one christian will say one thing and another christian will say another. Your point? Who said there were universal morals? Do you believe there is universal morality? Is eating one's young immoral? Your god is on record telling parents to kill their disobedient children. If eating one's young is immoral then killing one's young would be as well. That has your god giving an immoral order to humans. All set.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Jan 29, 2011 0:49:05 GMT -5
Rather than building on the premise that morals were handed down by god why don't you present the data you have that supports your premise that the only 'correct' morals come from god? That would, of course, imply that atheists cannot have any morals. Show us your supporting data: I can do this by pointing to other religions and pagan beliefs who rejected my God of the Bible. Even countries like the Muslims have turned to debased minds. Supporting data: In Afganistan, a young man had sex with his neighbors wife, and since their laws of the Koran are unclear or conflicting, they turn to their elders for decisions. Since the young man had sex with a married woman, the woman would normally be at fault. But the woman is a rich mans wife, so punishing her is out of the question. So what are they to do? Someone must be punished. The elders of the town got together and decided to punish the boys sister. Shes a female, so it made sense to them. They told the family to bring their daughter to the town center for interrogation. There behind closed doors, the town elders raped and beat the girl really bad. Naked and shamed they took the girl and paraded her down the main street of the town where people threw rocks and yelled at her. Now tell me what moral standard would you apply to this case once this New World Utopia is in operation? You are talking about the laws and customs of that country. Who says there is a universal moral standard? Is that your contention? That your god has supplied a universal moral standard that you follow? Why do you think there needs to be a universal moral standard? This is you belief - I will not defend it.
|
|
|
Post by 2 on Jan 29, 2011 0:59:02 GMT -5
, patient or patients. why are you nitpikin again? ;D I am not nit picking, I am correcting your error. Triage is put into place to enhance the survival of the greatest number of patients not ensure the survival of any single patient. Sometimes the patient with the most severe wounds is put last on the list. Since your experience in this field seems limited you might want to read a little about the triage process before commenting. like i said, i believe triage is useful. whether that works to ensure the survival of one or more patient/patients. you seem to believe that it is wrong to just help one patient, but yet you ask me to decide which of the injured should get a ride? why are you nit pikin, and askin things that i cannot answer? ;D i will try to help them all (victims/injured), but they are not patients, until they are under the required care.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Jan 29, 2011 1:08:13 GMT -5
The question is which one would you select, as the triage person, to get the first ride. all three individuals are not patients, until they are getting hospital care? As shown by the above definition, they were wounded people requiring care, in other words patients. Did you read the definition I provided? Being in a hospital or under a hospital's care is not a requirement. But it is amusing to see you grasping at straws. You can spin and play your word games all you wish. These people were all wounded and in need of medical care. That is the definition of a patient. And yet you still have not chosen the person to get the first ride and explained how your triage decision provided the best care for all individuals.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Jan 29, 2011 1:15:11 GMT -5
I am not nit picking, I am correcting your error. Triage is put into place to enhance the survival of the greatest number of patients not ensure the survival of any single patient. Sometimes the patient with the most severe wounds is put last on the list. Since your experience in this field seems limited you might want to read a little about the triage process before commenting. like i said, i believe triage is useful. whether that works to ensure the survival of one or more patient/patients. you seem to believe that it is wrong to just help one patient, but yet you ask me to decide which of the injured should get a ride? You have 3 people. For this exercise it is your job to decide. You have claimed that triage was not geared towards providing the best outcome for the group but that it provided the best for the individuals. So you are now saying you cannot support your claim that triage provided the best care for each individual? Changing the definition to support your own claims is one way to avoid admitting you are wrong.
|
|
|
Post by ariandgabe on Jan 29, 2011 1:42:12 GMT -5
You do know these Jews and what they do for money? *Howard Stern - radio trash of global proportion- mocks morality *Bill Maher - TV, comedy, talk show host, mocks Christianity *Jerry Springer - TV trash of global proportion- the instigator of immorality *Jewish lawyers (too many to list) will take any case for the money even if they know they're guilty. Thus I label them; 'the destroyers of Gods moral laws' *Einstein - the inventor of the Atom Bomb- initiator of Armageddon *Elie Weasel - Holocaust survivor, God hater, the friend of the world And the list goes on and on... Einstein was not the inventor of the atomic bomb. He did not work on the Manhattan Project. The idea and patent for nuclear chain reaction and the bomb belong to Leo Szilard. In addition to the Jewish people you listed there are: *Aaron Cohen - Father of two girls. Works at Walmart during the day and is a security guard for HP in the evening. *David Stein - Lives in Brooklyn with his wife, a school teacher. *Dana Greene - Waitress in NYC *Paul Silva - programmer for Microsoft Come on - who do you think can make the longer list? Your antisemitic list or my list of ordinary people of jewish descent? Interested in presenting data to support Noah's arc and the flood? Your values are very clear from your posts. Einstein was not the inventor of the atomic bomb. He did not work on the Manhattan Project. The idea and patent for nuclear chain reaction and the bomb belong to Leo Szilard.Oh, so Einstein had nothing to do with the Atom Bomb or the splitting of the atom? Well, see how much I know of science.. oh well.. In addition to the Jewish people you listed there are: *Aaron Cohen - Father of two girls. Works at Walmart during the day and is a security guard for HP in the evening. *David Stein - Lives in Brooklyn with his wife, a school teacher. *Dana Greene - Waitress in NYC *Paul Silva - programmer for Microsoft
Come on - who do you think can make the longer list? Your antisemitic list or my list of ordinary people of jewish descent?Laughoutloud...- you funny. The Jews are a blessed people with wisdom and determination that has always exceeded the other nations. This is a gift from the Lord himself to his special Child Israel. Because of their rejection of Gods laws, they killed his messengers (Prophets of old) and served Mammon instead, God punished and continues to punish them. Now if you think God is antisemitic because of this, so be it. You see, we cannot even start on a mutual ground on this Morality issue, for you have liberty to use any technique at your disposal. You are free to use both animal AND human rationale. I can only use what my Lord Jesus taught me; "If you see your brother sin, go tell him, and if he repents, you have won/saved your brother.."Telling the truth is not bad Rational, it is what we Christians were called to do. We are supposed to be a light, and as Jesus said; "A city on a hill cannot be hid, neither do you put a candle under a bushel, but on a candlestick so that everyone may see its light."This is exactly why your Zeitgeist movement wants to abolish Christianity, they hate the light, and are afraid of it because it reveals their true intentions. I live for the light, and that light, Christ is the TRUTH. Walk in the truth my friend, and you too shall be full of light and not of yourself. Interested in presenting data to support Noah's arc and the flood?sure, right after you present proof to me that Abraham Lincoln was really our President. But then, as I said, you through this Zeitgeist movement can and do use lies and gross distortions to historical documents where even our countries Christian heritage is denied. See, you cannot be trusted by your own admission; your an atheist. Yes, yes, .. even a so called Christian cannot be trusted if he is an atheists, I know... but an atheists version of a Christian is different from a real Christians version. Bill Mahers understanding what a Christian is as far from the truth as light is from darkness and that is why you protect him. I still have high hopes for him and you too Rational, I pray for all of you, which is not antisemitism. But then, I know I have been reported as such, and much worse. I praise God I am being watched and persecuted for Truths sake... I fight on hoping to remain 'standing' on that last day. Join me friend, or at lest let us meet once before we part from this world. Odon Sabo (520) 414-9122 Maricopa, AZ God bless you all.
|
|
|
Post by 2 on Jan 29, 2011 1:52:44 GMT -5
all three individuals are not patients, until they are getting hospital care? As shown by the above definition, they were wounded people requiring care, in other words patients. Did you read the definition I provided? Being in a hospital or under a hospital's care is not a requirement. But it is amusing to see you grasping at straws. You can spin and play your word games all you wish. These people were all wounded and in need of medical care. That is the definition of a patient. And yet you still have not chosen the person to get the first ride and explained how your triage decision provided the best care for all individuals. under care of a caregiver is the definition of being a patient, even your definition supports that definition! what is so hard for you to understand? a victim is injured, until he receives help, he is still not a patient, until he is under supervised care. your definition states what the requirement is being under care. why do i have to belabor this point? ;D until we resolve what it means to be a 'patient', ?? why can not you admit that a patient is really a patient?? ;D ;D
|
|
|
Post by 2 on Jan 29, 2011 2:01:35 GMT -5
all three individuals are not patients, until they are getting hospital care? And yet you still have not chosen the person to get the first ride and explained how your triage decision provided the best care for all individuals. YOU are changing what i said! shame on you!!! ;D ;D i said:: it was in the best interest of the hospital , i mean patientnow show me where i said that every one that is injured will get the best care, i f they are triaged?? you made that up, just so you could argue with me!!
aren't we havin fun ;D ;D ;D ;D
|
|
|
Post by ariandgabe on Jan 29, 2011 3:25:09 GMT -5
Atheist Morals vs Gods morals from the Bible First, why would anyone who has made himself to believe that he evolved from a rock through time, by the way of a monkey, and who will soon die and be forever gone create morals that would benefit all of mankind? I don't know anyone who believes this so I cannot answer the question. Can you supply a reference to any person who believes they evolved from a rock? Yes, everyone who believes in the Big Bang theory.
What requires this constant change? Survival of the pride of man.
What laws? Survival of the fittest? Can you enumerate some of these laws and then provide data that shows how they came from god? Look around you, then read all those science books and you will see proof of God your Creator.
Have you ever seen a well fed cat with a mouse or a mole? No, I honestly didn't. Well fed and they get too lazy to even play with my yarn...
Could be because man is the only creature that has created a 'creator'. I used to have that statement on my Facebook account; "God created man in His own image, and then man said to his wife; 'Lets create god in our own image, to our own likeness' so man created a god for his own likeness" Yes, unfortunately your right. Not me.. I know whom I believed!
I am not trying to pull you anywhere. I am just asking you to support the things you consider to be facts. I am, I see God through everything I see, and He talks to me from the Bible, the verses that are stuck in my head. When someone asks me something about God or if they say something that is not in the Bible or against the truth, God reveals the answer to me from what is in my head.
Are you saying that man is the only animal that communicates? No, the only one that reasons against his Creator.
Well, let's see. You believe that god provided morality. Where did god get his moral code? Surly you do not believe it was just a set of arbitrary rules that god picked from the air, do you? If they are arbitrary, what makes them superior to a moral code that Jeff smith (the man next door) pass on to his neighbors? Arbitrary is arbitrary. You confuse Gods laws with human arbitrary moral standards. When God created Adam with two eyes, two hands, two legs and so on, He made a DNA blueprint of him in every part of his body. Adams hands are as much of Adam as his eyes, and that my friend is not arbitrary. It is what it is, and cloning of the sheep only proved this fact. It is all planned out, not mixed in a bowl of primordial soup, and wait to see what comes out. Why don't men grow limbs like trees do branches? Why only two hands? Millions of years and we still didn't realize we needed more hands? Come on, and I don't see any budding either.
And one christian will say one thing and another christian will say another. Your point? Yes, an atheist Christian can say one thing and a true believer says another. I know this much friend, that even you can differentiate between a true Christian and a fake one (wolf in sheep's clothing). I would not be persecuted and watched all my life as I am if I were a fake Christian. "You will know them by their fruit!" I would never be nominated for the Nobel-peace-prize, for my Lord called me to war, not peace. (go ahead and twist it to your pleasure, but I know you know I'm right)
Who said there were universal morals? Do you believe there is universal morality? Yes! As Jesus said; "love one another as I have loved you, .. love your neighbor as yourself" and so on has been an accepted standard by all men. Who could refuse it? Why?
Is eating one's young immoral? Your god is on record telling parents to kill their disobedient children. If eating one's young is immoral then killing one's young would be as well. That has your god giving an immoral order to humans. God said: "Thou shalt not eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil lest yea die!" We didn't listen, so we die. His creation, His moral standards. It's all fare and good.
Yet with the punishment He made a way for us to live again, live forever with Him. John 3:16
"But to sacrifice your children and to eat your children, I have never even thought of such a thing." God was angry at His Children for doing such abominations, and yes, He punished them. It's what a good Father does, I'm sure even you agree.. well, maybe not.
Rational, your atheistic human rationale accusations are old and worn out. Why not 'change', really change like get born again in the newness of your mind and join me for a wedding feast like you never dreamed of?
Darkness is soon over and that light is fast approaching. Where are you going to hide from the light oh man? That Day is soon upon us, are you prepared?
Come on Rational, death is eminent, whats to loose? But look at what you could gain, and I could gain a Brother. I have six of them who abandoned me, and for what? Because I turned the other cheek?.... and I loved them so, but;
Matt 19:29 29 And everyone who has left houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or wife or children or lands, for My name's sake, shall receive a hundredfold, and inherit eternal life. NKJV God bless, your friend Odon
[/size]
|
|
|
Post by rational on Jan 29, 2011 4:16:45 GMT -5
I had thought for one moment that there could be a discussion but I can see that you are interested in parroting the likes of Alex Jones. Have fun.
|
|
|
Post by Annan on Jan 29, 2011 9:20:40 GMT -5
According to statistics, Christians outrank Atheists in USA jails. Guess that law isn't working so well. I would like to see those statistics. Is this just because there are many more christians or is stating that the ratios is different? I am having a hard time finding where I read that. I should know better than to post without back up references. I did read somewhere that Atheists/Agnostics make up the fourth largest "belief" system. So one would expect at least one out of four in prison to be Atheist. Some say less than one percent of the prison population is Atheist, but it is also claimed that the USA prison system has never done a survey. Bad information on my part. I iz sorry.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Jan 29, 2011 10:25:22 GMT -5
I did read somewhere that Atheists/Agnostics make up the fourth largest "belief" system. So one would expect at least one out of four in prison to be Atheist. Some say less than one percent of the prison population is Atheist, but it is also claimed that the USA prison system has never done a survey. Bad information on my part. I iz sorry. I think we would need to have definitions to really look at this. Many Buddhists are considered atheists. That would certainly swell the numbers.
|
|
|
Post by Annan on Jan 29, 2011 11:15:52 GMT -5
I think we would need to have definitions to really look at this. Many Buddhists are considered atheists. That would certainly swell the numbers. Yes, I suppose it all comes down to who considers whom to be an Atheist. Of course then there are those that "find religion" in prison. It always amuses me that people are often sorry after the fact. Not many ever seem to acknowledge so-called sin till they get caught.
|
|