No Shit Sherlock

[Roz]

Ex-c's.  When you were christian, would you go to such lengths to defend genocide, the rape of minors and forced marriages to those minors?

 

In the christian's mind, this was at some point perfectly acceptable:

The israelite conquers a town, he looks down at a young boy and his mother.  The woman just lost her husband from the battle.  

The conqueror draws his sword and stabs the woman while the young boy watches.  The young child was next.

Now the israelite spots his 12 year old sister in the corner.  He grabs her and takes her back to the israelite camp to be one of his wives.

 

Do as god commands it, and now he's placing blame on the victims, because his god can do no wrong.  God's blameless in all of this, as is he.  Were he alive back then he would've done these things.

 

Sickening beyond comprehension.

[Roz]

 

You're using one definition of sin and attempting to tie it in with supernatural forces, how quaint of you.  

You've stated that everyone sinned and is deserving of nothing less than death.  Now you want to tie in all definitions of sin to suit your supernatural definition.  I see what you're doing.

 

Moral law IS a human construct, this is because humans came up with it.  Whether you like it or not there was no supernatural being that brought about any moral law.

This is why it's continually refined through time, with debate and reason.

 

The difference between your moral law and secular moral law is that yours is fixed at a point thousands of years in the past, whereas secular moral law is ever changing, because new debates keep coming out about how ought we to live.

 

This is why you're stuck trying to defend your position of killing children, raping virgin women, and killing the elderly.  "Because I said so" is par for the course for christian morality.

 

Case in point.  Christianity has kept slaves while other groups have abolished it amongst their sphere of influence.  Ask Ravenstar for details.

Tying it to God is valid unless you can define the scientific mechanics of human construct....as you say Roz, how quaint.

 

 

You must prove your god is real first off, and that those whispers in your head are somehow more credible than Andrea Yates' whispers, Joan of Arc's whispers, and those 19 men's whispers in their heads.

[Guest end3]

Let's not worry about the God proof thing Roz....because it really doesn't matter. Even if a human construct, it still potentially produces a real action. So yes there is science that drives this, i.e. genetics. Then we are left to define the cause behind the mechanisms. If it fits, it fits, if it doesn't, that's to each to decide.

[Roz]

Your main point was that your god (supernatural claim) was justified in giving out the order to kill and rape because they had genetic predisposition to become menaces to society (untestable claim that cannot be proven).

 

Now you want to take out your supernatural claim and just keep asserting that your untestable claim is true because 'it somehow fits'?

 

How does your head not hurt when you do these absurd mental gymnastics?

[Roz]

And again, to reiterate what others have said already. 

 

Your journals about genetic predisposition are not the problem. 

 

Your claim that genetic predisposition of a specific group of people in the ancient world made them worthy of divine execution/sexual violation is.

[sdelsolray]

 

……………………………………………………..

This kind of personal shit is uncalled for, even in the Den.

 

Yes, it was totally inappropriate.

 

End3, I apologize for my statement.

[bornagainathiest]

Don't dodge, End.

 

You asked us not to dodge, earlier in this thread, so you keep up your end, End.

 

I've posted responses to some of your posts... please respond.

[Guest end3]

And again, to reiterate what others have said already. 

 

Your journals about genetic predisposition are not the problem. 

 

Your claim that genetic predisposition of a specific group of people in the ancient world made them worthy of divine execution/sexual violation is.

I'm afraid you are incapable of seeing my point Roz. Initially, ALL people will have the predisposition. It doesn't matter that God treats any group differently. That would be His call.

 

Secondly, I have explained that God did not pick people not having the predisposition, but apparently practicing a life that lead to less genetic change or overcoming the disposition.

 

If groups A and B can only exist in circumstance C(sinless), then something has to be done to change groups A & B....or pay for. Currently, groups A union B are set aside until some later date when they will be judged through payment (Christ) or death as they were before. Payment is still being made or death will happen. Nothing has changed.

 

Regardless of anything supernatural, change occurs with nurture and nature. Because we are NOT omniscient, we cannot predict others needs so we can adequately change our own behavior to NOT induce these changes.

 

It's really not that difficult.

 

And then, you or anyone would have to decide whether this happens at some level of certainty to accept the cause or mechanics of the theory.

 

Peace Roz. I'm sorry I don't explain it where you are comfortable with my explanation.

[Guest end3]

 

 

……………………………………………………..

This kind of personal shit is uncalled for, even in the Den.

 

Yes, it was totally inappropriate.

 

End3, I apologize for my statement.

 

Thank you S. I am often disserving.

[RipVanWinkle]

To say that atrocities were committed by some during the Crusades, the Inquisition, and

the witch trials.

I agree. Almost all of these crimes were ordered by a state church. That is a true

statement.

 

To say that Christianity was spread by force is false." Emd3

 

 

To say that known Xtian atrocities were not done by Xtians just shows that you have no

valid argument to support Xtianity. You can't support your faith with facts, so you make them up. Intellectual dishonesty, pure and simple. If you actually think I'm wrong, then cite your sources. What legitimate historian contends that the Xtians were not

responsible for the Crusades, witch hunts, and the Inquisition? What universities support this view? What is their proof?

 

Christianity wasn't spread by force? Again, cite credible sources for this truth denying

claim. bill

[xtify]

It doesn't matter that God treats any group differently. That would be His call.

 

 

It does if you claim your God is just and righteous.  Your statement is just the typical 'might makes right' claim that christians so frequently offer in defense of the OT.  If this was actually true, then God would be no different than a cruel dictator who makes ruthless decisions about the fate of people based on his own whims.  But, you are trying to claim that he had justified reasons to exterminate people, not just that he has the power to do so.  There is no justification for the OT killings and you know that, so you have to come up with this bizarre assertion that God slowly weeded out people with an evil genetic disposition.  Didn't Hitler have the same strategy?  

 

Surely, if this God that you worship actually had the capacity to create everything (the universe, and the supernatural realm of an all perfect heaven), then he could change his creation to be less evil in a more pragmatic way than by breeding and exterminating genetically faulty humans over time.  It is such a silly claim to make.  And, conveniently, it requires no actual evidence.

 

There is no biblical reference for such justifications, and so I am wondering where you came up with this stuff???

[mymistake]

 

And again, to reiterate what others have said already. 

 

Your journals about genetic predisposition are not the problem. 

 

Your claim that genetic predisposition of a specific group of people in the ancient world made them worthy of divine execution/sexual violation is.

I'm afraid you are incapable of seeing my point Roz. Initially, ALL people will have the predisposition. It doesn't matter that God treats any group differently. That would be His call.

 

Secondly, I have explained that God did not pick people not having the predisposition, but apparently practicing a life that lead to less genetic change or overcoming the disposition.

 

If groups A and B can only exist in circumstance C(sinless), then something has to be done to change groups A & B....or pay for. Currently, groups A union B are set aside until some later date when they will be judged through payment (Christ) or death as they were before. Payment is still being made or death will happen. Nothing has changed.

 

Regardless of anything supernatural, change occurs with nurture and nature. Because we are NOT omniscient, we cannot predict others needs so we can adequately change our own behavior to NOT induce these changes.

 

It's really not that difficult.

 

And then, you or anyone would have to decide whether this happens at some level of certainty to accept the cause or mechanics of the theory.

 

Peace Roz. I'm sorry I don't explain it where you are comfortable with my explanation.

 

 

 

That your points are crap does not mean we cannot understand what you are saying.

 

 

You cannot establish any scientific sinless state.  Nor can you show that genetics has anything to do with sin.  One is real and the other is myth.  Showing us information on electricity does not prove that Chi is real.  Likewise scientific articles on DNA do not make sin real.

[xtify]

And BAA is next in line btw,

so I will wait in the queue.

[florduh]

There are no answers from End or any other believer that will satisfy logical demands outside of the religion's internal logic. If you don't suspend disbelief and accept the premise of Star Wars in the first place, how can you discuss relationships between the characters? Just saying.

[Guest end3]

There are no answers from End or any other believer that will satisfy logical demands outside of the religion's internal logic. If you don't suspend disbelief and accept the premise of Star Wars in the first place, how can you discuss relationships between the characters? Just saying.

And

 

It doesn't matter that God treats any group differently. That would be His call.

 

It does if you claim your God is just and righteous.  Your statement is just the typical 'might makes right' claim that christians so frequently offer in defense of the OT.  If this was actually true, then God would be no different than a cruel dictator who makes ruthless decisions about the fate of people based on his own whims.  But, you are trying to claim that he had justified reasons to exterminate people, not just that he has the power to do so.  There is no justification for the OT killings and you know that, so you have to come up with this bizarre assertion that God slowly weeded out people with an evil genetic disposition.  Didn't Hitler have the same strategy?  

 

Surely, if this God that you worship actually had the capacity to create everything (the universe, and the supernatural realm of an all perfect heaven), then he could change his creation to be less evil in a more pragmatic way than by breeding and exterminating genetically faulty humans over time.  It is such a silly claim to make.  And, conveniently, it requires no actual evidence.

 

There is no biblical reference for such justifications, and so I am wondering where you came up with this stuff???

 

So if I wrong you, what is righteous? Your call.

[Roz]

There are no answers from End or any other believer that will satisfy logical demands outside of the religion's internal logic. If you don't suspend disbelief and accept the premise of Star Wars in the first place, how can you discuss relationships between the characters? Just saying.

 

A few people believing in star wars, believing that Vader is right in ordering the deaths of bothans, believing that the Emperor is talking inside their heads right now, that his wishes -whatever that may be- must be fulfilled...

 

Around 80% of Americans believing that the christian god is right in killing people and ordering the deaths of those people, believing that yeshitwa is talking inside their heads right now, that his wishes -whatever they may be- must be fulfilled...

 

The middle east, where Islam dominates, believing that allah is right in killing people and ordering the deaths of those people, believing that allah is talking inside their heads right now, that his wishes -whatever they may be- must be fulfilled...

 

Scenario 1 is an isolated case, but scenarios 2 and 3 have real impact in our community.  Christianity was forced to grow up because the Enlightenment slapped it across the face, but in its heart it is the same as any other religion. 

 

21 pages and End still can't say why his ideas and faith hold more credibility than the 19 men who killed thousands.

[Roz]

The argument from this christian. 

 

"God is good, so he had justification in ordering the deaths of children." 

 

"Here's some articles that say there may be genetic abnormalities formed in humans, so naturally those were all in those boys and women, but not in those girls"

(incidentally, those virgin girls were all sexually assaulted and forced to wed their rapists.  What genetic predisposition justifies the treatment of those girls?)

 

"It must've happened that way because god is good."

 

Ex-c's, were you ever like this?

[Neverlandrut]

Your main point was that your god (supernatural claim) was justified in giving out the order to kill and rape because they had genetic predisposition to become menaces to society (untestable claim that cannot be proven).

 

Now you want to take out your supernatural claim and just keep asserting that your untestable claim is true because 'it somehow fits'?

 

How does your head not hurt when you do these absurd mental gymnastics?

You can fit a banana in your ass. Doesn't mean it belongs there.

[Roz]

 

Your main point was that your god (supernatural claim) was justified in giving out the order to kill and rape because they had genetic predisposition to become menaces to society (untestable claim that cannot be proven).

 

Now you want to take out your supernatural claim and just keep asserting that your untestable claim is true because 'it somehow fits'?

 

How does your head not hurt when you do these absurd mental gymnastics?

You can fit a banana in your ass. Doesn't mean it belongs there.

 

 

 

[Neverlandrut]

 

 

 

Your main point was that your god (supernatural claim) was justified in giving out the order to kill and rape because they had genetic predisposition to become menaces to society (untestable claim that cannot be proven).

 

Now you want to take out your supernatural claim and just keep asserting that your untestable claim is true because 'it somehow fits'?

 

How does your head not hurt when you do these absurd mental gymnastics?

You can fit a banana in your ass. Doesn't mean it belongs there.

 

I watch those clips a lot and have have honestly never seen this one. Thank! You can tell Matt gets bored with the same old non-arguments from theists.

[◊ crazyguy123 ◊]

I'm afraid you are incapable of seeing my point Roz. Initially, ALL people will have the predisposition. It doesn't matter that God treats any group differently. That would be His call.

 

Secondly, I have explained that God did not pick people not having the predisposition, but apparently practicing a life that lead to less genetic change or overcoming the disposition.

 

Isn't your god supposed to be omnipotent and omniscient? If he knew that people would be born with a predisposition to do what he defines as sin but chose to allow them to exist anyway, then those defenseless people that were murdered in the Bible were created for the sole purpose of being murdered in horrific, barbaric ways, by your god. It doesn't matter if he does or doesn't give the order to murder those without this predisposition, the fact that he creates people with it in the first place still makes his instructions in the Bible cruel and unjust.

[Neverlandrut]

End3, You are trying to establish a connection between two things (genetics and why god kills some people). The problem is that you are treating genetics with scientific and logical scrutiny but not god. As long as you are using two different standards to evaluate these two things, you will continue to fail to establish a connection. I asked you earlier why you believe in god. While that me seem like an unrelated question to the immediate topic, I am giving you an opportunity to establish the existence of god by the same type of logic with which you establish the science of genetics. But I suspect your immediate reaction will be that you cannot use the scientific method to establish the existence of a being that is supposedly beyond such things since he created such things. If you take that position, then you prove everyone else's point, that you cannot make a connection between why god kills people and the study of genetics. It is impossible to do so as long as you use two different standards to evaluate evaluate these two ideas.

[midniterider]

 

Your main point was that your god (supernatural claim) was justified in giving out the order to kill and rape because they had genetic predisposition to become menaces to society (untestable claim that cannot be proven).

 

Now you want to take out your supernatural claim and just keep asserting that your untestable claim is true because 'it somehow fits'?

 

How does your head not hurt when you do these absurd mental gymnastics?

You can fit a banana in your ass. Doesn't mean it belongs there.

 

 

Dont give me any ideas. :-)

[TheRedneckProfessor]

To Ironhorse:

 

Yes, Science has been anathema to christianity since the religion's inception.  Study the life and murder of Hypatia (or just watch the film "Agora" on Netflix, if research isn't your strong suit).  Even to this day, christianity seeks to stifle the pursuit of science by demanding that "intelligent design" be taught as an alternative to proven scientific fact supporting the Theory of Evolution (which has more evidence to support it than any other scientific principle).

 

That some christian scientists have been productive is of little import, given the overall attitude of christianity toward science.  Granted, there have been some christian members of the science industry who have made advances.  However, to jump from that fact straight to the claim that christianity spearheaded science is no different than resting the claim that the Third Reich was not anti-Semitic upon the fact that a handful of Germans really did try to help the Jews.

 

Lastly, attempting to shift the focus off of christianity overall and onto the deeds of a handful of christians is simply disingenuous.  The Crusades actually occurred, even if a few upstanding christian citizens spoke out against them.  Ditto for the Inquisition. 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

To End3:

 

Any workable definition of "sin" must acknowledge that "sin" is a philosophical concept.  As such, it is neither testable nor provable by science.  As BAA has already attempted to explain to you, science confines itself only to the physical, the material, and the natural.  (Before you start lecturing me on how Psychology explores that which is immaterial, such as ideas and thoughts, I will concede that it does.  I will give you that point so long as you acknowledge that the brain is physical, material, and natural).  Attempting to prove the existence of "sin" via science is futile and impossible.  You may as well try to tag Karma with a turbidimetric enzyme and run an ELISA on it.  It can't be done, because Karma (like "sin") exists only the the non-physical, non-material, non-natural realm.  Attempting to prove a philosophical concept by means of science is simply not possible, as others have pointed out.  Logic and reason may be of some assistance to you on this point; science will NOT.

 

Moreover, what passes between the generations via genetics are genotypic and phenotypic traits.  My father has brown eyes; my mother's eyes are green.  That I have hazel eyes demonstrates that I express a genetic blend of both alleles.  While philosophical concepts (such as "sin") are often passed from parent to child, they are not done genetically.  My parents are christian; they passed the concepts of christianity down to me (forced them down my throat is slightly more accurate, but not to the point).  However, you could take as many DNA samples from myself and both my parents that you want; you could run as many PCRs, Western Blots, and any other DNA analyses you want.  The hard truth is that you will not find any gene in any of our samples that codes for christian belief and/or sin.  This is a result of there not being a genetic transmission of philosophy.  This is where the cultural (nurture) half of the equation comes into play.

 

Others have mentioned this, so I will not belabor the point; but your claim that we are all evil displaces your claim that god commanded the genocide of the Amalekites due to their "genetic predisposition to evil" (which, science has so far found to NOT exist).  If all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of god, then god's particular hatred of the Amalekites was simply arbitrary.  It is more likely that the Amalekites were in the way of the Israelites plans and they used "god" as an excuse for genocide, just as the Nazis and the Serbs did.

 

Lastly, I have to admit that I am surprised that you, as a believer, would dare bring the topic of genetics onto this forum.  Have you done no research on the Vmat2 gene?  Google it.  You might gain a better understanding of why you can't give up your convoluted and contradictory beliefs.

 

Cheers, End.