God's Ways Are Not Our Ways Vs. The Knowledge Of Good And Evil

[Guest end3]

 

Define good and evil with facts BAA. Then I shall take note....otherwise it's more of the same circular jerk.

 

I don't have to, End.

 

I'm not the one making the claim.  You are.

 

The burden lies squarely on you to demonstrate what method you're using to achieve your best fit for Christianity.

 

You've claimed that in your mind it's the best fit.

 

So justify that claim, without using evidence and without using faith to validate faith.

 

Yeah, you don't have to and poop out this "the burden is yours" because you can't BAA, you can't.

[Astreja]

 

Not sure why the responsibility of the relationship is strictly in my court as being vile. It's not vile to manipulate and misrepresent a relationship for selfish reasons?

 

I know many wonderful people that are women. I'm just skeptical that many women are manipulative.

 

 

Both women and men can be manipulative, End.  You are, however, making some rather bizarre accusations specifically about women.  Using their vaginas as bribes because they're too inept?  Those are ugly words, and I am quite certain that they do not apply to "most women," as you said in post #93.

 

FFS, if I were inept at something, sexual bribery is dead last on the list of things I would think of doing.  I'd much rather deal with my own ineptitude head-on by seeking knowledge or hiring a professional with the expertise I needed.

[bornagainathiest]

 

 

Define good and evil with facts BAA. Then I shall take note....otherwise it's more of the same circular jerk.

 

I don't have to, End.

 

I'm not the one making the claim.  You are.

 

The burden lies squarely on you to demonstrate what method you're using to achieve your best fit for Christianity.

 

You've claimed that in your mind it's the best fit.

 

So justify that claim, without using evidence and without using faith to validate faith.

 

Yeah, you don't have to and poop out this "the burden is yours" because you can't BAA, you can't.

 

 

Unjustified (and unjustifiable) claims like yours can be summarily dismissed, End.

[Jeff]

 

 

 

 

 

Everyone has their place...

Women. Right?

Or some other group?

Well?

WTF Jeff, are you trying to pin something on me. My beef with MOST women is they are manipulative in the fact that they use their vaginas to get what they want or need because most of them are too inept to do otherwise....pretty rational fact I'd say.

 

So if you look at the hard definition it's not that I hate women, it's I don't trust many.....it's not love, it's barter.

I trust fewer than 10 women in this world. That does not cause me to disrespect, fear, loathe, malign, or in any way act in a misogynistic manner toward women.

Women are wonderful when allowed to be free of the restraint that has historically been heaped on them.

Women are wonderful. If you have a problem with them maybe you can address it.

I'm not coming at you personally. I hope that you can get free of the confusing mess of religious stuff you cling to. I think it is damaging to you. I honestly can't even follow what it is you believe most of the time.

I don't dislike you. But it makes me sick how I've seen you act to the women here.

Jeff

 

Edit:

Please read this twice and see I really am not taking a shot at you on this reply. I do mean this one as a friendly comment to you.

By definition Jeff, sorry to say, but you are misogynistic. I pretty much treat those I don't trust the same....man or woman. Those people I trust, I'm an angel. It's not a man woman issue, it's a trust issue. And thanks, I'm working on it. It's slow slow going.

By definition? I think not. I've put the definition below just for reference. My lack of trust has nothing to do with the sex of a person. I merely do not have enough close relationships that are fully trusting to make the number higher. I neither hate nor dislike women. And I damn well do not belittle them as I see you do. You're a mess man.

--

Misogyny (/mɪˈsɒdʒɪni/) is the hatred or dislike of women or girls. Misogyny can be manifested in numerous ways, including sexual discrimination, belittling of women, violence against women, and sexual objectification of women.[1][2] Misogyny can be found within many mythologies of the ancient world as well as various religions. In addition, various influential Western philosophers have been described as misogynistic.[1][3]

[Justus]

[

This is how science tests itself for a best fit, End.

 

It's also how science keeps on improving it's best fit.

 

 

So how what do you use to test your best fits?

 

Fortunately, true science wasn’t founded upon ‘best fit’ concept as you described but rather upon principles which they are fixed and unalterable which govern and regulate the universe and nature we live in, man cannot just simply make up to fit, nor do they mutate to create exceptions.

 

LOL, even the graph of Faith is better.

 

So in Darwin’s theory, what experiment was conducted to test the hypothesis?   

 

1. Required. The Fusion of two cells.

The nonmotile gamete produced by the female cannot spontaneously mutate into the zygote.  Thus, the fusion of two cells is a critical biological event that is required for fertilization in sexually reproducing organisms and for tissue organization during development.

2. Restricted. Fusion of specific cells.

The requirement of the fusion of female  gamete with the male gamete in order to produce the zygote also prevents the fusion occurring between different species.  The fact this fusion cannot occur between primates and man would indicate that they did not evolve from a common ancestor, or hominid, nor could man have procreated with any hominid from which primates are said to have descended from,  But of course, as it is written Jesus said, with believers all things are possible.  I guess if one doesn't have any faith in principles, then any seedless fruit is good eats.

 

 

Seems that fruit of that  tree doesn't contain any tree yielding seed; 

 

 

 

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus+25&version=NASB

 

Lev 25:

 

[As for your male and female slaves whom you may have—you may acquire male and female slaves from the pagan nations that are around you. Then, too, it is out of the sons of the sojourners who live as aliens among you that you may gain acquisition, and out of their families who are with you, whom they will have produced in your land; they also may become your possession[/size].You may even bequeath them to your sons after you, to receive as a possession; you can use them as permanent slaves. But in respect to your countrymen, the sons of Israel, you shall not rule with severity over one another.

 

Slave holders must have been very Godly.

Maybe you might consider using another translation since the one your quoting from says that flying insects are birds..

 

Since you believed that all things are possible with your God,did you ever consider that he was lying to you?  

 

 

•  
• The total lack of empirical evidence for the existence of such a being.
• The constant change inherent in everything, from the smallest subatomic particle to the largest star.  If it's composed of matter/energy, it can change and it can decay.  Why should we make exceptions for some hypothetical sentient thing conveniently located out of range of human observation?

 

A perfect example of what happens to true science when it is infected with the hypocrisy of atheists.

 

On one hand the argument that there is a total lack of empirical evidence for the existence of an eternal nature, while on the other hand the asserting the axiom that neither matter nor energy can be created nor destroyed, thus contradicting the axiom of their own empirical evidence.

 

So which one is it, if living matter cannot be created nor destroyed, then all living matter must be eternal according to the your rules since it cannot be created nor destroyed.

 

However, nature itself reflects that living matter has finite life process, or rather a beginning and end, so if it has a beginning then it can be created, and if it has an end, it can be destroyed.

[mymistake]

Justus, I see your trolling has improved.  Not bad.  Not shabby at all.  You keep honing your craft and then someday people won't realize you are not serious.

[Guest end3]

 

Not sure why the responsibility of the relationship is strictly in my court as being vile. It's not vile to manipulate and misrepresent a relationship for selfish reasons?

 

I know many wonderful people that are women. I'm just skeptical that many women are manipulative.

 

Both women and men can be manipulative, End.  You are, however, making some rather bizarre accusations specifically about women.  Using their vaginas as bribes because they're too inept?  Those are ugly words, and I am quite certain that they do not apply to "most women," as you said in post #93.

 

FFS, if I were inept at something, sexual bribery is dead last on the list of things I would think of doing.  I'd much rather deal with my own ineptitude head-on by seeking knowledge or hiring a professional with the expertise I needed.

 

Inept at provision was my point. I can't take care of myself so I will screw some guy into submission and bringing me food and paying my bills....and buying me stuff.

 

I do believe you don't fall in that group.

[Guest end3]

 

 

 

 

 

 

Everyone has their place...

Women. Right?

Or some other group?

 

Well?

 

WTF Jeff, are you trying to pin something on me. My beef with MOST women is they are manipulative in the fact that they use their vaginas to get what they want or need because most of them are too inept to do otherwise....pretty rational fact I'd say.

 

So if you look at the hard definition it's not that I hate women, it's I don't trust many.....it's not love, it's barter.

 

I trust fewer than 10 women in this world. That does not cause me to disrespect, fear, loathe, malign, or in any way act in a misogynistic manner toward women.

Women are wonderful when allowed to be free of the restraint that has historically been heaped on them.

Women are wonderful. If you have a problem with them maybe you can address it.

I'm not coming at you personally. I hope that you can get free of the confusing mess of religious stuff you cling to. I think it is damaging to you. I honestly can't even follow what it is you believe most of the time.

I don't dislike you. But it makes me sick how I've seen you act to the women here.

Jeff

 

Edit:

Please read this twice and see I really am not taking a shot at you on this reply. I do mean this one as a friendly comment to you.

 

By definition Jeff, sorry to say, but you are misogynistic. I pretty much treat those I don't trust the same....man or woman. Those people I trust, I'm an angel. It's not a man woman issue, it's a trust issue. And thanks, I'm working on it. It's slow slow going.

 

By definition? I think not. I've put the definition below just for reference. My lack of trust has nothing to do with the sex of a person. I merely do not have enough close relationships that are fully trusting to make the number higher. I neither hate nor dislike women. And I damn well do not belittle them as I see you do. You're a mess man.

--

Misogyny (/mɪˈsɒdʒɪni/) is the hatred or dislike of women or girls. Misogyny can be manifested in numerous ways, including sexual discrimination, belittling of women, violence against women, and sexual objectification of women.[1][2] Misogyny can be found within many mythologies of the ancient world as well as various religions. In addition, various influential Western philosophers have been described as misogynistic.[1][3]

 

I understand the numbers game. We were using different definitions. I'll schedule another therapist session. All we can do is try to work towards a positive, right. Maybe things will get better. Thanks J.

[mymistake]

 

 

Inept at provision was my point. I can't take care of myself so I will screw some guy into submission and bringing me food and paying my bills....and buying me stuff.

 

I do believe you don't fall in that group.

 

 

 

The responsibility falls in your court because you have this fracked-up wacked-up thinking.  How did you get these thoughts?  Figuring out where they came from might help you get rid of them.  The sooner you find a way to replace these thoughts with normal ones the happier you will be.  Seriously, get that poison out of your mind.

[Astreja]

 

A perfect example of what happens to true science when it is infected with the hypocrisy of atheists.

 

On one hand the argument that there is a total lack of empirical evidence for the existence of an eternal nature, while on the other hand the asserting the axiom that neither matter nor energy can be created nor destroyed, thus contradicting the axiom of their own empirical evidence.

 

So which one is it, if living matter cannot be created nor destroyed, then all living matter must be eternal according to the your rules since it cannot be created nor destroyed.

 

However, nature itself reflects that living matter has finite life process, or rather a beginning and end, so if it has a beginning then it can be created, and if it has an end, it can be destroyed.

 

 

I didn't say anything about "living" matter, Justus -- Just matter.  Protons, electrons, quarks, that kind of stuff.  You have misrepresented My argument so badly that either you did it on purpose to try to shoehorn your god in there, or your reading comprehension needs a lot of work.  You have a lot of fucking nerve to call Me a hypocrite when you are deliberately obfuscating the argument by mangling the messages of others in the discussion.

 

(takes goalpost away from Justus and puts it back where it was)  Now, try again.  Explain to the studio audience why your invisible, intangible imaginary friend is more likely than insentient subatomic particles.

[midniterider]

All things are possible. So it's possible that Jesus is a figment of Justus' imagination. It's possible that the bible is complete fiction. It's possible that religion is a tool to manipulate people's minds. I'm glad Justus is willing to believe that all things are possible.

[bornagainathiest]

 

 

Fortunately, true science wasn’t founded upon ‘best fit’ concept as you described but rather upon principles which they are fixed and unalterable which govern and regulate the universe and nature we live in, man cannot just simply make up to fit, nor do they mutate to create exceptions.

 

 

 

Grandiose claims and assertions like the above, if unaccompanied by independently verified and confirmed source material, can be summarily dismissed as the postings of a troll. 

[FlowerDemon]

 

 

 

Everyone has their place...

Women. Right?

Or some other group?

 

Well?

 

WTF Jeff, are you trying to pin something on me. My beef with MOST women is they are manipulative in the fact that they use their vaginas to get what they want or need because most of them are too inept to do otherwise....pretty rational fact I'd say.

 

So if you look at the hard definition it's not that I hate women, it's I don't trust many.....it's not love, it's barter.

 

Also, your religion claims that man are higher than women, and women have fewer rights. That might explain why you see women in this kind of light.

 

1 Corinthians 11:8-9New International Version (NIV)

8 For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; 9 neither was man created for woman, but woman for man.

(honestly this makes no sense because women are the ones who give birth, so how did a woman come from a man? LOL)

1 Corinthians 14:34-35King James Version (KJV)

34 Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law.

35 And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.

Back in Biblical times, this is what they would have done if a husband even suspected his wife of cheating, even if he had nothing to prove it as fact:

Numbers 5:11-31New International Version (NIV) The Test for an Unfaithful Wife

11 Then the Lord said to Moses, 12 “Speak to the Israelites and say to them: ‘If a man’s wife goes astray and is unfaithful to him 13 so that another man has sexual relations with her, and this is hidden from her husband and her impurity is undetected (since there is no witness against her and she has not been caught in the act), 14 and if feelings of jealousy come over her husband and he suspects his wife and she is impure—or if he is jealous and suspects her even though she is not impure— 15 then he is to take his wife to the priest. He must also take an offering of a tenth of an ephah[a] of barley flour on her behalf. He must not pour olive oil on it or put incense on it, because it is a grain offering for jealousy, a reminder-offering to draw attention to wrongdoing.

16 “‘The priest shall bring her and have her stand before the Lord. 17 Then he shall take some holy water in a clay jar and put some dust from the tabernacle floor into the water. 18 After the priest has had the woman stand before theLord, he shall loosen her hair and place in her hands the reminder-offering, the grain offering for jealousy, while he himself holds the bitter water that brings a curse. 19 Then the priest shall put the woman under oath and say to her, “If no other man has had sexual relations with you and you have not gone astray and become impure while married to your husband, may this bitter water that brings a curse not harm you. 20 But if you have gone astray while married to your husband and you have made yourself impure by having sexual relations with a man other than your husband”— 21 here the priest is to put the woman under this curse—“may the Lord cause you to become a curse[b] among your people when he makes your womb miscarry and your abdomen swell. 22 May this water that brings a curse enter your body so that your abdomen swells or your womb miscarries.”

“‘Then the woman is to say, “Amen. So be it.”

23 “‘The priest is to write these curses on a scroll and then wash them off into the bitter water. 24 He shall make the woman drink the bitter water that brings a curse, and this water that brings a curse and causes bitter suffering will enter her. 25 The priest is to take from her hands the grain offering for jealousy, wave it before the Lord and bring it to the altar. 26 The priest is then to take a handful of the grain offering as a memorial[c] offering and burn it on the altar; after that, he is to have the woman drink the water. 27 If she has made herself impure and been unfaithful to her husband, this will be the result: When she is made to drink the water that brings a curse and causes bitter suffering, it will enter her, her abdomen will swell and her womb will miscarry, and she will become a curse. 28 If, however, the woman has not made herself impure, but is clean, she will be cleared of guilt and will be able to have children.

29 “‘This, then, is the law of jealousy when a woman goes astray and makes herself impure while married to her husband, 30 or when feelings of jealousy come over a man because he suspects his wife. The priest is to have her stand before the Lord and is to apply this entire law to her. 31 The husband will be innocent of any wrongdoing, but the woman will bear the consequences of her sin.’”

[sdelsolray]

...

We were using different definitions.

...

 

 

Yes, you seem to use your own definitions for words, but you only let people know that after you get boxed or called out.

 

...

I'll schedule another therapist session.

...

 

 

Good idea.

 

[Justus]

 

 

 

Fortunately, true science wasn’t founded upon ‘best fit’ concept as you described but rather upon principles which they are fixed and unalterable which govern and regulate the universe and nature we live in, man cannot just simply make up to fit, nor do they mutate to create exceptions.

 

 

 

Grandiose claims and assertions like the above, if unaccompanied by independently verified and confirmed source material, can be summarily dismissed as the postings of a troll. 

 

 

Sounds like a 2 Peter 2:1 to me, denying the foundation upon which discipline of science, the principle or you really don't have a clue.  But name calling, troll really?. An obvious resignation considering the weakness of your position.   It would also be ignorance, or something worse, if you saying that the principles which science are based upon are merely a human invention that allows one to summarily dismiss them.

 

In regards to the Principles of Science, maybe this excerpt from the AGE OF REASON will help introduce you to them.

 

It may be said that man can make or draw a triangle, and therefore a triangle is a human invention.

 

But the triangle, when drawn, is no other than the image of the principle; it is a delineation to the eye, and from thence to the mind, of a principle that would otherwise be imperceptible. The triangle does not make the principle, any more than a candle taken into a room that was dark makes the chairs and tables that before were invisible. All the properties of a triangle exist independently of the figure, and existed before any triangle was drawn or thought of by man. Man had no more to do in the formation of these properties or principles, than he had to do in making the laws by which the heavenly bodies move;

 

It is the structure of the universe that has taught this knowledge to man. That structure is an ever-existing exhibition of every principle upon which every part of mathematical science is founded. The offspring of this science is mechanics; for mechanics is no other than the principles of science applied practically. The man who proportions the several parts of a mill, uses the same scientific principles as if he had the power of constructing a universe; but as he cannot give to matter that invisible agency by which all the component parts of the immense machine of the universe have influence upon each other, and act in motional unison together, without any apparent contact, and to which man has given the name of attraction, gravitation, and repulsion, he supplies the place of that agency by the humble imitation of teeth and cogs. All the parts of man's microcosm must visibly touch; but could he gain a knowledge of that agency, so as to be able to apply it in practice, we might then say that another canonical book of the Word of God had been discovered.

 

If man could alter the properties of the lever, so also could he alter the properties of the triangle, for a lever (taking that sort of lever which is called a steelyard, for the sake of explanation) forms, when in motion, a triangle. The line it descends from (one point of that line being in the fulcrum), the line it descends to, and the cord of the arc which the end of the lever describes in the air, are the three sides of a triangle. The other arm of the lever describes also a triangle; and the corresponding sides of those two triangles, calculated scientifically, or measured geometrically, and also the sines, tangents, and secants generated from the angles, and geometrically measured, have the same proportions to each other, as the different weights have that will balance each other on the lever, leaving the weight of the lever out of the case.

 

It may also be said, that man can make a wheel and axis; that he can put wheels of different magnitudes together, and produce a mill. Still the case comes back to the same point, which is, that he did not make the principle that gives the wheels those powers. That principle is as unalterable as in the former case, or rather it is the same principle under a different appearance to the eye.

 

The power that two wheels of different magnitudes have upon each other, is in the same proportion as if the semi-diameter of the two wheels were joined together and made into that kind of lever I have described, suspended at the part where the semi-diameters join; for the two wheels, scientifically considered, are no other than the two circles generated by the motion of the compound lever.

It is from the study of the true theology that all out knowledge of science is derived, and it is from that knowledge that all the arts have originated.

[mymistake]

It would also be ignorance, or something worse, if you saying that the principles which science are based upon are merely a human invention that allows one to summarily dismiss them.

 

 

Where did you learn to troll like this?  For a split second there you almost make the reader forget that BAA said nothing of the kind.  Almost!  It is almost like you should be taken seriously.  So close.  Who is your teacher?  Your skills have improved dramatically.

[bornagainathiest]

Ok Justus,

 

You claim to know what 'true' science is. 

 

So do the people running these sites.

 

http://www.electricuniverse.info/Introduction

http://www.commonsensescience.org

http://www.spheritons.com

http://www.aptheory.info/

http://resonance.is/

 

On what basis (not just their own say so or personal interpretation) can we discover who (if any) of the six claimants should be taken seriously?

 

Go for it!

 

BAA.

 

 

 

[bornagainathiest]

End3:

 

"I'll schedule another therapist session."

.

.

.

 

What's the point in doing that, End?

 

Since you don't trust anything you perceive, you might actually be talking to a fire hydrant and never realize it! 

 

 

[Guest end3]

 

...

We were using different definitions.

...

 

Yes, you seem to use your own definitions for words, but you only let people know that after you get boxed or called out.

 

 

 

...

I'll schedule another therapist session.

...

 

Good idea.

 

From the Free Dictionary.com

 

mi·sog·y·nist

(mĭ-sŏj′ə-nĭst)

n.

One who hates or mistrusts women.

[Guest end3]

 

Would imagine it comes from how I was raised...my parents vs. Christianity. We rarely went to church. My parents were perfect '50s type people....you know June and Ward Cleaver. Please don't try to pin my thoughts on strictly Christianity. Thank you.

[Guest end3]

End3:

 

"I'll schedule another therapist session."

.

.

.

 

What's the point in doing that, End?

 

Since you don't trust anything you perceive, you might actually be talking to a fire hydrant and never realize it!

You just worry about proving good and evil with facts in your spare time...

[midniterider]

"All the properties of a triangle exist independently of the figure, and existed before any triangle was drawn or thought of by man."

 

All thoughts have their source in the mind of Jesus! Halleulujah! Including the thought of Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. Including the thought of sinning against Jesus. Including the thought of pouring my man-seed on the bible during intense orgasmic experience. That's right! Not my thoughts, "His" thoughts. All thoughts were first thought by the Lord!!

[midniterider]

"It is from the study of the true theology that all out knowledge of science is derived, and it is from that knowledge that all the arts have originated."

 

That's right. If you want to learn how to program a computer, read the bible. Want to operate a nuclear power plant, read the bible. Need to know about magnetic resonance imaging. Read the fuckin bible. It's all right in there. All you have to do is read the bible and YOU'RE HIRED!

[bornagainathiest]

 

End3:

 

"I'll schedule another therapist session."

.

.

.

 

What's the point in doing that, End?

 

Since you don't trust anything you perceive, you might actually be talking to a fire hydrant and never realize it!

You just worry about proving good and evil with facts in your spare time...

 

 

If I did, you wouldn't trust your own perception of my proof.

 

So why should I bother?

 

You can selectively disbelieve whatever suits you. 

[Guest end3]

You can't.... That's what's so pathetic about your position