Regardless of whether you agree with the stats or not, the stats say what they say, and in anycase, your original claim which sparked that line of arument from me was about your unfounded assertion that morality comes from the Bible.
it simply does not. It is neither a good example of morals, and even the 'laws' described within it are usually morally reprehensible. Morality comes from necessity of human interactions. Whether you believe it came from evolution or that god designed us as moral, you cannot deny that humans know 'right' and 'wrong' in some sense, and that ultiamtely that right and wrong is completely determined by social interactions.
If the Bible was removed entirely from our society, people would still be just as moral, and just as immoral as our christian society. And this cannot be argue against because most of the world and most of time has proven this to be true (see tribal society, asian societies, indian societies etc who have lived without 'the bible' for thousands of years and been just as, if not more, moral than christians.)
Regardless of whether you agree with the stats or not, the stats say what they say, and in anycase, your original claim which sparked that line of arument from me was about your unfounded assertion that morality comes from the Bible.
it simply does not. It is neither a good example of morals, and even the 'laws' described within it are usually morally reprehensible. Morality comes from necessity of human interactions. Whether you believe it came from evolution or that god designed us as moral, you cannot deny that humans know 'right' and 'wrong' in some sense, and that ultiamtely that right and wrong is completely determined by social interactions.
If the Bible was removed entirely from our society, people would still be just as moral, and just as immoral as our christian society. And this cannot be argue against because most of the world and most of time has proven this to be true (see tribal society, asian societies, indian societies etc who have lived without 'the bible' for thousands of years and been just as, if not more, moral than christians.)
Shane
Sorry for the delay. I meant to get back with you on our discussion, but the ice storm cut the power out and then shortly after the power was restored out goes the Internet. And, shortly after we got the Internet back on I became overloaded with work and other problems needing immediate attention.
Let me try and explain to you why the morality that comes from the Bible is our only hope. You do admit the world is seriously afflicted with crime, violence, exploitation and oppression, and this has been a substantial problem throughout history? The primitive egalitarian societies you mention have been the few rather than the many. Once they become absorbed into the larger pathological society they suffer the same problems with human aggression and stress as anyone else. Don't you agree?
How else, other than through the correct application of biblical morality, will society be able to pull its self out of its immoral condition in order to achieve a moral and immortal way of life? The antisocial condition we're in has been well entrenched over thousands of years so isn't easily susceptible to change. It's going to take a very strong antidote to accomplish the job. Stephen Hawking suggests genetic enginering to solve the problem at the end of this Google video at .
It should be obvious to anyone that it's going to take a very strong religious belief in God's law and Christ's teachings applied within a communal setting to solve the world's problems. This is the simpler, safer, and most logical course of action. Genetic engineering or psychopharmacological intervention are complex and difficult to apply methods that will never work to solve our malaise which is due to a deeply rooted and intractable blend of inborn instinct, societal conditioning, and supernatural, Satanic influence.
You should checkout the free booklet called The Ten Commandments for a better understanding of God's law and its potential to solve individual and world problems. True morality will eventually come from the Bible as prophesied therein whether you want it to or not. Our goal to live longer lives depends on the success of a new biblically based morality. I advise you to look into the matter as quickly as possible.
Intelligence testing is very controversial and not an accurate measure of intelligence in my opinion. IQ tests measure technical intelligence. They're not designed to measure Bible based moral knowledge.
These are the types of arguments that garner respect from people around here (me at least), instead of quoting the Bible. [thumb]
Then how come you didn't mention this to Aegist? Could it be you are favorably disposed towards anything supporting atheism and biased against religion?
These are the types of arguments that garner respect from people around here (me at least), instead of quoting the Bible. [thumb]
Then how come you didn't mention this to Aegist? Could it be you are favorably disposed towards anything supporting atheism and biased against religion?
Mention what to Aegist? This is a public message board and he can see whatever I write. I don't know why I would have to address him directly, but if it makes you feel better: Hey Aegist, elijah made a logical argument.
Better?
Oh, and I am biased against religion, but it is only from years and years of experience with religious people. (Note: I admit freely that some are more reasonable than others.)
I understand that Hovind may have gotten some things, like the plane and the glacier wrong. I dont remember that one, and maybe he put a "spin" on all of them and got them all wrong, but maybe not. Theres just so many to cover. What would you, or anybody here say to his arguement that the grand canyon wasnt carved in millions of years, but rather like a week, or whatever he says? Theres a link to his presentation on it here: http://drdino.plaing...minar4_300k.wmv Even if he is right about the canyon, I know that still doesnt disprove evolution and prove creationism, Im just saying. Ill try to remember and dig up a more poignant one later.
My conclusion so far is that its not good to bias yourself toward any angle like creation or evolution or anything else you can think up because it shuts you off to possabilities. I could be wrong, Im just saying, I mean, we dont think that creationists should be bent on creation, I think everybody should keep all the options on the table and keep looking. Now focusing on one more than another is necessary at times, but beleiving it I havent quite grasped yet. I know you said your not 100% percent sure, but then why even say "beleive" in the first place.
I could be interpreting the word wrong, but it seems to me that theres a flaw in the word beleive. It seems to mean one thing but be perceived as another and from what I can see is a dangerous word. Hard not to use it though. Im sure I use it all the time, and that its perceived the wrong way alot.
brokenportal, I just watched one of the links. I didn't know there were videos out (I had read written critiques in the past). The summary of the videos: 1: Everything that made you queasy when you watched the hovind video's is researched: Well the critique here goes out and looks at hovind's 'facts'. Just one example: Hovind talks about a plane that crashed during world war II that was excavated from under the ice. It was 250 feet under the ice (there abouts). It came out to about 5 feet a year from the time when it crashed. Hovind used this fact to insinuate that the ice fell rapidly thereby discrediting the ice core method of dating. Hovind conveniently leaves out the fact that the plane was found under a moving glacier. Additionally hovind rarely mentions data which complicate his very simple theories: such as precipitation in the area of greenland where the plane was found are reasonably small (no where close to 5 feet/ year) and that the plane was found (i forget how far) but a LONG way from where it was believed to crash.
I will repeat myself. Hovind's approach is scientific as in he talks about things in a scientific way, however his facts themselves are wrong in so many cases. Most of his 'facts' come from creationist websites (a very unbiased source). The few that do come from anything resembling a peer reviewed source are usually taken out of context.
I'm not sure I would call him a scam artist, but I have no qualms calling him a spin artist. He is not there to inform anyone, he is there to misinform them. I think there should be discussion of what should be taught in schools (thats one of the reasons I like the voucher system: you get to pick where your children go to school). While I personally believe humans evolved from single celled organisms, I'm not 100% sure. There are some pretty big evolutionary hurdles to be jumped over. Evolution is an emergent property, and the truth is we don't know enough to know if our reality is the result these emergent phenomenon. But we can speculate and evolution seems like a good bet.
So in conclusion, I approve of discussions about what should be taught in our school system and about the legitimacy of evolution; I disapprove of Hovind's spin and misinformation.
Intelligence testing is very controversial and not an accurate measure of intelligence in my opinion. IQ tests measure technical intelligence. They're not designed to measure Bible based moral knowledge.
You learn fast, grasshopper.
These are the types of arguments that garner respect from people around here (me at least), instead of quoting the Bible.
Yes, this style of arguing is MUCH better than quoting the bible, however your point isn't as effective as you obviously hoped it would be.
1. This isn't about 'bible based moral knowledge', because my very point here is that 'bible based morals' are the worst moral measurement available...
and 2. I'm not trying to state that there is a caustation. I was observing the correlation. It is irrelevent whether stupidity causes people to believe in the bible, or whether believing in the bible causes people to be stupid, that is irrelevent, all that matters is that as a trend, the stupider you are, the more religious you are. The correlation is the point.
And to be quite honest, i think the causation is a bit from column A and a bit from column B. You gotta be a little Dim to swallow it in the first place (which is why they like to start at a young age, before experience and wisdom can teach the innocent child otherwise), and then once you are religious, you have been so thoroughly brain washed into believeing stuff based on 'faith' that evidence becomes meaningless, and you lose all critical thought faculties... That way you are less likely to actual take in new knowledge.
So, while the cuasatory direction is irrelevent to the point, I think it is interesting to speculate that it probably bi-directional.
Let me try and explain to you why the morality that comes from the Bible is our only hope. You do admit the world is seriously afflicted with crime, violence, exploitation and oppression, and this has been a substantial problem throughout history? The primitive egalitarian societies you mention have been the few rather than the many. Once they become absorbed into the larger pathological society they suffer the same problems with human aggression and stress as anyone else. Don't you agree?
How else, other than through the correct application of biblical morality, will society be able to pull its self out of its immoral condition in order to achieve a moral and immortal way of life?
Well, where do we start? Maybe through, everyone jsut not being so aggressive and egotistical? Maybe through application of absolute utilitarianism? Maybe through application of buddhistic principles? I'm sure I could list many potential ethical principles which could, in theory, resolve the 'suffering at the hands of other humans' on Earth, but people don't work that way. Just because a moral philosophy makes sense, doesn't mean you can force it on people, or that people will want to follow it.
If you doubt that, then consider all of the 'christian' societies that have existed throughout history, and consider the attrocities they have commited. They have done those things as christians, and whether you condone their actions or not is irrelevent to the point: that being, that the lessons and the principles of the philosophy (the bible in this instance) is meaningless if the people don't actually follow it!
...and they don't! (any of them!)
The antisocial condition we're in has been well entrenched over thousands of years so isn't easily susceptible to change. It's going to take a very strong antidote to accomplish the job. Stephen Hawking suggests genetic enginering to solve the problem at the end of this Google video at .
It should be obvious to anyone that it's going to take a very strong religious belief in God's law and Christ's teachings applied within a communal setting to solve the world's problems.
No, this is the one you want. Not the best one. This is the one you believe, without basis, that will be the only possible solution. I say that it won't work, and at the risk of being a pessimist, I don't think any teachings, any philosophy, or any religious belief will ever stop the human condition. Just look at all of the pedophilia in the catholic church.... as if those priests don't 'believe' strong enough!!!
The fact of the matter is that it does lie in our genetics. Our environment can curb much of it, but at the end of the day if our genetics form a consistent impulse to do something, then no amount of social conditioning will over come that. It can make us fear ourselves (which religion has worked on doing for thousands of years without practical success) but it can't 'excise the demon from us'....
This is the simpler, safer, and most logical course of action. Genetic engineering or psychopharmacological intervention are complex and difficult to apply methods that will never work to solve our malaise which is due to a deeply rooted and intractable blend of inborn instinct, societal conditioning, and supernatural, Satanic influence.
You should checkout the free booklet called The Ten Commandments for a better understanding of God's law and its potential to solve individual and world problems. True morality will eventually come from the Bible as prophesied therein whether you want it to or not. Our goal to live longer lives depends on the success of a new biblically based morality. I advise you to look into the matter as quickly as possible.
gah.
Satanic influences... We are in the 21st century aren't we? Shouldn't we at least get with the times and blame it on aliens? Or government mind control! Demons went out of fashion in the 1600's.
I understand that Hovind may have gotten some things, like the plane and the glacier wrong. I dont remember that one, and maybe he put a "spin" on all of them and got them all wrong, but maybe not. Theres just so many to cover. What would you, or anybody here say to his arguement that the grand canyon wasnt carved in millions of years, but rather like a week, or whatever he says? Theres a link to his presentation on it here: http://drdino.plaing...minar4_300k.wmv Even if he is right about the canyon, I know that still doesnt disprove evolution and prove creationism, Im just saying. Ill try to remember and dig up a more poignant one later.
My conclusion so far is that its not good to bias yourself toward any angle like creation or evolution or anything else you can think up because it shuts you off to possabilities. I could be wrong, Im just saying, I mean, we dont think that creationists should be bent on creation, I think everybody should keep all the options on the table and keep looking. Now focusing on one more than another is necessary at times, but beleiving it I havent quite grasped yet. I know you said your not 100% percent sure, but then why even say "beleive" in the first place.
I could be interpreting the word wrong, but it seems to me that theres a flaw in the word beleive. It seems to mean one thing but be perceived as another and from what I can see is a dangerous word. Hard not to use it though. Im sure I use it all the time, and that its perceived the wrong way alot.
The problem is that, I, and no doubt Elrond, Zoolander, John,..etc etc (we have a huge resource of biologists here) have all actually studied the subject matter in question. I have not only studied biology, but I have also studied the philosophy of biology, and studied the history and philosophy of the Darwinian revolution. Not to mention the numerous books I have read for pleasure such as Dawkins' selfish gene, blind watchmaker, and many books by Matt Riddley and other authors....and it isn't a matter of 'closing your mind', it is a matter of being a bloody fool.
Evolution isn't a hair brained idea being force fed to the population by some government conspiracy! Evolution is just a scientific theory which is friggen brilliant. End of god damned story. And when people like hovind get up on stage and start implying that 'they' are trying to fool the population into 'lies' by tricking them...its just lunacy.
The evidence for evolution is overwhelming. From the observed occurances of it, to the geographical distribution of organisms, the phenotypic relationships verified by genetic mapping, the computer simulations verifying the predictions completely, the logical application of the concept, the observation of 'evolution' in other areas (non-biological), the molecular evidences for it.... This isn't a 'belief' in the loose sense of the word...its just something which you have to be ignorant to not accept.
And thats all it is. most people are ignorant about it, and hence there is 'discussion' because everyone fancies themselves a professional on the subject.
I understand that Hovind may have gotten some things, like the plane and the glacier wrong. I dont remember that one, and maybe he put a "spin" on all of them and got them all wrong, but maybe not. Theres just so many to cover. What would you, or anybody here say to his arguement that the grand canyon wasnt carved in millions of years, but rather like a week, or whatever he says? Theres a link to his presentation on it here: http://drdino.plaing...minar4_300k.wmv Even if he is right about the canyon, I know that still doesnt disprove evolution and prove creationism, Im just saying. Ill try to remember and dig up a more poignant one later.
My conclusion so far is that its not good to bias yourself toward any angle like creation or evolution or anything else you can think up because it shuts you off to possabilities. I could be wrong, Im just saying, I mean, we dont think that creationists should be bent on creation, I think everybody should keep all the options on the table and keep looking. Now focusing on one more than another is necessary at times, but beleiving it I havent quite grasped yet. I know you said your not 100% percent sure, but then why even say "beleive" in the first place.
I could be interpreting the word wrong, but it seems to me that theres a flaw in the word beleive. It seems to mean one thing but be perceived as another and from what I can see is a dangerous word. Hard not to use it though. Im sure I use it all the time, and that its perceived the wrong way alot.
Alright, well then tell me the reasons. Im not going to sit here and tell you Im right an
The problem is that, I, and no doubt Elrond, Zoolander, John,..etc etc (we have a huge resource of biologists here) have all actually studied the subject matter in question. I have not only studied biology, but I have also studied the philosophy of biology, and studied the history and philosophy of the Darwinian revolution. Not to mention the numerous books I have read for pleasure such as Dawkins' selfish gene, blind watchmaker, and many books by Matt Riddley and other authors....and it isn't a matter of 'closing your mind', it is a matter of being a bloody fool.
Evolution isn't a hair brained idea being force fed to the population by some government conspiracy! Evolution is just a scientific theory which is friggen brilliant. End of god damned story. And when people like hovind get up on stage and start implying that 'they' are trying to fool the population into 'lies' by tricking them...its just lunacy.
The evidence for evolution is overwhelming. From the observed occurances of it, to the geographical distribution of organisms, the phenotypic relationships verified by genetic mapping, the computer simulations verifying the predictions completely, the logical application of the concept, the observation of 'evolution' in other areas (non-biological), the molecular evidences for it.... This isn't a 'belief' in the loose sense of the word...its just something which you have to be ignorant to not accept.
And thats all it is. most people are ignorant about it, and hence there is 'discussion' because everyone fancies themselves a professional on the subject.
All I can see is appeals to authority and adhominem reasoning. Im not a creationist at all, or an anit evolutionist. Im also not flippant and pretend to be an authority on anything. I can understand your defensiveness as though you may be encountering yet another case like that, but I know what you mean, I see those people everywhere too, and Im not one of them. Just tell me, thats all, and Ill tell you my reasoning and we'll see what comes of it. I expect that Kent Hovind is wrong. But Ide like to see the answers. Do you want me to go to Hovind supporters and say, well, hes an idiot because hes ignorant? Give me some fire power. Why is the idea that the grand canyon was carved in less than a year not accurate? How about the idea that animals transition from one variety to another, but they dont change into other animals, nor is there even, supposedly, not even one peice of evidence for it in the fossil record? Im not saying any of these questions are unanswerable or even good questions but from what I can see so far they stand.
Mention what to Aegist? This is a public message board and he can see whatever I write. I don't know why I would have to address him directly, but if it makes you feel better: Hey Aegist, elijah made a logical argument.
Better?
I guess I got to be more specific with you. I meant why didn't you advise Aegist that "correlation doesn't necessarily mean causation" when he gave you the statistics in support of atheism? You could have pointed out that intelligence testing is very controversial and shouldn't be used to judge the worth of a man. You could have hit him with no better an authority than Stephen Jay Gould, an evolutionary biologist. See http://en.wikipedia....sting#Criticism.
All I can see is appeals to authority and adhominem reasoning. Im not a creationist at all, or an anit evolutionist. Im also not flippant and pretend to be an authority on anything. I can understand your defensiveness as though you may be encountering yet another case like that, but I know what you mean, I see those people everywhere too, and Im not one of them. Just tell me, thats all, and Ill tell you my reasoning and we'll see what comes of it. I expect that Kent Hovind is wrong. But Ide like to see the answers. Do you want me to go to Hovind supporters and say, well, hes an idiot because hes ignorant? Give me some fire power. Why is the idea that the grand canyon was carved in less than a year not accurate? How about the idea that animals transition from one variety to another, but they dont change into other animals, nor is there even, supposedly, not even one peice of evidence for it in the fossil record? Im not saying any of these questions are unanswerable or even good questions but from what I can see so far they stand.
Sorry. Fair point.
First of all, this has all been done: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/ has replies to everything, including: Geology, however it doesn't address the Grand Canyon issue itself.
So first of all, the global flood is simply bogus, so the premise for the recent rapid erosion of the grand canyon is shot down before the erosion itself can be considered. So then I have trouble imagining why 'rapid movement of lots of water would cause erosion of such a narrow area anyway... Why create a canyon if the entire surface of the earth was covered? Shouldn't it wash away the topsoil etc evenly, and then erode the entire surface according to the density of the stone? The 'canyon' structure is much more indicative of a single river, flowing over time. If you want to look at it as an outflow from a remaining lake left over from the flood, then you still have a consistent stream flowing, and all of the evidence points to erosion happening over LONG periods of time way in excess of 4000 years.
As for the mountain range in the way...? I'm not sure about that. I don't know the geography of the region, nor do I know what the gand canyon has actually done or how it proceeds, so I can't reply to this point, and to be completely honest, I don't trust a word that comes out of Kent Hovinds mouth, so I am not going to take his claims at face value.
Please ask for more clarification on any points if you want it, or raise any other issues you have concern with. I will do my best to reply to all questions on the matter.
You could have pointed out that intelligence testing is very controversial and shouldn't be used to judge the worth of a man. You could have hit him with no better an authority than Stephen Jay Gould, an evolutionary biologist. See http://en.wikipedia....sting#Criticism.
And while I do accept that criticism of IQ, and infact hold it self-evidently true (IQ tests are often biased towards certain social understandings, towards languages, and towards a degree of knowledge about trivial facts), they are still an indication of intelligence. Once again though, this isn't only about IQ testing, this trend applies to all measures of intelligence, critical thought, and mental faculties. Mensa, The American Academy of Sciences, the trend through apptitudes in maths, philosophy, science etc in universities etc. It is an overall trend, supported by many independent premises.
But just like evolution and the Flood myth, relligious people don't much care for mutually supporting independent lines of evidence.
What shocks me, is the standardly low results for IQ. Everytime I have done any form of IQ test (admittedly these are always online, and thus dodgy) I have always got something ranging from 120 - 150, and my friends have pretty much all always got something similar. I wonder how much that is a consequence of dodgy IQ tests online, and how much it is a consequence of just being a nerd and hanging out with nerds...
Mention what to Aegist? This is a public message board and he can see whatever I write. I don't know why I would have to address him directly, but if it makes you feel better: Hey Aegist, elijah made a logical argument.
Better?
I guess I got to be more specific with you. I meant why didn't you advise Aegist that "correlation doesn't necessarily mean causation" when he gave you the statistics in support of atheism? You could have pointed out that intelligence testing is very controversial and shouldn't be used to judge the worth of a man. You could have hit him with no better an authority than Stephen Jay Gould, an evolutionary biologist. See http://en.wikipedia....sting#Criticism.
Well, because I didn't notice it at the time. It was only after you pointed it out that I noticed it. (I am not perfect you know!) Which is why I praised you for doing so...
I am sorry I didn't notice it right off, but I am only human.
I think you have far more concerns with Aegist's tearing apart of whether correlation vs causation even matters in this instance than my praise of you that you felt wasn't strong enough.
What shocks me, is the standardly low results for IQ. Everytime I have done any form of IQ test (admittedly these are always online, and thus dodgy) I have always got something ranging from 120 - 150, and my friends have pretty much all always got something similar. I wonder how much that is a consequence of dodgy IQ tests online, and how much it is a consequence of just being a nerd and hanging out with nerds...
This is a very good question. The quality of IQ tests (and whether "IQ" should even be a measure of intelligence) is a very apt question. The measure of "intelligence" is a very tricky thing, and is very open to debate.
Let me try and explain to you why the morality that comes from the Bible is our only hope. You do admit the world is seriously afflicted with crime, violence, exploitation and oppression, and this has been a substantial problem throughout history? The primitive egalitarian societies you mention have been the few rather than the many. Once they become absorbed into the larger pathological society they suffer the same problems with human aggression and stress as anyone else. Don't you agree?
How else, other than through the correct application of biblical morality, will society be able to pull its self out of its immoral condition in order to achieve a moral and immortal way of life? The antisocial condition we're in has been well entrenched over thousands of years so isn't easily susceptible to change. It's going to take a very strong antidote to accomplish the job. Stephen Hawking suggests genetic enginering to solve the problem at the end of this Google video at .
Stephen Hawking is a chump. I can do better:
Religion 2.0. Let's face it: User generated content is all the rage! After all, no matter how godly Jeff Bates (of Slashdot) is, he's still only one 1337 geek. He can't give me my tech news fix as fast or as completely as those del.icio.us-ly addictive social tagging sites.
If you're one of those Hobbsian folks who don't trust themselves enough to leave Lady Justice's love-lump liberated, force feed yourself the comfort of having your already non-existent free-will further extinguished by not just any old sacred text, but Sacred Text 2.0!!!
Sorry... I'm an asshole.
edit: I decided to hyphenate "free will" for extra irony.
This is a very good question. The quality of IQ tests (and whether "IQ" should even be a measure of intelligence) is a very apt question. The measure of "intelligence" is a very tricky thing, and is very open to debate.
Absolutely it is open to debate - In an 'absolute' sense. That is, it is a very bad idea to go and assume that IQ tests are beyond reproach and the absolute measure of intelligence, but nonetheless they do measure something, and that something is based in intelligence. They don't create these things in a vacuum...
Intelligence is like everything else in the universe, there is no right and wrong of it, there is no black and white, smart and dumb. There are degrees of comprehension, speed of comprehension, topics of comprehension, imagination, novelty, memory....the mind is the most un-definable thing I can think of. So to reduce all of those possible measures of smarts into one single number is no doubt impossible.... but surely that number represents something of their intelligence. It is afterall designed to cover most of the major topics of intelligence, logic, language, spacial, patterns etc.
But regardless of the test itself, the fact remains that like all of the non-black and white things in the universe, humans are amazingly good at judging it: You're dumb, You're smart. We do it all the time. And as there is no 'absolute' measure for those judgements, all we have is our relative interpretations of the question, and as such, surely the IQ test does stand as a decent indication. Nothing perfect, but if we are going to apply judgements to an immaterial concept like intelligence, we might as well be dilligent about it, standardize it, and create a relationary graph.
Intelligence testing is very controversial and not an accurate measure of intelligence in my opinion. IQ tests measure technical intelligence. They're not designed to measure Bible based moral knowledge.
Intelligence testing is very controversial and not an accurate measure of intelligence in my opinion. IQ tests measure technical intelligence. They're not designed to measure Bible based moral knowledge.
[huh] I feel dumber just from reading that.
You're right basho, I should've wrote that as they're unable to measure Bible based moral knowledge and wisdom that are far more important than technical intelligence. My writing skills are not that good, but I keep trying.
Intelligence testing is very controversial and not an accurate measure of intelligence in my opinion. IQ tests measure technical intelligence. They're not designed to measure Bible based moral knowledge.
[huh] I feel dumber just from reading that.
You're right basho, I should've wrote that as they're unable to measure Bible based moral knowledge and wisdom that are far more important than technical intelligence. My writing skills are not that good, but I keep trying.
And yet you have still never justified how bible based morals are good in any way....You have just asserted that they are good.
And yet you have still never justified how bible based morals are good in any way....You have just asserted that they are good.
Bible based morality when practiced to its fullest will provide the basis for living out substantially longer lifespans and for eventually attaining immortality. Isaiah 65:20-25 describes longevity during the Millennium under Christ, the Son, and Revelation 21:1-4 describes immortality under God, the Father, after Christ's thousand year reign is over.
What more can I say than this? The Scriptures point to the day when Christ returns to put an end to the false religions that are deceiving the world in His name. See Satan's Counterfeit Christianity at http://www.tomorrows...item=1140203084. You need to study some of this stuff to see where I'm coming from. If you got any questions just ask.
elijah, do you see how saying that the Bible is the basis for morality because the Bible says it is the basis for morality is circular reasoning?
I believe that Aegist was asking for some proof outside of what the Bible says, since he does not subscribe to the "ultimate" truth of the book, as you obviously do.
And yet you have still never justified how bible based morals are good in any way....You have just asserted that they are good.
Bible based morality when practiced to its fullest will provide the basis for living out substantially longer lifespans and for eventually attaining immortality. Isaiah 65:20-25 describes longevity during the Millennium under Christ, the Son, and Revelation 21:1-4 describes immortality under God, the Father, after Christ's thousand year reign is over.
What more can I say than this? The Scriptures point to the day when Christ returns to put an end to the false religions that are deceiving the world in His name. See Satan's Counterfeit Christianity at http://www.tomorrows...item=1140203084. You need to study some of this stuff to see where I'm coming from. If you got any questions just ask.
I think I know more about it than you assume I do. Not only do I discuss this topic online consistently (I have done so from Physicsforums, to scam.com forums, to richarddawkins.net forums and even ventured into christianforums.com and tried stuff out there.), and with that I actually tend to read a lot of the references I am given in those discussions, plus I 'stumble upon' many religious (or more often, anti-christian) websites in my travels, and I watch a lot of the informative films on YouTube on the topic, AND my fiance just happens to be a very dedicated and well versed christian (not of any church mind you, her family tend to just follow what they believe the Bible says, which incidentally contradicts virtually everything every modern church believes.) So I have discussed their perspectives on the Bible with them many times.
Interestingly, you did just raise a point which my fiance (Catherine, user name = catichka, cat for short) believes which you will find no modern church does: When Jesus returns and sets up 'the kingdom', it is a very real world phenomenon, nothing to do with Heaven and Hell (two things which Cat is quite adamant the Bible mentions nothing about). And yes, the chosen ones will be revived and granted immortality.
I however, don't like to rely upon stories for my life purpose and dedication. I much more prefer real evidence and logical thought.
In any case, you still haven't provided any argument or any evidence to support 1. Bible morality is in fact good, or 2. Following bible morality will in fact result in immortality.
you guys are giving elijah hard times, and that's good. Him comming again and again 'arguing' about the same stuff over and over does not make him a challenger; he just does not get it!
I understand his stiffness toward his beliefs; after investing so much time and effort in that direction it does not feel 'right' to divert. That will make him feel 'not so good' wasting some of his time going in the 'wrong direction'.
I am interested to see if elijah will be cured from his deteriorating condition through the free therapy that this forum is giving him.
You Are Using Ad Block Plus or some other advert blocking software. More info here: "https://www.longecity.org/forum/topic/84454-please-disable-adblockers/
LongeCity
