RE: About the "Flood" ...

RE: About the "Flood" ... (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

Thadius -> RE: About the "Flood" ... (2/22/2010 5:38:33 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Rule quote: ORIGINAL: Thadius So according to your reasoning and logical theory, at what point should we see this break down in society? How many generations? I do not know. I expect it to be an exponential process. At a guess I would say that unmistakable consequences ought to manifest after two to three hundred years. As the USA population has foolishly and non-Christianly been circumcising their males for about a hundred years, they may start murdering their adulterous female relative in about one, at most two centuries from now. quote: ORIGINAL: Thadius Oh and finally, how do you separate out any other stimuli from being the causation of that breakdown? Well, recently there was introduced vaccination for girls against genital warts. That might be an additional stimulus. Also the use of condoms has been quite on the rise during the past century. That also might be a stimulus. It will be interesting to see how it plays out. I would rather see, though, that the USA population came to its senses. So are you arguing that circumcision is going to cause the madness or that the diseases that are caught will cause the madness?

Rule -> RE: About the "Flood" ... (2/22/2010 5:56:31 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Thadius So are you arguing that circumcision is going to cause the madness or that the diseases that are caught will cause the madness? Neither. I am saying that the evolution algorithm has two possible railway tracks: one without circumcision and one with circumcision. Sexually transmitted diseases and the circumcise or not circumcise response to them determine to which track a population switches. They are both viable tracks, obviously: Jewish circumcision has been around for about four millenniums. The evolutionary consequences have been around about as long and honor killings of adulterous female relatives was and is one of those consequences. (A positive evolutionary consequence is that the inbreeding such circumcised populations do may protect and save beneficial recessive mutations that might otherwise be lost due to genetic drift.)

Thadius -> RE: About the "Flood" ... (2/22/2010 6:09:27 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Rule quote: ORIGINAL: Thadius So are you arguing that circumcision is going to cause the madness or that the diseases that are caught will cause the madness? Neither. I am saying that the evolution algorithm has two possible railway tracks: one without circumcision and one with circumcision. Sexually transmitted diseases and the circumcise or not circumcise response to them determine to which track a population switches. They are both viable tracks, obviously: Jewish circumcision has been around for about four millenniums. The evolutionary consequences have been around about as long and honor killings of adulterous female relatives was and is one of those consequences. (A positive evolutionary consequence is that the inbreeding such circumcised populations do may protect and save beneficial recessive mutations that might otherwise be lost due to genetic drift.) And you predicate your hypothesis on what facts? Simply that there are only 2 types of penises and these are what will control the course of humanities sanity based on the reaction to STDs? There are also 2 types of men, those with 2 arms and those that don't have 2 arms. Perhaps, this will have an influence on how well they breed, and which genes get passed on, or killed off? WOW.

kittinSol -> RE: About the "Flood" ... (2/22/2010 6:14:49 PM)
You use a seriously unique example, Level. Let's not oppose ordinary with extraordinary. Let's compare comparables. Pol Pot stands amongst a group of very rare individuals. Your concept of innocence is one that you can afford to have.

kittinSol -> RE: About the "Flood" ... (2/22/2010 6:15:53 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Rule I prefer being killed. Excellent! The whip it shall be.

Rule -> RE: About the "Flood" ... (2/22/2010 6:29:03 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Thadius And you predicate your hypothesis on what facts? Simply that there are only 2 types of penises and these are what will control the course of humanities sanity based on the reaction to STDs? I apply evolution theory to explain the causal relationship between male circumcision as practiced by populations and the high frequency of murders of adulterous female relatives by those same populations. Neither evolution theory nor these despicable 'honor killings' are a hypothesis; they are both established facts. quote: ORIGINAL: Thadius There are also 2 types of men, those with 2 arms and those that don't have 2 arms. Perhaps, this will have an influence on how well they breed, and which genes get passed on, or killed off? I do not know that men having other than two arms gives an advantage or disadvantage as regards the vulnerability to sexually transmitted diseases or the propagation of such diseases. If you can present a hypothesis that makes such a causal relation, I am most interested. quote: ORIGINAL: Thadius WOW. World of Warcraft (WoW)?

BLoved -> RE: About the "Flood" ... (2/22/2010 7:05:11 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Rule I also know that Jesus, in the scene with the adulterous woman, taught the Jews not to murder adulterous females. To be fair, Rule, the lesson taught was "he who is without sin, let him cast the first stone". This was early in his ministry and ties in with the lessons he taught up to and including the Sermon on the Mount and the parable of the tares. Jesus taught not to sin, not to judge, and not to oppose evil with evil, but to oppose it with love.

jlf1961 -> RE: About the "Flood" ... (2/22/2010 9:20:05 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Rule quote: ORIGINAL: Level quote: ORIGINAL: BLoved I mean, it worries me when mere mortals can out-think God and are more compassionate when dispensing justice. I can out-think the pagan gods of the Jews, even though they had a higher IQ than I have and one of them had some of my abilities. They would probably beat me at chess, though. I do not know whether I could out-think the Creator and his likes, but they are hardly mentioned in the Old Testament. Compassion? Some of the pagan gods were compassionate; others were not. Uh, I must point out that the jews were then and are now monotheistic, meaning ONE god, not gods.

StrangerThan -> RE: About the "Flood" ... (2/22/2010 9:37:03 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BLoved I am curious ... exactly what are we supposed to learn from the story of Noah's Flood? God, the creator, all knowing and all loving, decides he hates humanity so much he not only wants to drown them all, but drown every living thing along with them ... butterflies, baby birds, snails ... Exactly what did the butterflies do that God decided they have to go too? And as for the manner of wiping out humanity: drowning ... has anyone thought of what it was like for all the newborns and toddlers? And what of their parents, struggling to keep their children alive? And after all this destruction and misery, God the all-knowing feels bad and promises never to do it again. Didn't God know he'd feel this way before he drowned everything? Was there no more humane way for God to have wiped out humanity without causing suffering and without killing off the butterflies? Was God limited in imagination? Considering this is the god of Jesus, I am curious as to how this incident fits within the paradigm that God is a loving god. This is one of those, umm, eye roll questions. You know, the kind asked not really looking for an answer, but as a means of attack. Assuming one can create butterflies at the wink of an eye, the eradication of them as collateral damage wouldn't be much reason to lose any sleep or spend eternity twisting one's gut over the decision.

Raiikun -> RE: About the "Flood" ... (2/22/2010 10:43:36 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen The flood, Leviticus, Numbers, much of Kings make no sense if you examine them from a christian perspective. Actually, much of it does make perfect sense...it just requires a ton of study, a deeper understanding than most are willing to spend the effort on, including a lot of figuring out where the King James people got translations wrong, and a change in paradigm about what Christianity is. Then a lot of rather mindblowing connections start becoming noticable. (Example, when God told Abraham to take his son up to the mount and kill him, Abraham was gladly about to do so out of belief that God would raise his son back from the dead...and that faith was part of the key to Jesus being resurrected.) An overly simplified summary of events through the OT though is - God creates world (billions of years ago). Satan falls, angels get cast out, God recreates world, puts man on it, God gives world to man, man screws up and gives world to Satan, it takes several thousand years to put all the pieces into place to bring Jesus here to make up for Adam's mistake.

Rule -> RE: About the "Flood" ... (2/22/2010 11:03:55 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 Uh, I must point out that the jews were then and are now monotheistic, meaning ONE god, not gods. Indeed? It is good that you must point that out. Well done. Do you want a cookie? Okay. There is always someone who must point out that the world is flat or that the Sun infrequently moves backwards in the sky or that Jews are monotheistic. Because someone thinks that the Old Testament says so ... but I say differently. I will be impressed by anyone who can explain the difference between thinking one perceives reality and perceiving reality, especially if a scam is involved. (Hint: The perception of 911 is a good example of the difference.)

Smutmonger -> RE: About the "Flood" ... (2/22/2010 11:11:03 PM)
It explains why Satan is one of his kids?

Raiikun -> RE: About the "Flood" ... (2/22/2010 11:45:16 PM)
Some Jews were polytheistic, some weren't. Examples of certain Jews worshipping multiple gods are in the OT.

Level -> RE: About the "Flood" ... (2/23/2010 2:58:42 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kittinSol You use a seriously unique example, Level. Let's not oppose ordinary with extraordinary. Let's compare comparables. Pol Pot stands amongst a group of very rare individuals. True, but I wonder; how many "average" people are that far from being monsters? But then again, if so, does that mean they are not innocent, even from birth? Early here, and I'm babbling.

Raiikun -> RE: About the "Flood" ... (2/23/2010 5:52:11 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Level quote: ORIGINAL: Moonhead Look up "theodicy" on wiki: the mother church has spent centuries inventing excuses for that one. Yeah, but I want answers, not excuses. But there aren't any, not here. So question, do you know of any sources/quotes/writings that suggest there shouldn't be any suffering among the innocent in a fallen world? If you don't have any, I fail to see why answers/excuses are necessary.

BLoved -> RE: About the "Flood" ... (2/23/2010 5:56:39 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: StrangerThan quote: ORIGINAL: BLoved I am curious ... exactly what are we supposed to learn from the story of Noah's Flood? God, the creator, all knowing and all loving, decides he hates humanity so much he not only wants to drown them all, but drown every living thing along with them ... butterflies, baby birds, snails ... Exactly what did the butterflies do that God decided they have to go too? And as for the manner of wiping out humanity: drowning ... has anyone thought of what it was like for all the newborns and toddlers? And what of their parents, struggling to keep their children alive? And after all this destruction and misery, God the all-knowing feels bad and promises never to do it again. Didn't God know he'd feel this way before he drowned everything? Was there no more humane way for God to have wiped out humanity without causing suffering and without killing off the butterflies? Was God limited in imagination? Considering this is the god of Jesus, I am curious as to how this incident fits within the paradigm that God is a loving god. This is one of those, umm, eye roll questions. You know, the kind asked not really looking for an answer, but as a means of attack. Assuming one can create butterflies at the wink of an eye, the eradication of them as collateral damage wouldn't be much reason to lose any sleep or spend eternity twisting one's gut over the decision. So are you saying I respect the sanctity of life more than god?

Raiikun -> RE: About the "Flood" ... (2/23/2010 5:58:04 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BLoved quote: ORIGINAL: StrangerThan quote: ORIGINAL: BLoved I am curious ... exactly what are we supposed to learn from the story of Noah's Flood? God, the creator, all knowing and all loving, decides he hates humanity so much he not only wants to drown them all, but drown every living thing along with them ... butterflies, baby birds, snails ... Exactly what did the butterflies do that God decided they have to go too? And as for the manner of wiping out humanity: drowning ... has anyone thought of what it was like for all the newborns and toddlers? And what of their parents, struggling to keep their children alive? And after all this destruction and misery, God the all-knowing feels bad and promises never to do it again. Didn't God know he'd feel this way before he drowned everything? Was there no more humane way for God to have wiped out humanity without causing suffering and without killing off the butterflies? Was God limited in imagination? Considering this is the god of Jesus, I am curious as to how this incident fits within the paradigm that God is a loving god. This is one of those, umm, eye roll questions. You know, the kind asked not really looking for an answer, but as a means of attack. Assuming one can create butterflies at the wink of an eye, the eradication of them as collateral damage wouldn't be much reason to lose any sleep or spend eternity twisting one's gut over the decision. So are you saying I respect the sanctity of life more than god? I don't recall him making a comparison of what you respect more in his post.

BLoved -> RE: About the "Flood" ... (2/23/2010 6:04:07 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Raiikun quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen The flood, Leviticus, Numbers, much of Kings make no sense if you examine them from a christian perspective. Actually, much of it does make perfect sense...it just requires a ton of study, a deeper understanding than most are willing to spend the effort on, including a lot of figuring out where the King James people got translations wrong, and a change in paradigm about what Christianity is. Then a lot of rather mindblowing connections start becoming noticable. (Example, when God told Abraham to take his son up to the mount and kill him, Abraham was gladly about to do so out of belief that God would raise his son back from the dead...and that faith was part of the key to Jesus being resurrected.) In other words, the Word of God is too complicated for the average person to understand and we need experts to tell us what to believe ... we are expected to place our faith in fallible man, not the word of god. quote: An overly simplified summary of events through the OT though is - God creates world (billions of years ago). Satan falls, angels get cast out, God recreates world, puts man on it, God gives world to man, man screws up and gives world to Satan, it takes several thousand years to put all the pieces into place to bring Jesus here to make up for Adam's mistake. If Satan was cast out before the world was made, why did god allow satan into Eden, and what was god doing being so chummy with Satan in Job, and turning Job over to Satan for torture? Indeed, why would an all-knowing god create satan when he knew satan would rebel? Why make Adam and Eve when he knew in advance they would fall? Why make humanity when he knew in advance he'd drown them all?

BLoved -> RE: About the "Flood" ... (2/23/2010 6:06:46 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Raiikun So question, do you know of any sources/quotes/writings that suggest there shouldn't be any suffering among the innocent in a fallen world? Why would a perfect all-knowing god make a "fallen world", and how much of the suffering experienced in this fallen world is the result of a perfect god making such a world?

BLoved -> RE: About the "Flood" ... (2/23/2010 6:09:13 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Raiikun quote: ORIGINAL: BLoved quote: ORIGINAL: StrangerThan Assuming one can create butterflies at the wink of an eye, the eradication of them as collateral damage wouldn't be much reason to lose any sleep or spend eternity twisting one's gut over the decision. So are you saying I respect the sanctity of life more than god? I don't recall him making a comparison of what you respect more in his post. He is saying because god can create life, god doesn't care if he destroys life. Since I cannot create life "at the wink of an eye" I have a great deal of respect for living things. Ergo, I respect the sanctity of life more than god.

Page: << < prev 4 5 [6] 7 8 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875