Guest Martin Posted May 12, 2007 Posted May 12, 2007 On May 12, 4:36 am, "Steve O" <spamh...@nowhere.com> wrote: > "Jason" <J...@nospam.com> wrote in message > > news:Jason-1105071423310001@66-52-22-87.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > >> >I know the story of one elderly lady that called her > >> > pastor and requested a conference to discuss her sin. The pastor > >> > wondered > >> > what sort of sin an elderly lady would be concerned about. The sin: The > >> > lady had a negative thought about a bad neighbor. > >> > Jason > > >> Why would that be a sin? > >> Maybe the neighbour was an asshole, and deserved far more than a negative > >> thought. > > > That lady considered it to be a sin and she was correct. > > You mean, you think she was correct? > Personally, I have every reason to believe that her neighbour was a total > bastard and she did no wrong. > Maybe I'm just more forgiving than you. More to the point, "negative thoughts" can be a quite healthy of venting real frustration. It would be much better if she was able to vent her frustrations than to have her snap one day and actually do something bad to her neighbour. Martin Quote
Guest Jason Posted May 12, 2007 Posted May 12, 2007 In article <6e5a431pbl5bjls903shnga5l5pft1ictf@4ax.com>, Don Kresch <ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote: > In alt.atheism On Fri, 11 May 2007 18:40:08 -0700, Jason@nospam.com > (Jason) let us all know that: > > >In article <h21a43tsn3815kcq54g0chgce5tli4prgc@4ax.com>, Don Kresch > ><ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote: > > > >> In alt.atheism On Fri, 11 May 2007 17:51:48 -0700, Jason@nospam.com > >> (Jason) let us all know that: > >> > >> >In article <5akd8hF2oeg1dU1@mid.individual.net>, "Steve O" > >> ><spamhere@nowhere.com> wrote: > >> > > >> >> "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message > >> >> news:Jason-1105071713050001@66-52-22-112.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > >> >> > God created people that had free will. Free will is neither perfect or > >> >> > imperfect. Even the created angels had free will--Satan exercised > >his free > >> >> > will when he started a rebellion. Even Angels have free will. God > >does not > >> >> > want programmed robots that are programmed to say, "I love God". He wants > >> >> > angels and people to love and worship God because they want to love and > >> >> > worship God. You don't appear to know much about the doctrine of free > >> >> > will. Books have been written about that subject. > >> >> > > >> >> > . > >> >> >> > >> >> >> Yet it cannot hold. Since god is omniscient and created > >> >> >> everything (according to the doctrine of your religion), there can be > >> >> >> no free will. It's not possible. > >> >> > > >> >> > I disagree. I have free will--you have free will. > >> >> > >> >> Then you have just demonstrated why there is no God. > >> >> You aren't listening to what you are being told - if there was an > >> >> omniscient, all powerful God who knows exactly what will happen in the > >> >> future and is in control of what will happen from the moment of creation- > >> >> there can be no free will, as God will already know what you will do > >before > >> >> you were even created- IOW, no free will. > >> >> You are quite clear on the fact that there is free will, therefore, > >by your > >> >> own statement, there is no God. > >> > > >> >That debate could go on forever. The bottom line is that we have free > >> >will. > >> > >> Ok. Then either god is not omniscient or god didn't create > >> everything. Which will it be? > > > >God is omniscient and omni powerful > > Then god didn't create everything. > Don, This were my exact words--Why did you snip four of my sentences?: >God is omniscient and omni powerful. God can do anything that he wants to >do. He can create anything that he wishes to create. If you reply, please >don't snip anything that I stated in these 5 sentences. You done that the >last time. Quote
Guest Jason Posted May 12, 2007 Posted May 12, 2007 In article <DipthotDipthot-C9F689.19484611052007@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com>, 655321 <DipthotDipthot@Yahoo.Yahoo.Com.Com> wrote: > In article > <Jason-1005071716170001@66-52-22-37.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net>, > Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > If everyone in the world lived by the principles of life that Confucius > > established, we would not need to build new prisons. > > Then you could be wrong about your stick-boy demigod! If everyone followed the law, we would not need to build new prisons. Quote
Guest Martin Posted May 12, 2007 Posted May 12, 2007 On May 12, 9:58 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > I am sorry--I have never taken any classes or read any books related to the > Code ofHammurabi. Based upon what you posted, there does seem to be some > similarities between many of the laws mentioned in the Bible and The Code > ofHammurabi. Perhaps God also spoke to Hammuriabi. There is evidence in > the Bible that God spoke to a Pharaoh that was not a Jew in order to save > the life of Abraham --see Genesis 12: 11-20. God also spoke to a false > prophet named Balaam--see Numbers 23: 5-12. Therefore, it's possible spoke > to Hamuriabli. God can do anything that he wants to do. Of course, I am > just guessing. No, no, Hammurabi _said_ that God spoke to him. His name for God was "Anu". This predates anything Biblical and shows that the laws that God supposedly gave to Moses were already known to Semetic people. At best you could argue that they were a reminder. Martin Quote
Guest Jason Posted May 12, 2007 Posted May 12, 2007 In article <1178931841.256921.67220@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, Martin <phippsmartin@hotmail.com> wrote: > On May 12, 2:53 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > Homicide rate (per 100,000) from 1950 to 2002: > > In 1950--that figure was 4.4 > > In 2002--that figure was 5.6 > > source: 2005 Time Almanac > > > > These statistics proved to me that the crime rates are going up. > > Why have you only picked two years? That does not show any trend. > How do I know 1950 wasn't an anomolous year? > > Martin Martin, Good point >Here are some statistics that I found. I will let you tell me whether or >not the murder rate was higher during 1950's compared to the 1990's and >2000's. I did not see any 5's or higher in the 1950's but saw lots of 8s >and 9s in the 1990's and 2000's > >Homicide Rate (per 100,000), 1950 Quote
Guest Michael Gray Posted May 12, 2007 Posted May 12, 2007 On 11 May 2007 21:23:00 -0700, Martin <phippsmartin@hotmail.com> wrote: - Refer: <1178943780.445609.142300@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com> >On May 12, 5:23 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > >> Yes. However, I will not have to suffer for my sins since Jesus has >> already suffered for my sins. Only Non-Christians will have to suffer for >> their sins. That's why I wish that everyone was a Christian. > >I don't recall ever asking Jesus to suffer on my behalf. If I am >truly doing something wrong by lusting after Angelina Jolie (and >frankly I don't see how it's even anybody's business) then I will >accept the punishment rather than expecting somebody else to suffer on >my behalf. That's what being moral is all about. That inveterate and deliberate liar Jason, would not know morals if he tripped over ten tons of them. -- Quote
Guest Martin Posted May 12, 2007 Posted May 12, 2007 On May 12, 5:59 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > Good point. They were NOT created perfect. God did not want programmed > robots that would be programmed to worship him. Instead, God created > people that had free will. He was hoping that people would choose to love > him. Millions of people love and worship God. Free will is an important > doctrine. Free will is _only_ a doctrine. In reality, it is an illusion. Most of the "decisions" we make are based on instinct. Luckily for us, we instinctively know that it is wrong to kill other people without justification: throughout history, belief, either religious or political or both, has often been the justification used to kill others. Martin Quote
Guest Martin Posted May 12, 2007 Posted May 12, 2007 On May 12, 6:30 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > There won't be any suicide bombers or nuclear bombs in heaven. Won't the suicide bombers themselves be horribly disappointed? Martin (not the one from the UK) Quote
Guest Martin Posted May 12, 2007 Posted May 12, 2007 On May 12, 6:37 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > There is a BIG difference between believing that life evolved from > non-life and believing that a creator God was able to take natural > materials and create life from that natural materials. Yes, the difference is that creationism requires one to believe in a supernatural boogey man in the sky whereas evolution requires one to only accept the very real evidence from genetics, paleantology, anatomy and zoology. > It's much easier > for me to believe that God created life than to believe what you appear to > believe. Actually, no, it isn't. Martin (not the one from the UK) Quote
Guest Jason Posted May 12, 2007 Posted May 12, 2007 In article <1178942351.345553.104330@l77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>, Martin <phippsmartin@hotmail.com> wrote: > On May 12, 2:59 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > In article <1178878950.032555.171...@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, Martin > > > > <phippsmar...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > > On May 11, 4:15 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > > <snip> > > > > > According to that famous chart that is posted on the walls of almost every > > > > biology classroom in America, Neanderthals are a step in the evolution of > > > > man. Have you seen that chart? Perhaps it is no longer displayed like it > > > > was when I was in college. That chart begins with a creature that looks > > > > like a chimp. and ends with a modern man. I believe that Neanderthals were > > > > the step before Cro-Magnums. I believe the chart was very inaccurate. > > > > > Such charts are a bit misleading. Modern man and Neanderthals are > > > 99.5% identical genetically, although expert geneticists claim that > > > this is not enough for us to be the same species. (Humans and > > > chimpanzees are 98.4% identical.) Based on the results so far, > > > scientists estimate that we shared a common ancestor from 700,000 > > > years ago (a Homo Erectus). Neanderthals first appeared > > > 350,000-130,000 years ago and became extinct only 24,000 years ago > > > (during the ice age). Homo sapiens appeared 200 000 years ago and > > > began to outnumber neanderthals 45,000 years ago. Humans Cro Magnon > > > man is the name given for homo sapiens during the Paleolithic Period > > > (40,000-10,000 years ago). Cro-Magnon man had a smaller brain than > > > modern humans whereas neanderthals actually had bigger brains. Cro > > > Magnon man may have been smarter than neanderthals, however, because > > > Cro Magnon man knew how to do "sculpture, engraving, painting, body > > > ornamentation, music and the painstaking decoration of utilitarian > > > objects". > > > > There are assumptions in the above report that may not be correct. > > Jason, you don't know how science works. I will copy and paste what I > wrote above with emphasis. > > > > Such charts are a bit misleading. Modern man and Neanderthals are > > > 99.5% identical genetically, although expert geneticists CLAIM that > > > this is not enough for us to be the same species. (Humans and > > > chimpanzees are 98.4% identical.) BASED ON THE RESULTS SO FAR, > > > scientists ESTIMATE that we shared a common ancestor from 700,000 > > > years ago (a Homo Erectus). Neanderthals first appeared > > > 350,000-130,000 years ago and became extinct only 24,000 years ago > > > (during the ice age). Homo sapiens appeared 200 000 years ago and > > > began to outnumber neanderthals 45,000 years ago. Humans Cro Magnon > > > man is the name given for homo sapiens during the Paleolithic Period > > > (40,000-10,000 years ago). Cro-Magnon man had a smaller brain than > > > modern humans whereas neanderthals actually had bigger brains. Cro > > > Magnon man MAY have been smarter than neanderthals, however, because > > > Cro Magnon man knew how to do "sculpture, engraving, painting, body > > > ornamentation, music and the painstaking decoration of utilitarian > > > objects". > > As a scientist, I am fully capable of identifying assumptions: I don't > need you to point them out for me. You, however, constantly need to > have your assumptions pointed out to you: this entire thread is an on > going example of that. > > Martin ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Martin, I am sure that you believe everything that is stated above. You know more about science than I know and I respect your knowledge. However, I have read conflicting information in other sources. Do you concede that 50 years from now, scientists will know more about genetics than they presently know? Do you concede that there are people that know as much about science that you know that have different opinions than you related to this subject? Please comment on this statement: When I was in college, a biology professor that was an advocate of evolution told my class that it would be possible to dress a Neanderthal man in a business suit; cut his hair and give him a shave--and that Neanderthal man could walk down the street in a large city and most people would not pay any attention to him? Was that a true statement? Have you read the news reports indicating that scientists have found evidence indicating that Cro-Magnums and Neatherthals mated and produced offspring? Did you know that in 1972--scientists at that time believed that it was impossible for Neantherthals and Cro-Magnums to produce offspring when they mated due to vast genetic differences? You mentioned in your above post that Neanderthals and Modern man are 99.5% identical. Are all races (including pygmies) 100 percent identical? Jason ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Quote
Guest Jason Posted May 12, 2007 Posted May 12, 2007 In article <1178942421.982132.323520@h2g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, Martin <phippsmartin@hotmail.com> wrote: > On May 12, 3:03 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > In article <1178870790.696144.222...@e51g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, Martin > > > > Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > On May 11, 7:43 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > > I was shocked when I found out that a college professor > > > > that was a kind and wonderful person was an atheist. I made the mistake of > > > > assuming that he was a Christian. > > > > > You'll find that most college professors are atheists. Religious > > > belief correlates negative with intelligence. > > > > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religiosity_and_intelligence > > > > > "According to a study by Paul Bell, published in the Mensa Magazine in > > > 2002, there is an inverse correlation between religiosity and > > > intelligence. Analyzing 43 studies carried out since 1927, Bell found > > > that all but four reported such a connection, and he concluded that > > > "the higher one's intelligence or education level, the less one is > > > likely to be religious or hold 'beliefs' of any kind."[1] A survey > > > published in Nature in 1998 confirms that belief in a personal God or > > > afterlife is at an all time low among the members of the National > > > Academy of Science, only 7.0% of which believed in a personal God as > > > compared to more than 85% of the US general population.[2]" > > > > Let's say there is a college professor that is a Christian. If he decided > > to become an atheist--would his intelligence level go higher? > > Whenever a Christian becomes an atheist, it is evidence that he has, > indeed, already become more intelligent. > > Martin Martin, That's funny Jason Quote
Guest Jason Posted May 12, 2007 Posted May 12, 2007 In article <1178942839.714408.118630@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>, Martin <phippsmartin@hotmail.com> wrote: > On May 12, 3:23 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > Of course, mandantory sentencing played a role. It's my opinion that the > > rise in atheism also played a role. > > Another wrong assumption. > > > I realize that many of the people are > > atheists are kind and wonderful people. Many high school teachers and > > college psychology professors are teaching courses in "situational > > ethics". I took one of those stupid classes. The professor told us that in > > some cases, it's alright for a straving person to steal food; for > > relatives to kill elderly people that were disabled--I believe the term > > was "euthanatize"; For women to kill their unborn babies--abortion. I > > don't believe she told us that in some situations that it would be alright > > to rob a bank or cheat on your taxes--but my memory is not perfect. > > Situational Ethics means that people can violate the law if that person > > has a good reason for violating the law. Those situational ethics classes > > will cause the crime rate to go even higher in the years to come. Shop > > lifting was not a major problem in the 1950's and 1960's. I challenge you > > to google shoplifting statistics. Without any research, I know that it's > > more of a problem now than it was in the 1960's or 1970's. > > I think you missed the point. "Situational ethics" does not mean > "it's okay to commit crimes". The point of situational ethics is for > people to rationally consider whether their laws are in fact morally > correct rather than just blindly following them. If you were in Nazi > Germany and the law required you to turn in your neighbour (who just > happens to be Jewish), would it still be morally right to follow the > letter of the law? > > Martin Martin, Good points. I don't believe you have considered the consequences if everyone practiced situational ethics. In the long run, people would no longer obey laws unless they were advocates of those laws. They would run red lights if they were late for work; euthanatize elderly relatives; steal food if they were hungry; steal clothing if they did not have money to buy new clothing; murder unborn babies; go 20 mph above the speed limit, etc etc--many of those things are already happening. I saw a security guard patrolling inside a large grocery store earlier today. It's my guess that in the 1950's and 1960's--none of the grocery store owners had security guards patrolling the grocery store. Jason Quote
Guest Jason Posted May 12, 2007 Posted May 12, 2007 In article <1178943075.357055.124010@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>, Martin <phippsmartin@hotmail.com> wrote: > On May 12, 3:40 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > It's more complicated. God knew Adam and Eve would eventually sin so he > > had a plan prepared. His plan was to send Jesus but it took several > > thousand years for him to implement the plan. > > Where did the Neanderthals come in to this? By "several thousand > years" do you mean 700 000 years ago? That would make Adam a Homo > Erectus, Cain Cro Magnon and Abel a Neanderthal. > > Martin ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Martin, "Several" is one of those terms that could mean almost anything. I don't know the exact year that God created life on this earth. I doubt that anyone knows the exact year that life began on this planet. As I have stated in other posts, the advocates of creation science (including myself) believe there were no major difference between the Cro-Magnums, Neanderthals and Modern man and that they were all human beings. The other creatures on that famous chart were monkeys or apes. Quote
Guest Jason Posted May 12, 2007 Posted May 12, 2007 In article <1178943313.401161.106580@u30g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>, Martin <phippsmartin@hotmail.com> wrote: > On May 12, 3:57 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > Good point. However, there are lots of people that would steal food. I was > > shocked when I saw two young girls (about 16 to 18 years old) in a huge > > grocery store. They were eating some food that they had stolen. As I > > walked by them, one of them say--"which grocery store are we going to go > > to for dinner"? Those young girls were not homeless. They were dressed in > > nice clothing and were well groomed. I believe they were praciticing > > situational ethics. The psychology professor that I told you about in > > another post would have been proud of those two young girls. Those girls > > did NOT care about shoplifting laws. People who steal clothing form large > > stores like Walmart or K Mart don't care about Jesus or Confucious or > > reciprocity. Have you ever seen anything like that? > > Odds are they probably prayed for forgiveness every night and are > convinced that God forgives them. 85% of Americans still believe in > God in defiance to all logic. > > Martin ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Martin, I saw some survey results that should make you happy. It indicated that there will be far less Christians in the next 50 years. As the Baby Boomers die off--lots of the children of the Baby Boomers (according to survey results) are not planning to go to church. I hope those surveys are wrong. Jason ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Quote
Guest Jason Posted May 12, 2007 Posted May 12, 2007 In article <q3ga43d5v4e9esn9g75h0b7ksd2mcotfe7@4ax.com>, Don Kresch <ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote: > In alt.atheism On Fri, 11 May 2007 21:30:42 -0700, Jason@nospam.com > (Jason) let us all know that: > > >In article <6e5a431pbl5bjls903shnga5l5pft1ictf@4ax.com>, Don Kresch > ><ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote: > > > >> In alt.atheism On Fri, 11 May 2007 18:40:08 -0700, Jason@nospam.com > >> (Jason) let us all know that: > >> > >> >In article <h21a43tsn3815kcq54g0chgce5tli4prgc@4ax.com>, Don Kresch > >> ><ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote: > >> > > >> >> In alt.atheism On Fri, 11 May 2007 17:51:48 -0700, Jason@nospam.com > >> >> (Jason) let us all know that: > >> >> > >> >> >In article <5akd8hF2oeg1dU1@mid.individual.net>, "Steve O" > >> >> ><spamhere@nowhere.com> wrote: > >> >> > > >> >> >> "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message > >> >> >> news:Jason-1105071713050001@66-52-22-112.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > >> >> >> > God created people that had free will. Free will is neither perfect or > >> >> >> > imperfect. Even the created angels had free will--Satan exercised > >> >his free > >> >> >> > will when he started a rebellion. Even Angels have free will. God > >> >does not > >> >> >> > want programmed robots that are programmed to say, "I love God". > >He wants > >> >> >> > angels and people to love and worship God because they want to > >love and > >> >> >> > worship God. You don't appear to know much about the doctrine of free > >> >> >> > will. Books have been written about that subject. > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > . > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> Yet it cannot hold. Since god is omniscient and created > >> >> >> >> everything (according to the doctrine of your religion), there can be > >> >> >> >> no free will. It's not possible. > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > I disagree. I have free will--you have free will. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> Then you have just demonstrated why there is no God. > >> >> >> You aren't listening to what you are being told - if there was an > >> >> >> omniscient, all powerful God who knows exactly what will happen in the > >> >> >> future and is in control of what will happen from the moment of > >creation- > >> >> >> there can be no free will, as God will already know what you will do > >> >before > >> >> >> you were even created- IOW, no free will. > >> >> >> You are quite clear on the fact that there is free will, therefore, > >> >by your > >> >> >> own statement, there is no God. > >> >> > > >> >> >That debate could go on forever. The bottom line is that we have free > >> >> >will. > >> >> > >> >> Ok. Then either god is not omniscient or god didn't create > >> >> everything. Which will it be? > >> > > >> >God is omniscient and omni powerful > >> > >> Then god didn't create everything. > >> > > > >Don, > >This were my exact words > > I don't like weasel-word bullshit. I don't like idiots who > refuse to logically think out their position. > > > I don't like people that delete important words from my posts in order to more easily win a debate. If you were sure of your points, you would not need to do that. Quote
Guest gudloos@yahoo.com Posted May 12, 2007 Posted May 12, 2007 On 11 Maj, 19:01, "Robibnikoff" <witchy...@broomstick.com> wrote: > "Jason" <J...@nospam.com> wrote in message > > snip > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > By their works, we will know them. In other words, it's usually easy to > > determine whether a person that I know takes their religion seriously. For > > example, if I saw a neighor mowing the grass of another neighbor that had > > health problems, I would come to the opinion that he was taking his > > religion seriously. On the other hand, if I found out that a fellow > > Christian was arrested for beating his wife, it would be my opinion that > > he did not take his religion seriously. > > Hmmm, well Jimmy Swaggart appears to take his religion VERY seriously, yet > he got caught soliciting the services of a prostitute - and had apparently > inquired about screwing the prostitute's daughter. I wonder what the explanation would be for me as an atheist clearing snow off of my invalid neighbor's sidewalk, or the explanation for me cutting a year's worth of firewood for an old man tied to a wheel chair and an oxygen tank. It is actually quite common for people to help each other religious or not. As a side comment I would like to point out that I do not see anything necessarily unchristian about beating one's wife, after all maybe she spoke up in church or committed some other henious crime. > -- > Robyn > Resident Witchypoo > BAAWA Knight! > #1557 Quote
Guest gudloos@yahoo.com Posted May 12, 2007 Posted May 12, 2007 On 11 Maj, 19:08, "Robibnikoff" <witchy...@broomstick.com> wrote: > "Jason" <J...@nospam.com> wrote in snip > > > It's my opinion that atheists are more likely to commit Crimes than > > Christians that take their religion seriously. > > How nice for you. And insightful! Those Christians who do not do anything wrong are less likely to commit crimes than those atheists who do commit crimes. Who can argue with that? > -- > Robyn > Resident Witchypoo > BAAWA Knight! > #1557 Quote
Guest Jason Posted May 12, 2007 Posted May 12, 2007 In article <1178943780.445609.142300@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>, Martin <phippsmartin@hotmail.com> wrote: > On May 12, 5:23 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > Yes. However, I will not have to suffer for my sins since Jesus has > > already suffered for my sins. Only Non-Christians will have to suffer for > > their sins. That's why I wish that everyone was a Christian. > > I don't recall ever asking Jesus to suffer on my behalf. If I am > truly doing something wrong by lusting after Angelina Jolie (and > frankly I don't see how it's even anybody's business) then I will > accept the punishment rather than expecting somebody else to suffer on > my behalf. That's what being moral is all about. > > Martin That's your choice. I would prefer to not suffer for my sins. You do have options. Quote
Guest gudloos@yahoo.com Posted May 12, 2007 Posted May 12, 2007 On 11 Maj, 20:53, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <1178869597.855167.31...@y5g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>, Martin > > > > > > Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > On May 11, 5:36 am, "Ralph" <mmman...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > Really? I don't see how my behavior changed at all when I realized that the > > > god of the Hebrew bible didn't exist. > > > I know that my behaviour has improved since I realized that Moslems > > are no more evil than Christians. I'd hate to think what the average > > Christian would do to the average Moslem if he thought he could get > > away with it (or vice versa). > > > Jason should take a look at this study done by theists like him and > > see what results they came up with. > > >http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2005/2005-11.html > > > "A few hundred years ago rates of homicide were astronomical in > > Christian Europe and the American colonies (Beeghley; R. Lane). In all > > secular developed democracies a centuries long-term trend has seen > > homicide rates drop to historical lows (Figure 2). The especially low > > rates in the more Catholic European states are statistical noise due > > to yearly fluctuations incidental to this sample, and are not > > consistently present in other similar tabulations (Barcley and > > Tavares). Despite a significant decline from a recent peak in the > > 1980s (Rosenfeld), the U.S. is the only prosperous democracy that > > retains high homicide rates, making it a strong outlier in this regard > > (Beeghley; Doyle, 2000). Similarly, theistic Portugal also has rates > > of homicides well above the secular developed democracy norm. Mass > > student murders in schools are rare, and have subsided somewhat since > > the 1990s, but the U.S. has experienced many more (National School > > Safety Center) than all the secular developed democracies combined. > > Other prosperous democracies do not significantly exceed the U.S. in > > rates of nonviolent and in non-lethal violent crime (Beeghley; > > Farrington and Langan; Neapoletan), and are often lower in this > > regard. The United States exhibits typical rates of youth suicide > > (WHO), which show little if any correlation with theistic factors in > > the prosperous democracies (Figure 3). The positive correlation > > between pro-theistic factors and juvenile mortality is remarkable, > > especially regarding absolute belief, and even prayer (Figure 4). Life > > spans tend to decrease as rates of religiosity rise (Figure 5), > > especially as a function of absolute belief. Denmark is the only > > exception. Unlike questionable small-scale epidemiological studies by > > Harris et al. and Koenig and Larson, higher rates of religious > > affiliation, attendance, and prayer do not result in lower juvenile- > > adult mortality rates on a cross-national basis.<6> > > > "Although the late twentieth century STD epidemic has been curtailed > > in all prosperous democracies (Aral and Holmes; Panchaud et al.), > > rates of adolescent gonorrhea infection remain six to three hundred > > times higher in the U.S. than in less theistic, pro-evolution secular > > developed democracies. (Figure 6). At all ages levels are higher in > > the U.S., albeit by less dramatic amounts. The U.S. also suffers from > > uniquely high adolescent and adult syphilis infection rates, which are > > starting to rise again as the microbe's resistance increases (Figure > > 7). The two main curable STDs have been nearly eliminated in strongly > > secular Scandinavia. Increasing adolescent abortion rates show > > positive correlation with increasing belief and worship of a creator, > > and negative correlation with increasing non-theism and acceptance of > > evolution; again rates are uniquely high in the U.S. (Figure 8). > > Claims that secular cultures aggravate abortion rates (John Paul II) > > are therefore contradicted by the quantitative data. Early adolescent > > pregnancy and birth have dropped in the developed democracies (Abma et > > al.; Singh and Darroch), but rates are two to dozens of times higher > > in the U.S. where the decline has been more modest (Figure 9). Broad > > correlations between decreasing theism and increasing pregnancy and > > birth are present, with Austria and especially Ireland being partial > > exceptions. Darroch et al. found that age of first intercourse, number > > of sexual partners and similar issues among teens do not exhibit wide > > disparity or a consistent pattern among the prosperous democracies > > they sampled, including the U.S. A detailed comparison of sexual > > practices in France and the U.S. observed little difference except > > that the French tend - contrary to common impression - to be somewhat > > more conservative (Gagnon et al.)." > > > JRS stands for Journal of Religion and Society > > > Martin > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > Martin, > Thanks--here are some statistics for you to consider > > Total number of inmates in Federal prisons, State prisons and all jails in > 1990 was 1,148,702 > > Total number of inmates in Federal prisons, State prisons and all jails in > 2003 was 2,078,570 > > Homicide rate (per 100,000) from 1950 to 2002: > In 1950--that figure was 4.4 > In 2002--that figure was 5.6 > source: 2005 Time Almanac > > These statistics proved to me that the crime rates are going up. > Jason > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~- Skjul tekst i anf Quote
Guest Jason Posted May 12, 2007 Posted May 12, 2007 In article <1178945498.278671.320020@w5g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, Martin <phippsmartin@hotmail.com> wrote: > On May 12, 6:37 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > There is a BIG difference between believing that life evolved from > > non-life and believing that a creator God was able to take natural > > materials and create life from that natural materials. > > Yes, the difference is that creationism requires one to believe in a > supernatural boogey man in the sky whereas evolution requires one to > only accept the very real evidence from genetics, paleantology, > anatomy and zoology. > > > It's much easier > > for me to believe that God created life than to believe what you appear to > > believe. > > Actually, no, it isn't. > > Martin (not the one from the UK) ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Martin, As I have stated in other posts, we have fossil evidence that is discussed in this book: "Bones of Contention" by M. Lubenow A thorough examination of all the pre-human fossils. Another interesting book: "In Six Days" Editor: J.F. Aston 50 scientists explain their reasons for believing the Biblical version of creation. Quote
Guest gudloos@yahoo.com Posted May 12, 2007 Posted May 12, 2007 On 11 Maj, 21:40, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <1178879268.861634.45...@u30g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>, Martin > > > > > > > > <phippsmar...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > On May 11, 5:07 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > In article <1178865352.632596.192...@w5g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, Martin > > > > Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > On May 11, 2:52 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > > > > Not all sins are a violation of the law. If we commit those sorts > of sins, > > > > > Christians ask for forgiveness. If the sin (robbing a store, > murdering) is > > > > > a violation of the law, we not only ask for forgiveness but if we get > > > > > caught--we have to go to jail or prison. I am also a fan of Angelina > > > > > Jolie. > > > > > I see. Thus the law of your god does nothing to prevent you from > > > > commiting crimes because you can just ask your god for forgiveness and > > > > all will be forgiven. Thank you for proving what we suspected all > > > > along, namely that Christians have an out that allows them to commit > > > > crimes and not have to feel guilty about them. > > > > You stated lots of things that I did not state. Should Christians commit > > > sins? The answer is NO. Christians should try their best to avoid sinning. > > > However, the question is what happens if we do commit a sin? Back in the > > > Old Testament days, the Jews would cast their sins on a lamb or baby goat. > > > The lamb or goat would be taken to the temple and when the lamb or goat > > > was killed, the sin debt would have been paid. Many of the poor people > > > could not afford to buy goats or lambs so they were allowed to substitute > > > birds for lambs. Have you heard the terms sacrificial lamb and scapegoat? > > > In other words, blood needed to be shed before the sin debt would have > > > been paid. When John the Baptist first saw Jesus, he said, "Behold, the > > > Lamb of God, which takes away the sins of the World." (John 1:29). When we > > > sin, we ask for forgiveness. When we ask for forgiveness, the sin becomes > > > one of the many sins that Jesus died for. He suffered for our sins so we > > > do not have to suffer for our sins. Of course, non-Christians will have to > > > suffer for their sins. That's one of the main reasons I wish that all > > > people would accept Jesus as their savior and their redeemer from their > > > sins. > > > So Christianity is just a recasting of Old Testament superstition. > > How does this contradict what I said? Whether it's by sacraficing a > > lamb or praying to Jesus, theists have been able to have their sins > > forgiven. Atheists have no such recourse and have to live with > > whatever they have done for the rest of their lives. That is why we > > tend to be more moral. > > > Martin > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > It's more complicated. God knew Adam and Eve would eventually sin so he put them in the situation anyway. > had a plan prepared. His plan was to send Jesus but it took several > thousand years for him to implement the plan. Overlooking the fact that he could just have forgiven them - especially since it was all his fault. >During those years, he > prepared the hearts and minds of the people. The animal and bird > sacrifices were part of that process of teaching the people that blood > needed to be shed for the remission of sins. Exactly which property of blood makes it effective for the remission of sin? > When Jesus died on the cross > and shed his blood--that was the last sacrifice that needed to be made. It > was only effective because Jesus never sinned. Did his father drink it, wash in it or what? >He was like a spotless lamb > which is why John the Baptist referred to him as "the lamb of God" or the > "Lamb sent by God". This is a summary version of a complex doctrine. > Jason Were you able to write it all without laughing? I am impressed. Quote
Guest gudloos@yahoo.com Posted May 12, 2007 Posted May 12, 2007 On 11 Maj, 21:47, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <5aiqn2F2p378...@mid.individual.net>, "Steve O" > > <spamh...@nowhere.com> wrote: > > "Jason" <J...@nospam.com> wrote in message > >news:Jason-1105070207450001@66-52-22-38.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > > >When we ask for forgiveness, the sin becomes > > > one of the many sins that Jesus died for. He suffered for our sins so we > > > do not have to suffer for our sins. Of course, non-Christians will have to > > > suffer for their sins. That's one of the main reasons I wish that all > > > people would accept Jesus as their savior and their redeemer from their > > > sins. > > > jason > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > > Jason, we're not going to suffer for any sin- unless, of course, you get > > caught. > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > Steve, > That's funny. We have to go to jail or prison if we get caught related to > a major sin like murder or stealing. One goes to prison for crimes not for sins. However, God knows about every sin > which is why Christians ask forgiveness for our sins. I try to do it at > least once a day. I know the story of one elderly lady that called her > pastor and requested a conference to discuss her sin. The pastor wondered > what sort of sin an elderly lady would be concerned about. The sin: The > lady had a negative thought about a bad neighbor. > Jason Perhaps just a small sip of blood would do the trick. Quote
Guest Jason Posted May 12, 2007 Posted May 12, 2007 In article <1178945157.530728.176670@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>, Martin <phippsmartin@hotmail.com> wrote: > On May 12, 5:59 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > Good point. They were NOT created perfect. God did not want programmed > > robots that would be programmed to worship him. Instead, God created > > people that had free will. He was hoping that people would choose to love > > him. Millions of people love and worship God. Free will is an important > > doctrine. > > Free will is _only_ a doctrine. In reality, it is an illusion. Most > of the "decisions" we make are based on instinct. Luckily for us, we > instinctively know that it is wrong to kill other people without > justification: throughout history, belief, either religious or > political or both, has often been the justification used to kill > others. > > Martin Martin, The Muslims are brainwashing little children to hate Jews and Americans. When they get older, they will be the next generation of suicide bombers and terrorists. Jason Quote
Guest gudloos@yahoo.com Posted May 12, 2007 Posted May 12, 2007 On 11 Maj, 21:57, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > In article <1178873324.270029.148...@y5g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>, Martin > > > > > > Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > "Jason" <J...@nospam.com> wrote in message > > > > > Yes, I believe that lots of atheists are like that college professor. Many > > > > of them make decisions--not based on Christian principles--but instead > > > > related to self interest. That would even involve robbing a store if they > > > > were hungry > > > I've been hungry before, Jason, but I know stealing is wrong, not > > because your imaginary god says it is, but because of the Confusian > > ethic of reciprocity. > > > "What you do not wish upon yourself, extend not to others." - > > Confucius (ca. 551 - 479 BC) > > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethic_of_reciprocity > > > Martin > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > Good point. However, there are lots of people that would steal food. I was > shocked when I saw two young girls (about 16 to 18 years old) in a huge > grocery store. They were eating some food that they had stolen. As I > walked by them, one of them say--"which grocery store are we going to go > to for dinner"? Those young girls were not homeless. They were dressed in > nice clothing and were well groomed. I believe they were praciticing > situational ethics. The psychology professor that I told you about in > another post would have been proud of those two young girls. Those girls > did NOT care about shoplifting laws. People who steal clothing form large > stores like Walmart or K Mart don't care about Jesus or Confucious or > reciprocity. Have you ever seen anything like that? > Jason Have you seen people who are starving, whose children are starving? What would be the worst sin for them, stealing food or not stealing food? Quote
Guest gudloos@yahoo.com Posted May 12, 2007 Posted May 12, 2007 On 11 Maj, 23:23, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > <snip> > > > >> Jason, we're not going to suffer for any sin- unless, of course, you get > > >> caught. > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > > > Steve, > > > That's funny. We have to go to jail or prison if we get caught related to > > > a major sin like murder or stealing. However, God knows about every sin > > > which is why Christians ask forgiveness for our sins. > > > Provided of course, you can first of all demonstrate that a God exists. > > Evolutionists have faith that life evolved from non-life. They have no > proof that it ever happened. It is not nice to lie. > Christians have faith that God exists and created life on this earth. Even > Darwin believed that God created life and after he finished--evolution > took over. In short you cannot demonstrate that your god exists. snip Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.