Rules for taking a second wife.
If he take him another wife.... -- Exodus 21:10
God's rules for disposing of hated wives.
If any man take a wife, and go in unto her, and hate her, And give occasions of speech against her, and bring up an evil name upon her, and say, I took this woman, and when I came to her, I found her not a maid: Then shall the father of the damsel, and her mother, take and bring forth the tokens of the damsel's virginity unto the elders of the city in the gate.... But if this thing be true, and the tokens of virginity be not found for the damsel: Then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die: because she hath wrought folly in Israel, to play the whore in her father's house: so shalt thou put evil away from among you. -- Deuteronomy 22:13
It is better not to marry. But if you must have sex, then get married. It's better to be married than burn forever in hell.
It is good for a man not to touch a woman. Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband. -- 1 Corinthians 7:1-2
For I would that all men were even as I myself.... I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, It is good for them if they abide even as I. But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn. -- 1 Corinthians 7:7-9
If you're not already married, don't get married. If you have a wife, don't have sex with her. There's not enough time since Jesus is coming soon.
Art thou bound unto a wife? seek not to be loosed. Art thou loosed from a wife? seek not a wife. -- 1 Corinthians 7:27
But this I say, brethren, the time is short: it remaineth, that both they that have wives be as though they had none. -- 1 Corinthians 7:29
From following your blog fairly often, I see that you continually make fun and trash Christianity, and boldly proclaim that there is no God.
However, it seems to me that you still have at a least a little doubt in your belief. It seems to me that you are almost trying to convince and reassure yourself on every other blog post.
Why do you only trash Christianity? Why do you not trash another religion like Buddhism?
I believe that you do know that there is a God; the only real living God, the Lord Jesus Christ. But you do not want to live and submit to Him. Thus it is easier for you to say that there is no God, so that you could live your way, and not His way.
@Nate
I treat all religions the same, shall it be christianity, islam, hinduism, it doesn't matter. I was brought up as a christian so I know christianity the most. But Islam is not any different, for example all the stories of old testament are shared between both islam and christianity.
Buddhism is a different religion - it doesn't claim to believe in any supernatural creator, it doesn't have God at all (as far as I understand it).
Your Lord Jesus Christ is just a fairy tale. If the guy really existed at his time, then he was the first jewish atheist.
@ Nate: It's pretty arrogant (not to mention stupid) to proclaim your beliefs 'knowledge'.
You can only know something that you have definite proof for. That's the very meaning of 'knowledge'. You can say 'I feel it with my heart' or any of that ridiculous crap that you people use to justify your ludicrous delusions, but in the end there're only two reasons for you to take something like that to be the truth: You were told it's true, and you lack the capacity for independent thought.
Atheism is a belief, too, as there's no proof that a god doesn't exist. But it's at least semi-scientific, as it complies by Occam's razor.
And I take it that Tomas posts so many journals about the subject because the religions won't stop shoving their bullshit into everyone's faces.
Thank you for explaining a little more about your beliefs and how you were raised. I thank you for your time. I have just one other question; do you believe in life after death, such as heaven or hell?
It takes just as much, perhaps even more faith to believe that there is not a God, than it does to believe that there is.
Everything has a creator. How did this web page get here? It didn't just pop up in cyberspace. Someone designed and programmed it.
How did the computer in which you are using get here? Did it just appear one day out of no where? NO, someone created it.
The same thing with a building. To get a building there must be a builder. To get a painting, there must be a painter.
If I was to tell you that there was one day a big bang and a million computers just appeared from no where, you would most likely think that I am some foolish person that has never heard of a company called Dell.
So look at creation; the universe. The stars, the moon, the sun, the earth, the trees, the sky, the mountains, the oceans and all of the worlds inhabitants; including both human and animal. When you consider the world and all it's magnificent wonders, can you honestly say within your heart that there is no God?
Can you wake up in the morning and look across the bed at your wife and honestly believe in your heart that though she is beautiful, that she evolved from a monkey?
@ Nate: Now that's complete and utter bullshit.
Complexity does not imply a creator. In fact, the opposite is the case. A creator who consciously designs a machine will strive for efficiency. Living beings (which are, in essence, nothing more than self-reproducing machines), however, are inherently inefficient. Looking at our cellular biology, one can clearly see that it's a patchwork of random molecules that, by chance, proved to be able to self-reproduce.
Looking at the human body, I see a pile of body parts that, over the course of millions of years, adapted to serve functions that are completely different from the ones they originally fulfilled. Spine, extremities, lungs, speech apparatus, etc. None of them is really ideal for the task they fulfil, they just proved to be good enough.
Or look at marine mammals: It makes absolutely no sense whatsoever for a creature that spends its entire life in water to have to surface in regular intervals in order to breathe air. Amphibians are the same: It makes no sense for an animal that spends its life on land to be forced to keep its skin moist at all times.
Calling that 'intelligent design' is sheer mockery. Life is nothing but a set of poor workarounds. It's the antithesis to 'intelligent design'. If some god created all that, they must be retarded.
When I look at the stars, the Moon, the Sun and the Earth, I see a very simple set of initial conditions, including an element of randomness, after it's been given a few billion years to evolve. Look up 'emergent behaviour' on Wikipedia.
As for the beauty thing: Ever looked through a kaleidoscope? Its patterns are completely random, yet their beauty can be awe-inspiring. Just like complexity, beauty does not imply a creator.
As for the last paragraph: I'm gay. No wife. :þ
But just for the sake of debunking your pseudo-argument: It's proven evolutionary beneficial for every sexually reproducing animal species to direct their sex drive to members of the same species. A monkey male would probably find your wife ugly, but a monkey female beautiful, and thus rather have sex with the latter than the former.
Of course, just like everything else about us, the part of our brain responsible for sexual attraction isn't very good at what it's doing. Some people (some monkeys, too) are attracted to individuals they can't produce offspring with. This is just further evidence for my point.
God has no creator, he does not need to be created. He was always there, just you can't see him! It is something that you can't prove. Can prove that evil exists along with Good? Can you prove that all the arguments for and arguments against are just (ARGUMENTS)
Slax has a creator and you are the one. That is the most wonderful gift that you have given the world. Please stick to what you do best, make slax and forget about the religious/bible stuff. You say you once were a christian, then please respect your father and your mother who gave you/passed that religion onto you. If you don't like it, then don't go to church don't do things you don't want, but please keep those GOD/BIBLE/CHURCH/... comments to yourself. We still enjoy arguing, but it will lead us to NOWHERE!!!
To state that god always has existed is redundant if one can state that the universe has always existed.
On complexity, as Villain states, it is the consequences of a system coming together over time.
It is nothing that requires any intelligence and it would likely be different if it was constructed by intelligence.
Organisms are all riddled with marks from the past, vestigial organs or useless behaviors; they all show that they were not cast into their current form, but have changed as the ages have passed.
Thank you for sharing your opinions. I have carefully and respectfully read all of your responses; although I may not agree with them. In fact, I even read them twice. So please take a moment to consider my thoughts too.
Here are two questions for you to answer. Please be honest with yourself. You don't have to post your answers. First, do you know how many grains of sand are on all the beaches of Hawaii?
I think that we can safely assume that you don't. This brings us to the second question: Do you know how many hairs are on the back of a fully-grown male Tibetan yak? Probably not. I don't know either! :-)
It is therefore reasonable to conclude that there are some things that you don't know. I asked these questions to show that although some of us think that we know everything, we really don't.
You just learned that you do not know everything. Since you are not all knowing and all wise, what if you are wrong about God?
Lets image that IF there is a God, and IF there is a bible, and IF there is life after death. Even if you do not believe in them, please just imagine this scenario along with me.
Then, let's go through the Ten Commandments and apply them to ourselves. You don't have to post the answers and tell me. Just be honest with yourself.
- Have you ever stolen? Even something small, such as a candy bar in 1st grade?
- Have you ever taken God's holy name and used it as a cuss word?
- Have you ever murdered someone? The bible says that if you hate a man, it is just the same as murder.
- Have you ever looked at a man or woman with lust? I mean who hasn't; right? The bible says that it is committing adultery.
If you were to be honest with yourself, you probably answered yes to all of those. Yes, I have even been guilty of some of those myself. So, according to your own admission, you are a lying, thieving, blasphemous, adulterer at heart.
According to the bible, you are going to hell. Doesn't that concern you at all? Maybe just a little? To spend eternity in the lake of fire, suffering forever and ever?
Yes, I know that you do not believe in God, but just say IF He was real. It is said that 150,000 people die a day. That's 1.7 people per second, if my mathematical skills are correct. You could be next. I could be next. What if you were to die tomorrow and find out that you were wrong about it all along? What if there really is a God?
Folks, my point here is not to argue and have debates and definitely NOT trying to make you look stupid. My point is to make you think a moment about eternity, and about God. It grieves me to see so many people reject the thought of God and eternity, only for them to wake up one morning in hell.
I'm an agnostic - That's all about knowing that you don't know everything. Religious people believe in supernatural stuff, without there being proof for its existence. Atheists believe that there is no supernatural stuff, without there being proof for that either.
Agnosticism, however, is the only scientific, logically consistent outlook on the matter.
To quote myself from another journal comment on this blog:
"If you do a little research, you'll find that the pure scientific method (as it's used in advanced physics and other scientific fields where little empiric evidence is available) never attempts to prove anything. It only creates theories, uses them until they're disproven by evidence, in which case they're either redesigned or scrapped.
This of course means that every theory has to be designed in such a way that it actually could be disproven, if contradicting evidence were to be found. Which is why true scientific theories never reference any sort of deity or other supernatural force, since such things are by definition not observable, and thus neither provable nor disprovable.
This, however, doesn't necessarily mean that such forces don't exist - It only means that they don't have a place in science. So we agnostics don't contradict science - We just recognize its inevitable limitation to observable phenomena, and we also recognize the undisprovable possibility of non-observable phenomena."
That we can't know everything has been mathematically proven (Gödel's incompleteness theorems). But is that a reason to believe in something for which there is no evidence whatsoever?
As for the hell part: What if there is in fact a god, but the religion they want you to follow is Islam? Or Judaism? Or what if the only way for you to enter heaven would be to spend your life walking on your hands? Or what if only people with a certain hair colour can go there, and you don't have it?
Or what if I told you that the Flying Spaghetti Monster has set an invisible comet in the shape of a giant teapot with pink unicorn patterns on it on a collision course with Earth, and it will hit one year from now?
Do you see how foolish it is to be afraid of something for which there's not even the slightest bit of evidence?
And if there is a god, and they want us to be christian, then I'll gladly go to hell, just to prove that your all-loving, all-caring god is in fact a major asshole.
Nate, when we don't know if god exists, it's much more logical to believe that he doesn't. God, as we know him, was created by humans. What's the chance for god, who was invented by humans, to really exist?
WhoooooooA, you are not doing anything good for religion and only showing that it may lead to conflicts.
We (at least me and some other atheists I know) are not atheists because we don't accept the peaceful goal of religion, but for different other reasons.
What I hate is judging people by religion, and what I like is when people respect the beliefs of others.
Saying "don't know" is very harsh! There are hardly any thing that we, humans, can be sure about, and this is certainly not one of these.
Little debate will harm no one. We may learn something and share knowledge. You may learn to respect the beliefs of others, and not simply saying that we are idiots.
And the fact that you told Villain that he's full of shit was the most disturbing of all!
Plus, you are perfectly showing the harms of religion. You behave bad with us.
@ WhoooooooA: You respect everyone? You know, telling people what and what not to do like that is beyond disrespectful. You're telling Tomas to just shut up and cater to your needs, like he was your servant.
I suppose this controlling, even repressive way of thinking is an integral part of religion - Especially yours.
I accept everyone except those that don't STOP bullshitting about GOD. They don't know if he EXISTS or DOES NOT EXIST. Worst case scenario, he exists and he knows about you, but he still forgives you because you do good things, when in reality you should BURN UP IN HELL for your ACTS.
But that is just my opinion, anyway, God is all loving and at one point he killed many assholes so whenever he feels like it, he will do the SAME. Is that too much to ask for.
What I say that he does not have to cater to anyone, not even you, but it would be better for him you and others to just SHUT UP and live your lives whether you belive that he exists or not. Do good things in life, go make love to your spouse/wife/whatever. Forget about little details if God exists or NOT.
"I accept everyone except those that don't STOP bullshitting about GOD. They don't know if he EXISTS or DOES NOT EXIST."
My words exactly!
You were referring to religious people, weren't you?
To BOTH SIDES mr/mrs villain. ONE SIDE says one thing the other side the other, and there will be no agreement. So pushing this out, will make no sense. Go and enjoy Slax and that is all. You will never will, let religious people be religious people, let Atheists be atheists and let other people live the way they want if it is believeing/not believing, then so be it!
Well this 'live and let live' philosophy would be nice and dandy, if only religious people - Christians and Muslims in particular - wouldn't constantly fuck with others.
They deny us the right to marry.
They force schools to teach unscientific bullshit in science class.
They disown their kids for not complying by their stupid religious rules.
Their missionaries obliterate unique endemic cultures.
They cause people to live in fear of eternal damnation from childhood on, often causing severe psychological damage.
They murder people who don't share their delusions.
That's what everybody likes to do? All races, all religions!!
The religion does not WANT for people to MARRY!, but the GOVERNMENTS say it is OK, why do you blame the religion, when the GOVERNMENTS are the ones that not ALLOW what you want! Yeah, Yeah, the religion that these guys have prohibit them from helping out many people. I don't know what to tell you. There is the problem religion can't have all the blame, it is NOT FAIR!
Why it is a problem with their family values and the way they were brought up. IT is also people's problem because they voted for those BASTAEDS anyway and there's little that can be done until there is election time and you can VOTE those bad guys out of office. BUT THAT IS SOMETHING ELSE. I KIND OF HEAR YOU, but I CAN"T DO ANYTHING ABOUT IT!
Is it OK to lie?
Is it OK to murder?
Is it OK to steal?
Is it OK to commit adultery?
If you were being honest with yourself, then you answered "No" to all of those. As an atheist, why do you believe that it is wrong to do those things? Who ever said that it was wrong?
Think through this with me: if there is no God, then there is no good, so there is no evil, thus we as humans can live however we want to please ourselves and not please the one true Creator. We can do whatever we want, how we want, when we want, without reaping the consequences of the action in this life or the life to come, because if there is no God, there is no eternity.
Thus, this is the very reason why most Atheists refuse to believe in God, because if there is a God, they must be accountable unto Him for their actions, and because they do not want to live by God's law, they proclaim that there is no God. This is the case with one person who posted comments on this page. Because the Bible strictly teaches against homosexuality, and He destroyed an entire city because of the sin, that person proclaims that there is no God because he would rather live a life of sin and not be accountable to God for his wickedness.
If there is a God, then there is good, and since everything has an opposite, there is evil. Since God has placed in man's heart a free will, man may choose between good and evil. If there is a God, then that means that man is indeed accountable for his actions, and will reap what he sows, either good or evil. For example, if you plant apple seeds, you are not going to get oranges. In the same way, if you do evil in this world, you will reap the consequences either in this life, or in the life to come - eternity.
So, back to the original question: how do you know that those things are evil? Whoever told you that it is wrong to lie? There is no human law against it. In fact, most lawmakers are good at it. :-)
"For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man—and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things." - Romans 1:20-23
Romans 1:20-23 answers the question: every human born into this world; from the bright shinning shores of America to the distant jungles of Africa, is born with the law of God in his heart. This is called a conscience. The ability to tell right from wrong. We may be some mammal that evolved into a human after some millions of years, but the conscience is not something that can simply evolve. It has to come from a supernatural power, and that is the Lord Jesus Christ.
Quoted text: "We can do whatever we want, how we want, when we want, without reaping the consequences of the action in this life or the life to come, because if there is no God, there is no eternity."
We can do what we want. But we HAVE TO face the consequences; not in any eternal afterlife (which doesn't scare me anyway), but right here, right now. If we agree that it is right to kill people, then we have to accept that we might be killed too. And since most people would not accept that, there is a consensus that killing is 'wrong'.
Anyway, the holy scriptures are the worst place to find moral standards. Remember that god kills, god hates homosexuals, god punishes blasphemy by eternal torture. That is NOT good. God is not good.
Anyway, the holy scriptures are the worst place to find moral standards. Remember that god kills, god hates homosexuals, god punishes blasphemy by eternal torture. That is NOT good. God is not good.
God is good. People are bad. People created all the bullshit for themselves. They sinned and they gave God all that he needed to take away Paradise and the Garden of Eden. It is too late we all have to pay for what somebody else did. That is life.
"Anyway, the holy scriptures are the worst place to find moral standards."
I disagree here :) There are good standards, there are double standards and there are many good things that may come out of the bible. You have to be selective here and take out the best and ignore the rest.
"Anyway, the holy scriptures are the worst place to find moral standards."
I disagree here :) There are good standards, there are double standards and there are many good things that may come out of the bible. You have to be selective here and take out the best and ignore the rest.
Quoted text: "You have to be selective here and take out the best and ignore the rest."
Scriptures show us that God has no mercy, God wishes DEATH of all people who WORK ON SABATH. That is bullshit. And if you choose to ignore this part and follow some other parts, you don't need the bible anyway, since you already know what is good and what is not. You can never find moral standards in Bible. You can find there a lot of good things, a lot of bad things, and YOU ARE the one who picks up what is good.
Like with any book you have to pick up what is best. You also can't take it word for word, otherwise, most if not all of the peoples of the world would be already dead!
I agree with your last sentence! Right on the money!!!
Agreed.
When people pick what they deem to be good and reject what they deem to be bad, then something good is occurring.
It means that people do not `need` to have religion tell them what to do, they do not `need` the bible to live.
It is a issue when people do `need` religion to detail what they should/shouldn't do and they blindly follow it.
They should also not take anything word for word, as WhoooooooA said.
It can be an issue for those who do take things word for word and do not allow for critical thinking of their own.
Those who follow literature, like the bible, 100% literally can end up believing things that do not make sense (like those people who think pi=3(absolute loonies) or those who refuse to accept the earth's age)
Those who do give religion a critical look and do not blindly follow religion are fine, as they should be able to interpret things better.
Those who blindly follow religious doctrine are doomed to remain ignorant of what sits around them because have not given reality the critical look that it often needs.
The bible should be viewed as another book, it holds many stories.
Some will make sense, other will not.
A book should not dictate people, but people should be able to read it and make their own judgments.
As Tomas_M said "you don't need the bible".
This is very true, one does not need the bible if they are capable of selecting what parts they wish to honor and which parts they discard.
If one is capable of that, then they already have their own moral standards.
So, in conclusion:
Make your own conclusions, don't let yourself get dictated by a person, a figure, a thought, a book, or a religion (etc.)
As per the relation to the video, it points out that the bible has many stories of relationships that can be said to be modernly unacceptable.
This can then be related to homosexuals, which were unapproved in sections of the bible.
For someone to overlook the sections that are modernly unacceptable and to hone into the small issue with homosexuals would not make too much sense.
I'm an agnostic (ie. I dunno).
Grown christian, in a religious (understand coercitive) environment, to free my mind from magical thinking and to be able to address every worry/question the (exclusively) rational/scientific way has been all but easy. The process has been quite long though worthy. Here are some of my thoughts (collected along the way).
Beforehand i'd like to stress this : I'm, without trying to offend anyone in here, conscious of being a social animal.As so I acknowledge being indebted to all humans, past and present, for the sum of knowledge and realizations brought to me though the form and the path can have been worse than a maze. I appreciate it, even coming from the extreme ends (religious/atheist, scientist/magical, waring/peaceful, dictatorial/democratic...), as they taught me their precious lessons. Such a process is rather lengthy, since it involves "reingineering" ourselves, our own identities, the precise things that took so long to grow and make us be part of te groups we belong to. So one cannot expect it to be shared with (any one) A without implicating A's set of beliefs. A very careful and thourough way to proceed would require so much contextual knowledge (A's psychology, life environment and experience...) that would go beyond humanly feasible things.
Thus one can only rely on others' honesty : they can hear/read, understand (not necessarily agree) from my stand point and even for the more adventurous get involved in a peaceful exchange. Indeed we're considering ideas and caring for every one... honestly. If not ten the reading stops here, right now "for the sake of honesty".
I'm an agnostic as i wrote, in all and everything. Our species has made a large set of ideas/activities : religions, sciences, politics, laws, arts, sports, ... none is an absolute as they are made by us, humans (till further -factual, proven- notice).
So here comes my theory : (1) we are ALL believers!
WAIT before starting to flame me... honesty, remember?
Just give me time to develop even further:
we are ALL 'b'elievers.
1st we've to consider that we're living beings "innately inclined" (i daren't "programmed" as some might want someone behind the scenes!) to live/survive like most, if not all but pathological ones.
What I am trying to express by this (1) statement is that from the moment we start experiencing the world (outer and thereafter -or before?- inner) we start memorizing things, for they are good/bad/neutral (for us as an individual) for our survival. We rely on that memory collection to make up decisions: like/dislike, eat/refuse...
Beyond memorisation, and for efficiency reasons in our fight for life, we develop categories (now a days one would speak of tagging) and thus choices are not just made upon specific things but rather upon common caracteristics or properties of those things. Choices that make our lives better, safer... Choices relying on partitions made in mour memories according to our past experiences (mostly under adults' care :-). Yes here is the point : relying on what has been memorized : facts and then categories and then more generaly, as we go along the path of abstraction, the principals / explanations / models / theories we've developped (still for the sake of survival and efficiency of memorisation).
Hence, relying on that collection of "ideas" we are believersas this is an act of "'f'aith", 'f'aith in our "models" (to summarize them all) which are in fact OUR 'b'elieves.I wrote 'f'aith, 'b'elief/ver as i'm dealing with the individual set of 'd'ata.
Nonetheless, again, we are social animals and as so share/communicate and thus our personal set of 'd'ata also grows in contact with others' sets. Some common, widespread, recurent mix of those sets become "threads" usually called habits/culture (even in the family cell), public opinion (if it could have real shape), sayings, legends, moral... Sorrily for this wild development of thought, but in a sedentarized, structurized, historized (because of writen tracks) thing gets institutionalized and so it is of thoughtand hence our personal set of 'b'elieves we're lead to subscribe to a wider set of 'B'elieves (noticed the capitalization?) always for the sake of survival (integration, acceptance...). That is true of EVERY field : from the mere 'r'eligious/'m'agical thinking to the more 'p'oliticaly correct 's'cientific thinking getting respectively their honorable 'R'/'M', 'P' and 'S'.
Good/Bad ?
hard to be strict on it (remember my agnostic position) all i know is that it's beyond individual's power most of the time as it implicates groups' interests and power, not just conspiracies...though...
Ow... BTW i said it all.
About 'S'cience, intitutionalized set, derived from (individual) 's'ciences, constructs of lives times. Some good sides: easier to share with the mass, a standard point to start from if needed. Some bad ones too : rigidity (fights newcomers, partiality), not adapted to every situation (where 's'cience would adjust)...
The same happens in a recent production of humankind: software dev : seek for 'S'tandards/'M'onopolies or individual productions, open/close, 'D/d'istributions...
Oups the topic was 'R'eligion : good as (copy from above :-) easier to share with the mass, a standard point to start from if needed. Some bad ones too : rigidity (fights newcomers, partiality), not adapted to every situation (where 's'cience would adjust)... sorry change 's'cience into 'r'eligion and that should do.
And now, some (Religious and Atheists) would retort that i (maybe intentionnaly) didn't mention God... well just because i didn't need that concept to make my point.
Thank you all for accompanying me till this point.
Thank you Thomas for your great work : you introduced the live scripts that could free Linux from the eternal cycle of installations and even made a gift to all of us with Slax, convincing example of their use.
if passion_about_slax <= passion_about_God
{
echo "will write about Noah, Believing in God, ..."
echo "Done"
}
fi
echo "Slax will be worked on whenever I have time after writing great deal against God, against Bible peddlers, and other beings that don't understand that God does not exist"
echo hopefully one day the passion_of_Slax >= ( the_passion_of_God_exists_vs_God_does_not_exist && Noah's Ark && Solomon's 700 wives_&_300_concubines && Gays are not allowed to marry && other interesting bible stories and/or Blasphemizing against the holy spirit)
I just read in one of the post the following "If there is a God, then there is good, and since everything has an opposite, there is evil." I have several problems with this statment.
1. saying there is no good without god is like saying that there is no sweet without sugar. it does not make sense and is not true. what if I prefer stevia or sacrin as my sweet? Are you saying that is not possible?
2. somethings do not have an oppisite. there is no opisite to air. You may say water is the oppisite but what about earth or space? Air may have forces that are not "like" so maybe considered "unlike"but that is not the same as opposite.
3. Evil is a state of mind or an opinion depending on sercomstance. one person might believe that murder is evil but will find no problem going ot war. The 10 commandments say " thou shalt not kill" with out exeptions. but God sent armies to kill others.
[42] WHO_CARES_WHAT_THE_BIBLE_SAYS_ABOUT_MARRIAGE wrote 222 days ago:
Answer:
I does not care nor anybody else about what the bible says about marriage. I dont give a shit about what the bible says. I am not a bible peddlar nor care to say anything about it. What I care about is being addressed. Thank you Tomas for improving slax. Thanks for what you do. YouR DA MAN!
Thomas M says: You say that EVERYTHING must have a creator. EVERYTHING. But still you accept existence of God ... who created God then??? ---
recce says: that question does not need a three question marks stamped on it as if it will take a great deal of mmmphfff... to answer it. On the contrary, the answer is too easy to provide. Am sure you know that. Besides, you're quoting Nate out of context, by EVERYTHING, Nate means: EVERYTHING within the bounds of TIME not ETERNITY. God is eternal. Eternity = A-condition-of-timelessness not Time-without-end.Their is no beginning before God because Beginning...Before...After...Ending are a function of time not eternity. God is the creator of time and the universe not a subject it.
Thomas M says: And if you are willing to accept that God always existed and he created the universe, why can't you simply believe that the universe always existed?
recce says: because it will be idiotic for Nate, myself and you and all of us to believe that the universe always existed; even the scientific community has abandoned the idea long...long...time ago. Only hardcore atheist(hardcore God-haters) are still holding on to it.
The Big Bang is my response:
"The Big Bang is the cosmological model of the initial conditions and subsequent development of the universe that is supported by the most comprehensive and accurate explanations from current scientific evidence and observation. As used by cosmologists, the term Big Bang generally refers to the idea that the universe has expanded from a primordial hot and dense initial condition at some finite time in the past, and continues to expand to this day..."
"In the 1920s and '30s almost every major cosmologist preferred an eternal universe, and several complained that the beginning of time implied by the Big Bang imported religious concepts into physics; this objection was later repeated by supporters of the steady state theory.This perception was enhanced by the fact that Georges Lemaître, who put the theory forth, was a Roman Catholic priest."
"Einstein at first dismissed Friedmann and then (privately) Lemaître out of hand, saying that not all mathematics leads to correct theories. After Hubble's discovery was published, Einstein quickly and publicly endorsed Lemaître's theory (Big Bang
), helping both the theory and its proposer get fast recognition"
"The discovery and confirmation of the cosmic microwave background radiation in 1964 secured the Big Bang as the best theory of the origin and evolution of the cosmos. Much of the current work in cosmology includes understanding how galaxies form in the context of the Big Bang, understanding the physics of the universe at earlier and earlier times, and reconciling observations with the basic theory.
Huge strides in Big Bang cosmology have been made since the late 1990s as a result of major advances in telescope technology as well as the analysis of copious data from satellites such as COBE, the Hubble Space Telescope and WMAP. Cosmologists now have fairly precise measurements of many of the parameters of the Big Bang model, and have made the unexpected discovery that the expansion of the universe appears to be accelerating."
Encarta says:
The big bang theory seeks to explain what happened at or soon after the beginning of the universe. Scientists can now model the universe back to 10exp-43 seconds after the big bang...
...Because scientists cannot look back in time beyond that early epoch, the actual big bang is hidden from them. There is no way at present to detect the origin of the universe. Further, the big bang theory does not explain what existed before the big bang. It may be that time itself began at the big bang, so that it makes no sense to discuss what happened “before” the big bang...
recce says: the Bible has the answer - In the beginning God created...Thomas M you get my drift?
[45] tsixe_ton_seod_ doG_doG _uoy_rof_llik_uoy_dluow wrote 221 days ago:
@recce,
Did you know that a "Big Bang" created you, Tomas, me and many in the world :)
So you are correct!!!
Now, if you are a father then you know how good or great it feels to "Bang" someone :)
Got IT!!!!
[46] tsixe_ton_seod_ doG_doG _uoy_rof_llik_uoy_dluow wrote 221 days ago:
@recce
BTW,
What religion do you belong to?
I hate to say this, but in many ways Tomas is right :) The RELIGIONS of the world all SUCK!!! Im sorry but that includes yours and mine if I have one :(
I like the BANG theory, I want to see if some girls let me BANG them in honor of the BIG BANG THEORY :)
@Joe Clu
I think you're a man of good intentions but i find your write-up incredibly tricky to grasp. Are you really speaking from a scientific perspective with a mind "free from magical thinking" as you claimed? in my opinion,(no offense meant) it might take a magician to dig your drift ;) What is your point of reference?; maybe none since you're agnostic(you're not even sure).
[48] tsixe_ton_seod_ doG_doG _uoy_rof_llik_uoy_dluow wrote 221 days ago:
[50] tsixe_ton_seod_ doG_doG _uoy_rof_llik_uoy_dluow wrote 221 days ago:
@recce,
I like your link, but I still have many doubts :(
Why does Genesis say that "The Devil" came in the form of a serpent, the Devil already existed, was he created?
Angels existed, so Adam and Eve were not the first to exist? Then there comes the people that say that Jesus is God and that he was here also since the begining of time. There is a great deal of BULLSHIT like Tomas says! How come the bible is not straight and to the point. There are too many contradictions too! It is either one way or the other, but not both right? We have too many problems! Like Also God likes people to "Bang" each other, he told Adam and Eve to "multiply". Nowadays life is too sad :(
[51] tsixe_ton_seod_ doG_doG _uoy_rof_llik_uoy_dluow wrote 221 days ago:
51 What are you trying to say? I don't understand. I would like to, even though you mind be cursing me!
[52] tsixe_ton_seod_ doG_doG _uoy_rof_llik_uoy_dluow wrote 221 days ago:
Whatever!!!!
[53] tsixe_ton_seod_ doG_doG _uoy_rof_llik_uoy_dluow wrote 221 days ago:
