pro_junior Report This Comment Date: May 16, 2010 05:37PM
proverbs 5:19...
Andy Krayst Report This Comment Date: May 16, 2010 06:39PM
perverts 24:7...
Go read a sience book, you dumb fuck!
No bearded old man built this earth - it was evolution (and evolution doesn't
molest children!)!
Onyma Report This Comment Date: May 16, 2010 08:02PM
Technically "evolution" does. Evolution produced humans, and humans
molest children. As do Bonobo monkeys, also products of evolution. In fact,
actually every under-aged creature subjected to an unwanted sexual advance for
the entire span of time on this planet was a product of evolution, but only a
fractional percentage of them were a product of the church.
If you want to be specific about it.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 16/05/2010 08:03PM by Onyma.
Wolfgang613 Report This Comment Date: May 16, 2010 08:21PM
Andy, you are watching way too much TV and believing everything they tell you.
Leonardo da Vinci painted God as a bearded man. There is not physical
description of God in the Bible.
In the way I understand things, evolution is the method that God used to create
everything. There is nothing in the Bible that denounces evolution.
As far as molesting children goes, that is against the Christen faith, and is
only a big topic because of some sick Catholic priests and a cover up by the
Catholic Church. It is a far exception from the norm even in the Catholic
Church.
I recommend you read the Bible first before you go off ranting against it.
Otherwise, you will sound like a fool.
jgoins Report This Comment Date: May 17, 2010 10:24AM
Wolfie you are correct one thing people should remember is when God created
everything in six days. What needs to be asked is how long was God's day?
Since the Bible said God the entire universe, was his day the 24 hours it takes
the earth to make one revolution or is his time frame something much much
larger. I choose to believe his day would be many thousands of our years and
evolution could be a huge factor in it. How could we be so petty as to limit
God's time frame alongside ours?
Andy Kryst Report This Comment Date: May 17, 2010 09:37PM
You all must be kidding!
God "used" evolution to create the earth?! Do you listen to your own
words?!
And btw. it's not only molesting children... What about killing in the name of
god for ages and ages (for example the crusades, burning "whitches",
etc.)?!
How in god's name (*lol*) can you believe such humbug?! A higher might? A man
with a beard? Whatever it is - it's scientifically sure that all plants and
animals grew from each other!! And what dumb theory is that with "evolution
actually molested children"... WTF?! Read it over again and tell me that
you're serious about that!!!
duane Report This Comment Date: May 17, 2010 11:29PM
If your correct about evolution auntie, then everything would be a result of
it.
Wolfgang613 Report This Comment Date: May 18, 2010 04:22AM
No Andy, I am serious. Evolution is the method that God used to create
everything. We are just now figuring it out. He did it so perfectly that he
didn't leave any messy fingerprints or tool marks behind. So it is easy to
understand why so many people cut God out of the picture. We are too used to
seeing our own imperfections in the things we create, and by these imperfections
we tend to judge everything. Even God. It is not God who sent the crusaders
into Jerusalem, nor was it God who presided over the Salem witch trials. It was
our own foolishness that did these things. We may use the Lord's name in vain
to justify our actions, but it is our own failures we are trying to cover up.
God gave us free will to follow him or turn and stumble down our own miserable
path. I chose to follow God. This does not make me perfect; it makes me a
follower of God.
As for "evolution actually molested children"... that is all Onyma's.
Not mine.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 22/05/2010 01:17AM by Wolfgang613.
Wolfgang613 Report This Comment Date: May 19, 2010 05:24AM
I think I just broke Pro... Sorry
jgoins Report This Comment Date: May 19, 2010 10:53AM
Wolfie I understand what you are saying but not to be nit picky you should
really watch your spelling because when you use fallow instead of follow you
probably lose some people. The things people do in the name of God only means
that those people are using their free will to make choices they do not want to
be blamed for themselves so they use God to take the blame and that is just
wrong. I belive in God completely but God never made me do anything anytime in
my life. Everything I have done was of my own choosing, right or wrong and it
was not God who made me do it. He gave us free will and I choose to use that
free will to do what I think is right and hope he approves of it. The only time
we will know if he approves is when we die and we are judged for our life here
on earth.
Mrkim Report This Comment Date: May 19, 2010 01:09PM
If God is love and belief in God is embracement of that love, thanks, but leave
me outta the loop.
With most every atrocity committed by man against man in the history of mankind
(<- strange term that) having hinged on and been justified by one faction or
another of some form of organized religion against non-believers or believers of
differing views on religion I see no correlation there between belief and love,
much less tolerance and acceptance of ones fellow man, unless of course they are
believers of the same bag of wind.
Then, when folks push for acceptance of that omnipotent, omniscient all loving
invisible man in the sky concept which simply flies in the face of any sort of
rational thought, you've really lost me for sure.
Even when you discount the religious fringe dweller crowds that believe in the
most far out and preposterous concepts of God or worship and make a bee-line for
the mainstream stuff the underlying conscious suspension of logic required to
believe in some concept that not only seems illogical, but also requires one to
swallow all this preposterous stuff "on absolute faith", well ....
just count me out.
To believe in equality for all humankind, peace among all races and beliefs,
acceptance of scientifically verifiable ideas and philosophies must in the face
of true logic reject any and all religions as heretical hate monger groups whose
leaders propagate the continuation of fear and hatred between others while makin
some nice fat bank sittin on the side lines runnin the show.
My belief is that even the heads of all organized religions themselves are not
believers and instead are predatory shit stirrers whose job is to keep the
kettle roiling in their own self interest
jgoins Report This Comment Date: May 20, 2010 10:01AM
The problem is not the belief in God. The problem is organized religion. It
was organized religion which caused all the killings in the name of God. Don't
confuse God with organized religion I am sure God does not live in the churches,
God lives in our hearts not in brick and mortar buildings. God does not require
other people to read the word and tell you what it means. The meaning is
determined by one's own heart not what someone wearing robes tells you it means.
You can call it anything you like if you live a life of respect of others and
love of others then you are living with God. Mr. Kim is a good man and doesn't
believe in God but he does follow God's teachings whether he calls it God or not
I believe God is guiding him anyway. Go with God friend Kim.
Mrkim Report This Comment Date: May 21, 2010 04:27AM
JG, you entirely miss the point!
Sure enough, organized religious factions are the ones that have committed the
actions I mentioned but the other undeniable truth is that every one of these
actions were undertaken by followers of a faith which at its very core revolved
around belief in some form of divine (yet improvable) deity. This means that
belief in a god, some god was still central to these actions.
If you have any doubts about belief in some god having been at the root of all
these atrocities you are so totally blind to this truth that sadly I can't begin
to help you see the truth in it all.
One last thought to ponder : Name one example of an atheist attack on even a
single city, much less a country or continent like followers of god have
certainly done.
Don't bother, that's a totally rhetorical question, but just in case you're
unsure, the answer is 0.
BTW, my personal god does go with me where ever I am as I'm always there
jgoins Report This Comment Date: May 21, 2010 12:46PM
Granted, belief in God is common denominator in all the things you described
but it was the false doctrine of the organized religions which brought them
about. The simple fact of someone believing in God does not make someone go out
and kill others unless their belief is distorted by teaching them that it is
God's wish for them to do it. There could be one deranged person who believes
God is personally telling him to do something like that but the same could be
said for a deranged atheist who decides to kill Christians. Allah does not tell
Al Qaeda to go out and kill in his name it is the Imans of that radical Islamic
faction that tells them it is God's will. God is in all of us everyday and it
is our free will which determines how we use it.
Mrkim Report This Comment Date: May 21, 2010 01:32PM
You had it 100% right when you said belief in a god is the common denominator
and then you try and turn that statement around in the rest of your reply.
Sorry, but the fact still remains immutable : Religion and or belief in some god
IS at the root of this issue.
Mankind as a whole would be far better off without religions in general.
Religion is the single most divisive issue on the planet and its varied
followers continue to belittle, discriminate and kill members of differing
faiths and all in the name of their preferred imaginary friend.
Religion is an assault upon mankinds intellect and logic and has been causing
murder and mayhem all across the globe since it was 1st embraced.
If all religions were somehow to suddenly disappear globally it would magically
also erase at a minimum 50% of the inhumanity of people against one another as
the core reason they despise and kill one another would also disappear with it
allowing people to see how much they are alike one another instead of the
current situation which uses religion to divide them and keep them in a constant
state of hate for one another.
Though I know it's an impossible goal, the best thing that could happen for our
continuation as a race of peoples would be to eliminate all religions from the
world. Such an act would do more good for the world as a whole than the current
embracement of all these self claimed "religions of peace and love"
ever could
Wolfgang613 Report This Comment Date: May 22, 2010 01:29AM
Mrkim wrote:"Name one example of an atheist attack on even a single city,
much less a country or continent like followers of god have certainly
done."
I accept your challenge Mrkim. In a world
Communism. Thats right the old red menace. They
are atheists by doctrine and did their best to stamp out all religions beliefs
they came across. They also murdered, raped and pillaged their way across Asia
with no less zealotry than any religious group ever did. No, you can not claim
that they are simply a political group for they did indeed seek out religious
groups to persecute for their religious beliefs and tried to impose atheism in
its place. If you doubt me just pull out a history book and look up the
Bolshevik Revolution, the Communist take over of China, or the Khmer Rouge in
Cambodia.
What you ,Mrkim, are blind to is that mans inhumanity to man has nothing to do
with religion. It has to do with the fact that man's nature is evil, and if we
do not hold ourselves to a moral center we will decay to nothing more than a
bunch of savages murdering, raping, and pillaging our way cross the landscape.
If you remove religion it will not change a thing as the Communist of the world
have proven. Religion gives us that moral center and holds us accountable for
our actions.
jgoins Report This Comment Date: May 22, 2010 10:37AM
I would also add that one can believe in God not not be part of any religion.
Religion is only dangerous when it becomes organized. When a group of people
get together and tell others what the word of God is and they actually have no
clue what the real word is. If ones heart is open to it the word will come to
them without the aid of other people. All religions are trying to say that
theirs is God's religion, I believe God had no one religion in mind. God only
wants people to follow him and be moral individuals. He does not want people to
fight and kill in his name, he only wants people to love in his name. Therefore
religions are bad but belief in God by itself is not.
Organized atheism is just as bad as organized religion. One believer is not
dangerous nor is one atheist but when you get many together they become
dangerous. When a group of people get together who believe in the same thing
they then try to force their beliefs on others and when those believers are a
majority then their force can get more violent. Wolfie is right, humans are
inherently violent people, I wouldn't say evil but violent would fit most. The
right to life movemnet is one example. A group of believers getting together to
force their beliefs on others and it typically gets violent. It is human nature
not their belief that brings about the violence. When someone feels they are
having no impact the escalate and resort to violence and if a large group feel
the same way then it gets worse (ie. the crusades). Therefore belife in
anything is not the problem but organizing those believers is where the trouble
begins.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 22/05/2010 10:54AM by jgoins.
Wolfgang613 Report This Comment Date: May 22, 2010 06:28PM
jgoins, I will agree that forcing ones beliefs on others is wrong and that most
organized religions have done this at one time, but you are throwing out the
baby with the bath water. There is a great deal of good that has been done
through organized religions groups. For example the Salvation Army, Catholic
Charities, City Missions, and Covenant House all stem from organized religion
and would not exist without it. I am part of an organized religious group
called The Episcopal Church. Yes, we have made mistakes, but we have learned
from our mistakes and are trying not to repeat them. We know that we can not
force anyone to believe in God or believe in God the same way that we do. We
are, trying to do good in the world by spreading "The Good News" and
helping those in need.
fossil_digger Report This Comment Date: May 22, 2010 09:37PM
i see that as nothing more than preying on the less fortunate in an attempt to
convince them to follow the same fantasy you believe.
and i was attempted to be raised episco also
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 22/05/2010 09:38PM by fossil_digger.
jgoins Report This Comment Date: May 23, 2010 11:28AM
I have read the Bible several times and haven't seen anything in it that says
God wants organized religion. The closest I have seen was the passage about 2
or more who gather in the name of God he will be there but it does not mention
organizations. What little good organized religion does is far outweighed by
the brain washing and misdeeds they do (ie Catholic Church). The preacher of
your church stands in front of you and tells you what the Bible says and means.
I simply do not not anyone to translate it for me when it means something
different to everyone who reads it. My point is that organizing just about
anything is bad in some ways even something as noble as right to life movement.
I was stating that to blame God for all the misdeeds of human kind in the past
is wrong. It is the humans in charge of the organizations who guide them now
and in the past so it would be better to blame the humans for the crusades
instead of God. It is human beings who run the organized religions which makes
them do the things they do. About the only thing God can be blamed for is
creating mankind and giving him free will, I don't blame him I thank him.
Mrkim Report This Comment Date: May 24, 2010 03:47AM
Ok, here we go ...
Since communism is a political ideology, by no stretch of the imagination can
you tie it to atheism which is a not political in nature. Just because churches
were closed and followers persecuted under communist rule in some places it
still does not put communism and atheism together. This had much more to do with
stamping out all assembly except those proposed/sansctioned by the
"state" in efforts to minimize the possibility of organized dissent
than it did with anything like the concepts of atheism.
Every atheist I've ever met would say they don't really care about believers and
their temples, The only things that get us riled up is imposing religious
concepts within government and believers tryin to tell us all about the fire and
brimstone crap just because we choose not believe in their imaginary
friends.
What you ,Mrkim, are blind to is that mans
inhumanity to man has nothing to do with religion. It has to do with the fact
that man's nature is evil, and if we do not hold ourselves to a moral center we
will decay to nothing more than a bunch of savages murdering, raping, and
pillaging our way cross the landscape. If you remove religion it will not change
a thing as the Communist of the world have proven. Religion gives us that moral
center and holds us accountable for our actions.
Dude, your above statements are so full of holes yet chocked full of that Mmmm,
Mmm, good ol self righteous religious bullshit it's incredible.
If mans nature is evil, talk to your god about that shit since you profess he
made us and .... if memory serves supposedly "in his own image".
What is pure unadulterated crap is your self righteous religilous crap about
morality somehow being rooted in religious belief. That is such a preposterous
statement, but I know too that you believers have now told and heard that lie so
many times ya'll even believe it makes sense. Let me clue you in, it
doesn't.
By your logic since I fail to embrace religion I must then be an immoral person
and it seems I'm way behind in my duties since I've never raped, pillaged or
murdered anyone.
Try for once stepping away from yourself and examine the concepts of religion
from outside the teachings that have likely been shoved down you since early in
life. Hell, try proving religion though something verifiable like science, that
oughta keep you busy for an eon or 2.
But really man, you need to try thinking for yourself instead of just believin
whatever people say, do some real research, and actually THINK FOR YOURSELF, and
... by all means stop swillin the Kool Aid
Wolfgang613 Report This Comment Date: May 25, 2010 05:49AM
Excuse me Mrkim but Lenin, Mow, and Pol Pot touted Atheism as doctrine. They
and many others committed many evils in the name of their Atheist beliefs.
Trying to split hairs and say it was just a political ideology is like saying
the Crusades were just a land grab by the Medieval Church.
Do I think you are an immoral person? No, at lest from what you have posted I
don't. I don't know you well enough to make that call. Being an Atheist does
not make you immoral. What I was trying to say is that the moral codes that you
and I live by were derived from religious teachings.
As far as being brainwashed into my religious convictions that could not be
further from the truth. My eyes are wide open. I
know what the truth
is. No I can not prove God exist by a man made means. If I did it would be the
proof that God is man made. Yes I know you will not like this answer. Only if
you are willing to open you hart, mind, and sprite to God will you find proof of
his existence. You must open the door. God will not force the issue. I am
sure you have heard this before and dismissed it as religious babel, but how
can God prove himself to you if you refuse his existence? If he came up to you
and handed you a hundred dollar bill, how would
you know it was God?
jgoins Report This Comment Date: May 25, 2010 10:54AM
Can it be proven that the sky is blue to a person who was born blind. No, the
blind person would have to take it on faith that what everyone tells them is
true.
fossil_digger Report This Comment Date: May 25, 2010 12:22PM
faith is blind.
jgoins Report This Comment Date: May 26, 2010 11:00AM
If blind people have to take so much on faith then why shouldn't the rest of us
be that trusting.
fossil_digger Report This Comment Date: May 26, 2010 04:26PM
blind people dont go on faith, they use their more in tuned senses to feel,
hear and smell their way around.
jgoins Report This Comment Date: May 27, 2010 10:48AM
But there are some things they have to take on faith like colors. Colors can't
be felt, heard or smelled. There are other things which have to be experienced
through site alone and the blind have to take them on faith and trust in others.
Mrkim Report This Comment Date: May 27, 2010 01:54PM
Morality defined scientifically:
"Psychopaths shed light on a crucial subset of decision-making that's
referred to as morality. Morality can be a squishy, vague concept, and yet, at
its simplest level, it's nothing but a series of choices about how we treat
other people. When you act in a moral manner - when you recoil from violence,
treat others fairly, and help strangers in need - you are making decisions that
take people besides yourself into account. You are thinking about the feelings
of others, sympathizing with their states of mind.
"This is what psychopaths can't do. ... They are missing the primal
emotional cues that the rest of us use as guides when making moral decisions.
The psychopath's brain is bored by expressions of terror. The main problem seems
to be a broken amygdala, a brain area responsible for propagating aversive
emotions such as fear and anxiety. As a result, psychopaths never feel bad when
they make other people feel bad. ... Hurting someone else is just another way of
getting what he wants, a perfectly reasonable way to satisfy desires. The
absence of emotion makes the most basic moral concepts incomprehensible. G. K.
Chesterton was right: 'The madman is not the man who has lost his reason. The
madman is the man who has lost everything except his reason.'
"At first glance, the connection between morality and the emotions might be
a little unnerving. Moral decisions are supposed to rest on a firm logical and
legal foundation. Doing the right thing means carefully weighing competing
claims, like a dispassionate judge. These aspirations have a long history. The
luminaries of the Enlightenment, such as Leibniz and Descartes, tried to
construct a moral system entirely free of feelings. Immanuel Kant argued that
doing the right thing was merely a consequence of acting rationally. Immorality,
he said, was a result of illogic. ... The modern legal system still subscribes
to this antiquated set of assumptions and pardons anybody who demonstrates a
'defect in rationality' - these people are declared legally insane, since the
rational brain is supposedly responsible for distinguishing between right and
wrong. If you can't reason, then you shouldn't be punished.
"But all of these old conceptions of morality are based on a fundamental
mistake. Neuroscience can now see the substrate of moral decisions, and there's
nothing rational about it. 'Moral judgment is like aesthetic judgment,' writes
Jonathan Haidt, a psychologist at the University of Virginia. 'When you see a
painting, you usually know instantly and automatically whether you like it. If
someone asks you to explain your judgment, you confabulate ... Moral arguments
are much the same: Two people feel strongly about an issue, their feelings come
first, and their reasons are invented on the fly, to throw at each other.'
"Kant and his followers thought the rational brain acted like a scientist:
we used reason to arrive at an accurate view of the world. This meant that
morality was based on objective values; moral judgments described moral facts.
But the mind doesn't work this way. When you are confronted with an ethical
dilemma, the unconscious automatically generates an emotional reaction. (This is
what psychopaths can't do.) Within a few milliseconds, the brain has made up its
mind; you know what is right and what is wrong. These moral instincts aren't
rational. ...
"It's only after the emotions have already made the moral decision that
those rational circuits in the prefrontal cortex are activated. People come up
with persuasive reasons to justify their moral intuition. When it comes to
making ethical decisions, human rationality isn't a scientist, it's a lawyer.
This inner attorney gathers bits of evidence, post hoc justifications, and pithy
rhetoric in order to make the automatic reaction seem reasonable. But this
reasonableness is just a facade, an elaborate self- delusion. Benjamin Franklin
said it best in his autobiography: 'So convenient a thing it is to be a
reasonable creature, since it enables one to find or make a reason for
everything one has a mind to do.'
"In other words, our standard view of morality - the philosophical
consensus for thousands of years - has been exactly backward. We've assumed that
our moral decisions are the byproducts of rational thought, that humanity's
moral rules are founded in such things as the Ten Commandments and Kant's
categorical imperative. Philosophers and theologians have spilled lots of ink
arguing about the precise logic of certain ethical dilemmas. But these arguments
miss the central reality of moral decisions, which is that logic and legality
have little to do with anything."
Author: Jonah Lehrer
Title: How We Decide
Wolfgang613 Report This Comment Date: May 28, 2010 09:13AM
Well thank you Mrkim for backing up my statement completely. This discourse
of how moral decisions are emotional and are not bases in logic or legality is
exactly what I am talking about. By the way, if you were thinking that science
is the absence of God you are very mistaken. Science is the study of God's
creation. Most physiologist regard religious belief as emotional in nature, and
here we can see that it is these emotions that we use to make moral decisions
and thus a moral code of conduct.
"When you act in a moral manner - when you recoil from violence, treat
others fairly, and help strangers in need - you are making decisions that take
people besides yourself into account. You are thinking about the feelings of
others, sympathizing with their states of mind."
If this was written more poetically it could be straight from scripture.
"But these arguments miss the central reality of moral decisions, which
is that logic and legality have little to do with anything."
This is in total agreement with the Christian, Jewish, and Muslim teachings. It
is not a by laws or man's logic that we have morality, but from the emotional
(spiritual) connection. Thus, we get our moral center from Religion.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 28/05/2010 09:15AM by Wolfgang613.
jgoins Report This Comment Date: May 28, 2010 10:06AM
Well Mr. Kim, I will admit that most of that went way over my head. All I can
say is that I try to do what feels right to me and I try to treat others the way
I would like to be treated. Call it the Golden Rule or God's teachings but I
believe it is the way God would want it. I believe God watches over all good
people even if they do not believe in him because even non believers can come to
him at any moment in their lives.
fossil_digger Report This Comment Date: May 28, 2010 08:12PM
ha ha, i got the last word in.
pro_junior Report This Comment Date: May 28, 2010 08:52PM
you did?
fossil_digger Report This Comment Date: May 28, 2010 09:48PM
yup
pro_junior Report This Comment Date: May 28, 2010 11:52PM
I don't think so...
jgoins Report This Comment Date: May 29, 2010 11:05AM
I don't think so either
fossil_digger Report This Comment Date: May 29, 2010 04:27PM
uh huh infinity!
jgoins Report This Comment Date: May 30, 2010 09:42AM
What's the difference between a duck?
Wolfgang613 Report This Comment Date: June 02, 2010 12:14AM
He who laughs last didn't get the joke.
fossil_digger Report This Comment Date: June 02, 2010 01:39AM
you lost
jgoins Report This Comment Date: June 02, 2010 11:55AM
NOT
pro_junior Report This Comment Date: June 02, 2010 04:38PM
you can't get down from an elephant
jgoins Report This Comment Date: June 04, 2010 10:59AM
How many adcbeasts does it take to screw in a light bulb?
Wolfgang613 Report This Comment Date: June 04, 2010 06:53PM
OK how many adcbeasts dose it take?
pro_junior Report This Comment Date: June 04, 2010 10:30PM
3
jgoins Report This Comment Date: June 05, 2010 10:52AM
One to hold the bulb and two to turn the ladder.
Wolfgang613 Report This Comment Date: June 05, 2010 04:43PM
Isn't that creating jobs in a recessionary economy.
Wolfgang613 Report This Comment Date: June 05, 2010 04:46PM
How many Episcopalians does it take to change a light bulb?
jgoins Report This Comment Date: June 06, 2010 10:39AM
Do they know what light bulbs are?
Wolfgang613 Report This Comment Date: June 08, 2010 01:19AM
At least 5... One to change the light bulb and as least four to sit around and
reminisce how great the old one was.
jgoins Report This Comment Date: June 08, 2010 11:09AM
reminisce, I remember how good life was back when gas was $.19 a gallon.
fossil_digger Report This Comment Date: July 08, 2011 01:13AM
i win.
