• IP addresses are NOT logged in this forum so there's no point asking. Please note that this forum is full of homophobes, racists, lunatics, schizophrenics & absolute nut jobs with a smattering of geniuses, Chinese chauvinists, Moderate Muslims and last but not least a couple of "know-it-alls" constantly sprouting their dubious wisdom. If you believe that content generated by unsavory characters might cause you offense PLEASE LEAVE NOW! Sammyboy Admin and Staff are not responsible for your hurt feelings should you choose to read any of the content here.

    The OTHER forum is HERE so please stop asking.

Church and members disagree on same-sex marriage

Frodo

Alfrescian
Loyal
If what is say is true, there is no need for humans to find cures for diseases, as it will be determined by God whether we die by that disease or not. I am glad that there are people who are "disobedient" to the almighty God, and look for solutions to the problems nature has given us, after your loving God banished Adam and Eve from the Garden of Eden, and had to deal with nature and its forces by their wits.

Cheers!

You are going off tangent. The question is whether one needs God to tell us what is right or wrong. The answer is yes. Since God makes us, it is only logical that He tells us what we can or cannot do. The problems in our world are a direct consequence of the disobedience of Adam. Bewildering that you would find Adam’s disobedience as something laudable. Yes, my loving God had to banish Adam and Eve from the Garden, but you have no idea why He did that, am I right? Why not you take some time to read the first few chapters of Genesis and find out for yourself? Truth comes alive when you find that which you seek through self-discovery.
 

Frodo

Alfrescian
Loyal
I see that as "lateral thinking."

Cheers!

Your lateral thinking also flawed, because it does not logically follow that just because God tells us what is right or wrong, therefore we do not need to find cures for sicknesses. And neither does the Bible teach such a thing.
 

Agoraphobic

Alfrescian
Loyal
I do not rely on the Bible to tell me what is right or wrong! There are many things we live in today's world that the Bible doesn't talk about. We face a world today with issues that the Biblical writers never could have imagined when they wrote them. For example, does the Bible tell us how to dispose of plastics? Bible stories are for innocent children. That God loves them, and to love everything around us. And that under God's care, everything will be taken care of!

Cheers!

Your lateral thinking also flawed, because it does not logically follow that just because God tells us what is right or wrong, therefore we do not need to find cures for sicknesses. And neither does the Bible teach such a thing.
 

Frodo

Alfrescian
Loyal
I do not rely on the Bible to tell me what is right or wrong! There are many things we live in today's world that the Bible doesn't talk about. We face a world today with issues that the Biblical writers never could have imagined when they wrote them. For example, does the Bible tell us how to dispose of plastics? Bible stories are for innocent children. That God loves them, and to love everything around us. And that under God's care, everything will be taken care of!
Cheers!

The question is not whether you rely on the Bible for your moral values, the more fundamental question is where do those moral values come from? They either come from man or from God. I am not saying that the Bible talks about everything under the sun. It does not…so you may be attacking a strawman argument here. Anyway, the Bible is meant for everyone, not just children. Yes, God will take care of business. We live in a fallen world…the curtains will drop on the world stage…which some believe to be pretty soon. When that happens, God will right every wrong. Man will be judged according to what he has done.
 

Agoraphobic

Alfrescian
Loyal
Morals come from the societies we live in, they are made by the collective consciousness of people within the society. What is wrong and sinful in one community may very well be held in high esteem in another. Example is homosexuality, which was outlawed and made a crime when the British ruled their colonies and introduced Penal Code 377, prior to that time, it wasn't considered a punishable crime, probably just meant for those who liked/enjoyed it, or found it amusing or pleasurable. Society did not need God to judge its every motive or action.

Cheers!

The question is not whether you rely on the Bible for your moral values, the more fundamental question is where do those moral values come from? They either come from man or from God. I am not saying that the Bible talks about everything under the sun. It does not…so you may be attacking a strawman argument here. Anyway, the Bible is meant for everyone, not just children. Yes, God will take care of business. We live in a fallen world…the curtains will drop on the world stage…which some believe to be pretty soon. When that happens, God will right every wrong. Man will be judged according to what he has done.
 

Frodo

Alfrescian
Loyal
Morals come from the societies we live in, they are made by the collective consciousness of people within the society. What is wrong and sinful in one community may very well be held in high esteem in another. Example is homosexuality, which was outlawed and made a crime when the British ruled their colonies and introduced Penal Code 377, prior to that time, it wasn't considered a punishable crime, probably just meant for those who liked/enjoyed it, or found it amusing or pleasurable. Society did not need God to judge its every motive or action.

Cheers!

Is there a distinction between man and society? It simply means for you that man create morals. And because you believe that, morality is relative since it is man-made. One culture can cook you for food, another can torture babies, and that would be right for you. Is that your view? Or do you hold the view that it is ALWAYS wrong everywhere, even absolutely wrong, to torture babies for fun?
 

Agoraphobic

Alfrescian
Loyal
I, have my own beliefs, and principals, which is fine for others to agree or disagree with, depending on their situation. Example, child-marriage, I do not believe it is right for children of a young age (or anyone) to be forced into marriage, but there are societies out there who practice this, and consider it normal. Another example are taboo foods, some animals are considered sacred, and are worshipped, while to others, they are simply food, for sustenance. Who makes the rules? Society.

Cheers!

Is there a distinction between man and society? It simply means for you that man create morals. And because you believe that, morality is relative since it is man-made. One culture can cook you for food, another can torture babies, and that would be right for you. Is that your view? Or do you hold the view that it is ALWAYS wrong everywhere, even absolutely wrong, to torture babies for fun?
 

Frodo

Alfrescian
Loyal
I, have my own beliefs, and principals, which is fine for others to agree or disagree with, depending on their situation. Example, child-marriage, I do not believe it is right for children of a young age (or anyone) to be forced into marriage, but there are societies out there who practice this, and consider it normal. Another example are taboo foods, some animals are considered sacred, and are worshipped, while to others, they are simply food, for sustenance. Who makes the rules? Society.

Cheers!

It’s one thing to have your own beliefs, quite another to provide a justification for them. Atheists have a problem accounting for the existence of moral values. Ascribing it to “society” is incorrect since society is not an entity or being but just a word to describe the community of people living at one place. The fact that different cultures or people groups have different moral values or rules for living, do not thereby constitute proof that morals are man-made. Besides, in all cultures there would be a common core of moral values that would be upheld. For example, is it right to steal? Even the most hardcore robber would consider it wrong if someone steals or robs him! What the atheist needs to do is to provide a justification for the existence of moral values, something the atheist finds it impossible to do. Which is why as a worldview it fails.
 

Agoraphobic

Alfrescian
Loyal
Of course different societies have different beliefs and norms, they evolved differently, face different situations. Now in order to make a statement that is common to ALL groups where morals are concerned, then let me say that "One has a right to exercise one's right until the point where it encroaches upon someone else's rights!" That's as general as I can phrase it, "rights" here can also refer to possessions, as in ownership of material and/or non-material items. And this is a human thing. May or may not have anything to do with God, or any other divine being.

Cheers!

It’s one thing to have your own bliefs, quite another to provide a justification for them. Atheists have a problem accounting for the existence of moral values. Ascribing it to “society” is incorrect since society is not an entity or being but just a word to describe the community of people living at one place. The fact that different cultures or people groups have different moral values or rules for living, do not thereby constitute proof that morals are man-made. Besides, in all cultures there would be a common core of moral values that would be upheld. For example, is it right to steal? Even the most hardcore robber would consider it wrong if someone steals or robs him! What the atheist needs to do is to provide a justification for the existence of moral values, something the atheist finds it impossible to do. Which is why as a worldview it fails.
 

Frodo

Alfrescian
Loyal
Of course different societies have different beliefs and norms, they evolved differently, face different situations. Now in order to make a statement that is common to ALL groups where morals are concerned, then let me say that "One has a right to exercise one's right until the point where it encroaches upon someone else's rights!" That's as general as I can phrase it, "rights" here can also refer to possessions, as in ownership of material and/or non-material items. And this is a human thing. May or may not have anything to do with God, or any other divine being.

Cheers!

But where do you ground your “rights” in? Why should you have rights to begin with? Regardless of how different cultures are, man is the same. Still humans. All the laws and rules man sets up revolve around a core of moral values that are universally affirmed and upheld as absolutes. An atheist cannot explain why. A theist can. Why is murder wrong? An atheist has no good answer. Because society says its wrong? What if the society you live in says it is right? You would then agree that murder is right? For the theist, murder is wrong because God said so, having made man in His image. You can murder a man, but you cannot murder a cat or a dog, simply because animals are not made in God’s image. While murder involves killing, killing does not always means murder. Some people even got it wrong to think that one of the 10 commandments says “You shall not kill” but the actual word is “murder”.
 

Agoraphobic

Alfrescian
Loyal
Killing another person is taking away that person's life, infringing on that person's "right" to live. That's the problem with theists! Whether it is right or wrong, depends on what their divine being tells them! Polluting is wrong too! It infringes upon the "rights" of nature to remain pristine. Yes, this law doesn't exist, but it is common sense! Call it what you want, but one exercise one's right to a point where it encroaches onto the rights of somebody else. It can be simple if one wants it to be, or can be meshed up and confused with a whole bunch of gobbledygook to a point of incomprehensibility.

Cheers!

But where do you ground your “rights” in? Why should you have rights to begin with? Regardless of how different cultures are, man is the same. Still humans. All the laws and rules man sets up revolve around a core of moral values that are universally affirmed and upheld as absolutes. An atheist cannot explain why. A theist can. Why is murder wrong? An atheist has no good answer. Because society says its wrong? What if the society you live in says it is right? You would then agree that murder is right? For the theist, murder is wrong because God said so, having made man in His image. You can murder a man, but you cannot murder a cat or a dog, simply because animals are not made in God’s image. While murder involves killing, killing does not always means murder. Some people even got it wrong to think that one of the 10 commandments says “You shall not kill” but the actual word is “murder”.
 

Frodo

Alfrescian
Loyal
Killing another person is taking away that person's life, infringing on that person's "right" to live. That's the problem with theists! Whether it is right or wrong, depends on what their divine being tells them! Polluting is wrong too! It infringes upon the "rights" of nature to remain pristine. Yes, this law doesn't exist, but it is common sense! Call it what you want, but one exercise one's right to a point where it encroaches onto the rights of somebody else. It can be simple if one wants it to be, or can be meshed up and confused with a whole bunch of gobbledygook to a point of incomprehensibility.

Cheers!

The problem is that you talk about rights but cannot provide a justification for why these rights exist! On what grounds? So far I am not hearing them at all. Why can’t another person just take away your life? Because you have a right to live? But he can says you have no right to live. Since man makes morals, if he can get enough people to agree with him, what can you do about it? And somehow you have now ground your rights in common sense? Whose common sense should prevail? You are back to basing your morality on whimsical man. But as a theist I ground all objective moral values in God’s character which is perfect and good. God IS good. God tells us what is right and wrong. Why is it wrong to steal? Because ultimately God says so. Why is it wrong to covet? Because God says so. Underlying “You shall not covet” is the basis of property ownership. One can only covet that which belongs to another. Why is adultery wrong? Because God says so. The buck stops there, at the Supreme Being.
 

Agoraphobic

Alfrescian
Loyal
So, before God gave his commandments to Moses, it wasn't wrong to steal, to kill? C'mon man! In the Far East, where your God Yahweh wasn't heard off, it wasn't against the law to steal? To kill another human? How then did civilzations in China and India grow?

Cheers!

The problem is that you talk about rights but cannot provide a justification for why these rights exist! On what grounds? So far I am not hearing them at all. Why can’t another person just take away your life? Because you have a right to live? But he can says you have no right to live. Since man makes morals, if he can get enough people to agree with him, what can you do about it? And somehow you have now ground your rights in common sense? Whose common sense should prevail? You are back to basing your morality on whimsical man. But as a theist I ground all objective moral values in God’s character which is perfect and good. God IS good. God tells us what is right and wrong. Why is it wrong to steal? Because ultimately God says so. Why is it wrong to covet? Because God says so. Underlying “You shall not covet” is the basis of property ownership. One can only covet that which belongs to another. Why is adultery wrong? Because God says so. The buck stops there, at the Supreme Being.
 

Frodo

Alfrescian
Loyal
So, before God gave his commandments to Moses, it wasn't wrong to steal, to kill? C'mon man! In the Far East, where your God Yahweh wasn't heard off, it wasn't against the law to steal? To kill another human? How then did civilzations in China and India grow?

Cheers!

You really should read Genesis, it’s doing yourself a big favour! The first murder was recorded in Genesis 4, when Cain killed Abel. God punished Cain. As for the 10 Commandments, it was given to a nation that was just born. It’s like moral constitution for a new nation, Israel. It does not mean prior to that murder was right. That’s another strawman argument you committed. The truth is, and you have alluded to it, is that everywhere there are moral absolutes, among which is that stealing and murder is wrong. Problem for the atheist is, you cannot explain the existence of moral absolutes or objective moral values apart from God. That’s why atheism fails.
 

Agoraphobic

Alfrescian
Loyal
Bro, I do not believe that the events described in Genesis happened as described. It is a made up story-book. No different from the story of Mowgli in Rudyard Kipling's Jungle Book - a boy raised by wolves. It is folklore at best. So, Cain killed Abel. Any witness to testify? Did they have sisters? How did the human species reproduce from these. Somewhere in the wilderness, there must have been some other people ya?

Cheers!


You really should read Genesis, it’s doing yourself a big favour! The first murder was recorded in Genesis 4, when Cain killed Abel. God punished Cain. As for the 10 Commandments, it was given to a nation that was just born. It’s like moral constitution for a new nation, Israel. It does not mean prior to that murder was right. That’s another strawman argument you committed. The truth is, and you have alluded to it, is that everywhere there are moral absolutes, among which is that stealing and murder is wrong. Problem for the atheist is, you cannot explain the existence of moral absolutes or objective moral values apart from God. That’s why atheism fails.
 

Frodo

Alfrescian
Loyal
Bro, I do not believe that the events described in Genesis happened as described. It is a made up story-book. No different from the story of Mowgli in Rudyard Kipling's Jungle Book - a boy raised by wolves. It is folklore at best. So, Cain killed Abel. Any witness to testify? Did they have sisters? How did the human species reproduce from these. Somewhere in the wilderness, there must have been some other people ya?

Cheers!

Yes, I know that you do not believe the Genesis record. Many people do not. But there are also many people who do believe in the Genesis events as real history. Jesus Himself included. You said it is a made up story book, that’s a belief you have, held by faith. I believe otherwise, that it is a truthful, though not exhaustive, account of beginnings. And it is also a faith position. You asked, who witnessed Abel’s murder? Simple answer is, God. You asked if Cain and Abel had sisters? Simple answer is, yes. Not because I said so, but because Genesis 5:4 tells us so. But since you are apparently not interested to read, it is not surprising that you are asking a question for which the answer is readily available. Mind you, even Charles Darwin married his first cousin!
 

Agoraphobic

Alfrescian
Loyal
Genesis is folklore. It is the accumulation of stories told by storytellers from early times in history, later recorded and written down when handwriting was developed. It was told when men (and women) were superstitious, feared the forces of nature, and practiced human (and animal) sacrifices to appease the Gods and Spirits. Today, we better understand nature through science, and are still investigating. Slowly, but surely, we will cast away the stories from the Bible which we have accepted as events that happened in our past. The story of Adam and Eve already has been replace by knowledge of human evolution.

Cheers!

Yes, I know that you do not believe the Genesis record. Many people do not. But there are also many people who do believe in the Genesis events as real history. Jesus Himself included. You said it is a made up story book, that’s a belief you have, held by faith. I believe otherwise, that it is a truthful, though not exhaustive, account of beginnings. And it is also a faith position. You asked, who witnessed Abel’s murder? Simple answer is, God. You asked if Cain and Abel had sisters? Simple answer is, yes. Not because I said so, but because Genesis 5:4 tells us so. But since you are apparently not interested to read, it is not surprising that you are asking a question for which the answer is readily available. Mind you, even Charles Darwin married his first cousin!
 

Agoraphobic

Alfrescian
Loyal
Here's more recent evidence that throws the story of Adam and Eve into the rubbish pile. Looks like there are other branches of beings in our human history other than homo sapiens, Neanderthals are just one more. We are still uncovering more....... and one thing isn't new - ALL were promiscuous.

Cheers!

http://www.thanhniennews.com/educat...inct-species-was-no-onenight-stand-60348.html

Homo sapiens' sex with extinct species was no one-night stand
Reuters
WASHINGTON - Saturday, March 19, 2016 10:36
Our species, Homo sapiens, has a more adventurous sexual history than previously realized, and all that bed-hopping long ago has left an indelible mark on the human genome.
Scientists said on Friday an analysis of genetic information on about 1,500 people from locations around the world indicated at least four interbreeding episodes tens of thousands of years ago, three with our close cousins the Neanderthals and one with the mysterious extinct human species known as Denisovans.
People living on the remote equatorial islands of Melanesia represented the only population found to possess an appreciable level of Denisovan genetic ancestry. These Melanesians, like most human populations, also had Neanderthal genetic ancestry.
The researchers found some of the genes inherited from these extinct species were beneficial for our species.
Many are involved in the immune system and likely helped protect against pathogens, and some play important roles in skin and hair biology, said University of Washington evolutionary geneticist Joshua Akey, who helped lead the study published in the journal Science.
The researchers analyzed DNA sequences from 35 people living on Northern Island Melanesia off the coast of New Guinea. These Melanesians were found to have about 2 percent Neanderthal ancestry plus an additional genetic contribution of roughly 2 to 4 percent from Denisovans.
The non-African populations studied had roughly 1.5 to 4 percent Neanderthal genetic ancestry, Akey said. African populations do not have either Neanderthal or Denisovan ancestry because those two species were never on that continent.
Denisovans, discovered in the past decade, are known only from a pinky finger bone and two teeth from a northern Siberian cave.
The robust, large-browed Neanderthals prospered across Europe and Asia from about 350,000 years ago until disappearing shortly after 40,000 years ago. Less is known about the Denisovans.
The fact that the only known Denisovan remains come from northern Siberia but that their genetic contribution is seen in people living far away in Melanesia suggests Denisovans had a broad geographic range extending across Asia, Akey said.
Binghamton University molecular anthropologist D. Andrew Merriwether said the researchers also detected a contribution to people's genome from a fourth, unknown source.
"So this paints a picture of probably at least four species of hominins (our species and extinct human species) alive at the same time and interbreeding at times over the last 100,000 years. Definitely not something most people supposed before 10 years ago," Merriwether said.
 

Frodo

Alfrescian
Loyal
Genesis is folklore. It is the accumulation of stories told by storytellers from early times in history, later recorded and written down when handwriting was developed. It was told when men (and women) were superstitious, feared the forces of nature, and practiced human (and animal) sacrifices to appease the Gods and Spirits. Today, we better understand nature through science, and are still investigating. Slowly, but surely, we will cast away the stories from the Bible which we have accepted as events that happened in our past. The story of Adam and Eve already has been replace by knowledge of human evolution.

Cheers!

I disagree. Genesis is anything but folklore. I believe Genesis is real history, the same view that Jesus Christ holds. Your view of Genesis assumes molecules to man evolution as a fact. Such a view is no longer held seriously. In fact, the early editions of the Encyclopedia Britannica before the rise of Darwinism held to the Genesis record as historical fact. Under the heading ‘Deluge’ on page 414, the 1771 Encyclopædia Britannica says: ‘… the most memorable was that called the universal deluge, or Noah’s flood, which overflowed and destroyed the whole earth, and out of which only Noah, and those with him in the ark, escaped.’ Not only that Noah’s Flood occurred, but also that it was worldwide.
 
Top