Is torture acceptable? (1 Viewer)

[pitbull]

So you believe in microevolution not macroevolution?

I guess that's how you distribute them.

 

Buy on AliExpress.com

[rounder]

If there is heaven i could agree with you on your description.

Does believing in god have anything to do with being good? I mean surely if you agree that the bible is more of a guidline than an historical boog, then you might agree that it doesnt matter if you believe or not, the thing is you have to be good no?

I think it depends on what you have been exposed to in life. If you are an illiterate man in Africa that has never seen the Bible or even heard of God, yet was a good person, then no you would not go to hell.

I think a lot depends on how much you were exposed to during your lifetime.

Well.. http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/cruelty/nt_list.html



I mean...

Martin, I think it is important for you to understand the exact context in which the Old Testament was used. It was used to address the people of Israel at a different time thus it will naturally carry a different message. I don't feel like getting into this right now but you may research the topic of you are interested.

Second, you must remember Martin that in such a society, to lust for a woman was far more serious than it is now. In my opinion, I know this may sound a little weird but bare with me. 2000 years ago condoms did not exist, woman did not have the rights they had today. So when a man wanted to fuck a woman, chances are he will. The problem with that is, he could have knocked her up and left her with a kid she could barely support.

You have to remember that Jesus was addressing people in a completely different time period. Premarital sex was much more serious then, today it is socially acceptable because there are no social consequences. It wasn't the same back then.

 

[rounder]

I guess that's how you distribute them.

But macroevolution is the same as microevolution except on a much larger scale. If microevolution exists, then so does macroevolution.

 

[rounder]

What you said doesn't really have anything to do with a conflict between religion and science. You just said that some scientists are religious. As long as they are legitimate and ethical scientists, noone cares.

It's people who try to smuggle in Creationism into science classes in the US (or the UK) that are the problem. There too you have representatives of religion talking about science, but not in any kind of scientific way.

Oh, I agree with you there.

 

[Martin]

Martin, I think it is important for you to understand the exact context in which the Old Testament was used. It was used to address the people of Israel at a different time thus it will naturally carry a different message. I don't feel like getting into this right now but you may research the topic of you are interested.

Second, you must remember Martin that in such a society, to lust for a woman was far more serious than it is now. In my opinion, I know this may sound a little weird but bare with me. 2000 years ago condoms did not exist, woman did not have the rights they had today. So when a man wanted to fuck a woman, chances are he will. The problem with that is, he could have knocked her up and left her with a kid she could barely support.

You have to remember that Jesus was addressing people in a completely different time period. Premarital sex was much more serious then, today it is socially acceptable because there are no social consequences. It wasn't the same back then.

I totally accept that, which is why I think it's an old book, historically interesting, with no value for people's lives today.

Basically, if you are intelligent enough to interpret the bible in such a way that it gives you good advice (instead of taking it literally) then you're intelligent enough to formulate your own value system anyway.

 

[pitbull]

Like i said, i dont know all of his teachings, and certainly wouldn follow the ones you mentioned.

Lets take the first, the ones who wrote bible couldnt have wrote it in any different way, because its supposed to be the same god, so he had to write that Jesus approves. Since i dont believe in god or in any holy intervention writing the book so i would direct this to political reasons, to connect the two gods to the same, the Jewish and the new.

As for second, no comment

Btw, im just speculating, dont have any actual evidence

That's great, take words out of context and here you go. And you really believe that there were one people who wrote the bible if it's a well known fact that the parts of bible were wrote by different people in different times? And why it is so important to know in what i do believe?

 

[Martin]

Basically, if you are intelligent enough to interpret the bible in such a way that it gives you good advice (instead of taking it literally) then you're intelligent enough to formulate your own value system anyway.

No, let me refine that.

If you read the bible and you say "oh, this piece of advice is useful for my life" and "this story is cruel and I won't apply it to my life" then you already have a value system and you don't need the bible anyway.

 

[Raz]

I totally accept that, which is why I think it's an old book, historically interesting, with no value for people's lives today.

Basically, if you are intelligent enough to interpret the bible in such a way that it gives you good advice (instead of taking it literally) then you're intelligent enough to formulate your own value system anyway.

Very true, but dont you agree that reading it can help you form a good value system?

 

[Martin]

Very true, but dont you agree that reading it can help you form a good value system?

see above

 

[pitbull]

But macroevolution is the same as microevolution except on a much larger scale. If microevolution exists, then so does macroevolution.

Well i did explain to you in what i do believe, im not educated in what macro and microevolution means, but i don't think that the fact that humans have evolved through the times means that the starting point was monkey without common sense, mind, soul and stuff.

 

[rounder]

No, let me refine that.

If you read the bible and you say "oh, this piece of advice is useful for my life" and "this story is cruel and I won't apply it to my life" then you already have a value system and you don't need the bible anyway.

I don't think too many intelligent people use the Bible as an ethical guide per se. I think that at this point in time, through phenomenal technological advances in the media, no one should ever have an excuse for behaving immoraly, whether he is a theist or an atheist.

However, things were not like this 1500 years ago for example. They did not have the internet, TV, newspapers, books etc... They did rely on the Bible as a moral standard, it was important that they did so.

 

[Raz]

That's great, take words out of context and here you go. And you really believe that there were one people who wrote the bible if it's a well known fact that the parts of bible were wrote by different people in different times? And why it is so important to know in what i do believe?

Dont want to answer, thas fine with me. No loss here.

And I didnt said i believe it was like that, i said that i was speculating, told one of the possabilities, for me it isnt just one possability that the holy spirit overseen the writing down of the bible and it is all true, it is a few more. And why would you think it was one man, maybe it was an organisation of some sort?

 

[Martin]

I don't think too many intelligent people use the Bible as an ethical guide per se. I think that at this point in time, through phenomenal technological advances in the media, no one should ever have an excuse for behaving immoraly, whether he is a theist or an atheist.

However, things were not like this 1500 years ago for example. They did not have the internet, TV, newspapers, books etc... They did rely on the Bible as a moral standard, it was important that they did so.

Well that's a historical discussion, maybe you can ask Alen or Seven who are competent in history

 

[rounder]

Well i did explain to you in what i do believe, im not educated in what macro and microevolution means, but i don't think that the fact that humans have evolved through the times means that the starting point was monkey without common sense, mind, soul and stuff.

Why don't you try to understand evolution before dismissing it? Look, it's not intelligible to dismiss scientific facts because they don't appeal to you. Read 'Orgin of the species' by Charles Dawkins. Remember that evolution does not conflict with religion.

 

[Seven]

Well that's a historical discussion, maybe you can ask Alen or Seven who are competent in history

The Bible did have an important function in bringing structure to society. Whether or not it did a good job is a different discussion.

 

[Seven]

Why don't you try to understand evolution before dismissing it? Look, it's not intelligible to dismiss scientific facts because they don't appeal to you. Read 'Orgin of the species' by Charles Dawkins. Remember that evolution does not conflict with religion.

Yes it does.

 

[Raz]

see above

I suppose it might be true. Well anyway I havent finished it but I liked reading bible, not as a historical source of events, but as an old book with its own views, ideas, as some information about old customs which were at the time. I didnt start reading it to find some explanation or god himself, but it was interesting indeed, althoug if anything reading it made me more sure that there is no god

 

[Enron]

Why don't you try to understand evolution before dismissing it? Look, it's not intelligible to dismiss scientific facts because they don't appeal to you. Read 'Orgin of the species' by Charles Dawkins. Remember that evolution does not conflict with religion.

Darwin.

 

[Raz]

I don't think too many intelligent people use the Bible as an ethical guide per se. I think that at this point in time, through phenomenal technological advances in the media, no one should ever have an excuse for behaving immoraly, whether he is a theist or an atheist.

However, things were not like this 1500 years ago for example. They did not have the internet, TV, newspapers, books etc... They did rely on the Bible as a moral standard, it was important that they did so.

Yes very much agree with that. But times change, and stuff like bibles needs to and i think will become obsolete.

 

[pitbull]

Dont want to answer, thas fine with me. No loss here.

And I didnt said i believe it was like that, i said that i was speculating, told one of the possabilities, for me it isnt just one possability that the holy spirit overseen the writing down of the bible and it is all true, it is a few more. And why would you think it was one man, maybe it was an organisation of some sort?

I don't think that in the start every christian had just one possibility, they all probably went through uncertainty and doubts, but in the end the logical option stayed as the only one. And what did this organisation gain from carrying out such a huge job and making bible we read today over hundreds of years?