FSTDT Forums
Rubbish => Preaching and Worship => Topic started by: Jacob Harrison on September 30, 2018, 02:39:43 pm
-
Back in the good old days when society was more Christian, homosexuality was a major taboo. Homosexual sex was seen the same way as incest, a morally reprehensible perversion.
However with a decline of Christianity, homosexual sex became accepted, and now there are same sex marriages.
Since people don’t see homosexual sex as a perversion, what’s going to stop them from not seeing incest as such? Since people stopped becoming repulsed by homosexuality, I predict in the future that people will stop being repulsed by incest and it will become accepted in society. There will be brother-sister marriages, brother-brother marriages, sister-sister marriages, mother-son marriages, mother-daughter marriages, father-daughter marriages, and father-son marriages.
This is why society needs a return to Christianity to prevent my predictions from coming true.
-
Because incest, when it results in pregnancy, leads to problems with recessive traits being reinforced.
Societies that accepted incest generally died off. Those that did not accept incest generally survived. (The same goes for cannibalism.) We are the descendants of people who did not accept incest.
As for banning homosexuality, that was imposed much later, with the Theodosian Code during the Christianisation of the Roman Empire. Other non-Jewish, non-Christian, non-Islamic cultures (say, India or America) were more accepting of it (and of transgender people) until the taboos against it were brought in by European colonizers.
Societies that accepted homosexuality survived. Societies that did not accept homosexuality survived.
So, yes, there is a marked difference between homosexuality and incest, and your slippery slope argument is, as with so many slippery slope arguments, laughably false and ignorant.
-
Because incest, when it results in pregnancy, leads to problems with recessive traits being reinforced.
Societies that accepted incest generally died off. Those that did not accept incest generally survived. (The same goes for cannibalism.) We are the descendants of people who did not accept incest.
As for banning homosexuality, that was imposed much later, with the Theodosian Code during the Christianisation of the Roman Empire. Other non-Jewish, non-Christian, non-Islamic cultures (say, India or America) were more accepting of it (and of transgender people) until the taboos against it were brought in by European colonizers.
Societies that accepted homosexuality survived. Societies that did not accept homosexuality survived.
So, yes, there is a marked difference between homosexuality and incest, and your slippery slope argument is, as with so many slippery slope arguments, laughably false and ignorant.
But there are condoms today, so they wouldn’t have to worry about pregnancies. Yet there is still a moral repulsion to the idea of incest like there used to be to homosexuality in Christian society.
-
Yes, there is a moral repulsion to incest because our minds haven't caught up to technology. And remember that male condoms are only around 98% effective (when used properly), so the taboo still makes sense even in light of our advancements in medical science.
As for homosexuality, that taboo was imposed--when you kill everyone who displays their homosexuality, everyone else gets the message pretty quickly. Prior to that, homosexuality was generally accepted.
-
Yes, there is a moral repulsion to incest because our minds haven't caught up to technology. And remember that male condoms are only around 98% effective (when used properly), so the taboo still makes sense even in light of our advancements in medical science.
As for homosexuality, that taboo was imposed--when you kill everyone who displays their homosexuality, everyone else gets the message pretty quickly. Prior to that, homosexuality was generally accepted.
But the immoral society of today also accepts birth control and abortions so even in the 2% of cases where condoms fail, it won’t cause babies with genetic disorders to be born. Eventually people’s minds will catch up to technology.
So Niam, every time you have sex with a condom, you have a 2% chance of becoming a father. So you might have fathered a poor neglected child who never met his or her dad due to your immoral behavoir.
-
Condoms are a form of birth control but none of those are perfect. Even abortions don't always work. As for abortion being immoral, it's even more immoral to deny someone bodily autonomy and force (and that's what you're doing: using the force of the government to deny someone the rights to self-determination and to withdraw consent) them to give birth and RISK BECOMING A FUCKING PARAPLEGIC (https://vancouversun.com/news/local-news/woman-who-gave-birth-to-child-sues-hospital-after-ending-up-a-paraplegic). (Or just straight-up dying (https://www.npr.org/2017/05/12/528098789/u-s-has-the-worst-rate-of-maternal-deaths-in-the-developed-world), or going broke (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/jan/16/why-does-it-cost-32093-just-to-give-birth-in-america).)
As for people's minds catching up to technology, do you have any clue how long our evolution has taken, especially compared to how long we've had our modern technology?
-
Back in the good old days when society was more Christian, homosexuality was a major taboo. Homosexual sex was seen the same way as incest, a morally reprehensible perversion.
However with a decline of Christianity, homosexual sex became accepted, and now there are same sex marriages.
Since people don’t see homosexual sex as a perversion, what’s going to stop them from not seeing incest as such? Since people stopped becoming repulsed by homosexuality, I predict in the future that people will stop being repulsed by incest and it will become accepted in society. There will be brother-sister marriages, brother-brother marriages, sister-sister marriages, mother-son marriages, mother-daughter marriages, father-daughter marriages, and father-son marriages.
This is why society needs a return to Christianity to prevent my predictions from coming true.
We already went through a period when incest was deemed okay and commendable - the Habsburg Dynasty of The Holy Roman Empire / Austria-Hungary.
And if you go into the deep south, you still do find really freaking tangled family trees.
-
Yes, there is a moral repulsion to incest because our minds haven't caught up to technology. And remember that male condoms are only around 98% effective (when used properly), so the taboo still makes sense even in light of our advancements in medical science.
As for homosexuality, that taboo was imposed--when you kill everyone who displays their homosexuality, everyone else gets the message pretty quickly. Prior to that, homosexuality was generally accepted.
But the immoral society of today also accepts birth control and abortions so even in the 2% of cases where condoms fail, it won’t cause babies with genetic disorders to be born. Eventually people’s minds will catch up to technology.
So Niam, every time you have sex with a condom, you have a 2% chance of becoming a father. So you might have fathered a poor neglected child who never met his or her dad due to your immoral behavoir.
Yeah, and? I'm not even the slightest bit worried.
-
Condoms are a form of birth control but none of those are perfect. Even abortions don't always work. As for abortion being immoral, it's even more immoral to deny someone bodily autonomy and force (and that's what you're doing: using the force of the government to deny someone the rights to self-determination and to withdraw consent) them to give birth and RISK BECOMING A FUCKING PARAPLEGIC (https://vancouversun.com/news/local-news/woman-who-gave-birth-to-child-sues-hospital-after-ending-up-a-paraplegic). (Or just straight-up dying (https://www.npr.org/2017/05/12/528098789/u-s-has-the-worst-rate-of-maternal-deaths-in-the-developed-world), or going broke (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/jan/16/why-does-it-cost-32093-just-to-give-birth-in-america).)
As for people's minds catching up to technology, do you have any clue how long our evolution has taken, especially compared to how long we've had our modern technology?
But the 2% failure rate of condom use combined with the small failure rates of other forms of birth control and abortions makes the chance of having a baby of incestual sex so small that those babies won’t have a major impact on the human population. And we’ve been over abortion before, nobody should have the right to murder babies. Of course an exception is when the mother’s life is threatened.
And it is society, not evolution that determines how people morally think about something like incest.
-
Back in the good old days when society was more Christian, homosexuality was a major taboo. Homosexual sex was seen the same way as incest, a morally reprehensible perversion.
However with a decline of Christianity, homosexual sex became accepted, and now there are same sex marriages.
Since people don’t see homosexual sex as a perversion, what’s going to stop them from not seeing incest as such? Since people stopped becoming repulsed by homosexuality, I predict in the future that people will stop being repulsed by incest and it will become accepted in society. There will be brother-sister marriages, brother-brother marriages, sister-sister marriages, mother-son marriages, mother-daughter marriages, father-daughter marriages, and father-son marriages.
This is why society needs a return to Christianity to prevent my predictions from coming true.
We already went through a period when incest was deemed okay and commendable - the Habsburg Dynasty of The Holy Roman Empire / Austria-Hungary.
And if you go into the deep south, you still do find really freaking tangled family trees.
There used to be cousin incest yes but not incest closer than that.
-
Yes, there is a moral repulsion to incest because our minds haven't caught up to technology. And remember that male condoms are only around 98% effective (when used properly), so the taboo still makes sense even in light of our advancements in medical science.
As for homosexuality, that taboo was imposed--when you kill everyone who displays their homosexuality, everyone else gets the message pretty quickly. Prior to that, homosexuality was generally accepted.
But the immoral society of today also accepts birth control and abortions so even in the 2% of cases where condoms fail, it won’t cause babies with genetic disorders to be born. Eventually people’s minds will catch up to technology.
So Niam, every time you have sex with a condom, you have a 2% chance of becoming a father. So you might have fathered a poor neglected child who never met his or her dad due to your immoral behavoir.
Yeah, and? I'm not even the slightest bit worried.
Your not worried if you have a child? That makes you a horrible neglectful dad.
-
Condoms are a form of birth control but none of those are perfect. Even abortions don't always work. As for abortion being immoral, it's even more immoral to deny someone bodily autonomy and force (and that's what you're doing: using the force of the government to deny someone the rights to self-determination and to withdraw consent) them to give birth and RISK BECOMING A FUCKING PARAPLEGIC (https://vancouversun.com/news/local-news/woman-who-gave-birth-to-child-sues-hospital-after-ending-up-a-paraplegic). (Or just straight-up dying (https://www.npr.org/2017/05/12/528098789/u-s-has-the-worst-rate-of-maternal-deaths-in-the-developed-world), or going broke (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/jan/16/why-does-it-cost-32093-just-to-give-birth-in-america).)
As for people's minds catching up to technology, do you have any clue how long our evolution has taken, especially compared to how long we've had our modern technology?
But the 2% failure rate of condom use combined with the small failure rates of other forms of birth control and abortions makes the chance of having a baby of incestual sex so small that those babies won’t have a major impact on the human population. And we’ve been over abortion before, nobody should have the right to murder babies. Of course an exception is when the mother’s life is threatened.
And it is society, not evolution that determines how people morally think about something like incest.
There's always a threat to the life of the mother. Childbirth itself is a threat to the life of the mother. If you're fine with forcing someone to undergo a procedure that carries a not-insignificant risk of death (never mind all the other potential consequences), you're the immoral one here.
And it is evolution that determines how people think about something like incest, because those societies which survived were, by and large, those that had an incest taboo.
-
So Niam, every time you have sex with a condom, you have a 2% chance of becoming a father. So you might have fathered a poor neglected child who never met his or her dad due to your immoral behavoir.
That's not what the 2% failure rate means. Birth control efficacy rates are calculated annually, not per sexual encounter.
-
Condoms are a form of birth control but none of those are perfect. Even abortions don't always work. As for abortion being immoral, it's even more immoral to deny someone bodily autonomy and force (and that's what you're doing: using the force of the government to deny someone the rights to self-determination and to withdraw consent) them to give birth and RISK BECOMING A FUCKING PARAPLEGIC (https://vancouversun.com/news/local-news/woman-who-gave-birth-to-child-sues-hospital-after-ending-up-a-paraplegic). (Or just straight-up dying (https://www.npr.org/2017/05/12/528098789/u-s-has-the-worst-rate-of-maternal-deaths-in-the-developed-world), or going broke (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/jan/16/why-does-it-cost-32093-just-to-give-birth-in-america).)
As for people's minds catching up to technology, do you have any clue how long our evolution has taken, especially compared to how long we've had our modern technology?
But the 2% failure rate of condom use combined with the small failure rates of other forms of birth control and abortions makes the chance of having a baby of incestual sex so small that those babies won’t have a major impact on the human population. And we’ve been over abortion before, nobody should have the right to murder babies. Of course an exception is when the mother’s life is threatened.
And it is society, not evolution that determines how people morally think about something like incest.
There's always a threat to the life of the mother. Childbirth itself is a threat to the life of the mother. If you're fine with forcing someone to undergo a procedure that carries a not-insignificant risk of death (never mind all the other potential consequences), you're the immoral one here.
And it is evolution that determines how people think about something like incest, because those societies which survived were, by and large, those that had an incest taboo.
Most mothers do not die in childbirth, so in most situations, abortion has a much higher chance of causing a human to die, than childbirth. Then there are the exceptions.
And humans could evolve due to the birth control technology to not have evolutionary disgust for incest, which is why Christian morality is also needed, and why same sex marriage is a slippery slope.
-
No, it's why secular morality is needed, so that we have a rational, logical means of determining what is acceptable and unacceptable and why that is not just the hopelessly arbitrary standard of "My imaginary dictator said so and you have to do it too even though you don't share my delusions."
As for abortion, I already knew you denied the rights to bodily autonomy, self-determination, and withdrawal of consent and that you are willing to use force to make a woman undergo a dangerous procedure against her will.
-
No, it's why secular morality is needed, so that we have a rational, logical means of determining what is acceptable and unacceptable and why that is not just the hopelessly arbitrary standard of "My imaginary dictator said so and you have to do it too even though you don't share my delusions."
As for abortion, I already knew you denied the rights to bodily autonomy, self-determination, and withdrawal of consent and that you are willing to use force to make a woman undergo a dangerous procedure against her will.
But humans disgust to incest when humans evolve will require Christian morality, because with secular morality, there wouldn’t be a rational logical reason that incest is unacceptable, due to the birth control technology available.
-
...and if there are no negative ramifications to incest, then why should it be illegal or immoral?
"Because it's gross" or "Because my imaginary dictator said so" are not answers.
-
And if you go into the deep south, you still do find really freaking tangled family trees.
It's also the area with the largest infestation of Bible thumpers by far.
But by all means, tell us more about how only Christianity can prevent sister fucking.
-
Um, if having anything but vanilla, married, heterosexual sex is "immoral..."
...then why are we supposed to be taking lessons on morality from a denim-humper, cousin luster and compulsive masturbator who clearly hopes society will be as forgiving of his cousin-lustin' ways as it is currently with homosexuality?
-
...and if there are no negative ramifications to incest, then why should it be illegal or immoral?
"Because it's gross" or "Because my imaginary dictator said so" are not answers.
Because society considers incest to be a heinous unspeakable act. You seriously think that incest between siblings and parents and offspring is morally fine?
-
And if you go into the deep south, you still do find really freaking tangled family trees.
It's also the area with the largest infestation of Bible thumpers by far.
But by all means, tell us more about how only Christianity can prevent sister fucking.
The incest in the South was between cousins not siblings.
-
Um, if having anything but vanilla, married, heterosexual sex is "immoral..."
...then why are we supposed to be taking lessons on morality from a denim-humper, cousin luster and compulsive masturbator who clearly hopes society will be as forgiving of his cousin-lustin' ways as it is currently with homosexuality?
As I said, I did not lust after my cousin, I was shocked and revolted seeing her in towels.
-
Um, if having anything but vanilla, married, heterosexual sex is "immoral..."
...then why are we supposed to be taking lessons on morality from a denim-humper, cousin luster and compulsive masturbator who clearly hopes society will be as forgiving of his cousin-lustin' ways as it is currently with homosexuality?
As I said, I did not lust after my cousin, I was shocked and revolted seeing her in towels.
Sweatily shocked.
Erotically revolted!
-
And if you go into the deep south, you still do find really freaking tangled family trees.
It's also the area with the largest infestation of Bible thumpers by far.
But by all means, tell us more about how only Christianity can prevent sister fucking.
The incest in the South was between cousins not siblings.
Say no more. After all, we're all intimately familiar with your feelings on cousin incest.
-
...and if there are no negative ramifications to incest, then why should it be illegal or immoral?
"Because it's gross" or "Because my imaginary dictator said so" are not answers.
Because society considers incest to be a heinous unspeakable act. You seriously think that incest between siblings and parents and offspring is morally fine?
That still doesn't say why it should be immoral or illegal. If its current immorality is because of how modern society views it, then in a society that does not view it the same way, it would not be immoral.
-
...and if there are no negative ramifications to incest, then why should it be illegal or immoral?
"Because it's gross" or "Because my imaginary dictator said so" are not answers.
Because society considers incest to be a heinous unspeakable act. You seriously think that incest between siblings and parents and offspring is morally fine?
That still doesn't say why it should be immoral or illegal. If its current immorality is because of how modern society views it, then in a society that does not view it the same way, it would not be immoral.
Does it concern you that future society will have different morals from today? That is why we need Christian morality because it does not change with time.
-
...and if there are no negative ramifications to incest, then why should it be illegal or immoral?
"Because it's gross" or "Because my imaginary dictator said so" are not answers.
Because society considers incest to be a heinous unspeakable act. You seriously think that incest between siblings and parents and offspring is morally fine?
That still doesn't say why it should be immoral or illegal. If its current immorality is because of how modern society views it, then in a society that does not view it the same way, it would not be immoral.
Does it concern you that future society will have different morals from today? That is why we need Christian morality because it does not change with time.
Not really, because our society has different morals than past societies. That doesn't bother me, so the thought that a future society would have morals different from this one doesn't either. Slavery was once acceptable; it no longer is (even though your Bible sanctions it--even in the New Testament).
-
No, it's why secular morality is needed, so that we have a rational, logical means of determining what is acceptable and unacceptable and why that is not just the hopelessly arbitrary standard of "My imaginary dictator said so and you have to do it too even though you don't share my delusions."
As for abortion, I already knew you denied the rights to bodily autonomy, self-determination, and withdrawal of consent and that you are willing to use force to make a woman undergo a dangerous procedure against her will.
But humans disgust to incest when humans evolve will require Christian morality, because with secular morality, there wouldn’t be a rational logical reason that incest is unacceptable, due to the birth control technology available.
Uh yeah about that, incest was most accepted during times of high Christian morality. Just see the many centuries of rule by the Habsburg Dynasty. They even spread their "keeping the bloodline pure" nonsense throughout Europe, to the extent every Monarch waging war in World War 1 was related in a number of ways.
In fact, it was only going forward when the world became more secular and less dependent on monarchs who allegedly received their mandate from "heaven" that incest became more frowned upon.
-
...and if there are no negative ramifications to incest, then why should it be illegal or immoral?
"Because it's gross" or "Because my imaginary dictator said so" are not answers.
Because society considers incest to be a heinous unspeakable act. You seriously think that incest between siblings and parents and offspring is morally fine?
That still doesn't say why it should be immoral or illegal. If its current immorality is because of how modern society views it, then in a society that does not view it the same way, it would not be immoral.
Does it concern you that future society will have different morals from today? That is why we need Christian morality because it does not change with time.
No it doesn't frighten me at all. Change is natural and should be tackled moment by moment, and I would have people totally cast off anything unchanging.
-
Also "Christian morals don't change with time?" Let me answer with the mother of all belly laughs! One word, 'slavery.' Now tell me with a straight face that Christian attitudes to that have remained consistent since your precious Roman Empire.
-
No, it's why secular morality is needed, so that we have a rational, logical means of determining what is acceptable and unacceptable and why that is not just the hopelessly arbitrary standard of "My imaginary dictator said so and you have to do it too even though you don't share my delusions."
As for abortion, I already knew you denied the rights to bodily autonomy, self-determination, and withdrawal of consent and that you are willing to use force to make a woman undergo a dangerous procedure against her will.
But humans disgust to incest when humans evolve will require Christian morality, because with secular morality, there wouldn’t be a rational logical reason that incest is unacceptable, due to the birth control technology available.
Uh yeah about that, incest was most accepted during times of high Christian morality. Just see the many centuries of rule by the Habsburg Dynasty. They even spread their "keeping the bloodline pure" nonsense throughout Europe, to the extent every Monarch waging war in World War 1 was related in a number of ways.
In fact, it was only going forward when the world became more secular and less dependent on monarchs who allegedly received their mandate from "heaven" that incest became more frowned upon.
As I said before, cousin incest was accepted but parent-offspring and sibling-sibling incest was never accepted.
-
Also "Christian morals don't change with time?" Let me answer with the mother of all belly laughs! One word, 'slavery.' Now tell me with a straight face that Christian attitudes to that have remained consistent since your precious Roman Empire.
Slavery was different back then. In the Roman Empire, most of the lower class were slaves and slaves had various jobs. Some were even doctors. They got to live in their master’s house. After a period of work, they could even become Roman citizens. So slavery then was different from the infamous plantation slavery.
-
Okay but Plantation slavery was also supported by Christians in it's day.
-
Okay but Plantation slavery was also supported by Christians in it's day.
But Christians in the North opposed plantation slavery.
-
Okay but Plantation slavery was also supported by Christians in it's day.
But Christians in the North opposed plantation slavery.
So there's no one Christian morality, then. (Although, again, the Bible clearly endorses slavery, so Christian arguments against slavery fail.)
-
And the Christians in the south supported it, they were just as much Christians.
See there is no universally accepted Christian morality. Every Church, every culture have different ideas of what Christian Morality is.
Take my Dad for example. He was a Christian who would have broadly agreed with you about abortion and gay marriage. But he also believed the bible when it said that you must help the poor and interpreted this to mean support for universal health care, the welfare state, and environmentalism, and that Christian like you who oppose or don't care about such things were going against God's will.
Or my Mom, a liberal Christian who supports LGBT rights and say the the rules against it belong in the same category as the ones against eating pork and point out the bible never says anything about abortion.
You can't say that's any less Christian Morality then yours.
-
Okay but Plantation slavery was also supported by Christians in it's day.
But Christians in the North opposed plantation slavery.
So there's no one Christian morality, then. (Although, again, the Bible clearly endorses slavery, so Christian arguments against slavery fail.)
The anti slavery Christians used the argument that slavery in the Roman times was different, in their arguements against plantation slavery. And Collosians 4:1 instructed masters to treat their slaves justly which did not happen in the South so the slave owners were violating Christian morality.
-
And the Christians in the south supported it, they were just as much Christians.
See there is no universally accepted Christian morality. Every Church, every culture have different ideas of what Christian Morality is.
Take my Dad for example. He was a Christian who would have broadly agreed with you about abortion and gay marriage. But he also believed the bible when it said that you must help the poor and interpreted this to mean support for universal health care, the welfare state, and environmentalism, and that Christian like you who oppose or don't care about such things were going against God's will.
Or my Mom, a liberal Christian who supports LGBT rights and say the the rules against it belong in the same category as the ones against eating pork and point out the bible never says anything about abortion.
You can't say that's any less Christian Morality then yours.
Well your mom falls in the category of heresy so she’s not a true Christian.
-
And you fall into heresy by not being a socialist, what's your point?
-
Also "Christian morals don't change with time?" Let me answer with the mother of all belly laughs! One word, 'slavery.' Now tell me with a straight face that Christian attitudes to that have remained consistent since your precious Roman Empire.
Slavery was different back then. In the Roman Empire, most of the lower class were slaves and slaves had various jobs. Some were even doctors. They got to live in their master’s house. After a period of work, they could even become Roman citizens. So slavery then was different from the infamous plantation slavery.
Well, different in the sense that Romans branded the heads of their slaves with tattoos (https://www.jstor.org/stable/300578?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents), yes.
And some slaves in plantations had relatively easier jobs in the master's houses, if there's a point hidden in your slavery apologia it's hidden well.
Besides which Christians, at the time used the bible to justify plantation slavery. The Catholic church played a significant role in the Atlantic slave trade and not in opposing it either, here's a handy little timeline (http://www.globalblackhistory.com/2015/11/the-role-of-the-roman-catholic-church-in-slavery.html) and here's a quote (https://www.bc.edu/bc_org/avp/cas/his/schloesser/modernity/HS473_syllabus-booklist.pdf) from your boy Pope Pius IX in 1866.
Slavery itself, considered as such in its essential nature, is not at all contrary to the natural and divine law, and there can be several just titles of slavery, and these are referred to by approved theologians and commentators of the sacred canons … It is not contrary to the natural and divine law for a slave to be sold, bought, exchanged or given.
And now we come to the present with our resident Catholic doing the very Catholic thing of sweeping all of that past nasty business under the nearest rug and declaring that they only ever supported a very ancient Roman form of slavery in direct contradiction to centuries of actual Catholic doctrine. Figures.
-
And you fall into heresy by not being a socialist, what's your point?
The Bible does not say be a socialist. The verses on helping the poor means giving to charity, not having government programs.
-
And the Christians in the south supported it, they were just as much Christians.
See there is no universally accepted Christian morality. Every Church, every culture have different ideas of what Christian Morality is.
Take my Dad for example. He was a Christian who would have broadly agreed with you about abortion and gay marriage. But he also believed the bible when it said that you must help the poor and interpreted this to mean support for universal health care, the welfare state, and environmentalism, and that Christian like you who oppose or don't care about such things were going against God's will.
Or my Mom, a liberal Christian who supports LGBT rights and say the the rules against it belong in the same category as the ones against eating pork and point out the bible never says anything about abortion.
You can't say that's any less Christian Morality then yours.
Well your mom falls in the category of heresy so she’s not a true Christian.
You support Donald Trump. You're not a true Christian.
-
Also "Christian morals don't change with time?" Let me answer with the mother of all belly laughs! One word, 'slavery.' Now tell me with a straight face that Christian attitudes to that have remained consistent since your precious Roman Empire.
Slavery was different back then. In the Roman Empire, most of the lower class were slaves and slaves had various jobs. Some were even doctors. They got to live in their master’s house. After a period of work, they could even become Roman citizens. So slavery then was different from the infamous plantation slavery.
Well, different in the sense that Romans branded the heads of their slaves with tattoos (https://www.jstor.org/stable/300578?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents), yes.
And some slaves in plantations had relatively easier jobs in the master's houses, if there's a point hidden in your slavery apologia it's hidden well.
Besides which Christians, at the time used the bible to justify plantation slavery. The Catholic church played a significant role in the Atlantic slave trade and not in opposing it either, here's a handy little timeline (http://www.globalblackhistory.com/2015/11/the-role-of-the-roman-catholic-church-in-slavery.html) and here's a quote (https://www.bc.edu/bc_org/avp/cas/his/schloesser/modernity/HS473_syllabus-booklist.pdf) from your boy Pope Pius IX in 1866.
Slavery itself, considered as such in its essential nature, is not at all contrary to the natural and divine law, and there can be several just titles of slavery, and these are referred to by approved theologians and commentators of the sacred canons … It is not contrary to the natural and divine law for a slave to be sold, bought, exchanged or given.
And now we come to the present with our resident Catholic doing the very Catholic thing of sweeping all of that past nasty business under the nearest rug and declaring that they only ever supported a very ancient Roman form of slavery in direct contradiction to centuries of actual Catholic doctrine. Figures.
The plantation slaves that worked in their master’s houses were s minority. The Catholic Church’s role in the slave time was not greater than the role of Protestant countries. And Pope Pius IX’s quote is on slavery in general, not referring to specifically plantation slavery.
-
And you fall into heresy by not being a socialist, what's your point?
The Bible does not say be a socialist. The verses on helping the poor means giving to charity, not having government programs.
Then the Pharisees went off and plotted how they might entrap him in speech. They sent their disciples to him, with the Herodians, saying, "Teacher, we know you are a truthful man and that you teach the way of God in accordance with the truth. And you are not concerned with anyone's opinion, for you do not regard a person's status. Tell us, then, what is your opinion: Is it lawful to pay the census tax to Caesar or not?" Knowing their malice, Jesus said, "Why are you testing me, you hypocrites? Show me the coin that pays the census tax." Then they handed him the roman coin. He said to them, "Whose image is this and whose inscription?" They replied, "Caesar's." At that he said to them, "Then repay to Caesar what belongs to Caesar and to God what belongs to God." When they heard this they were amazed, and leaving him they went away.
--Matthew 22:15-22, New American Bible
Let every person be subordinate to the higher authorities, for there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been established by God. Therefore, whoever resists authority opposes what God has appointed, and those who oppose it will bring judgment upon themselves. For rulers are not a cause of fear to good conduct, but to evil. Do you wish to have no fear of authority? Then do what is good and you will receive approval from it, for it is a servant of God for your good. But if you do evil, be afraid, for it does not bear the sword without purpose; it is the servant of God to inflict wrath on the evildoer. Therefore, it is necessary to be subject not only because of the wrath but also because of conscience. This is why you also pay taxes, for the authorities are ministers of God, devoting themselves to this very thing. Pay to all their dues, taxes to whom taxes are due, toll to whom toll is due, respect to whom respect is due, honor to whom honor is due.
--Romans 13:1-7, New American Bible
-
And you fall into heresy by not being a socialist, what's your point?
The Bible does not say be a socialist. The verses on helping the poor means giving to charity, not having government programs.
Then the Pharisees went off and plotted how they might entrap him in speech. They sent their disciples to him, with the Herodians, saying, "Teacher, we know you are a truthful man and that you teach the way of God in accordance with the truth. And you are not concerned with anyone's opinion, for you do not regard a person's status. Tell us, then, what is your opinion: Is it lawful to pay the census tax to Caesar or not?" Knowing their malice, Jesus said, "Why are you testing me, you hypocrites? Show me the coin that pays the census tax." Then they handed him the roman coin. He said to them, "Whose image is this and whose inscription?" They replied, "Caesar's." At that he said to them, "Then repay to Caesar what belongs to Caesar and to God what belongs to God." When they heard this they were amazed, and leaving him they went away.
--Matthew 22:15-22, New American Bible
Let every person be subordinate to the higher authorities, for there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been established by God. Therefore, whoever resists authority opposes what God has appointed, and those who oppose it will bring judgment upon themselves. For rulers are not a cause of fear to good conduct, but to evil. Do you wish to have no fear of authority? Then do what is good and you will receive approval from it, for it is a servant of God for your good. But if you do evil, be afraid, for it does not bear the sword without purpose; it is the servant of God to inflict wrath on the evildoer. Therefore, it is necessary to be subject not only because of the wrath but also because of conscience. This is why you also pay taxes, for the authorities are ministers of God, devoting themselves to this very thing. Pay to all their dues, taxes to whom taxes are due, toll to whom toll is due, respect to whom respect is due, honor to whom honor is due.
--Romans 13:1-7, New American Bible
Paying taxes does not equal socialism, for capitalist nations have taxes.
-
But the rulers have been ordained by God, and so you should pay your taxes without complaint whatever they're doing.
-
Also "Christian morals don't change with time?" Let me answer with the mother of all belly laughs! One word, 'slavery.' Now tell me with a straight face that Christian attitudes to that have remained consistent since your precious Roman Empire.
Slavery was different back then. In the Roman Empire, most of the lower class were slaves and slaves had various jobs. Some were even doctors. They got to live in their master’s house. After a period of work, they could even become Roman citizens. So slavery then was different from the infamous plantation slavery.
Well, different in the sense that Romans branded the heads of their slaves with tattoos (https://www.jstor.org/stable/300578?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents), yes.
And some slaves in plantations had relatively easier jobs in the master's houses, if there's a point hidden in your slavery apologia it's hidden well.
Besides which Christians, at the time used the bible to justify plantation slavery. The Catholic church played a significant role in the Atlantic slave trade and not in opposing it either, here's a handy little timeline (http://www.globalblackhistory.com/2015/11/the-role-of-the-roman-catholic-church-in-slavery.html) and here's a quote (https://www.bc.edu/bc_org/avp/cas/his/schloesser/modernity/HS473_syllabus-booklist.pdf) from your boy Pope Pius IX in 1866.
Slavery itself, considered as such in its essential nature, is not at all contrary to the natural and divine law, and there can be several just titles of slavery, and these are referred to by approved theologians and commentators of the sacred canons … It is not contrary to the natural and divine law for a slave to be sold, bought, exchanged or given.
And now we come to the present with our resident Catholic doing the very Catholic thing of sweeping all of that past nasty business under the nearest rug and declaring that they only ever supported a very ancient Roman form of slavery in direct contradiction to centuries of actual Catholic doctrine. Figures.
The plantation slaves that worked in their master’s houses were s minority. The Catholic Church’s role in the slave time was not greater than the role of Protestant countries. And Pope Pius IX’s quote is on slavery in general, not referring to specifically plantation slavery.
Plantation slavery is slavery, the pope didn't care to make a distinction and the side note about the proddies doing it too is irrelevant. The Christian moral stance (Catholic morality being a subset) towards slavery changed over time, hence Christian morality is changeable which the rest of us understand but you won't allow yourself too.
-
"Where does evil come from?"
"Religion. And to answer your next question, morality comes from humanism, and is stolen by religion for its own purposes."
And as a writer for The Spectator (hardly some left-wing rag) pointed out...
https://www.spectator.co.uk/2017/05/why-its-obvious-that-morality-precedes-religion/
Morality precedes religion.
-
But the rulers have been ordained by God, and so you should pay your taxes without complaint whatever they're doing.
Romans 13 is saying that true power and authority comes from God and it is referring to legitimate authority, not false authority that doesn’t come from God, such as the illegitimate government of the UK.
-
Also "Christian morals don't change with time?" Let me answer with the mother of all belly laughs! One word, 'slavery.' Now tell me with a straight face that Christian attitudes to that have remained consistent since your precious Roman Empire.
Slavery was different back then. In the Roman Empire, most of the lower class were slaves and slaves had various jobs. Some were even doctors. They got to live in their master’s house. After a period of work, they could even become Roman citizens. So slavery then was different from the infamous plantation slavery.
Well, different in the sense that Romans branded the heads of their slaves with tattoos (https://www.jstor.org/stable/300578?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents), yes.
And some slaves in plantations had relatively easier jobs in the master's houses, if there's a point hidden in your slavery apologia it's hidden well.
Besides which Christians, at the time used the bible to justify plantation slavery. The Catholic church played a significant role in the Atlantic slave trade and not in opposing it either, here's a handy little timeline (http://www.globalblackhistory.com/2015/11/the-role-of-the-roman-catholic-church-in-slavery.html) and here's a quote (https://www.bc.edu/bc_org/avp/cas/his/schloesser/modernity/HS473_syllabus-booklist.pdf) from your boy Pope Pius IX in 1866.
Slavery itself, considered as such in its essential nature, is not at all contrary to the natural and divine law, and there can be several just titles of slavery, and these are referred to by approved theologians and commentators of the sacred canons … It is not contrary to the natural and divine law for a slave to be sold, bought, exchanged or given.
And now we come to the present with our resident Catholic doing the very Catholic thing of sweeping all of that past nasty business under the nearest rug and declaring that they only ever supported a very ancient Roman form of slavery in direct contradiction to centuries of actual Catholic doctrine. Figures.
The plantation slaves that worked in their master’s houses were s minority. The Catholic Church’s role in the slave time was not greater than the role of Protestant countries. And Pope Pius IX’s quote is on slavery in general, not referring to specifically plantation slavery.
Plantation slavery is slavery, the pope didn't care to make a distinction and the side note about the proddies doing it too is irrelevant. The Christian moral stance (Catholic morality being a subset) towards slavery changed over time, hence Christian morality is changeable which the rest of us understand but you won't allow yourself too.
Christian morality did not change, it grew stronger as Christians later realized that plantation slavery is morally wrong.
-
"Where does evil come from?"
"Religion. And to answer your next question, morality comes from humanism, and is stolen by religion for its own purposes."
And as a writer for The Spectator (hardly some left-wing rag) pointed out...
https://www.spectator.co.uk/2017/05/why-its-obvious-that-morality-precedes-religion/
Morality precedes religion.
Morality does indeed precede religion since it comes from God, the creator of the universe. And it was Satan who invented evil.
-
Also "Christian morals don't change with time?" Let me answer with the mother of all belly laughs! One word, 'slavery.' Now tell me with a straight face that Christian attitudes to that have remained consistent since your precious Roman Empire.
Slavery was different back then. In the Roman Empire, most of the lower class were slaves and slaves had various jobs. Some were even doctors. They got to live in their master’s house. After a period of work, they could even become Roman citizens. So slavery then was different from the infamous plantation slavery.
Well, different in the sense that Romans branded the heads of their slaves with tattoos (https://www.jstor.org/stable/300578?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents), yes.
And some slaves in plantations had relatively easier jobs in the master's houses, if there's a point hidden in your slavery apologia it's hidden well.
Besides which Christians, at the time used the bible to justify plantation slavery. The Catholic church played a significant role in the Atlantic slave trade and not in opposing it either, here's a handy little timeline (http://www.globalblackhistory.com/2015/11/the-role-of-the-roman-catholic-church-in-slavery.html) and here's a quote (https://www.bc.edu/bc_org/avp/cas/his/schloesser/modernity/HS473_syllabus-booklist.pdf) from your boy Pope Pius IX in 1866.
Slavery itself, considered as such in its essential nature, is not at all contrary to the natural and divine law, and there can be several just titles of slavery, and these are referred to by approved theologians and commentators of the sacred canons … It is not contrary to the natural and divine law for a slave to be sold, bought, exchanged or given.
And now we come to the present with our resident Catholic doing the very Catholic thing of sweeping all of that past nasty business under the nearest rug and declaring that they only ever supported a very ancient Roman form of slavery in direct contradiction to centuries of actual Catholic doctrine. Figures.
The plantation slaves that worked in their master’s houses were s minority. The Catholic Church’s role in the slave time was not greater than the role of Protestant countries. And Pope Pius IX’s quote is on slavery in general, not referring to specifically plantation slavery.
Plantation slavery is slavery, the pope didn't care to make a distinction and the side note about the proddies doing it too is irrelevant. The Christian moral stance (Catholic morality being a subset) towards slavery changed over time, hence Christian morality is changeable which the rest of us understand but you won't allow yourself too.
Christian morality did not change, it grew stronger as Christians later realized that plantation slavery is morally wrong.
"Growing" means "change!"
I guess with enough arrested development that rather obvious point might pass you by.
"Where does evil come from?"
"Religion. And to answer your next question, morality comes from humanism, and is stolen by religion for its own purposes."
And as a writer for The Spectator (hardly some left-wing rag) pointed out...
https://www.spectator.co.uk/2017/05/why-its-obvious-that-morality-precedes-religion/
Morality precedes religion.
Morality does indeed precede religion since it comes from God, the creator of the universe. And it was Satan who invented evil.
Unbiblical and you know it, yeh little heretic.
I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.
Isaiah 45:7
-
Also "Christian morals don't change with time?" Let me answer with the mother of all belly laughs! One word, 'slavery.' Now tell me with a straight face that Christian attitudes to that have remained consistent since your precious Roman Empire.
Slavery was different back then. In the Roman Empire, most of the lower class were slaves and slaves had various jobs. Some were even doctors. They got to live in their master’s house. After a period of work, they could even become Roman citizens. So slavery then was different from the infamous plantation slavery.
Well, different in the sense that Romans branded the heads of their slaves with tattoos (https://www.jstor.org/stable/300578?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents), yes.
And some slaves in plantations had relatively easier jobs in the master's houses, if there's a point hidden in your slavery apologia it's hidden well.
Besides which Christians, at the time used the bible to justify plantation slavery. The Catholic church played a significant role in the Atlantic slave trade and not in opposing it either, here's a handy little timeline (http://www.globalblackhistory.com/2015/11/the-role-of-the-roman-catholic-church-in-slavery.html) and here's a quote (https://www.bc.edu/bc_org/avp/cas/his/schloesser/modernity/HS473_syllabus-booklist.pdf) from your boy Pope Pius IX in 1866.
Slavery itself, considered as such in its essential nature, is not at all contrary to the natural and divine law, and there can be several just titles of slavery, and these are referred to by approved theologians and commentators of the sacred canons … It is not contrary to the natural and divine law for a slave to be sold, bought, exchanged or given.
And now we come to the present with our resident Catholic doing the very Catholic thing of sweeping all of that past nasty business under the nearest rug and declaring that they only ever supported a very ancient Roman form of slavery in direct contradiction to centuries of actual Catholic doctrine. Figures.
The plantation slaves that worked in their master’s houses were s minority. The Catholic Church’s role in the slave time was not greater than the role of Protestant countries. And Pope Pius IX’s quote is on slavery in general, not referring to specifically plantation slavery.
Plantation slavery is slavery, the pope didn't care to make a distinction and the side note about the proddies doing it too is irrelevant. The Christian moral stance (Catholic morality being a subset) towards slavery changed over time, hence Christian morality is changeable which the rest of us understand but you won't allow yourself too.
Christian morality did not change, it grew stronger as Christians later realized that plantation slavery is morally wrong.
"Growing" means "change!"
I guess with enough arrested development that rather obvious point might pass you by.
"Where does evil come from?"
"Religion. And to answer your next question, morality comes from humanism, and is stolen by religion for its own purposes."
And as a writer for The Spectator (hardly some left-wing rag) pointed out...
https://www.spectator.co.uk/2017/05/why-its-obvious-that-morality-precedes-religion/
Morality precedes religion.
Morality does indeed precede religion since it comes from God, the creator of the universe. And it was Satan who invented evil.
Unbiblical and you know it, yeh little heretic.
I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.
Isaiah 45:7
1. So it shows that Christian morality growing is a good thing.
2. I already addressed this. What it is referring to is the evils of afflictions and punishments.
-
1. Is that a goalpost in your Wranglers or are you just pleased to see me?
2. Whenever you "address" anything about your made up God you just make him look more impotent. Now you're saying he's a simple automaton, incapable of creating what he wants to or of possessing free will.
How many converts is it now?
-
1. Is that a goalpost in your Wranglers or are you just pleased to see me?
2. Whenever you "address" anything about your made up God you just make him look more impotent. Now you're saying he's a simple automaton, incapable of creating what he wants to or of possessing free will.
How many converts is it now?
How do I make God look impotent?
-
By saying that an omnipotent, creator of the universe and all it contains can only do evil incidentally and can't create it intentionally.
Might as well be a Rachni drone awaiting orders from the queen!
-
By saying that an omnipotent, creator of the universe and all it contains can only do evil incidentally and can't create it intentionally.
Might as well be a Rachni drone awaiting orders from the queen!
I never said that he can’t create evil intentionally, he just doesn’t do that because he’s omnibenevolent.
-
By saying that an omnipotent, creator of the universe and all it contains can only do evil incidentally and can't create it intentionally.
Might as well be a Rachni drone awaiting orders from the queen!
I never said that he can’t create evil intentionally, he just doesn’t do that because he’s omnibenevolent.
The guy who drowned entire civilizations in a fit of pique? If ya say so!
The bible acknowledges his alleged behavior by acknowledging that he's capable of evil, you reduce him to an unthinking automaton with no choice other than to be benevolent.
In any case it isn't keeping with the way the fictional character of God is described. Petty, inconsistent, tyrannical, cruel and vain.
That's entirely consistent with a character who can create evil and completely out of character for an omnibenevolent being. You're a fiction author who pens fantasies about wizards and magic too, you should know this stuff!
-
By saying that an omnipotent, creator of the universe and all it contains can only do evil incidentally and can't create it intentionally.
Might as well be a Rachni drone awaiting orders from the queen!
I never said that he can’t create evil intentionally, he just doesn’t do that because he’s omnibenevolent.
The guy who drowned entire civilizations in a fit of pique? If ya say so!
The bible acknowledges his alleged behavior by acknowledging that he's capable of evil, you reduce him to an unthinking automaton with no choice other than to be benevolent.
In any case it isn't keeping with the way the fictional character of God is described. Petty, inconsistent, tyrannical, cruel and vain.
That's entirely consistent with a character who can create evil and completely out of character for an omnibenevolent being. You're a fiction author who pens fantasies about wizards and magic too, you should know this stuff!
I never said that he has no choice other than to be benevolent, I am saying that he chooses to be benevolent. His actions in the Bible are for just reasons. He flooded the Middle East because it was full of Nephillim.
-
By saying that an omnipotent, creator of the universe and all it contains can only do evil incidentally and can't create it intentionally.
Might as well be a Rachni drone awaiting orders from the queen!
I never said that he can’t create evil intentionally, he just doesn’t do that because he’s omnibenevolent.
The guy who drowned entire civilizations in a fit of pique? If ya say so!
The bible acknowledges his alleged behavior by acknowledging that he's capable of evil, you reduce him to an unthinking automaton with no choice other than to be benevolent.
In any case it isn't keeping with the way the fictional character of God is described. Petty, inconsistent, tyrannical, cruel and vain.
That's entirely consistent with a character who can create evil and completely out of character for an omnibenevolent being. You're a fiction author who pens fantasies about wizards and magic too, you should know this stuff!
I never said that he has no choice other than to be benevolent, I am saying that he chooses to be benevolent. His actions in the Bible are for just reasons. He flooded the Middle East because it was full of Nephillim.
That's right junior, you're being drowned because your neighbour is a dirty giant and won't stop being big.
If he can choose to be benevolent he can choose to be the opposite in any case, as the bible clearly states he does-choose to be an utter cock as is borne out in almost every bible story.
Insomuch as a confused pile of iron-age fables clearly states anything.
-
By saying that an omnipotent, creator of the universe and all it contains can only do evil incidentally and can't create it intentionally.
Might as well be a Rachni drone awaiting orders from the queen!
I never said that he can’t create evil intentionally, he just doesn’t do that because he’s omnibenevolent.
The guy who drowned entire civilizations in a fit of pique? If ya say so!
The bible acknowledges his alleged behavior by acknowledging that he's capable of evil, you reduce him to an unthinking automaton with no choice other than to be benevolent.
In any case it isn't keeping with the way the fictional character of God is described. Petty, inconsistent, tyrannical, cruel and vain.
That's entirely consistent with a character who can create evil and completely out of character for an omnibenevolent being. You're a fiction author who pens fantasies about wizards and magic too, you should know this stuff!
I never said that he has no choice other than to be benevolent, I am saying that he chooses to be benevolent. His actions in the Bible are for just reasons. He flooded the Middle East because it was full of Nephillim.
That's right junior, you're being drowned because your neighbour is a dirty giant and won't stop being big.
If he can choose to be benevolent he can choose to be the opposite in any case, as the bible clearly states he does-choose to be an utter cock as is borne out in almost every bible story.
Insomuch as a confused pile of iron-age fables clearly states anything.
The Nephillim needed to be destroyed because they wicked. This is from the Douay-Rheims bible site. [2] The sons of God seeing the daughters of men, that they were fair, took to themselves wives of all which they chose. ... [3] And God said: My spirit shall not remain in man for ever, because he is flesh, and his days shall be a hundred and twenty years. ... [4] Now giants were upon the earth in those days. For after the sons of God went in to the daughters of men, and they brought forth children, these are the mighty men of old, men of renown. ... [5] And God seeing that the wickedness of men was great on the earth, and that all the thought of their heart was bent upon evil at all times,
[2] "The sons of God": The descendants of Seth and Enos are here called sons of God from their religion and piety: whereas the ungodly race of Cain, who by their carnal affections lay grovelling upon the earth, are called the children of men. The unhappy consequence of the former marrying with the latter, ought to be a warning to Christians to be very circumspect in their marriages; and not to suffer themselves to be determined in their choice by their carnal passion, to the prejudice of virtue or religion.
[3] "His days shall be": The meaning is, that man's days, which before the flood were usually 900 years, should now be reduced to 120 years. Or rather, that God would allow men this term of 120 years, for their repentance and conversion, before he would send the deluge.
[4] "Giants": It is likely the generality of men before the flood were of a gigantic stature in comparison with what men now are. But these here spoken of are called giants, as being not only tall in stature, but violent and savage in their dispositions, and mere monsters of cruelty and lust.
-
So, if God is all-powerful and such, why not just send a few very precisely targeted lightning bolts at these people? Or give them all heart attacks or aneurysms?
-
Because free will or something.
-
So, if God is all-powerful and such, why not just send a few very precisely targeted lightning bolts at these people? Or give them all heart attacks or aneurysms?
I guess he thought a flood in that region in the Middle East would be a cool way to get rid of the Nephillim. There were no innocent casualties, because Noah and his family were the only righteous people in the region.
-
So, if God is all-powerful and such, why not just send a few very precisely targeted lightning bolts at these people? Or give them all heart attacks or aneurysms?
I guess he thought a flood in that region in the Middle East would be a cool way to get rid of the Nephillim. There were no innocent casualties, because Noah and his family were the only righteous people in the region.
So tell me how all those babies and tots who gurgled their last were unrighteous my lil' "pro life" Catholic, including the unborn ones.
-
So, if God is all-powerful and such, why not just send a few very precisely targeted lightning bolts at these people? Or give them all heart attacks or aneurysms?
I guess he thought a flood in that region in the Middle East would be a cool way to get rid of the Nephillim. There were no innocent casualties, because Noah and his family were the only righteous people in the region.
So tell me how all those babies and tots who gurgled their last were unrighteous my lil' "pro life" Catholic, including the unborn ones.
Well, if God just killed their parents, they would have died anyway without parents to take care of them. So there were unfortunate innocent casualties.
-
Couldn't your supposedly-omnipotent god have just teleported them onto the Ark so that Noah and his family could raise them as adopted children, solving the issue of massive inbreeding that would necessarily happen in a population regrowing from only eight members?
-
So, if God is all-powerful and such, why not just send a few very precisely targeted lightning bolts at these people? Or give them all heart attacks or aneurysms?
I guess he thought a flood in that region in the Middle East would be a cool way to get rid of the Nephillim. There were no innocent casualties, because Noah and his family were the only righteous people in the region.
So tell me how all those babies and tots who gurgled their last were unrighteous my lil' "pro life" Catholic, including the unborn ones.
Well, if God just killed their parents, they would have died anyway without parents to take care of them. So there were unfortunate innocent casualties.
You don't get the "collateral damage" out, not with an omnipotent, omniscient deity. A deity who can so specifically alchemically alter matter with laserlike precision like he did to Lot's wife while he was smiting the rest of a city. Not while you can summon bears, lions, angels and fiery serpents to be your personal hitmen. Not like he did to Ezekiel's wife for literally no reason at all.
The same deity we are told can produce loaves, fishes and mana from heaven to feed said tots and send his goons angels on daycare instead of smiting duty . He doesn't get to throw his bloodied hands up and say "collateral damage dudes, there was a terrorist giant in the vicinity!"
On a side note I have to commend you at being very talented at being a very effective anti-missionary. You've come to a place where religion would struggle to find fertile ground anyway and you've poisoned any potential in that ground with your rank hypocrisy, cowering authoritarianism and laughably ridiculous "proofs." It's like you heard some fundies grumble, inaccurately I might add, that this entire site is a hotbed of aggressive atheists and nothing else and thought "make it so."
Most of us have worked out that you're pulling our leg in one fashion or another, if your end goal is to scour this site of any remaining sympathy for religion...damn son, you're putting the work in to further that goal, it's gotta be said.
-
So, if God is all-powerful and such, why not just send a few very precisely targeted lightning bolts at these people? Or give them all heart attacks or aneurysms?
I guess he thought a flood in that region in the Middle East would be a cool way to get rid of the Nephillim. There were no innocent casualties, because Noah and his family were the only righteous people in the region.
So tell me how all those babies and tots who gurgled their last were unrighteous my lil' "pro life" Catholic, including the unborn ones.
Well, if God just killed their parents, they would have died anyway without parents to take care of them. So there were unfortunate innocent casualties.
You don't get the "collateral damage" out, not with an omnipotent, omniscient deity. A deity who can so specifically alchemically alter matter with laserlike precision like he did to Lot's wife while he was smiting the rest of a city. Not while you can summon bears, lions, angels and fiery serpents to be your personal hitmen. Not like he did to Ezekiel's wife for literally no reason at all.
The same deity we are told can produce loaves, fishes and mana from heaven to feed said tots and send his goons angels on daycare instead of smiting duty . He doesn't get to throw his bloodied hands up and say "collateral damage dudes, there was a terrorist giant in the vicinity!"
I did more research, and found out early Christian writers believed that believed that the "sons of God" in Genesis 6:1–4 were fallen angels who engaged in unnatural union with human women, resulting in the begetting of the Nephilim. Therefore the Nephilim babies would have been born evil because they would have demonic ancestry, so they needed to be killed in the flood.
-
Okay, one, the notion that ancestry alone makes one evil and worthy of destruction is utterly abhorrent.
Two, what about all the purely human babies? Were the nephilim genes so prevalent in humanity at the time that only Noah, his sons, and their wives were free of it? And if so, what about said wives' relatives? How did said wives avoid the nephilim genes while all their relations had it? Or were they also pure human but just (completely avoidable for an omnipotent deity) collateral damage?
Other flood myths at least have a handful of other righteous people surviving the flood on high mountaintops.
-
Okay, one, the notion that ancestry alone makes one evil and worthy of destruction is utterly abhorrent.
Two, what about all the purely human babies? Were the nephilim genes so prevalent in humanity at the time that only Noah, his sons, and their wives were free of it? And if so, what about said wives' relatives? How did said wives avoid the nephilim genes while all their relations had it? Or were they also pure human but just (completely avoidable for an omnipotent deity) collateral damage?
Other flood myths at least have a handful of other righteous people surviving the flood on high mountaintops.
1. But it is impossible for Nephillim to not be evil, because of the demonic power inside of them since they were born.
2. Yes Noah, his sons, and their wives were the only ones were the only ones in that region that were free of the Nephillim genes. Their ancestors were decendants of Adam’s son Seth and they avoided reproducing with Nephillim who were descended from Cain.
-
Citation SORELY FUCKING NEEDED.
-
1. Nephilim were among those killed, not all those killed.
2. The bible writers didn't know what genes were and your assertion that they boinked so far and wide as to make everyone bar Noah's clan part nephi comes not from the bible but your choirboy posterior.
-
1. Nephilim were among those killed, not all those killed.
2. The bible writers didn't know what genes were and your assertion that they boinked so far and wide as to make everyone bar Noah's clan part nephi comes not from the bible but your choirboy posterior.
All the people killed in the flood were Nephilim. If there were other regular humans in the region, God would have had them go on Noah’s Arc.
They didn’t understand genetics but they did know that reproducing with Nephilim would produce Nephilim children.
-
Your ass must be so sore after having all this stuff pulled out of it.
-
It's also in direct contradiction to the biblical passage in Ezekiel about the Nephilim.
Ezekiel 13:17-13:33 And Moses sent them to spy out the land of Canaan, and said unto them, Get you up this way southward, and go up into the mountain: And see the land, what it is, and the people that dwelleth therein, whether they be strong or weak, few or many; And what the land is that they dwell in, whether it be good or bad; and what cities they be that they dwell in, whether in tents, or in strong holds; And what the land is, whether it be fat or lean, whether there be wood therein, or not. And be ye of good courage, and bring of the fruit of the land. Now the time was the time of the firstripe grapes. So they went up, and searched the land from the wilderness of Zin unto Rehob, as men come to Hamath. And they ascended by the south, and came unto Hebron; where Ahiman, Sheshai, and Talmai, the children of Anak, were. And they came unto the brook of Eshcol, and cut down from thence a branch with one cluster of grapes, and they bare it between two upon a staff; and they brought of the pomegranates, and of the figs. The place was called the brook Eshcol, because of the cluster of grapes which the children of Israel cut down from thence And they returned from searching of the land after forty days. And they went and came to Moses, and to Aaron, and to all the congregation of the children of Israel, unto the wilderness of Paran, to Kadesh; and brought back word unto them, and unto all the congregation, and shewed them the fruit of the land. And they returned from searching of the land after forty days. And they told him, and said, We came unto the land whither thou sentest us, and surely it floweth with milk and honey; and this is the fruit of it. The land ... floweth with milk and honey. Nevertheless the people be strong that dwell in the land, and the cities are walled, and very great: and moreover we saw the children of Anak there. The Amalekites dwell in the land of the south: and the Hittites, and the Jebusites, and the Amorites, dwell in the mountains: and the Canaanites dwell by the sea, and by the coast of Jordan. Nevertheless the people be strong that dwell in the land, and the cities are walled, and very great: and moreover we saw the children of Anak there. And Caleb stilled the people before Moses, and said, Let us go up at once, and possess it; for we are well able to overcome it. But the men that went up with him said, We be not able to go up against the people; for they are stronger than we. And they brought up an evil report of the land which they had searched unto the children of Israel, saying, The land, through which we have gone to search it, is a land that eateth up the inhabitants thereof; and all the people that we saw in it are men of a great stature. The land, through which we have gone to search it, is a land that eateth up the inhabitants thereof; and all the people that we saw in it are men of a great stature. And there we saw the giants, the sons of Anak, which come of the giants: and we were in our own sight as grasshoppers, and so we were in their sight.
Short version, Mo' sends his scouts out to find real estate. They come back with reports of some really big peeps in one particularly juicy piece of land. Also keep in mind by the bible's own reckoning this land of giant Nephilim people was around some 900 years (https://www.quora.com/Who-came-first-Noah-or-Moses) after Noah.
Noah if you care to know about him closed the reigns of an wicked generation. He is the one God told to build an ark to rescue him from the coming flood.
In obedience he did. Only him, his wife, 3 sons: Shem, Ham and Japheth and their wives survived.The 8 humans started a new life on a desolate earth where everything had gone under.
He lived 950 years and died.
New generations were springing forth through his sons.One of them, Shem gained a descendant known as Abraham. Through his son Isaac and grandson Jacob, he birthed the 12 Tribes of Israel.This was the official start of the children Moses went to rescue from Egypt.
You can see the timeline from Noah is quite gone. Shem lived 500 years and Abraham appeared 7 generations later and lived 175 years.Isaac bore Jacob who had 12 Sons. His 3rd son was called Levi-The line of Priests. It's from this family that Moses was born to a Levite couple hundreds of years after Noah.
So, killin' Nephilim can't have been the reason for the great flood because they were still being obnoxiously tall several generations later (hey, maybe they were fine and just wondering why they were in the shallow end while everybody else gurgled their last.)
-
It's also in direct contradiction to the biblical passage in Ezekiel about the Nephilim.
Ezekiel 13:17-13:33 And Moses sent them to spy out the land of Canaan, and said unto them, Get you up this way southward, and go up into the mountain: And see the land, what it is, and the people that dwelleth therein, whether they be strong or weak, few or many; And what the land is that they dwell in, whether it be good or bad; and what cities they be that they dwell in, whether in tents, or in strong holds; And what the land is, whether it be fat or lean, whether there be wood therein, or not. And be ye of good courage, and bring of the fruit of the land. Now the time was the time of the firstripe grapes. So they went up, and searched the land from the wilderness of Zin unto Rehob, as men come to Hamath. And they ascended by the south, and came unto Hebron; where Ahiman, Sheshai, and Talmai, the children of Anak, were. And they came unto the brook of Eshcol, and cut down from thence a branch with one cluster of grapes, and they bare it between two upon a staff; and they brought of the pomegranates, and of the figs. The place was called the brook Eshcol, because of the cluster of grapes which the children of Israel cut down from thence And they returned from searching of the land after forty days. And they went and came to Moses, and to Aaron, and to all the congregation of the children of Israel, unto the wilderness of Paran, to Kadesh; and brought back word unto them, and unto all the congregation, and shewed them the fruit of the land. And they returned from searching of the land after forty days. And they told him, and said, We came unto the land whither thou sentest us, and surely it floweth with milk and honey; and this is the fruit of it. The land ... floweth with milk and honey. Nevertheless the people be strong that dwell in the land, and the cities are walled, and very great: and moreover we saw the children of Anak there. The Amalekites dwell in the land of the south: and the Hittites, and the Jebusites, and the Amorites, dwell in the mountains: and the Canaanites dwell by the sea, and by the coast of Jordan. Nevertheless the people be strong that dwell in the land, and the cities are walled, and very great: and moreover we saw the children of Anak there. And Caleb stilled the people before Moses, and said, Let us go up at once, and possess it; for we are well able to overcome it. But the men that went up with him said, We be not able to go up against the people; for they are stronger than we. And they brought up an evil report of the land which they had searched unto the children of Israel, saying, The land, through which we have gone to search it, is a land that eateth up the inhabitants thereof; and all the people that we saw in it are men of a great stature. The land, through which we have gone to search it, is a land that eateth up the inhabitants thereof; and all the people that we saw in it are men of a great stature. And there we saw the giants, the sons of Anak, which come of the giants: and we were in our own sight as grasshoppers, and so we were in their sight.
Short version, Mo' sends his scouts out to find real estate. They come back with reports of some really big peeps in one particularly juicy piece of land. Also keep in mind by the bible's own reckoning this land of giant Nephilim people was around some 900 years (https://www.quora.com/Who-came-first-Noah-or-Moses) after Noah.
Noah if you care to know about him closed the reigns of an wicked generation. He is the one God told to build an ark to rescue him from the coming flood.
In obedience he did. Only him, his wife, 3 sons: Shem, Ham and Japheth and their wives survived.The 8 humans started a new life on a desolate earth where everything had gone under.
He lived 950 years and died.
New generations were springing forth through his sons.One of them, Shem gained a descendant known as Abraham. Through his son Isaac and grandson Jacob, he birthed the 12 Tribes of Israel.This was the official start of the children Moses went to rescue from Egypt.
You can see the timeline from Noah is quite gone. Shem lived 500 years and Abraham appeared 7 generations later and lived 175 years.Isaac bore Jacob who had 12 Sons. His 3rd son was called Levi-The line of Priests. It's from this family that Moses was born to a Levite couple hundreds of years after Noah.
So, killin' Nephilim can't have been the reason for the great flood because they were still being obnoxiously tall several generations later (hey, maybe they were fine and just wondering why they were in the shallow end while everybody else gurgled their last.)
Some of Noah's sons wives had Nephilim genes in them which is why there were Nephilim after the flood.
-
So they drowned a big heap of non nephilim tots for fuck all?
Chapter and verse reference for these mysterious neph-genetics in Noah's harem pls?
-
So they drowned a big heap of non nephilim tots for fuck all?
Chapter and verse reference for these mysterious neph-genetics in Noah's harem pls?
No, all of those in the region who drowned in the flood were Nephilim. The flood significantly reduced the number of Nephilim. His sons having some wives that carried Nephilim genes is the common sense explanation for why there were Nephilim after the flood because Noah, his sons, and his sons wives were the only survivors in the region, so the post-flood Nephilim have to come from somewhere.
-
So they drowned a big heap of non nephilim tots for fuck all?
Chapter and verse reference for these mysterious neph-genetics in Noah's harem pls?
No, all of those in the region who drowned in the flood were Nephilim. The flood significantly reduced the number of Nephilim. His sons having some wives that carried Nephilim genes is the common sense explanation for why there were Nephilim after the flood because Noah, his sons, and his sons wives were the only survivors in the region, so the post-flood Nephilim have to come from somewhere.
So an omnipotent entity that can smite individuals at will deals with this purported sub species of superhumans by throwing water at them which, being omniscient, is something he knows won't work?
I note you guys rarely claim that Yahweh is omni-intelligent. I can see why.
-
So they drowned a big heap of non nephilim tots for fuck all?
Chapter and verse reference for these mysterious neph-genetics in Noah's harem pls?
No, all of those in the region who drowned in the flood were Nephilim. The flood significantly reduced the number of Nephilim. His sons having some wives that carried Nephilim genes is the common sense explanation for why there were Nephilim after the flood because Noah, his sons, and his sons wives were the only survivors in the region, so the post-flood Nephilim have to come from somewhere.
Okay, one, the notion that ancestry alone makes one evil and worthy of destruction is utterly abhorrent.
Two, what about all the purely human babies? Were the nephilim genes so prevalent in humanity at the time that only Noah, his sons, and their wives were free of it? And if so, what about said wives' relatives? How did said wives avoid the nephilim genes while all their relations had it? Or were they also pure human but just (completely avoidable for an omnipotent deity) collateral damage?
Other flood myths at least have a handful of other righteous people surviving the flood on high mountaintops.
1. But it is impossible for Nephillim to not be evil, because of the demonic power inside of them since they were born.
2. Yes Noah, his sons, and their wives were the only ones were the only ones in that region that were free of the Nephillim genes. Their ancestors were decendants of Adam’s son Seth and they avoided reproducing with Nephillim who were descended from Cain.
You really are shameless and don't give a shit about truth, aren't you, when you can't even avoid straight-up contradicting yourself?
-
So they drowned a big heap of non nephilim tots for fuck all?
Chapter and verse reference for these mysterious neph-genetics in Noah's harem pls?
No, all of those in the region who drowned in the flood were Nephilim. The flood significantly reduced the number of Nephilim. His sons having some wives that carried Nephilim genes is the common sense explanation for why there were Nephilim after the flood because Noah, his sons, and his sons wives were the only survivors in the region, so the post-flood Nephilim have to come from somewhere.
So an omnipotent entity that can smite individuals at will deals with this purported sub species of superhumans by throwing water at them which, being omniscient, is something he knows won't work?
I note you guys rarely claim that Yahweh is omni-intelligent. I can see why.
Because his goal was to destroy most of them, not all of them.
-
So they drowned a big heap of non nephilim tots for fuck all?
Chapter and verse reference for these mysterious neph-genetics in Noah's harem pls?
No, all of those in the region who drowned in the flood were Nephilim. The flood significantly reduced the number of Nephilim. His sons having some wives that carried Nephilim genes is the common sense explanation for why there were Nephilim after the flood because Noah, his sons, and his sons wives were the only survivors in the region, so the post-flood Nephilim have to come from somewhere.
Okay, one, the notion that ancestry alone makes one evil and worthy of destruction is utterly abhorrent.
Two, what about all the purely human babies? Were the nephilim genes so prevalent in humanity at the time that only Noah, his sons, and their wives were free of it? And if so, what about said wives' relatives? How did said wives avoid the nephilim genes while all their relations had it? Or were they also pure human but just (completely avoidable for an omnipotent deity) collateral damage?
Other flood myths at least have a handful of other righteous people surviving the flood on high mountaintops.
1. But it is impossible for Nephillim to not be evil, because of the demonic power inside of them since they were born.
2. Yes Noah, his sons, and their wives were the only ones were the only ones in that region that were free of the Nephillim genes. Their ancestors were decendants of Adam’s son Seth and they avoided reproducing with Nephillim who were descended from Cain.
You really are shameless and don't give a shit about truth, aren't you, when you can't even avoid straight-up contradicting yourself?
I made that comment before I did research on how the Nephilim survived after the flood.
-
Citation seriously fucking needed on that research.
-
It involved wizards, portals, Einstein–Rosen bridges, Lucifer and Jesus chillin' in the bedroom, teen doodles, old man boobies and probably non-consensual photos of his cuz in denim short shorts, to be sure.
-
The LORD said to him, "Who gives one man speech and makes another deaf and dumb? Or who gives sight to one and makes another blind? Is it not I, the LORD? Go, then! It is I who will assist you in speaking and will teach you what you are to say."
--Exodus 4:11-12, New American Bible
So, yes, it's your god who makes people deaf, dumb, and/or blind.