Originally posted by scottishinnzIn the Bible mankind first recieved the Ten Commandments directly from God. In and of themselves they seem pretty benign. For example, thou shalt not steal, thou shalt not kill etc etc. Equally puzzling is the fact that there were no penalties immediatly after the Ten Commandments were given. Then later penalties were enforced under Mosaic law. Now one could argue two things here. Either the penalties were man made only or they came from God directly. Of course for the later scenerio there are theological reasonings that I have used that might suggest why such harsh penalties were given for certain kinds of sins, but I don't particularly want to rehash what I have already said in threads in the spirituality forum.
[These bible guys, Whodey for example, often claim that the bible is the source of all morality. If that's to be the case, I think we can quite clearly say that the contents of the bible DO have an effect on people's actions.
You claim God / Jesus didn't advocate morality repugnent acts. So, how often do you go stoning gays or women who have had sex o ...[text shortened]... of wedlock to death, and have you, or do you have any friends who have ever eaten crab or shrimp?
Then God came in the flesh in the person of Christ. Here we have another direct confrontation with the Almighty as he makes clear why the laws are even in place. Case is piont is when Christ broke the Sabaath for healing someone on the Sabaath and he explained to them why it was even a law. Then he showed mercy to the woman who was about to be stoned for adultery etc etc. My only conclusion was Christs conclusion. The law was given in a spirit of love and not evil. After all, what society wants killing and stealing and adultery etc. in them? I would just say that the Master has arrived to set the record straight and it is what it is.
1 edit
Originally posted by whodeyIn the words of KJ, Scotty is just showing that their are "two sides" to the Bible. 😉
In the Bible mankind first recieved the Ten Commandments directly from God. In and of themselves they seem pretty benign. For example, thou shalt not steal, thou shalt not kill etc etc. Equally puzzling is the fact that there were no penalties immediatly after the Ten Commandments were given. Then later penalties were enforced under Mosaic law. Now one c I would just say that the Master has arrived to set the record straight and it is what it is.
1 edit
Originally posted by telerionYou are right, I don't count it against the Bible when people do evil in the name of it just like I don't count it against science when people do evil in the name of science. My point is, is that there is an interpretive element to both the Bible and science from which we derive our morality. Evil can be derived from either.
I already said that you admitted as much. My point is that you don't count it against the Bible that some people do so.
Originally posted by PinkFloydIt bombed.
Does anyone know how Expelled finally performed in the theaters? The first week I heard it was a smash; since then, nothing.
Rotton Tomatos gives it a measily 9%, which must make it amongst the worst movies ever made, and imdb gives it 3 out of 10, slightly better.
It has officially lost money (although I can't remember where I read that). And, happily, a New York judge has ruled to continue an injunction against Premise media (who made the film) to prevent further distribution, since they broke copyright in using John Lennon's song "Imagine". Way to go Yoko!
Originally posted by scottishinnzBecause Darwin gives us his interpretation of science as well as the mere scientific facts. The Nazis were likewise interested in science and they had their interpretation of it as well. The question is, did they adopt some Darwinian interpretations or were they similar in any way?
So why were you going on about Darwin for so long, and trying to equate his theories and personal convictions with Naziism then?
Originally posted by whodeyNo.
Because Darwin gives us his interpretation of science as well as the mere scientific facts. The Nazis were likewise interested in science and they had their interpretation of it as well. The question is, did they adopt some Darwinian interpretations or were they similar in any way?
They [the Nazis] were interested in selective breeding, artificial selection, if you will, which has been conducted by humans for thousands of years. It has nothing to do with Darwin.
Originally posted by scottishinnzOh, that is SO not fair🙂
It bombed.
Rotton Tomatos gives it a measily 9%, which must make it amongst the worst movies ever made, and imdb gives it 3 out of 10, slightly better.
It has officially lost money (although I can't remember where I read that). And, happily, a New York judge has ruled to continue an injunction against Premise media (who made the film) to prevent ...[text shortened]... ribution, since they broke copyright in using John Lennon's song "Imagine". Way to go Yoko!
Originally posted by whodeySo 'god came down in the flesh in the form of Jesus'. Ok, given that scenerio, why did this god do it only in Jerusalem? The world is a big place. Why were there not a thousand Jesus people distributed around the world if it was so important to god to get its word across?
In the Bible mankind first recieved the Ten Commandments directly from God. In and of themselves they seem pretty benign. For example, thou shalt not steal, thou shalt not kill etc etc. Equally puzzling is the fact that there were no penalties immediatly after the Ten Commandments were given. Then later penalties were enforced under Mosaic law. Now one c ...[text shortened]... I would just say that the Master has arrived to set the record straight and it is what it is.
Seems to me a pretty ineffient way to do business especially for an as you seem to think, omnicient god. It could have plopped down a million clones of christ if it wanted to, it would have been as easy as snapping its spiritual fingers. So why did that not happen? There are tribes hidden away in jungles around the world who even 2000 years later, have never heard of jesus. Why is that, if jesus was supposed to be the saviour of mankind?
1 edit
Originally posted by scottishinnzI am not really sure what it matters whether Darwin was their inspiration or whether he was not other than defending him personally. The point is, is that people have interpretations of the subject matter that is at hand that can be used for evil whether it be science or the Bible. The Nazis should drive home this point with or without Darwin.
No.
They [the Nazis] were interested in selective breeding, artificial selection, if you will, which has been conducted by humans for thousands of years. It has nothing to do with Darwin.
5 edits
Originally posted by sonhouseI think a better question is why are we talking about an obscure carpenters son some 2000 years later on the other side of the world. Also consider the fact that Christ never held any public office nor worldly wealth of any kind. All he had were 12 obscure followers with him like himself. 😉
So 'god came down in the flesh in the form of Jesus'. Ok, given that scenerio, why did this god do it only in Jerusalem? The world is a big place. Why were there not a thousand Jesus people distributed around the world if it was so important to god to get its word across?
Seems to me a pretty ineffient way to do business especially for an as you seem to th ...[text shortened]... r, have never heard of jesus. Why is that, if jesus was supposed to be the saviour of mankind?