Human history has shown that those with the biggest guns make that decision. 

Damn cj, you have only been back for two days and already you are receiving personal visits from satan. Congratz!

You have no idea who I have been consorting with while I was busy elsewhere!! 

(no, Lee, not satan.  It's a joke, 'k?)

To hear a christian bringing to bear that wondrous fundamentalist argument asserting that when you believe you will know the truth. 

Amazing old world order .. all made anew(φαινόμενoν ) phenomenon with new evidence for a Global Deluge 
   These are the things that only adds to the reasons the board holds a treasured place in my heart and where else can you find these  things  

                   __________________________________

    Before I begin or  forget, I should have thanked X for correcting me where I was wrong about a detail in Nordic myth, I still havent read the Eddas in a long while. If you're ever about thanks for keeping me honest. I might have almost done that purposefully in a way because of the obvious   confusion about Ragnorrock it undoubtedly generates (video is down, he'll know).  

Lee's quote

  If someone like Lee is engaging in speculations ? Is Aig the best source for information? >

  I might have answered my own question, today from  Nov 11th --

  You directly quoted from a Aig site. Yes? In a while perhaps you will learn if you dont provide a basis for your 'beliefs', you will be deeply penalized on this board. Data, facts, findings are looked at, more subjective approaches of your (own) personal conclusions or beliefs, not so much,. In the other thread you were deeply offended w/ the term liar. Well, If you are honest as you seem to think; an honest inquiry can be made, right ? If it is true then you wont have any problems looking into matters yourself without the additional assistance of AiG or ICR, correct ? Why say that? As for Gish and Ham, there is nothing quite like going in with a desired conclusion and trying to make the evidence fit, eh ? If you show true courage and do not shrink back (Heb. 10:38-9), why'd you desire anyone who allows his beliefs cloud his judgment of the facts?!? If you are a purest like Mr. K. Ham, it isnt 6,000 years but six solar days by his teaching. Remember, It's a very human thing to find what youre looking for, if you look hard enough or if that doesn't work attack the competing theor(-ies). In the Back-to-Genesis culture, They are busily developing narratives which strike them as best fitting or explaining the problem, where the authority of the Genesis account is simply assumed. People want more than that Lee. Does sound like a safe place to retreat to for the christian, I must say.

 From Nov 11

:

   Then I only just find out moments ago about this. I cannot believe it myself, there are even worse web-sources.  Why is it when you think something can't get  any worse, (murphey's law) it does ? I havent even gotten a good look at the site yet and look at what they provide . . .

http://genesisveracityfoundation.com/global-repopulation

 Unwarranted Myth making (now made anew)

http://genesisveracityfoundation.com/global-repopulation

 




 If I was addressing the site:

    No!  Hebrew came later. Btw, Is that EnKi or the Lord's confusing of the languages (honest question)? Apparently this guy is 'Doctor Who ?' when it comes to timelines. I'm sorry when was the frozen snow packs to come in ? What relation to the deluge myth is that again ? How does this prove it happened?  I'm assuming you arent referring to what some have dubbed Europe's mini-Ice-Age, placing the time off even further. Oceanographic sea levels, at the height of the ice age, around  20,000 years ago was more than 400 feet (122 meters) lower than it is today (factoid).

  No! Ionian League of Greek settlements, it's all Greek to him. And did somebody say "altantean" (I guess you arent talking about the state of Georgia). Oh, Your obviously thinking of Humphrey Bogart  in a old black and white film on Turner Classic Movies, right? Or should people be making pilgramages to the base of Mt. Olympus (in Greece) ? Who knows maybe even 'the Little Mermaid'?

 

Uploaded with ImageShack.us

 No!  Everyone knows the Greek pantheon was later adopted by the Romans (remember) ? Oh, That's right youre making this up, how silly of me.  The origins for the god's name were the Greeks. Zeus, He was the head of the pantheon (thanks in no small way to the 'hundred handers') and a Storm deity. You may have heard of him. Always know your storm deities (a must)!! Shift in name change between ea. would have been around 31- B.C. when the roman troops conquered the last territories of the Kingdom of Macedonia. Before Roman was roman you had the  Etruscans and their deities.  http://www.history.com/topics/hellenistic-greece/videos#zeus-and-the-great-flood

Geography DURING Ice Age

 No! That's the sleeping mystic "Edgar Casey" your thinking of. Search for "Lost" Atlantis Centers on Strait of Gibraltar. Most people know the greek manuscript had an error and  according to Plato it would be located no further than "or within the Strait of Gibraltar" not in the Atlantic at all  (Sorry Edgar!)

  No! And what? 'Ponce de León' stuck a feather in his hat  and called it macaroni?!? Where 's he getting this from ?. Consult genetic study map to refresh your memory on actual migratory patterns. Japet was the father of Altas. Atlas was never real (a Titan and not a human-being)

  No! That's for me to know and this guy to find out. Why dont you ask TWD39 (e.g. Pa)? You obviously are not familiar with the Sumerians nor the words from their religion. Worth the time invested. Mentioned in the era of seven-headed hounds  and  six-headed Lambs of the mythic. Then there's, according to tradition, the present-day Parsis descend from a group of Zoroastrians of Iran who immigrated to India. (Consult genetic migration map). By the way, The first Americans walked to the New World across a land bridge that joined Asia and North America between 70,000 and 11,000 years ago. Where did this guy say Canaan  was located again. I'm actually starting to get a head-ache.                      Fun though.

  I'll spare everyone the rest.

  NationalGeographicSociety (Consult Map,  Map Below) -- 

  p.s. -- Ian had some really great questions about the Flood for Twd39, that 'Pa' never got around to (hint, hint)

You're trying to have your cake and eat it, you slippery thing you. 

1) You are saying your human morals are subjective, so your current view on slavery is valid

2) You are saying that God's morals do not change

3) You say we will be judged on god's morals

Therefore, by your definitions, 1) must be false - if 2) and 3) are true.

My viewpoint is that 2) and 3) don't exist, and 1) is true, which has no contradiction, but you, as a bible-thumping fundy, don't have this luxury, and so you cannot rationally argue that human morals are subjective. If you do, you are being hypocritical based on the logical steps above.

A question to you, if you'll indulge me.. If God (through the bible) doesn't say anything on a subject, is it ok to do it? 

I would agree with that. If the slave can cancel at any time you have marriage . I think for the purposes of discussion it makes sense to consider enslavement as an agreement to be enslaved that can only be cancelled under prescribed conditions. For example, perhaps a specific period of time, upon the completion of a specific task, the purchasing of freedom (either by the slave or the third party), or of course the master releasing the slave on their own volition. After all it isn't really slavery if the master can't get rid of the slave at their whim. 

As for your comments on assisted suicide I also agree in a philosophical sense. I don't think there is anything immoral about killing a person who desires to be killed. From a practical legal standpoint, I think any legalization of suicide assistance has to be highly regulated and limited due to the sheer impossibility of determining the actual consent and mental soundness of the person who is killed after the fact. I think the idea of voluntary slavery has very similar problems from a practical standpoint and our society should err on the side of protecting the rights of individuals even if some individuals do not want those rights. I once took it for granted that all people wanted freedom, however over time I have realized that many (perhaps most) people don't want freedom- while most don't want to be slaves, they are more than willing to give up many liberties in exchange for relieving themselves of responsibilities. 

I can imagine that there are people out there who would gladly give up all of their freedoms in exchange for giving someone else complete responsibility for making all of the decisions in their life, up to and including whether or not to end it. Personally, I would never accept such an offer from anyone because I don't want the responsibility of controlling someone else's life, but I don't believe that I could say that someone who did is acting immorally.  

Sure I did! Here it is one more time. God offers us an objective set of morals: do not lie, do not steal, do not commit adultery, do not bear false witness, etc. These morals don’t change depending on your opinion, your situation, or your personal preferences. They are based on God’s character and since God doesn’t change, these morals don’t either. 

Way to take this out of context Jc. The Lord said "who will entice" and an evil spirit came forward. God didn't lie and didn't command a lie He permitted satan to deceive.

God said do not murder. It is obvious that not all killing is murder, for the Bible itself imposes the death penalty for certain crimes.

Yes the holy spirit is speaking to me through God's word the bible. If it were me talking to myself why would I need the bible? Never once did I say that it feels like the holy spirit in fact I warned that we can't go by our feelings (Jeremiah 17:9) I know it's not my inner voice because I'm reading God's very words. The original autographs were written under the inspiration of the holy spirit (2 Peter 3:16-17)(2 Peter 1:20-21) and the copies we have are 99% accurate. But words have a meaning and truth to them that convey a message and the holy spirit speaks through the message. 

For the word of God is living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing to the division of soul and of spirit, of joints and of marrow, and discerning the thoughts and intentions of the heart.(Hebrews 4:12)

No I say morals are objective and they come not from the human race but from God. The atheistic worldview says that morals are subjective. If your case is true then when have no basis for what is right or wrong only our preferences. Therefore how can you say God is evil without contradicting your own worldview. This isn't rocket science here.

God's morals are subjective because he doesn't consistently follow them (as you've been shown).

Individual Christians have subjective morals because they can ask forgiveness for each time they do something immoral and reset the counter - no consequences for actions.

Atheist morals have consequences that atheists can't magic away. So morals for atheists seem to exist and are objective. Help society - get good consequences. Harm society - get bad consequences.

Still too easy, Lee

Yes I endorse God's moral laws as the right ones. It does gel with what I said before. I don't believe women should be stoned because that law only applied to the Israelites of that time and was a civil law NOT a moral law. Those civil laws don't apply to any nation today. In that situation I would tell the truth to the soldiers. Would I be responsible for that persons death? No the soldiers are responsible. It would be better for that person to be killed rather than be tortured and experimented on for who knows how long. I don't follow your logic at all. If I knew that someone was planning on committing a murder I would call the authorities I wouldn't steal their guns.

Oh, so god changed his mind. Got it. 

Obviously you bear some of the responsibility because you were in a situation where you could have directly prevented them being carted away. I think your comment says quite a bit about you as a person. So you would consider the people who helped hide the Jews and who worked the Underground Railroad as immoral for those actions? I can't relate with that at all. I could understand saying you wouldn't because you would be too afraid for your own life, but to consider it immoral to save an innocent life by lying shows a significant lack of empathy. I guess that is the only way you could stand being in heaven knowing so many decent people are being tortured in hell. 

In the real world the authorities generally don't show up on time- they usually show up after the fact except in fictional police tv shows. If you are in the rare position where you can actually prevent an imminent murder time is critical. If I had to lie, cheat and steal to protect the life of an innocent person I would without even thinking about it. Guess that just shows how much of a terrible heathen I am.  

I'm sorry, but you still have not explained how you know that this is the holy spirit speaking to you through the bible.  What is it about the message that tells you it is the holy spirit? 

And isn't this knowing a feeling?  How can knowing not be a feeling?  So you can not rely on your feeling that this is the holy spirit, there must be some other evidence so that you "know." 

As for accuracy, the bible is no more accurate than any other collection of writings from the late bronze age/early iron age historical period.  It was written by pastoralists (nomadic herders) and early agriculturalists.  The history enumerated in the bible is not borne out by archaeological evidence.  So while it says some interesting things, it is unreasonable to expect it to be accurate in our modern sense of accuracy.

Reading it, meditating on the words, will likely give you a sense of peace and contentment.  But this is no more likely than any other person of another religion reading their holy book.  So how is yours any better than those books that give other people the same meditative peaceful feeling?

That isn't very objective, in fact it is completely subjective. Are you saying that if I feel guilty about it, it is murder and if I don't feel guilty it isn't?

There are plenty of people I could kill without feeling guilty about that society would consider murder, for example, I met a complete douche who beats his girlfriend regularly, cops get called, she forgives him and gets back together. I could go over there and put a bullet between his eyes and probably feel quite good about it, I doubt I would have the slightest tinge of guilt- in fact my heart would be overjoyed. Society would rightfully call it murder and throw me in jail for a long, long time. 

While when I was a soldier I faced the reality that I could be put in a situation where I have to kill some other 18 year old who was a perfectly good person that if I had met in some other situation I could have been friends with. After significant thought my assessment was that I could kill him but most likely would have feelings of guilt that I figured I could work through. (given my particular position in the military the goal was that I would in a position where I was the aggressor and hopefully not be seen before the target was killed so I wouldn't have had the luxury of pretending it was self defense.)

So tell me, in God's eyes would the first situation not be murder and the second situation murder? Because using common human law the first situation would be murder and the second not. I'll take your word as the word of god since apparently my heart is so cold and dead that I would lie to save lives so he apparently won't talk to me. I will have to rely on his message through you.  

http://www.ezrapoundcake.com/archives/2381