semaj550
-
Content Count
1,118 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Calendar
Posts posted by semaj550
-
-
There is simply no legitimate, scientific evidence to suggest that the differences are genetic. If you want to believe that blacks scored lower than whites because of their genetics based on the "evidence" you may as well start writing your letter to Santa Claus.I meant sounding...lol, I did change it. I knew that this would happen and then I'd have to defend what I said some more. I am saying that people of certain races by their very nature are more likely to be less intelligent then others. I'm saying that there is a strong possibility that the people at the bottom of our society are more likely to be there, because of genetics, not the color of their skin.Anybody who says that it's impossible for African Americans to be on average less intelligent then whites, please tell me why. -
Why are you so afraid of this church? They don't have anything to do with race-related legislation. They're just a bunch of people banding together as a community to further the common good. Are you afraid that they'll actually succeed in their mission and you might have to complete for jobs and schools on an equal footing with these people? Who gives a crap what the colour of their skin is, they are creating postive change in a community. How the hell can anyone in their right mind rag on someone for doing that? BW was so incredibly on with his Imperial Wizard comment it's not even funny.
-
I think 11 to 1 has mostly hit the nail on the head these last few posts. I still contend that if the Resurrection and Ascension didn't occur we have no reason to believe anything else about Jesus or Christianity. He certainly is correct about the Incarnation though. That was the point at which a human being became both fully God and fully man. The Resurrection was the point at which He proved that He was both fully man and fully God. Without the proof the Incarnation is just a big lie.
-
How would the lack of a physical resurrection make the Bible a lie?O.K., then you are just stating, out loud, that it would be perfectly fine if the bible was just straight up lying. Why is that alright? -
Hang on there! You're being a little creative with what people have said to try to incite argument. I didn't say anything about the film's claims and their affect on Christianity. I said that if the Resurrection is a sham so is the rest of the faith. The film that this thread is about has no bearing what-so-ever on that.I will state again that the resurrection of Jesus' worldly bodily is completely irrelevant to the both the divinity of Christ and Christianity as a whole.I can see how the timing of my comments may have led you astray but I'm certainly not claiming anything of the importance of a "phyiscal" resurrection and never intended to.Edit - Moreover, who is to say that Jesus wasn't resurrected in body, made the appearances in that form so that people would recognize Him and then left His body behind after the Ascention? It's not really that much of a stretch. In fact, in order for the Cameron film to be true something like this would have to have happened. Jesus was most certainly not buried in an ossuary like these bodies were found.Go back and re-read that section of the discussion.Semaj said that if the claims in the film were proved true, it would prove that Christianity is BS and he would denounce his faith. By following the logical path of that statement, I think it's fair to assume that he means if the physical resurrection were proved true, Christianity is BS and he would denounce. I think that's a fair assumption because that's the exact situation we were talking about when he made the statement. He also said (I believe in that same post) that if Jesus wasn't physically resurrected then he is not divine (again I'm paraphrasing here).Now explain to me how that statement can coexist with the one you said you agree with about the physical body being irrelevant without being contradictory. -
Nope, that's a misunderstanding. Jesus' divinity has nothing to do with what happened to His physical body. It's the resurrection of Jesus as a spiritual being and God that is important.It seems like you're saying 2 contradictory things.If Jesus' physical body was not resurrected then it proves he was not divine and therefore not the son of God and therefore Christianity is bogus. But you also said that what happened to the physical body is irrelevant. Am I missing the piece that makes these 2 statements not in conflict with each other?Is there any other way to believe that Jesus was divine without a literal resurrection? -
I couldn't care less what happened to Jesus' physical body, it's completely irrelevant. What is important is that if Jesus was nothing but a man, died, and stayed dead in every way then Christianity is a big sham.First, there aren't "ten" commandments, when verses and chapters were added to the Bible (by a guy taking a long trip on horseback, no less) he just divided one rendition of them up that way. Two, the Gospels are not accurate biographies of Jesus, nor were they ever intended to be. That said, they are accurate in that the miracles were accomplished, the lessons taught, the actions taken. Things were probably paraphrased, some not remembered exactly, but the Truth comes out even if the facts are a little cloudy. So, let's discuss bodily resurrection as opposed to resurrection generally. If you are Catholic you know the Church declares certain persons to be "Saints." That means (for the non-Catholics) that they are in heaven. Right now. Might be everyone who has passed is there, for certain everyone not in hell is either there or on the way since Purgatory is a temporary state and those in it always graduate to Heaven sooner or later. But, the Church does say that some folks have already gotten to Heaven, that's why the Church has the huge repository of miracles along with documentation and investigation and all that.Now - you also know that a lot of those people declared Saints have bodies still here - part of being a saint used to be having an "uncorrupted" body and they were always exhuming them and displaying them. Some are still on display. So, a physical body is not required for people to be alive and well in heaven. If you are Catholic, and you say you are, you know the Church does not object to cremation, though they still like their caskets, but they do want the ashes in consecrated ground. There is still a rather vague belief that someday we will all be reunited in heaven with our "glorified" bodies, but not with the exact physical molecules that composed our bodies at the moment of death. Jesus, as Christ, is TRUE man and TRUE God - which is a more basic tenet of your faith than bodily resrrection, it is everything. For Him to be that, He was, and had to be, like us. (It's in the CCC) And so, it is not only unlikely that He was resurrected as a bodily being, but actually counter to basic Christology. HOWEVER - I also believe God makes provision for human limitation and could very well have simply vanished the physical remains as Jesus so easily could vanish disease or cancer and still does. My point is that the Gospels can be true in terms of witness, Jesus can be alive just as you and I will be when we pass, and still not necessitate the "bodily resurrection" idea. -
Not true at all. The Bible isn't one book. The Roman Catholic Bible is a collection of 73 books written by many different authors, for differing purposes, and written across a large time span. If there is an incorrect detail in Daniel it has no bearing on the Gospels. It is very important the Gospels be accurate biographies of Jesus, it is not important if Daniel asked to be tested for 10 days or if it was actually 9. Hell, there could be 11 Commandments and Moses just forgot to tell us about one and it wouldn't really change anything about Christianity. The accounts of Jesus' life being false would completely annihilate it, however.I agree with this statement wholeheartedly.Why the denouncing of faith shocked me is that because throughout this forum (and I'm not saying you here, I'm speaking generally) the idea that it doesn't matter if the exact words of the Bible are true or not because the underlying ideal is true has been a mainstay. Whenever someone says that you can't possibly know exactly what God intended because the Bible was written and translated over thousands of years by man the response by the faithful is often that it doesn't change the underlying ideals.This seems to be the same thing to me. Whether or not Christ was literally resurrected doesn't change the tenets of faith, love, and hope.You can't have it both ways. Either it's important that every detail be correct, or it's not. -
Why do you need a religion to have faith, hope and love?If Christ didn't rise from the dead and ascend into Heaven then everything witnessed about Him in the Bible is complete bull. It wouldn't change my mind on things like loving one's neighbour but I wouldn't show up to mass every Sunday anymore. Worshipping something completely false would just be moronic.As for finding another religion; maybe. I've already considered a good deal of them but they all really suffer from the same problem as a Christ-less Christianity would. The God of Christianity is the only being to both claim divinity and then prove it. If someone could prove to me that Christ isn't risen I'd probably end up a Buddhist.It's not the response I expected at all. The denial yes but the renouncing of faith no. It shocks me a little that the technical details of a particular miracle are more important than the ideals of love, hope, and faith. -
Total denial of what?EDIT: or semaj.This is more of the likely response that i would expect from a devout follower of christianity, that, and total denial. -
I wouldn't be a Christian, simple as that.In that case, who is the flaw with? The christians, right?I'd like to hear from someone like lois, about his response to a scenario where it was proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the ressurection did NOT occur. -
If Jesus didn't rise from the dead the rest of Christianity is complete BS.That's what this guy was saying but I just don't see it that way. The Christians I know aren't that rigid with their faith. We've changed the rules and changed the religion to incorporate what science says is true over the years and I think this is another one of those things that Christianity would adapt to with a little tweaking and "metaphoricalizing" (yep I just made that up, cool, huh?) to the resurrection story.What I'm being told by people who've answered the question is that it wouldn't matter.If it wouldn't matter, it won't go away.Buddhism is intended to be just a philosophy but most people don't realize that and treat it as a religion. Same thing here. Even if you want to say that spiritual resurrection takes away the divinity, I'm betting Christians would find something else to hang the divinity on and nothing would change in the big picture. -
I think you're pretty much correct but it runs much deeper than that. Love is a lot more than just a warm, fuzzy feeling.It has always seemed to me that the problem with trying to define some Universal Morality is that people tend to focus on specific actions - or absolute caveats. For instance this: 1st Truth: Procreating is Good, Not Procreating is Bad2nd Truth: Doing things that create a better situation for your offspring to procreate is Good.There are many cultures with behaviors that are geared toward reducing the opportunity for procreation, in this way, they sustain themselves in an ecosystem that won't support a larger population. These kinds of societies have some pretty rigid and often shocking (to us) practices. Morality as a system of behaviors prescribed or proscribed will always be situational and never absolute. In the end, for me, it comes back to Jesus: "Love one another." All the rest is commentary. -
I don't think it matters all that much. Chirst died on the cross, was buried, and disappeared on Easter Sunday. These are all events witnessed by many people. If you can offer an explanation other than the Resurrection the atheists would love to hear it because no one has come up with a viable one. So, basically, if there was a guy who promised ever-lasting life and then proved that He had the power to grant it what reason do we have to not believe Him? If you believe in anything of Christianity there is no reason to disbelieve in the resurrection of the dead.I have this question that hopefully one of you can make me understand.Cross posted from another thread:I just don't understand (and maybe some of you who believe can explain it to me) why finding out that Jesus wasn't literally resurrected changes the basic tenets of Christianity. What would be so hard about "tweaking" the belief into a spiritual resurrection instead of a physical one? Why does it have to be physical for the faith to work? I mean, I understand that whole part about Paul preaching that the body of Jesus was literally resurrected and that if that isn't true then the faith is in vain (can't remember the exact verse but it was something like that) but in other places in the Bible (Again, I don't remember which gospel. Mark maybe?) Paul preaches that we are of 2 bodies: the human body and the spiritual body and talks about God giving us perfect bodies in heaven. So, why isn't a spiritual resurrection workable to Christianity?Addendum to what I originally said for more clarity and because I've since looked it up:The verse I was thinking about that said the faith would be in vain was 1 Corinthians 15: 13-14: "But if there is no resurrection of the dead, not even Christ has been raised; and if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is vain, your faith also is vain." -
There are already those who have "sat in his chair" and weren't torn apart at all. I wouldn't expect the evidence to be compelling to you as you've ruled out the possibility of there being anything metaphysical at work in this world. All of your arguments essentially start with the premise that metaphyiscal events are not possible and that anything which would constitute evidence for metaphysical things is necessarily invalid because it involves metaphysical claims. You want repeatable, verifiable proof of the Resurrection? How many times would you like Christ to be born and die so that you can be satisfied? The very nature of God's involvement in our time and space would preclude the possibility for repeatability. There exists more in this world than which is repeatable on demand.not so much BS as jumping to unscientific conclusions. there are some things that are very interesting about this case, and he might be on to something, but the evidence isn't difinitive in a scientific sense - even though his program is designed to give the impression that it is.at the same time note that his evidence is much more compelling than what you seem to think constitutes empirical (athropological) "evidence" for the resurrection. if you sat in his chair and made the claims you've made here, you would get torn apart for jumping to unscientific conclusions much worse than he was. people like you who claim the divinity of jesus can be supported on empirical grounds shouldn't be throwing stones in this case, since you're doing the same thing he is - to a much worse extent. -
So the secular scientific community thought this was as much bs as Christians did?it's interesting that TDC apparently caught so much flack over this that they felt compelled to air a post-show "critical look" round table program where the filmmaker dude had to defend himself against scientists, and of course couldn't. -
I think I should be a little more explicit. I am positing that morality is not man-made and cannot be because no one man has a greater right to determine what is moral than another. Just as BW contends that the Bill of Rights exists to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority, a majority consenus is not all that is required to decide issues of morality. Quite simply, I am saying that without God (regardless of any religion's interpretation of Him) an objective, universal morality does not exist.Ah, but that's the thing... we don't have that. A framework, I understand... some type of base. This has a lot to do with why we have certain laws we do. Raping someone is clearly across the line, therefore, society steps up and makes that unacceptable. People who commit this act are punished by society (or the product of society... government). Government laws are NOT the basis for morality, society is. We could sit down and lay out certain frameworks... as I've stated beforeTry not to kill.Try not to rape. (I say try because of possible screwed up situation where someone is going to kill 20 people in a building unless you rape one person... messed up situations like on "Saw", but that is just why I say "try" instead of "do")Golden Ruleetc.Same thing with human rights. As we've discovered that it is wrong to treat black people in the way we have, the product of our society (government) has put in enforcements to make sure they are treated equally. Same thing as women... Homosexuals are probably next.(On another topic, this is an area where I could start talking about how I hate our pro-active controlling government where instead of being a product of the people, they are know the rulers of the people... bahhabhabhabhabhabhabha;lsdkfja;lksdfj;asldkfja;sldkfja;sldfkjasld;fk) -
If it's subjective it isn't really morality. At least not in the sense that we are trying to discuss. One is free to have one's own morality but what we are discussing is an overriding morality which is universally applicable regardless of one's own tastes. Some guys believe that a woman should be treated no differently than a man, does that make them immoral? After all isn't that what the women's lib movement was about?It's these "more important" morals that I would like to focus on. Where do they come from? How can people who are so vastly different agree on a prohibition against killing or raping on such a fundamental level? And more to my original question, how is it that we can almost unanimously agree on the immorality of Hilter when we can't agree on things which are far more simplistic?We have plenty of societal norms that equate to subjective morality. Some men find it important to treat women in a special way and some treat them as sisters and make them open their own doors and buy their own drinks.There are plenty of morals (mostly unimportant) that are different between locales. There are also plenty of more important morals (regarding killing, raping, etc.) that are standard throughout anywhere you go in this country.That is the reality of today and we're doing just fine.Ideal absolutes do not and cannot equate to morality. And you can't attribute rules such as "do not kill" to religion either... absolutes of religion have been around for a long time, but society as a whole has become more moral over time. Just think about the dark ages until now. It was a slow, but still-growing process that creates more and more civilized societies. -
But the original issue was that we were trying to prove that Hilter's actions were immoral. Much to our chagrin, we've yet to actually do that in this discussion. People don't wake up one day and decide, "I want to do something evil." Rather they have a view of the world and of right and wrong that greatly differs from ours and they go on doing what they think is right. I'm pretty sure that Hitler was 100% convinced that he was doing good, I highly doubt he ever considered his actions immoral. So why does American society have the right to trump Nazi society when it comes to morality? Because we find one more tasteful than the other? That hardly holds any weight when you think about it.Are we acting moral so long as we do what our parents taught us to?I also agree that religion is not the sole source for morality. I contend that God is, see more in my next post.And enjoy your birthday!Ah, I didn't mean for it ONLY as what helps the positive growth of the human race. Many morals are dictated by society. We even have many that are pretty silly, but we do them just because (example: holding doors open for women) and most of us do them happily.We do have human conscience and our morality has a lot to do with what our parents give down to us from what they learned. Then interactions with society and pretty much the nature of our environment dictates most of our moral codes.And I don't know a person in the world that runs their moral code strictly from religion alone. If most religious people were honest, too, they would admit that they are run by society more then they are run by their religion.Thanks for the comment! ... and I'm going to go get ready for lunch with the father, early dinner with the mother, and for the "official" night out on the town
-
Societal norms do not and cannot equate morality, they vary far too much from society to society.I'm definitely not one to impose morality on anyone. But I do live in a society where there are laws against infringing on someone's personal rights. Rape = a DRASTIC infringement on someone's personal rights. -
See, herein lies the problem. I don't disagree with your post completely. I suspect you and I share a fairly similar view of morality so it would probably fairly easy for us to sit down and draw up a framework which we can agree constitutes morality. But so what? If morality is as subjective as all that it is worthless. What do you do about the people who don't subscribe to it? Are they immoral? If so, why? Maybe we're the immoral ones because we don't agree with them. I know that you have it in your head (and quite correctly so) that there are these universal truths. But how are they universal if a portion of the human race doesn't agree to them? Clearly something else is required to sustain them.Yes, Kiser fvcked up. But, While morality IS subjective to a point, I still believe their is some universal truth out there, whether that can ever be proven, or even articulated is another matter. And I'm 99.9% sure that no religion has it.You'd have to do some sort of Descartes mind game where you start with what is 99.9% known to be good in all cases, and then only add things that also fit the bill. But you have to start with a universal goal first. For instance, goal: proliferate the human race.1st Truth: Procreating is Good, Not Procreating is Bad2nd Truth: Doing things that create a better situation for your offspring to procreate is Good.Etc.Also anything that could have gray area would not be a universal truth, or the action that one does to fulfill the truth. So for example, if you are fulfilling the goal of helping your offspring procreate...you cannot kill someone else's offspring so that your offspring can eat them because it impedes someone else from acheiving a one of the universal truths.However, the flaw with this idea is that someone could start with the goal of their morality being the destruction of mankind, in which case their first truth would be Procreating is Bad. But, biology and nature, something that humans have no control over tells us that our goal is to procreate therefore we can establish that an ideology whose goal is to procreate is better than an ideology who's goal is the destruction of mankind.Hmm....Would anyone here object that we can determine that the goal of mankind is procreation at the most simple level. From either within a religious 'box' or outside religion.??I think if we devise a premise on which all future discussion is based then we could progress much more efficiently. -
Well happy birthday!Why should we care if it ruins the life of the mother? In your last post you said that immorality was that which stunted the postive growth of the human race.As for it being wrong, illegal, hurtful, life-ruining, etc., where did you get that idea?no no no I didn't **** up btw, it's my 21st bday (well 3 and a half hours into it) and I'm a bit intoxicated, but this is more then answerable.Rape is not a healthy form of procreation. Not only does it ruin the life of the mother, but it also (usually) hurts the childhood of the kid. It also is wrong, illegal, hurtful, life-ruining, etc etc etc etc... the negative of rape does not overcome the good of birth. -
I'm soooooo glad you bit. ;)Rape furthers the postive growth of the human race. Many more top future minds, bodies, etc. could probably be procuded if we allowed rape.Shall we go ahead and allow that then?Because psychopathic mass murdering stunts the positive growth of the human race. Many of the top future minds, bodies, etc. were probably murdered along with millions of innocent defenseless people.None of what I just said had any basis from any religion or Bible.See how it's done? -
Okay. Assuming that everything quoted above is true, prove to me that Hitler's attempt to purify the human race was immoral.Wrong and wrongMorality would be the worst thing in the world if everything was 100% definable. What can be discussed is what is good for society... examples such as the golden rule, try not to kill, try not to steal, etc etc... These are wonderful moral codes to live by and certain complex situations can and should be discussed. The more and more complex we can take a moral code (with the ability to grow and expand), the better. I would relate it to why science is sooooo much better then religion when it comes to truth. There IS no absolute truth. This allows our knowledge of truth to grow... to expand... to find what is new... to take what is already known and know it in a more complex manner. Religion spouts absolute truth. The end of the road, so to speak. It allows no room for improvement... no nothing. Morality shouldn't be subject to pure absolutes, though. AND just because morality ISN'T subject to absolutes doesn't mean, IN ANY WAY, that we are allowed to run all 'nilly willy' (I just wanted to say that) and do anything you want whenever you want. It's been pointed out numerous times that people who are not religious in any way whatsoever have no problem living a good moral life. In fact, the percentages would show you that people without religion live better moral lives as a whole... less divorce as a %, less jail time as a %, etc. We talk the talk AND walk the walk with this stuff 
unlike how Republicans paint Al Gore, I guess...Morality, also, is not worth discussing if it was run by religious absolutes. Actually, there would be nothing to discuss at all. Every situation would be crystal clear. Same thing if there was only one sect of Christianity that EVERYONE followed. Everything would be crystal clear.... and THAT would be morally wrong. It allows no room for improvement... no accountability for change, etc.
Obama's Religion
in Religion
Posted