# The presence of Evil as an evidence for the God of Christianity.



## SemperFiDawg (Aug 19, 2013)

It occurred to me today that we often attempt to offer evidence of God based on positive concepts.  I would like to offer an evidence of God based on the concept of evil.
Christianity holds the position that mankind is depraved.  There are many verses in the Bible to support this doctrine, one of which is  Jeremiah 17:9 which states

"The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked; who can understand it?"

As just one evidence of evil I posit the concept of hatred.  I think it could be argued that the presence of hatred is undeniable.  Also it appears to exist only among mankind.  I can think no evolutionary purpose for hatred nor can I find any evidence of it in the animal kingdom.  It appears mankind is the only creature on the planet that is capable of this concept, and I can find no other explanation for it other than the Biblical one. 

I realize that the very nature of this thread may tend to invite a lot of intellectually empty cheap shots.   I will make my best attempt to respond to any serious discussion, but will ignore any cheap shots or attempts to derail the thread.  I'm honestly looking for someone to provide a valid rebuttal.  There may be 1000 of them, I just want to hear them. 

Thoughts?


----------



## JFS (Aug 19, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> I can think no evolutionary purpose for hatred




You need to be more specific.  An emotional motivation to overcome or do harm to someone that you view as competition or adverse to your interests is clearly self-preservation.


----------



## WaltL1 (Aug 19, 2013)

The entire premise of the position is flawed and therefore invalid.
For someone to provide a rebuttal you leave them no choice but to ask questions that would seemingly take it off topic. Examples -
We know animals show emotions. Do we know for a fact that hatred isn't one o them? Some dogs are just vicious is that due to hatred or fear or both? We don't know. If they can hate your entire position has to be rejected.
Do we know for a fact if every emotion a human possess has a direct relationship with evolution? No therefore your premise is invalid.
Jeremiah itself contains the words "who can understand it".
For just these few reasons your entire position is flawed and stated as such has to be rejected.
If you are looking for a valid rebuttal to your position without going off topic, your position itself has to be valid and not require additional information to rebutt it.
You have to reword or present your case in a different way.


----------



## WaltL1 (Aug 19, 2013)

oops sorry JFS you made the same basic point and you did it in just 2 sentences while I was typing. Throw my points in with yours as to why it has to be reworded or the case made in a different way.


----------



## hummdaddy (Aug 19, 2013)

he is also talking about breaking down every individual animals psychological thinking process in the most complex areas on the body


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Aug 19, 2013)

JFS said:


> You need to be more specific.  An emotional motivation to overcome or do harm to someone that you view as competition or adverse to your interests is clearly self-preservation.



Yes that may be considered self preservation in some, and I stress SOME instances, but that certainly isn't the only reason for we humans hate.  We can hate out of envy or jealousy just to name two.  And the odd thing is we recognize it as irrational.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Aug 19, 2013)

WaltL1 said:


> The entire premise of the position is flawed and therefore invalid.
> For someone to provide a rebuttal you leave them no choice but to ask questions that would seemingly take it off topic. Examples -
> We know animals show emotions. Do we know for a fact that hatred isn't one o them? Some dogs are just vicious is that due to hatred or fear or both? We don't know. If they can hate your entire position has to be rejected.
> Do we know for a fact if every emotion a human possess has a direct relationship with evolution? No therefore your premise is invalid.
> ...



That's a preposterous argument and Ill tell you why.  You declare 





> The entire premise of the position is flawed and therefore invalid.


 based on these two questions 



> We know animals show emotions. *Do we know* for a fact that hatred isn't one o them? Some dogs are just vicious is that due to hatred or fear or both? *We don't know.* If they can hate your entire position has to be rejected.
> *Do we know* for a fact if every emotion a human possess has a direct relationship with evolution? *No* therefore your premise is invalid.



which you readily admit you don't know the answers too.  Now isn't that just a little bit ridiculous.  

If as you yourself state, we don't know the answers, how can it possibly be an invalid proposition?  I mean honestly, if my premises are true it's perfectly valid. Give me a break.  You are so eager to disavow it that you are making foolish accusations that don't stand up to reason.

I suggest it a logical proposition.  If you want to argue its not, be my guest, but you can't reasonably deny it to be invalid if you yourself admit that you don't if the supporting premises are true or not.


----------



## WaltL1 (Aug 19, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> That's a preposterous argument and Ill tell you why.  You declare  based on these two questions
> 
> 
> 
> ...


SFD you clearly don't understand the rules of intelligent debate. I didn't make the case. You did. Its invalid for precisely the reasons you agree with.
You are using what we don't know + what we don't know to make your case. The undeniable rebuttal to your case is pointing that out. It makes your case undeniably invalid, not because I say so but because the rules of intelligent debate says so.
Theres lots of info on intelligent debate out there. Maybe it will help if you read it for yourself instead of coming from me.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Aug 19, 2013)

WaltL1 said:


> SFD you clearly don't understand the rules of intelligent debate. I didn't make the case. You did. Its invalid for precisely the reasons you agree with.
> You are using what we don't know + what we don't know to make your case. The undeniable rebuttal to your case is pointing that out. It makes your case undeniably invalid, not because I say so but because the rules of intelligent debate says so.
> If it will help theres lots of info on intelligent debate out there. Maybe it will help if you read it or yourself instead of coming from me.


----------



## WaltL1 (Aug 19, 2013)

What are you confused about?


----------



## drippin' rock (Aug 19, 2013)

Christianity holds that mankind is depraved.   


Aren't we made in God's image?


----------



## drippin' rock (Aug 19, 2013)

God made the heavens and the earth. God made man. Man is depraved, immoral, dishonest, murderous, slovenly, and just plain ol' wicked. He made us this way, but we need him to forgive us for being the way he made us. 

Free will?  Well ok, we have the choice to do good or bad. But in his omniscience, he already knew we would be wicked and evil. If he already knew it, is it free will?  Aren't we just puppets?

He made us evil so we would need him??
Where is the point of all this?


----------



## WaltL1 (Aug 19, 2013)

SFD apparently I left you confused. This is it in a nutshell and Im using your words so you cant claim im making stuff up. You said -
I mean honestly, if my premises are true it's perfectly valid.

The million dollar word in what you said is IF.
1. IF your premises were true we couldn't rebutt that.
2. IF your premises were true that would certainly go a long way in proving your case.
3 IF your premises are true its perfectly valid. (your words)
4.IF your premises were true you wouldn't have to use the word IF. Please refer back to #3
Until you can make that IF go away your premises are not valid.
That's my rebuttal, as you said you may find that preposterous and foolish. I however find it based on fact, common sense and reason.


----------



## WaltL1 (Aug 19, 2013)

drippin' rock said:


> God made the heavens and the earth. God made man. Man is depraved, immoral, dishonest, murderous, slovenly, and just plain ol' wicked. He made us this way, but we need him to forgive us for being the way he made us.
> 
> Free will?  Well ok, we have the choice to do good or bad. But in his omniscience, he already knew we would be wicked and evil. If he already knew it, is it free will?  Aren't we just puppets?
> 
> ...


I wonder the same thing


----------



## 660griz (Aug 20, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> It occurred to me today that we often attempt to offer evidence of God based on positive concepts.  I would like to offer an evidence of God based on the concept of evil.
> Christianity holds the position that mankind is depraved.  There are many verses in the Bible to support this doctrine, one of which is  Jeremiah 17:9 which states
> 
> "The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked; who can understand it?"


 Shouldn't be a surprise to God, he made us in his own image right? 



> As just one evidence of evil I posit the concept of hatred.  I think it could be argued that the presence of hatred is undeniable.  Also it appears to exist only among mankind.


 Nope. Lions HATE hyenas. Seen the documentary.  





> I can think no evolutionary purpose for hatred nor can I find any evidence of it in the animal kingdom.


 See Lion/Hyena reference. 


> It appears mankind is the only creature on the planet that is capable of this concept, and I can find no other explanation for it other than the Biblical one.


 What about elephants that were abused and remember the person, and kill them or try to when they get a chance? Out of love?


----------



## TripleXBullies (Aug 20, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> It occurred to me today that we often attempt to offer evidence of God based on positive concepts.  I would like to offer an evidence of God based on the concept of evil.
> Christianity holds the position that mankind is depraved.  There are many verses in the Bible to support this doctrine, one of which is  Jeremiah 17:9 which states
> 
> "The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked; who can understand it?"
> ...



I used to breed bulldogs... and one of my females HATED another female. She was good with my other dogs, but HATED that one. They'd get in a fight every time they came face to face. I see an evolutionary advantage to that. Hate... not just in people.  Once I got them apart, the aggressor would ALWAYS bow down to me asking for my forgiveness... because she realized something about it... I don't know what exactly, but she realized it was wrong for some reason.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Aug 20, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Jeremiah 17:9 which states
> 
> "The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked; who can understand it?"



What a creation.... Job well done.


----------



## 660griz (Aug 20, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> What a creation.... Job well done.



“If it turns out that there is a God...the worst that you can say about him is that basically he's an underachiever.” 
â€• Woody Allen


----------



## TripleXBullies (Aug 20, 2013)

But he looked back on his creation and it was good... errr... not... oops...


----------



## 660griz (Aug 20, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> I used to breed bulldogs... and one of my females HATED another female.



I have two dogs. A lab/rott mix and a dachsund/badger mix. 
The little dog hates teenage boys. I assume he was teased/abused by them at one time. Women, grown men, little girls, no problem. He will try to eat a teenage boy.


----------



## 660griz (Aug 20, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> But he looked back on his creation and it was good... errr... not... oops...



Why not just keep flooding until he gets it right? He gave up after one try?


----------



## TripleXBullies (Aug 20, 2013)

His flood didn't work either....


----------



## 660griz (Aug 20, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Yes that may be considered self preservation in some, and I stress SOME instances, but that certainly isn't the only reason for we humans hate.  We can hate out of envy or jealousy just to name two.  And the odd thing is we recognize it as irrational.



“Answer me, you who believe that animals are only machines. Has nature arranged for this animal to have all the machinery of feelings only in order for it not to have any at all?” 
â€• Voltaire


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Aug 20, 2013)

What is the guys name .... Ravi something.... he tries to use this. I am Christian so don't read this the wrong way but it is narrow sighted. It would not prove the God of Christianity any more than the God of Muslims, etc. Even if it did, just because evil exists, it does not require that the Christianity exist. Check out the Ravi guy. He doesn't say much before this will come up


----------



## ambush80 (Aug 20, 2013)

1gr8bldr said:


> What is the guys name .... Ravi something.... he tries to use this. I am Christian so don't read this the wrong way but it is narrow sighted. It would not prove the God of Christianity any more than the God of Muslims, etc. Even if it did, just because evil exists, it does not require that the Christianity exist. Check out the Ravi guy. He doesn't say much before this will come up



Ravi Zacharias, I believe.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Aug 21, 2013)

I'm not seeing any good evidence presented that animals are capable of hatred.  Anecdotal observations are not evidence.


----------



## JFS (Aug 21, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Anecdotal observations are not evidence.



It's more than you've got.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Aug 21, 2013)

1gr8bldr said:


> What is the guys name .... Ravi something.... he tries to use this. I am Christian so don't read this the wrong way but it is narrow sighted. It would not prove the God of Christianity any more than the God of Muslims, etc.



You can neither prove nor disprove God.  That's a given. You can however provide a logical argument for the plausibility of God based on the evidence.



1gr8bldr said:


> Even if it did, just because evil exists, it does not require that the Christianity exist.



I'm not sure that is even a rational statement, but I am pretty sure I didn't make it.  I simply asserted that the Christian doctrine of the depravity of mankind is logically consistent with the evidence.  I could make the argument that it is a better argument than what is offered by other faiths but that would certainly be a separate thread.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Aug 21, 2013)

JFS said:


> It's more than you've got.



I've got a logical explanation for the existence of hate.  I would expect the strongest rebuttal to come in the form of a logical argument from an evolutionary perspective with perhaps some evidence put forth, but so far nada.


----------



## JFS (Aug 21, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> I've got a logical explanation for the existence of hate.



By all means, please share it.  Christian doctrine is not a "logical explanation".

Hate:  intense hostility and aversion usually deriving from fear, anger, or sense of injury.  http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hate

Why do cats hate water?  Why does my neighbor's dog hate cars?  Why do Auburn fans hate Bama?   Really, you've got to go to the bible to figure that out?


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Aug 21, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> You can neither prove nor disprove God.  That's a given. You can however provide a logical argument for the plausibility of God based on the evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not sure that is even a rational statement, but I am pretty sure I didn't make it.  I simply asserted that the Christian doctrine of the depravity of mankind is logically consistent with the evidence.  I could make the argument that it is a better argument than what is offered by other faiths but that would certainly be a separate thread.


I agree on the first part, I can see the evidence in everything. The second part, I left out the  word "God" attempting to say that Evil would not prove the God of Christianity anymore than it would other religions. They all don't believe total depravity, but they all seem to have a mindset to have more "Godliness"


----------



## WaltL1 (Aug 21, 2013)

He's trying to build a ladder -
1st rung - Only man can hate
2nd rung - hate is evil
3rd rung - evil men are depraved
4th rung - Christian doctrine proven true
Top rung - therefore the God of Christianity is real
To get there he MUST deny or ignore any form of evidence, common sense, definition or fact that is contradictory to his position taken along each rung. Of course the major flaw is he can only prove each rung using the Christian doctrine view of what is logical when 2/3rds of the AAA forum are not indoctrinated and know the difference between opinion, fact and belief.  Its entertaining to watch though.


----------



## 660griz (Aug 22, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> I'm not seeing any good evidence presented that animals are capable of hatred.  Anecdotal observations are not evidence.



Tell God to let those animals talk so we can get the scoop. Without it, I am afraid it is all going to be just anecdotal evidence to you. 

We could kill two birds with one stone.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Aug 22, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> You can neither prove nor disprove God.  That's a given. You can however provide a logical argument for the plausibility of God based on the evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not sure that is even a rational statement, but I am pretty sure I didn't make it.  I simply asserted that the Christian doctrine of the depravity of mankind is logically consistent with the evidence.  I could make the argument that it is a better argument than what is offered by other faiths but that would certainly be a separate thread.



Christianity says people are bad = Christianity is true?   Nice try..


----------



## 660griz (Aug 22, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> I've got a logical explanation for the existence of hate.



I would put money that evidence is anecdotal.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Aug 22, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> You can however provide a logical argument for the plausibility of God based on the evidence.


You would be the first person, supposedly since JC, that is able to do this.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Aug 22, 2013)

Nah.. I believe he can make a logical argument for the plausibility of a creator based on anecdotal evidence.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Aug 22, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> Nah.. I believe he can make a logical argument for the plausibility of a creator based on anecdotal evidence.



If his target audience is himself, sure.


----------



## WaltL1 (Aug 22, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> Nah.. I believe he can make a logical argument for the plausibility of a creator based on anecdotal evidence.


He's not allowing anecdotal evidence to be used. See post #26


----------



## JFS (Aug 22, 2013)

The argument is just that stuff is here, it had to come from somewhere.   They like an eternal god more than eternal stuff.


----------



## 660griz (Aug 22, 2013)

JFS said:


> They like an eternal god more than eternal stuff.



I like that quote.

You(christians) ever wonder how long God sat around with nothing before he decided to make something? Did he get bored, go crazy? Just seems odd something so wise would decide to create something so imperfect so he could be worshiped and torture those that don't. Odd God.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Aug 22, 2013)

There wasn't even time before he created it, so he didn't really sit around at all because there was no time to do it in.


----------



## JFS (Aug 22, 2013)

660griz said:


> You(christians) ever wonder how long God sat around with nothing before he decided to make something?



I think a fraction of infinity is still infinity.  That's a long time.


----------



## TheBishop (Aug 22, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> It occurred to me today that we often attempt to offer evidence of God based on positive concepts.  I would like to offer an evidence of God based on the concept of evil.
> Christianity holds the position that mankind is depraved.  There are many verses in the Bible to support this doctrine, one of which is  Jeremiah 17:9 which states
> 
> "The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked; who can understand it?"
> ...



Seriously man I have read 2 dozen of your post in the last couple of days, and I got to say for a person than uses the terms "logic", and "intellectual honesty" alot, I think you need to go back and look at what those terms mean. You have grossly misrepresented both.  Take this op. It itself is an intellectual cheap shot. It fails before it begins.  

It failed becuase you didn't define hate. 
It failed becuase you didn't define evil.
It failed becuase you start with a wild assumtion, (man is depraved).
It failed becuase becuase you assumed from your biased position on the observation of animals. 
It failed becuase you used a biased rationalization to form what you believe into a concept, that is completly void of logical reasoning.

To make anything out of what you said.  You would have to have a universal base for hate and evil. A near impossible feat. Then it would be possible to examine wether portray those features, and so on...

Logic that begins with faulty assumptions, or incomplete assumptions is bad logic, so this is a.........



*EPIC FAIL!*


----------



## WaltL1 (Aug 22, 2013)

TheBishop said:


> Seriously man I have read 2 dozen of your post in the last couple of days, and I got to say for a person than uses the terms "logic", and "intellectual honesty" alot, I think you need to go back and look at what those terms mean. You have grossly misrepresented both.  Take this op. It itself is an intellectual cheap shot. It fails before it begins.
> 
> It failed becuase you didn't define hate.
> It failed becuase you didn't define evil.
> ...


He's been told and shown that by every person (including a believer) involved in this thread in numerous different ways. Its not even a speed bump to him. He's going to come back and continue right on with the same argument. You'll see.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Aug 22, 2013)

WaltL1 said:


> He's trying to build a ladder -
> 1st rung - Only man can hate
> 2nd rung - hate is evil
> 3rd rung - evil men are depraved
> ...



Comprehension wise you never made it past the second rung.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Aug 22, 2013)

TheBishop said:


> Seriously man I have read 2 dozen of your post in the last couple of days, and I got to say for a person than uses the terms "logic", and "intellectual honesty" alot, I think you need to go back and look at what those terms mean. You have grossly misrepresented both.  Take this op. It itself is an intellectual cheap shot. It fails before it begins.
> 
> It failed becuase you didn't define hate.
> It failed becuase you didn't define evil.
> ...




Kind of figured most grown ups knew the meaning of hate and evil. 

As far as "wild assumption" goes, well again wild or tame has no bearing on truth.  If the assumption is true, its true, no matter how "wild" you find it. 

" It failed because I assumed from my biased position on the observation of animals."  That statement in itself is 
beyond silly for reasons I won't even begin to address.  Suffice it to say science is based on observation and every scientist with a pulse brings with him his 'a priori' commitments.  

I thing you guys have shrank your thought processes down to memes.  You can't just yell "invalid" or "epic fail".  Stick to the meme thread if you can't offer a comprehend able refutation of the assumptions.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Aug 22, 2013)

JFS said:


> The argument is just that stuff is here, it had to come from somewhere.   They like an eternal god more than eternal stuff.



As opposed to stuff is here.  It came from nowhere.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Aug 22, 2013)

WaltL1 said:


> He's not allowing anecdotal evidence to be used. See post #26



Hey Walt.  How about offering up a reasonable argument for the existence of hate, before you start fussing about your lack of evidence.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Aug 22, 2013)

This thread must have struck a nerve with you guys by the way y'all are behaving.  I'm guessing its because no one can logically stretch evolution far enough to cover hate.   Let's see, hmmmm, Time plus matter plus chance, throw in a dash of natural selection , a pinch of adaptation, half a cup of mutation= hate.  Nope, I don't see it either.  Boys it looks to me like we got ourselves a bad case of "Evolution of the Gaps."


----------



## JFS (Aug 22, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> I'm guessing its because no one can logically stretch evolution far enough to cover hate.



Been done extensively here. Now you're just acting whack.


----------



## bullethead (Aug 22, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> This thread must have struck a nerve with you guys by the way y'all are behaving.  I'm guessing its because no one can logically stretch evolution far enough to cover hate.   Let's see, hmmmm, Time plus matter plus chance, throw in a dash of natural selection , a pinch of adaptation, half a cup of mutation= hate.  Nope, I don't see it either.  Boys it looks to me like we got ourselves a bad case of "Evolution of the Gaps."




Our Brain evolved and so did our thoughts. No stretch at all.

chock it up to Humanity


----------



## WaltL1 (Aug 22, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> This thread must have struck a nerve with you guys by the way y'all are behaving.  I'm guessing its because no one can logically stretch evolution far enough to cover hate.   Let's see, hmmmm, Time plus matter plus chance, throw in a dash of natural selection , a pinch of adaptation, half a cup of mutation= hate.  Nope, I don't see it either.  Boys it looks to me like we got ourselves a bad case of "Evolution of the Gaps."


Wow you really have no clue.


----------



## WaltL1 (Aug 22, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Hey Walt.  How about offering up a reasonable argument for the existence of hate, before you start fussing about your lack of evidence.


Wow you really have no clue.


----------



## Theodore981 (Aug 22, 2013)

What many people just don't seem to "get" is that human beings are simply very highly evolved animals.  Yes, some animals often (or many animals occasionally) experience hate.  Human beings generally much more often.  Our emotions are far more complicated than wild or domestic animals.

Another thing is that the ideal of the biblical God simply does not follow human logic.  No, I don't mean some sort of creator; I mean the biblical God, etc.  If the laws of the universe, the laws of nature, and the laws of physics, as perceived by humans who truly have a brain and use it are true, then the biblical God is simply a myth.  Really.  Circular logic works well on sheep(le), i.e. people who simply cannot truly think.  Linear logic works well for people who CAN think.  And if there is a biblical God, then he simply could not exist without evil.  Period.  There cannot be good without bad, or vice versa.  "He" did not create or banish "Satan".   He could not exist without Satan, and vice versa.  Very, very fundamental law of the universe, physics, and human-based linear logic.  Circular logic is male cow patties.

And why do religious folk persist in hijacking threads in this sub-forum?  Do people who question and think for themselves constantly hijack and invade the religious and "spiritual" (what a misnomer!) sub-forums?  Short answer:  No.  Why can people not be respectful?  Quite a few jerkish idjits on this forum, I do believe.


----------



## centerpin fan (Aug 22, 2013)

Theodore981 said:


> And why do religious folk persist in hijacking threads in this sub-forum?  Do people who question and think for themselves constantly hijack and invade the religious and "spiritual" (what a misnomer!) sub-forums?  Short answer:  No.  Why can people not be respectful?  Quite a few jerkish idjits on this forum ...



... and several who still struggle with the definition of "apologetics".


----------



## WaltL1 (Aug 23, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Comprehension wise you never made it past the second rung.


You are giving me a lesson in comprehension???


----------



## 660griz (Aug 23, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> This thread must have struck a nerve with you guys by the way y'all are behaving.  I'm guessing its because no one can logically stretch evolution far enough to cover hate.



You said:





> I think it could be argued that the presence of hatred is undeniable.


 True. 


> Also it appears to exist only among mankind. I can think no evolutionary purpose for hatred nor can I find any evidence of it in the animal kingdom.


 You have been presented with evidence. 





> It appears mankind is the only creature on the planet that is capable of this concept, and I can find no other explanation for it other than the Biblical one.


The biblical one would be god gave us hate cause he liked to watch fight night? 

I, and others, have posted evidence for hatred in animals. You discount it because it doesn't fit your theory.  

How about this? 
"There's a story about a researcher at a university testing crows.  They had him do something nasty to the crows, I forget what. 

Years later, when he went back to the university for a homecoming, the crows remembered, and dive-bombed him in revenge."

There's some evidence that humans' ability to hate may actually be an evolutionary adaptation, one that made it easier for a group of hunter-gatherers to justify taking scarce food from competing groups.

Of course hate evolved as a survival instinct. Discount all you want but, just don't state no one has given you any logical examples. Prove animals don't hate. Any proof that contradicts studies and even anecdotal evidence. (elephants, lions vs. hyenas, etc) Prove God gave us hate without anecdotal evidence. The entire bible is anecdotal evidence yet, our evidence is dismissed. Which goes back to, you believe what you are going to believe and I'll believe what I am going to believe. Square one.

Hate is not always a bad thing.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Aug 23, 2013)

660griz said:


> You said: True.
> You have been presented with evidence.
> The biblical one would be god gave us hate cause he liked to watch fight night?
> 
> ...



I read about that before I posted the thread.  It's about all I could find on the subject.  I was hoping some of the guys here had more, but it seems everyone is just satisfied rejecting argument without attempting to refute its underlying assumptions.  I appreciate you coming forward with actual scientific data instead of "my dog hates cats" anecdotal stories.

P.S. I'm super busy these days, but I will try to get back with a response to the core of your post later.  Just want to say thanks for posting something substantiative.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Aug 23, 2013)

Theodore981 said:


> What many people just don't seem to "get" is that human beings are simply very highly evolved animals.  Yes, some animals often (or many animals occasionally) experience hate.  Human beings generally much more often.  Our emotions are far more complicated than wild or domestic animals.
> 
> Another thing is that the ideal of the biblical God simply does not follow human logic.  No, I don't mean some sort of creator; I mean the biblical God, etc.  If the laws of the universe, the laws of nature, and the laws of physics, as perceived by humans who truly have a brain and use it are true, then the biblical God is simply a myth.  Really.  Circular logic works well on sheep(le), i.e. people who simply cannot truly think.  Linear logic works well for people who CAN think.  And if there is a biblical God, then he simply could not exist without evil.  Period.  There cannot be good without bad, or vice versa.  "He" did not create or banish "Satan".   He could not exist without Satan, and vice versa.  Very, very fundamental law of the universe, physics, and human-based linear logic.  Circular logic is male cow patties.
> 
> And why do religious folk persist in hijacking threads in this sub-forum?  Do people who question and think for themselves constantly hijack and invade the religious and "spiritual" (what a misnomer!) sub-forums?  Short answer:  No.  Why can people not be respectful?  Quite a few jerkish idjits on this forum, I do believe.



Good post.  Will try to post a response later. Thanks.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Aug 23, 2013)

Theodore981 said:


> What many people just don't seem to "get" is that human beings are simply very highly evolved animals.



We are highly evolved in specific areas. Just as other creatures are highly evolved in specific areas that we are not.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Aug 23, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> I read about that before I posted the thread.  It's about all I could find on the subject.  I was hoping some of the guys here had more,* but it seems everyone is just satisfied rejecting argument without attempting to refute its underlying assumptions*.  I appreciate you coming forward with actual scientific data instead of "my dog hates cats" anecdotal stories.
> .



Ok, assume for a second that this were true. How would that be any different than the religious groups' dismissal of our arguments about your underlying assumptions? 

In other words, your only "evidence" for God is the Bible and that's only because it's told you so. 

Everything else you could provide would be anecdotal, by definition. As to the miraculous curing cases, the Catholic church investigates claims of miracles frequently and are very shy of saying that they are. Now, why is that? Is it because they are afraid of declaring miracles? That's a very odd position for a religious organization to take, if it is. Or is it that there is no concrete proof by which to hold up any of the examples as true miracles? 

Now, are they not "experts" in the field, much like any other member of the clergy? If so, who would be better at adjudicating the worthiness of these instances as miracles? 

I agree with Bishop here, in that you rigged the thread from its inception. You failed to define hate, or what you take it to mean. 

Webster defines it as 


> 1hate
> noun, often attributive \ËˆhÄ�t\
> 
> 
> ...



Fear is a derivative of the survival instinct, which I think you could agree that all animals share. They wish to survive, they wish to reproduce, and they are never very keen on dying, even of natural causes such as old age. 

Notice in this definition that there is no temporal requirement for hate. In plain terms, hate can be fleeting, and not at all the long term grudges specifically related to human emotions. Those, I would think based on other human mental constructs, are the product of minds that are no longer concerned with core survival, much the same thing that causes humans to have an innate, in some individuals, fear of clowns. There are no clowns coming to kill us, unless they're the serial killer type, but children don't know that at age 3, and yet are afraid of clowns. Therefore, if by nothing other than the definition, that child has the capacity to hate clowns merely by being strongly violent or choosing to avert them. So, the mind, through evolution was given the instinct to fear that which is different merely for their own survival, it's been expanded upon as our niche in the world has changed. 

How many cats have to hate dogs, or vice versa, before you would accept it as evidence without anecdote? Then again, we are getting into what you, specifically, would accept and that's a whole other ball of wax, isn't it? 

We could hold up 1000 examples to you and you could turn each one down. 

There's an expression for situations like this. It's akin to you asking us to bring you a rock. When we ask you what kind of rock your answer is that it doesn't matter. So we get a rock from the yard. You then tell us that this isn't the one you're looking for but you'll know it when you see it. We ask you to describe some attribute of the rock your seek and your answer is that you don't know that specifically, either, but this one isn't it. So we get another rock, then another, and then another; each time being told that this isn't the rock you want. 

The problem isn't that we aren't bringing you enough rocks, you just don't want to believe that any of them are right for you. We can't help with that, only you can, and it's not as hard as it may seem. It doesn't require you to believe in something that you don't. Actually, it requires you to suspend your belief in something that just can't be proven to listen to the arguments that can be followed by simple linear logic, not circular, and deductive reasoning. 

When you're ready to take those steps, let us know, we'll be here. 

Until then, good day, sir.


----------



## WaltL1 (Aug 23, 2013)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> The problem isn't that we aren't bringing you enough rocks, you just don't want to believe that any of them are right for you. We can't help with that, only you can, and it's not as hard as it may seem. It doesn't require you to believe in something that you don't. Actually, it requires you to suspend your belief in something that just can't be proven to listen to the arguments that can be followed by simple linear logic, not circular, and deductive reasoning


EEEGGGZZZAAACCCTTTLLLYYY !
Hopefully he will understand that and apply it to this -


> Stick to the meme thread if you can't offer a comprehend able refutation of the assumptions.


----------



## WaltL1 (Aug 23, 2013)

SFD I'm having trouble comprehending some things you said to Griz about his article/story he had read -
If you did this -


> I read about that before I posted the thread.


And in your own words it contained this -


> actual scientific data


And this -


> something substantiative


Now here is where Im having trouble . How exactly do you justify, to yourself or us, saying this in your original argument -


> Also it appears to exist only among mankind. I can think no evolutionary purpose for hatred nor can I find any evidence of it in the animal kingdom



Now that appears awfully dishonest but maybe im just not comprehending it, so could you clear that up for me?
And doesn't this show that throughout this thread you have argued, denied and ridiculed peoples rebuttals even though you knew your premises were at best faulty before you even started? There are words to describe people who do that and none of them are flattering.


----------



## JFS (Aug 23, 2013)

> As just one evidence of evil I posit the concept of hatred. I think it could be argued that the presence of hatred is undeniable. Also it appears to exist only among mankind. I can think no evolutionary purpose for hatred nor can I find any evidence of it in the animal kingdom. It appears mankind is the only creature on the planet that is capable of this concept, and I can find no other explanation for it other than the Biblical one.



The presence of Humor as evidence that God is a clown

I think it could be argued that the presence of humor is undeniable. Also it appears to exist only among mankind. I can think no evolutionary purpose for humor nor can I find any evidence of it in the animal kingdom. It appears mankind is the only creature on the planet that is capable of this concept, and I can find no other explanation for it other than mine.

So I guess that proves it.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Aug 23, 2013)

JFS said:


> The presence of Humor as evidence that God is a clown
> 
> I think it could be argued that the presence of humor is undeniable. Also it appears to exist only among mankind. I can think no evolutionary purpose for humor nor can I find any evidence of it in the animal kingdom. It appears mankind is the only creature on the planet that is capable of this concept, and I can find no other explanation for it other than mine.
> 
> So I guess that proves it.



Some say that the duckbill platypus is proof that God has a sense of humor.


----------



## JFS (Aug 23, 2013)

Artfuldodger said:


> Some say that the duckbill platypus is proof that God has a sense of humor.



Funny right up to the point they stab you with the poison spurs.


----------



## TheBishop (Aug 24, 2013)

SH motion seconded. Good post sir.

The problem SFD has though is deeply imbedded.  It is evident in just about every one of his posts on this board.  He's not looking for answers, he just hopes to spark someones imagination. Truth, validity, and reasoning are not useful to him.


----------



## rutnbuk (Aug 24, 2013)

The presence of continued posts on this forum is evidence of 'concern' regarding the God of Christianity...from ALL 3 A's


----------



## 660griz (Aug 26, 2013)

I would recommend http://www.natgeoeducationvideo.com/film/160/science-of-evil

Pretty interesting. Not sure it will change anyone's minds but...


----------



## TripleXBullies (Aug 27, 2013)

rutnbuk said:


> The presence of continued posts on this forum is evidence of 'concern' regarding the God of Christianity...from ALL 3 A's




I think that most of the atheists and agnostics here would be open to good evidence of the Christian god existing. And that's half the reason why we're here..... For most of us, it's not going to be re-wording/presenting of old stuff because we've heard all of it and searched through it all for ourselves already.


----------



## ambush80 (Aug 27, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> I think that most of the atheists and agnostics here would be open to good evidence of the Christian god existing. And that's half the reason why we're here..... For most of us, it's not going to be re-wording/presenting of old stuff because we've heard all of it and searched through it all for ourselves already.



I think it would be cool to have evidence of god(s),  but not the Christian one in particular.  I don't think that it would necessarily make things make more sense nor would it provide an elegant or simple answer to the big questions.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Aug 29, 2013)

Theodore981 said:


> What many people just don't seem to "get" is that human beings are simply very highly evolved animals.  Yes, some animals often (or many animals occasionally) experience hate.  Human beings generally much more often.  Our emotions are far more complicated than wild or domestic animals.
> 
> Another thing is that the ideal of the biblical God simply does not follow human logic.  No, I don't mean some sort of creator; I mean the biblical God, etc.  If the laws of the universe, the laws of nature, and the laws of physics, as perceived by humans who truly have a brain and use it are true, then the biblical God is simply a myth.  Really.  Circular logic works well on sheep(le), i.e. people who simply cannot truly think.  Linear logic works well for people who CAN think.  And if there is a biblical God, then he simply could not exist without evil.  Period.  There cannot be good without bad, or vice versa.  "He" did not create or banish "Satan".   He could not exist without Satan, and vice versa.  Very, very fundamental law of the universe, physics, and human-based linear logic.  Circular logic is male cow patties.
> 
> And why do religious folk persist in hijacking threads in this sub-forum?  Do people who question and think for themselves constantly hijack and invade the religious and "spiritual" (what a misnomer!) sub-forums?  Short answer:  No.  Why can people not be respectful?  Quite a few jerkish idjits on this forum, I do believe.



Theo, I didn't hijack the thread.  I started it.  As suggested below: see definition of apologetics.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Aug 29, 2013)

I still find no good evidence to support a evolutionary argument for the presence of hate.  I honestly don't think there is any.  The problem is not a lack of hypotheses.  The problem is the difficulty empirically testing the hypotheses for obvious reasons.  Bottom line is I accept the Biblical hypothesis.  It's as logical as the evolutionary hypothesis.  Neither can be empirically proven.  The difference I see is that naked evolution can't even justify the notion of Evil.  The entire field of Evolutionary Psychology is an attempt to fabricate an answer to this quandary....to provide a justification.  It's a leap with their feet planted firmly in mid-air.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Aug 29, 2013)

TheBishop said:


> SH motion seconded. Good post sir.
> 
> The problem SFD has though is deeply imbedded.  It is evident in just about every one of his posts on this board.  He's not looking for answers, he just hopes to spark someones imagination. Truth, validity, and reasoning are not useful to him.



Pleeeeease.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Aug 29, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> I think that most of the atheists and agnostics here would be open to good evidence of the Christian god existing. And that's half the reason why we're here..... For most of us, it's not going to be re-wording/presenting of old stuff because we've heard all of it and searched through it all for ourselves already.



Brother the evidence is there.  It's all around you. Your pride just won't let you acknowledge it.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Aug 29, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Brother the *evidence* is there.  It's all around you. Your pride just won't let you acknowledge it.



You and every AA on here are apparently using a different definition of evidence.


----------



## bullethead (Aug 29, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> I still find no good evidence to support a evolutionary argument for the presence of hate.  I honestly don't think there is any.  The problem is not a lack of hypotheses.  The problem is the difficulty empirically testing the hypotheses for obvious reasons.  Bottom line is I accept the Biblical hypothesis.  It's as logical as the evolutionary hypothesis.  Neither can be empirically proven.  The difference I see is that naked evolution can't even justify the notion of Evil.  The entire field of Evolutionary Psychology is an attempt to fabricate an answer to this quandary....to provide a justification.  It's a leap with their feet planted firmly in mid-air.



Hate was around long before the Bible. Man was around long before the Bible. The Bible is chock full of errors and just plain untrue claims about many things, one being how man got here. You need to believe the Bible in order for you be comforted. That is fine but quit trying to pass it off to others as being true. When you are forced to explain specific claims you totally avoid an answer and continue on as if nothing was asked.

Break it down for us in specific details on just how hate came about. PLEASE start with the "first" man and woman "created" in a garden and try to tie it all in from those two.
We will show you that those "first two" people got to the people party a couple of million years late, and then we will watch the rest of your detailed explanation of Hate crumble. Enlighten us please.


----------



## bullethead (Aug 29, 2013)

http://www.releasechimps.org/chimpanzees/intellect-and-emotion/


----------



## TheBishop (Aug 29, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> I still find no good evidence to support a evolutionary argument for the presence of hate.  I honestly don't think there is any.  The problem is not a lack of hypotheses.  The problem is the difficulty empirically testing the hypotheses for obvious reasons. Bottom line is I accept the Biblical hypothesis.  It's as logical as the evolutionary hypothesis.  Neither can be empirically proven.  The difference I see is that naked evolution can't even justify the notion of Evil.  The entire field of Evolutionary Psychology is an attempt to fabricate an answer to this quandary....to provide a justification.  It's a leap with their feet planted firmly in mid-air.




I just snotted coffee out my nose. Funny stuff right there, I tell ya.  The Bible logical, it don't get more wrong than that.  

I'm done with you. Your the athithesis of logic and reasoning, so much to the point its not worth talking.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Aug 29, 2013)

bullethead said:


> Hate was around long before the Bible. Man was around long before the Bible. The Bible is chock full of errors and just plain untrue claims about many things, one being how man got here. You need to believe the Bible in order for you be comforted. That is fine but quit trying to pass it off to others as being true. When you are forced to explain specific claims you totally avoid an answer and continue on as if nothing was asked.
> 
> Break it down for us in specific details on just how hate came about. PLEASE start with the "first" man and woman "created" in a garden and try to tie it all in from those two.
> We will show you that those "first two" people got to the people party a couple of million years late, and then we will watch the rest of your detailed explanation of Hate crumble. Enlighten us please.



Which, even if true do not refute the premise of the 
OP.
Stick to the OP brother.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Aug 29, 2013)

TheBishop said:


> I just snotted coffee out my nose. Funny stuff right there, I tell ya.  The Bible logical, it don't get more wrong than that.
> 
> I'm done with you. Your the athithesis of logic and reasoning, so much to the point its not worth talking.



Well Bye.


----------



## bullethead (Aug 29, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Which, even if true do not refute the premise of the
> OP.
> Stick to the OP brother.



True to form SFD
YOU brought up hate and the Bible. I asked you to explain further. You dodge the task.
I am guessing you either cannot back up your statements or you know they are false and will not try.
Soon you will be playing in your own sandbox.


----------



## drippin' rock (Aug 29, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> I still find no good evidence to support a evolutionary argument for the presence of hate.  I honestly don't think there is any.  The problem is not a lack of hypotheses.  The problem is the difficulty empirically testing the hypotheses for obvious reasons.  Bottom line is I accept the Biblical hypothesis.  It's as logical as the evolutionary hypothesis.  Neither can be empirically proven.  The difference I see is that naked evolution can't even justify the notion of Evil.  The entire field of Evolutionary Psychology is an attempt to fabricate an answer to this quandary....to provide a justification.  It's a leap with their feet planted firmly in mid-air.



Biblical Hypothesis:

God made everything.  God is good.  Can't have good without bad.  God made the devil.  The devil is bad.  The devil is the cause of evil. God made evil.  Evil justified.


----------



## JFS (Aug 30, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> The difference I see is that naked evolution can't even justify the notion of Evil.



This is simply retarded.  Capitalizing it doesn't relieve you of having to define what you are talking about.

Can you show me a box of evil?  Of hate?  Of course not, they are just value judgments we make about certain actions or descriptions of emotional states.  None of the actions or emotions require invisible sky friends or goat herder mythology to explain.


----------



## bullethead (Aug 30, 2013)

JFS said:


> This is simply retarded.  Capitalizing it doesn't relieve you of having to define what you are talking about.
> 
> Can you show me a box of evil?  Of hate?  Of course not, they are just value judgments we make about certain actions or descriptions of emotional states.  None of the actions or emotions require invisible sky friends or goat herder mythology to explain.



Exactly


----------



## stringmusic (Aug 30, 2013)

JFS said:


> None of the actions or emotions require invisible sky friends or goat herder mythology to explain.


We get to make up definitions and absolutes and reality will adapt accordingly.

Seems plausible.


----------



## TheBishop (Aug 30, 2013)

JFS said:


> This is simply retarded.  Capitalizing it doesn't relieve you of having to define what you are talking about.
> 
> Can you show me a box of evil?  Of hate?  Of course not, they are just value judgments we make about certain actions or descriptions of emotional states.  None of the actions or emotions require invisible sky friends or goat herder mythology to explain.



See post 68.  You would have better luck arguing with a fence post.


----------



## TheBishop (Aug 30, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> We get to make up definitions and absolutes and reality will adapt accordingly.
> 
> Seems plausible.



No we make up definitions, and postulate what could be,  based on reality.  We rarely ever form absolutes.  Besides mathmatics, there is very little (comparatively) that humans once believed true to be proven absolute.  We keep proving ourselves wrong more than we prove ourselves right.  Thats progress.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Aug 30, 2013)

bullethead said:


> True to form SFD
> YOU brought up hate and the Bible. I asked you to explain further. You dodge the task.
> I am guessing you either cannot back up your statements or you know they are false and will not try.
> Soon you will be playing in your own sandbox.



The OP makes several assertions.  

The Bible asserts that man is inherently evil which is logically consistent with what we observe: i.e. the presence of this evil is self evident.

Evolution has not accounted for this evil.

Your post (#76) did not address any of these assertions.  

As far as "playing in my own sandbox", I assume I'm to infer "by myself", I will simply take that as no rational refutation could be offered.  Wouldn't surprise me at all to see everyone pick up their toys and go home.  Common atheist tactic here has always been to denigrate when their arguments don't stand up to reason.  I guess I should be grateful for their ethical ascension from denigrating to vacating.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Aug 30, 2013)

JFS said:


> This is simply retarded.  Capitalizing it doesn't relieve you of having to define what you are talking about.
> 
> Can you show me a box of evil?  Of hate?  Of course not, they are just value judgments we make about certain actions or descriptions of emotional states.  None of the actions or emotions require invisible sky friends or goat herder mythology to explain.



I wouldn't expect someone who has no concept of what evil is to comprehend it.  Just skip it.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Aug 30, 2013)

TheBishop said:


> We keep proving ourselves wrong more than we prove ourselves right.  Thats progress.



Priceless.


----------



## TheBishop (Aug 30, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Priceless.



Coming from someone that would keep us all in the dark ages I'll take that as a compliment.


----------



## TheBishop (Aug 30, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> The OP makes several assertions.
> 
> The Bible asserts that man is inherently evil which is logically consistent with what we observe: i.e. the presence of this evil is self evident.
> 
> ...



  You can't fix this kind of brainwashed.  

If man was inherently "evil"  We would not have made it. Of the first couple of humans on the planet,  wether be Adam and Eve, or Cavemen, they would killed each other right out the gate.  People would be killing and stealing as a rule, rather than the exception.  We would not have ever achieved the idea of a representive republic becuase no one would have ever cooperated.

SFD king of EPIC FAIL.


----------



## stringmusic (Aug 30, 2013)

TheBishop said:


> No we make up definitions, and postulate what could be,  based on reality. We rarely ever form absolutes.  Besides mathmatics, there is very little (comparatively) that humans once believed true to be proven absolute.  We keep proving ourselves wrong more than we prove ourselves right.  Thats progress.


So we make up definitions based on reality, but, by your own admission, those definitions change all the time. That would mean reality must also change all the time.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Aug 30, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> The Bible asserts that man is inherently evil which is logically consistent with what we observe: i.e. the presence of this evil is self evident.



You said it right there.. The presence of evil is evident. You don't have to be told about it by any god to know it's there. The people who wrote that didn't have to be divinely inspired.. it was right there for them to observe.....


----------



## JFS (Aug 30, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> So we make up definitions based on reality, but, by your own admission, those definitions change all the time. That would mean reality must also change all the time.



We've been through this recently haven't we?  SFD refuses to define hate or "Evil", so other than capitalizing it to somehow give it more heft, it's still not apparent what he is talking about.  As an adjective, saying an act is evil is really just like saying it's immoral.  We say slavery is evil now but somehow it wasn't evil before.  Yada yada yada.  We've beat that horse to death.  

What's so magic about hate?  Plenty of examples given there too.  What do you see that needs divine scripture to understand?

Are we talking Evil as a noun?  You mean like the dark side of the force?  A supernatural persona like a bad boy version of the holy ghost?  

Exactly what is the proposition that purportedly only the bible can explain?  Just repeating nonsensical conclusions in the face of reasonable explanations isn't advancing anything.  If one didn't know better it almost seems like mindless trolling.  

Or maybe it's just evil making him do it. I hate it when that happens.


----------



## TheBishop (Aug 30, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> So we make up definitions based on reality, but, by your own admission, those definitions change all the time. That would mean reality must also change all the time.



I would argue that it is becuase of individual perception of reality, and interpretation.  No two individuals see the world alike, thus interpret it differently.  Though there is often commonalities, there is never total agreement.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Aug 30, 2013)

TheBishop said:


> You can't fix this kind of brainwashed.
> 
> If man was inherently "evil"  We would not have made it. Of the first couple of humans on the planet,  wether be Adam and Eve, or Cavemen, they would killed each other right out the gate.  People would be killing and stealing as a rule, rather than the exception.  We would not have ever achieved the idea of a representive republic becuase no one would have ever cooperated.
> 
> SFD king of EPIC FAIL.



Those are all mere speculations.


----------



## stringmusic (Aug 30, 2013)

JFS said:


> We've been through this recently haven't we?  SFD refuses to define hate or "Evil", so other than capitalizing it to somehow give it more heft, it's still not apparent what he is talking about.  As an adjective, saying an act is evil is really just like saying it's immoral.  We say slavery is evil now but somehow it wasn't evil before.  Yada yada yada.  We've beat that horse to death.
> 
> What's so magic about hate?  Plenty of examples given there too.  What do you see that needs divine scripture to understand?
> 
> ...


Why hate exists in humans.


----------



## stringmusic (Aug 30, 2013)

TheBishop said:


> I would argue that it is becuase of individual perception of reality, and interpretation.  No two individuals see the world alike, thus interpret it differently.  Though there is often commonalities, there is never total agreement.


No doubt people perceive reality differently, but that in no way makes reality suseptable to those individual perceptions.

Reality will not adapt accordingly, try denouncing gravity and then jump off of a tall building.


----------



## JFS (Aug 30, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> Why hate exists in humans.



What hate of what exists in humans?  

What is so mysterious about likes and dislikes, loves and hates?


----------



## stringmusic (Aug 30, 2013)

JFS said:


> What hate of what exists in humans?
> 
> What is so mysterious about likes and dislikes, loves and hates?



I find it mysterious that people murder and rape other humans every day. I sometimes wonder why that is.


----------



## TheBishop (Aug 30, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> No doubt people perceive reality differently, but that in no way makes reality suseptable to those individual perceptions.
> 
> Reality will not adapt accordingly, try denouncing gravity and then jump off of a tall building.



Agreed. But becuase are perceptions are relative, we must each reduce our perceptions to the lowest common denominators, in hopes to find enough so that we can agree to what we call truth.


----------



## stringmusic (Aug 30, 2013)

TheBishop said:


> Agreed. But becuase are perceptions are relative, we must each reduce our perceptions to the lowest common denominators, in hopes to find enough so that we can agree to what we call truth.





TheBishop said:


> No we make up definitions, and postulate what could be,  based on reality.  We rarely ever form absolutes.  Besides mathmatics, there is very little (comparatively) that humans once believed true to be proven absolute.  We keep proving ourselves wrong more than we prove ourselves right.  Thats progress.


So not every definition is "made up", you admit that some definitions, based on reality, are truth.

I think hatred in humans is one of those truths, and I think, along with SFD, that the bible is the best explanation of this.


----------



## JFS (Aug 30, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> I find it mysterious that people murder and rape other humans every day. I sometimes wonder why that is.



I don't see the mystery, nor do I see how we need supernatural forces to explain that.  Killing and rape seem pretty squarely within evolution to me.


----------



## 660griz (Aug 30, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> Why hate exists in humans.



Survival technique that has evolved for dealing with atrocities...possibly. Easier to kill all Jews...if you hate them. Easier to kill all Muslims, Japs, Germans, whites, blacks. Easier to kill everyone on earth. Easier to take what you need if you hate. Would you feel better if a mindless robot killed? I wouldn't...feel something, even if it is bad.


----------



## stringmusic (Aug 30, 2013)

JFS said:


> I don't see the mystery, nor do I see how we need supernatural forces to explain that.  Killing and rape seem pretty squarely within evolution to me.


I didn't say we need God to explain it, I just said that what I see coincides with what the bible says about hate.


----------



## stringmusic (Aug 30, 2013)

660griz said:


> Survival technique that has evolved for dealing with atrocities...possibly. Easier to kill all Jews...if you hate them. Easier to kill all Muslims, Japs, Germans, whites, blacks. Easier to kill everyone on earth. Easier to take what you need if you hate. Would you feel better if a mindless robot killed? I wouldn't...feel something, even if it is bad.



Change the words "dealing with" to "causing", in your first sentence.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Aug 30, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> I didn't say we need God to explain it, I just said that what I see coincides with what the bible says about hate.



It coincides with the bible saying it exists??????


----------



## stringmusic (Aug 30, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> It coincides with the bible saying it exists??????



Among other things.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Aug 30, 2013)

The bible can pepper in some obvious statements - humans have "hate" being one of them - but that doesn't mean it's prophetic...


----------



## WaltL1 (Aug 30, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> I find it mysterious that people murder and rape other humans every day. I sometimes wonder why that is.


Do you also wonder why only the tiniest percentage of all humans rape and murder and the vast majority wouldn't do such a thing? Wouldn't that lead you to believe that there is something wrong with the tiny percentage instead of all men are evil?


----------



## TheBishop (Aug 30, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Those are all mere speculations.



So are all of your posts. Atleast I have some empirical evidence. We are here, interacting without the threat of violence.  Were is yours? Were does it show the inherent evil of men? 

Out of 2 million individuals in prison, only about 700k are violent offenders, what we would constitute evil.  There are 300 million plus citizens.  The math alone does even remotely suggest that evil is prevelant in any significant level of society, let lone an inherent human characteristic. 

Like I said epic fail.


----------



## TheBishop (Aug 30, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> So not every definition is "made up", you admit that some definitions, based on reality, are truth.
> 
> I think hatred in humans is one of those truths, and I think, along with SFD, that the bible is the best explanation of this.



No every definition is "made up", it's mans way of quanitfiying our enviroment. There are commonalities of truth that enable the definition to be accepted.  

It has been theorized elephants mourn, why can't they hate.  

I have seen animals kill, just to kill, how is that not evil?


----------



## JFS (Aug 30, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> The bible can pepper in some obvious statements - humans have "hate" being one of them - but that doesn't mean it's prophetic...



Or that evolution can't explain it.


----------



## 660griz (Aug 31, 2013)

stringmusic said:


> Change the words "dealing with" to "causing", in your first sentence.



O.K. Were the Crusades about hate?


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Sep 3, 2013)

TheBishop said:


> So are all of your posts. Atleast I have some empirical evidence. We are here, interacting without the threat of violence.  Were is yours? Were does it show the inherent evil of men?
> 
> Out of 2 million individuals in prison, only about 700k are violent offenders, what we would constitute evil.  There are 300 million plus citizens.  The math alone does even remotely suggest that evil is prevelant in any significant level of society, let lone an inherent human characteristic.
> 
> Like I said epic fail.



You gotta be kidding me.  Is that what you are basing your refutation of the depravity of mankind on.....the fact that  out of 2 million prisoners only 700k out are "violent offenders".   Well I guess if your " gold standard" for the absence of evil is 1.3 million non violent criminals, then yeah I guess you could make the case that most people behave better than that.  But that begs me to question why you chose 1.3 million non violent criminals as your standard.  Why not just say anyone who isn't personally responsible for the death of 6 million people is not evil? That would make your empirical evidence even stronger.  You would have excluded everyone but Hitler, Stalin, and Chairman Mao from fitting the definition of evil.

Do you see how absurd and mistaken your assumption is,  especially when it's taken to the extreme?  It's absurd, because we can see it's not true.  It doesn't fit reality.

But let's take the assumption I follow to the extreme.  Lets take the commandment "thou shalt no commit adultery" and take it to the nth degree as Jesus did son his Sermon on the Mount and see it is absurd.  He said: 

27 “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’[e] 28 But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart. 

Does it seem so absurd.  I suggest not, because whereas you predicated your definition of evil on the basis of ones actions, (violent vs. nonviolent), Jesus rightly asserted that evil is a condition of the Heart, the Soul, the Conscious.  It's there where the very notion of evil first takes root and in which action may or MAY NOT follow.  Regardless of whether we act on those notions or not they exist in all of us.  The only difference between an adulterer and someone who undresses a woman with their eyes, or one who murders and one who doesn't is only the act itself.  The evil idea exists in both.   So to say that man is not inherently evil is blatantly false.  The very best that can be said is that not all men act with equally depraved actions on our universally evil thoughts.

Now when you can intelligently demonstrate animals exhibit that type of process in their Heart, Soul, Conscious, then you may actually have the beginning of a logical refutation.  Honestly I don't see that happening, because most atheist deny the presence of that type of transcendent quality in mankind itself, much less animals.  But, by all means, be my guest.

P.S.  Here's to hoping beyond hope, (call it blind faith if you like) that you can produce a more cogent response than "Epic Fail".

Semper Fi brother!


----------



## bullethead (Sep 3, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> You gotta be kidding me.  Is that what you are basing your refutation of the depravity of mankind on.....the fact that  out of 2 million prisoners only 700k out are "violent offenders".   Well I guess if your " gold standard" for the absence of evil is 1.3 million non violent criminals, then yeah I guess you could make the case that most people behave better than that.  But that begs me to question why you chose 1.3 million non violent criminals as your standard.  Why not just say anyone who isn't personally responsible for the death of 6 million people is not evil? That would make your empirical evidence even stronger.  You would have excluded everyone but Hitler, Stalin, and Chairman Mao from fitting the definition of evil.
> 
> Do you see how absurd and mistaken your assumption is,  especially when it's taken to the extreme?  It's absurd, because we can see it's not true.  It doesn't fit reality.
> 
> ...



What did this God commit when according to the Bible, he impregnated a married woman with his child and not the child of her husband? And at the time a pregnant unmarried woman( because scripture is not clear whether or not Joseph and Mary were married at the time) was severely punished if found out.
Was it Adultery, Rape.......?


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Sep 3, 2013)

bullethead said:


> What did this God commit when according to the Bible, he impregnated a married woman with his child and not the child of her husband? And at the time a pregnant unmarried woman( because scripture is not clear whether or not Joseph and Mary were married at the time) was severely punished if found out.
> Was it Adultery, Rape.......?



And this is relevant to the OP how?  Please either stay on topic or start your own thread.


----------



## bullethead (Sep 3, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> And this is relevant to the OP how?  Please either stay on topic or start your own thread.



It is relevant to YOUR very own post above mine. It was directed at YOUR post. If YOUR post is not relevant to the OP then take your own advice. Your pathetic attempts to dodge the hard questions is beyond old. 



SemperFiDawg said:


> But let's take the assumption I follow to the extreme.  Lets take the commandment "thou shalt no commit adultery" and take it to the nth degree as Jesus did son his Sermon on the Mount and see it is absurd.  He said:
> 
> 27 “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’[e] 28 But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.
> Semper Fi brother!


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Sep 4, 2013)

bullethead said:


> It is relevant to YOUR very own post above mine. It was directed at YOUR post. If YOUR post is not relevant to the OP then take your own advice. Your pathetic attempts to dodge the hard questions is beyond old.



No  Bullet, it wasn't.  Bishop and i are debating over the inherent depravity of man, which is one of my assertions in the OP.  Your are implying God is either evil or committed an evil act which has absolutely nothing to do with either the OP or the previous post?  That is an entirely different conversation.  You want to discuss that, start another thread, and I will be happy to converse with you on THAT subject, in THAT thread.  As to this thread, please stick to the assertions made in the OP.


----------



## 660griz (Sep 4, 2013)

Adultery is evil? A sin yea, but I don't think hate is involved.

Even so, the morality for this is set for you in the bible. You shouldn't assume it is bad for everyone in the world.

A perfectly just God who sentences his imperfect creation to infinite punishment for finite sins. Evil? I think so.


----------



## bullethead (Sep 4, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> No  Bullet, it wasn't.  Bishop and i are debating over the inherent depravity of man, which is one of my assertions in the OP.  Your are implying God is either evil or committed an evil act which has absolutely nothing to do with either the OP or the previous post?  That is an entirely different conversation.  You want to discuss that, start another thread, and I will be happy to converse with you on THAT subject, in THAT thread.  As to this thread, please stick to the assertions made in the OP.



Mine still fits, and even more so if you think we get our qualities from a higher power. If we commit adultery it comes from the Ultimate Adulterer.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Sep 4, 2013)

bullethead said:


> Mine still fits, and even more so if you think we get our qualities from a higher power. If we commit adultery it comes from the Ultimate Adulterer.



That's it Bullet.  If you can't make a sound arguement then start name calling and denigrating, further reinforcing my assertion that mankind is depraved.  Strong work brother.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Sep 4, 2013)

660griz said:


> Adultery is evil? A sin yea, but I don't think hate is involved.
> 
> Even so, the morality for this is set for you in the bible. You shouldn't assume it is bad for everyone in the world.



Griz, how can you consider adultery a sin unless you acknowledge God?


----------



## TripleXBullies (Sep 4, 2013)

The golden rule doesn't have to be a sin against any god in order to be a rule to live by.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Sep 4, 2013)

660griz said:


> Even so, the morality for this is set for you in the bible. You shouldn't assume it is bad for everyone in the



Are you now going to argue adultery is not an evil act?  If so, based on what?


----------



## 660griz (Sep 4, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Griz, how can you consider adultery a sin unless you acknowledge God?



Oh crap! You got me. Seriously? 

O.K. I'll answer, I was trying to use it in the same context. You quoted the bible. The bible says it is a sin, doesn't mention evil.


----------



## 660griz (Sep 4, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Are you now going to argue adultery is not an evil act?  If so, based on what?



Based on my morality. I consider it wrong for me and my spouse but, some folks may be into that kind of thing and I don't judge them for it. Open marriages exist. As long as it is between consenting adults...

Adultery definition: Voluntary sexual intercourse between a married person and a partner other than the lawful spouse


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Sep 4, 2013)

660griz said:


> Oh crap! You got me. Seriously?
> 
> O.K. I'll answer, I was trying to use it in the same context. You quoted the bible. The bible says it is a sin, doesn't mention evil.



That's pretty weak in all honesty.  An Sinful act is pretty much universally accepted to be an action based on an evil thought.  Think you would have a hard time justifying the presence of sin without first positing the presence of evil.  Kinda go hand in hand so to speak.


----------



## 660griz (Sep 4, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> That's pretty weak in all honesty.  An Sinful act is pretty much universally accepted to be an action based on an evil thought.  Think you would have a hard time justifying the presence of sin without first positing the presence of evil.  Kinda go hand in hand so to speak.




You mean you would have a hard time. I didn't realized I was limited to the confounds of your imagination and moral base. Still not sure why sex between consenting adults is evil but, whatever. 
I understand our conversations on going to have limitations based on the box you are in. Staying within the bible and christianity just leaves me confused. 

So, telling a lie is a sin? Correct?
Telling a lie in order to save someone's life is a sin therefore evil?


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Sep 4, 2013)

660griz said:


> Based on my morality. I consider it wrong for me and my spouse but, some folks may be into that kind of thing and I don't judge them for it. Open marriages exist. As long as it is between consenting adults...
> 
> Adultery definition: Voluntary sexual intercourse between a married person and a partner other than the lawful spouse



Again, and I don't want to get off the assertion in the OP, but once you make morality relative......evil relative, you lose not only the definition of evil but  also the ability to call anything evil, but that has been beat to death here.

Perhaps a better question would be why you yourself consider it wrong/evil, and doesn't the very fact that you do consider it as such point to the destructive or depraved nature of mankind.


----------



## 660griz (Sep 4, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Perhaps a better question would be why you yourself consider it wrong/evil, and doesn't the very fact that you do consider it as such point to the destructive or depraved nature of mankind.



Not sure if that is a better question.
I blame it on the jealous/possesive nature of me. Years of evolution and collecting things has really hurt my ability to share. I work hard to get my things, wife included. I have put a lot of time and money into it and I am not happy when somebody gets it for free.

Another question would be why it is accepted in certain cultures or groups? 

Or, why did God do or cause most of the 'sins' and THEN make them a sin for everybody else? 
Adultery, rape, incest, murder.


----------



## 660griz (Sep 4, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> and doesn't the very fact that you do consider it as such point to the destructive or depraved nature of mankind.



You mean 'man' that was created in God's image? So, you really think he screwed up when he made mankind? He flooded the world one time when he screwed up, think another cleansing is coming? Strange but, you would think an all powerful God could just snap is fingers and everyone would die, or just the bad, or just the good. Drowning everyone? Waiting 40 days while folks struggle and claw to get above water and watching your creation drown. Babies, children, men, women, puppies. Sounds to me like, perhaps we created God.

Do I think man is capable of limitless evil acts? Yes. I also think man is capable of limitless good. 
The bad or good acts could be associated with religion or they could not be.


----------



## bullethead (Sep 4, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Again, and I don't want to get off the assertion in the OP, but once you make morality relative......evil relative, you lose not only the definition of evil but  also the ability to call anything evil, but that has been beat to death here.
> 
> Perhaps a better question would be why you yourself consider it wrong/evil, and doesn't the very fact that you do consider it as such point to the destructive or depraved nature of mankind.



Even on a "god" level, morals are relative to the God.


----------



## bullethead (Sep 4, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> That's it Bullet.  If you can't make a sound arguement then start name calling and denigrating, further reinforcing my assertion that mankind is depraved.  Strong work brother.



I call it like I see it. Don't be mad when your God portrays the definitions you want used.
If a God impregnates a mortal woman(married or not) while she is with another man then that God has committed adultery. If she was unwilling or unknowing another label could be applied. I am not name calling, I am showing you that your God fits the definition. You cry foul because you worship such a being and don't like it when it is shown for what it is. That is your problem.
You can keep on dodging, ignoring, twisting and wishing it goes away by trying to change the subject but when we cut through the smoke and mirrors your God is no different than the people he judges. I find that your God has too many human qualities and not any God ones. That is one of the many reasons I have come to believe that he is a product of humans.


----------



## ted_BSR (Sep 4, 2013)

TheBishop said:


> Agreed. But becuase are perceptions are relative, we must each reduce our perceptions to the lowest common denominators, in hopes to find enough so that we can agree to what we call truth.



Please don't include Me, in your We.


----------



## TheBishop (Sep 5, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> You gotta be kidding me.  Is that what you are basing your refutation of the depravity of mankind on.....the fact that  out of 2 million prisoners only 700k out are "violent offenders".   Well I guess if your " gold standard" for the absence of evil is 1.3 million non violent criminals, then yeah I guess you could make the case that most people behave better than that.  But that begs me to question why you chose 1.3 million non violent criminals as your standard.  Why not just say anyone who isn't personally responsible for the death of 6 million people is not evil? That would make your empirical evidence even stronger.  You would have excluded everyone but Hitler, Stalin, and Chairman Mao from fitting the definition of evil.
> 
> Do you see how absurd and mistaken your assumption is,  especially when it's taken to the extreme?  It's absurd, because we can see it's not true.  It doesn't fit reality.
> 
> ...



You are really, really, bad at this logic stuff.  How old are you?  I would have taken you to school in my early teens with this type of thinking, (if you can call it that).  

First I used the estimated population of the U.S., that is 300 plus million, to show you there is an extremey small amount of the population, that commits violent acts (the closest thing we have to a quantifiable evil).  680k out of 300 mil, is a fraction of a fraction.  If we were inherently evil, that number would be extremely higher, to the point you would recognize a majority of violent evil doers over the total population. 

Second, I do not care one iota, what your jesus said about evil.  I deal with facts not fiction.  Since its impossible, for now anyways, to read whats in a man's heart or mind, or wether or not a soul even exists, then we must stick to actions. Things we can observe. Leave it to you indoctrinated types to bring unqauntifiable, unobervable, and unassertainable variables into a discussion. 



> Now when you can intelligently demonstrate animals exhibit that type of process in their Heart, Soul, Conscious, then you may actually have the beginning of a logical refutation.



This is the dumbest statement yet! How in the world is anybody suppose to do that? And then you have the nerve to use the term logical refutation?  Are you kidding me?   Exactly how do you observe such things? 

I tell you what there genius, when you can prove me wether a leprechaun is evil, or good, I'll get back to on how to judge what is an animals heart, mind, and soul. 

How about just proving to me you have a soul.


----------



## TheBishop (Sep 5, 2013)

ted_BSR said:


> Please don't include Me, in your We.



Trust me I wasn't.  I was referring to smart people.


----------



## ted_BSR (Sep 5, 2013)

TheBishop said:


> Trust me I wasn't.  I was referring to smart people.



Nice


----------



## ted_BSR (Sep 5, 2013)

TheBishop said:


> Agreed. But becuase are perceptions are relative, we must each reduce our perceptions to the lowest common denominators, in hopes to find enough so that we can agree to what we call truth.



To be more precise, the truth doesn't care if you agree with what it is. It is the truth independent of your perceptions.

I do not wish to diminish my perceptions to be able to agree about something.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Sep 6, 2013)

TheBishop said:


> First I used the estimated population of the U.S., that is 300 plus million, to show you there is an extremey small amount of the population, that commits violent acts (the closest thing we have to a quantifiable evil).



G.K. chesterton said " the depravity of man is at once the most empirically verifiable and intellectually resisted argument that we face."

I would suggest that there is a more quantifiable method of measuring evil than your ungrounded example.   

Show me a man or woman that has never harbored ill feeling toward another.  Show me one who has never cursed another, one who has never lied, never harbored any lust, never let their pride overcome their judgement.  one who has never demeaned another out of envy, jealousy or pride and you will find there is a perfect 1:1 ration between every individual and their evil acts.  



TheBishop said:


> Second, I do not care one iota, what your jesus said about evil.  I deal with facts not fiction.  Since its impossible, for now anyways, to read whats in a man's heart or mind, or wether or not a soul even exists, then we must stick to actions. Things we can observe.



See above.  





TheBishop said:


> This is the dumbest statement yet! How in the world is anybody suppose to do that?



EXACTLY, yet this is what you must do believe evolution can account for the presence evil.  In fact many on this very thread have attempted to do just such.  I'm glad that you see the absurdity of it all.  Bravo!



TheBishop said:


> I tell you what there genius, when you can prove me wether a leprechaun is evil, or good, I'll get back to on how to judge what is an animals heart, mind, and soul.



Sorry, I don't believe in leprechauns, and don't know any Christians that do.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Sep 6, 2013)

bullethead said:


> I call it like I see it. Don't be mad when your God portrays the definitions you want used.
> If a God impregnates a mortal woman(married or not) while she is with another man then that God has committed adultery. If she was unwilling or unknowing another label could be applied. I am not name calling, I am showing you that your God fits the definition. You cry foul because you worship such a being and don't like it when it is shown for what it is. That is your problem.
> You can keep on dodging, ignoring, twisting and wishing it goes away by trying to change the subject but when we cut through the smoke and mirrors your God is no different than the people he judges. I find that your God has too many human qualities and not any God ones. That is one of the many reasons I have come to believe that he is a product of humans.



Again, OFF TOPIC.
I've offered to engage you on this topic if you care to start 
a separate thread.  Undoubtedly it's an important topic to you, unless you are just posting in an attempt to derail this thread.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Sep 6, 2013)

660griz said:


> You mean 'man' that was created in God's image? So, you really think he screwed up when he made mankind? He flooded the world one time when he screwed up, think another cleansing is coming? Strange but, you would think an all powerful God could just snap is fingers and everyone would die, or just the bad, or just the good. Drowning everyone? Waiting 40 days while folks struggle and claw to get above water and watching your creation drown. Babies, children, men, women, puppies. Sounds to me like, perhaps we created God.
> 
> Do I think man is capable of limitless evil acts? Yes. I also think man is capable of limitless good.
> The bad or good acts could be associated with religion or they could not be.



So you do acknowledge that everyone harbors evil, though not everyone acts on it in the same manner?


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Sep 6, 2013)

JFS said:


> What hate of what exists in humans?
> 
> What is so mysterious about likes and dislikes, loves and hates?



Nothing mysterious about it.  It's present in all of us.


----------



## WaltL1 (Sep 6, 2013)

Just a reminder, the OP was based on a lie, see post #64, so refutes itself from the get go.
Additionally,  other scientific evidence has been shown which refutes the OP a second time.
Also, other undeniable common sense evidence has been submitted which makes it 3 times.
Carry on.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Sep 7, 2013)

WaltL1 said:


> Just a reminder, the OP was based on a lie, see post #64, so refutes itself from the get go.
> Additionally,  other scientific evidence has been shown which refutes the OP a second time.
> Also, other undeniable common sense evidence has been submitted which makes it 3 times.
> Carry on.



You know Walt, you have out and out called me a liar several times on this thread so I want to clarify a couple of things to you just so you don't continue on in your confusion.  I said in the OP that I could find no evolutionary evidence for the existance of hate.  When Griz posted a reference to "a story"  about the crows I acknowledged that I had reviewed it prior to posting the OP and did acknowledge that it was in fact scientific data.  Now mind you, there is a world of difference between data and data that is actual evidence of an assertion.  Specifically with regard to the crow story, I had read several critiques of the very same data which were skeptical that any actual inferences could be drawn from it.  To put it in laymans terms for you.....it wasn't evidence: data, yes; evidence, no: hence the statement in the OP was not a lie as you suggest.  I had already reviewed the literature just as I told Griz I had, and based on what I was able to gather, the crow study didn't hold water. Now do you understand the difference between data and evidence?  

Regarding my thanking Griz for posting something "substantive", I wasn't affirming that the crow study was "evidence" of his assertion.  I was thanking him for actually taking the time to use his brain in an attempt to find something to support his case.  While almost everyone else, you included, have provided nothing but scorn because you don't care for the implications of he OP,  Griz actually took up the task of looking for scientific data to make his case.  So yes, he provided something substantive and I was grateful for it.

Like I told Griz, I had reviewed the data before I started the OP.  I actually started the OP in part, hoping others could come up with some good data supporting an evolutionary argument for "hate/evil" that I had not found.  That has not been the case.  All you have offered to this thread is castigation and scorn, not one, ONE, shred of evidence to refute the OP.  As I said earlier, based on that, and the fact that I could find none, the assertions in the OP that the Christian explanation of evil is certainly logical and in light of the absence of evidence to the contrary  offers the best explanation for what we actually find to be true: mankind is inherently evil.


----------



## WaltL1 (Sep 7, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> You know Walt, you have out and out called me a liar several times on this thread so I want to clarify a couple of things to you just so you don't continue on in your confusion.  I said in the OP that I could find no evolutionary evidence for the existance of hate.  When Griz posted a reference to "a story"  about the crows I acknowledged that I had reviewed it prior to posting the OP and did acknowledge that it was in fact scientific data.  Now mind you, there is a world of difference between data and data that is actual evidence of an assertion.  Specifically with regard to the crow story, I had read several critiques of the very same data which were skeptical that any actual inferences could be drawn from it.  To put it in laymans terms for you.....it wasn't evidence: data, yes; evidence, no: hence the statement in the OP was not a lie as you suggest.  I had already reviewed the literature just as I told Griz I had, and based on what I was able to gather, the crow study didn't hold water. Now do you understand the difference between data and evidence?
> 
> Regarding my thanking Griz for posting something "substantive", I wasn't affirming that the crow study was "evidence" of his assertion.  I was thanking him for actually taking the time to use his brain in an attempt to find something to support his case.  While almost everyone else, you included, have provided nothing but scorn because you don't care for the implications of he OP,  Griz actually took up the task of looking for scientific data to make his case.  So yes, he provided something substantive and I was grateful for it.
> 
> Like I told Griz, I had reviewed the data before I started the OP.  I actually started the OP in part, hoping others could come up with some good data supporting an evolutionary argument for "hate/evil" that I had not found.  That has not been the case.  All you have offered to this thread is castigation and scorn, not one, ONE, shred of evidence to refute the OP.  As I said earlier, based on that, and the fact that I could find none, the assertions in the OP that the Christian explanation of evil is certainly logical and in light of the absence of evidence to the contrary  offers the best explanation for what we actually find to be true: mankind is inherently evil.


What a joke.


----------



## JFS (Sep 7, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> the Christian explanation of evil is certainly logical and in light of the absence of evidence to the contrary  offers the best explanation for what we actually find to be true: mankind is inherently evil.



Your reasoning is circular.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Sep 7, 2013)

WaltL1 said:


> What a joke.



What an intelligent and thoughtful reply.  God Bless you.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Sep 7, 2013)

JFS said:


> Your reasoning is circular.



Do say?


----------



## WaltL1 (Sep 7, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> What an intelligent and thoughtful reply.  God Bless you.


At least its based on facts.
I have to wonder, if you were to ever realize how absolutely ignorant you make Christians look, if you would stop? And I'm not talking about a belief in God.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Sep 8, 2013)

WaltL1 said:


> At least its based on facts.
> I have to wonder, if you were to ever realize how absolutely ignorant you make Christians look, if you would stop? And I'm not talking about a belief in God.



Again, God Bless you Brother.


----------



## WaltL1 (Sep 8, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Again, God Bless you Brother.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Sep 9, 2013)

God created the possibility of evil; people actualized that potentiality. The source of evil is not God's power but mankind's freedom. Even an all-powerful God could not have created a world in which people had genuine freedom and yet there was no potentiality for sin, because our freedom includes the possibility of sin within its own meaning.” – Peter Kreeft

Felt this quote very appropriate here.


----------



## WaltL1 (Sep 9, 2013)

You might want to read that quote with a little more thought behind it because it too refutes several parts of your OP.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Sep 9, 2013)

WaltL1 said:


> You might want to read that quote with a little more thought behind it because it too refutes several parts of your OP.



Sorry, don't see it.  You want to point it out or me?


----------



## 660griz (Sep 10, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> God created the possibility of evil; people actualized that potentiality. The source of evil is not God's power but mankind's freedom. Even an all-powerful God could not have created a world in which people had genuine freedom and yet there was no potentiality for sin, because our freedom includes the possibility of sin within its own meaning.” – Peter Kreeft



An ALL-POWERFUL God that could not create a world withough evil or sin? That is the most ridiculous thing I have heard.


----------



## ambush80 (Sep 10, 2013)

660griz said:


> An ALL-POWERFUL God that could not create a world withough evil or sin? That is the most ridiculous thing I have heard.



Kind of like he can't make a burrito so hot that he can't eat it?


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Sep 10, 2013)

660griz said:


> An ALL-POWERFUL God that could not create a world withough evil or sin? That is the most ridiculous thing I have heard.



Oh he could have, but it would by definition exclude the possibility of us having the freedom of choice.  Think about it.


----------



## bullethead (Sep 10, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Oh he could have, but it would by definition exclude the possibility of us having the freedom of choice.  Think about it.



Thought about it....and it is the perfect excuse.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Sep 11, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Oh he could have, but it would by definition exclude the possibility of us having the freedom of choice.  Think about it.



According to you, he also created the logic you use when you "think about it." He created the definition you are thinking about. If he can do anything he could have done it without contradicting any definition of us having freedom of choice.


----------



## 660griz (Sep 11, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Oh he could have, but it would by definition exclude the possibility of us having the freedom of choice.  Think about it.



Another popular myth. 
Without the ability to choose evil we would give up the freedom of choice. What a load!

I can have ice cream, or apples, or steak, or MURDEROUS rage. See, take out ONE choice above. You still have choices, you just can't make evil ones. What is so hard about that?


----------



## bullethead (Sep 11, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Oh he could have, but it would by definition exclude the possibility of us having the freedom of choice.  Think about it.



Yet in another thread you are telling me people are predisposed........which is it?


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Sep 11, 2013)

bullethead said:


> Thought about it....and it is the perfect excuse.



Can you please provide an alternative in which choice could exist without the option of rejecting God being a choice. Man is either free or he is not.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Sep 11, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> According to you, he also created the logic you use when you "think about it." He created the definition you are thinking about. If he can do anything he could have done it without contradicting any definition of us having freedom of choice.



See above


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Sep 11, 2013)

660griz said:


> Another popular myth.
> Without the ability to choose evil we would give up the freedom of choice. What a load!
> 
> I can have ice cream, or apples, or steak, or MURDEROUS rage. See, take out ONE choice above. You still have choices, you just can't make evil ones. What is so hard about that?



Not an accurate analogy I would suggest.


----------



## bullethead (Sep 11, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Can you please provide an alternative in which choice could exist without the option of rejecting God being a choice. Man is either free or he is not.



Your loading the deck in your favor by asking me choose YOUR options.

Man does what he wants because there is no higher authority to answer to.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Sep 11, 2013)

bullethead said:


> Yet in another thread you are telling me people are predisposed........which is it?



Before the fall choice.  After the fall both choice and predisposed.  It's my opinion, and I'm only speaking for myself here, but I don't think Adam and Eve were predisposed to evil.  They certainly had the ability to chose as they well demonstrated. Notice that the serpent was an external temptation.  When they rebelled it brought down a punitive curse on all mankind and I believe man has been predisposed to an internal as well as external tempter to sin since that time.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Sep 11, 2013)

bullethead said:


> Your loading the deck in your favor by asking me choose YOUR options.
> 
> Man does what he wants because there is no higher authority to answer to.



I'm not loading anything, only pointing out the only possible alternatives I can see to your assertion.  The fact that you can't provide another logical alternative other than the ones I posited is not loading the deck, but in fact your assertion falling flat on its face.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Sep 11, 2013)

bullethead said:


> Man does what he wants because there is no higher authority to answer to.



Then anything is permissible including rape, incest, murder, etc.  Spoken like a True Atheist: One who understands the logical consequences of his belief.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Sep 11, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Can you please provide an alternative in which choice could exist without the option of rejecting God being a choice. Man is either free or he is not.



I've given them before.


----------



## JFS (Sep 11, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Notice that the serpent was an external temptation.  When they rebelled it brought down a punitive curse on all mankind



Magic arks.  Tempting snakes.  Curses.   All we need now is a cameo by the talking donkey.

"When one person suffers from a delusion, it is called insanity. When many people suffer from a delusion it is called a Religion.”  -- Robert M. Pirsig


----------



## TripleXBullies (Sep 11, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Before the fall choice.  After the fall both choice and predisposed.  It's my opinion, and I'm only speaking for myself here, but I don't think Adam and Eve were predisposed to evil.  They certainly had the ability to chose as they well demonstrated. Notice that the serpent was an external temptation.  When they rebelled it brought down a punitive curse on all mankind and I believe man has been predisposed to an internal as well as external tempter to sin since that time.



Curses....


----------



## TripleXBullies (Sep 11, 2013)

JFS said:


> Magic arcs.  Tempting snakes.  Curses.
> 
> "When one person suffers from a delusion, it is called insanity. When many people suffer from a delusion it is called a Religion.”  -- Robert M. Pirsig



Put that in his apolgetic quote thread...


----------



## TripleXBullies (Sep 11, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Then anything is permissible including rape, incest, murder, etc.  Spoken like a True Atheist: One who understands the logical consequences of his belief.



Permissible only as it pertains to an ultimate law. I wouldn't want them permissible around me.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Sep 11, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> I've given them before.


----------



## WaltL1 (Sep 11, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Then anything is permissible including rape, incest, murder, etc.  Spoken like a True Atheist: One who understands the logical consequences of his belief.


Once again you are absolutely ignoring the obvious.
1. The vast majority of man find those things not permissible
2. Because of that there are laws against those things to punish the small percentage who do them.
You've made the same statement several times,  been shown how stupid it is several times and yet here it is again.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Sep 11, 2013)

JFS said:


> Magic arks.  Tempting snakes.  Curses.   All we need now is a cameo by the talking donkey.
> 
> "When one person suffers from a delusion, it is called insanity. When many people suffer from a delusion it is called a Religion.”  -- Robert M. Pirsig



A talking donkey we got.  What we don't have is something from nothing, life from sterility, intelligence from a vacuum, meaning from blindness, order from disorder.


----------



## JFS (Sep 11, 2013)

Edited that for you:



SemperFiDawg said:


> What we don't have is god from nothing, god from sterility, god from a vacuum



That's just throwing in a god of the gaps to complete the set.

Bingo!


----------



## TripleXBullies (Sep 11, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> A talking donkey we got.  What we don't have is something from nothing, life from sterility, intelligence from a vacuum, meaning from blindness, order from disorder.



You are speculating. You have some evidence, but it's actually not evidence. It's lack of evidence for anything else. Either way, it's speculation.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Sep 11, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


>



I create man, they live, they die. End of story. That's it. Done Deal.


----------



## bullethead (Sep 11, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> I'm not loading anything, only pointing out the only possible alternatives I can see to your assertion.  The fact that you can't provide another logical alternative other than the ones I posited is not loading the deck, but in fact your assertion falling flat on its face.



The logical alternative is that there is no God.


----------



## bullethead (Sep 11, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Then anything is permissible including rape, incest, murder, etc.  Spoken like a True Atheist: One who understands the logical consequences of his belief.



We have to answer to ourselves and mankind. We don't need a God in the mix.
You constantly overlook the human element in all of this. People do not go to court in order to be judged by a God, we must answer to our peers.


----------



## 660griz (Sep 11, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Then anything is permissible including rape, incest, murder, etc.  Spoken like a True Atheist: One who understands the logical consequences of his belief.



This keeps being brought up even though the majority of evidence points to religion as making rape, incest, murder, slavery, pedophilia, etc. acceptable.


----------



## ted_BSR (Sep 11, 2013)

I am glad to see that no one is diminishing their perception!!


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Sep 11, 2013)

JFS said:


> Edited that for you:
> 
> 
> 
> That's just throwing in a god of the gaps to complete the set.



Not quiet.  My basic chemistry set became a living cell more complex than any major city with just an addition of time.  That cell eventually became an even more complex multicellular organism with nothing added but time.  A little more time and up popped a reptile.  More time and it turned into a bird, more time and a fish popped up.  Eventually one of these combined with time to produce a mammal which eventually became a human who could describe time and measure time, but could never understand where time came from, how it started, or who started it, how to stop it, or when it will stop, yet declared himself Lord of all knowledge worth knowing.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Sep 11, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> You are speculating. You have some evidence, but it's actually not evidence. It's lack of evidence for anything else. Either way, it's speculation.



And so are you.  The difference is people that believe in the speculation I adhere to prove it true through the positive change that is evident in their lives.  They fill the world with their testimonies regarding this and have for the last 2000 years.  The people that adhere to your brand of speculation.....well lets just say they haven't and they don't.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Sep 11, 2013)

bullethead said:


> The logical alternative is that there is no God.



And that my friends is the sound an atheist makes when one of their assertions reaches its logical endpoint.  It's the sound of denial.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Sep 11, 2013)

bullethead said:


> We have to answer to ourselves and mankind. We don't need a God in the mix.
> You constantly overlook the human element in all of this. People do not go to court in order to be judged by a God, we must answer to our peers.



With a relative morality all is permissible.  No one is judged.  There's no one to judge.  It's just as you stated in your first sentence, " you answer to yourself".


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Sep 11, 2013)

660griz said:


> This keeps being brought up even though the majority of evidence points to religion as making rape, incest, murder, slavery, pedophilia, etc. acceptable.



That my friend you are going to have to prove, because as far as Christianity goes,it is blatantly false.


----------



## bullethead (Sep 11, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> And that my friends is the sound an atheist makes when one of their assertions reaches its logical endpoint.  It's the sound of denial.



No need to preach in here Rev, save it for the choir on Sunday.

Logical endpoint indeed.
Don't feel bad or singled out, I deny everybody's invisible friends.


----------



## bullethead (Sep 11, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> With a relative morality all is permissible.  No one is judged.  There's no one to judge.  It's just as you stated in your first sentence, " you answer to yourself".



SFD, it has been proven to you over and over and over that even with a relative stance on anything, majority rules. In every single instance that you can think of, there is proof of relative morals. Within Every Continent, every Country, every State or Province, every City or Town, every Neighborhood, every House, every Family and every Individual there are examples of relative actions. Including YOU. 
Despite you knowing how it works and given examples to back it up, you still deny how things actually are. There is no God overseeing anything. It all boils down to a human or multiple humans making the rules. You either follow them or don't. When you don't, depending on location in this world, you suffer the consequences of your actions. Humans decide your fate based off of your actions. There is no God in the jury box.


----------



## bullethead (Sep 11, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> With a relative morality all is permissible.  No one is judged.  There's no one to judge.  It's just as you stated in your first sentence, " you answer to yourself".



It is not permissible. The first person you answer to is yourself. If it goes along with the society you live in it might be the correct answer, if is not acceptable in that society you answer to someone else.

You really can do whatever you want..........but you will be held accountable by others. That is how it really is.


----------



## 660griz (Sep 12, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> That my friend you are going to have to prove, because as far as Christianity goes,it is blatantly false.



Polygamy, Rape, Baby Killing,
  Thus says the Lord: 'I will bring evil upon you out of your own house.  I will take your wives [plural] while you live to see it, and will give them to your neighbor.  He shall lie with your wives in broad daylight.  You have done this deed in secret, but I will bring it about in the presence of all Israel, and with the sun looking down.'

    Then David said to Nathan, "I have sinned against the Lord."  Nathan answered David: "The Lord on his part has forgiven your sin: you shall not die.  But since you have utterly spurned the Lord by this deed, the child born to you must surely die."  [The child dies seven days later.]

More rape:
They must be dividing the spoils they took: there must be a damsel or two for each man, Spoils of dyed cloth as Sisera's spoil, an ornate shawl or two for me in the spoil.   (Judges 5:30 NAB)

More:
 Lo, a day shall come for the Lord when the spoils shall be divided in your midst.  And I will gather all the nations against Jerusalem for battle: the city shall be taken, houses plundered, women ravished; half of the city shall go into exile, but the rest of the people shall not be )
removed from the city.   (Zechariah 14:1-2)

Murder:
Anyone arrogant enough to reject the verdict of the judge or of the priest who represents the LORD your God must be put to death.  Such evil must be purged from Israel.  (Deuteronomy 17:12)

You should not let a sorceress live.  (Exodus 22:17)  

A man or a woman who acts as a medium or fortuneteller shall be put to death by stoning; they have no one but themselves to blame for their death.  (Leviticus 20:27)

If a man commits adultery with another man's wife, both the man and the woman must be put to death.  (Leviticus 20:10)

They entered into a covenant to seek the Lord, the God of their fathers, with all their heart and soul; and everyone who would not seek the Lord, the God of Israel, was to be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman.  (2 Chronicles 15:12-13)  

Kill People for Working on the Sabbath

    The LORD then gave these further instructions to Moses: 'Tell the people of Israel to keep my Sabbath day, for the Sabbath is a sign of the covenant between me and you forever.  It helps you to remember that I am the LORD, who makes you holy.  Yes, keep the Sabbath day, for it is holy.  Anyone who desecrates it must die; anyone who works on that day will be cut off from the community.  Work six days only, but the seventh day must be a day of total rest.  I repeat: Because the LORD considers it a holy day, anyone who works on the Sabbath must be put to death.'  (Exodus 31:12-15 NLT)

God Kills all the First Born of Egypt

    And at midnight the LORD killed all the firstborn sons in the land of Egypt, from the firstborn son of Pharaoh, who sat on the throne, to the firstborn son of the captive in the dungeon. Even the firstborn of their livestock were killed.  Pharaoh and his officials and all the people of Egypt woke up during the night, and loud wailing was heard throughout the land of Egypt. There was not a single house where someone had not died.  (Exodus 12:29-30 NLT)

More Rape and Baby Killing

    Anyone who is captured will be run through with a sword.  Their little children will be dashed to death right before their eyes.  Their homes will be sacked and their wives raped by the attacking hordes.  For I will stir up the Medes against Babylon, and no amount of silver or gold will buy them off.  The attacking armies will shoot down the young people with arrows.  They will have no mercy on helpless babies and will show no compassion for the children.  (Isaiah 13:15-18 NLT)

Pedophiles:
And Moses said unto them, Have ye saved all the women alive? ... Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves. Numbers 31:1-18

When thou comest nigh unto a city to fight against it ... And when the LORD thy God hath delivered it into thine hands, thou shalt smite every male thereof with the edge of the sword: But the women, and the little ones, and the cattle, and all that is in the city, even all the spoil thereof, shalt thou take unto thyself. Deuteronomy 20:10-14

Slavery:
However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you.  You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land.  You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance.  You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way.  (Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT)

There is lots more.


----------



## ambush80 (Sep 12, 2013)

660griz said:


> Polygamy, Rape, Baby Killing,
> Thus says the Lord: 'I will bring evil upon you out of your own house.  I will take your wives [plural] while you live to see it, and will give them to your neighbor.  He shall lie with your wives in broad daylight.  You have done this deed in secret, but I will bring it about in the presence of all Israel, and with the sun looking down.'
> 
> Then David said to Nathan, "I have sinned against the Lord."  Nathan answered David: "The Lord on his part has forgiven your sin: you shall not die.  But since you have utterly spurned the Lord by this deed, the child born to you must surely die."  [The child dies seven days later.]
> ...



Semper Fi,

Are these very same laws that are written in the Koran evil?  If they were written by me would you call them evil?

Would you say that killing a witch was OK then but evil today?


----------



## TripleXBullies (Sep 12, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> And so are you.  The difference is people that believe in the speculation I adhere to prove it true through the positive change that is evident in their lives.  They fill the world with their testimonies regarding this and have for the last 2000 years.  The people that adhere to your brand of speculation.....well lets just say they haven't and they don't.



I've had plenty of positive change in my life after denouncing the holy spirit.. Which was just for the motion of course... All while living in what you would consider sin and never once asking for forgiveness for that kind of thing. Never once acknowledging that I'm doing anything wrong. I live with my girlfriend (which means we aren't married ya know) we sleep in the same bed...... and you know what that means. Yet, positive change happens... I am still the recipient of just as many "blessings" as I ever was... No, MORE. My life is happier and I am more fulfilled than ever. Yep, it is what I make it, not what an invisible cloud magician makes it for me...


----------



## TripleXBullies (Sep 12, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> With a relative morality all is permissible.  No one is judged.  There's no one to judge.  It's just as you stated in your first sentence, " you answer to yourself".



Just like you do, constantly, YOU judge. That's exactly who judges. YOU and I judge all day long... And we also elect people called JUDGES that we give a little more power, along with the rest of the officials with the power to execute the laws that we've established.


----------



## ambush80 (Sep 12, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> And so are you.  The difference is people that believe in the speculation I adhere to prove it true through the positive change that is evident in their lives.They fill the world with their testimonies regarding this and have for the last 2000 years.  The people that adhere to your brand of speculation.....well lets just say they haven't and they don't.



Do you believe in the healing power of crystals?  Voodoo curses?  The people who believe in that stuff will tell you that their powers are true and that you are subject to them whether or not you believe.  Those kinds of beliefs have been around WAAAAY longer than Christianity.  Does that mean they are in any way more valid?  How would you prove to someone that believes in that stuff that it isn't true?

Would you say that their testimonies are less valid than yours?


----------



## TripleXBullies (Sep 12, 2013)

The notable apologist quote thread said it... There's really only one differnence to be seen between christianity and those things... Truth.

Say the . at the end of the sentence for effect.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Sep 13, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> The notable apologist quote thread said it... There's really only one differnence to be seen between christianity and those things... Truth.
> 
> Say the . at the end of the sentence for effect.



Glad to see you are reading them TXB.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Sep 13, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> Just like you do, constantly, YOU judge. That's exactly who judges. YOU and I judge all day long... And we also elect people called JUDGES that we give a little more power, along with the rest of the officials with the power to execute the laws that we've established.



No Brother, I am judged by one much better than me.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Sep 13, 2013)

660griz said:


> Polygamy, Rape, Baby Killing,
> Thus says the Lord: 'I will bring evil upon you out of your own house.  I will take your wives [plural] while you live to see it, and will give them to your neighbor.  He shall lie with your wives in broad daylight.  You have done this deed in secret, but I will bring it about in the presence of all Israel, and with the sun looking down.'
> 
> Then David said to Nathan, "I have sinned against the Lord."  Nathan answered David: "The Lord on his part has forgiven your sin: you shall not die.  But since you have utterly spurned the Lord by this deed, the child born to you must surely die."  [The child dies seven days later.]
> ...




This was your original assertion:



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by 660griz
> This keeps being brought up even thought *the majority of evidence points to religion as makin rape, incest, murder, slavery, pedophilia, etc. acceptable*.



This was my reply:



> That my friend you are going to have to prove, because as far as Christianity goes,it is blatantly false.



I guess I could go through each of these and answer them individually which would be time consuming or I could just point out the obvious and address the overarching assumption.  I think for the sake of time I will do the latter.  

Your underlying assumption is that you in your very limited and very finite understanding can pass judgement on One who is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent.

God is sovereign.  What he chooses to do with his creation simple cant be judged with our finite knowledge, but, and this is key, nowhere in the Bible can you show at least as far as Christianity is concerned, what your assertion claims ; that the Christian religion teaches rape, incest, murder, slavery and pedophilia is acceptable.  

To prove the absurdity of your assertion! if Christianity actually teaches/holds that, and there are roughly 248 million Christians in the U.S. today, (80% of the population), name me just ONE....ONE of those 248 million who will publicly or privately state that Christianity taught him/her that rape, incest, murder, slavery and pedophilia are acceptable.  I'll wait.


----------



## 660griz (Sep 13, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> What he chooses to do with his creation simple cant be judged with our finite knowledge, but, and this is key, nowhere in the Bible can you show at least as far as Christianity is concerned, what your assertion claims ; that the Christian religion teaches rape, incest, murder, slavery and pedophilia is acceptable.


 Just showed you examples...from THE BIBLE.  



> To prove the absurdity of your assertion! if Christianity actually teaches/holds that, and there are roughly 248 million Christians in the U.S. today, (80% of the population), name me just ONE....ONE of those 248 million who will publicly or privately state that Christianity taught him/her that rape, incest, murder, slavery and pedophilia are acceptable.  I'll wait.



You asked for proof. I gave it. Then you speak of absurdity in the same paragraph you ask me to interview 248 million christians? Yea. You wait. Whatever it takes to dodge. 
It goes back to my comment about the 'maturity of a religion'. Christianity has matured, (aka Got with the times.) If it hadn't all of that stuff would still be acceptable. Luckily, we saw the error in those ways. Christians began to...wait for it...CHERRY PICK the stuff they liked about the bible and ignore the rest. Some brave christians actually denounce the atrocities for what they are. Some, try to defend it as out of context, which is ridiculous, or we don't use the old testament anymore, which is equally ridiculous. Some, like yourself offer no excuse except, "no it doesn't", even with the words right there in front of you. Oh well, you are a good sheep. Carry on christian soldier.

Now look at other religions that have not matured. They still go by the letter of the law. They go 'medieval' on folks for stealing, working when they shouldn't, looking the wrong way, all the things their 'bible' tells them to do. We read about it and say how crazy they are. Well, it wasn't that long ago when christians were right there with them. Burning witches, beating slaves, etc. So, deny all you want. Everybody else that reads and comprehends knows.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Sep 13, 2013)

660griz said:


> Just showed you examples...from THE BIBLE.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




You assert that Christianity makes rape, incest, murder, slavery and pedophilia acceptable.  I ask that you give me one Christian that agrees with you.  It's that simple.

Could it be that you are misrepresenting The teachings of Christianity?  Could that be it?  Tell you what, there's a bunch of Christians over on the other sub forums .  It would be very simple to post your assertion over there and get instant feedback.  Heck I'll do it for you if you like.  Heck for that matter we could do a poll over there.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Sep 13, 2013)

660griz said:


> Everybody else that reads and comprehends knows.



So the 80% of US Christians who actually read the Bible in an attempt live their life by it don't comprehend it, but the less than 2% of the US population who are Atheist do?Yeah that makes perfect sense.


----------



## 660griz (Sep 13, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> So the 80% of US Christians who actually read the Bible in an attempt live their life by it don't comprehend it, but the less than 2% of the US population who are Atheist do?Yeah that makes perfect sense.



Nope. Not what I said. 'Everybody', including christians, that have come out against the evil parts of the Bible.


----------



## 660griz (Sep 13, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> You assert that Christianity makes rape, incest, murder, slavery and pedophilia acceptable.


 And I gave you proof and you ask for more. If I found A christian you would say, "that is just one out of 280 million." I know how this goes. 


> Could it be that you are misrepresenting The teachings of Christianity?


 Yea. That's it. I made up all those verses myself. Jeesh!


----------



## 660griz (Sep 13, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> I ask that you give me one Christian that agrees with you.  It's that simple.



Passages in the Bible on the use and regulation of slavery have been used throughout history as justification for the keeping of slaves, and for guidance in how it should be done. Therefore, when abolition was proposed, many Christians spoke vociferously against it, citing the Bible's acceptance of slavery as 'proof' that it was part of the normal condition. George Whitefield, famed for his sparking of the so-called Great Awakening of American evangelicalism, campaigned, in the Province of Georgia, for the legalisation of slavery; slavery had been outlawed in Georgia, but it was legalised in 1751 due in large part to Whitefield's efforts.

In both Europe and the United States many Christians went further, arguing that slavery was actually justified by the words and doctrines of the Bible.

[Slavery] was established by decree of Almighty God...it is sanctioned in the Bible, in both Testaments, from Genesis to Revelation...it has existed in all ages, has been found among the people of the highest civilization, and in nations of the highest proficiency in the arts - Jefferson Davis, President, Confederate States of America 
... the right of holding slaves is clearly established in the Holy Scriptures, both by precept and example - Richard Furman, President, South Carolina Baptist Convention


----------



## 660griz (Sep 13, 2013)

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ch/1992/issue33/3324.html


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Sep 13, 2013)

660griz said:


> And I gave you proof and you ask for more. If I found A christian you would say, "that is just one out of 280 million." I know how this goes.
> Yea. That's it. I made up all those verses myself. Jeesh!



Proof is in the pudding not your interpretation of the ingredients.  You made a outlandish statement based on your interpretation of Bible passages.  I'm asking you to prove as you suggest that Christianity makes rape, incest, murder, slavery and pedophilia acceptable, by simply finding an example of a Christian who agrees with your assertion.  If your assertion is in fact correct then it should be an easy task.  I have offered, and I will offer again to post a poll in the Christian sub forum to help you prove your assertion.  I will word it to where it is simple and unbiased:

Does Christianity make murder, rape, incest, slavery, and pedophilia acceptable?

A) yes

B)no

Are you willing accept the findings of this poll whatever they may be?   I am.


----------



## JFS (Sep 13, 2013)

How about:

If god told you to kill your child would you do it?

If god told you to rape your neighbor would you do it?


----------



## 660griz (Sep 13, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Proof is in the pudding not your interpretation of the ingredients.


 So why didn't you offer up an interpretation? 





> Does Christianity make murder, rape, incest, slavery, and pedophilia acceptable?
> 
> A) yes
> 
> ...



Not real sure why you need a poll. Do those verses exist? If they do, do you have another interpretation? No need to poll 248 million.


----------



## 660griz (Sep 13, 2013)

JFS said:


> How about:
> 
> If god told you to kill your child would you do it?
> 
> If god told you to rape your neighbor would you do it?



Here you go SFD. Now this is a poll for you.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Sep 13, 2013)

660griz said:


> So why didn't you offer up an interpretation?



You didn't ask and it wasn't necessary to refute your assertion.



660griz said:


> Not real sure why you need a poll. Do those verses exist? If they do, do you have another interpretation? No need to poll 248 million.




I don't need a poll Griz you do.  Me, every Chistian alive, as well as most people even vaguely familiar with Christianity  could and would not accept your assertion as an honest statement about Christianity.  I understand you don't believe it, but when you make such patently false and blatantly incendiary statements, its gonna get called for what it is.

I didn't take the time to look up all of the verses, but I believe you did, and despite your slant against all that is Christian I don't think you would knowingly lie.  I may be wrong there, but From my experience people that tote Lever actions tend to be traditionalist, and traditionalist tend as good as their word.  Anyway, yes I do have different interpretations of some of those and different understandings of others, but others are just plain hard for me to defend given our limited knowledge of the times and events surrounding it.  Just being honest.  That being said, based on what I DO know about God, I trust that when the whole picture is finally revealed I will be able to understand why God did what he did and see that justice was served appropriately.

You want to know how I can be so sure?  It's because any man that thinks enough of me to die for me deserves the benefit of the doubt.  I would feel no different about a Marine that threw himself on a grenade to save me.  You would not be able to convince me he was a bad man.  If anything derogatory was said about him of which I had no knowledge,  in my mind he would always get the benefit of the doubt.  That's how it is with God.  He's done so much for me, and again there is so much I do know about him, he gets the benefit of the doubt when it comes to thinks I don't know about him.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Sep 13, 2013)

660griz said:


> Here you go SFD. Now this is a poll for you.



Yeah, a poll that doesn't address your assertion.  I can see where you would be wanting to distance yourself from it, but don't look to me to help cover the tracks you're making while you're back peddling.  In short. I'm not biting.


----------



## 660griz (Sep 14, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Yeah, a poll that doesn't address your assertion.  I can see where you would be wanting to distance yourself from it, but don't look to me to help cover the tracks you're making while you're back peddling.  In short. I'm not biting.



Back peddling? Who didn't want to come up with another interpretation? You! I stand by my assertions. All you got is "christians don't believe that". I say you either believe the bible or you don't. Just admit that, except for some fundamentalist, most christians 'cherry pick', yes I said it , the bible because the religion has matured. Simple as that. You hate to admit it because you think the bible is the word of God. Well, look around, christians don't do those things 'any more' because it is not acceptable. It is EVIL! 

If a guy killed his son or neighbor because God told him to today, he would be locked up forever. (PERIOD)
The end.


----------



## ambush80 (Sep 14, 2013)

660griz said:


> Back peddling? Who didn't want to come up with another interpretation? You! I stand by my assertions. All you got is "christians don't believe that". I say you either believe the bible or you don't. Just admit that, except for some fundamentalist, most christians 'cherry pick', yes I said it , the bible because the religion has matured. Simple as that. You hate to admit it because you think the bible is the word of God. Well, look around, christians don't do those things 'any more' because it is not acceptable. It is EVIL!
> 
> If a guy killed his son or neighbor because God told him to today, he would be locked up forever. (PERIOD)
> The end.



Google "Christians burn witch".  There are plenty of devout, obedient followers still around.  They don't cherry pick like SDF.  They read it, believe it, understand it and act upon it.


----------



## 660griz (Sep 14, 2013)

Thanks ambush. 
Here you go SFD. 
http://wildhunt.org/2013/02/the-reality-of-burning-witches-trigger-warning.html
"That it’s problematic that we are entertained by fake witches being killed while Christian groups in America fund witch-hunters overseas."

Over a period of almost two millennia, the Christian Church has oppressed and brutalized millions of individuals in an attempt to control and contain spirituality. The Dark Side of Christian History reveals, in painstaking detail, the tragedies, sorrows and injustices inflicted upon humanity by the Church. 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/18/african-children-denounce_n_324943.html
"The nine-year-old boy lay on a bloodstained hospital sheet crawling with ants, staring blindly at the wall.

His family pastor had accused him of being a witch, and his father then tried to force acid down his throat as an exorcism. It spilled as he struggled, burning away his face and eyes. The emaciated boy barely had strength left to whisper the name of the church that had denounced him – Mount Zion Lighthouse.

A month later, he died.

Nwanaokwo Edet was one of an increasing number of children in Africa accused of witchcraft by pastors and then tortured or killed, often by family members. Pastors were involved in half of 200 cases of "witch children" reviewed by the AP, and 13 churches were named in the case files.

Some of the churches involved are renegade local branches of international franchises. Their parishioners take literally the Biblical exhortation, "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live.""

I am pretty sure if you POLLED those fellows, you would have your answer and my assertions found to be correct.


----------



## bullethead (Sep 14, 2013)

Wait for it.......wait for it........


----------



## ambush80 (Sep 14, 2013)

bullethead said:


> Wait for it.......wait for it........



"They're not REAL Christians!!!!!"  

                         or

"They're not interpreting the Bible correctly!!!!  God is all about love and peace and Universal Healthcare!!!  He would never kill or maim!"  .....Oh, wait.  Turns out he does.

What _would_ Jesus do.........to a witch?


----------



## TripleXBullies (Sep 16, 2013)

Jesus himself may not have lifted a finger at him... at least not from what the bible tells us of Jesus the human figure... He would, however, not bat an eye at sending that witch to he11 for eternal punishment. That's far worse than just getting murdered and even tortured for a few hours here...


----------



## 660griz (Sep 16, 2013)

This thread could be renamed to "The presence of Evil as evidence of Christianity."


----------



## ambush80 (Sep 16, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> Jesus himself may not have lifted a finger at him... at least not from what the bible tells us of Jesus the human figure... He would, however, not bat an eye at sending that witch to he11 for eternal punishment. That's far worse than just getting murdered and even tortured for a few hours here...



I don't know.  He obeyed the Old Testament laws, one of them being "Kill witches".  He Chased the money lenders off with a switch which might indicate that he was capable of violence.  Then again maybe he would just use magic to exercise the witch out of them.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Sep 16, 2013)

660griz said:


> Back peddling? Who didn't want to come up with another interpretation? You! I stand by my assertions. All you got is "christians don't believe that". I say you either believe the bible or you don't. Just admit that, except for some fundamentalist, most christians 'cherry pick', yes I said it , the bible because the religion has matured. Simple as that. You hate to admit it because you think the bible is the word of God. Well, look around, christians don't do those things 'any more' because it is not acceptable. It is EVIL!
> 
> If a guy killed his son or neighbor because God told him to today, he would be locked up forever. (PERIOD)
> The end.



So you stand by this assertion?



> the majority of evidence points to religion as makin rape, incest, murder, slavery, pedophilia, etc. acceptable.



despite not being able to provide one Christian who agrees with your assessment?  I guess there's not anything more I can to say that hasn't already been said.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Sep 16, 2013)

ambush80 said:


> Google "Christians burn witch".  There are plenty of devout, obedient followers still around.  They don't cherry pick like SDF.  They read it, believe it, understand it and act upon it.



You know, this is such a charade.  There's a world of difference between the beliefs of Christianity and atrocities done in the name of Christianity.  Most people see this for what it is, and most people with even a modicum of integrity would not go so far as to knowingly create nor repeat a lie.  Most.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Sep 16, 2013)

660griz said:


> This thread could be renamed to "The presence of Evil as evidence of Christianity."



Whatever works for you Brother, but the very fact that you can recognize evil exists, posits a good exists also.  That my friend is recognizing a moral law does indeed exist to distinguish good from evil.   A moral law by its very existence deems a moral lawgiver exists, which is exactly what you attempt to deny.  Your statement only affirms what you in fact deny.  And again we are back to the Assertion in the OP because evolutionary theory has no answers.


----------



## ambush80 (Sep 16, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> You know, this is such a charade.  There's a world of difference between the beliefs of Christianity and atrocities done in the name of Christianity.  Most people see this for what it is, and most people with even a modicum of integrity would not go so far as to knowingly create nor repeat a lie.  Most.



They think that you are a bad Christian for not burning witches.  What would Jesus do to a witch?


----------



## TripleXBullies (Sep 16, 2013)

Right... You don't have to look at the news to see the atrocities. You can look in the bible...


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Sep 16, 2013)

ambush80 said:


> They think that you are a bad Christian for not burning witches.  What would Jesus do to a witch?



Waaaaaaaay off topic btw.  If you really want to have a discussion on that then start a separate thread.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Sep 16, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> Right... You don't have to look at the news to see the atrocities. You can look in the bible...



Definitely an opinion.


----------



## 660griz (Sep 17, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Definitely an opinion.



LOL! I guess you have a different bible.


----------



## 660griz (Sep 17, 2013)

SFD said:


> ...every Chistian alive, as well as most people even vaguely familiar with Christianity could and would not accept your assertion as an honest statement about Christianity.



This has been proven false.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Sep 17, 2013)

660griz said:


> LOL! I guess you have a different bible.



No, but for you to pick one or several passages from the Bible and say it is representative of the entire book is a lie.  You would absolutely not do that with any other book that has ever been written.  The very fact that you do it with only the Bible speaks volumes to any observers on this forum of just how unreasonable one has to become in order to accept the position of an Atheist.  And to be honest it makes you look rather foolish to any intellectually honest person.   That is why I debate you guys, to expose the lies one has to swallow to deny he Truth, so by all means, carry on.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Sep 17, 2013)

660griz said:


> SFD said:
> 
> 
> This has been proven false.



Again, anyone with an ounce of common sense and honesty can review this thread and see your assertions for exactly what they are: a silly and dishonest attempt to discredit Christ, Christianity,  and Christians.  The only people who can't see that are again, the very same one who deny Truth.


----------



## 660griz (Sep 17, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> No, but for you to pick one or several passages from the Bible and say it is representative of the entire book is a lie.


 I don't think I ever mentioned the passages representing the entire book. I mentioned the passages representing the religion. Which, is undeniable. 


> You would absolutely not do that with any other book that has ever been written.



What a bold assumption. Would you like to defend the Quran? Or any other relgious 'bible', I will more than happy to take on those. However, in this thread, which I think you started, it was in the context of Christianity...was it not? What do you expect me to use as a response, Moby Dick?


----------



## 660griz (Sep 17, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Again, anyone with an ounce of common sense and honesty can review this thread and see your assertions for exactly what they are: a silly and dishonest attempt to discredit Christ, Christianity,  and Christians.  The only people who can't see that are again, the very same one who deny Truth.



Oh. And there are those folks that read the news about Christians burning witches. Pretty sure they don't think it is silly. Christians, just like Muslims that didn't speak out against 9/11, are doing themselves and their religion a diservice by calling these assertions silly and dishonest in the face of overwhelming evidence of atrocities carried out in the lord's name. Quit defending that crap and let the religion continue to mature. Say it is wrong and we don't use that part any more. Why is that so hard?


----------



## 660griz (Sep 17, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> You know, this is such a charade.  There's a world of difference between the beliefs of Christianity and atrocities done in the name of Christianity.  Most people see this for what it is, and most people with even a modicum of integrity would not go so far as to knowingly create nor repeat a lie.  Most.



Really. 
The bible says:
 You should not let a sorceress live.  (Exodus 22:17)

They did not let a 'sorceress' live. Where is the charade and the lie?

Am I to understand you don't think I have a modicum of integrity?


----------



## 660griz (Sep 17, 2013)

"The Bible may, indeed does, contain a warrant for trafficking in humans, for ethnic cleansing, for slavery, for bride-price, and for indiscriminate massacre, but we are not bound by any of it because it was put together by crude, uncultured human mammals." C. Hitchens.


----------



## ambush80 (Sep 17, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Waaaaaaaay off topic btw.  If you really want to have a discussion on that then start a separate thread.



Where would you suggest I start this thread where Christians could respond?  A few floors up?  I would love to do that but they don't allow it anymore.  They don't want to have to answer hard questions.  Anyone asking a question like "What would Jesus do to a witch?" will be called a blasphemer or a mocker and be 'infracted'.  

You are willing to come down here where 'anything' goes so here is where the question can be asked:  "What would Jesus do to a witch?"



660griz said:


> Really.
> The bible says:
> You should not let a sorceress live.  (Exodus 22:17)
> 
> ...



I wonder if Christians believe that there are still witches and if they do, what should be done with them?


----------



## JFS (Sep 17, 2013)

ambush80 said:


> what should be done with them?



Assuming she weighs more than a duck:


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Sep 17, 2013)

ambush80 said:


> Where would you suggest I start this thread where Christians could respond?  A few floors up?  I would love to do that but they don't allow it anymore.  They don't want to have to answer hard questions.  Anyone asking a question like "What would Jesus do to a witch?" will be called a blasphemer or a mocker and be 'infracted'.
> 
> You are willing to come down here where 'anything' goes so here is where the question can be asked:  "What would Jesus do to a witch?"
> 
> I wonder if Christians believe that there are still witches and if they do, what should be done with them?



Start the thread here in the AAA forum.  If you don't want to be called a mocker then don't mock.  All you guys mock though and that's OK with me, because people there's a larger audience here than just us, and people see the mocking for what it is....a sign of either a weak arguement, a weak integrity, or both.

Case in point: The outlandish statement that Griz made that religion makes rape, murder, incest, etc. acceptable.  Now anybody that reads that sees it exactly for what it is; an outright lie meant to do nothing but denigrate.   You honestly think a statement like that hurts Christianity?  No way.  Even most Atheist wouldn't stand by that statement, but y'all keep making them and in so doing making yourselves look more and more delusional all the time.


----------



## ambush80 (Sep 17, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Start the thread here in the AAA forum.  If you don't want to be called a mocker then don't mock.  All you guys mock though and that's OK with me, because people there's a larger audience here than just us, and people see the mocking for what it is....a sign of either a weak arguement, a weak integrity, or both.
> 
> Case in point: The outlandish statement that Griz made that religion makes rape, murder, incest, etc. acceptable.  Now anybody that reads that sees it exactly for what it is; an outright lie meant to do nothing but denigrate.   You honestly think a statement like that hurts Christianity?  No way.  Even most Atheist wouldn't stand by that statement, but y'all keep making them and in so doing making yourselves look more and more delusional all the time.



There are Christians that might check out this forum out that didn't even know that "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live" is even in the Bible.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Sep 18, 2013)

The point of making it ok isn't that they would condone doing it themselves, or that they are pro-rape or any of that stuff. The point is that those things have been commanded by god and carried out by his example servants in stories written in the inerrant word of that god. Griz, you know what you're talking about and you're right... completely. You just put it in a way that no christian would agree with. By worshiping that god they are ok with the actions taken by him and in his name.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Sep 18, 2013)

ambush80 said:


> There are Christians that might check out this forum out that didn't even know that "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live" is even in the Bible.



Very true, but most, even if they did not know that verse existed would understand the "why" of it.  They would also understand that it does not pertain to them today, because we live in a Age of Grace.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Sep 18, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> The point of making it ok isn't that they would condone doing it themselves, or that they are pro-rape or any of that stuff. The point is that those things have been commanded by god and carried out by his example servants in stories written in the inerrant word of that god. Griz, you know what you're talking about and you're right... completely. You just put it in a way that no christian would agree with. By worshiping that god they are ok with the actions taken by him and in his name.



Yes, we are, but I think it is safe to say that Christians interpret the Bible a whole lot different than Atheist.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Sep 18, 2013)

You, yourself, just said you're ok with it. Which means you condone it.  There ya go, Griz.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Sep 18, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> You, yourself, just said you're ok with it. Which means you condone it.  There ya go, Griz.



Again, try to stick to the truth.  I'm ok with it based on the Correct understanding of it, not you guys interpretation of it.  HUGE difference.


----------



## bullethead (Sep 19, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Again, try to stick to the truth.  I'm ok with it based on the Correct understanding of it, not you guys interpretation of it.  HUGE difference.



What is the correct understanding of "You should not let a sorceress live. (Exodus 22:17)"? and ""Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live"?


----------



## TripleXBullies (Sep 19, 2013)

Or the kill the men and keep the women for yourself commands/rewards. What is your understanding of take the women for yourself? To treat them "fairly" as we'd understand that word today? To make them cook you dinner? I'd call that a slave. But I doubt it was for either of those. I think you know what keep the women for yourselves means. If someone killed me and kept my woman for himself, it wouldn't be consensual... and that's called rape. And your god commanded it. And you're ok with it.


----------



## ambush80 (Sep 19, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Very true, but most, even if they did not know that verse existed would understand the "why" of it.  They would also understand that it does not pertain to them today, because we live in a Age of Grace.



Do the Ten Commandment pertain to them?


----------



## ambush80 (Sep 19, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Again, try to stick to the truth.  I'm ok with it based on the Correct understanding of it, not you guys interpretation of it.  HUGE difference.



With all the disagreement with each other, who has the 'correct' understanding?


----------



## WaltL1 (Sep 19, 2013)

There is almost 700 posts of debate and disagreement on probably the most important question there is for a Christian "how do I get saved" and then this nonsense gets regurgitated about "correct" understandings. Dishonesty and hypocricy at its finest. Again.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Sep 19, 2013)

WaltL1 said:


> There is almost 700 posts of debate and disagreement on probably the most important question there is for a Christian "how do I get saved" and then this nonsense gets regurgitated about "correct" understandings. Dishonesty and hypocricy at its finest. Again.



There's a lot of discussion on that topic going on over there, but to make a generalization about it as debate and disagreement is just a bald faced lie, but I guess if you want to portray it as dishonest and hypocritical in order to disparage Christians then you don't have any problem with lying to do so.


----------



## WaltL1 (Sep 19, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> There's a lot of discussion on that topic going on over there, but to make a generalization about it as debate and disagreement is just a bald faced lie, but I guess if you want to portray it as dishonest and hypocritical in order to disparage Christians then you don't have any problem with lying to do so.



de·bate
  [dih-beyt]  Show IPA  noun, verb, de·bat·ed, de·bat·ing.  

noun  
1. 
a discussion, as of a public question in an assembly, involving opposing viewpoints:

disâ€¢aâ€¢greeâ€¢ment  (ËŒdÉªs É™Ëˆgri mÉ™nt)  
n.  
 1.  the act or fact of disagreeing. 

 2.  lack of agreement; diversity; unlikeness. 

 3.  difference of opinion; dissent. 

Whos lying?
And I wasn't portraying the disagreement and debate in the "how do I get saved" thread as dishonest or hypocritical. So your entire pile of dung about lying and disparaging is just that. A pile of dung. Maybe reading it again will help you.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Sep 19, 2013)

WaltL1 said:


> de·bate
> [dih-beyt]  Show IPA  noun, verb, de·bat·ed, de·bat·ing.
> 
> noun
> ...



You.  If you actually took the time to read the posts over there and understood what was being discussed you would  see that for the most part it is a discussion with everyone sharing their insight on the subject, but don't let the facts get in the way of your agenda.


----------



## WaltL1 (Sep 20, 2013)

SemperFiDawg said:


> You.  If you actually took the time to read the posts over there and understood what was being discussed you would  see that for the most part it is a discussion with everyone sharing their insight on the subject, but don't let the facts get in the way of your agenda.


Of course they were sharing THEIR insight. What you cant seem to understand is that is exactly the point. It shows that their is a difference of insight. Disagreement. Debate. When you share your insight and the reasons why in response to someone else's insight and their reasons why that is the very definition of debate. I even posted the definition of debate and disagreement for you.
So when you say -


> Again, try to stick to the truth. I'm ok with it based on the Correct understanding of it, not you guys interpretation of it. HUGE difference


Its dishonest. Its hypocritical. You don't know what the "truth" is, you don't know what the "correct" meaning of it is. You only know what YOU think it means. YOUR insight. Just like everybody else. Are you so dishonest that you cant acknowledge that? Yet you reject someone elses insight because they are an atheist or agnostic? If you do know the "correct" meaning of everything in the bible why aren't you upstairs correcting those whose insight is wrong? There are thousands of posts on what scripture means with differing insights. Disagreement. Debate. Don't you care enough about them to see that they get it "correct"? Or does that not fit into YOUR agenda?
For you to say someone is lying and has an agenda and is disparaging an entire group of people because they pointed out the truth says a lot about you and it ain't good. I will say this I was completely foolish to even get involved again in your ridiculous dishonest nonsense. It wont happen again.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Sep 20, 2013)

Just stop trying...........


----------



## WaltL1 (Sep 20, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> Just stop trying...........


You are 100% right. Its a complete waste of time.


----------



## ambush80 (Sep 20, 2013)

WaltL1 said:


> Of course they were sharing THEIR insight. What you cant seem to understand is that is exactly the point. It shows that their is a difference of insight. Disagreement. Debate. When you share your insight and the reasons why in response to someone else's insight and their reasons why that is the very definition of debate. I even posted the definition of debate and disagreement for you.
> So when you say -
> 
> Its dishonest. Its hypocritical. You don't know what the "truth" is, you don't know what the "correct" meaning of it is. You only know what YOU think it means. YOUR insight. Just like everybody else. Are you so dishonest that you cant acknowledge that? Yet you reject someone elses insight because they are an atheist or agnostic? If you do know the "correct" meaning of everything in the bible why aren't you upstairs correcting those whose insight is wrong? There are thousands of posts on what scripture means with differing insights. Disagreement. Debate. Don't you care enough about them to see that they get it "correct"? Or does that not fit into YOUR agenda?
> For you to say someone is lying and has an agenda and is disparaging an entire group of people because they pointed out the truth says a lot about you and it ain't good. I will say this I was completely foolish to even get involved again in your ridiculous dishonest nonsense. It wont happen again.




Discernment.  Some got it, some don't.


----------



## bullethead (Sep 20, 2013)

WaltL1 said:


> You are 100% right. Its a complete waste of time.



We are constantly asked and then told that we hate Christianity..... nothing further from the truth could be said. What we dislike, not hate, are the Zealots within any and every religion that constantly push and push and push because they are afraid their faith is questioned. The zealots will blame others for "hating" Christianity when in fact it is those same people that drive others away from religion and they themselves are the ones to blame because of their own actions. Nothing wrong in believing in a God but I do not want to be involved with or around people that take it further by telling others WHO, HOW and WHEN to worship and then point out that others that do are also wrong for not believing and doing exactly as they do. I dislike the hypocrites. I dislike the pointing of fingers at others while doing the same thing. I dislike when questions are asked, viable factual answers are given, and then the questions are changed or answers are completely ignored because it does not fit the persons agenda. I dislike the dishonesty of not acknowledging an answer to a statement made because the answer proves the statement false.
I don't know anyone in here that hates a God or a Religion, but I do know that some of their followers are hard to stomach at times. It makes for difficult and heated conversation and is just not worth the time.


----------



## JFS (Sep 20, 2013)

bullethead said:


> just not worth the time.



Occasionally I see something like this and am somewhat dismayed that these people are making decisions that could affect me.  To the extent this gibberish is culturally transmitted maybe it's only a drop in the bucket but standing up for reason might provide a benefit for future generations.



> Of the major religions that believe the devil exists, Christians spike at 80 percent, while only 25 percent of Muslims and 17 percent of Jews support the idea of an actual demonic being, notes the Washington Examiner.
> 
> The survey also found that 42 percent of Americans believe it is possible for humans to be "occasionally" possessed by the devil and 51 percent say folks can be possessed by the devil “or some other evil spirit.”
> 
> http://www.opposingviews.com/i/religion/christianity/poll-57-percent-americans-believe-devil-exists#


----------



## TheBishop (Sep 20, 2013)

WaltL1 said:


> Of course they were sharing THEIR insight. What you cant seem to understand is that is exactly the point. It shows that their is a difference of insight. Disagreement. Debate. When you share your insight and the reasons why in response to someone else's insight and their reasons why that is the very definition of debate. I even posted the definition of debate and disagreement for you.
> So when you say -
> 
> Its dishonest. Its hypocritical. You don't know what the "truth" is, you don't know what the "correct" meaning of it is. You only know what YOU think it means. YOUR insight. Just like everybody else. Are you so dishonest that you cant acknowledge that? Yet you reject someone elses insight because they are an atheist or agnostic? If you do know the "correct" meaning of everything in the bible why aren't you upstairs correcting those whose insight is wrong? There are thousands of posts on what scripture means with differing insights. Disagreement. Debate. Don't you care enough about them to see that they get it "correct"? Or does that not fit into YOUR agenda?
> For you to say someone is lying and has an agenda and is disparaging an entire group of people because they pointed out the truth says a lot about you and it ain't good. I will say this I was completely foolish to even get involved again in your ridiculous dishonest nonsense. It wont happen again.



Bravo.  SFD is not here to debate, but frame the discussion to reinforce his indoctrination. It's almost scripted in the way he confines definitions to suit his purpose.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Sep 20, 2013)

My buddy sent me a meme the other day... It said 

Religions are like male private parts 
It's fine to have one
It's fine to be proud of it
But please don't whip it out in public and start waving it around,
And PLEASE don't try to shove it down my child's throat.


----------



## WaltL1 (Sep 20, 2013)

JFS said:


> Occasionally I see something like this and am somewhat dismayed that these people are making decisions that could affect me.  To the extent this gibberish is culturally transmitted maybe it's only a drop in the bucket but standing up for reason might provide a benefit for future generations.


Fortunately its moving in the direction of reason. Albeit slowly. Out of the schools, getting it out of the public etc. Believe anything you want in the privacy of your home and your churches etc. 
As it should be.


----------



## WaltL1 (Sep 20, 2013)

TripleXBullies said:


> My buddy sent me a meme the other day... It said
> 
> Religions are like male private parts
> It's fine to have one
> ...


I aint touching this one with a 10 foot pole


----------



## WaltL1 (Sep 20, 2013)

bullethead said:


> We are constantly asked and then told that we hate Christianity..... nothing further from the truth could be said. What we dislike, not hate, are the Zealots within any and every religion that constantly push and push and push because they are afraid their faith is questioned. The zealots will blame others for "hating" Christianity when in fact it is those same people that drive others away from religion and they themselves are the ones to blame because of their own actions. Nothing wrong in believing in a God but I do not want to be involved with or around people that take it further by telling others WHO, HOW and WHEN to worship and then point out that others that do are also wrong for not believing and doing exactly as they do. I dislike the hypocrites. I dislike the pointing of fingers at others while doing the same thing. I dislike when questions are asked, viable factual answers are given, and then the questions are changed or answers are completely ignored because it does not fit the persons agenda. I dislike the dishonesty of not acknowledging an answer to a statement made because the answer proves the statement false.
> I don't know anyone in here that hates a God or a Religion, but I do know that some of their followers are hard to stomach at times. It makes for difficult and heated conversation and is just not worth the time.


Again spot on Bullet. Maybe one of those zealots will read the highlighted part and figure out they do FAR more damage to Christianity than any Atheist could ever do.


----------

