If God knew that Satan would rebel and Adam and Eve would sin, why did He create?

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.



ushomefree

Lord Lucien
If you were an all powerful super-being with nothing to do, wouldn't you want to spice up existence a bit?

Digi
So you asked a question that nobody seems to have asked, then provide your own answer instead of trying to promote discussion on it.

Woot.

Symmetric Chaos
I've never really seen why total omniscience is an important aspect of divinity.

Digi
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I've never really seen why total omniscience is an important aspect of divinity.

Anything limited to our understanding isn't sufficient for worship, for some at least. Why do you think older gods had humans flaws (Greek Myths, Old Testament, etc.), and eventually became perfect, omnipresent, and omniscient? Once our understanding of the universe expanded to what it is now, anything less would be unworthy of obedience and fealty.

So it isn't an important criteria for divinity strictly speaking, because something less than an omniscient God could still have created the universe and established religion. But it is for our modern religious environment. At least that's how I see it, and is why I'm always amused when people go to such lengths to correct what they perceive to be contradictions within a religion.

King Kandy
So you answer is that he did it so that he'd have people to glorify him. It was all an ego trip.

Wow, what a kind and loving god.

Symmetric Chaos
Originally posted by Digi
Anything limited to our understanding isn't sufficient for worship, for some at least. Why do you think older gods had humans flaws (Greek Myths, Old Testament, etc.), and eventually became perfect, omnipresent, and omniscient?

I figured it was a combination oneupsmanship and influence from conquest by other cultures.

Originally posted by Digi
Once our understanding of the universe expanded to what it is now, anything less would be unworthy of obedience and fealty.

But people venerate their elders and respect people have accomplished great things. To me this makes it fairly clear that infallibility and unlimited power are very much secondary concerns in regard to how deserving someone is of respect, admiration or worship.

Originally posted by Digi
So it isn't an important criteria for divinity strictly speaking, because something less than an omniscient God could still have created the universe and established religion. But it is for our modern religious environment. At least that's how I see it, and is why I'm always amused when people go to such lengths to correct what they perceive to be contradictions within a religion.

Interesting, I was taught much the opposite: that the omnipotent Abrahamic god is an artifact of a time when Jews had enemies on every side and needed the idea of an unstoppable God to unite them, indeed early parts of the Bible seem to advocate monolatrism rather than monotheism.

King Kandy
Also Monotheism isn't that new, really. I think Judaism really predates the fully developed greek mythology we know today, so saying Monotheism was a development from religions like greece really isn't true. As for the origins, I think there's a definite dichotomy here:

Monotheisms always seem to be started as the revelations of a single person.

Polytheisms seem to come from lost origins and evolutions of earlier religions.

JesusIsAlive

King Kandy
Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Another excellent, informative post.

thumb up
Yeah it's really great to know your opinion but how about you get back to posting in the truth thread.

Digi
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I figured it was a combination oneupsmanship and influence from conquest by other cultures.

Sure, seems reasonable.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
But people venerate their elders and respect people have accomplished great things. To me this makes it fairly clear that infallibility and unlimited power are very much secondary concerns in regard to how deserving someone is of respect, admiration or worship.

Respect and worship are very different. Respecting elders is cultural. Worshipping elders hasn't been in vogue for centuries, and where it is still practices, 'worship' doesn't have the same connotation that it does for Western religions. It's much more akin to admiration than deification. They aren't deities, if they ever were.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Interesting, I was taught much the opposite: that the omnipotent Abrahamic god is an artifact of a time when Jews had enemies on every side and needed the idea of an unstoppable God to unite them, indeed early parts of the Bible seem to advocate monolatrism rather than monotheism.

The OT God was far from infallible. Hell, he changes his mind repeatedly. But your interpretation could certainly help to explain the "angry, wrathful God" we see in those books.

Sado22
i agree with this. god and devil and all else that is between heaven and hell can influence us but ultimately people have a choice. god knew Adam would eat that apple but he didn't stop him from eating it because that would be ruining it.

to me the idea of it all is rooted clearly in being all-knowing. all-knowing means that he knows of all events that have transpired in the all planes of time.

but there is something that i feel people tend to miss at times: all-knowing also means that he knows his creation inside out i.e. he knows how we operate, how we think. thus he knew for two reaons, why man would fall: because he can see future events and because he made man, and he knew man was greedy. In the Quran there is a bit where, when god was passing his spirit in Adam (from head to toe), Adam saw heaven before him and tried to run but since the spirit had not passed on to his legs, he just tumbled over and fell. That's when god says "indeed, man is a creature of haste". here, notice that that god already knew that man is a creature of haste and he knew it before creation of adam was even complete.

an analogy i can draw is this: one can make a computer. making computers means that we know all the functions it is capable of, what amount of data it can store and what kind of operations it can carry out and to what degrees (where data would be "too much" etc). in making that computer we are "all-knowing" in the same way god is all-knowing when it comes to the universe i.e. we know what it is capable of and we can easily predict (to such accuracy that it is 100% facts) what functions it can carry out. same way, god knows what man is capable of ("indeed, man is a creature of haste"wink and knows how we will operate.


its funnier still when you consider that all versions of god in judeo-christian religions say that they are beyond understanding.

~Sado

Quiero Mota
Assuming God exists and Adam & Eve is true (for all the Atheists here), that's the million dollar question. Christians believe in free will, and Muslims believe in fixed predestination. So god either sat back and watched Adam, or manipulated him like a chess player. Either way who knows, but maybe it was to necessitate something. Chess is about sacrifices: making or allowing a bad move in order to do something. Maybe that's why.

jinXed by JaNx
You have no influence in deciding whether or not you go to heaven or hell. Knowing this you should sin as much as possible and enjoy it.

Bardock42
Because the Bible is lies and the truth is written in "To Reign in Hell".

Word.

Robtard
That bit of fiction is actually more believable.

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Another excellent, informative post.

thumb up

And the sock cheers himself on. wink

Ryo 666
Jesusguy, give me a quick simple answer, I dont want to read all that stuff.

Symmetric Chaos
He came up with the answer "god wanted to show off" or in more elegant terms "god created the universe so that his glory could become manifest".

Ryo 666
Thanks.

Seems kind of dickish for an all loving being. Then again we were given Jade Goody, so hes gotta have a twisted sense of humour.

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by Ryo 666
Thanks.

Seems kind of dickish for an all loving being. Then again we were given Jade Goody, so hes gotta have a twisted sense of humour.

It is all based on the idea that the bible is supernatural, and there are things in it that are foretold. The problem with is that we are looking at a document 2000 years after it was constructed from a vast array of books written by different people. This leads to the possibility of Postdiction.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postdiction

The idea that the crucifiction of Jesus was foretold is a relatively modern fabrication derived from elaborate postdiction.

peejayd
* God is not omniscient. and He can search our hearts and minds:

"The heart is deceitful above all things, And desperately wicked; Who can know it?
I, the Lord, search the heart, I test the mind, Even to give every man according to his ways, According to the fruit of his doings."
Jeremiah 17:9-10

* but there is something God does not know. and it is the decision before it comes to the heart and mind:

"And they have built the high places of Tophet, which is in the valley of the son of Hinnom, to burn their sons and their daughters in the fire; which I commanded them not, neither came it into my heart."
Jeremiah 7:31

"They have built also the high places of Baal, to burn their sons with fire for burnt offerings unto Baal, which I commanded not, nor spake it, neither came it into my mind:"
Jeremiah 19:5

* the sum of all His creations is this:

"And God saw everything that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day."
Genesis 1:31

* God created a good angel. but that angel corrupted its own heart and tried to be God's equal:

"How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!
For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north:
I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High."
Isaiah 14:12-14

* just like when He created Adam and Eve. His creations has its own decision to make, He gave us all free will:

"I call heaven and earth to witness against you this day, that I have set before thee life and death, the blessing and the curse: therefore choose life, that thou mayest live, thou and thy seed;"
Deuteronomy 30:19

* eventhough all people commits sin, let us remember:

"For the Lord is good; His mercy is everlasting, And His truth endures to all generations."
Psalms 100:5

* He is merciful enough to forgive all our sins, so long as those sins are "forgiveable"... smile

magnuslives
ummm.... i'm pretty sure in Jeremiah 7:31 and Jeremiah 19:5 God is actually saying that what the people did was nothing to do with him, that he didn't influence those decisions whatsoever.

'which I commanded them not, neither came it into my heart' - he had no desire for that to happen.

'which I commanded not, nor spake it, neither came it into my mind' - he didn't command the people to do it in whatever form, not even in his mind - 'neither came it into my mind'.

it doesn't have anything to do with him knowing the people would do these things or not. its to do with whether his will was for the people to do these things, which it wasn't. but they did them anyway because they had free will.

though i can see how you have come to your conclusion.

Wild Shadow
edit

Symmetric Chaos
Off topic?

magnuslives
i'm just correcting the guy.

peejayd
Originally posted by magnuslives
ummm.... i'm pretty sure in Jeremiah 7:31 and Jeremiah 19:5 God is actually saying that what the people did was nothing to do with him, that he didn't influence those decisions whatsoever.

'which I commanded them not, neither came it into my heart' - he had no desire for that to happen.

'which I commanded not, nor spake it, neither came it into my mind' - he didn't command the people to do it in whatever form, not even in his mind - 'neither came it into my mind'.

it doesn't have anything to do with him knowing the people would do these things or not. its to do with whether his will was for the people to do these things, which it wasn't. but they did them anyway because they had free will.

though i can see how you have come to your conclusion.

"You must not listen to the words of that prophet or dreamer. The Lord your God is testing you to find out whether you love him with all your heart and with all your soul."
Deuteronomy 13:3

* there is something God does not know... smile

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by peejayd
"You must not listen to the words of that prophet or dreamer. The Lord your God is testing you to find out whether you love him with all your heart and with all your soul."
Deuteronomy 13:3

* there is something God does not know... smile

Then your god is not all knowing. I then can assume that "he" is also NOT all powerful. Because the passage that says that god is all knowing also says that "he" is all powerful. If one part is not true then there is a good chance that the entire statement is false. A god that is not all knowing and not all powerful could not create the universe, in my opinion. The act of creating the universe would require all power and all knowledge.

Symmetric Chaos
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
The act of creating the universe would require all power and all knowledge.

And why is that exactly?

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
And why is that exactly?

The amount of information that is in the universe is unbelievably mind boggling. It would take so much knowledge, to place all this information in it's place (without using natural processes) that only an all knowing god could do it. Of course, natural processes would not need a god to create the universe, but that idea is outside the bible.

peejayd
* hello, mr.shakyamunison... smile

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Then your god is not all knowing.

* does not know all? no problem about that... i believe there is something God does not know as i've stated on posts...

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I then can assume that "he" is also NOT all powerful. Because the passage that says that god is all knowing also says that "he" is all powerful. If one part is not true then there is a good chance that the entire statement is false.

* being all-powerful does not require anyone to be all-knowing too... but to answer your argument, eventhough i believe that God really is Almighty, there is also something He cannot do as stated in the Bible, for example:

"That by two immutable things, in which it is impossible for God to lie, we may have a strong encouragement, who have fled for refuge to lay hold of the hope set before us:"
Hebrews 6:18

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
A god that is not all knowing and not all powerful could not create the universe, in my opinion. The act of creating the universe would require all power and all knowledge.

* well, generally speaking, we may consider God as all-knowing and all-powerful also as stated in the Bible:

"Remember the former things of old: for I am God, and there is none else; I am God, and there is none like me;
Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times things that are not yet done; saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure;"
Isaiah 46:9-10

* this passage implies that God knows everything from past to future... but what i was talking about were "specifics"... there is something God does not know or cannot do... these are specifics in which by certain circumstances proves to us that God is Almighty, He is good, merciful, holy and righteous... smile

Shakyamunison
^ Sorry, but it sounds like you are rationalizing.

peejayd
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
^ Sorry, but it sounds like you are rationalizing.

* Biblical rationalization... stick out tongue

BackFire
This God fellow seems kinda dumb sometimes, huh?

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by peejayd
* Biblical rationalization... stick out tongue

Still rationalization.

peejayd
Originally posted by BackFire
This God fellow seems kinda dumb sometimes, huh?

* opinions, opinions... just learn to respect, bro... wink

leonheartmm
Originally posted by peejayd
* opinions, opinions... just learn to respect, bro... wink


do u respect the stoning of women? how about pedophelia? what about the right of the parents to beat children?

after all these are BELEIFS held by many people.

lesson being? just because sumthing is sum1's beleif does not mean it shud be respected or deserves respect.

NO1 shud respect christianity, it is harmful to the beleiver and to those around him{including the greater non beleiving world}. the beleif itself contains a lot of objective evil.

there IS a difference between oppinions supported by facts and oppinions challenged by facts.

Hyperion Prime
Originally posted by leonheartmm
do u respect the stoning of women? how about pedophelia? what about the right of the parents to beat children?

after all these are BELEIFS held by many people.

lesson being? just because sumthing is sum1's beleif does not mean it shud be respected or deserves respect.

NO1 shud respect christianity, it is harmful to the beleiver and to those around him{including the greater non beleiving world}. the beleif itself contains a lot of objective evil.

there IS a difference between oppinions supported by facts and oppinions challenged by facts.

Yeah and islam is what we all should be roll eyes (sarcastic) . Judaism and Christianity shat all over islam.

Tattoos N Scars

Symmetric Chaos
Originally posted by leonheartmm
do u respect the stoning of women? how about pedophelia? what about the right of the parents to beat children?

after all these are BELEIFS held by many people.

lesson being? just because sumthing is sum1's beleif does not mean it shud be respected or deserves respect.

NO1 shud respect christianity, it is harmful to the beleiver and to those around him{including the greater non beleiving world}. the beleif itself contains a lot of objective evil.

there IS a difference between oppinions supported by facts and oppinions challenged by facts.

Then why should anyone respect your position?

Also can you really not see the difference between believing in God and raping kids?

peejayd
Originally posted by leonheartmm
do u respect the stoning of women? how about pedophelia? what about the right of the parents to beat children?

after all these are BELEIFS held by many people.

lesson being? just because sumthing is sum1's beleif does not mean it shud be respected or deserves respect.

* belief and opinion are two different things... stoning of women, sorry, i don't know what this is...

* pedophilia is not a belief but a sexual act, desire or fantasy to a child... and yes, this is bad...

* the right of the parents to beat children... this might pass to be a belief... parents have different beliefs in disciplining their children, so long as the discipline is applied with love, it's ok... it's wrong when you beat a child because of rage or with no apparent reason at all...

"He who spares the rod hates his son, but he who loves him is careful to discipline him."
Proverbs 13:24

* the Bible/ King Solomon teaches us that if we love our children, we should discipline them, for them to be a good person when they grow up...

"Train up a child in the way he should go, And even when he is old he will not depart from it."
Proverbs 22:6

Originally posted by leonheartmm
NO1 shud respect christianity, it is harmful to the beleiver and to those around him{including the greater non beleiving world}. the beleif itself contains a lot of objective evil.

* the Christianity in the Bible teaches love, respect, and many good things... i don't what kind of "christianity" you have in mind...

Originally posted by leonheartmm
there IS a difference between oppinions supported by facts and oppinions challenged by facts.

* yes, that's true... but opinions does not necessarily have to be supported by facts... only by morals or personal beliefs... wink

Symmetric Chaos
Originally posted by peejayd
* the Christianity in the Bible teaches love, respect, and many good things... i don't what kind of "christianity" you have in mind...

It's simple, in his world that's the equivalent of baby rape.

Amazing Vrayo!!

Sado22
personally i don't know whats the big deal about discipling your children. i mean, sheesh, look at the children of east and west and tell me which ones are more well-behaved. best yet, the eastern children don't chuck their parents in old homes to rot when they grow up but take care of them (or atleast did anywa).
hitting a child for any reason BESIDES discipline is bad. but say whatever you want, but a slap or two here and there won't mentally scar them. the only way they get mentally scared is when the hitting is done for other reasons.

the whole thing's exaggerated and blown out of proportion in some countries imo.


i disagree. i'm not a christian but i respect the religon and all other religions. all one has to do is realize what the religion is saying and where people are manupilating it. i know lots and lots of christians and i think they are nice people.

no disrespect intended to anyone, but i'm disheartened with this new trend of insulting religions. its not cool. i'm up for jokes but there are people who are seriously mocking it. christianity and islam are probably the two religions most poked fun at. worse part is, the majority is suffering for the actions of the few.

~Sado

Phantom Zone
Originally posted by Sado22


no disrespect intended to anyone, but i'm disheartened with this new trend of insulting religions. its not cool. i'm up for jokes but there are people who are seriously mocking it. christianity and islam are probably the two religions most poked fun at. worse part is, the majority is suffering for the actions of the few.

~Sado

Hey thats pretty intelligent and I agree with that. durhulk

peejayd
Originally posted by Sado22
worse part is, the majority is suffering for the actions of the few.

~Sado

* very true... wink

Sado22
Frank Castle came in my dreams and taught me that Happy Dance

and where the phuck are the new pics for the Punisher RT?! mad

leonheartmm
Originally posted by peejayd
* belief and opinion are two different things... stoning of women, sorry, i don't know what this is...

* pedophilia is not a belief but a sexual act, desire or fantasy to a child... and yes, this is bad...

* the right of the parents to beat children... this might pass to be a belief... parents have different beliefs in disciplining their children, so long as the discipline is applied with love, it's ok... it's wrong when you beat a child because of rage or with no apparent reason at all...

"He who spares the rod hates his son, but he who loves him is careful to discipline him."
Proverbs 13:24

* the Bible/ King Solomon teaches us that if we love our children, we should discipline them, for them to be a good person when they grow up...

"Train up a child in the way he should go, And even when he is old he will not depart from it."
Proverbs 22:6



* the Christianity in the Bible teaches love, respect, and many good things... i don't what kind of "christianity" you have in mind...



* yes, that's true... but opinions does not necessarily have to be supported by facts... only by morals or personal beliefs... wink

beleifs lead to actions.

"disciplining" children as u put it {i.e. child abuse to sane people} is also an ACT! people DONT{and SHUD not} respect the act, THATS why they dont RESPECT the beleif. no matter what an insane book says, HITTING your children is never EVER right. no1 shud respect it. or the stupid relegion which endorses it.

pedophelia is both an act and a beleif, the beleif is part of the mind of the pedophile. shud i respect it? absolutely not!

teaches love/respect and many good thing?! REALLY?! but i guess u just proved yourself wrong with sndorsing chil abuse. not to mention, bigotry, fear, delusion, sexism, mass murder, masochism, etc etc etc. thats the kind of christianity i have in mind

oppinions unsupported or outright DISproven by facts dont deserve to be RESPECTED no matter how strong the personal beleifs or personally dreamt up or dogmatic morals of the beleiver are.

point being, disrespecting christianity and the negetive relegiously endorsed actions of christians is a GOOD thing. that doesnt mean you disrespect individuals, unless they embody the negetive teachings, but just the relegion.

leonheartmm
Originally posted by Sado22
personally i don't know whats the big deal about discipling your children. i mean, sheesh, look at the children of east and west and tell me which ones are more well-behaved. best yet, the eastern children don't chuck their parents in old homes to rot when they grow up but take care of them (or atleast did anywa).
hitting a child for any reason BESIDES discipline is bad. but say whatever you want, but a slap or two here and there won't mentally scar them. the only way they get mentally scared is when the hitting is done for other reasons.

the whole thing's exaggerated and blown out of proportion in some countries imo.


i disagree. i'm not a christian but i respect the religon and all other religions. all one has to do is realize what the religion is saying and where people are manupilating it. i know lots and lots of christians and i think they are nice people.

no disrespect intended to anyone, but i'm disheartened with this new trend of insulting religions. its not cool. i'm up for jokes but there are people who are seriously mocking it. christianity and islam are probably the two religions most poked fun at. worse part is, the majority is suffering for the actions of the few.

~Sado

actually a significant amount of children are mentally scarred whn hit EXACTLY for the social definition of "disciplining". traditional/relegious DISCIPLINE itself is a useless and abusive concept. no child shud be hit EVER. even if it doesnt mentally scar them for life, they have a right to not be hit. just like u have a right to not be hit by a stranger evem though it probably wont mentally scar u. ur endorsement of such ideals is frankly deplorable.

Symmetric Chaos
Originally posted by leonheartmm
bigotry, fear, delusion, sexism, mass murder, masochism, etc etc etc.

What's so bad about masochism?

Sado22
its deplorable becuse you're not trying to see it from the eastern point of view. the thing is there are somethings that work for the west and somethings that work for us. whats really deplorable is either side shoving their ideals on the other side and phucking things up.

notice i didn't say "you western pvssies need to hit their children more". i'm not saying that. i'm just saying that the whole issue seems to be blown out of proportion from the west and more often than not I can't even go to a restaurant to eat a decent meal because children are no longer disciplined. eastern children are not only more well-behaved, they also tend to visit therapists less often and have lesser emotional and social problems. where I've lived (pakistani, china, india, mddle east), western children have a rep for being whiny brats, spoilt and uncultured and are usually easy to pick up in the street because not only being rowdy as hell but are also rude to anyone...including their parents.

of course, this can be owed to me not living in the west as of yet and maybe i might get a change of view if i go there. but as of yet, all the no-hitting children thing seems to do is mess a child up.

and lastly, i'm not saying drop kick your child and do an elbow drop on him or her. slap or two is enough, and that too only as last resort....which is what i'm saying when i say westerners are blowing it out of proportion and make eastern people look like pricks. you mention a slap and the whole world's like "ZOMG! OH NO! THAT B@STARD!" while all parent did was slap his child with a cushioned palm because he/she was really misbehaving and not listening at all.

its stupidity and emoness like this that i really hate. i'd love to see how westerners would react if easterner people come up and tell them and tell that they should concentrate on their family life more. when that happens, i keep hearing "eastern hegemony" and "narrowmindedness".

i call bullshit.

and answer me this: when was the last time you heard of a highschool shootout from the east as compared to the west?

~Sado

leonheartmm
Originally posted by Sado22
its deplorable becuse you're not trying to see it from the eastern point of view. the thing is there are somethings that work for the west and somethings that work for us. whats really deplorable is either side shoving their ideals on the other side and phucking things up.

notice i didn't say "you western pvssies need to hit their children more". i'm not saying that. i'm just saying that the whole issue seems to be blown out of proportion from the west and more often than not I can't even go to a restaurant to eat a decent meal because children are no longer disciplined. eastern children are not only more well-behaved, they also tend to visit therapists less often and have lesser emotional and social problems. where I've lived (pakistani, china, india, mddle east), western children have a rep for being whiny brats, spoilt and uncultured and are usually easy to pick up in the street because not only being rowdy as hell but are also rude to anyone...including their parents.

of course, this can be owed to me not living in the west as of yet and maybe i might get a change of view if i go there. but as of yet, all the no-hitting children thing seems to do is mess a child up.

and lastly, i'm not saying drop kick your child and do an elbow drop on him or her. slap or two is enough, and that too only as last resort....which is what i'm saying when i say westerners are blowing it out of proportion and make eastern people look like pricks. you mention a slap and the whole world's like "ZOMG! OH NO! THAT B@STARD!" while all parent did was slap his child with a cushioned palm because he/she was really misbehaving and not listening at all.

its stupidity and emoness like this that i really hate. i'd love to see how westerners would react if easterner people come up and tell them and tell that they should concentrate on their family life more. when that happens, i keep hearing "eastern hegemony" and "narrowmindedness".

i call bullshit.

and answer me this: when was the last time you heard of a highschool shootout from the east as compared to the west?

~Sado

errrr, i was born and have lived my entire life in pakistan...................in a traditional family............................................. your claims are ridiculous and untrue, i can say that with absolute confidence...being a pakistani and all........ and even if they were true, which they are not, they are illogical and unjustifiable..................

leonheartmm
also. it is no measure of health to be well adjusted in a profoundly sick society. and india/pakistan/middle east are shining examples of PROFOUNDLY sick societies.

Sado22
my clams of what?
lesser social and emotional issues? less visitors to the therapist? less shootouts?


sick in many ways, yes. deplorable even, yes. but it depends in which way you mean it?

religous and moral hypocrisy? definitely
corrupt politicians and jaded public? sure

but how sick is that in comparison to America or UK or other eastern countries. world's goin to shit, man. no east or west involved in that.

leonheartmm
Originally posted by Sado22
my clams of what?
lesser social and emotional issues? less visitors to the therapist? less shootouts?

less social/emotional issues? are u KIDDING ME?! sujugation of women, child abuse, no freedom of speech, majority living in rampant poverty, the likes of which never touches the first world, people having no social right to love or marry as they please and arranged marriages being the norm, no adequate social institutions like public schooling, predominantly corruptgovernment, no relegious freedom, insane taboos which hamper people from even trying to seek mental help because pathological modes of behaviour{i.e. beating children} are not considered wrong and normal biological imperetives are social and moral sins{i.e. masturbating and liking a person of the opposite sex or not agreeing with ur parents on runnfing your life} much less having the money to go to the APPALINGLY small number of qualified therapists, rampant violence and POSITIVELY NO RULE OF LAW, a police force that is 100% corrupt and criminal while criminals/gangsters/tribal lords run the streets and the governments???? what about the army owning 89% of all the wealth and no democracy?

as i said, absolutely ridiculous and ignorant claims.

peejayd
Originally posted by leonheartmm
beleifs lead to actions.

"disciplining" children as u put it {i.e. child abuse to sane people} is also an ACT! people DONT{and SHUD not} respect the act, THATS why they dont RESPECT the beleif. no matter what an insane book says, HITTING your children is never EVER right. no1 shud respect it. or the stupid relegion which endorses it.

* hitting children without any reason is wrong... hitting children to discipline them is okay... reassess your moral standard, bro...

Originally posted by leonheartmm
pedophelia is both an act and a beleif, the beleif is part of the mind of the pedophile. shud i respect it? absolutely not!

* no one respects pedophilia, whatsoever... the Bible is against it too...

Originally posted by leonheartmm
teaches love/respect and many good thing?! REALLY?! but i guess u just proved yourself wrong with sndorsing chil abuse. not to mention, bigotry, fear, delusion, sexism, mass murder, masochism, etc etc etc.

* are you out of your freakin' mind, bro? when did i endorse those? eek!

Originally posted by leonheartmm
thats the kind of christianity i have in mind

* then, you're absolutely wrong...

Originally posted by leonheartmm
oppinions unsupported or outright DISproven by facts dont deserve to be RESPECTED no matter how strong the personal beleifs or personally dreamt up or dogmatic morals of the beleiver are.

* your so-called belief is getting far-fetched from what really is the Bible is teaching... the Bible promotes love and teaches Christians to do good to all people:

"So then, as we have opportunity, let us work that which is good toward all men, and especially toward them that are of the household of the faith."
Galatians 6:10

Originally posted by leonheartmm
point being, disrespecting christianity and the negetive relegiously endorsed actions of christians is a GOOD thing.

* the Bible never promotes evil things... if you see any person who is in that "negative religiously endorsed actions" of yours, and claiming to be a Christian, then that person is a fraud...

Originally posted by leonheartmm
that doesnt mean you disrespect individuals,

* this is the good thing...

Originally posted by leonheartmm
unless they embody the negetive teachings, but just the relegion.

* pure religion in the Bible is good... those people professing they are Christians but are doing otherwise are just like what mr.sado22 said: "the majority is suffering for the actions of the few"...

"They profess to know God, but in works they deny Him, being abominable, disobedient, and disqualified for every good work."
Titus 1:16

Originally posted by leonheartmm
less social/emotional issues? are u KIDDING ME?! sujugation of women, child abuse, no freedom of speech, majority living in rampant poverty, the likes of which never touches the first world, people having no social right to love or marry as they please and arranged marriages being the norm, no adequate social institutions like public schooling, predominantly corruptgovernment, no relegious freedom, insane taboos which hamper people from even trying to seek mental help because pathological modes of behaviour{i.e. beating children} are not considered wrong and normal biological imperetives are social and moral sins{i.e. masturbating and liking a person of the opposite sex or not agreeing with ur parents on runnfing your life} much less having the money to go to the APPALINGLY small number of qualified therapists, rampant violence and POSITIVELY NO RULE OF LAW, a police force that is 100% corrupt and criminal while criminals/gangsters/tribal lords run the streets and the governments???? what about the army owning 89% of all the wealth and no democracy?

as i said, absolutely ridiculous and ignorant claims.

"For you, brethren, have been called to liberty; only do not use liberty as an opportunity for the flesh, but through love serve one another."
Galatians 5:13

* the problem is your neglecting the good thing about law and belief... you absolutely reject in general... life is not black and white, there are "gray lines", you know... all those bad things you say that are happening, you all blame on a certain belief? however, my belief being a Christian does not ever promote anything like what you said...

* laws in the Bible are made not for the righteous:

"Knowing this: that the law is not made for a righteous person, but for the lawless and insubordinate, for the ungodly and for sinners, for the unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers,
For fornicators, for sodomites, for kidnappers, for liars, for perjurers, and if there is any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine,"
I Timothy 1:9-10

* laws in the Bible are good if it was not abused:

"We know that the law is good if one uses it properly."
I Timothy 1:8

Sado22
wow, all this happened because we hit our children?
dude you totally missed the point of what i'm saying. we're talking about chlidren disciplining. what does any of this have to do with child beating?

not to mention the fact that i love how we're automatically assuming that none of this goes around in the west. everything you mentioned has a flipside to it. are there as many gangs in pakistan or india or middle east as ameria? are drugs as rampant in the mid east as in the west? and what about crime? rape, theft, burglary all of these are pretty rampant in the west as well. there are somethings that are more rampant in the east, yes, but you're totally ignoring the flipside of the picture. west is far from the ideal society you seem to suggest it is.
you need to travel more, mate.


criminals and gangsters don't exist in the west? postively no rule of law? in the middle east crime has always been low compared to the west. heck, in indo-pak countries, crime is still less.
you're making some serious sweeping generalizations here.

corrupt governments, i'd probably agree though. same with the army stuff. but that's pakistan only.


you're the one making rampant, sweeping generalizations here, mate. not to mention that you've practically turned this into a social commentary when we're originally talking about discipling children. in fact, you're making pretty weird generalizaton about christianity too. promoting bigotry and pedophilia? masochism and child abuse? damn, i didn't know Jesus and Tylor Durden were the same person.
i think you either visit way too many anti-christian/anti/islamic websites or you just don't seem to try to see the flipside of things. all religions promote only one thing: love and tolerance. for every anti-social comment you find in these scriptures (while ignoring context) there are several comments about love and tolerance and patience. what a few hardliners do, should not have any bearing on what the majority does. there are christian and muslims extremists, yes, there is a lot of religious hypocrisy going aorund, yes but people have always used religion as an excuse to do these things because people have always been good at that. its not religion's fault. islam nor christianity nor judaism never asked for women to be subjugated but manupilative asswipes took the story of Eve to stir bigot sentiments in people. Its best with islam because the Quran doesnt mention Eve as the one who ate the forbidden fruit but both of them (and in some cases Adam as the one who ate it and gave it to Eve)...still, it was misused by bigots to spew their poison
and people are good at it because people always beleive what they want to believe and see what they want to see. think about it, hitler used Neitzche's philosophy to carry out the holocaust and promote nazism. but was that Neitzche's real intention? were his books a treatise on genocide and racism?
Hell no. now notice how neitzche was an atheist but even his words were used to install all that hatred in people. now imagine how powerful manupilation the "word of god" really can be. THAT is the bt that you seem to miss.

~Sado

Sado22
more often than not religion is manupilated because people are vastly ignorant of it. today most religious people are religious only by birth right and scarcely read up on their scriptures and practce their religion. both the quran and the bible are rich texts with a lot to offer, with great depth. depth that people don't understand because people barely read it, and when they do, they ignore the context of things. THAT again, is not the fault of religion. its frustrating to have people badmouth god and muhammed and jesus for the ignorance and stupidity of their followers. not to mention that most people i know who try to badmouth religious scriptures have such a shallow reading of it, that I'm not sure whether to facepalm myself or laugh.

and lastly, scriptures are all about personal interpretation. another reason why religion is so often manupilated is because religious teachers are going around telling everyone what to think, even though the idea of god is such a personal issue. christianity has been particularly guilty of this in the past where only the clergymen were allowed to have the bible...and today muslim scholars are going around expecting everyone to look at things the way they do.
again, its not the fault of religion or god but people themselves. people dont read enough of their religion, flock around the teacher and expect to be spoonfed everything all the while ignoring that the teacher is as fallible as they themselves are.

~Sado

peejayd
Originally posted by Sado22
all religions promote only one thing: love and tolerance. for every anti-social comment you find in these scriptures (while ignoring context) there are several comments about love and tolerance and patience. what a few hardliners do, should not have any bearing on what the majority does.

* that's what they fail to understand, bro... they blatantly ignore the good (whether it's Bible or Qur'an), and when they encounter/read something that suits them, they take it and treat it like the country's constitution...

* no religion promotes evil... if there's evil manifesting in a person because of it, it's not religion's fault but the person itself who can discern what's right and what's wrong... wink

leonheartmm
Originally posted by peejayd
* hitting children without any reason is wrong... hitting children to discipline them is okay... reassess your moral standard, bro...



* no one respects pedophilia, whatsoever... the Bible is against it too...



* are you out of your freakin' mind, bro? when did i endorse those? eek!



* then, you're absolutely wrong...



* your so-called belief is getting far-fetched from what really is the Bible is teaching... the Bible promotes love and teaches Christians to do good to all people:

"So then, as we have opportunity, let us work that which is good toward all men, and especially toward them that are of the household of the faith."
Galatians 6:10



* the Bible never promotes evil things... if you see any person who is in that "negative religiously endorsed actions" of yours, and claiming to be a Christian, then that person is a fraud...



* this is the good thing...



* pure religion in the Bible is good... those people professing they are Christians but are doing otherwise are just like what mr.sado22 said: "the majority is suffering for the actions of the few"...

"They profess to know God, but in works they deny Him, being abominable, disobedient, and disqualified for every good work."
Titus 1:16



"For you, brethren, have been called to liberty; only do not use liberty as an opportunity for the flesh, but through love serve one another."
Galatians 5:13

* the problem is your neglecting the good thing about law and belief... you absolutely reject in general... life is not black and white, there are "gray lines", you know... all those bad things you say that are happening, you all blame on a certain belief? however, my belief being a Christian does not ever promote anything like what you said...

* laws in the Bible are made not for the righteous:

"Knowing this: that the law is not made for a righteous person, but for the lawless and insubordinate, for the ungodly and for sinners, for the unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers,
For fornicators, for sodomites, for kidnappers, for liars, for perjurers, and if there is any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine,"
I Timothy 1:9-10

* laws in the Bible are good if it was not abused:

"We know that the law is good if one uses it properly."
I Timothy 1:8

didnt u hear what i said? hitting children FOR any reason is wrong, please dont debate this ridiculious stance of yours.

some individuals DO respect pedophelia{specially in the past, aisha was 8-9 when muhammad married her}. shud their beleifs be respected?

the wrest is falsified claims and quotations from a falsified book?

discrediting and exposing any negetive ideology/dogma/tradiotion and relegion {i.e. christianity} remains a GOOD thing.

peejayd
Originally posted by leonheartmm
didnt u hear what i said? hitting children FOR any reason is wrong, please dont debate this ridiculious stance of yours.

* oh? you are the law now? eek! there is a reason for hitting a child, if it's to discipline him/her, it's okay... if there's no reason, it's wrong... your stance is ridiculous, not mine...

Originally posted by leonheartmm
some individuals DO respect pedophelia{specially in the past, aisha was 8-9 when muhammad married her}. shud their beleifs be respected?

* well, if that's true, i am not him... get it? stop generalizing...

Originally posted by leonheartmm
the wrest is falsified claims and quotations from a falsified book?

* because that is the basis of Christianity... the Bible promotes love, learn to accept that...

Originally posted by leonheartmm
discrediting and exposing any negetive ideology/dogma/tradiotion and relegion {i.e. christianity} remains a GOOD thing.

* it's alright to discredit, but not all...

leonheartmm
Originally posted by Sado22
wow, all this happened because we hit our children?
dude you totally missed the point of what i'm saying. we're talking about chlidren disciplining. what does any of this have to do with child beating?

not to mention the fact that i love how we're automatically assuming that none of this goes around in the west. everything you mentioned has a flipside to it. are there as many gangs in pakistan or india or middle east as ameria? are drugs as rampant in the mid east as in the west? and what about crime? rape, theft, burglary all of these are pretty rampant in the west as well. there are somethings that are more rampant in the east, yes, but you're totally ignoring the flipside of the picture. west is far from the ideal society you seem to suggest it is.
you need to travel more, mate.


criminals and gangsters don't exist in the west? postively no rule of law? in the middle east crime has always been low compared to the west. heck, in indo-pak countries, crime is still less.
you're making some serious sweeping generalizations here.

corrupt governments, i'd probably agree though. same with the army stuff. but that's pakistan only.


you're the one making rampant, sweeping generalizations here, mate. not to mention that you've practically turned this into a social commentary when we're originally talking about discipling children. in fact, you're making pretty weird generalizaton about christianity too. promoting bigotry and pedophilia? masochism and child abuse? damn, i didn't know Jesus and Tylor Durden were the same person.
i think you either visit way too many anti-christian/anti/islamic websites or you just don't seem to try to see the flipside of things. all religions promote only one thing: love and tolerance. for every anti-social comment you find in these scriptures (while ignoring context) there are several comments about love and tolerance and patience. what a few hardliners do, should not have any bearing on what the majority does. there are christian and muslims extremists, yes, there is a lot of religious hypocrisy going aorund, yes but people have always used religion as an excuse to do these things because people have always been good at that. its not religion's fault. islam nor christianity nor judaism never asked for women to be subjugated but manupilative asswipes took the story of Eve to stir bigot sentiments in people. Its best with islam because the Quran doesnt mention Eve as the one who ate the forbidden fruit but both of them (and in some cases Adam as the one who ate it and gave it to Eve)...still, it was misused by bigots to spew their poison
and people are good at it because people always beleive what they want to believe and see what they want to see. think about it, hitler used Neitzche's philosophy to carry out the holocaust and promote nazism. but was that Neitzche's real intention? were his books a treatise on genocide and racism?
Hell no. now notice how neitzche was an atheist but even his words were used to install all that hatred in people. now imagine how powerful manupilation the "word of god" really can be. THAT is the bt that you seem to miss.

~Sado


did u read what u wrote. YOU made the RIDICULOUS claim that the east had less "social/emotional" issues than the west ad went on to give a select few stereotypical example which ive heard all my life by narrowminded people around me who love to point those silly unthought examples out. i went on to destroy them, with real examples and u were unable to post a proper response and went on to try and connect hitting children as the cause of the whole thing{making it sound like i implied that}

things like that DO go on in the west but at a far smaller level{and i dont care for any anecdotal examples ud like to give, statistics show the differences}. i never claimed that the west was IDEAL, i just claimed that it is FACTUALLY a lot better of than the east and the problems it does have, have NOTHING to do with lack of dicsipline. ignorant, narrow minded claims like these are a given of the masses in the muslim world in general.

the middle east has a very high level of crime among immigrants and foregners and workforce. you see it was NEVER the cutting of hands that was the reason for people not stealing much in arabia,{although many dickheaded mullahs and relegious scholars wud like u to beleive it} it was the fact that due to the oil EVERY1 was ****ING RICH. but ever since people started immigrating for jobs and contructions purposes the rate of crime went up incredibly, wanna guess why? BECAUSE THEY WERE POOR!!!! nuthing to do with dicsipline, nuthing to do with relegion, nuuthing to do with the death penalty and nuthing to do with the draconian laws. just plain poverty. plus, saudia does a lot to keep up appearances and the real crime/abuse figures are never revealed much less accurately reported in such a tyrranical society.

as for the second last paragraph. i call major bull. any 1 not brainwashed can see that relegions is abuot conflict, egotism, supression, and masochism. it has been singularly responsible for more bloodshed than any other philosophy. the rationalisation that its the EXTREMISTS who do it doesnt work because its the SCRIPTURES wich preach all the hate. i havent been to any anti islamic websites. im a former muslim
ive read the quran and the hadith and like many others have found them to be nonsenical, injustifyable, unscientific and evil. not to mention, completely false in most of their claims. judeochristian relegions are NOT about love but about hate and suffering and sadism and self deprecation. your delusional if u think theyr about love.

as for neitzche, lol, i have little love for the man, he was an ego maniac and hitler was exactly the kind of man he worshipped and wanted to be. the superman for whom the wrest of the world's pawns exist to serve and follow and suffer.

leonheartmm
Originally posted by peejayd
* oh? you are the law now? eek! there is a reason for hitting a child, if it's to discipline him/her, it's okay... if there's no reason, it's wrong... your stance is ridiculous, not mine...



* well, if that's true, i am not him... get it? stop generalizing...



* because that is the basis of Christianity... the Bible promotes love, learn to accept that...



* it's alright to discredit, but not all...

no, psychology, the charter of human and children rights and logic is the law. i merely accept them as opposed to a disproven book. your claim is bull, hitting chilldren is ALWAYS WRONG. SPECIALLY for what has classically been referred to as "disciplining". its unnaceptable and evil.

did i say u were him? no. ur avoiding the question. YOU said that people shuld learn to respect points of view/philosophies as if it was an inherent right of any philosophy or point of view to be respected. i called bull and gave u an example of a point of view that i dont respect and neither do u. now, wud u respect pedophelia or not. because if u dont, ur going back on ur word and im proving u wrong.

as i said, christianity DESERVES no respect.

because the source material has been scientifically/logically/mathematically and humanistically been proven wrong. learn to open ur eyes.

it alright to discredit all as anything but manmade. it also alright to discredit MOST as being false.

Sado22
aisha was 9 when the prophet married her, that's true, but 1400 years ago girls aged faster than they do today. even as late as 1960's girls could get married at 16 because they aged faster.
you know why that is? because of life expectancies. humanbeings natural limit is 70 years but with in different societies in different climates, life expectancies was limited or enhanced this. for the harsh desert life style of arabia, life expectancy was 30-40 years at best. that's why girls matured early then. so what idiots go around calling pedophilia today is actually blatant ignorance of the life expectancy 1400 years from today, amidst 40-45 degrees C of desert, nomadic life style and rampant wars and diseases and famine. she was 9 years old then but from today's standards she was in her late teens to early twenties.

context is your friend. also if muslims today are usng that as an excuse to become pedophiles its still not muhammed's fault. its their ignorance of the life conditions at the time that is to be blamed. not muhammed.

and pertaining to pedophila, pedophiles have been going around in all societies, in all ages. its got nothing to do with religion. a theist becoming a pedophile has as much to do with religion as an atheist becoming one.

~Sado

peejayd
Originally posted by leonheartmm
no, psychology, the charter of human and children rights and logic is the law. i merely accept them as opposed to a disproven book.

* i am not even saying my stand because of the Bible, i am stating this because what i'm saying is morally and humanly correct... i just added a passage from the Bible for you to know that what i am saying is also in accordance with it...

* @ hitting children... hitting them =/= beating them to a pulp or killing them... in my country, to discipline a spoiled brat is to hit that child in the butt with slippers, then afterwards explaining to them that what they did was wrong...

* now you, and that oversized "belief" of yours, need to chill out... or maybe you want to be like in some countries were the parent only scolded the child and the child jailed them for child abuse... now THAT, my friend, is a complete bullcrap...

Originally posted by leonheartmm
your claim is bull, hitting chilldren is ALWAYS WRONG. SPECIALLY for what has classically been referred to as "disciplining". its unnaceptable and evil.

* go tell that to spoiled brats who would eventually become juvenile delinquents someday... hitting children is NOT always wrong... you're implying that ALL parents do not know how to raise their own children...

Originally posted by leonheartmm
did i say u were him? no. ur avoiding the question. YOU said that people shuld learn to respect points of view/philosophies as if it was an inherent right of any philosophy or point of view to be respected. i called bull and gave u an example of a point of view that i dont respect and neither do u. now, wud u respect pedophelia or not. because if u dont, ur going back on ur word and im proving u wrong.

* that's because you LOVE to generalize... majority of people you will ask do NOT respect pedophilia, you gave an example which was never done by ordinary people, it was a special circumstance as explained by mr.sado22... you are just grasping ropes... stop this, bro, you're done...

Originally posted by leonheartmm
as i said, christianity DESERVES no respect.

because the source material has been scientifically/logically/mathematically and humanistically been proven wrong. learn to open ur eyes.

* the Bible is composed of many books, some of them might not be well to suit your belief but there are things written in there that teaches a person how to love, respect, care, give mercy, help other people, etc... basically how to be a good person... and all you see is that the Bible is "scientifically/logically/mathematically and humanistically" been proven wrong? that's because you are fond of generalizing without batting an eyelash...

Originally posted by leonheartmm
it alright to discredit all as anything but manmade. it also alright to discredit MOST as being false.

* but what is false? your scientists who provides you with facts are your evidences? you tend to make your belief as absolute... let me give you an example: Pluto was once one of the nine planets in our solar system, but recently, what was it now? point is, if the facts made by your belief is that dependable, why the change? proves your belief is not that accurate... just an example... wink

Sado22
the rift between religion vs science appeared not because of religion but refusal of people promoting it to move on and see evidence presented to them, the same people who were manupilating the words and texts and changing them to allign the world to their understanding instead of keeping the texts as they were. Saint Gregory VIII attempted to trace the biblical events in the gregorian calender and got it all wrong. that's alright and would've easily been forgotten...but the followers made a big deal out of it, refused to acknowledge those errors in the face of scientific facts and the whole thing turned into a debacle with scientists pointing evidence in their faces and them refusing to accept them.

but the problem isnt religion. its taking words or works of man and holding them up as infallible and absolutel....works of men that not only came centures after the death of Jesus but works that are clearly false. today, atheists poke fun at christians (and muslims for a reason that i don't understand since neither our fundamentalists nor our hadith or quran mention anything about 6000 years) for holding this view while ignoring the fact that the religion itself never made that claim. even here, i've mentioned it in the Noah's arc thread but no one's replying which to me suggests the kind of closed-minded antagonism that's generally associated with theists.

~Sado

leonheartmm
Originally posted by Sado22
aisha was 9 when the prophet married her, that's true, but 1400 years ago girls aged faster than they do today. even as late as 1960's girls could get married at 16 because they aged faster.
you know why that is? because of life expectancies. humanbeings natural limit is 70 years but with in different societies in different climates, life expectancies was limited or enhanced this. for the harsh desert life style of arabia, life expectancy was 30-40 years at best. that's why girls matured early then. so what idiots go around calling pedophilia today is actually blatant ignorance of the life expectancy 1400 years from today, amidst 40-45 degrees C of desert, nomadic life style and rampant wars and diseases and famine. she was 9 years old then but from today's standards she was in her late teens to early twenties.

context is your friend. also if muslims today are usng that as an excuse to become pedophiles its still not muhammed's fault. its their ignorance of the life conditions at the time that is to be blamed. not muhammed.

and pertaining to pedophila, pedophiles have been going around in all societies, in all ages. its got nothing to do with religion. a theist becoming a pedophile has as much to do with religion as an atheist becoming one.

~Sado


pure ignorance. no1 biologically MATURED FASTER in any time in human history. this is a false rationalisation. it may have been accepted by the culture, but that just goes to show how wrong th culture was. nuthing more to it, no context required, neurological and through extension, sexual and emotional maturity of a human being is never reached at age 9 no matter what age. muhammad was a pedophile, deal with it.

leonheartmm
Originally posted by peejayd
* i am not even saying my stand because of the Bible, i am stating this because what i'm saying is morally and humanly correct... i just added a passage from the Bible for you to know that what i am saying is also in accordance with it...

* @ hitting children... hitting them =/= beating them to a pulp or killing them... in my country, to discipline a spoiled brat is to hit that child in the butt with slippers, then afterwards explaining to them that what they did was wrong...

* now you, and that oversized "belief" of yours, need to chill out... or maybe you want to be like in some countries were the parent only scolded the child and the child jailed them for child abuse... now THAT, my friend, is a complete bullcrap...



* go tell that to spoiled brats who would eventually become juvenile delinquents someday... hitting children is NOT always wrong... you're implying that ALL parents do not know how to raise their own children...



* that's because you LOVE to generalize... majority of people you will ask do NOT respect pedophilia, you gave an example which was never done by ordinary people, it was a special circumstance as explained by mr.sado22... you are just grasping ropes... stop this, bro, you're done...



* the Bible is composed of many books, some of them might not be well to suit your belief but there are things written in there that teaches a person how to love, respect, care, give mercy, help other people, etc... basically how to be a good person... and all you see is that the Bible is "scientifically/logically/mathematically and humanistically" been proven wrong? that's because you are fond of generalizing without batting an eyelash...



* but what is false? your scientists who provides you with facts are your evidences? you tend to make your belief as absolute... let me give you an example: Pluto was once one of the nine planets in our solar system, but recently, what was it now? point is, if the facts made by your belief is that dependable, why the change? proves your belief is not that accurate... just an example... wink

again, ignorance of the past. have u ever bothered to study even a little bit of secular or child psychology? hitting children is only MORE LIKELY to turn them into delinquents, even IF THEY ARE NOT BEATEN TO A PULP. its also likely to cause emotional problems even if the beating is symbolic. what you are saying is morally and humanly WRONG. the bible is an EVIL BOOK and your proving it AGAIN AND AGAIN.

no sir, YOU generalised when you claimed that we shud respect other people's BELEIFS, and i showed you what a hypocrite you are seeing as you dont respect the pedophile's beleifs. i dont respect your christian beleifs and no1 with a brain should.



ive already disproven this ridiculous claim, its an evil book, and im well aware that its a faulty compilation of contradicting people chosen for political reasons among many others. as for the second part, its not a generalisation at all, many of the claims and statements in the bible have been CATEGORICALLY proven false.


what you are referring to is a matter of linguistic REFERENCE. utterly different from the fallasy that the earth is the centre of the world or the occurance of the great flood or god creating the world in seven days or the myriad of miracles in the bible.

leonheartmm
Originally posted by Sado22
the rift between religion vs science appeared not because of religion but refusal of people promoting it to move on and see evidence presented to them, the same people who were manupilating the words and texts and changing them to allign the world to their understanding instead of keeping the texts as they were. Saint Gregory VIII attempted to trace the biblical events in the gregorian calender and got it all wrong. that's alright and would've easily been forgotten...but the followers made a big deal out of it, refused to acknowledge those errors in the face of scientific facts and the whole thing turned into a debacle with scientists pointing evidence in their faces and them refusing to accept them.

but the problem isnt religion. its taking words or works of man and holding them up as infallible and absolutel....works of men that not only came centures after the death of Jesus but works that are clearly false. today, atheists poke fun at christians (and muslims for a reason that i don't understand since neither our fundamentalists nor our hadith or quran mention anything about 6000 years) for holding this view while ignoring the fact that the religion itself never made that claim. even here, i've mentioned it in the Noah's arc thread but no one's replying which to me suggests the kind of closed-minded antagonism that's generally associated with theists.

~Sado

wrong

Sado22
you need to learn how to argue, mate. coming up and telling me i'm wrong without telling me why isn't helping your case...it just makes you look like an obnoxious jerk.

leonheartmm
^ive already told you the HOW. but since ur ignoring it, i thought it more helpful to go with the "what".

peejayd
Originally posted by leonheartmm
again, ignorance of the past. have u ever bothered to study even a little bit of secular or child psychology? hitting children is only MORE LIKELY to turn them into delinquents, even IF THEY ARE NOT BEATEN TO A PULP. its also likely to cause emotional problems even if the beating is symbolic. what you are saying is morally and humanly WRONG.

* human experience >>> child psychology whatsoever... in my country, eventhough parents hit their children, children when they grew up loves their parents more, never giving them up to orphanages, and take care of their old parents... your golden psychology failed...

Originally posted by leonheartmm
the bible is an EVIL BOOK and your proving it AGAIN AND AGAIN.

* prove that it is evil... your nitpicking never helps... the Bible promotes love, you just hate to accept it...

Originally posted by leonheartmm
no sir, YOU generalised when you claimed that we shud respect other people's BELEIFS, and i showed you what a hypocrite you are seeing as you dont respect the pedophile's beleifs. i dont respect your christian beleifs and no1 with a brain should.

* look how absurd your arguments are? i am on the positive/affirmative side and you inject a negative one (e.g. pedophilia) and you're forcing me to respect the negative? heck, no... don't give me this crap, your debate style sucks... and stupid, by the way...

Originally posted by leonheartmm
ive already disproven this ridiculous claim, its an evil book, and im well aware that its a faulty compilation of contradicting people chosen for political reasons among many others. as for the second part, its not a generalisation at all, many of the claims and statements in the bible have been CATEGORICALLY proven false.

* you know what's funny? the "ignorant" writers tend to know that:

"And consider that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation--as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, has written to you,
As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which untaught and unstable people twist to their own destruction, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures."
II Peter 3:15-16

* i guess you haven't read that, bro? because you generalized immediately... that was already a warning:

"You therefore, beloved, since you know this beforehand, beware lest you also fall from your own steadfastness, being led away with the error of the wicked;"
II Peter 3:17

* even the finest of the finest books can be evil if not used properly... and the Bible acknowledges that:

"We know that the law is good if one uses it properly."
I Timothy 1:8

* the law would be evil if not used properly... take the law of man for example, if it is abused, then men in authority would be corrupted...

Originally posted by leonheartmm
what you are referring to is a matter of linguistic REFERENCE. utterly different from the fallasy that the earth is the centre of the world

* the Bible never said that, it was given a wrong interpretation...

Originally posted by leonheartmm
or the occurance of the great flood or god creating the world in seven days or the myriad of miracles in the bible.

* that's why they are miracles... you can't come up with scientific proofs with miracles, because if you can, then it's not a miracle... don't you get it? roll eyes (sarcastic)

Sado22
no, you haven't said anything. all you did was say "wrong" and that's it. prior to that you haven't said anything that was rrefutable like you like to think it is. everything you've said is either very debatable or overly generalized. not to mention ignorant of context.

leonheartmm
Originally posted by peejayd
* human experience >>> child psychology whatsoever... in my country, eventhough parents hit their children, children when they grew up loves their parents more, never giving them up to orphanages, and take care of their old parents... your golden psychology failed...



* prove that it is evil... your nitpicking never helps... the Bible promotes love, you just hate to accept it...



* look how absurd your arguments are? i am on the positive/affirmative side and you inject a negative one (e.g. pedophilia) and you're forcing me to respect the negative? heck, no... don't give me this crap, your debate style sucks... and stupid, by the way...



* you know what's funny? the "ignorant" writers tend to know that:

"And consider that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation--as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, has written to you,
As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which untaught and unstable people twist to their own destruction, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures."
II Peter 3:15-16

* i guess you haven't read that, bro? because you generalized immediately... that was already a warning:

"You therefore, beloved, since you know this beforehand, beware lest you also fall from your own steadfastness, being led away with the error of the wicked;"
II Peter 3:17

* even the finest of the finest books can be evil if not used properly... and the Bible acknowledges that:

"We know that the law is good if one uses it properly."
I Timothy 1:8

* the law would be evil if not used properly... take the law of man for example, if it is abused, then men in authority would be corrupted...



* the Bible never said that, it was given a wrong interpretation...



* that's why they are miracles... you can't come up with scientific proofs with miracles, because if you can, then it's not a miracle... don't you get it? roll eyes (sarcastic)


correction. PERSONAL ANECDOTES<<<<<<<<<<<<<<accepted theories of child psychology. you obviously know nothing OF child psychology or psychology in general. heck your following extract of anecdotal accounts show that you know nothing of stereotyping or statistics. many people in my society claim the same things, but when you look deeper, you find the hypocrisy and abuse inherent in such societies. you are an ABSOLUTE IDIOT if you think hitting your children makes them love you more


it has been proven time and time again, lately the fact that it allowes and even encourages physical discipline is proof that it is evil. ofcourse examples of god killing the infants in ancient egypt doesnt hurt the case either. what about the presence of suffering in god's world. why did he make it? why circumcision? why punishment for fornication? why an eternity of hellfire if you dont beleive in him?
no satisfactory answer here, there, proven. its evil

heck no? so you dont respect the point of view or philsophy of the pedophile? GREAT. uve proven that not all philosophies are worthy of respect, and i dont consider yours to be worth anything respectful.


why are you using axtracts from a disproven fairytale to suport the argument that the said fairytale is real? sounds like circular reasoning to me. the bible isnt a FINE book, it makes good people do evil things {circumcision, case in point}

and who will judge interpretation? you? the person calling the earth the centre of the universe can merely claim that ur interpretation is wrong. why wasnt this great book LUCID enough to show which interpretation is right?


no its YOU who doesnt get it. miracle=magic=i KNOW it cant be explained but ill still claim that it just HAPPENED, and ill give this sort of nonsense a respectable name which ill claim refers to a completely different phenomenon from causality even though its a thinly veiled attempt to hide the fact that i cant explain it or make sense of it in the only REAL way that exists {i.e. logic/science}.

so again, by admitting MIRACLES your admitting that u lose the argument.

leonheartmm
Originally posted by Sado22
no, you haven't said anything. all you did was say "wrong" and that's it. prior to that you haven't said anything that was rrefutable like you like to think it is. everything you've said is either very debatable or overly generalized. not to mention ignorant of context.

no it isnt, seeing as you have neither been able to debate it or to refute it. when u do either, ill bother debating, untill then, ur just wrong.

Sado22
debate what? you're absurd claim about child "abuse" being the cause of every bad thing in the world from political corruption to the extinction of the dinosaurs? why not write a book about how slapping a child creates holes in the ozone layer too laughing out loud

YOU are the one who never replied. YOU are the one who refused to back up his case. YOU are the one who didn't answer after blatant accusaton of pedophilia etc.

get your act together.

~Sado

leonheartmm
Originally posted by Sado22
debate what? you're absurd claim about child "abuse" being the cause of every bad thing in the world from political corruption to the extinction of the dinosaurs? why not write a book about how slapping a child creates holes in the ozone layer too laughing out loud

YOU are the one who never replied. YOU are the one who refused to back up his case. YOU are the one who didn't answer after blatant accusaton of pedophilia etc.

get your act together.

~Sado

lmao, nice strawman. i never claimed that, i was referring to your dig that east has less social problems than the west. has nuthing to do with hitting children, that was dealt with elsewhere, nice try.

Phantom Zone
Originally posted by Sado22
aisha was 9 when the prophet married her, that's true, but 1400 years ago girls aged faster than they do today.

You know I think there were descritpions of Aishas still playing with dolls......

Sado22
i mentioned that east has less "child" problems than the west. you can stop this nonsense by continuing the argument by telling me why i'm wrong.


1) i'm actually talkng about physical aging
2) girls played with dolls as late as early teens even in the 20th century. what's your point?
3) there wasn't much "passtime" 1400 years ago, especially for women
4) and can you tell me where you read this?

Phantom Zone
Originally posted by Sado22
i

1) i'm actually talkng about physical aging

Ok you got proof for this?

Originally posted by Sado22

2) girls played with dolls as late as early teens even in the 20th century. what's your point?

Is that common? Edit: Just read your post again properly getting married to a 13 or 14 is dodgey........cmon man, erm


Originally posted by Sado22

3) there wasn't much "passtime" 1400 years ago, especially for women


Ok is this the explanation your giving for her playing with dolls, are you sure thats the reason why?

Originally posted by Sado22

4) and can you tell me where you read this?

Its a hadith cant rememeber which one.

leonheartmm
Originally posted by Sado22
i mentioned that east has less "child" problems than the west. you can stop this nonsense by continuing the argument by telling me why i'm wrong.


1) i'm actually talkng about physical aging
2) girls played with dolls as late as early teens even in the 20th century. what's your point?
3) there wasn't much "passtime" 1400 years ago, especially for women
4) and can you tell me where you read this?



you see the OPENING PHRASE of my argument is "less social/emotional issues?". which OBVIOUSLY means i wasnt just referring to hitting children, that is your comprehension problems. also, if you look back, this was a direct reply to you making the CLAIM that the east had less sociol/emotional issues. again, not the same as child abuse, which you are now trying to paint this as.

pathetic. there was no difference in physical aging between then and now. muhammad was a pedophile.

Sado22
proof? i'll post the rare pornographic pics of girls from the sixth century taken from sand cameras with the lens made of broken teeth.


early 1900's, yes. you seem to be missed the point of low life expectancy, mate. when the average life span of a person was 30-40 years at best the growth and development of people, physiology and all that is different. the best proof i can give you is what i said, girls as late as 1960's were being married off at 16 BECAUSE they were maturing faster than girls of the same age today.


no i'm not sure. i'm just pointing out that there was nothing much to do anyway.


even if there is, i'm sure you're missing the context of it. not to mention that i don't recall reading such a one, don't recall hearing of such a one and don't see the point of the prophet mentioning his wife playing with dolls because hadiths were usually short sermons and not gossip.


all that and you STILL can't see the next part where i tell you that we're talking about children and not social issues....something you still don't seem to understand. i'm not up for namecalling, man, instead of going in circles why don't you just get say what you're trying to say when all this began.

~Sado

inimalist
Originally posted by Sado22
early 1900's, yes. you seem to be missed the point of low life expectancy, mate. when the average life span of a person was 30-40 years at best the growth and development of people, physiology and all that is different. the best proof i can give you is what i said, girls as late as 1960's were being married off at 16 BECAUSE they were maturing faster than girls of the same age today.

not entirely accurate

girls were maturing faster because culturally, they were being forced into adult situations earlier.

Life span has nothing to do with rate of development, other than to say, before huge breakthroughs in science created a standard of living where people at 13 didn't need to earn an income, such social pressures on people never forced their maturation. The human body, and ESPECIALLY the human mind are highly reactive to the outside cultural environment. I think you are just putting the cart before the horse.

Phantom Zone
Originally posted by Sado22
proof? i'll post the rare pornographic pics of girls from the sixth century taken from sand cameras with the lens made of broken teeth.



Ok so you dont have any proof, so we could assume that they didnt.

Originally posted by Sado22

early 1900's, yes. you seem to be missed the point of low life expectancy, mate. when the average life span of a person was 30-40 years at best the growth and development of people, physiology and all that is different. the best proof i can give you is what i said, girls as late as 1960's were being married off at 16 BECAUSE they were maturing faster than girls of the same age today.

I edited my post.

Is that common? Edit: Just read your post again properly getting married to a 13 or 14 is dodgey........cmon man,

Im get the point. Sorry thats an assumption with no proof, my point is 9 years old is still too young.

Originally posted by Sado22

no i'm not sure. i'm just pointing out that there was nothing much to do anyway.

Ok well im gonna forget about that then.

Originally posted by Sado22

even if there is, i'm sure you're missing the context of it. not to mention that i don't recall reading such a one, don't recall hearing of such a one and don't see the point of the prophet mentioning his wife playing with dolls because hadiths were usually short sermons and not gossip.


I used to be muslim and im fairly certain I heard it numerous times.

Originally posted by inimalist
not entirely accurate

girls were maturing faster because culturally, they were being forced into adult situations earlier.

Life span has nothing to do with rate of development,

Exactly. My point about the dolls is that Aisha wasnt even mentally mature because she was still playing with dolls when she got married.

leonheartmm
if i also remember correctly. the prophet used to lpay childish games with her like hide and seek as well as letting her girlfriends play with her in her free time when ADULTS were working or confined to their husband's house and housework. it is VERY clear that she was a child, not to mention the idea that 9 year olds are adults IN THE PAST is absolutely LUDICROUS!

Phantom Zone
Originally posted by leonheartmm
if i also remember correctly. the prophet used to lpay childish games with her like hide and seek as well as letting her girlfriends play with her in her free time when ADULTS were working or confined to their husband's house and housework. it is VERY clear that she was a child, not to mention the idea that 9 year olds are adults IN THE PAST is absolutely LUDICROUS!

Well I think that clinches it, bang out of order.

Symmetric Chaos
Originally posted by Sado22
early 1900's, yes. you seem to be missed the point of low life expectancy, mate. when the average life span of a person was 30-40 years at best the growth and development of people, physiology and all that is different. the best proof i can give you is what i said, girls as late as 1960's were being married off at 16 BECAUSE they were maturing faster than girls of the same age today.

Life expectancy was pretty much the same, except in children. If you lived past 14 it was quite possible to live into your 60s and 70s. People did not physically mature faster.

The more important difference is that pedophilia as we think of it didn't really exist at the time. The cultural context was completely alien.

Sado22
i was kidding, mate


not when you consider how things were back then. that's what i meant when i said you're missing the context. you're still thinking "zomg! 9 years!" from todays standards but its not that way back then. then there's the issue of mental maturity and how inimilist said that society controls maturity and all that.
and finally, pair that up with the fact that you're talking about a hadith that i've never heard of and no one else here seems to have heard of either.


dude, i lived in the middle east for the past 16 years. i've read up on the history and life expectancy wasn't 60-70, not by a longshot. they were sturdy people, no doubt, but because of wars, internal disputes, diseases and famine/malunutrition the life expectancy dropped like hell. when all these things come into the picture, as you put it yourself, maturity is pushed onto children. now whether they didn't age physically that way, it still wasn't pedophila because the maturity level of a 9 year old girl 1400 years ago was different from today.


maybe i'm not wording this correctly, but the best example i can give is that girls even 30 or 40 years ago were maturing faster physically than they are today. just compare girls of the past to girls of the present and you can see a clear difference in maturing.
and a little fact: arab women, even today, age fast. maybe there's an entire cultural aspect of things that people are missing as usual.


yes.


so maybe people would look at our generation and make the same assumption: those people were pedophiles because they were marrying even when they read comic books and played videogames well into their 30's laughing out loud
but are we really, or are we just playing videogames and reading comics because its an available means of enjoyment today, especially when you dont want to indulge into serious things.
that's what i think you're missing.


more info from www.****islam.com eh? laughing out loud

~Sado

leonheartmm
^they dont age fast. they are FORCED TO TAKE ON the roles of adults but that has nuthing to do with the development of the body or the brain. it was always pedophelia and was always wrong.

Sado22
coming from the guy who doesn't know shite about the middle east and hasn't been here long enough to tell. don't sit in pakiland and tell me how the arabs are, please, you're being foolish.
the girls matured faster because social expectations from them were VERY different from today, whats there not to understand?

Phantom Zone
Originally posted by Sado22


not when you consider how things were back then. that's what i meant when i said you're missing the context. you're still thinking "zomg! 9 years!" from todays standards but its not that way back then. then there's the issue of mental maturity and how inimilist said that society controls maturity and all that.

Which why the dolls were mentioned, hide and seek etc.


Originally posted by Sado22


and finally, pair that up with the fact that you're talking about a hadith that i've never heard of and no one else here seems to have heard of either.

Leo knows what im talking about.

Originally posted by Sado22


so maybe people would look at our generation and make the same assumption: those people were pedophiles because they were marrying even when they read comic books and played videogames well into their 30's laughing out loud
but are we really, or are we just playing videogames and reading comics because its an available means of enjoyment today, especially when you dont want to indulge into serious things.
that's what i think you're missing.




Dolls were not created for adults in those days and by and large they are not now. So yes I can make that assumption.

Originally posted by Sado22

the girls matured faster because social expectations from them were VERY different from today, whats there not to understand?

and mature women didnt play with dolls.

leonheartmm
Originally posted by Sado22
coming from the guy who doesn't know shite about the middle east and hasn't been here long enough to tell. don't sit in pakiland and tell me how the arabs are, please, you're being foolish.
the girls matured faster because social expectations from them were VERY different from today, whats there not to understand?

so your claiming that girls in arabia physically mature faster than the wrest if the world and go on to insult me for not BEING in arabia?!?!?!?!? laughing laughing laughing laughing

are you stupid or what. expectations DONT MATTER, you cant create a sexual being much less a sexual being with a mind PHYSICALLY developed to the point that she can emotionally handle having sex at the age of 9. it CANT BE DONE NO MATTER WHERE YOU ARE. now stop this silliness and learn a little about psychology.

oh, btw, ur also forgetting that 9 year olds cant give consent much less WANT to marry any1. muhammad was a pedophile. deal with it.

inimalist
Originally posted by leonheartmm
^they dont age fast. they are FORCED TO TAKE ON the roles of adults but that has nuthing to do with the development of the body or the brain. it was always pedophelia and was always wrong.

actually, it can cause hormones to rush them through puberty

in the west, we have later puberty than, afaik, they did 100 years ago, but this is largely because people at 12 aren't expected to be labourers.

psych studies show that prolonged childhood development is much better for children, and not forcing their body to rapidly mature is far better than the alternatives.

leonheartmm
^im talking about the emotional development of sex drive etc. puberty alone doesnt do that. males can reach puberty as young as 12 but does that mean that they are emotionally ready to have sex let alone be married OFF???? nope.

and NO1 reaches puberty at 9 simply because they are put in a marriage. thats way too early unless we are discussing very rare cases.

also, the ody of a 12 or 13 year old girl has not PHYSICALLY developed enough to carry and sustain for a child, putting the health of both mother and child at risk, not to mention long term damages.

fact is, relegious rationalisations for such things{and child abuse, as no doubt uve heard on this thread } are pathetic.

inimalist
fair enough. There are different parts of puberty, and I don't even know if the psychological development you are talking about would be best described as such, but I hear you.

leonheartmm
Originally posted by inimalist
fair enough. There are different parts of puberty, and I don't even know if the psychological development you are talking about would be best described as such, but I hear you.

i dont dispute it. i just dont like fallacious arguments with nuthing more than half a grain of truth to be used as raitionalisations by relegious people to justify pedophelia and beating children etc.

Sado22
that's my point, and when you chalk that up to 30-40 life expectancy in extremely tough nomadic life for thousands of years.......i mean lets be hoenst here: child life in nomadic desert lifestyle 600AD for thousands of years>>child labor


i'm insultng you? right...because saying you're being foolish is so much worse than insulting my religion and those of others, insulting the prophets we believe in as pedophiles and tyrants, calling the part of the world i come from an orgy of the biggest sins in the world, saying my religion's the cause of it all and calling me pathetic, strawman etc etc etc because you, oh dear, i presented the flipside to all your beliefs. not to mention the raging generalizations.
you should thank the religion that's taught me to put up with people like you...otherwise you'd be banned a long time ago wink

so, here I'll say it again, pay attention:
when a desert, nomadic lifestyle is the life style norm for thousands of years (because semitic people have always been nomads) the human mind and body, adapt. that's why people in different times of the world and in different parts are different in terms of resistances and strengths and growth. what mentally scars and hampers children today doesn't mean that it would back then...especially if they had spent, not decades, not centuries but MILLENIAS in that envirnoment. imo, that's the crucial bit which no one's considering here. these people had been living that life for thousnads of years. and you adapt when you're doing it for thousands of years. that's just how it is. the best proof of this is that these girls were givig birth at that age too. can girls give birth at nine today? maybe in someparts but generally no. or are you seriously going to suggest that thousands of years of that hardlife and short life expectancy would have no effect on growth, maturity and devlopment?

besides, the fact that girls like Aisha were giving birth is proof that girls at her time were (at least) physically mature enough to marry and have kids and had been for millenias before that.

is that really so hard to grasp?


first, read the paragraph above, carefully.
secondly, you seem to be talking like its a fact. do you have any proof that dolls were only made for little girls and relatively older girls didn't play with them? comicbooks and videogames were invented for kids, were something that ONLY kids played with for the longest time until finally older people began picking them as well and now everyone's playing them. is that so impossible that an older girl couldn't play with dolls in a time when there was nothing for a woman to do besides marry, have children and cook?

but, oh lord, aisha played with dolls so she MUST be immature and a naive little girl despite how girls at her age were maturing faster...to the pont that they were giving birth at the age of 10. you're still thinking from 21st century prespectives.

"dolls are for little girls, therefor aisha was a little girl, mentally and phsyically." you're whole argument is rooted in this claim, a claim that's a guess and based on what you see around you today. its not a historical fact unless i see evidence of it. also i need to see this hadith.

also you totally ignored the whole bt with the comics and vg's. answer me this.

~Sado

leonheartmm
^im isulting your relegion and its founder. but thats not the same as insulting you as a person. i did challenge your arguments because they were ignorant.

dont try to mislead, that is not what you meant, u had{and have} no EXPLANATION for ur claim of girls maturing faster. that is also fact. if the only thing which you can bring to your defence is "they didnt die" than its a pathetic argument, many women hae babies at 13, but you conveniently do not go into the complications of it or the physical and mental effects tha has on them and their babies. instead your using the very fact that aisha cud do it {were never showed what it cost her in sanity physique} as a circular argument for it. i think this is in part due o you not KNOWING about any of the sideaffect and not wanting to know either.

children werer the same back then, they didnt always die{but many a time they did} due to the roles that were put on them. but they suffered just like they wud suffer now if they had to live that sort of lifestyle. human beings have not evolved so significantly in the last millenium that you can make silly rationalisations like "they adapted". its more like "they lived with it". which is not the same as HEALTH. u can live with HIV and torture, does that make it ok to inflict either upon another person??????

beating still hurt them the same as it hurts us, physically and mentally. a 9 year old CHILD at the time was very much identical, biologicall to a 9 year old CHILD today. nuthing can turn a 9 year old into a sexually mature adult.

Sado22
oh please. the moment you insult religion you know, without a doubt, that adherents to that religion will be offended. but you didn't stop there, and continue to one-up yourself by insulted prophets. a while back you (rightly) mentioned that bahnchud was extremely lewd as an insult but somehow you don't seem to have that kind of sensitivity when you speak to people of their religions, which is altogether much more closer to the hearts of the adherents than even blood relations.
don't play double standards game with me. we theists invented double standards! laughing out loud

and again, syaing you're acting foolish is not really an insult. i could always rephrase that as "you're a phucking (fill-in-the-blank)" and now that'd be insulting. and that's exactly why i didn't use it.


1) human body and mind has the ability to adapt to even the hardest of conditions. which is a fact.
2) people have matured, both mentally and physically, at different rates at different times and cultures because of the lifestyles and conditions. which is a fact.
3) the longer the time spent in hard conditions the more we get to adapt. what would be unsurvivable conditions for most people from any other part of the world at any other time period, was home to the semitic people for MILLENIAS.
4) girls were wed in those days at 8-10 years of age due because life expectancy was 30-40 years. its a fact. it doesn't mean pedophilia as we take it today and pedophila itself is subjective. which is also a fact.

think about it: Charlie Chaplain was 30 when he married his first wife who was 16 (and that was pretty common at the time). was that pedophilia? in japan even today 14 is a legal age for girls. now you can argue all your want for it or against it, but in that culture for whatever reason they consider a girl not only physically mature but emotionally mature to handle life. its their culture. but somehow, muhammed becomes a pedophile for marrying a nine year old in his culture fourteen centuries ago because at the tme a girl was considered just as mature and developed as a 14 year old girl is in Japan in the 21st century.

and lastly, i didn't say them not dying was the proof. the proof was that most girls were considered healthy and ready to give birth back then. same way people consider 14 year old girls mature enough in japan today. you see what you're missing?

CULTURAL CONTEXT.


no, you just dont (actually, refuse to) understand how great a role millenias of a particular life style plays in development of the human body and brain. period.

still, thank you for being civil with this post. i may not agree with you but arguments to me are ways to see how your views hold up against those of others. and a chance to learn new things. oh and i probably offended you with some of my comments, as well. my apologizies too.

~Sado

inimalist
Originally posted by Sado22
that's my point, and when you chalk that up to 30-40 life expectancy in extremely tough nomadic life for thousands of years.......i mean lets be hoenst here: child life in nomadic desert lifestyle 600AD for thousands of years>>child labor

I'll give you that

yet, I'd have to say I don't think that it makes it possible for a 9 year old to be psychologically or physically ready for sex.

I wouldn't call Mohammad a pedophile though, as it was a cultural practice and not a sexual compulsion toward children that was behind the marriage. That he had so many other wives who weren't children should attest to that.

peejayd
Originally posted by leonheartmm
correction. PERSONAL ANECDOTES<<<<<<<<<<<<<<accepted theories of child psychology. you obviously know nothing OF child psychology or psychology in general. heck your following extract of anecdotal accounts show that you know nothing of stereotyping or statistics. many people in my society claim the same things, but when you look deeper, you find the hypocrisy and abuse inherent in such societies. you are an ABSOLUTE IDIOT if you think hitting your children makes them love you more

* as i've said, experience >>> child psychology... and no, you are a stubborn person not knowing the limits, just generalizing...

http://raisinggreatkids.com/discipline.htm

* there is a very huge difference between hitting because of discipline, and hitting with no reason at all... stop your idiotic standard of raising kids, that would be your downfall in the end...

Originally posted by leonheartmm
it has been proven time and time again, lately the fact that it allowes and even encourages physical discipline is proof that it is evil.

* you've proven NOTHING! you just said it was proven...

Originally posted by leonheartmm
ofcourse examples of god killing the infants in ancient egypt doesnt hurt the case either.

* because you don't believe in the power of God, Him taking the lives of infants seemed evil to you... but Jesus said:

"But Jesus said, Let the little children come to Me, and do not forbid them; for of such is the kingdom of heaven."
Matthew 19:14

* God gives life, and He can take it away... it's not evil...

Originally posted by leonheartmm
what about the presence of suffering in god's world. why did he make it?

* didn't man made it? can't you blame man instead? man has greed, man can also do wicked things... to answer your question, God made everything beautiful, it was man who ruined it...

Originally posted by leonheartmm
why circumcision?

* your science did not tell you circumcision makes human males healthier? cleaner? you sure are very knowledgeable...

Originally posted by leonheartmm
why punishment for fornication?

* do you know having sexual intercourse without marriage or responsibility results? unwanted pregnancy, unprepared family life, and even results in having multiple sexual partners because you are not even committed to the one you're having sex with... and with multiple sexual partners result in various diseases...

Originally posted by leonheartmm
why an eternity of hellfire if you dont beleive in him?

* proves you know nothing about the teachings of Jesus... God is the Savior of both believers and non-believers, I Timothy 4:10...

Originally posted by leonheartmm
no satisfactory answer here, there, proven. its evil

* nope... you're pawned... stick out tongue

Originally posted by leonheartmm
heck no? so you dont respect the point of view or philsophy of the pedophile? GREAT. uve proven that not all philosophies are worthy of respect,

* this is a technicality... pedophile is an act, it is somewhat weird to say it is a belief... i am on the positive side, and forcing someone into a negative is a blatant fallacy on your part...

Originally posted by leonheartmm
and i dont consider yours to be worth anything respectful.

* because you misunderstood Christianity in the Bible and refuse to accept that there are good things written in there...

Originally posted by leonheartmm
why are you using axtracts from a disproven fairytale to suport the argument that the said fairytale is real? sounds like circular reasoning to me.

* only confirms you know NOTHING about the book you're rejecting... and that's idiocy...

Originally posted by leonheartmm
the bible isnt a FINE book, it makes good people do evil things {circumcision, case in point}

* how could you tell? you know nothing about it... roll eyes (sarcastic)

Originally posted by leonheartmm
and who will judge interpretation? you?

* there are passages in the Bible which are interpreted by other passages within the Bible... if people are just persevere and patient in reading it first before giving wrong interpretations, the outcome would have been better...

Originally posted by leonheartmm
the person calling the earth the centre of the universe can merely claim that ur interpretation is wrong. why wasnt this great book LUCID enough to show which interpretation is right?

* to show who's who... there are false prophets and there is a true messenger of God...

Originally posted by leonheartmm
no its YOU who doesnt get it. miracle=magic=i KNOW it cant be explained but ill still claim that it just HAPPENED, and ill give this sort of nonsense a respectable name which ill claim refers to a completely different phenomenon from causality even though its a thinly veiled attempt to hide the fact that i cant explain it or make sense of it in the only REAL way that exists {i.e. logic/science}.

* to make your long story short, miracles cannot be explained... just admit i am right... so much ego... stick out tongue

Originally posted by leonheartmm
so again, by admitting MIRACLES your admitting that u lose the argument.

* eek! you just said miracles do happen and it cannot be explained... who lost the argument then? roll eyes (sarcastic)

Sado22
yeah, that's cool. i'm not even saying it shouldn't sound weird, just pointing out where people are missing the cultural aspect of it.


agreed.

leonheartmm
Originally posted by Sado22
oh please. the moment you insult religion you know, without a doubt, that adherents to that religion will be offended. but you didn't stop there, and continue to one-up yourself by insulted prophets. a while back you (rightly) mentioned that bahnchud was extremely lewd as an insult but somehow you don't seem to have that kind of sensitivity when you speak to people of their religions, which is altogether much more closer to the hearts of the adherents than even blood relations.
don't play double standards game with me. we theists invented double standards! laughing out loud

and again, syaing you're acting foolish is not really an insult. i could always rephrase that as "you're a phucking (fill-in-the-blank)" and now that'd be insulting. and that's exactly why i didn't use it.


1) human body and mind has the ability to adapt to even the hardest of conditions. which is a fact.
2) people have matured, both mentally and physically, at different rates at different times and cultures because of the lifestyles and conditions. which is a fact.
3) the longer the time spent in hard conditions the more we get to adapt. what would be unsurvivable conditions for most people from any other part of the world at any other time period, was home to the semitic people for MILLENIAS.
4) girls were wed in those days at 8-10 years of age due because life expectancy was 30-40 years. its a fact. it doesn't mean pedophilia as we take it today and pedophila itself is subjective. which is also a fact.

think about it: Charlie Chaplain was 30 when he married his first wife who was 16 (and that was pretty common at the time). was that pedophilia? in japan even today 14 is a legal age for girls. now you can argue all your want for it or against it, but in that culture for whatever reason they consider a girl not only physically mature but emotionally mature to handle life. its their culture. but somehow, muhammed becomes a pedophile for marrying a nine year old in his culture fourteen centuries ago because at the tme a girl was considered just as mature and developed as a 14 year old girl is in Japan in the 21st century.

and lastly, i didn't say them not dying was the proof. the proof was that most girls were considered healthy and ready to give birth back then. same way people consider 14 year old girls mature enough in japan today. you see what you're missing?

CULTURAL CONTEXT.


no, you just dont (actually, refuse to) understand how great a role millenias of a particular life style plays in development of the human body and brain. period.

still, thank you for being civil with this post. i may not agree with you but arguments to me are ways to see how your views hold up against those of others. and a chance to learn new things. oh and i probably offended you with some of my comments, as well. my apologizies too.

~Sado

that is the adherants problem. if they are delusional enough to be unable to tell the difference between them and a philosophy or them and a human who lived over a millienia ago, then i cant help them. how can a person whose been dead for over a millenia be close to you? only through delusions i assume

1. can u adapt to living without air? no u cant

2. no, physical maturation depends on genes, enviornmental factors can force unnatural change but no1 can turn a 9 year old into a sexual human. its forced on them and it has consequences.

3. the more we learn to GET BY, it has nothing to do with age, you can me made to live in a desert if you were taken there at birth. but just like the semetic people, your mortality rate wud go up insanely, simply because your body wasnt meant to live in those conditions.

4. there may be grey areas in pedophelia, but sum1 over 40 marrying a nine year old is black and white. i dont care which age it was, pedphelia is pedophelia just like child abuse is child abuse.

japan is wrong for allowing it and it has a culture of pedophelia in its past. 16 year old is a gray area, 9 year old isnt, nuthing non pathological can make a sexual being out of a nine year old.

no they werent, norms=/= health. MEDICALLY its proven that 9 year old are NOT ready for sex or childbirth, stop debating this.

as for not understanding the role of age, im sorry, but u dont know what you are talking about. i understand evolution and genetics better than you. stop arguing about things u knot nothing about.

leonheartmm
Originally posted by peejayd
* as i've said, experience >>> child psychology... and no, you are a stubborn person not knowing the limits, just generalizing...

http://raisinggreatkids.com/discipline.htm

* there is a very huge difference between hitting because of discipline, and hitting with no reason at all... stop your idiotic standard of raising kids, that would be your downfall in the end...



* you've proven NOTHING! you just said it was proven...



* because you don't believe in the power of God, Him taking the lives of infants seemed evil to you... but Jesus said:

"But Jesus said, Let the little children come to Me, and do not forbid them; for of such is the kingdom of heaven."
Matthew 19:14

* God gives life, and He can take it away... it's not evil...



* didn't man made it? can't you blame man instead? man has greed, man can also do wicked things... to answer your question, God made everything beautiful, it was man who ruined it...



* your science did not tell you circumcision makes human males healthier? cleaner? you sure are very knowledgeable...



* do you know having sexual intercourse without marriage or responsibility results? unwanted pregnancy, unprepared family life, and even results in having multiple sexual partners because you are not even committed to the one you're having sex with... and with multiple sexual partners result in various diseases...



* proves you know nothing about the teachings of Jesus... God is the Savior of both believers and non-believers, I Timothy 4:10...



* nope... you're pawned... stick out tongue



* this is a technicality... pedophile is an act, it is somewhat weird to say it is a belief... i am on the positive side, and forcing someone into a negative is a blatant fallacy on your part...



* because you misunderstood Christianity in the Bible and refuse to accept that there are good things written in there...



* only confirms you know NOTHING about the book you're rejecting... and that's idiocy...



* how could you tell? you know nothing about it... roll eyes (sarcastic)



* there are passages in the Bible which are interpreted by other passages within the Bible... if people are just persevere and patient in reading it first before giving wrong interpretations, the outcome would have been better...



* to show who's who... there are false prophets and there is a true messenger of God...



* to make your long story short, miracles cannot be explained... just admit i am right... so much ego... stick out tongue



* eek! you just said miracles do happen and it cannot be explained... who lost the argument then? roll eyes (sarcastic)

this post is full of hilarity.

i dont CARE what youve said, empericism and observation bot overwhelmingly support the fact that anecdotes<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<accepted/tested psychology {emperical research}. this also shows me that you know NUTHING WHATSOEVER about logic or science.

please dont give me a bullshit site, i cud just start posting links to racist websites, but that wudnt make racism right wud it? hitting is wrong, a violation of rights, and simply evil, stop blabbering and foaming.

ive given you object evidence and lots of it. thats called proof, either reply to it or shut up and concede

i dont care about your rationalisations. you refuse to hold gods by the morals you hold men. that becomes a copout then and you can simply say "it wasnt evi" when KILLING INNOCENT CHILDREN wud be a textbook example of an evil act. it was evil, and u fail to prove otherwise.

god made man and all things that go with him, he also did acts to men and to his sentient creation which were evil, so no, god made evil and made innocents to be put in it to suffer from it and be corrupted by it. i see no reasonable reply from u on this.

MY science???? laughing . there is only THE science and it tells me that circumcision has historically been practices so that children will feel less of an urge to masturbate which is owing to the fact that the skin of the genitals with the greatest number of sensitive nerve endings is removed, which leads to less sexual pleasure on top of other complications like the penis being unable to reach proper erection due to skin stretching and the sensitie glans becoming caratenised due to there being no protective foreskin. its a myth that it keeps you cleaner, if washed well, there are no problems of hygiene with an uncircumcised penis. this shows me that u get all urt information from relegius propagandist sources.

your confusing adultery with fornication. u can fornicate and be commited to one sexual partner. and in that great rant you fail to justify why its PUNISHABLE. {not to mention, showing rampant ignorance of birth control or the fact that single parents can raise psychologically sound children. and 70% of the AIDS in africa is spread INSIDE marriage genius}. things CAN be bad for u and ull suffer the consequences but what the HECK does punishing you on top of it do for you. how is THAT justified. as i said, EVIL.

bull. then why does hell exist? stick out tongue

lmao, at you claiming to pwn any1

its not a technicality. its a flaw in your argument. pedophelic JUSTIFICATION is a philosophy of many pedophiles. you dont respect it. hence proving that not all philosophies deserve respect. i.e. i see no reason to respect yours


false claim. falsified many times in the past few days already

nope, its disproven and i have posted why with material from me and other to which you are unable to reply. ur argument remains circular

nope i know enough about it as i know enough about ur delusions. u r unable to reply again.

false. why do so many sects and so many internal arguments still exist then? thats direct evidence against ur claim.



that doesnt justify its lack of lucidity now does it. {your fond of changing the subtext and not answering questions}

miracles cant be explained because they dont EXIST!

read above. its a god of gaps argument.

Sado22
no, its not. you being rude has nothing to do with their belief. you just need to get you act together. period. and the fact that you insist that no one can love someone who died 1000 years before them shows how close minded you are when it comes to religion. heck, you're missing out on the fundamentals here laughing out loud


air is vital for survival and is not a variable. social conditions are variables. so are life styles. fail.


you answered it yourself: genes
unnatural from todays standards and from another cultural point of view. at the tme it was the norm.


provided I am an outsider to that culture. just because i was taken there as a baby doesn't make me used to it. but living there for 1000's of years, however, does. BIG DIFFERENCE. same way arabs have serious troubles when they go to switzerland and other cold places because after thousands of years of living in the desert life, there bodies aren't used to that kind of cold. and another example: the native indians were practically destroyed when they were introduced to alcohol by the settlers. why? because after millenias living an alcohol-free life, there system had extremely weak defenses against it.
once again, you show a complete failure to understand "life styles".


no. its not pedophilia because:
1) he had other wives
2) people in his culture married girls at the age
more fail.


so now you decide what pedophilia is? got news for you: entire nations and cultures don't base their ideas of right and wrong on the opinions of an opinionated, spiteful, ex-muslim, 21 year old who takes himself too seriously.


medically proven today to not work on the bodies of girls today. not back then. understand that things were different 14 centuries ago.


i doubt it unless you prove it. just cuz you visit wiki doesn't make you an expert on the subject anymore than it does me. you're the guy drawing an analogy between human adaptibility to social changes and the dependence of life on oxygen.

~Sado

Phantom Zone
Originally posted by Sado22


first, read the paragraph above, carefully.

Sorry mate I dont think I need to.


Originally posted by Sado22

secondly, you seem to be talking like its a fact. do you have any proof that dolls were only made for little girls and relatively older girls didn't play with them?

Bruv I used the word adult I didnt use the word girl. I know that dolls werent made for adults because there are no examples of Aisha playing with dolls when she was an adult and any other of Mohammeds wives.

Originally posted by Sado22

comicbooks and videogames were invented for kids, were something that ONLY kids played with for the longest time until finally older people began picking them as well and now everyone's playing them. is that so impossible that an older girl couldn't play with dolls in a time when there was nothing for a woman to do besides marry, have children and cook?


Sorry mate I used the word adult.

Originally posted by Sado22

but, oh lord, aisha played with dolls so she MUST be immature and a naive little girl despite how girls at her age were maturing faster...to the pont that they were giving birth at the age of 10. you're still thinking from 21st century prespectives.


No actually im not im looking at the culture of the arabs at that time and in those days adults didnt play with dolls children did.

Originally posted by Sado22

"dolls are for little girls, therefor aisha was a little girl, mentally and phsyically." you're whole argument is rooted in this claim, a claim that's a guess and based on what you see around you today. its not a historical fact unless i see evidence of it. also i need to see this hadith.


I was a muslim for six years and I heard about on numerous ocassions interestingy enough I had no problem finding it on the web, the thing is you say that you've done reaserach but never heard of it, sorry mate thats not impressive at all. In fact I could probably go into a mosque rioght now and somebody could probably tell me about it.

http://www.usc.edu/schools/college/crcc/engagement/resources/texts/muslim/hadith/bukhari/073.sbt.html

Translation of Sahih Bukhari, Book 73:
Good Manners and Form (Al-Adab)

Volume 8, Book 73, Number 151:
Narrated 'Aisha:


I used to play with the dolls in the presence of the Prophet, and my girl friends also used to play with me. When Allah's Apostle used to enter (my dwelling place) they used to hide themselves, but the Prophet would call them to join and play with me. (The playing with the dolls and similar images is forbidden, but it was allowed for 'Aisha at that time, as she was a little girl, not yet reached the age of puberty.) (Fateh-al-Bari page 143, Vol.13)



Originally posted by Sado22


also you totally ignored the whole bt with the comics and vg's. answer me this.

~Sado

No i didnt I already explained that its common practice in our culture for adults to play computer games and read comics....or alot of adults do, its not common practice for adult to play with dolls in arab times.

leonheartmm
Originally posted by Sado22
no, its not. you being rude has nothing to do with their belief. you just need to get you act together. period. and the fact that you insist that no one can love someone who died 1000 years before them shows how close minded you are when it comes to religion. heck, you're missing out on the fundamentals here laughing out loud


air is vital for survival and is not a variable. social conditions are variables. so are life styles. fail.


you answered it yourself: genes
unnatural from todays standards and from another cultural point of view. at the tme it was the norm.


provided I am an outsider to that culture. just because i was taken there as a baby doesn't make me used to it. but living there for 1000's of years, however, does. BIG DIFFERENCE. same way arabs have serious troubles when they go to switzerland and other cold places because after thousands of years of living in the desert life, there bodies aren't used to that kind of cold. and another example: the native indians were practically destroyed when they were introduced to alcohol by the settlers. why? because after millenias living an alcohol-free life, there system had extremely weak defenses against it.
once again, you show a complete failure to understand "life styles".


no. its not pedophilia because:
1) he had other wives
2) people in his culture married girls at the age
more fail.


so now you decide what pedophilia is? got news for you: entire nations and cultures don't base their ideas of right and wrong on the opinions of an opinionated, spiteful, ex-muslim, 21 year old who takes himself too seriously.


medically proven today to not work on the bodies of girls today. not back then. understand that things were different 14 centuries ago.


i doubt it unless you prove it. just cuz you visit wiki doesn't make you an expert on the subject anymore than it does me. you're the guy drawing an analogy between human adaptibility to social changes and the dependence of life on oxygen.

~Sado

the fundamentals are stupid, thats whats proven.

so you accept that there are things humans cant adapt to. cool.

u dont understand genetics. major changes in sexual maturation dont coome about in 1.5 millenium, looking at the selective pressures.

this is not due to genes, this is due to conditioning and nurture. what you are referring to is presence of anitibodies and memory cells in the immune system, different ball game from genetics and sexual maturation.


culture doesnt matter, married people who take advantage of 9 year olds are still pedophiles. muhammad was a pedophile.

i dont, medicine and tested psychology does. 9 year olds are not sexual beings.

9 year olds werent sexual beings 1400 years ago, if u understood genetics and sexual pressures, ud know this.

i have an undergrad knowledge of genetics.

Placidity
Originally posted by leonheartmm

this is not due to genes, this is due to conditioning and nurture. what you are referring to is presence of anitibodies and memory cells in the immune system, different ball game from genetics and sexual maturation.


Mind if I ask what you were addressing here? I looked at the quoted post, but I just couldn't think of where antibodies and memory cells fit in.

you get thorns
If God knew that Satan would rebel and Adam and Eve would sin, why did He create?









Everyone needs a hobby.

Sado22
this does squat in giving you an excuse for being rude. i find arguing with you extremely annoying and redundant. i hate people who make me repeat myself. i particularly hate egocentric, self-righteous people who go around expecting everyone to think and behave like them. i also don't like people tellig me something is a fact when they aren't giving me the required evidence. and i detest double-standards of any kind which your showing in being sensitive about a swear word that's literally lost all weightage in terms of context but feel its okay to insult christians and muslims (people who happen to make up at least 40% of the world populaton btw). but most of all i hate people who needlessly insult religions. you're guilty of all this and more. but i'm still keeping myself in line.

so, please, spare me the lame excuses.


no one's talkinga about 1.5 millenium. we're talking about people who've been there for several of them. egypt alone has a recorded history of 6 millenias. these guys have been around for a very, very long time...and living that kind of lifestyle for as long.


you seem to deliberately dodge around the issue about where these studies that you're so fond of bringing up were carried out. time period and locaton is essential in the study of human beings and their development...a point you're continuously missing and refusing to acknowledge. just because a study carried out on one portion of human civilization and in 21st century gives statistic doesn't mean they apply to people several centuries before and in different part of the world. human phsyiology is different from time to time and place to place.
to deny this is stupidity.
we all know that child labor is bad. it is. but kids were doing it, doing it before that and centuries before that were even fighting in wars at the age of 13 or even lesser. the fact remains that children going to war is not physiologically a +ve things, but at the same time, fact also remains that kids did it, could do it and probably still can (some pathan children in the run-down areas, for example, are good shooters of the rifle before they even hit 13). that's where human adaptability comes in...the bit you're refusing to acknowledge.
also, not to mention that arabs living 1400 years ago had no way of knowing this. same way people as late a few centures ago didn't know that marriage to closer family relatives is bad. like i've been saying for quite a while: culture makes all the difference. put your personal agendas aside for a change and just read waht the other person is saying.
and AGAIN, its not like illiterate arabs sitting 1400 years in the middle of a desert were supposed to know that. heck, until a few centuries ago people were still going around thinking that the woman is responsible for the sex of the child and not the man.

culture. makes all the difference.


...about the whole reason why some people are telling me to stop bothering with you roll eyes (sarcastic)


culture makes all the difference. you're just being stubborn.
i find it funny that ex-muslims seem to be more fiesty in such debates while regular agnostics and atheists are calmer, more open to ideas and on the whole more aware of things. personal agendas getting the better of you? laughing out loud


proof.
not to mention:
1) there's no way arabs would've known this 1400 years ago and good luck convincing people they did
2) the entire issue of culture and life style that you deliberately pretend doesn't exist.
3) the fact the people have physiological weaknesses and strengths based on lifestyles they've had, especialy for how long they've had it


i.e. you took a science course in undergrad and are no authority.

phuck undergrad. i took a course in arts history, arabic, psychology, philosophy, economics, calculus, physics, stats, took several courses of linguistics...and i'm no authority on any of it. heck, i'm not an authority on even english literature which was my major.

~Sado

peejayd
Originally posted by leonheartmm
this post is full of hilarity.

* so are yours...

Originally posted by leonheartmm
i dont CARE what youve said, empericism and observation bot overwhelmingly support the fact that anecdotes<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<accepted/tested psychology {emperical research}. this also shows me that you know NUTHING WHATSOEVER about logic or science.

* you don't care because you're wrong... my point still stands, real human experience >>> YOUR so-called child psychology...

Originally posted by leonheartmm
please dont give me a bullshit site, i cud just start posting links to racist websites, but that wudnt make racism right wud it? hitting is wrong, a violation of rights, and simply evil, stop blabbering and foaming.

* child's right is not violated by child discipline... insert that in your thick skull, bro...

Originally posted by leonheartmm
ive given you object evidence and lots of it. thats called proof, either reply to it or shut up and concede

* your assumptions and idiotic moral standards are not proof...

Originally posted by leonheartmm
i dont care about your rationalisations. you refuse to hold gods by the morals you hold men. that becomes a copout then and you can simply say "it wasnt evi" when KILLING INNOCENT CHILDREN wud be a textbook example of an evil act. it was evil, and u fail to prove otherwise.

* do not compare God to man... when man kills, it's evil... when God takes the life, it's not evil because He is the provider of life in the first place... and why argue? you don't believe in God, so what's bugging you? roll eyes (sarcastic)

Originally posted by leonheartmm
god made man and all things that go with him, he also did acts to men and to his sentient creation which were evil, so no, god made evil and made innocents to be put in it to suffer from it and be corrupted by it. i see no reasonable reply from u on this.

* God gave man the freedom to do and choose anything man likes... the decision lies in the hands of man...

Originally posted by leonheartmm
MY science???? laughing . there is only THE science and it tells me that circumcision has historically been practices so that children will feel less of an urge to masturbate which is owing to the fact that the skin of the genitals with the greatest number of sensitive nerve endings is removed, which leads to less sexual pleasure on top of other complications like the penis being unable to reach proper erection due to skin stretching and the sensitie glans becoming caratenised due to there being no protective foreskin. its a myth that it keeps you cleaner, if washed well, there are no problems of hygiene with an uncircumcised penis. this shows me that u get all urt information from relegius propagandist sources.

* shut up and read this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_analysis_of_circumcision

* only proves how stubborn you really are...

Originally posted by leonheartmm
your confusing adultery with fornication. u can fornicate and be commited to one sexual partner. and in that great rant you fail to justify why its PUNISHABLE. {not to mention, showing rampant ignorance of birth control or the fact that single parents can raise psychologically sound children. and 70% of the AIDS in africa is spread INSIDE marriage genius}. things CAN be bad for u and ull suffer the consequences but what the HECK does punishing you on top of it do for you. how is THAT justified. as i said, EVIL.

* no, YOU are just confused... adultery is probably one of the most possible result of fornication... sex should have responsibility, not a trail and error...

Originally posted by leonheartmm
bull. then why does hell exist? stick out tongue

* really proves you know nothing of the book you're bashing...

"For to this end we both labor and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Savior of all men, especially of those who believe."
I Timothy 4:10

* why does hell exist? so you think God created it to put man in there? that's what's bull... here, learn:

"Then He will also say to those on the left hand, Depart from Me, you cursed, into the everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels:"
Matthew 25:41

* hell is created for satan and his angels (demons)... the only time a person would be sent there if he blatantly and willfully disobeys/rejects God and His teachings... but since He desires all men to be saved, He forgives:

"If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness."
I John 1:9

"Blessed are those whose lawless deeds are forgiven, And whose sins are covered;
Blessed is the man to whom the Lord shall not impute sin."
Romans 4:7-8

Originally posted by leonheartmm
its not a technicality. its a flaw in your argument. pedophelic JUSTIFICATION is a philosophy of many pedophiles. you dont respect it.

* if you are talking about pedophiles... hence, pedophilia is an act, NOT a belief... your argument is the one which is flawed...

Originally posted by leonheartmm
hence proving that not all philosophies deserve respect. i.e. i see no reason to respect yours

* because of pedophilia? how low can you get? roll eyes (sarcastic)

Originally posted by leonheartmm
false claim. falsified many times in the past few days already

* falsified by persons like you, care to listen to explanations? nope... you are already accepted the falsifications as facts...

peejayd
Originally posted by leonheartmm
nope, its disproven and i have posted why with material from me and other to which you are unable to reply. ur argument remains circular

* unable to reply?



* in John 10:30, context implies Jesus said He is also a God like the Father, which is true according to the Bible, as supported by other verses:

"Who, being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God,"
Philippians 2:6

* the Father and Christ are equal in form... but in greatness, and also because Christ was manifested in the flesh, the Father is greater than Christ, in fact, Christ was made a little lower than angels:

"You have made him a little lower than the angels; You have crowned him with glory and honor, And set him over the works of Your hands."
Hebrews 2:7

* so John 10:30 and John 14:28 are not contradictory verses...



* God did not curse an ordinary snake/serpent... it was satan:

"So the great dragon was cast out, that serpent of old, called the Devil and Satan, who deceives the whole world; he was cast to the earth, and his angels were cast out with him."
Revelation 12:9



* while it was recorded that prophet Elijah was taken to heaven by a whirlwind, Jesus is speaking of a different heaven... in the letter of Saint Paul, it was revealed that:

"I know a man in Christ who fourteen years ago--whether in the body I do not know, or whether out of the body I do not know, God knows--such a one was caught up to the third heaven.
How he was caught up into Paradise and heard inexpressible words, which it is not lawful for a man to utter."
II Corinthians 12:2, 4

* there is a third heaven - the Paradise - where the kingdom of God is, and is the one Jesus was talking about...

* all of these are just examples of how i can somehow manage to explain to you the so-called "contradictions" of the Bible... so, am i unable to reply? nope... just like i said, it is really unnecessary for me to explain it to you knowing that you will not accept it...

Originally posted by leonheartmm
nope i know enough about it as i know enough about ur delusions. u r unable to reply again.

* what you know is not enough...

Originally posted by leonheartmm
false. why do so many sects and so many internal arguments still exist then? thats direct evidence against ur claim.

"Be diligent to present yourself approved to God, a worker who does not need to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth."
II Timothy 2:15

* because they are false prophets who do not know how to rightly divide the word of truth... when it comes to religion, faith, etc., the basis is the Scriptures... those who are not in accordance with what was written are fraud...

Originally posted by leonheartmm
that doesnt justify its lack of lucidity now does it. {your fond of changing the subtext and not answering questions}

* oh yes, it does justify:

"And He said to them, To you it has been given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God; but to those who are outside, all things come in parables,"
Mark 4:11

Originally posted by leonheartmm
miracles cant be explained because they dont EXIST!

read above. its a god of gaps argument.

* because you can't explain something, does not mean it does not exist... science cannot explain everything... you need to accept that... wink

alltoomany
Sounds like the mother who makes her kids sick and then makes them better or the father that is hardly home when he is the family worships him. Kind of SICK if you ask me!

The MISTER
Omniscience is not something that is within our ability to understand and the same thing goes for anything that is infinite. To assume that God created a perfect free will in creatures that he said he would make in his image, and then knew everything that they would do is strange to me. There's no reason to think that God is powerless over how much he knows about any specific thing. If he is omnipotent then he has power over what he knows and doesn't know. The situation with the angels may have been his first time giving a will similar to his to a creation of his.

An infinite power that does as it pleases set all of this in motion and I doubt that we have what it takes to understand the motivation to do that much further than, it wanted to love truly and to be loved truly. True love is chosen not forced/preordained.

Digi
Who bumped this crap?

The entire premise of "Here's a question nobody asked or probably cares about, but I'm going to enlighten all of you by giving you my answer" is pretentious and dumb.

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by Digi
Who bumped this crap?

The entire premise of "Here's a question nobody asked or probably cares about, but I'm going to enlighten all of you by giving you my answer" is pretentious and dumb.

Ha ha ha, time to close the entire forum. wink

Astner

Digi
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Ha ha ha, time to close the entire forum. wink

thumb up
Not your worst idea.

dadudemon
Originally posted by Astner
According to the Bible, Satan clearly had free will, and the most viable solution I can find to this problem is that God knowledge is a function of free will.

Meaning that he has foreseen both the scenario where Satan would sin and the scenario where he wouldn't sin. What scenario will play out depends on Satan.

But again, it's definition dependent. As soon as you define your questions properly you'd probably be able to answer them more specifically.

Excellent insight and intelligently stated. thumb up

The MISTER
Originally posted by Digi
Who bumped this crap?

The entire premise of "Here's a question nobody asked or probably cares about, but I'm going to enlighten all of you by giving you my answer" is pretentious and dumb. I don't get what you're reffering to, I'm guessing maybe my post?

The MISTER
I get what you were saying now Digi. As much as I post on kmc I'm still a rookie. laughing out loud

Digi
Originally posted by The MISTER
I get what you were saying now Digi. As much as I post on kmc I'm still a rookie. laughing out loud

It actually wasn't you that bumped it. But I just think this whole thread's premise is pretentious.

the ninjak
I'm a fan of fiction and decided to one day as a child to undertake disassembling this tale.

I reckon Adam and Eve were just animals that existed in the purity of bestial awareness. They were one with nature until they could make their own choices on a level that it could be written or conversed.
The second they were ashamed of their "nakedness" they become separated from the purity of nature. Not necessarily a bad thing, being separated from paradise. But a venture forward.

The Devil as far as I'm concerned, one of God's favored angels deciding to rebel against his reign is a beautiful eventuality and analogy.
Lucifer rebelled with many angels against God when God told the angels that they must love the physical beings with "free will" and that understandably enraged them.

Why love such lowly faulty beings when God had perfect beings already?

But the creation of the Physical Plane after God's creation of a "perfect plan" and the creatures that would inhabit it was inescapable and inevitable. It makes sense that a perfect angel would be angered by its own father's intent to allow the same amount of love onto such lowly creatures as itself. And the war happened.

Whether we perceive God forcing those angels into a pocket dimension to harness the disdain and existence of such creatures as cruel is up to the individual.

I always found these tales to be fascinating. And broke it down to...
"You can't have the good without the bad."

the ninjak
bump

Greatest I am

S_W_LeGenD

Greatest I am

Symmetric Chaos
Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
To claim that people have invented God as a controlling tool is a logical fallacy because people (can) control other people through their own power and influence.

That's not a logical fallacy, in fact its the opposite.

Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
Fact is that people are always in search of truth. Human's infatuation with God never dies for a good reason; the most recent example being searching for what is dubbed as "the God particle" through one of the biggest (or the biggest) scientific experiments ever conducted thus far.

The Higgs boson has nothing to do with religion whatsoever.

Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
It makes sense to "play safe" by being a believer.

How does a person choose what to believe? Could you wake up one morning believing that Vishnu is lord and the next day wake up certain that Odin is the true creator? Belief isn't an act of will.

Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
Rational thinking is that we aren't all-knowing and that we should be cautious about our actions and choices; if "surprises" are to be expected after-death, why take chances?

Belief and non-belief are equally risky in this system. Remember, you've already accepted ignorance. There are innumerable gods who might punish us for anything. There are infinite gods who will reward atheism and infinite gods who will reward theism.

Oliver North
Originally posted by Greatest I am
That is called Stockholm syndrome and you should have that looked at.

no, its not even close...

753
Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
Strange question!

God have granted "freedom" to all of his (biological) creations; just observe the wild-life to figure this out. However, "human being" can make the best out of this "freedom" due to being equipped with excellent brain. God have created us (humans) to test us; granted use the opportunity to figure out the "truth" ourselves.
I'm too lazy to go into the mechanics of the free will dellusion right now, but not, just no.

there is nothing fallacious about it. the fact that power can be exercised over others by means other than religious indoctrination does not mean that religion is not a very effective ideological tool for controlling people's behavior. it most certainly does not prove anything about the origins of religion one way or another.

"the god damned particle", as it was called because no one could find it, was dubbed the god particle by idiots ignoring its whimsical backstory in an atempt to sensationalize it. it has nothing to do with god.
and so you believe in god out of fear it might exist, which is pathetic, but what's worse, you ignore, as sym pointed out, that there are countless different concepts of deities. what if you are worhipping the wrong one and it's angry at you for it?

yeah, all the more evidence that god is a fabrication upon which we impose our own traits and limitations such as volition, creativity and curiosity.

Greatest I am
Thanks all.

Regards
DL

Omega Vision
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos

There are infinite gods who will reward atheism .
DC Lucifer represent.

atv2
It would be too boring living alone. Life would be too easy if it had total obedience and God would still be alone because it would still be him and not the individual. He gave us free will so we could choose a life of our own regardless of the consequences.

Greatest I am
Originally posted by atv2
It would be too boring living alone. Life would be too easy if it had total obedience and God would still be alone because it would still be him and not the individual. He gave us free will so we could choose a life of our own regardless of the consequences.


I agree that we have free will but disagree with the foolish notion that it is given to us by some genocidal son murdering God.

Any free will that we could all possibly have was annulled when your immoral fool of a God gave Satan control of our minds with his God given ability to deceive the whole world.

This is irrefutable if you are a literal reader.

Regards
DL

atv2
Originally posted by Greatest I am
I agree that we have free will but disagree with the foolish notion that it is given to us by some genocidal son murdering God.

Any free will that we could all possibly have was annulled when your immoral fool of a God gave Satan control of our minds with his God given ability to deceive the whole world.

This is irrefutable if you are a literal reader.

Regards
DL

Free will, Regardless of the consequences.

atv2
Originally posted by atv2
Free will, Regardless of the consequences.

...Then again there was the demon possessed child he had no choice it was the demon that controlled him until Jesus came by and delivered him.

Sin keeps us from life.

Our sins keep us from living the life that God intended for us. None of us could make it on our own we need Christ to give us that direction.

atv2
Originally posted by atv2
...Then again there was the demon possessed child he had no choice it was the demon that controlled him until Jesus came by and delivered him.

Sin keeps us from life.

Our sins keep us from living the life that God intended for us. None of us could make it on our own we need Christ to give us that direction.

and even that is our choice.

atv2
Originally posted by atv2
and even that is our choice.

We all have a choice in who we serve. However being raised in an atmosphere can put a hold on someone because they didn't have knowledge of what they were in to.

Knowledge brings freedom and ignorance brings bondage.

S_W_LeGenD

S_W_LeGenD
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
That's not a logical fallacy, in fact its the opposite.
God is connected with mankind since the beginning of human race. The very first humans; Adam & Eve were believers.

If somebody invented God as a controlling tool, as per your argument, then who was this guy? Any specific name in mind?

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
The Higgs boson has nothing to do with religion whatsoever.
I know! My point is that man's infatuation with God never ends; scientists are interested in discovering God through scientific means, if they are given the opportunity.

God have interacted with humans through his agents (e.g. prophets) in different eras/ages to let them know about his existence (true nature) and guide them to the right path-ideal code of conduct for livelihood for humans-from time to time. However, this kind of interaction have ended many centuries ago. Still, this doesn't means that God have abandoned us. God have given us sufficient information concerning him and us till date. God have planned a special event for mankind; Judgment Day (en event during which all humans will be judged for their deeds and dealt with accordingly). This would be the event when man's tenure on Earth will come to end. As apparent from history of life on Earth; many species face extinction so mankind is not likely exempt from this fate in Earth.

Now it is up to the people to accept or reject God's revelations and the clock to judgment day is ticking. Not surprisingly, people continue to stray from the right path and many have switched to Atheism. It is hinted in the Holy Quran that a large chunk of people will be shitting in their pants during the Judgment Day (details below).

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
How does a person choose what to believe? Could you wake up one morning believing that Vishnu is lord and the next day wake up certain that Odin is the true creator? Belief isn't an act of will.
If multiple Gods existed, then mankind may have witnessed power struggles between them as depicted in Hollywood movies based on ancient Greek mythologies. In addition, Universe would have been very unstable place under the shadow of multiple Gods. So how would mankind have served multiple Gods if all of them were out to get us?

It makes sense to believe in the existence of one true God (a supremely powerful and intelligent entity which controls everything it created). The Universe represents a gigantic system which is flawless and/or highly successful in its operation. Something must be controlling and stabilizing such a big system. Without such a controlling body, the Universe may go haywire. Just consider the example of a nation; a nation have a controlling body within it (i.e. Federal Government). Without such controlling body, a nation will descend in to state of chaos and anarchy. Same logic may apply to a gigantic system such as the Universe.

The entity have interacted with mankind in different eras via its agents (people chosen from within us who are dubbed as prophets); every prophet gave the same message: their is only one God. Such interaction with mankind have stopped for a while but it will happen again in the future during an event known as the Judgment Day. During this event, the entity known as God will reveal itself to the mankind and non-believers will be dumbstruck but it will be too late for them.

Learn more about Judgment Day event from here: http://www.onislam.net/english/shariah/quran/this-verse/457089-the-quran-on-the-judgment-day.html

You stated that belief is not an act of will; it actually is. God have given all humans the opportunity to believe in him. Choice is ours; this is the ultimate test.

You get one life; don't waste it and/or take massive risk in it.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Belief and non-belief are equally risky in this system. Remember, you've already accepted ignorance. There are innumerable gods who might punish us for anything. There are infinite gods who will reward atheism and infinite gods who will reward theism.
See above.

Multiple Gods cannot co-exist and mankind cannot serve them all.

Greatest I am
Originally posted by atv2
and even that is our choice.

You have tunnel vision and want to preach your garbage religion instead of actually discussing it. You ignore the fact that your God gave Satan the power to deceive us all and thus control of our choices and free will.

If all you will do is deny without an argument against this then you are just another literalist fool.

Regards
DL

Greatest I am
Originally posted by atv2
We all have a choice in who we serve. However being raised in an atmosphere can put a hold on someone because they didn't have knowledge of what they were in to.

Knowledge brings freedom and ignorance brings bondage.

What freedom did eating from the tree of knowledge come to A & E?

You seem to be endorsing the notion that they should have done what they did.

For A & E to not eat from the T O K would have been denying themselves freedom. Right?

Regards
DL

Greatest I am
Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
Thanks


God didn't kill them (if this is what you are implying?). God punished Adam & Eve for disobeying him and sent them to Earth. In a mystery world called "heaven," Adam & Eve were living comfortably but the situation was different in Earth; Adam & Eve had to work hard for survival and this trend continuous to this day within mankind in Earth.


God have absolute control over life and death matters but he have blessed us (humans) with free will and great intelligence. Just look at the situation of mankind in current times; people around the world are committing all kinds of sins/forbidden acts and yet God continuous to tolerate.

It is foolish to judge God harshly. Humans misuse their free will; God judges in response.


I don't see your point here... confused


No


Faith distinguishes a human from an animal.

It is foolish to not judge God with whatever intelligence you say he gave you as you end following a genocidal son murdering God and think him good.

So much for your Christian morality.

We have no place to go from here since you have made up some new version of Genesis.

Regards
DL

juggerman
Well if you believe Jesus was God then God is not "son murdering" but is in fact "self sacrificing".

Omega Vision
Wouldn't it be more like letting your MMORPG avatar get killed?

juggerman
Nice i was actually thinking something like that laughing out loud

Bentley
Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
Faith distinguishes a human from an animal.

Now does it? Maybe you mean that animals don't need Faith because they are our superiors.

Greatest I am
Originally posted by juggerman
Well if you believe Jesus was God then God is not "son murdering" but is in fact "self sacrificing".

Where in scriptures does it say that God can die and or sacrifice himself?

Only a really bloated ego will think that a God would die for his slaves nad not have the slaves die for him.

Regards
DL

juggerman
Originally posted by Greatest I am
Where in scriptures does it say that God can die and or sacrifice himself?

Only a really bloated ego will think that a God would die for his slaves nad not have the slaves die for him.

Regards
DL

Jesus says several times that He and God are one, that He is God, that He was there at the beginning and other things that point to him being God.

Only if you look at it from one viewpoint. It's made clear in Scripture that we are looked at as his children, not slaves. Humans would die for their children, granted not all would, so why is it unbelievable that the one who molded us would?

Mindset
Jesus isn't God, brobeans.

<< THERE IS MORE FROM THIS THREAD HERE >>