Satenza

Go, get an induction, they give you a training route and follow that.

As long as there is fear in death, religion will be here.

http://www.gamesradar.com/us/xbox360/ga ... 1450783004

Look at what I said, I accepted that this wasn't the case if he beleived in him out of faith. If i edited that today it would have a little "last edited by Satenza" and the time in which i did. Which it clearly does not. Edit: So please edit your posts where you wrongly attack me and try to diminish my credibility.

He says he beleives in God, and he beleives in the absolute truth in the Bible. So therefore it's obvious he beleives in God because of the Bible, or has faith that God exists. From that he beleives the Bible to be absolute truth because he beleives in God. It's not misrepresenting anything, it's laying his beliefs down to show the circular reasoning that it entails.

Well, I was born in a christian home. So you'd might be thinking I have been brainwashed. To some extent I think I have been, as I've been hearing a lot of christians talk since birth. On one hand I question if it's just because I was born a christian that I am one today. However, I do know both people who were born christian who aren't christian today and I also know people who weren't born christian who are christian today. I just think that the odds of becoming a christian are greater if you're exposed to a lot of christianity. That's of course just speculation. I haven't been taking my religion that seriosuly until the last few years though. But I've always believed in the back of my head that there is a God. Jesus says that it's better to be hot or cold than lukewarm. So I try to be not just christian on the outside but also on the inside. The Bible is fully correct since it's inspired by God. There are some parts of it I have trouble understanding. And sometimes I feel that God isn't always fair. But most often I hear a better interpretation of what I've read from a theologist who really has studied the Bible. And then it makes more sense. However, that's almost exclusively detalis that I'm confused about. The important meaning of the Bible, why we are here, were we're going, what Jesus has done and why he had to come and die for us is rather clear to me. But the whole thing makes no sense at all if you don't believe. It's most certainly the key to understanding the bible. Can't you see the problem with your reasoning? 1. God exists because it says so in the Bible. 2. The Bible is true because it was inspired by God. 3. God exists because it says so in the Bible, and the Bible is true because God exists. It's circular and therefore illogical to have such an absolute belief in this. So your belief in God probably stems from the fact that you were indoctrinated to beleive the Bible is absolute truth, or you have a feeling that he exists in the same form he does within the Bible. AKA Faith, and faith means nothing. So you have only an illogical belief that your God exists or faith, which is nothing. You have no reason other than indoctrination to beleive in God, unless you beleive in him for another reason.

Why do you beleive that the Bible is fully correct, when did you become religious?

I think he's saying the story of Genesis is symbolic so that the writer could convey the creation to the people of the world then who could not understand things such as evolution as there was no way of gaining such emprical evidence to support it. It's much easier to throw all creation onto God at the time and have people worship rather than puzzle their minds with something they couldn't understand. However, any beleif in the Bible is completley circular and holds no empirical sense of truth. So i don't see how people can base their morality and lives on such a book which often shows a flawed sense of morality in the followers or a picking and choosing follower. Which isn't really a follower at all in my opinion. They don't beleive 100%? They don't need the Bible to teach them common sense.

Messing with nature to prevent disabilities is one thing, creating half human half sheep is completley different. It's disgusting to play with nature to the extent that it may come too.

Yes, they don't deserve to die. No-one deserves to die. I'm just sick of the media holding articles such as "Young mother killed while serving in Iraq" to paint the Government in a bad light, when she made that choice and took that risk when signing up for the army.

You would be fine killing a clone? When they are alive just as you are, thats discraceful.

They signed up to be in the Army, they knew what the job entails.

I dislike all this playing with nature.

It was a straight forward question: These are purley biological aspects as to why you think it's wrong in regards to my question which specificallys asks why you think it's wrong in a moral aspect. How is that taken out of context. I'm not walking you into a box, you have done that by yourself. Which shows how clearly flawed what you deem to be morality is.

Homosexuality: God created Man and Woman. And let's look at it from an anatomy angle. The plumbing doesn't fit. Abortion: All are created through God through conception. That means the Zygote is a living creature in God's eyes from the moment of gestation. List some more. PS: You are starting to generalize again. So, lets lay this down the line. Homosexuality is wrong because it doesn't follow a biological way. Thats what you define right and wrong by? This must be it since you already told me that the Bible is outdated and we can't take what it says to be literal. ...When did I say that? The Bible is full of literal truth and figurative lessons. If you actually read the Bible, study it, and take into context, you can actually learn when to take the Bible literally, and when to take it figuratively. Well, you said; So it is of your opinion that all of the Bible can't be taken for fact. You pick and choose what is a "moral lesson" and what is not. So thats your interpretation of it, you don't follow some passages as absolute truth you pick and choose. Showing that what you beleive isn't divine in any aspect but an interpretation as to whether it is true or not. The reasons you have given as to why homosexuality is wrong is; 1. Because it says so in the Bible But you admitted that you don't take it all literally, and choose for yourself, making all of what the Bible says underquestion as to if it is true or not. So you assume that this verse is fact = Your interpretation, not neccessarlity the truth. 2. Because it's wrong Biologically. Meaning that you define morality by what is right and what is not right in a biological aspect.

Homosexuality: God created Man and Woman. And let's look at it from an anatomy angle. The plumbing doesn't fit. Abortion: All are created through God through conception. That means the Zygote is a living creature in God's eyes from the moment of gestation. List some more. PS: You are starting to generalize again. So, lets lay this down the line. Homosexuality is wrong because it doesn't follow a biological way. Thats what you define right and wrong by? This must be it since you already told me that the Bible is outdated and we can't take what it says to be literal.

There's no risk involved. Except the risk of death. Which i will face if I am wrong. Hmm. Duke's the editor! *runs*

I'm willing to bet anyone my entire life it isn't Duke.

Why are they not to be taken literally, because you said so? Are you interpreting the Bible to not take these literally. So you, a fundementalist falliable being is interpreting the Bible and then living your life to the degree's in which you interpret it by. You have just shown how you don't follow the Bible you follow your interpretation of it, because you don't like some parts of it, and choose to palm them off as moral plays. I am better than stooping to annoying Bible passage recitals, however in this case it was needed to show a point. And you don't take 4000-6000 year old quotes and shape them into your meanings? Thats what fundemantalism is all about. How can you say "Oh, those are moral plays" then at the same time say your fundementalist, and then at the same time as that say you can't apply old quotes to modern day. Thats ridiculous. Can you Bari, tell my why Homosexuality, Abortion and every act you deem to be immoral is wrong?

Yes, Jesus was a lot less cruel and unjust than God but he still had his moments; Luke 12:47 "That servant who knows his master's will and does not get ready or does not do what his master wants will be beaten with many blows" Matthew 15:4-7 "For God said, 'Honor your father and mother' and 'Anyone who curses his father or mother must be put to death.'" Revelation 2:22-23 "So I will cast her on a bed of suffering, and I will make those who commit adultery with her suffer intensely, unless they repent of her ways. I will strike her children dead. Then all the churches will know that I am he who searches hearts and minds, and I will repay each of you according to your deeds. " "Do not suppose that I [Jesus] have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. (Matthew 10:34)" If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters- yes, even his own life- he cannot be my disciple. (Luke 14:26)" And anyway, Jesus advocates the Old Testament Matthew 5:17, Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.

How is censorship a step towards communism? How did you ever get to anywhere near that conclusion?

Numbers 31:7-18, Moses tells his men "Now kill all the boys and all the women who have slept with a man. Only the young girls who are virgins may live; you may keep them for yourselves." Deuteronomy 20:10-14, When the LORD your God hands it over to you, kill every man in the town. But you may keep for yourselves all the women, children, livestock, and other plunder. You may enjoy the spoils of your enemies that the LORD your God has given you. Thats makes it all better. Yes, this is expressed here; Deuteronomy 22:23-24 , If within the city a man comes upon a maiden who is betrothed, and has relations with her, you shall bring them both out of the gate of the city and there stone them to death: the girl because she did not cry out for help though she was in the city, and the man because he violated his neighbors wife. I hate Bible quoting sessions. And laws of the land should be obeyed, so by that toekn all the christian fundementalists that live in a state which advocates immoral acts should do them?

For people who don't beleive in your God those commandments and the Bible are "just made up and mean nothing". Again, even if the Bible was true, it advocates r@pe, sacrifice, murder, genocide and many other acts you deem to be immoral. You don't follow the Bible's meanings word for word. You interpret the Bible to suit yourself, and your own way of life. How can an falliable being interpret a divine, infalliable being's words 100% correctly. You can't, so don't even pretend that by your standards you are completley correct. Do I need God to tell me murder is wrong? No. Does God muder people? Yes. Do i need God to tell me R@pe is wrong? No Does God advocate r@pe? Yes. Do I need God to tell me sacrificing people is wrong? No. Does God sacrifice people? Yes. Do I need God to tell me genocide is wrong? No. Does God commit genocide? Yes.

Satenza, allow me for a moment to assume your absolute moral belief, the Mills Harm Principle. An action is only bad if it harms another person, correct? Now, if a friend comes to me pregnant and asking for advice, am I forcing my opinion on her by not telling her about abortion because of my religious objections to it? Is it wrong that I am "taking away her liberty" like that? (Nevermind that she can just as easily find out about abortion from any other source, so I'm not really forcing anything on her, merely stating my opinion.) I believe that abortion is harmful. It is obviously harmful to the foetus, which it kills, and I believe it has harmful psychological effects on the mother. Wouldn't it be wrong for me to knowingly give a person information that would lead to her harm? According to your Mills Harm Principle, the right thing for me to do is to avoid harm to the woman and the foetus by not talking about abortion. Abortion is a tricky one, and when i refer to it, i mean in principle of it being regarded by some as an immoral act and not illegal. I don't know too much about it being harmful to the baby, because i don't know exactly what it can feel and other factors which make it wrong in the view of some people. He can say what he wan't to say, i would also expect him though to say that there are other ways of dealing with situations. Expressing only one side of the case, is not helpful for the sole reason that he beleives it to be right. Conciously holding back another side of the argument because he does not beleive it to be true, even if that side could be helpful to them is effectlvley saying "Do it my way" instead of giving pro's and con's from each side of the case. Even the church advocates this form of questioning to find the right answer. Mills harm principle is not an absolute moral belief, it has nothing to do with morality only with protecting citizens from harm. It also doesn't mean that an action is only bad if it harms, because bad is subjective. It just means that because i don't like what that persons doing i don't have a right to impose on their lifestyle and stop that action.

The problem with national censorship comes when the citizens look elsewhere and see whats really going on. Then complain that they had a right to know certain things. They would be employed by the Government aswell and so biased in what they show. For example if the country was being ran by a republican ruler then it would be much more right wing and following christian morality. As they would not like to offend their employers, and are instructed differently. I'm all for liberty, however things like Saddam Husseins' hanging, and pictures of him after that was inappropriate to be placed on newspapers across the country. I think it's either the Government controls the media, or the people control the media. I'm more for the people's control, however sometimes they need to be a little more concerned with telling people whats happening rather than selling newspapers.