Noah's Ark

[OldWiseGuy]

"Self evident" code words for nonexistent.

I think "Thou shalt not kill (murder)" is a pretty self evident truth. Man adds his 'facts' to it so it can be excused. Plea deals are the most evident of these 'facts'.

 

[Ronald]

Noah's flood seems to be a myth to those who do not have faith in Jesus.
Maybe if He returns in Judgment, that will be enough evidence for these naysayers. This may happen very soon, maybe this year. God destroyed the world once with a flood and will destroy it again, but this time with fire. When Stephen Nye is thrown into the fire, he'll suddenly have and epiphany, there is a God and He's angry.
People choose to mock the Bible, disprove it, exchange it for their evolutionary ideas. But fundamental belief in Jesus does not require us to believe in an old or young earth. We believe in Jesus for who He is, what He did and said and what He will yet do.
Prophecies fulfilled with hairsplitting accuracy exist throughout the Bible. Jesus fulfilled hundreds of them. This is one primary reason why people believed, because Prophets came along and said stuff was going to happen and it did, otherwise they were stoned to death if they were not 100% accurate. Now obviously, they had to prophesy about things within their lifetimes to prove they were messengers of God. But they spoke of things well into the future, things which are happening right now. Israel becoming a nation after being scattering throughout the world for over almost 1900 years is prophetic. It is in this generation (70 years), from 1948 that we have seen prophecies of the end times fulfilled and we are getting close to the end. Jesus said there would be wars, famines, pestilence, earthquakes in various places and this we have seen increase in frequency. These are the beginning of sorrows.
Even more specifically, a sign that the end is near was spoken by Jesus in Matthew 24:14 where He said, "And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all nations AND THEN THE END WILL COME." This has just about been accomplished within the last couple years.
When this begins, the whole story of the origins will be a mute point won't it.
When the events foretold in Revelation actually begin to take place, fear will wet in to those who have no faith. Stephen Nye, Stephen Hawking or Richard Dawkins will be speechless. Oh yes, they won't be discussing origins or mocking the Biblical narratives.
And what if Revelation 12:1 really happens on 9-23-17, will that be enough evidence?
When they see Jesus coming in the clouds and the bible says every eye will see Him, will that be enough? When 1/3 of the planet is on fire, will they get it ... or will they just pass it all off as natural or man-made?

 

[lesliedellow]

I think "Thou shalt not kill (murder)" is a pretty self evident truth. Man adds his 'facts' to it so it can be excused. Plea deals are the most evident of these 'facts'.

I wished one of the attempts to assassinate Adolf Hitler prior to the Second World War had succeeded.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

I wished one of the attempts to assassinate Adolf Hitler prior to the Second World War had succeeded.

Me too, but the killer would still have to face justice. After the war started he was fair game however.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I think "Thou shalt not kill (murder)" is a pretty self evident truth. Man adds his 'facts' to it so it can be excused. Plea deals are the most evident of these 'facts'.

Yes, but that is another story in the Bible. Let's stick with one mythical character at a time.

People do not need a Commandment to know that killing is wrong.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Yes, but that is another story in the Bible. Let's stick with one mythical character at a time.

People do not need a Commandment to know that killing is wrong.

We have built in knowledge of good and evil from the very start. It was codified for Israel only in the bible, likely because they had not taken it any more seriously than the nations around them. We have codified it as well but don't take it any more seriously than anyone else in history. In fact we have made an art form of breaking every rule we make.

 

[Subduction Zone]

We have built in knowledge of good and evil from the very start. It was codified for Israel only in the bible, likely because they had not taken it any more seriously than the nations around them. We have codified it as well but don't take it any more seriously than anyone else in history. In fact we have made an art form of breaking every rule we make.

But again, that was probably a myth. It is more likely that they were written at the time when the Babylonians were in power over the Hebrews.

 

[VirOptimus]

We have built in knowledge of good and evil from the very start. It was codified for Israel only in the bible, likely because they had not taken it any more seriously than the nations around them. We have codified it as well but don't take it any more seriously than anyone else in history. In fact we have made an art form of breaking every rule we make.

Good and evil is impossible to prove and many, myself included, deny its existance.

Its foolish to speak in absolutes and the concept of good and evil is in my opinion very destructive.

 

[lesliedellow]

Good and evil is impossible to prove and many, myself included, deny its existance.

Its foolish to speak in absolutes and the concept of good and evil is in my opinion very destructive.

Relativists are stuck with saying, "Well, I will admit that the Nazis wouldn't have been my nextdoor neighbours of choice, and murdering 6 million people is a bit unsociable, but I can't really say they were evil. They were just not my cup of tea; that's all."

 

[VirOptimus]

Relativists are stuck with saying, "Well, I will admit that the Nazis wouldn't have been my nextdoor neighbours of choice, and murdering 6 million people is a bit unsociable, but I can't really say they were evil. They were just not my cup of tea; that's all."

Not saying they are evil is not condining their abhorrent politics and massmurdering way.

Evil is a lazy and stupid term which means nothing IMO.

Your post is a giant strawman which only shows that you dont understand moral philosophy.

 

[lesliedellow]

Not saying they are evil is not condining their abhorrent politics and massmurdering way.

So they were abhorent to you. Big deal, and who should care about that? Do you think the Nuremberg trials should have been conducted upon the basis of your subjective feelings?

 

[VirOptimus]

So they were abhorent to you. Big deal, and who should care about that? Do you think the Nuremberg trials should have been conducted upon the basis of your subjective feelings?

I dont belive in subjective/objective as they presuppose an outside agent, i.e. god(s) which I deny.

I think the Nureberg trials could be held because the Allies won WW II. I also think they where correct in holding them. I in no way belive that this is an absolute truth as that would be a stupid and grandoise thought.

 

[lesliedellow]

I dont belive in subjective/objective as they presuppose an outside agent, i.e. god(s) which I deny.

I think the Nureberg trials could be held because the Allies won WW II. I also think they where correct in holding them. I in no way belive that this is an absolute truth as that would be a stupid and grandoise thought.

So if the Nazis had won the Second World War, put Churchill and Rosevelt on trial, and then continued on with their genocide, they would have been the arbiters of morality, and everything would have been just fine.

 

[VirOptimus]

So if the Nazis had won the Second World War, put Churchill and Rosevelt on trial, and then continued on with their genocide, they would have been the arbiters of morality, and everything would have been just fine.

Not in my view, no.

I have no trouble arguing why without ever using "good" and "evil" so I dont see your point.

 

[Goonie]

Page 94 and I do believe this thread has inadvertently godwinned itself

 

[lesliedellow]

Not in my view, no.

Like I said, who cares about your view. Who would have cared about it if the Nazis had won the war, convinced the population of Europe that murdering Jews and other undesirables was the moral thing to do, you would have no basis for saying they were acting immorally. In fact, in that society you would be the immoral one for opposing state sponsored genocide.

 

[VirOptimus]

Like I said, who cares about your view. Who would have cared about it if the Nazis had won the war, convinced the population of Europe that murdering Jews and other undesirables was the moral thing to do, you would have no basis for saying they were acting immorally. In fact, in that society you would be the immoral one for opposing state sponsored genocide.

I'm not sure I understand the point you think you are making, what difference would it make if I belived in moral absolutes (or moral existing, which I dont, its just something we imagine)?

 

[Goonie]

I'm not sure I understand the point you think you are making, what difference would it make if I belived in moral absolutes (or moral existing, which I dont, its just something we imagine)?

It's all about moral relativism, What's your standard?

 

[VirOptimus]

It's all about moral relativism, What's your standard?

I deny the existance of morals, not simply a relativist.

My standard? What I can be persuaded of by good argument is the right thing.

 

[Goonie]

I deny the existance of morals, not simply a relativist.

My standard? What I can be persuaded of by good argument is the right thing.

If people are involved so is morality.