Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
From AI Overview:
Some ape species, particularly chimpanzees, are known to engage in lethal aggression and kill each other, especially between groups.
There's a bit more to this historiographical issue than simply what your citing here, Hans.I am aware that in using Babylonian stories as source material the post-exhilic scribes were emphasizing that "that's not how our god did it" when they wrote their own versions as a form of counter apologetic.
There are similarities, yes, but there are also typological differences in how the motifs are used, ordered and prioritized. A few of these literary differences between Bronze Age Hebraic narratives and older A.N.E. mythology outweigh the similarities they appear to have.It doesn't change that the narratives (with the "controverting" of other culture's, particularly Babylon) were also trying to explain how things they saw got the way they are -- where tribes and nations came from, why there are weeds, etc. This is no different than the stories of my people about how the Great Lakes formed (big blue oxen need place to drink/bathe).
You've missed the point, and your argument is weak.If you claim you are "an atheist" because you want to sin, then you aren't really an atheist, because you still believe in the religious notion of sin and it applying to you. However you come to reevaluate your religion and faith, whether it because your church thinks you a disgusting sinner, or realizing they lied to you about science to maintain a literalistic creation narrative, or your realized miraculous things could be explained non-miraculously, if you don't end up not believing, then you aren't an atheist.
The "atheist" who says they won't rejoin the church because they want to "sin" or disagrees with the church about what is "sin" or not, is not an atheist, but a believer with a conflict.
And making that comment ignores the actual true issues that lead to the Columbine shootings. Not a surprise at all really, since I know we've talked about this before and you've still got the gall to pull that card. For shame on you.
If we did, I don't believe we had AI Overview at the time to support me.
It wouldn't have supported you then, it doesn't support you now.
You're supporting me as well.
As I said, some people scratch their heads, wondering why this happened.
I'm not scratching my head as to why it happened, since I know exactly why it happened and it's a lot more complicated than your trite and asinine "Oh, they was taught they was apes!" bull.
I shake my head at your dismal refusal to learn anything.
You don't get it, do you?
I'm not scratching my head as to why it happened, since I know exactly why it happened and it's a lot more complicated than your trite and asinine "Oh, they was taught they was apes!" bull.
I understand that what you wrote is an absolute load of bull because you refuse to learn and acknowledge that you don't know what you're talking about.
You don't either.
You might think you do, but ...
From AI Overview:
The reasons why Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold committed the Columbine High School massacre are complex and debated, with no single, definitive answer.
If you "know exactly why it happened," perhaps you should let all those debaters in on it.
Do I look like a historiographer? I don't think we need to get too wound up in this.There's a bit more to this historiographical issue than simply what your citing here, Hans.
The texts in question aren't from the Bronze Age, but are rather Iron Age, and realistically, post-Iron Age.There are similarities, yes, but there are also typological differences in how the motifs are used, ordered and prioritized. A few of these literary differences between Bronze Age Hebraic narratives and older A.N.E. mythology outweigh the similarities they appear to have.
Also, I'm not going to do a lumper-v-splitter debate.So, yes they are different enough.
I'm not the one confused about what an atheist is.You've missed the point, and your argument is weak.
You have confused "ex-Christian" and "atheist". There is overlap, but they are not the same thing, nor is one a sub-set of the other. For example, I was an ex-Christian of the "lapsed Catholic" variety (or maybe not even an ex-Christian yet in my identity) for 3 years before I resolved the indeterminacy of my belief and realized I no longer believed. When did I stop believing? Was it in that 3 years? Probably? Was it before when I still participated? Possibly.This is fallacious. An "atheist," as so many ex-Christians can attest today, can simply be a person who has released himself from the domain of a Christian Church because he's come to see that Christianity has no efficacy and thereby he changes his view about the world and its required morality; it can also be that some become atheists because they've come to feel that their personal preferences weren't magically allayed by God so it was easier to let go and enter into unbelief. It happens every day. You may not be one of those particular chaps, but let's not say that no atheists out there are.
I know the thread is about some confused view of evolution, but this matter wasn't. Nor is it about the purpose of sex.Of course, taking on evolutionary 'beliefs' about the nature and purpose of sex then becomes more than instrumental.
And yet, you're the one who's parsing it down to "Oh, they was taught they was apes!", not me.
Excuse me.
The public was taught they were apes as well.
So why was the public standing around scratching their heads?
If I was an atheist, I wouldn't spend a dime to find out what triggered them.
I would "understand" it was coded into their ancestors' DNA.
Your own AI search in post #149 shows that what happened was because of multiple reasons.
It also says, "No single definitive answer."
And if I was an evolutionist, I'd be shaking my head.
The fact is, those investigators just came in, studied their past ... (you know ... made it look like they were doing something scientific) ... then concluded "there's no single definitive answer."
Then laughed all the way to the bank.
In essence, they exploited your own science against you, just to make money.
Or maybe, and here's a wild thought, "No single definitive answer" means that there were multiple things going on that lead to the Columbine shooting.
But of course, you're the one who's singularly focusing on the thought of "Oh, they was taught they was apes, so of course they did what they did!"
Yup ... throw them a bunch of reasons and hope one sticks ... right?
hey were taught that, yes.
But what if they didn't believe it?
Now what?
Back to the drawing board ... right?
Again, let me emphasize:
It's not a matter of what they believed they were.
It's the fact that evolutionists are acting like they have no definitive answer, when the "answer" should be painfully obvious.
Schools work hard to impress evolution on their students.
Then when something like Columbine goes down, these hard-working institutions act ignorant.
Oh, wait ...
They are ignorant.
Of the truth.
Yeah, that's an out and out lie right there and you know it.
None of that is true in the slightest and the only one showing their ignorance is you.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?