When Good makes war against Evil, Evil has won.

The war between Good and Evil is the Devil's game, because the rules of the game is of the Devil. For Good to win, Good cannot surrender to the rules of Evil, but if Good surrenders to the rules of Evil, Good becomes Evil and Evil has won.

So how can Good win?

Paece be with you, Paul

How can one destroy destruction? By ceasing to be a part. If a collective ceases, then the problem goes away

When Good makes war against Evil, Evil has won.

The war between Good and Evil is god's game, because the rules of the game is of god. For Good to win, Good cannot surrender to the rules of Evil, but if Good surrenders to the rules of Evil, Good becomes Evil and Evil has won.

So how can Good win?

Peace be with you, Paulgood cant, but why are you blaming the devil it should read god.

what is good and what is evil?

When Good makes war against Evil, Evil has won.

d))Yes, because the war is a viscious circle, beginning with the ignore-ance of wholeness.
Thus, when one posits A 'good' and fights for 'it' then it natrually will include evil.
for example, look at the nazis. even though they are thought of as evil--which they were--they thought they were for the 'good'...for 'purity'. yet look at the indescribable evil they did! a reall good exaMPLE

The war between Good and Evil is the Devil's game, because the rules of the game is of the Devil.

d))the 'Devil' is the curse of the suppression of the Goddess. of the insight of wholeness.

For Good to win, Good cannot surrender to the rules of Evil, but if Good surrenders to the rules of Evil, Good becomes Evil and Evil has won.

So how can Good win?

Paece be with you, Paul

There is no such thing as 'good' winning 'evil'. because we have abstracted out a living process.
if a part of you judges another part of you to be evil, this means that you have divided yourself.
the part most feared by us--even in this era--is our deep parts. the parts usually accessed via poweful emotional and spiritual facilitators like hallucinogens.
All that we fear is in US. but because we suppress exploring this deep part of us, and demonizing it, or dismissing it as 'mental illness' etc., then that repression projects outwardly at fear of evil, and DOING evil too

When Good makes war against Evil, Evil has won.
The war between Good and Evil is the Devil's game, because the rules of the game is of the Devil. For Good to win, Good cannot surrender to the rules of Evil, but if Good surrenders to the rules of Evil, Good becomes Evil and Evil has won.

How do you come to this conclusion??


So how can Good win?

If there is no God, then Evil indeed wins. But only if there is no God.

If there is no God there is no evil.


There is no evil.

The greatest trick that the devil ever pulled was convincing the world that he doesn't exist.

what is good and what is evil?

Theists live a lie, therefore they are evil.

Atheists live for humankind, therefore they are good.

thats absolute bollocks Q

Q,

Ignoring the fact that your statement that theists live a lie is entirely unsupported and presupposing that theists live a lie, what is evil about it?

Additionally, ignoring the fact that you have failed to provide evidence that atheists live for mankind and also presupposing that theists live a lie, where is the good in living for humankind?

Is this good or evil just inherent in lies/serving others? How so?

'Tis better to be in the right hand of the devil than in his path.

When Good makes war against Evil, Evil has won.

The war between Good and Evil is the Devil's game, because the rules of the game is of the Devil. For Good to win, Good cannot surrender to the rules of Evil, but if Good surrenders to the rules of Evil, Good becomes Evil and Evil has won.

So how can Good win?

by avoiding conflict? ;)

interesting philosophical puzzle,dont see why you had to insert the old imaginary horny one in there though?
unless youre sugesting Good=God then it becomes totaly meaningless,
b/c IF God created ALL...He also created Evil wouldnt you say?

Q,
...
Additionally, ignoring the fact that you have failed to provide evidence that atheists live for mankind and also presupposing that theists live a lie, where is the good in living for humankind? ... How so?

I am not an expert but I think that theist live for many things and among them two that I can mention are Islam and Christanity. No wonder Bush won the seemingly impossible win in the second round. So remember if U wana win election just partonize the theist.

Evil is winning because of inactivity of god. But its not her fault.

the problem is people.

300,000 people died in sumatra Sunamee. Humans can build a warning system but god did not warn, even though she is more powerful. But thoes shameless theist never complained to god for her inactivity , so she thinks alls ok.

When Good makes war against Evil, Evil has won.

The war between Good and Evil is the Devil's game, because the rules of the game is of the Devil. For Good to win, Good cannot surrender to the rules of Evil, but if Good surrenders to the rules of Evil, Good becomes Evil and Evil has won.

So how can Good win?

Paece be with you, Paul[When Evil makes war against Good, Good has won.

The war between Evil and Good is God's game, because the rules of the game are of God. For Evil to win, Evil cannot surrender to the rules of Good, but if Evil surrenders to the rules of Good, Evil becomes Good and Good has won.

So how can Evil win?]

"Paul you be, with Peace" [snicker]:D

It seems the inherrent assumption is that "war" is Evil(?) but Good naturally opposes Evil. War would indicate conflict which can be avoided; Good cannot be unopposed to Evil.

This doesn't mean there can't be one without the other - they may co-exist originally and then one may be elliminated. The concept may remain (as all potential concepts) but the actions don't have to remain - they become essentially non-existent.

When Good makes war against Evil, Evil has won.

The war between Good and Evil is the Devil's game, because the rules of the game is of the Devil. For Good to win, Good cannot surrender to the rules of Evil, but if Good surrenders to the rules of Evil, Good becomes Evil and Evil has won.

So how can Good win?

Paece be with you, Paul

The question is built on a mountain of subjectivity. Define 'good' and 'evil' and
then support their existence; after which, the question can be revisited.

Anomalous,


Evil is winning because of inactivity of god. But its not her fault.

the problem is people.

300,000 people died in sumatra Sunamee. Humans can build a warning system but god did not warn, even though she is more powerful. But thoes shameless theist never complained to god for her inactivity , so she thinks alls ok.

Are you saying you know what God thinks?


* * *

Crunchy Cat,


The question is built on a mountain of subjectivity. Define 'good' and 'evil' and
then support their existence; after which, the question can be revisited.

Good and evil exist in the same way, say, love, hate, despair, happiness, wisdom, stupidity, worthiness, worthlessness, beauty, ugliness, justice, wrongdoing, order, disorder, coolness and daftness exist.

They exist as concepts; we infer them based on what we can observe, given a certain observer and a certain situation.
They are subjective in that they are personally experienced; but they are universal -- because people can communicate in them or about them.

The above listed do not exist the same way trees or tables exist; yet they are crucial in the way we organize our lives. For example, we strive to avoid those who have done us wrong or could do so, and we seek the company of those whom we love or find cool.

To not use those concepts (because they are not provable, and thus, untenable) would seriously endanger our chances of survival. While if only a relatively small part of the population does so, the consequences are barely visible, the whole of mankind discarding those concepts leads to chaos and massive death. (Because nobody cares about anything.)

...
Are you saying you know what God thinks?
...

Nope, thats a logical conclusion, that theist wont comment on its possible validity.

Nope, thats a logical conclusion, that theist wont comment on its possible validity.

A logical conclusion? Based on what?

Trying to know what God thinks is the same as trying to know what the edge of the earth looks like.

Trying to know what God thinks is the same as trying to know what the edge of the earth looks like.

Then we cannot make *any* claims about what God thinks or not.

Crunchy Cat,




Good and evil exist in the same way, say, love, hate, despair, happiness, wisdom, stupidity, worthiness, worthlessness, beauty, ugliness, justice, wrongdoing, order, disorder, coolness and daftness exist.

They exist as concepts; we infer them based on what we can observe, given a certain observer and a certain situation.
They are subjective in that they are personally experienced; but they are universal -- because people can communicate in them or about them.

The above listed do not exist the same way trees or tables exist; yet they are crucial in the way we organize our lives. For example, we strive to avoid those who have done us wrong or could do so, and we seek the company of those whom we love or find cool.

To not use those concepts (because they are not provable, and thus, untenable) would seriously endanger our chances of survival. While if only a relatively small part of the population does so, the consequences are barely visible, the whole of mankind discarding those concepts leads to chaos and massive death. (Because nobody cares about anything.)


Hey Water,

I appreciate the anologies. Any of the concepts listed can be objectively
defined (I am not saying it's easy... just that it can be done). Some of them
exist the same way trees do and I am confident that the bulk of them can
be measured, correlated, and thus proven.

Still, to move forward with battig1370's assertion 'Good' and 'Evil' still require
explicit definition and evidence to support their existence.

A logical conclusion? Based on what?

based on fact that even if half human population gets wiped out in a disaster that can be avoided by man by a warning system but was not avoided by god, yet thoes shamless theist will continue to pray GOD without questioning her iresponsible behaviour.

You just do what I said.

Crunchy Cat,


I appreciate the anologies. Any of the concepts listed can be objectively
defined (I am not saying it's easy... just that it can be done). Some of them
exist the same way trees do and I am confident that the bulk of them can
be measured, correlated, and thus proven.

Still, to move forward with battig1370's assertion 'Good' and 'Evil' still require
explicit definition and evidence to support their existence.


I don't think this will work -- but it is because of the methodological apparatus we have for analyzing the meaning of a concept.
There is no unified and satisfactory theory of meaning (not to my knowledge); holism with prototypes is best, but it does not offer analytical definitions of meanings.

We are thus stuck.


* * *

Anomalous,


based on fact that even if half human population gets wiped out in a disaster that can be avoided by man by a warning system but was not avoided by god, yet thoes shamless theist will continue to pray GOD without questioning her iresponsible behaviour.


?
You are presuming that ALL humans must live, if God is to be just.

And, you are giving attributes to God -- like "irresponsible behaviour". If life on earth were all there is, then you'd have a point.
But theists -- FROM WHOM YOU HAVE THE IDEA OF GOD -- who believe in God also believe in an afterlife, so what happens in this life is not ultimate. So per theistic understanding.

Crunchy Cat,




I don't think this will work -- but it is because of the methodological apparatus we have for analyzing the meaning of a concept.
There is no unified and satisfactory theory of meaning (not to my knowledge); holism with prototypes is best, but it does not offer analytical definitions of meanings.

We are thus stuck.


The meaning of meaning? 69 of course! :). Ok ok... I just couldn't resist.
Meaning is the relationship between variables. Maybe battig1370 can
attack the 'good' and 'evil' definition / evidence... if he can then we can
move on to his assertions.

... who believe in God also believe in an afterlife, so what happens in this life is not ultimate. So per theistic understanding.

So why do they have to pray for ? Is like a bribe for after life ? Then we must cut that economics, and starve that GOD of her prayers.

So why do they have to pray for ? Is like a bribe for after life ? Then we must cut that economics, and starve that GOD of her prayers.

Ask them.

Then we cannot make *any* claims about what God thinks or not.

Isn't that what ALL theists do?

Then we cannot make *any* claims about what God thinks or not.

Isn't that what ALL theists do?

But they have the knowledge about a revealed God.

But they have the knowledge about a revealed God.

What's the difference?

When Good makes war against Evil, Evil has won.

The war between Good and Evil is the Devil's game, because the rules of the game is of the Devil. For Good to win, Good cannot surrender to the rules of Evil, but if Good surrenders to the rules of Evil, Good becomes Evil and Evil has won.

So how can Good win?

Paece be with you, Paul

God is good. God is the source of all that is good. Satan and his devils are evil. Both God and the devils have telepathic access to the minds of men. The battleground between good and evil, for each individual person is in the mind.
Good already won, when Jesus died on the cross. Now there is a way for all men to escape evil and go to heaven. Believe that Jesus is Lord and that He is the Son of God, and accept Him as your Lord and Saviour. Repent of sin. (Start trying to not do whatever the New Testament calls a sin.) Ask God to forgive you if you do sin and continue trying to not sin.
Read the King James version New Testament to find out what God wants you to believe and do. -- Do those things and you will win over evil in your own existence, and go to heaven.

Don't do those things, and evil will win over you and you will go to hell.

Satan and His devils can only do what God allows them to do. God is allowing them to test men to see if they will do good or evil to see who is worthy to become an angel of God, and who is not worthy to become an angel of God. Most men will fail the test.

Matthew 7:13 Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat:
Matthew 7:14 Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.

God is good.
How can God be good if God forces all raped virgin women to marry their rapists?


Good already won, when Jesus died on the cross.

How can God win if Jesus died on the cross? It makes more sense if Satan died on the cross for tempting Eve to ate an apple. Satan succeeded in tempting Eve and necessitated the need for God to come down and shrink himself into a shape of a man and get tortured. That doesn't sound like he won. Also if there are 1 billion planets with intellegent lifeform, God has to die 1 billion times.


Now there is a way for all men to escape evil and go to heaven. Believe that Jesus is Lord and that He is the Son of God, and accept Him as your Lord and Saviour. Repent of sin. (Start trying to not do whatever the New Testament calls a sin.) Ask God to forgive you if you do sin and continue trying to not sin.
Read the King James version New Testament to find out what God wants you to believe and do. -- Do those things and you will win over evil in your own existence, and go to heaven.

What exactly is Sin? In Romans Paul said if there is no law, there is no transgression.


Satan and His devils can only do what God allows them to do. God is allowing them to test men to see if they will do good or evil to see who is worthy to become an angel of God, and who is not worthy to become an angel of God. Most men will fail the test.


An all knowing being doesn't need to test anything. He already knew. His omniscience renders the necessity of living a life on earth superfluous.

But they have the knowledge about a revealed God.

What's the difference?

It is a knowledge that we do not have, so we can't speak on its behalf.

An all knowing being doesn't need to test anything. He already knew. His omniscience renders the necessity of living a life on earth superfluous.

Humans don't have God's knowledge.

How can God be good if God forces all raped virgin women to marry their rapists?How so Joe?How can God win if Jesus died on the cross?The victory is in the outcome. There are have been and will be Christians. Not all have been going the Devil's way.Also if there are 1 billion planets with intellegent lifeform, God has to die 1 billion times.How so man? Jesus died once and for all. Who is to say that the lifeforms would use their God given intelligence to defy God - they might be a bit smarter than us on this little rock.In Romans Paul said if there is no law, there is no transgression.I think Paul actually said without the law trangressions would not be apparent.An all knowing being doesn't need to test anything. He already knew.Just say He knows Joe. The test is then naturally of relevance to that being tested - us, not him. He might know He'll test but if it doesn't happen how can He know?His omniscience renders the necessity of living a life on earth superfluous.Can you explain this a bit further? Humans aren't God Joe, or do you mean Him living on earth?

How so Joe?

Ah. A bold faced Christian hero/liar I am sure you are aware of verse but pretend not to know it.

[If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, he shall pay the girl's father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the girl, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives. ] (deut 22:28)


I think Paul actually said without the law trangressions would not be apparent.

I only need to expose your lie. It don't want to waste my time and the time of everyone else in this forum by answering stupid questions.

[14For if those who live by law are heirs, faith has no value and the promise is worthless, 15because law brings wrath. And where there is no law there is no transgression.] (Romans 4:14-16)

Within the context, it definitely does not mean without the law, transgressions would not be apparent. You can lie to yourself if you want, I'll leave the judgement to the rest of members in this forum.

There are no separate disimbodied forces called "good" or "evil". Nature is seen as "good", but contains the same kind of horrible violent actions that in human culture would be called evil. Are parasitic wasps larvae inherently evil because they burst out of a living host, killing it? Would I be evil if I killed someone just to hollow them out and live in their body for awhile? Are carnivores inherently evil since they kill for a living?

Good and evil are so only in human society, which has lost it's context within the natural world.

water: Humans don't have God's knowledge.
*************
M*W: If we were allegedly created as "God's image," I fail to see how humanity would not collectively contain "God's knowledge."

I could also say that "God doesn't have Humanity's Knowledge," but, of course, you would disagree. God didn't create humankind. It was humankind that created God!

If there were a "God," there would be evidence for this "God." But, there's not. There is no indication that there ever was a "God." "God" is an illusion of humanity. "God" is a creation of humanity. "God" would not exist without the psychological needs of humanity.

I say, "Who needs God?" Why believe in a fairy tale being? The closest thing to "God" is humankind. Worship each other and not a false being.

How can God be good if God forces all raped virgin women to marry their rapists?


How can God win if Jesus died on the cross? It makes more sense if Satan died on the cross for tempting Eve to ate an apple. Satan succeeded in tempting Eve and necessitated the need for God to come down and shrink himself into a shape of a man and get tortured. That doesn't sound like he won. Also if there are 1 billion planets with intellegent lifeform, God has to die 1 billion times.


What exactly is Sin? In Romans Paul said if there is no law, there is no transgression.



An all knowing being doesn't need to test anything. He already knew. His omniscience renders the necessity of living a life on earth superfluous.


Answer this question: Did Jesus Christ come in the flesh?

Punishment for sin is death. Physical death and hell which is called the second death, suffering the pain of a roasting death forever. All men who can determine right from wrong, have at some time in their life done what they knew to be wrong (except for Jesus). God put some knowledge of right and wrong in every man's heart. So all men have sinned (except for Jesus), and they deserve the punishment. God, became a man in the form of Jesus the Messiah, and He defeated the devil by living a life without sin. This gave Jesus the right to die for the sins of others. He did not die for His own sins because He did not commit any. So, every man that believes in Jesus as his Lord and Saviour and tries to not sin, may now be forgiven of his sins, because Jesus paid for that man's sins by dying on the cross.
That is how God won over evil. He became a man and lived without any sin so that He could pay the price to purchase the forgiveness of other men's sins by dying on the cross, taking the punishment for them.

Sin is disobeying God's commandments. Paul does not say there is no law.
Paul even said that people that never heard about the Jewish law have God's law written on their hearts. Like God showed them something about right and wrong, and they sinned by doing what they knew to be wrong. That is why all people must believe in Jesus to have their sins forgiven.

Paul said this:
1 Corinthians 6:
9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,
10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.

Paul was calling all of those things sinful, and those that practice them will not go to heaven.

... I fail to see how humanity would not collectively contain "God's knowledge."
...
If there were a "God," there would be evidence for this "God." But, there's not....

Why only collectively ? and Isnt their faith enough ? if not why ?, what else does God require more than that ?

If a mere insignificant U can exist then why can GOD, If Universe can exist without a reason then whay cant ....

BTW : I hate God and his believers.

There are no separate disimbodied forces called "good" or "evil"....

Thank god at least U can distinguish between Good and Evil.

Medicine Woman,


M*W: If we were allegedly created as "God's image," I fail to see how humanity would not collectively contain "God's knowledge."

But do you ever get to see this collectively contained knowledge in its fullness?
No.


I could also say that "God doesn't have Humanity's Knowledge," but, of course, you would disagree. God didn't create humankind. It was humankind that created God!

Well, you like proving this ... prove that humankind created God!


If there were a "God," there would be evidence for this "God." But, there's not.

It all depends on 1. your definiton of God, 2. what you accept to be evidence of God.


There is no indication that there ever was a "God."

Prove that.


"God" is an illusion of humanity. "God" is a creation of humanity. "God" would not exist without the psychological needs of humanity.

And? Your point?


I say, "Who needs God?" Why believe in a fairy tale being?

Well, if you believe that God is a fairy tale being, then it is, by all means, better that people dont' believe in such a god.


The closest thing to "God" is humankind.

Closest? And it was almost, that the hunter hit the rabbit.


Worship each other and not a false being.

Beware of the consequences of such worship! Would you worship GW Bush? Your husband?

Anomalous,


BTW : I hate God and his believers.

Thank god at least U can distinguish between Good and Evil.

This is just too hilarious!
Anomalous, you've chosen the right screen name, indeed.

Ah. A bold faced Christian hero/liar I am sure you are aware of verse but pretend not to know it.Take care with your language Joe. (deut 22:28)Exodus 22:16-17 "[16] If a man seduces a virgin who is not pledged to be married and sleeps with her, he must pay the bride-price, and she shall be his wife. [17] If her father absolutely refuses to give her to him, he must still pay the bride-price for virgins." Numbers 36:6 "This is what the LORD commands for Zelophehad's daughters: They may marry anyone they please as long as they marry within the tribal clan of their father." It appears here, Joe, that the woman has all the power. The point is that the punk has violated the woman as she is no longer a virgin and in that culture no "self respecting bachelor" would want to marry her. She has the option of refusing to marry the bastard; just having the disgusting sicko pay a ton o' cash. If she does marry the vermin she has all the control, he is forced to stay married to her for the rest of his life and has no rights of divorce - even if she doesn't give him any - he's forced into submission just like her made the woman submit.I only need to expose your lie. It don't want to waste my time and the time of everyone else in this forum by answering stupid questions.I'd say the questions exactly mirror the initial statements Joe.
[14]For if those who live by law are heirs, faith has no value and the promise is worthless, 15because law brings wrath. And where there is no law there is no transgression.] (Romans 4:14-16)You didn't finish Joe - Romans 4:16 "Therefore, the promise comes by faith, so that it may be by grace and may be guaranteed to all Abraham's offspring—not only to those who are of the law but also to those who are of the faith of Abraham. He is the father of us all."I'll quote a few more verses from Paul's letter to the Romans to give you the exact idea of what he was trying to get at. Your mistake here, Joe (quite common) is to look at one building block from the house and conclude what type of house it is. Isolate, (MIS)Interpret, Err - I think I'll start using I2E for short.

Romans 2 "[12] All who sin apart from the law will also perish apart from the law, and all who sin under the law will be judged by the law. [13] For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God's sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous." Romans 3 "[19] Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be silenced and the whole world held accountable to God. [20] Therefore no one will be declared righteous in his sight by observing the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of sin." Romans 5:13 "for before the law was given, sin was in the world. But sin is not taken into account when there is no law." Within the context, it definitely does not mean without the law, transgressions would not be apparent. You can lie to yourself if you want, I'll leave the judgement to the rest of members in this forum.Notice how the quoted verses "envelope" the single verse you referenced Joe? [i]That is context. I try my best not to lie to myself Joe, I encourage you to do the same.

Thank god at least U can distinguish between Good and Evil.
Only within the context of human society. Outside of this, they don't exist. Certainly not as eternal existential forces battling it out for supremacy.

Only within the context of human society...

Now that we know what they are, then what are we waiting for , lets work towards them.

It's an age old paradox.

Without evil, good cannot exist.
Without good, evil cannot exist.

It's yin and yang.

What would light be without dark?

What would night be without day?

What would nothing be if there wasn't something?

What would death be without life?

and so on......

If a man seduces a virgin who is not pledged to be married and sleeps with her, he must pay the bride-price, and she shall be his wife. [17] If her father absolutely refuses to give her to him, he must still pay the bride-price for virgins."[/indent] Numbers 36:6 [indent]"This is what the LORD commands for Zelophehad's daughters: They may marry anyone they please as long as they marry within the tribal clan of their father."

Typical text twisting rationalization. The second verse place a limit on who the girls can marry. It doesnt specify in the situation of the first verse. I only have to put out the fact that the first verse said the rapist MUST MARRY HER. That doesn't leave room for any interpretation.

[quote]It appears here, Joe, that the woman has all the power.

It appears to you, but not me or anyone else. It's intellectual dishonesty.


The point is that the punk has violated the woman as she is no longer a virgin and in that culture no "self respecting bachelor" would want to marry her. She has the option of refusing to marry the bastard;


The point of the law is to fix the problem of another law - A woman will be stoned to death if she marry without her hymen. If a woman is raped, she can never marry again. That doesn't say anything about men. It is trying to bandaid one unjust law with another. Rediculous.

As far as Romans, why you don't go back even further? The whole point of Romans, especially the first 11 chapters, is that first there were the Jews and then there are the Gentiles. Also Paul doesn't "teach" universal morals but situational ethics.

"To the Jews I became as a Jew, to win the Jews; to those under the law I became as one under the law-though not being myself under the law-that I might win those under the law. To the weak I became weak, that I might win the weak. I have become all things to all men, that I might by all means save some. I do it all for the sake of the gospel..." Paul, 1 Corinthians 9:20-23"

He is basically a chameleon saying things just to please people. That makes the whole debate on Romans worthless.

Only within the context of human society. Outside of this, they don't exist. Certainly not as eternal existential forces battling it out for supremacy.

EVERYTHING humans talk about, they talk about it within the context of human society.
Unless you have some super revelation into objective reality, there's no other way but to forever be bound to the context of human society.

Just like without the context of human society, there may be no chairs, tables, trees etc. in objective reality, there may be no good and evil without the context of humans society. This doesn't make the concepts of good and evil redundant though. On that grand scale, good and evil just seem more abstract and less real than chairs and trees, but not any less useful in how we organize and understand our lives.

I only have to put out the fact that the first verse said the rapist MUST MARRY HER. That doesn't leave room for any interpretation.Quite so Joe... that's why the other verses exist - just like the situation above with Paul and the Romans; You I2E. There is no denying that the sick *expletive* pays for what he's done - especially if her father decides he's not good enough for her - I would assume here that the father would value the daughter's input (as indicated by the Numbers ref.).It appears to you, but not me or anyone else. It's intellectual dishonesty.Always speak for yourself Joe. You mean it is dishonest to your intellect; it doesn't agree with your conclusion that the woman is totally disadvantaged.He is basically a chameleon saying things just to please people. That makes the whole debate on Romans worthless.O.k. Joe. If you say so. ;) I think it's crap though. You can look at it two ways Joe: either what Paul is saying is congruent and must be considered within the context of all text available by him... or... it's as you say (i.e. Paul sends different messages to different people). Well, I understand him - in China I speak Chinese as more people will understand what I say. While the language might have been different the message was (and is) the same Joe. Let those who read and understand decide no? No I2E.

That's why the other verses are there??? Contradictions I tell you, contradictions! If something is false, it must constantly contradict itself to appear true.

I'm refering to your response to your first quote of Joeman.

That's why the other verses are there??? Contradictions I tell you, contradictions! If something is false, it must constantly contradict itself to appear true.

I'm refering to your response to your first quote of Joeman.I don't get it - what's contradictory?

Quite so Joe... that's why the other verses exist - just like the situation above with Paul and the Romans; You I2E. There is no denying that the sick *expletive* pays for what he's done - especially if her father decides he's not good enough for her - I would assume here that the father would value the daughter's input (as indicated by the Numbers ref.).

What part of "He MUST MARRY HER" don't you understand? It doesnt' matter many other versus exists, you must harmonize that verse. It's common practice for Christians to harmonize things away with other versus if there is a verse they don't like. Hey, you don't need other versus to harmonize something away if you like the verse.


Always speak for yourself Joe. You mean it is dishonest to your intellect; it doesn't agree with your conclusion that the woman is totally disadvantaged.

Women ARE totally disavantaged in the bible. If there is no way I can convince you regardless how much evidence there are, there is no point.


O.k. Joe. If you say so. ;) I think it's crap though. You can look at it two ways Joe: either what Paul is saying is congruent and must be considered within the context of all text available by him... or... it's as you say (i.e. Paul sends different messages to different people). Well, I understand him - in China I speak Chinese as more people will understand what I say. While the language might have been different the message was (and is) the same Joe. Let those who read and understand decide no? No I2E.

Paul DOES say contradicting things to different people. In Galatians, he said the following the law or not is inconsequential. In Romans, he said the law should needs to be upheld.

M*W: Although it is quite obvious that you argue for the sake of arguing, I will only answer your post, not for your benefit, but for the others reading this.
*************
water: Medicine Woman,

But do you ever get to see this collectively contained knowledge in its fullness? No.
*************
M*W: I believe I have seen it, but if you're speaking about what the collective mind experiences, I can say that there is an evolution/progression to the cumulative human mind. There are things I've observed about humanity during my relatively short time on this planet. My childhood was formed by WASP traditions. Anything other than WASP's did not exist in my life. That was the way society was -- then. But, society matured, and it was okay to venture out of the WASP traditions, because there was a whole world out there that were not WASPs. Now we have diversity, and it is now a way of life. This is just an example of being able to "see this collectively contained knowledge in its fullness." As we mature, so does our societal traditions, or hopefully they do. Just imagine what kind of world it would be if the church was still the state? Imagine what the world would be like if we still lived in the traditions of a pre-1964 time of segregation?

Also, during my life, I have seen the change-over from Democrats to Republicans and vice versa. In my early adulthood, we were all proud to be Democrats. Republicans, we thought, were the enemy. Watergate confirmed this for us. But, now, the Democrats have become more liberal, and the Republicans have evolved into conservatism.

My point is that the "collective human mind" does, in fact, evolve and progress in time, regardless of whatever it is that the human mind observes.
*************
water: Well, you like proving this ... prove that humankind created God!
*************
M*W: That is one school of thought, but like proving that there is a God, that just cannot be proven -- today or 2000 years ago.
*************
water: It all depends on 1. your definiton of God, 2. what you accept to be evidence of God.
*************
M*W: As an Atheist, I do not have a definition of God. The only definition I ever had (when I was a xian) was that God was the creator and the destroyer, the first and the last. When I first came to sciforums, I was still a believer in the creator god. As an Atheist, there is nothing I accept to be evidence of God. For me to change my mind about Atheism, there would have to be some incontravertible evidence in the world to prove without a doubt there was a God. Being on sciforums for nearly four years, no one has been able to prove there was a god. No one!
*************
water: Well, if you believe that God is a fairy tale being, then it is, by all means, better that people dont' believe in such a god.
*************
M*W: All we have is the myth. How we confirm the truth about there being a God, no one has ever provided the proof. What Christians believe in their "collective human mind" does not provide any proof of God.
*************
water: Beware of the consequences of such worship! Would you worship GW Bush? Your husband?
*************
M*W: I worship no one on Earth. No one is worthy of my worship, be it GWB or my children and grandchildren. The only person I am responsible for is myself, but I don't worship myself as a human. I respect myself as a human, because I am a part of the human family.

It is a knowledge that we do not have, so we can't speak on its behalf.

You're talking in riddles.

How do you know it exists if you have no knowledge of it?

Medicine Woman,


From this:

Worship each other and not a false being.

to this:

M*W: I worship no one on Earth. No one is worthy of my worship, be it GWB or my children and grandchildren. The only person I am responsible for is myself, but I don't worship myself as a human.

at the speed of hypocrisy!

You're talking in riddles.

How do you know it exists if you have no knowledge of it?

Others talk about it. This doesn't make it true, but it makes it possible. As consequent empiricists, we cannot afford to discard what is possible, even if we ourselves have no direct knowledge of it.

Others talk about it. This doesn't make it true, but it makes it possible.

Does talking about unicorns, Santa Claus and the tooth fairy also make them possible?

As consequent empiricists, we cannot afford to discard what is possible, even if we ourselves have no direct knowledge of it.

Perhaps, but we do not jump to conclusions even with some direct knowledge therefore we cannot even begin to entertain possibilities with no direct knowledge. It is all speculation from the imagination - hardly something empiricists would even consider.

It's common practice for Christians to harmonize things away with other versus if there is a verse they don't like. Hey, you don't need other versus to harmonize something away if you like the verse.Not so Joe. Christians take the Bible as a congruent whole: The Written Word of God. It is interpreted by them in that light. It's not what they like or don't like... it's what's necessary. Christians don't I2E... or shouldn't anyway. When we see the man must marry her and see her father has the right of refusal and can also infer that she has a choice of who to marry we then see the man must marry her if she and/or her family agrees to it. Here's some more harmony for you Joe: ever heard of Isaac and Rebekah?

Genesis 24 (http://bible.gospelcom.net/passage/?search=Genesis%2024) "[3] I want you to swear by the LORD, the God of heaven and the God of earth, that you will not get a wife for my son from the daughters of the Canaanites, among whom I am living,..."
"[5] The servant asked him, "What if the woman is unwilling to come back with me to this land?..."
"[8] If the woman is unwilling to come back with you, then you will be released from this oath of mine..." Any female interested in some real romance just click on the Genesis 24 link and have a read. ;) Danielle Steel[e] is nothing. ;)If there is no way I can convince you regardless how much evidence there are, there is no point.Joe, you are so... starting to sound like an aevangelist. Culture is culture Joe, the Bible mirrors the culture of the time. It must be interpreted in the light of that time and the culture of our time. You say it as if the Bible imposed the cultural norms but in fact it merely reflects them.Paul DOES say contradicting things to different people. In Galatians, he said the following the law or not is inconsequential. In Romans, he said the law should needs to be upheld.Should needs? Talk straight Joe, you're stuttering. I do my best to remember exact verses but I am not that much of a braniac. You speak of evidence... please present it clearly. Where exactly in these books does Paul say that (in what context)?

...at the speed of hypocrisy!... and state of confusion.

Evil is winning because of inactivity of god. But its not her fault.

the problem is people.

300,000 people died in sumatra Sunamee. Humans can build a warning system but god did not warn, even though she is more powerful. But thoes shameless theist never complained to god for her inactivity , so she thinks alls ok.
OK I get to ask ask you a question now.

Why did Mother Nature, as an after thought apparently, insert time into her creation?

Give up? Or do you know the answer? Either way, Mother Nature inserted time in her creation so everything doesn't happen all at once.
Geistkiesel

if we look at it from the buddhist point of view, good cannot exist without evil.
The only difference between good and evil is how the beholder see's it, rather like beauty.
an example would be that the second world war to some people (or the majority) hitler was evil. However to the nazis he was/is a hero, the embodyment of good. It is true that histroy is written by the victors, if we had lost the second world war we would be praising hitler for killing the jews as the history books teach us what the powers that be want them to.
(please don't take this wrong, somehow every time the nazis are mentioned the person who posts 1st is branded a faschist its just a really good, if somewhat extreme, example.)