Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Friendliest aviation Ccmmunity on the web
  • Modern site for PC's, Phones, Tablets - no 3rd party apps required
  • Ask questions, help others, promote aviation
  • Share the passion for aviation
  • Invite everyone to Flightinfo.com and let's have fun

Post Election "high"

Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Modern secure site, no 3rd party apps required
  • Invite your friends
  • Share the passion of aviation
  • Friendliest aviation community on the web
I am leaving for the big sandbox and will be gone for a while.I want to leave you guys with something.
Scripture say in Deut. 6 that You should love the Lord your God with a your heart, mind , and soul, in the Gospels Jesus quoted Deut. and also said and you shall love your neighbor the way that you love yourself.
If a Christain wants Christian values in government it is because in Scripture God has promised to bless those that love his commandments. God has also promised to bless those that bless Israel. Those blessing effect this country and yourself no matter what you believe.Christians have also been commanded to love, that is agape love and only comes from the empowerment of the Holy Spirit. Agape love in unconditiional love which is love without any expectation of a response. This love includes everyone even those that do not agree. when you know the truth you know that you know the truth and you want to proclaim it. Yet someone can only come to God if he draws them and it is through the power of the Holy Spirit that revels the truth. Thanks for this discussion, it was great. See you guys later.
 
TwinTails,

Yes, I'm just so naive because I don't believe in the fairy tale rubbish that you live your life by, aren't I?

I'm sorry, but if you believe that the only thing getting you through a dangerous situation is your "god", then you are very weak-minded and paranoid at best, and totally incompetent at worst. I wouldn't want to fly with some schmuck that threw up his hands at the first sign of trouble and said, "Well, it's all in God's hands now folks!" Talk about naive!

And yes, all the things in this world "just are", like it or not. Let me ask you something, if all the things in this world are too complex to "just have been", and had to have been created, then where did your god come from? I mean your god must be exponentially more complex then the things in this universe, and therefore HE could not "just have been"! If you say he is infinite, I say the universe is infinite, ever-changing and evolving in form.

Who's selfish?! I think it is selfish to only live your life morally because you expect some da|\/||\| "reward in heaven" for doing so. YOU, sir, are the selfish one. I am a moral person not due to the threat of hell or the promise of heaven, but because I truly do unto others as I would have them do unto me. Stick THAT in your bible!
 
burping_boy

You claim to be moral but fail to realize that morality is by definition based on religious premise and foundation. Morality didn't just materialize out of the inherent goodwill of man.
 
You claim to be moral but fail to realize that morality is by definition based on religious premise and foundation. Morality didn't just materialize out of the inherent goodwill of man.

On the contrary, man injected his already existant form of morality into religion when man was creating his religion.

Morality is derived from one primitive animal instinct -- that which hurts me is bad, that which helps me is good. Apply that to others and BAM! Morality.

[EDIT] Here is the Merriam-Webster definition of morality, to further disprove your erroneous statement:

Main Entry: mo·ral·i·ty
Pronunciation: m&-'ra-l&-tE, mo-
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -ties
Date: 14th century
1 a : a moral discourse, statement, or lesson b : a literary or other imaginative work teaching a moral lesson
2 a : a doctrine or system of moral conduct b plural : particular moral principles or rules of conduct
3 : conformity to ideals of right human conduct
4 : moral conduct.

And now here is the MW definition of "moral":

Main Entry: 1mor·al
Pronunciation: 'mor-&l, 'mär-
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French, from Latin moralis, from mor-, mos custom
Date: 14th century
1 a : of or relating to principles of right and wrong in behavior : ETHICAL <moral judgments> b : expressing or teaching a conception of right behavior <a moral poem> c : conforming to a standard of right behavior d : sanctioned by or operative on one's conscience or ethical judgment <a moral obligation> e : capable of right and wrong action <a moral agent>
2 : probable though not proved : VIRTUAL <a moral certainty>
3 : having the effects of such on the mind, confidence, or will <a moral victory> <moral support>


I don't see religion or god in there anywhere. Do you? You said "by definition" and you are completely wrong.

Thanks for playing.
 
Last edited:
Random thoughts

I've been out on a trip for five days, and now I come back to this thread. Where to start, Whew.

First. I totally agree with bubba. I too, choose to live from the perspective that God exists and that he wishes me to live a life that honors him. I don't always succeed in honoring Him, especially on this board. I probably should read this thread a couple more times before responding, but I'm short on time; so here goes.

The USA was instituted as a Christian nation, whether modern society wants to acknowledge it or not. A cursory reading of the writings of the founding fathers will confirm this. For anyone who is interested, I suggest www.wallbuilders.com. That is the site for David Barton, a recognized historical scholar. Barton has researched the issue and makes a very good argument for the Christian heritage of the USA. I haven't read his books lately, but one of the qoutes that I remember is from Sam Adams, who wrote, that the system of government that they had instituted was suited only for a Godly, self-governing people, and wholly unsuited for any other man.

Seperation of church and state. The founders never intended to seperate God and state. In fact, the government still recognizes God in its daily activities. "In God We Trust", opening legislative sessions with prayer, etc. What the founders did was include language that precluded the government from mandating a certain religion as the only legal religion. The phrase "seperation of church and state", came from a letter that Jefferson wrote to a Baptist group that was worried that they were going to be coerced into becoming Methodists. Jefferson was attempting to reasure them that the government was not going to institute an official religion.

Bubba said that the Bible is the most verifiable book from ancient times. (sorry for the paraphrase) I would add that this should be in reference to whether we can trust that todays Bible is an accurate representation of the words that were written two thousand years ago. I have a scholarly volume by Josh McDowell called Evidence that Demands a Verdict. McDowell states that there are over 24 thousand existing ancient manuscripts of the Bible, and only around 900 of Homers Illiad. We trust the the Illiad we read in school is an accurate edition of Homer. According to the existing ancient manuscripts, we can also trust that todays Bible is an accurate copy of the original words. I would add that archeology has consistently proven the Bible to be a accurate document. The physician Luke who wrote the gospel of Luke, is considered a world class historian by true historians.

Someone insinuated that the Bible was not scientific. I would challenge anyone to find any part of the Bible that science can prove wrong.

Like Timebuilder, TurboS7, Bubba and others, I too am a Christian saved by Gods grace. I trust in Jesus and Jesus alone for my salvation. I sometimes wish that God had just made us all angels, but had he done so, our friendship would mean nothing to him. He gave us the free will to choose and I would encourage others to choose wisely.

regards,
8N


PS, I saw a great bumper sticker some time ago that said. "If your living like there is no GOD, you'd better be right.
 
Last edited:
Enigma

1) I've already commented on the "Christian nation" thing so I have nothing further to say on that.

2) As far as Luke goes, Luke is one of the most contradictory books of the NT. I can provide links to some of the many websites that show these flaws, as well as a truckload of problems with the entire concept of Jesus. Let me know.

3)

Someone insinuated that the Bible was not scientific. I would challenge anyone to find any part of the Bible that science can prove wrong.

I accept your challenge! :)

Some examples of scientific problems with the bible --

1) The bat is not a bird.

LEV 11:13 And these are they which ye shall have in abomination among the fowls; they shall not be eaten, they are an abomina- tion: the eagle, and the ossifrage, and the ospray,
LEV 11:14 And the vulture, and the kite after his kind;
LEV 11:15 Every raven after his kind;
LEV 11:16 And the owl, and the night hawk, and the cuckow, and the hawk after his kind,
LEV 11:17 And the little owl, and the cormorant, and the great owl,
LEV 11:18 And the swan, and the pelican, and the gier eagle,
LEV 11:19 And the stork, the heron after her kind, and the lapw- ing, and the bat.

DEU 14:11 Of all clean birds ye shall eat.
DEU 14:12 But these are they of which ye shall not eat: the ea- gle, and the ossifrage, and the ospray,
DEU 14:13 And the glede, and the kite, and the vulture after his kind,
DEU 14:14 And every raven after his kind,
DEU 14:15 And the owl, and the night hawk, and the cuckow, and the hawk after his kind,
DEU 14:16 The little owl, and the great owl, and the swan,
DEU 14:17 And the pelican, and the gier eagle, and the cor- morant,
DEU 14:18 And the stork, and the heron after her kind, and the lapwing, and the bat.

2) Rabbits do not chew their cud

LEV 11:6 And the hare, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you.

'Gerah', the term which appears in the MT means (chewed) cud, and also perhaps grain, or berry (also a 20th of a sheckel, but I think that we can agree that that is irrelevant here). It does *not* mean dung, and there is a perfectly adequate Hebrew word for that, which could have been used. Furthermore, the phrase translated 'chew the cud' in the KJV is more exactly 'bring up the cud'. Rabbits do not bring up anything; they let it go all the way through, then eat it again. The description given in Leviticus is inaccurate, and that's that. Rabbits do eat their own dung; they do not bring anything up and chew on it.

3) Insects do NOT have four feet

LEV 11:21 Yet these may ye eat of every flying creeping thing that goeth upon all four, which have legs above their feet, to leap withal upon the earth;
LEV 11:22 Even these of them ye may eat; the locust after his kind, and the bald locust after his kind, and the beetle after his kind, and the grasshopper after his kind.
LEV 11:23 But all other flying creeping things, which have four feet, shall be an abomination unto you.

4) Snails do not melt

PSA 58:8 As a snail which melteth, let every one of them pass away: like the untimely birth of a woman, that they may not see the sun.



This is just a sample. Much more is there for all to see.

:)

[EDIT] To quote you:

PS, I saw a great bumper sticker some time ago that said. "If your living like there is no GOD, you'd better be right.

This is a prime example of the whole absurdity of your religion. Any being that would condemn a person to ETERNAL TORMENT, for simply not believing he existed, is a horrible, evil being! The Christian god is a mass-murdering, baby-killing menace. Yes, this is the omnibenevolent god of love and mercy, isn't it?!

I WOULD sooner roast in hell than bow down to a piece of trash like that. At least I would be standing up for TRUE righteousness.
 
Last edited:
What proof?

What exactly is your proof? So what if the etymology of the word "morality" is listed as 14th. century? Do you seriously mean to suggest that the concept of morality originated in the 14th. century? Ever read the classics?

And as you are an accomplished etymologist so must you also be an expert on ancient man's development of "religion," which began in the murky, misty pre-ancient past, certainly predating any kind of written record of what they were thinking and even predating any oral histories known to man. How can you possibly claim to know that there was "an already existant form of morality" that man "injected" into his developing religion?
Quite a stretch, such a claim, don't you think?

And if you are indeed the scholar you would have us believe, have you really seriously even studied the Book you so cavalierly reject? I seriously doubt it. I would recommend it however; it wouldn't hurt. Even if you never buy what it's selling it's still great literature and such an erudite fellow as yourself would appreciate that.
 
What exactly is your proof? So what if the etymology of the word "morality" is listed as 14th. century? Do you seriously mean to suggest that the concept of morality originated in the 14th. century? Ever read the classics?

You said "BY DEFINITION" morality is based on religious premise and foundation. Were you around before the 14th century to see some sort of alternate definition? Ahhh, I SEE! You mean "by definition" as in your own PERSONAL definition that you created yourself based on what you WANT to believe!

In other words, "by definition" means one and ONLY one thing. DEFINITION. You have yet to show me an alternative definition that says what you stated.

And as you are an accomplished etymologist so must you also be an expert on ancient man's development of "religion," which began in the murky, misty pre-ancient past, certainly predating any kind of written record of what they were thinking and even predating any oral histories known to man. How can you possibly claim to know that there was "an already existant form of morality" that man "injected" into his developing religion?
Quite a stretch, such a claim, don't you think?

It's quite simple. When the bible was written, a form of morality was injected into it. Since it contains a form of morality, and was written by men, my statement is correct!

Having trouble with the simple things are we?

And if you are indeed the scholar you would have us believe, have you really seriously even studied the Book you so cavalierly reject? I seriously doubt it. I would recommend it however; it wouldn't hurt. Even if you never buy what it's selling it's still great literature and such an erudite fellow as yourself would appreciate that.

If you actually took the time to read this whole thread, you would have seen me tell Timebuilder precisely the answer to your question. But since you are obviously too lazy to read it, I will repeat myself -- I HAVE read the bible, I OWN a bible, and that is why I can't for the life of me understand why ANYONE would believe the nonsense contained therein. The endless bloodshed, the horrific acts committed by your loving and merciful "god", and the glaring contradictions and absurdities should stick out to anyone who reads it.

It's incredible how many of YOU there are that swear by it, but have never actually read it yourselves!

This is fun! Please, keep the debate going!
 
Ok, I'm growing weary and I know I won't change your mind but one last rebuttal, just for the sake of argument.
As a small technical point I will cede I could have used different phraseology than "by definition" to express the truth that the concept of morality springs from religion.
Were you around in the 14th. century to witness the birth of morality? Again, ever read the classics? They predate the 14th. century by a heap of years. To continue to argue this absurd point weakens your argument considerably.
When the Bible was written not just some "form of morality" was injected into it. It was and is the inspired Word of God.
And if you had carefully read my last post I asked not whether you had read the Bible but whether you had seriously studied it.

And now you need not respond for I will yield to your obviously superior youthful and secular intellect.
BTW, congratulations on owning a Bible. It's a start. Small seeds sometimes do grow in poor soil but it may take a long time.
 
Next thing, you guys are going to tell us there's no such thing as Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny.:eek:
 

Latest resources

Back
Top