The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

2Scoops

J C wrote: »

ARE you not interested in even finding out HOW the 'Guidestone people' propose to do it........or do you prefer to leave the choice of method to them????

ARE you not even curious WHO these people ARE.......which might give you some idea of HOW they plan to achieve this feat???

Well, it's been almost 3 decades since this thing was built. The mysterious Guidestone People are obviously not in a rush to implement their ideas.

You seem to know quite a bit on this. My friend from Georgia hadn't even heard of it. Any ideas on who these people are, J C, out of curiosity?

2Scoops

J C wrote: »

Fair enough, he says that Man is unique.......but that doesn't mean that Dawkins believes Man to be anything more than 'just another product of Evolution'!!!

...the implications being...what, exactly?

Scofflaw

J C wrote: »

I don't know WHAT they plan to do......they may do nothing at all.....or they may not know what to do.....or they may achieve a 'soft landing' to 10% of current population by some method other than 'voluntary birth control'!!!

Claims A and B .....as you call them are two distinct POSSIBILITIES......are you not interested in which POSSIBILITY is planned to be pursued......or whether they have abandoned the idea in 'Guideline 1' completely????

.......or do you not care either way????

......and WHY do you think the 'fearlessly investigative' media .......who inform us of what colour knickers are worn by various celebreties .......with colour photos as PROOF.......have shown a distinct lack of interest......in these weighty stones........and their equally weighty 'guidelines'????

JC, I can't talk about this any more, I'm afraid.

apologies,
Scofflaw

J C

Scofflaw wrote: »

JC, I can't talk about this any more, I'm afraid.

apologies,
Scofflaw

WHY are you afraid???

......and WHY can't you talk about this anymore???

Ekancone

J C wrote: »

WHY are you afraid???

This is a joke, right?

J C

daithifleming wrote: »

This is a joke, right?

......don't know......certainly Scofflaw seems to be UNABLE to talk about it!!!

J C

2Scoops wrote: »

Well, it's been almost 3 decades since this thing was built. The mysterious Guidestone People are obviously not in a rush to implement their ideas.

You seem to know quite a bit on this. My friend from Georgia hadn't even heard of it. Any ideas on who these people are, J C, out of curiosity?

Scofflaw seems to know something about this.......but he is 'afraid' to talk about it!!!

Scofflaw

J C wrote: »

WHY are you afraid???

......and WHY can't you talk about this anymore???

It's off-topic.

aude, vide, tace,
Scofflaw

J C

Scofflaw wrote: »

It's off-topic.

aude, vide, tace,
Scofflaw

....since when has 'being off-topic' stopped ANY of us discussing things in the past.....

.....and we have just spent the last three pages discussing the general topic of 'population reduction'!!

J C

Scofflaw wrote: »

aude, vide, tace,
Scofflaw

aude, vide, ....tace!!!!!?????.......

Libera nos ab omnibus malis per Nomine Domine Jesu Christe

Adjutorium nostrum in Nomine Domine Jesu Christe. Qui fecit coelum et terram .......et tu, Scofflaw.

Benedicat vos Scofflaw omnipotens Deus nostra Domine Jesu Christe.

Pater noster, qui es in coelis. Sanctificetur Nomen tuum. Fiat voluntas tua, sicut in coelo, et in terra. Panem nostrum quotidianum da nobis hodie, et dimitte nobis debita nostra, sicut et nos dimittimus debiroribus nostris, et ne nos inductas in tentationem.
Sed libera nos a male.

In principe erat Verbum et Verbum erat apud Deum. Et Deus erat Verbum. Hoc erat in principio apud Deum. Omnia per ipsum facta sunt, et sine ipso factum est nihil quod factum est. In ipso vita erat, et vita erat lux hominum. Et lux in tenebris lucet, et tenebrae eam non comprehenderunt.

In mundo erat, et mundus per ipsum factus est et mundus eum non cognovit. In propria venit, et sui eum, non receperunt. Quotquot autem receperunt eum, dedit eis potestatem filios Dei fieri. His qui credunt in Nomine ejus, qui non ex sanginibus, neque ex voluntate carnis, neque ex volutate viri, sed ex Deo nati sunt. Et Verbum caro factum est et habitavit in nobis et vidimus gloriam ejus, gloriam quasi Unigeniti a Patre, plenum gratiae et veritatis.

Sed tantum dic verbo "Credo in Jesu Christe" et servare tu. (Fac 16:31)

J C

IF I had known that mentioning the Georgia Guidestones would have caused ALL of the 'Evolutionists' on this thread to concede the debate.....I would have done so on my first Posting......and saved us all a lot of bother!!!!:D:)

stevejazzx

J C wrote: »

IF I had known that mentioning the Georgia Guidestones would have caused ALL of the Evolutionists on this thread to concede the debate.....I would have done so on my first Posting......and saved us all a lot of bother!!!!:D:)

&@&^%$#$!@#$%^&*(@#$%^&(*&^$%^)(*&^#$%">*%&@&^%$#$!@#$%^&*(@#$%^&(*&^$%^)(*&^#$%^&*(

J C

stevejazzx wrote: »

&@&^%$#$!@#$%^&*(@#$%^&(*&^$%^)(*&^#$%">*%&@&^%$#$!@#$%^&*(@#$%^&(*&^$%^)(*&^#$%^&*(

Your spelling is atrocious!!!!:D

stevejazzx wrote: »

DENIAL.....ALSO seems to be an occupational hazard ......for some 'Evolutionists'!!!:eek::D

wolfsbane

2Scoops wrote: »

@ J C/Wolfsbane...


Unfortunately for your rather under-developed arguments, humans are not insects or other animals. We have developed to a more advanced degree (though not in every way, of course). We have higher emotional and intellectual capabilities and can experience empathy, sympathy, love, affection and other higher thought processes moreso than other animals.

My opinion would be that humans are superior to other life forms. Just not because we have been specially chosen by a higher being; rather that we have simply developed that way.

Your argument, therefore, is an illogical reductio ad absurdum, if I can go all Tim Robbins for a minute.

However, I echo Scofflaw's relief that people like you do indeed believe we are special because of God, since that is all that appears to be stopping you from going on a mass 'culling' spree.

I'm glad you do think man is special. I assume that means you would not support his culling, in or out of the womb.

Daithifleming thinks man is not special - and he is far from being alone on the matter. I'm still looking for any logical reason he can give not to treat man as we do the other animals.

So, yes, it is my belief that man is special that stops me supporting any cull. Seems it is the same for you - correct me if I'm wrong.

pH

wolfsbane wrote: »

Daithifleming thinks man is not special - and he is far from being alone on the matter. I'm still looking for any logical reason he can give not to treat man as we do the other animals.

So, yes, it is my belief that man is special that stops me supporting any cull. Seems it is the same for you - correct me if I'm wrong.

Can I clarify this? You're saying that *you* cannot think of a logical reason, nor have you ever seen one presented? The only reason *you* don't treat your fellow man like other animals is you believe your God has forbidden it and will punish you if you do?

Or maybe you can think of logical reasons or seen them elsewhere and are just testing him?

Which is it?

wolfsbane

daithifleming wrote: »

Well as i said, whether the majority of 'evolutionists' (whatever that is) believe that humans and animals are no different is a matter of speculation on your part. I happen to think that humans are nothing special, especially in the wider context of the universe. In fact, we mean absolutely nothing in that context. But i don't see how that leads to an excuse for wiping each other out. Isn't there a benefit - even from a myopic point of view - in getting on with your community and not pointlessly slaughtering each other, irrespective of personal belief?

I agree, even if one holds man to be nothing special, one might well strive for getting on with your community as opposed to pointlessly slaughtering each other.

But cullists would not be speaking about aimless slaughter, rather about slaughter directed to the noble aim of bettering mankind and the biosphere as a whole. An emergency measure to reach sustainable existence.

I'm sure they would put a premium on themselves and their families, and whatever number of the rest of us that would be needed to serve such an ideal society. No wanton destruction. Just as we today deplore the unnecessary slaughter of whales, elephants, rhinos, etc., but support any necessary cull.

Quite logical, from an evolutionary atheist point of view.

wolfsbane

pH wrote: »

Can I clarify this? You're saying that *you* cannot think of a logical reason, nor have you ever seen one presented? The only reason *you* don't treat your fellow man like other animals is you believe your God has forbidden it and will punish you if you do?

Or maybe you can think of logical reasons or seen them elsewhere and are just testing him?

Which is it?

No, I can think of no logical reasons for objecting to a beneficial cull, if man is not special.

Maybe you can jump in with any you have? I'll be glad to hear them.

J C

pH wrote: »

Can I clarify this? You're saying that *you* cannot think of a logical reason, nor have you ever seen one presented? The only reason *you* don't treat your fellow man like other animals is you believe your God has forbidden it and will punish you if you do?

Or maybe you can think of logical reasons or seen them elsewhere and are just testing him?

Which is it?

As I have previously said, the Christian has ALL of the reasons that a Materialist has for not culling people .........PLUS his belief that Humans were specially created by a God who commands us not to take innocent Human life.

.....anyway let's park your semantic 'word games' .....and 'cut to the chase'........WHAT is YOUR opinion of the Georgia Guidestones.......and specifically 'Guideline 1'???:)

Ekancone

wolfsbane wrote: »

Daithifleming thinks man is not special - and he is far from being alone on the matter. I'm still looking for any logical reason he can give not to treat man as we do the other animals.

Glad to provide one. Think of it from the an evolutionary point of view. The aim of a species (or the species selfish genes) is to survive and replicate. Therefore a strategy of culling each other and randomly slaughtering each other wouldn't make sense would it? A individual that behaves in this manner towards its own kind wouldn't last very long in the gene pool because if this strategy came to dominate then the species would just wipe itself out, wouldn't it? The only stable strategy is one where either the species co-operates or at least tolerates its own kind. That was how humans were able to live together in communities long before the invention of monotheism. In fact that is how any social species managed come together in groups. Natural selection favoured those individuals that decided to take part in group altruism, even if it was for purely myopic reasons.

In short, a strategy of culling one another simply wouldn't be stable enough to allow a species to survive. In the end, such a strategy would end up harming even the individual who behaves as such. It fairly simple once you think about it, im suprised you couldn't see why this wouldn't happen. What the logic behind Lions not hunting each other?

sdep

wolfsbane wrote: »

No, I can think of no logical reasons for objecting to a beneficial cull, if man is not special.

Maybe you can jump in with any you have? I'll be glad to hear them.

Again, morality doesn't flow inevitably from science - the two are quite distinct. Rather, science provides part of the background against which we can take moral decisions.

We may conclude from scientific evidence that we have no proof that our species is special from the point of view of the universe. We have plenty of evidence from our daily lives that people are special to each other.

J C

daithifleming wrote: »

Glad to provide one. Think of it from the an evolutionary point of view. The aim of a species (or the species selfish genes) is to survive and replicate. Therefore a strategy of culling each other and randomly slaughtering each other wouldn't make sense would it? A individual that behaves in this manner towards its own kind wouldn't last very long in the gene pool because if this strategy came to dominate then the species would just wipe itself out, wouldn't it? The only stable strategy is one where either the species co-operates or at least tolerates its own kind. That was how humans were able to live together in communities long before the invention of monotheism. In fact that is how any social species managed come together in groups. Natural selection favoured those individuals that decided to take part in group altruism, even if it was for purely myopic reasons.

In short, a strategy of culling one another simply wouldn't be stable enough to allow a species to survive. In the end, such a strategy would end up harming even the individual who behaves as such.

......and does 'Guideline 1' also fit in with your philiosophy????:)


.......and IF it does.....HOW do you think it is going to be achieved???

Ekancone

J C wrote: »

......and does 'Guideline 1' fit in with your philiosophy????:)

Which is what exactly?

wolfsbane

daithifleming said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
So what objection can you have to Pianka's (alleged) cull? Why discriminate against the deer, moose, elephants, etc?

It is certainly the view of Pianka and many leaders of this world that there are at least 5 Billion too many of us for our own good and that of the enviroment. I'll support that with references if anyone doubts it.

Sorry, you're confusing yourself here. Is it an allegation or a fact?[

No confusion from me: Pianka's advocacy of a cull is an allegation. That he believes we are some 5 Billion too many, is an uncontested fact.

Here's more on the subject:
Doomsday: UT prof says death is imminent (Published April 2, 2006)
http://seguingazette.com/story.lasso?ewcd=751d52c8fcce3017

pH

wolfsbane wrote: »

No, I can think of no logical reasons for objecting to a beneficial cull, if man is not special

So your objection (if any?) to what happened in the 1930s/1940s in Europe and recently in Rwanda is that what was being killed was God's special creation?

If for some reason you lost your faith in God, you're convinced that both events would seem reasonable to you?

Maybe you can jump in with any you have? I'll be glad to hear them.

Well for one, I'm not an insane genocidal maniac who feels my life is so important that I could quite happily murder people en masse.

J C wrote:

As I have previously said, the Christian has ALL of the reasons that a Materialist has for not culling people .........PLUS his belief that Humans were specially created by a God who commands us not to take innocent Human life.

Not necessarily, a Christian can argue that under guidance or instruction from his God murder/genocide is allowable - whereas this reason isn't available to a 'Materialist' - hence

the Christian has ALL of the reasons that a Materialist has for not culling people .........EXCEPT in the cases where God tells them it's OK.

.....anyway let's park your semantic 'word games' .....and 'cut to the chase'........WHAT is YOUR opinion of the Georgia Guidestones???

Sorry had to google it,

tl;dr

Looked at pictures though ... my it's ugly.

wolfsbane

daithifleming wrote: »

Glad to provide one. Think of it from the an evolutionary point of view. The aim of a species (or the species selfish genes) is to survive and replicate. Therefore a strategy of culling each other and randomly slaughtering each other wouldn't make sense would it? A individual that behaves in this manner towards its own kind wouldn't last very long in the gene pool because if this strategy came to dominate then the species would just wipe itself out, wouldn't it? The only stable strategy is one where either the species co-operates or at least tolerates its own kind. That was how humans were able to live together in communities long before the invention of monotheism. In fact that is how any social species managed come together in groups. Natural selection favoured those individuals that decided to take part in group altruism, even if it was for purely myopic reasons.

In short, a strategy of culling one another simply wouldn't be stable enough to allow a species to survive. In the end, such a strategy would end up harming even the individual who behaves as such. It fairly simple once you think about it, im suprised you couldn't see why this wouldn't happen. What the logic behind Lions not hunting each other?

But the cullists aren't talking about randomly slaughtering , rather a directed cull. I assume they aren't ignorant of the evolutionary 'facts' you allude to. One can be pretty sure the elites of this world won't be the target on any cull.

And the cull is not only directed, it is in the name of the greater good - so fully altruistic.

Lions of course kill any cubs not their own, and if necessary, any competing lions.

J C

sdep wrote: »

Again, morality doesn't flow inevitably from science - the two are quite distinct. Rather, science provides part of the background against which we can take moral decisions.

We may conclude from scientific evidence that we have no proof that our species is special from the point of view of the universe. We have plenty of evidence from our daily lives that people are special to each other.

......and does 'Guideline 1' also fit in with your philiosophy????:)


.......and IF it does.....HOW do you think it is going to be achieved???

J C

Originally Posted by J C
......and does 'Guideline 1' fit in with your philiosophy????

daithifleming wrote: »

Which is what exactly?

I thought it was a pretty straightforward question......

What is your opinion of 'Guideline 1?

...and HOW will it be achieved, in your opinion?

Ekancone

J C wrote: »

Originally Posted by J C
......and does 'Guideline 1' fit in with your philiosophy????



I thought it was a pretty straightforward question......

What is your opinion of 'Guideline 1?

...and HOW will it be achieved, in your opinion?

For the second time. What is guideline 1?

J C

pH wrote: »

So your objection (if any?) to what happened in the 1930s/1940s in Europe and recently in Rwanda is that what was being killed was God's special creation?

Both my belief that they were specially Created by God.....and my empathy with their common Humanity would be reasons for my objection.

.....obviously, the perpretrators DIDN'T think that the people they were murdering were 'anything special'......and they had no empathy with their common Humanity......or they WOULDN'T do it......

......and their use of language in relation to their victims proves that they didn't consider them to be 'anything special'.....words like 'useless eaters' and 'life unworthy of life' and 'genetic hygiene'......spring to mind.

pH wrote: »

If for some reason you lost your faith in God, you're convinced that both events would seem reasonable to you?

In a word NO......my empathy with a common Humanity would remain.

pH wrote: »

Not necessarily, a Christian can argue that under guidance or instruction from his God murder/genocide is allowable - whereas this reason isn't available to a 'Materialist' -

Jesus Christ tells us to love our fellow Man ......and a Christian would NOT be acting as a Christian IF he commited murder.

pH wrote: »

the Christian has ALL of the reasons that a Materialist has for not culling people .........EXCEPT in the cases where God tells them it's OK.

A Christian has ALL of the reasons that a Materialist has for NOT culling people .........AND God tells them it's not OK


Originally Posted by J C
.....anyway let's park your semantic 'word games' .....and 'cut to the chase'........WHAT is YOUR opinion of the Georgia Guidestones???

pH wrote: »

Looked at pictures though ... my it's ugly.

....oops....the 'Guidestone People'.....wouldn't like you calling their stones ugly..........but I agree with you .....!!!

...anyway what is your opinion of 'Guideline 1' (Maintain humanity under 500,000,000 in perpetual balance with nature). ?

...and HOW will it be achieved, in your opinion?

wolfsbane

sdep wrote: »

Again, morality doesn't flow inevitably from science - the two are quite distinct. Rather, science provides part of the background against which we can take moral decisions.

We may conclude from scientific evidence that we have no proof that our species is special from the point of view of the universe. We have plenty of evidence from our daily lives that people are special to each other.

Even atheists have relationships they value - family, friends, those useful to them. But history proves man will slaughter one another 'for the greater good' - though that may in fact be very elitist.

The subjects of any cull would not be those 'special' to us. It would be the common people, the weak, the unneeded. Obviously there would be some collateral damage, but such risks are a part of life. Maximum care would be taken to protect the special people.