NationStates

Celritannia wrote:Western Rome did lose out, especially with a great loss to technology. But don't forget, anything the Church did not agree with in this time period, people were executed. Forced Conversions were a major concept, and many pagan cultures were forced to adapt Christian ways.

Western Rome didn't lose out because of Christianity, it lost out because it collapsed. And while certain areas of knowledge was lost, knowledge in other areas grew throughout medieval times. Such a view of the Church as some inquisitorial theocracy isn't really held up by academia, at least not until the actual Inquisition occurred centuries later. Science didn't develop much before the 12th century not because of Christianity, which conserved knowledge after the collapse of the Roman Empire, but because Europe was very chaotic. Centralisation by Charlemagne and other rulers led to the a technological boom during and after the 12th century. Education and society remained closely joined with Christianity, only that stability allowed technological research and development. And while its true that forced conversions occurred, they were pretty rare and usually carried out by Christian rulers such as Charlemagne. The conversion of Ireland, England and Scandinavia were mostly voluntary, although pagan-cum-Christian kings did occasionally fight pagan rulers to assert Christianity.

Beggnig wrote:

Celritannia wrote:
No, all the things you mentioned were due to the ideals of a small group of people, not all.
You look at a child, a child will play and interact with other children regardless of their race, gender, sex, etc. What changes children is adult conditioning and the environment around them.

Of course. Psychopaths and sociopaths have the inability to feel empathy.

Because evidence.


Here is more evidence.

So God saying humans are born with sin in the bible is incorrect according to science.

So how do you know that you can reason to moral conclusions properly?
Again, why ought I act in accordance with my automatic behavioural tendency?

Also, that's not what the Bible says, you're quoting writings on 'original sin' by St. Augustine he later mostly retracted in "The Rectractions" at the end of his life.
Ancestral sin is the consequences of the sins of our ancestors, not some genetically inherited curse.
Personal sin is what we choose to do.
Note also that kindness is not automatically right, kindly telling a madman with an axe where his victim is hiding for example.
Plus kindness in itself doesn't stop someone from lust, gluttony, sloth and even pride in being such a 'nice' person.

Because I am able to understand my emotions. Is it that difficult to understand?
Do you have a reason to go against your automatic behavioural tendencies?

That's not what all Christians say, but okay.

That's taken out of context with the study. Plus, that is obviously someone being in danger. The automatic response to that would be to either flee with terror or attempt to fight and defuse the situation (fight or flight scenario).

It depends how you determine those aspects. Again, a person's surroundings will alter the thought process.

Celritannia wrote:

Beggnig wrote:
So how do you know that you can reason to moral conclusions properly?
Again, why ought I act in accordance with my automatic behavioural tendency?

Also, that's not what the Bible says, you're quoting writings on 'original sin' by St. Augustine he later mostly retracted in "The Rectractions" at the end of his life.
Ancestral sin is the consequences of the sins of our ancestors, not some genetically inherited curse.
Personal sin is what we choose to do.
Note also that kindness is not automatically right, kindly telling a madman with an axe where his victim is hiding for example.
Plus kindness in itself doesn't stop someone from lust, gluttony, sloth and even pride in being such a 'nice' person.

Because I am able to understand my emotions. Is it that difficult to understand?
Do you have a reason to go against your automatic behavioural tendencies?

That's not what all Christians say, but okay.

That's taken out of context with the study. Plus, that is obviously someone being in danger. The automatic response to that would be to either flee with terror or attempt to fight and defuse the situation (fight or flight scenario).

It depends how you determine those aspects. Again, a person's surroundings will alter the thought process.

So you know you can form moral conclusions properly from your emotions because they're your emotions?
How do you know your emotions are yours?
That's entirely subjective, different people feel different on different issues.
I know for example that abortion is morally wrong on an objective basis.

So what basis do your moral claims have that make them matter more than your opinions on what food you like?
Why should I care at all about what you consider to be wrong if you're one person making emotive claims?

Korhal IVV wrote:

Neanderthaland wrote:Assuming proficiency in a subject you know little about is textbook Dunning–Kruger. Nothing about your posting history suggests that you are competent at biology.

In fact I'd wager that you can't given an accurate definition of evolution in your own words.

???????????????

Oh, look at who is stalking someone’s posts... for something I never really talked about in the past few months.

I am wagering that you think I am dumb, but that doesn’t matter. After all, nothing matters in the end anyway.

Technically not stalking

Beggnig wrote:

Celritannia wrote:
Because I am able to understand my emotions. Is it that difficult to understand?
Do you have a reason to go against your automatic behavioural tendencies?

That's not what all Christians say, but okay.

That's taken out of context with the study. Plus, that is obviously someone being in danger. The automatic response to that would be to either flee with terror or attempt to fight and defuse the situation (fight or flight scenario).

It depends how you determine those aspects. Again, a person's surroundings will alter the thought process.

So you know you can form moral conclusions properly from your emotions because they're your emotions?
How do you know your emotions are yours?
That's entirely subjective, different people feel different on different issues.
I know for example that abortion is morally wrong on an objective basis.

So what basis do your moral claims have that make them matter more than your opinions on what food you like?
Why should I care at all about what you consider to be wrong if you're one person making emotive claims?

1. Who's emotions will they be if not mine? A unicorns?
2. See 1.
3. Yes they do, but a person's opinion should not deny nor harm another individual
4. You may believe abortion is morally wrong, but you are not the mother, nor does it affect you on a personal level.
5. Because the food I like does not determine how I treat people.
6. Because when you listen and talk to people, you get to understand different perspectives. And you do keep asking me these questions. So if you didn't care, you would have stopped asking me.

Although, I am still unsure where you are going with all this. IT seems you are more targeting me rather than the actual topic.

Celritannia wrote:

Beggnig wrote:
Are you familiar with ex post facto laws?
Without it most of the Axis war criminals would have gotten off Scot-free.

Yes I am, but remember, there was a team of legal professionals that tried the Axis War Criminals.

A singular deity drowning people because they turned away from him? Genocide.

Incorrect.

They were drowned for they have turned Earth to Commorragh in steroids.

Coruscanti Nations wrote:

Celritannia wrote:
Yes I am, but remember, there was a team of legal professionals that tried the Axis War Criminals.

A singular deity drowning people because they turned away from him? Genocide.

Incorrect.

They were drowned for they have turned Earth to Commorragh in steroids.

Er.....

What does this have to do with Warhammer 40k?

Celritannia wrote:

Coruscanti Nations wrote:Incorrect.

They were drowned for they have turned Earth to Commorragh in steroids.

Er.....

What does this have to do with Warhammer 40k?

Something something human sacrifice degeneracy sodomy heresy child murder etc.
None of which is provable, regardless of the ethics.

Kowani wrote:

Celritannia wrote:
Er.....

What does this have to do with Warhammer 40k?

Something something human sacrifice degeneracy sodomy heresy child murder etc.
None of which is provable, regardless of the ethics.

Because something that literally wiped out everything would obviously leave traces kf anything, yah.

Coruscanti Nations wrote:

Kowani wrote:Something something human sacrifice degeneracy sodomy heresy child murder etc.
None of which is provable, regardless of the ethics.

Because something that literally wiped out everything would obviously leave traces kf anything, yah.

It was a flood, not a fucking exterminatus.

Evidence would have remained.

The Caleshan Valkyrie wrote:

Coruscanti Nations wrote:Because something that literally wiped out everything would obviously leave traces kf anything, yah.

It was a flood, not a fucking exterminatus.

Evidence would have remained.

An exterminatus level flood it was.

Coruscanti Nations wrote:

The Caleshan Valkyrie wrote:
It was a flood, not a fucking exterminatus.

Evidence would have remained.

An exterminatus level flood it was.

Ugh. Except massive floods leave evidence

Like explain how it would be physically possible for the flood to even change earth If there was so much it covered the tallest mountain, rendering currents pretty much dead? And how did the water go away? How did plants survive? How did the animals get back to their respective landmasses?

The world wide flood as depicted in the epic of Ziu-I mean the bible, is total malarkey.

Coruscanti Nations wrote:

Neanderthaland wrote:Make it rain or something. Jesus Christ.

Does it bother you if a random tree withered?

There are two options here. Either:
1) Trees are basically unfeeling, functionally inanimate objects. And the tree couldn't have obeyed Jesus' command. In which case this is Jesus essentially yelling at his car. Not a very "perfect" thing to do. Or,
2) Trees are sentient beings with agency (which is how Jesus treats it.) In which case Jesus has killed a living being for following the nature God gave it. Which is a malevolent thing to do.

Korhal IVV wrote:

Neanderthaland wrote:Assuming proficiency in a subject you know little about is textbook Dunning–Kruger. Nothing about your posting history suggests that you are competent at biology.

In fact I'd wager that you can't given an accurate definition of evolution in your own words.

???????????????

Oh, look at who is stalking someone’s posts... for something I never really talked about in the past few months.

I am wagering that you think I am dumb, but that doesn’t matter. After all, nothing matters in the end anyway.

What?

Are you feeling well? Nevermind. Look, I notice you didn't rise to the challenge. And are maybe trying to throw me off with weird accusations. Which is pretty solid confirmation that you can't do what I asked of you.

Coruscanti Nations wrote:

Kowani wrote:Something something human sacrifice degeneracy sodomy heresy child murder etc.
None of which is provable, regardless of the ethics.

Because something that literally wiped out everything would obviously leave traces kf anything, yah.

The asteroid that killed the dinosaurs left evidence. That's how we know it happened. I don't know why you think apocalyptic events are subtle.

Neanderthaland wrote:

Coruscanti Nations wrote:Does it bother you if a random tree withered?

There are two options here. Either:
1) Trees are basically unfeeling, functionally inanimate objects. And the tree couldn't have obeyed Jesus' command. In which case this is Jesus essentially yelling at his car. Not a very "perfect" thing to do. Or,
2) Trees are sentient beings with agency (which is how Jesus treats it.) In which case Jesus has killed a living being for following the nature God gave it. Which is a malevolent thing to do.

3) The act was symbolic and had a purpose, whether a tree has a soul or not doesn’t matter, it means nothing.

Coruscanti Nations wrote:

Kowani wrote:Something something human sacrifice degeneracy sodomy heresy child murder etc.
None of which is provable, regardless of the ethics.

Because something that literally wiped out everything would obviously leave traces kf anything, yah. :meh:

There are rock pillars out there which pretty much would have been swept asunder by torrents of water reaching nearly 9000 meters above mean sea level. Then again an omnipotent God would've caused the rock pillars to reconstitute themselves in their original shape.

Austria-Bohemia-Hungary wrote:

Coruscanti Nations wrote:Because something that literally wiped out everything would obviously leave traces kf anything, yah.

There are rock pillars out there which pretty much would have been swept asunder by torrents of water reaching nearly 9000 meters above mean sea level. Then again an omnipotent God would've caused the rock pillars to reconstitute themselves in their original shape.

Would an omnipotent god not have a fingersnap instead of contrived methods like floods?

The Grims wrote:

Austria-Bohemia-Hungary wrote:There are rock pillars out there which pretty much would have been swept asunder by torrents of water reaching nearly 9000 meters above mean sea level. Then again an omnipotent God would've caused the rock pillars to reconstitute themselves in their original shape.

Would an omnipotent god not have a fingersnap instead of contrived methods like floods?

Eh, what you get when you try to pair omnieverything with Mesopotamian flood legends. Things starts to make less and less sense the more you try to make sense of it.

The Grims wrote:

Austria-Bohemia-Hungary wrote:There are rock pillars out there which pretty much would have been swept asunder by torrents of water reaching nearly 9000 meters above mean sea level. Then again an omnipotent God would've caused the rock pillars to reconstitute themselves in their original shape.

Would an omnipotent god not have a fingersnap instead of contrived methods like floods?

Where is the theatricality in that?

Precisely because a being is omnipotent, they aren't forced by "external constraints" to act one way over an other.

Minzerland II wrote:

Neanderthaland wrote:There are two options here. Either:
1) Trees are basically unfeeling, functionally inanimate objects. And the tree couldn't have obeyed Jesus' command. In which case this is Jesus essentially yelling at his car. Not a very "perfect" thing to do. Or,
2) Trees are sentient beings with agency (which is how Jesus treats it.) In which case Jesus has killed a living being for following the nature God gave it. Which is a malevolent thing to do.

3) The act was symbolic and had a purpose, whether a tree has a soul or not doesn’t matter, it means nothing.

Killing something with a soul to prove a point is a fucking malevolent thing to do. Especially when you're an omnipotent God who can easily prove that same point without doing so.

Neanderthaland wrote:

Minzerland II wrote:3) The act was symbolic and had a purpose, whether a tree has a soul or not doesn’t matter, it means nothing.

Killing something with a soul to prove a point is a fucking malevolent thing to do. Especially when you're an omnipotent God who can easily prove that same point without doing so.

No more than you do when you eat a cabbage. You mistakenly think that a fig tree’s soul is the same as a human’s soul, it is not; furthermore, the fig tree’s soul is God’s, He could do with it as He wanted. That not malicious. Indeed, He could prove the point however He wanted but He chose to do it the way He did, in His Wisdom.

Neanderthaland wrote:

Minzerland II wrote:3) The act was symbolic and had a purpose, whether a tree has a soul or not doesn’t matter, it means nothing.

Killing something with a soul to prove a point is a fucking malevolent thing to do. Especially when you're an omnipotent God who can easily prove that same point without doing so.

That's not how it works in christianity.

It's bad to meaninglessly harm living things, because it's damaging something you don't own.
God is the giver of life, which also means to be the giver of souls, which means god is the owner of life.
If the tree had a soul, it was because of god's will and giving, so god taking back its life isn't something evil.

You're making the overly common mistake to evaluate god by human standards. That's not how it works in christianity. Nor does it make sense outside christianity either, as god isn't a person, nor it's below humanity control. (if we wanted to go deeper, judgement without control, is aimless, as judgement to be meaningful needs enforcement)

Lost Memories wrote:

The Grims wrote:
Would an omnipotent god not have a fingersnap instead of contrived methods like floods?

Where is the theatricality in that?

In all cinemas near you probably And even in a google easteregg.

Lost Memories wrote:

Neanderthaland wrote:Killing something with a soul to prove a point is a fucking malevolent thing to do. Especially when you're an omnipotent God who can easily prove that same point without doing so.

That's not how it works in christianity.

It's bad to meaninglessly harm living things, because it's damaging something you don't own.
God is the giver of life, which also means to be the giver of souls, which means god is the owner of life.
If the tree had a soul, it was because of god's will and giving, so god taking back its life isn't something evil.

You're making the overly common mistake to evaluate god by human standards. That's not how it works in christianity. Nor does it make sense outside christianity either, as god isn't a person, nor it's below humanity control. (if we wanted to go deeper, judgement without control, is aimless, as judgement to be meaningful needs enforcement)

This is a better explanation than mine.