Questions and Statements about ? ...
Options
Comments
-
Whats disappointing is how ppl can take 20 seconds to type how ignorant a question is, yet they can't take two seconds to say yes/no, or take 2 minutes to think about it. But ppl aren't thinkers anymore.parallelrhymes wrote: »Technically he was created by man so I would say yes (bring the hate)
If everyone stopped believing in ? would he then not be destroyed?...Since he is a mere thought/faith anyways if everyone stopped believing then in a sense He/She/It no longer exists.
I wanna take what you said a step further... ? is: The truth, the way, the light. The truth will still exist even if No one knows it. Light shines through darkness. Regardless if we believe in [a] ? , ? still exists. In other words, like matter, ? can't be destroyed.... But that also means he wasn't created..... ? -
You can say that ? is the truth, way, and light, but since you cannot support that with any kind of evidence, we have no reason to believe you.
Also, matter can be destroyed. You just hit it with its anti-particles and they both obliterate. People hear "matter & energy cant be created or destroyed" through word-of-mouth from people who actually don't know anything about physics and they just believe it. Like the "we only use 10% of our brain" thing. It's absolutely false, but people believe it because their friend said they saw it on TV or something. -
BOSS KTULU wrote: »You can say that ? is the truth, way, and light, but since you cannot support that with any kind of evidence, we have no reason to believe you.
This is true. So we take a theoretical shortcut and assume ? is real for sake of conversation. With that said, lets disect what you said about matter being created and destroyed. If we assume that matter can be created or destroyed, does this mean that ? was created and could be destroyed?
It is an interesting paradox. -
BOSS KTULU wrote: »You can say that ? is the truth, way, and light, but since you cannot support that with any kind of evidence, we have no reason to believe you.
Also, matter can be destroyed. You just hit it with its anti-particles and they both obliterate. People hear "matter & energy cant be created or destroyed" through word-of-mouth from people who actually don't know anything about physics and they just believe it. Like the "we only use 10% of our brain" thing. It's absolutely false, but people believe it because their friend said they saw it on TV or something.
Wow. What irony. This is coming from the same person, who by word of mouth, believes that the universe came into existence by a mindless, non-conscious process. Which in turn, somehow produced order and things such as colors, smells, sounds, tastes, textures, and last but not least LIFE. Oh yeah and LIFE somehow emerged from non-living matter. Talk about grasping for apples with no hands. Good grief.:rolleyes: -
One Spliff wrote: »
watch all 7 parts...
ive researched many interpretations of ther book of revelation and the book of danieli...and even tho it says no man nor even the angels in heaven will know when the end is.....theres no doubt that this is the most accrate prediction your going to find, based all on scripture...
Do you know how many times people have set dates and have been absolutely wrong every single time? Here is one such example of date setting gone wrong. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millerites
Don't get caught up in the foolishness of date setting. If Jesus said nobody will know, how can this man know? I mean think about it. Romans 3:4 pertains to this my brother. "let ? be true, but every man a liar;"
While the pastor made some good points, I have to totally dismiss his claim that the Great tribulation will be from 2010-2017. These are indeed the last days, but how close we are to the 2nd coming is only pure speculation.
Jesus said to occupy till He comes. And that's exactly what I will do. There are countless souls out there that need to hear the gospel message and be saved. Thats whats important. Spreading the truth about Jesus Christ to every creature. The gospel has to be preached in all the world as a witness to all nations, and then the end will come. -
Atheists are smart-dumb ? . They spend all this time thinking and analyzing and its not even necessary
-
BOSS KTULU wrote: »Also, matter can be destroyed. You just hit it with its anti-particles and they both obliterate..
Where is that in quantum physics? Article or paper please. Dark matter is not even a proven fact. Yet I should say. Its a theory meaning not yet proved. So it does still stand that energy can not be created or destroyed. How would you direct an anti particle to hit something any way. More than likely you meant two of the same particles at each other? That still does not destroy it just breaks it down. Maybe I wrong. either way let me know. -
parallelrhymes wrote: »Technically he was created by man so I would say yes (bring the hate)
If everyone stopped believing in ? would he then not be destroyed?...Since he is a mere thought/faith anyways if everyone stopped believing then in a sense He/She/It no longer exists.
everyone's gonna sleep on this post -
alissowack wrote: »Wow!!!! It works!!!! I guess as long as I got service, I can post whenever. just see if bold works.
there's no iphone friendly interface though right? -
perspective@100 wrote: »Where is that in quantum physics? Article or paper please. Dark matter is not even a proven fact. Yet I should say. Its a theory meaning not yet proved. So it does still stand that energy can not be created or destroyed. How would you direct an anti particle to hit something any way. More than likely you meant two of the same particles at each other? That still does not destroy it just breaks it down. Maybe I wrong. either way let me know.
i think you need to check up what theory means in science before you open your mouth playboy.geechee slim wrote: »This is true. So we take a theoretical shortcut and assume ? is real for sake of conversation. With that said, lets disect what you said about matter being created and destroyed. If we assume that matter can be created or destroyed, does this mean that ? was created and could be destroyed?
It is an interesting paradox.
if you make that assumption then you assume ? isn't created of matter. he's created by some supernatural force that we can't see detect or prove so the argument leaves the realm of science and goes into philosophy since science doesn't work in the supernatural.DoUwant2go2Heaven? wrote: »Wow. What irony. This is coming from the same person, who by word of mouth, believes that the universe came into existence by a mindless, non-conscious process. Which in turn, somehow produced order and things such as colors, smells, sounds, tastes, textures, and last but not least LIFE. Oh yeah and LIFE somehow emerged from non-living matter. Talk about grasping for apples with no hands. Good grief.:rolleyes:
there's studies on the origin of life (living from non living) it's called abiogeneis. There's tons of books, scientific theories, models, and empirical evidence about it. ? the building blocks of life is found in the remains of exploded stars (non living material). But what evidence is there that a supernatural entity exists and set in motion everything outside of a book that says ? created the universe in 5 days and spent an entire day just creating man alone, the earth is 6000 years old, and a worldwide flood destroyed the earth and every animal alive today was on that boat?
IRT to abiogenesis/evolution I can read about it. I can study it. I can do experiments to prove or disprove it. But ? ? I just have to believe it, not question it, and take it as 100% fact despite what evidence to the contrary says. -
Interesting.if you make that assumption then you assume ? isn't created of matter. he's created by some supernatural force that we can't see detect or prove so the argument leaves the realm of science and goes into philosophy since science doesn't work in the supernatural.
OK, this 'force' or supernatural pressence may be thie force that holds our universe together. Matter is nothing more than atoms vibrating really fast, meaning there is space (and energy) between particles, being attracted to each other. Kind of like magnets attract to one another, we can assume that this is a "living" force. Our human body and brain is not too different.
Let the record show that I never was a fan of "I'mGoing2HeavenRU" or "DoUWant2Go2Heaven," but the ? got a answer for everything. -
Now if only the iPhone could actually make and recieve calls. I swear I'll cop when they move to Verizon.there's no iphone friendly interface though right? -
Then logically you also cannot believe in these following things either
Right and wrong - There is no scientific or imperical way to prove that right and wrong even exist. People can point to things like the holocaust, the purges by Stalin, the murderous reign of various soviet dictators or even the crusades and the various religious wars and sya those things were wrong because millions of people died needlessly, but who is to say hurting others is wrong. I could just as easily say that hurting people is ok and both of us would be right.
Logic - The atheist best friends logic and reason are simply illusory in their train of logic. Tell me this. What does logic and reason look like? How much does a handful of logic and reason weigh? What color is logic and reason? Logic and reason cannot be proven by science and therefore according to the atheist way of thought don't exist.
The idea that there is no ? - Atheism itself is an unprovable hypothesis because it assumes that ? would be provable scientifically which coincidentally isn't provable scientifically. This argument, like many things in science, is based on an assumption that is neither based on valid logic or on any real facts.
Science - Science itself isn't even provable by science. How do we know this because science is based on the uniformity of nature, something that to this day has NEVER been proved. Science assumes that if you do an experiment enough times that, that it proves that the observed is a constant. However that assumes that this has worked the same way in the past and will continue to work the same way in the future. This assumption is unscientific and unprovable. -
im ok with all of that. a belief is nothing more than a concept anyway.
-
Some theist misuse the term proof. In the usage you are implying it means evidence, which is infact why this atheist does not believe in ? . There is no evidence.
The items you mention however all have evidence that supports them.
Right and wrong are determination made by individuals. These individuals base their determination on their cultural upbringing primarily. People are real. The things or events the determine to be right or wrong are real. The state of their determination, right and wrong itself, is real. It is just not consitent. I would determine that honor killing is wrong while an other person could determine it right because his ? told him it was.
Logic is simply the process of reachinh an accurate conclusion from the data available. Since I can test most any conclusion I reach I can constantly test if my logic is sound. I can also display each type of logic.
Deductive
All men are mortal
I am a man
I am mortal
Inductive
I went to bed and there was no snow on the ground
I woke up the next morning and there was snow on the ground
While I sleep it snowed.
The idea that X is not requires no evidence. You might believe there is a poster named GiggityGoo who is the best poster in IC history he has just never made a post. I have no burden to show you are wrong you have the burden to show you are right.
Science does not assume uniformity it has to provide evidence of it. Gravity for instance had to be shown that it must be universal or the universe would not work the way it does. People have argued the speed of light has altered over time. Science has shown this to be wrong. Science does not assume successful experiments produce constants. Instead they assume a successful experiment supports the hypothesis being tested. It does not 'prove' anything simply produces evidence in support. -
i think you need to check up what theory means in science before you open your mouth playboy.
I like How you try to play me and all this ? you talkin is science Fiction! LOL
My friend Theories are not able to be proven because they are abstract. Gravity for instance. Cant feel it or touch it, ask Einstein.
Maybe you thought I meant theorem? Now that has set rules as in mathmatics.Theories are open for debate.
So the question stands, Do YOU know what theory means in science? -
Some theist misuse the term proof. In the usage you are implying it means evidence, which is infact why this atheist does not believe in ? . There is no evidence.
The items you mention however all have evidence that supports them.
Right and wrong are determination made by individuals. These individuals base their determination on their cultural upbringing primarily. People are real. The things or events the determine to be right or wrong are real. The state of their determination, right and wrong itself, is real. It is just not consitent. I would determine that honor killing is wrong while an other person could determine it right because his ? told him it was.
Logic is simply the process of reachinh an accurate conclusion from the data available. Since I can test most any conclusion I reach I can constantly test if my logic is sound. I can also display each type of logic.
Deductive
All men are mortal
I am a man
I am mortal
Inductive
I went to bed and there was no snow on the ground
I woke up the next morning and there was snow on the ground
While I sleep it snowed.
The idea that X is not requires no evidence. You might believe there is a poster named GiggityGoo who is the best poster in IC history he has just never made a post. I have no burden to show you are wrong you have the burden to show you are right.
Science does not assume uniformity it has to provide evidence of it. Gravity for instance had to be shown that it must be universal or the universe would not work the way it does. People have argued the speed of light has altered over time. Science has shown this to be wrong. Science does not assume successful experiments produce constants. Instead they assume a successful experiment supports the hypothesis being tested. It does not 'prove' anything simply produces evidence in support.
1. So ineffect right and wrong do not exist but rather are just subjective terms. So really nothing is inherently wrong with ? . However if my culture said it was wrong then it is and if my culture said it was ok then it is. Which again goes to my point that right and wrong in the atheist epistemology is illusory. There is no standard only subjective understandings. Well that is fine so long as you aren't the weakest person on the totem pole so to speak. ? said killing jews was perfectly fine and therefore millions were killed. Now you couldn't say this is wrong but only I think this is wrong. But in objective reality there really wasn't anything evil about massacring millions of Jews, Blacks, Handicapped people, Gypsies, Intellectuals and other social undesirables.
2. Yes but again what does logic look like? You cannot observe logic with the 5 senses so how do you know it exist. And by what standard are u judging that your logic is sound?
3. There is plenty of evidence to support the existance of ? . Wether or not you choose to accept it is another story.
4. Sure it does.
1. Gravity as you mentioned cannot be proven that it worked in the past everytime all the time in the past, present and future. That is simply assumed. Yes I'm sure it was tested and retested but ultimately it is assumed that
gravity has and will continue to work in the same way.
2. Shown to be wrong? Lets say for the sake of argument they are wrong that only means that its proven wrong NOW. You still are assuming that all light everywhere in the universe travels the same speed between any given
points in the universe and still would have to change everything if new evidence came up to show it was wrong (science is always changing right?)
5. So then in effect science proves nothing? -
For something to be considered a theory in science it must have evidence ('proof') that it is true. For something to be called a theory it has to be 'proved' at least in the manner that you seem to use the word. If you mean it in the same manner that math proof work then no, but if you mean something that has been tested repeatably and shown to be true then yes.
-
For something to be considered a theory in science it must have evidence ('proof') that it is true. For something to be called a theory it has to be 'proved' at least in the manner that you seem to use the word. If you mean it in the same manner that math proof work then no, but if you mean something that has been tested repeatably and shown to be true then yes.
I mean in science, read this I got it from wikipedia----
Theories are distinct from theorems: theorems are derived deductively from theories according to a formal system of rules, generally as a first step in testing or applying the theory in a concrete situation. Theories are abstract and conceptual, and to this end they are never considered right or wrong. Instead, they are supported or challenged by observations in the world. They are 'rigorously tentative', meaning that they are proposed as true but expected to satisfy careful examination to account for the possibility of faulty inference or incorrect observation. Sometimes theories are falsified, meaning that an explicit set of observations contradicts some fundamental assumption of the theory, but more often theories are revised to conform to new observations, by restricting the class of phenomena the theory applies to or changing the assertions made. Sometimes a theory is set aside by scholars because there is no way to examine its assertions analytically; these may continue on in the popular imagination until some means of examination is found which either refutes or lends credence to the theory
If you can prove a theory with out a doubt it becomes law. This is how science works via the scientific method.
I can say theory all I want as long as I use keen observation of true things around me, meaning things that are already law and logical assumptions. -
DoUwant2go2Heaven? wrote: »Do you know how many times people have set dates and have been absolutely wrong every single time? Here is one such example of date setting gone wrong. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millerites
Don't get caught up in the foolishness of date setting. If Jesus said nobody will know, how can this man know? I mean think about it. Romans 3:4 pertains to this my brother. "let ? be true, but every man a liar;"
While the pastor made some good points, I have to totally dismiss his claim that the Great tribulation will be from 2010-2017. These are indeed the last days, but how close we are to the 2nd coming is only pure speculation.
Jesus said to occupy till He comes. And that's exactly what I will do. There are countless souls out there that need to hear the gospel message and be saved. Thats whats important. Spreading the truth about Jesus Christ to every creature. The gospel has to be preached in all the world as a witness to all nations, and then the end will come.
yup i totally agree...
like i said its the most accurate out of all the ones ive checked...the rest are all way to simplistic or illogical...
i think he could be close if not right -
blue falcon wrote: »1. So ineffect right and wrong do not exist but rather are just subjective terms. So really nothing is inherently wrong with ? . However if my culture said it was wrong then it is and if my culture said it was ok then it is. Which again goes to my point that right and wrong in the atheist epistemology is illusory. There is no standard only subjective understandings. Well that is fine so long as you aren't the weakest person on the totem pole so to speak. ? said killing jews was perfectly fine and therefore millions were killed. Now you couldn't say this is wrong but only I think this is wrong. But in objective reality there really wasn't anything evil about massacring millions of Jews, Blacks, Handicapped people, Gypsies, Intellectuals and other social undesirables.
2. Yes but again what does logic look like? You cannot observe logic with the 5 senses so how do you know it exist. And by what standard are u judging that your logic is sound?
3. There is plenty of evidence to support the existance of ? . Wether or not you choose to accept it is another story.
4. Sure it does.
1. Gravity as you mentioned cannot be proven that it worked in the past everytime all the time in the past, present and future. That is simply assumed. Yes I'm sure it was tested and retested but ultimately it is assumed that
gravity has and will continue to work in the same way.
2. Shown to be wrong? Lets say for the sake of argument they are wrong that only means that its proven wrong NOW. You still are assuming that all light everywhere in the universe travels the same speed between any given
points in the universe and still would have to change everything if new evidence came up to show it was wrong (science is always changing right?)
5. So then in effect science proves nothing?
Starting with points of agreement. Yes science 'proves' nothing. The best science can do is look at the world around us and state well for this set of data and observations (such as light, gravity, or the diverstiy of life on the earth) 'A' is the best explaination. 'A' in this case is a theory. As more data and observations are aquired we continually review 'A' to see if it remains the best explaination. When the data no longer supports 'A' it is discarded an a new theory must be developed.
Right and Wrong are always subjective. In America it is 'right' to shot someone who invades your home. I personally agree with this. In several country particularly in the asian region this is considered wrong. In some regions 'corrective' ? is not considered wrong.Your desire for some ultimate right or wrong is also illusionary. Even if ? revealed that ? is wrong that is still subjective to ? 's point of view. If I accept that he is the arbitor for my moral compass then I must accept that if you revealed Honor killing was right I would have to indulge in that. I am quite happy that right and wrong are subjective.
How is that you can write point 2 and then point 3 and your head not explode?
As for universal aspects of sciences I repeat for light and gravity study Einstein and Newton. They actaully address the very thing you are arguing. -
geechee slim wrote: »Interesting.
OK, this 'force' or supernatural pressence may be thie force that holds our universe together. Matter is nothing more than atoms vibrating really fast, meaning there is space (and energy) between particles, being attracted to each other. Kind of like magnets attract to one another, we can assume that this is a "living" force. Our human body and brain is not too different..
Well until that supernatural force has someway to be detected, proven, or disproven, it's no more plausible to say that force which holds the universe together is ? , than it is to say it's a cat's giant ball of thread he's playing with in another dimension.
And somewhat of what you touched on (the attraction and connection of all matter together) is what's being discussed in string theory. I'm not that big of a nerd to draw wood over that ? though lol.Let the record show that I never was a fan of "I'mGoing2HeavenRU" or "DoUWant2Go2Heaven," but the ? got a answer for everything.
it's easy to have an answer when all you gotta say is good did it then provide no proof to back up your claims.perspective@100 wrote: »i think you need to check up what theory means in science before you open your mouth playboy.
I like How you try to play me and all this ? you talkin is science Fiction! LOL
My friend Theories are not able to be proven because they are abstract. Gravity for instance. Cant feel it or touch it, ask Einstein.
Maybe you thought I meant theorem? Now that has set rules as in mathmatics.Theories are open for debate.
So the question stands, Do YOU know what theory means in science?
Damn you're an idiot, I don't even want to respond to this ? . A scientific theory is not abstract, ? a scientific theory holds more weight than scientific law. At least look the ? up on wikipedia before you talk about some ? you know nothing about.perspective@100 wrote: »I mean in science, read this I got it from wikipedia----
Theories are distinct from theorems: theorems are derived deductively from theories according to a formal system of rules, generally as a first step in testing or applying the theory in a concrete situation. Theories are abstract and conceptual, and to this end they are never considered right or wrong. Instead, they are supported or challenged by observations in the world. They are 'rigorously tentative', meaning that they are proposed as true but expected to satisfy careful examination to account for the possibility of faulty inference or incorrect observation. Sometimes theories are falsified, meaning that an explicit set of observations contradicts some fundamental assumption of the theory, but more often theories are revised to conform to new observations, by restricting the class of phenomena the theory applies to or changing the assertions made. Sometimes a theory is set aside by scholars because there is no way to examine its assertions analytically; these may continue on in the popular imagination until some means of examination is found which either refutes or lends credence to the theory
If you can prove a theory with out a doubt it becomes law. This is how science works via the scientific method.
I can say theory all I want as long as I use keen observation of true things around me, meaning things that are already law and logical assumptions.
Now go read the definition of a SCIENTIFIC THEORY! There's a big difference between SCIENTIFIC THEORY and a THEORY! A scientific theory is based on empirical data that can be seen, proven, reproven, tested, retested and stands the test of time.
Theory: Barack Obama might win a 2nd election
SCIENTIFIC THEORY: If I drop an object on earth, it will fall at 9.8m/s square.
One of the 2 have a 100% percent chance of happening, the other doesn't.
"A common misconception is that scientific theories are rudimentary ideas that will eventually graduate into scientific laws when enough data and evidence has been accumulated. A theory does not change into a scientific law with the accumulation of new or better evidence. A theory will always remain a theory, a law will always remain a law."
It's people like you who say dumb ? like evolution is just a theory, so I don't have to believe it! Like you think you've come to some sort of mental or philosophical milestone in your life or some ? . Next you gonna ask if man evolved from monkeys why we still got monkeys? Or if there's supposed to be transitional forms, where's the crockodock at?
This is why I don't get involved in these types of convo's online it be a lot of dumb ? acting like their smart smh -
@Longmeat"A scientific theory is not abstract, ? a scientific theory holds more weight than scientific law"- but yet scientific thoeries are disproved all the time... Laws are used to help create scientific theories. The earth being flat used to be a scientific theory. Dont disguise the word by putting science in front of it. the same principles for its definition apply. Thats why laws and theories are used in the scientific method. Knowledge and technology change. You can tweak a theory not a law. they are two totally differnt things.
@longmeat no you just dont wont to debate because their is a possibility that you may be wrong where as I invite open thought and if I'm wrong I congradulate the person for educating me on something... So you seem like a smart guy as well as Whar67. I wont say i'm a genius but trust me I know some things. Anyhow--
Ok Longmeat and whar67, we are getting no where talking about the word "theory". I will agree a theory is always a theory. Back to the original question I pose. This anit- matter or dark matter. When anti matter is banged against its counter part matter are you saying its completely destroyed with no reminents of energy left? I'm trying to look it up myself and all I find is what they call quarks. Neutrons which contain quarks and antineutrons which contain antiquarks would theoretically annihalate each other? But it says a neutrons can decay into smaller things also.
So what is it? Does matter continuously break down or it it destroyed?
^I been tweaking this post because theories, laws, hypothesis are all important in science. Its hard to say what is the best source of knowledge between them. -
Starting with points of agreement. Yes science 'proves' nothing. The best science can do is look at the world around us and state well for this set of data and observations (such as light, gravity, or the diverstiy of life on the earth) 'A' is the best explaination. 'A' in this case is a theory. As more data and observations are aquired we continually review 'A' to see if it remains the best explaination. When the data no longer supports 'A' it is discarded an a new theory must be developed.
Right and Wrong are always subjective. In America it is 'right' to shot someone who invades your home. I personally agree with this. In several country particularly in the asian region this is considered wrong. In some regions 'corrective' ? is not considered wrong.Your desire for some ultimate right or wrong is also illusionary. Even if ? revealed that ? is wrong that is still subjective to ? 's point of view. If I accept that he is the arbitor for my moral compass then I must accept that if you revealed Honor killing was right I would have to indulge in that. I am quite happy that right and wrong are subjective.
How is that you can write point 2 and then point 3 and your head not explode?
As for universal aspects of sciences I repeat for light and gravity study Einstein and Newton. They actaully address the very thing you are arguing.
1. So then why do atheist even bother saying that science has disproven ? or that since ? cannot be proven scientifically He cannot exist.
2. So basically nothing is right or wrong? I think if (? forbid) someone killed a loved one that point of view would change dramatically. ANd while different people may have different ideas of right or wrong that doesn't change the FACT that something is right or wrong. 1 + 1 doesn't equal 2 because I think it does. The sky isn't blue because some guy in China says it is. The same applies for morality, there is an objective standard for right and wrong however people may or may not choose to follow that. Since ? does say ? is wrong and he did create everything including right and wrong, it would cease to be subjective because ? is the objective standard or right and wrong.
3. What are you talking about.
4. Has this actually been observed or is it something that was mathematically worked out? -
blue falcon wrote: »1. So then why do atheist even bother saying that science has disproven ? or that since ? cannot be proven scientifically He cannot exist.
2. So basically nothing is right or wrong? I think if (? forbid) someone killed a loved one that point of view would change dramatically. ANd while different people may have different ideas of right or wrong that doesn't change the FACT that something is right or wrong. 1 + 1 doesn't equal 2 because I think it does. The sky isn't blue because some guy in China says it is. The same applies for morality, there is an objective standard for right and wrong however people may or may not choose to follow that. Since ? does say ? is wrong and he did create everything including right and wrong, it would cease to be subjective because ? is the objective standard or right and wrong.
3. What are you talking about.
4. Has this actually been observed or is it something that was mathematically worked out?
I can not speak for others but I do not contend ? has been disproven or can not exist. Instead I find that the evidence for ? is equivalent to that of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Without evidence I do not accept conclusions.
I would think killing anyone is wrong right now. I would continue to think the exact same thing if a loved one died. ? does say all kinds of things are right that are wrong.
Joshua 6:21 And they utterly destroyed all that was in the city, both man and woman, young and old, and ox, and sheep, and ass, with the edge of the sword.
Invading someones home, taking their stuff and then murdering them is WRONG. ? 's cool with it. This is the most dangerous part about externalizing your morality. Someone with suffient religious credibility can come along and make you violate your own conscience. Like Abrahman when he was ready to sacrifice Isacc religion allows to do loopy things.
I believe gential multiation is wrong. ? 's down with it.
Joshua 5:2 At that time the LORD said unto Joshua, Make thee sharp knives, and circumcise again the children of Israel the second time.
? sucks ? as a moral arbitor. I am sure I could find passages support ? in so far as taking female prisoner and forcing them into marriages counts as ? to me.
Your conscience is a damn good guide. Do not abandon it for some outside source.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uS-VzRXsSio
