Why be good?

[Silver]

Here is the question, would you be comfortable leaving him alone with a child.....

She stated, limited his contact with children.


Are you being intentionally dumb or are you truly so obtuse?

[Huggy Bear]

I would argue that you probably never witnessed anyone actually speak in tongues.

I have and you know what its all gibberish and nothing holy easily debunked easily refuted put that in your pipe and smoke it.

Apparently there was no interpreter. If there was no interpreter, then it wasn't of God.

1 Corinthians 14:27-28
If any man speak in an unknown tongue, let it be by two, or at the most by three, and that by course; and let one interpret. But if there be no interpreter, let him keep silence in the church; and let him speak to himself, and to God.

[Silver]

Apparently there was no interpreter. If there was no interpreter, then it wasn't of God.

1 Corinthians 14:27-28
If any man speak in an unknown tongue, let it be by two, or at the most by three, and that by course; and let one interpret. But if there be no interpreter, let him keep silence in the church; and let him speak to himself, and to God.

Science has shown that one merely falsely interprets to make it seem that something real was actually revealed.

Trust me, I was actually part of a tongue-speaking church, and I witnessed it first hand.  

[Huggy Bear]

Here is the question, would you be comfortable leaving him alone with a child.....

She stated, limited his contact with children.


Are you being intentionally dumb or are you truly so obtuse?

She stated HE should limit his contact. I'm asking her opinion specifically...

[dyresand]

I have and you know what its all gibberish and nothing holy easily debunked easily refuted put that in your pipe and smoke it.

Apparently there was no interpreter. If there was no interpreter, then it wasn't of God.

1 Corinthians 14:27-28
If any man speak in an unknown tongue, let it be by two, or at the most by three, and that by course; and let one interpret. But if there be no interpreter, let him keep silence in the church; and let him speak to himself, and to God.

The power of logic and reason compels you to check your facts. 





For decades, “speaking in tongues” has been the butt of jokes. Now, a leading Evangelical asks Christians to take this nonsensical jibber-jabber seriously . . . and a growing number already do.

The Christian Post gives us a look into the mind of Pastor Brady Boyd, Senior Pastor at the , the Colorado Springs, CO megachurch founded by disgraced pastor Ted Haggard. As part of a sermon series on The Supernatural — wouldn’t that be pretty much any sermon involving gods and demons? — Boyd covered “speaking in tongues”.
Glossolalia, or “speaking in tongues”, is also known as “ecstatic speech”. Speakers believe that they are speaking in another language, and others believe they can interpret it. What do linguists think?
In his 1972 book, , University of Toronto linguist William Samarin described glossolalia as:

. . . meaningless but phonologically structured human utterance, believed by the speaker to be a real language but bearing no systematic resemblance to any natural language, living or dead.

More explicitly, glossolalia:

consists of strings of syllables, made up of sounds taken from all those that the speaker knows, put together more or less haphazardly but emerging nevertheless as word-like and sentence-like units because of realistic, language-like rhythm and melody.

Other researchers have come to the same conclusions, that the speech produced in an ecstatic state is a mishmash of sounds from the speaker’s native language — not new sounds or sounds from other languages not known to the speaker — with no perceivable organization or meaning.

taken from http://www.secularnewsdaily.com/2010/03/...gibberish/

[rexbeccarox]

She stated, limited his contact with children.


Are you being intentionally dumb or are you truly so obtuse?

She stated HE should limit his contact. I'm asking her opinion specifically...

Holy fucking shit.  I... how can you... how do you even... I can't...

Edit: Actually, I can: Huggy, you are making Kitan's, and every other person who has ever accused you of being obtuse's, point.

Holy fucking wow.

[Randy Carson]

I think "why be good" is perhaps the wrong question.

Instead, "why are we good" is the right question. Because clearly, we are good, by enlarge. 

Rob-

I have a LOT of posts to respond to, and I need to cover as much ground as I can with limited time.

You haven't actually answered my question, which has to do with our motivations and not our being. I'm going to state it again with a little more substance...I typed this up in Word earlier today.

I will look back at your post when I'm not pressed to answer so many others.

Why Be Good?

Atheists believe that science will eventually prove that God does not exist – if it has not already done so. This fails, however, to take into account that science is concerned with the material, natural things in the universe that can be observed, measured and tested, etc. Since God is immaterial, science is not equipped to answer questions concerning the existence of God – questions that are more properly suited to philosophy.

Morality is part of the world in which we all live and even atheists follow moral norms out of a desire to be "good." But what possible meaning can the word "good" have in a truly atheist universe in which God does not exist?

Terms such as "good" and "evil" would be essentially meaningless in any absolute sense because, if God does not exist and there is no transcendent moral law revealed by God which prescribes how we should act, one cannot say that any given action is good or evil. It just is what it is. One may not like or approve of a particular action, such as murder or theft, but it would be impossible to deem it "evil" in any sense beyond one’s own subjective, personal preferences. This is an example of an incoherence at work within atheism.

The atheist conviction is that human beings should be "good" for the sake of being good, as well as for the general personal and social benefits that accrue from being "good," "moral," etc. – and not because God wills that we be good.

But this is where the problems begin for atheists. Science informs us of Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution, which entails the "survival of the fittest" principle of natural selection in which the strong dominate and kill off the weak, etc. This principle can be readily observed in the animal kingdom, where stronger, faster, more aggressive alpha males get to mate with the females and produce offspring. Weaker, less dominant males do not.

A significant incoherence in atheist thought becomes clear when atheists insist, on the one hand, that the natural order is governed by the blind, random forces of nature, resulting in the "survival of the fittest" evolution of species and yet, on the other hand, they complain about the problem of evil, or decry violent acts of Muslim terrorists, or excoriate those who engage in "immoral" behavior – most especially among Christians.

But if, as atheists claim, God does not exist and all of us are simply the byproducts of natural selection’s "survival of the fittest," why shouldn’t the strong among us dominate and kill off the weak? Why shouldn’t we adopt an "every man for himself" attitude and get what we want from whomever we want it by whatever means we can get it?

IOW, why be good?

And if it true that our ancient ancestors did live by the “survival of the fittest” code, then has that code been set aside in our more enlightened era? And if so, when?

But if that code has not been discarded, then isn’t it actually a “good” thing for an individual or group to be “bad” at the expense of others who are weaker or less dominant in order to benefit one’s self, one’s family, one’s social group and even humanity as a whole?

[Huggy Bear]

---

Apparently there was no interpreter. If there was no interpreter, then it wasn't of God.

1 Corinthians 14:27-28
If any man speak in an unknown tongue, let it be by two, or at the most by three, and that by course; and let one interpret. But if there be no interpreter, let him keep silence in the church; and let him speak to himself, and to God.

The power of logic and reason compels you to check your facts. 





For decades, “speaking in tongues” has been the butt of jokes. Now, a leading Evangelical asks Christians to take this nonsensical jibber-jabber seriously . . . and a growing number already do.

The Christian Post gives us a look into the mind of Pastor Brady Boyd, Senior Pastor at the , the Colorado Springs, CO megachurch founded by disgraced pastor Ted Haggard. As part of a sermon series on The Supernatural — wouldn’t that be pretty much any sermon involving gods and demons? — Boyd covered “speaking in tongues”.
Glossolalia, or “speaking in tongues”, is also known as “ecstatic speech”. Speakers believe that they are speaking in another language, and others believe they can interpret it. What do linguists think?
In his 1972 book, , University of Toronto linguist William Samarin described glossolalia as:

. . . meaningless but phonologically structured human utterance, believed by the speaker to be a real language but bearing no systematic resemblance to any natural language, living or dead.

More explicitly, glossolalia:

consists of strings of syllables, made up of sounds taken from all those that the speaker knows, put together more or less haphazardly but emerging nevertheless as word-like and sentence-like units because of realistic, language-like rhythm and melody.

Other researchers have come to the same conclusions, that the speech produced in an ecstatic state is a mishmash of sounds from the speaker’s native language — not new sounds or sounds from other languages not known to the speaker — with no perceivable organization or meaning.

taken from http://www.secularnewsdaily.com/2010/03/...gibberish/

---

So you post a video of someone speaking in tongues with no interpretation....
Are you sure you read what I wrote?

[Randy Carson]

If there is no God, then there is no hell; and if there is no hell, then there are no ultimate, eternal repercussions, good or bad, for how we live out our mortal lives. Of course, atheists insist that people should be "good without God."

But why? If God does not exist, why be good?

Being good allows us to make it through the day without going ape-crap crazy and killing everyone.  When people go bad very bad things happen.  Sometimes the normal legal system isn't enough to control people, which is why there are riots and wars.  

But if people ARE good as Rob insists, why do people need outside influence to NOT riot, etc?

Look at Baltimore. In the absence of police presence, society is breaking down? Now, picture this on a larger scale?

Why should anyone ever do anything other than look out for themselves? This is the reason, according to a recent piece in the Washington Post, that men are not interested in getting married. They can get what they want from women without commitment, so why give up their freedom? IOW, they don't have to be "good".

Life without consequences...

[Huggy Bear]

She stated HE should limit his contact. I'm asking her opinion specifically...

Holy fucking shit.  I... how can you... how do you even... I can't...

Edit: Actually, I can: Huggy, you are making Kitan's, and every other person who has ever accused you of being obtuse's, point.

Holy fucking wow.

There is a method to my (what you percieve as madness), trust me...

In case you haven't learned by now, I like to make sure one position is clear...