For those who want proof of the exodus

[athrock]

Is Stephen Hawking supposed to be the atheist pope or something?

Is he supposed to be someone we respect because of his intellect and accomplishments?

[The Grand Nudger]

Caught with your pants down again, huh preacher?  LOL.  Time to change tack as fast as possible. Look, you're here to do what it is you do...don't be ashamed of it just because I rib you for it. Own it. You have -failed- to provide what you must...instead you've offered a name dropping litany of irrelevance and non-seqs, none of which will help you to establish what you hope to establish.

[athrock]

So did Francis Collins. And Antony Flew. And Peter Hitchens. And...well, you get the idea.

No, Rhythm...you're one of the lucky ones...the ones who have seen through the charade and steered clear of it all.

And yet, here you are...talking to a liar* like me about something that you are absolutely certain does not exist.

Tell me...do you spend time arguing with people who believe in Bigfoot and UFO's, too? Do 9/11 truthers set you off? Do you get all worked up when people mention the grassy knoll? How many times have you watched the Zapruder film? 

Or is there something unique about the idea of God that you just can't let go of in spite of all your protests?



*A charge which you have not substantiated, btw.

For myself I have opinions on just about anything and will gladly bend your ear about those. By the way on these forums we have discussed with 9/11 truthers and UFO believers, all the crazies like to come here and spout off. It's kinda funny.

Crazies spouting off? Oh, yeah.

[Crossless2.0]

Is Stephen Hawking supposed to be the atheist pope or something?

Is he supposed to be someone we respect because of his intellect and accomplishments?

In his field of expertise? Of course. Just like Collins.

But when scientists step outside their area of expertise and pronounce on matters such as the existence or non-existence of a god, they are no more credible than any other person, IMO.

[KevinM1]

No disrespect intended kevin but your trying to keep your thinking inside the box your morality currently resides. What I was trying to do is to place you in a similar position that most Christians find themselves in. In that pop culture changes the definition of morality based on a stronger allegiance to 'science' than to God, or even tradition.

what you did was simply try and return to what you know/think your morality is currently based on. The whole point of this discussion is to ask what would you do if 'science' is used to prove that your/this generation's current system of morality is wrong/viewed as primitive as dark age church values.. If this is the case then Do you agree with the new science and condemn the current morality that says you can not have sex with children? and do you follow the trend to up hold pedophiles as the homosexuals currently are, (as being unfairly oppressed by society) or do you say like stimbo says that 'morality' is an absolute and what is right today was right yesterday and will be right tomorrow?

Drich, a physiological reaction != giving consent.  A person being raped may experience an orgasm, but it doesn't mean that they actually consented/liked what was happening to them.

Non sequitur

An animal will identify and go after what it considers to be a mate, especially if it was trained to do so.

the word your looking for is pheromones. no training needed. They are 'hardwired' for sex if certain elements are present, it is not a matter of consent. As you pointed out consent is a higher brain function they do not possess.

 That doesn't mean it has the ability to make higher functioning decisions.

Then consent is a non issue. If all a dog or donkey needs to want to engage in intercourse are the proper pheromones/triggers and higher brain function is not a consideration then all is needed is to supply the animal what he wants and the decision is made. no training needed. the animal will earnestly want to have sex.

If it's an action made due to instinct based purely on a chemical response, then no, it's not consent.  Consent means having a conscious understanding of what's going on, including the ramifications.  Which is why no one (except you, apparently) considers a physiological response to stimuli as granting consent.  Again, people who are raped have orgasms.  That doesn't mean that, deep down, they actually liked what happened.

Regarding children, it's not pop culture but a combination of psychology and physiology.  A child's brain isn't as developed as an adult's.  They also lack experience.  Combine the two, and no, they cannot give informed consent.

Again the point I was making is that you got the info you just parroted back through extensive studies, and you do not even question it. Why? because the information came to you through the proper channels people with 'higher learning' have been trained to trust.

I was asking What if 100 different reports/papers reversed what you currently quote, opening the door to sex with children? Would that be considered moral today (as stimbo put it) , simply because it is found to be 'moral' tomorrow? (meaning we are currently, unjustly oppressing pedophiles now by putting them in prison to be treated more harshly and raped because we today believe this crime is beyond immoral? but again believe so in error because what could be found in further study?)

In short, what if it becomes a proven scientific fact that children, or lets say certain children can indeed make an informed decision on sex, if.. lets say some area of the brain goes active.. let us then say it can physically and psychologically be proven that in 'Some' 10 year olds brains, that they have reached some trivial percentage/capacity needed that has been judged for this future society to be enough to consent to sex..

Given stimbo's claim that their is nothing immoral about ANY consensual sex. (given consent and context) it would be wrong to say sex with children is immoral, because as with Homosexuality their maybe a gene found that puts their pedophilic desire out of their sexual control.

Verse my original claim that pop culture defines morality, and what is immoral today will not always be moral tomorrow, and vise versa. which means morality will eventually spiral down out of control and at some point will include sex with children if society simply wants it bad enough. Without an absolute standard to keep it anchored. Like the bible.

which is correct?

You do realize that consent is just one reason why we don't have sex with children, and that I'm not Stimbo, right?  I was addressing your objections to Stimbo's statements, not necessarily agreeing with them in totality.

That said, children, from a physiological standpoint, aren't built to have sex with adults.  The pieces don't fit properly, and long term/permanent harm can occur.  

If there is a pedophile gene, then the way to deal with pedophiles will change, and likely involve gene therapy.  That kind of therapy may be proactive if the gene can be detected with a normal blood test.  I don't see how that is controversial.

didn't think that one through huh?
You didn't draw any parallels between my set up and argument about pedophiles and the current homosexual 'revolution?' What if a gay gene is found some day, should pedophiles be treated any different than those who are programmed to genetically desire to have sex with members of the same sex?

What do you base your answer on? what is moral today?? what studies say today? again what happens when those studies say something different? How is that any different than what a pedophile would say or do if that behavior became legal?

Pedophilia is different because of the harm involved, you dolt.  That's a far cry from homosexuality, which harms no one.

The rest of what you wrote, frankly, isn't worth the effort.

[athrock]

Caught with your pants down again, huh preacher?  LOL.  Time to change tack as fast as possible.  Look, you're here to do what it is you do...don't be ashamed of it just because I rib you for it.  Own it.  You have -failed- to provide what you must...instead yuo've offered a name dropping litany of non-sequiturs, none of which will help you to establish what you hope to establish.

When all else fails, claim victory, eh? Hilarious.

The thread is about evidence for the Exodus, and there are six sequential markers from the Bible which archaeological evidence seems to support.

YOUR problem is in coming to terms with that documented evidence.

Now, if I have mentioned a few famous converts, it's only to illustrate that people can and do REASON their way to a faith position without having been brainwashed as children as is so commonly assumed in this forum. You say you were NEVER a believer. Bully for you. Neither was Peter Hitchens, Christopher Hitchens' smarter brother. But that's not an attempt to "change tack" - it was merely an observation that some people are able to work through their biases and pre-suppositions and examine the data more objectively.

[Drich]

Let's just address something:

What makes you think that because slavery exists we must be actively against it, or as a result are condoning it?
Just because murder can help kill drug overlords, and other murderers, does that mean I condone all murder?

You go against every good Christian moral value you claim to stand for, you are a hypocrite living under a facade that your beliefs are rational, you fail to reconcile any of the immorality in the bible and when the problem is identified in the bible you don't change your agreement on whether or not that section of the bible is moral, you change your stance on the subject to agree with the bible's concept of morality. You are simply and utterly unable to think for yourself. You have openly condoned slavery not because slavery is bad, but apparently simply because it exists, and it is that irrational thinking alone that made everyone instantly want to say you can sincerely go fuck yourself.

I would respond to all you said, but you don't deserve my time.

To quote whoever it was on this forum that said it:
"If you want us to respect your beliefs, go get some fucking respectable beliefs!"

you condone it when you buy products that support or require slavery to make them.
example:
What happened when the owner of Chick Filet spoke out against homosexuality? what did the homosexual community do in protest to chick filet

What happen to Donald trumps sponcers when he came out hard against Muslims and immigration/the Mexico wall?
Why?

what about Disney when they would not give equal benfits to homosexual couples?

Ever heard the term fair trade coffee?? how did that come about?

These companies were boycotted, reason the people boycott a company is so that their money does not go to fund a practice or ideal they do not agree with.

How many companies do you support (no matter the cost) that only deal with items and products that were completely created/grown in a fair trade environment? How many products have you gone without or completely abandoned? (like cell phones for instance) their isn't a cell on the market that does not utilize components made or assembled by slave hands.

You want to talk about not thinking for yourself, why haven't you identified how slavery impacts/provides every aspect of your existence? Are you really so stupid as to believe that after the American civial war all slavery ended? Are you so foolish to believe that 55" plasma TV's can really be produced, packaged, shipped, and sold at retail for less than 200 dollars for a profit without slave labor involved?

Do you think Bananas can be shipped to your grocery store of choice year round for a price you can afford to pay without slavery?

You need to grow up, you are the one who needs to learn to think on his own and stop pretending you don't Need slavery to live every aspect of your life no matter how humble in this or any other western culture!

[downbeatplumb]

For myself I have opinions on just about anything and will gladly bend your ear about those. By the way on these forums we have discussed with 9/11 truthers and UFO believers, all the crazies like to come here and spout off. It's kinda funny.

Crazies spouting off? Oh, yeah.

You would not believe the stupid shit some people think is true.

[The Grand Nudger]

We've discussed the proposition, at length, 60 pages worth...no less.  Repeating your assertions every few pages as though they had not already been discussed may seem like a fruitful way to avoid your failure, the trouble is that those 60 pages exist and can be referred back to at any time.

You keep referring to my bias and presuppositions as if you would have any idea what those were.failing to realize that I just don't have a dog in the fight you think we're having. If exodus had happened, it wouldn't matter to me in the least.

[athrock]

Crazies spouting off? Oh, yeah.

You would not believe the stupid shit some people think is true.

Oh, I might surprise you.

And then there is the stuff that people believe is stupid shit that is true.