tsunami’s toll tops 52,000

[BibleBoy]

Dear Bibleboy,

This is just my opinion. You don't have to accept it if you dislike it. DISCLAIMER: I am not a christian.

Undecided Frog look at all the archaelogical evidence of God and The Holy Bible. Here's a link about archaeilogical evidence the true route to the real Red Sea crossing,the real Mt.Sinai,and Sodom,Gomorrah and a few other cities near them.

Hmmm. Just because a book references the Mississippi River, and there is archaelogical evidence that the Mississippi River does indeed exist, should I then regard the book Huckleberry Finn as absolute truth? It would not be rational. You would not do that.

Regards,

UndecidedFrog

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Undecided Frog,

There's a BIG difference between The Holy Bible and Huckleberry Finn. The Holy Bible is TRUE. Did you even look at the link? If you didn't please do and these other links:

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article....RTICLE_ID=33168

http://www.angelfire.com/mi/dinosaurs/mokele.html

http://www.bible-history.com/destruction_o...l_writings.html

[UndecidedFrog]

Dear Bibleboy,

This is just my opinion. You don't have to accept it if you dislike it. DISCLAIMER: I am not a christian.

There's a BIG difference between The Holy Bible and Huckleberry Finn. The Holy Bible is TRUE.

I'm sure you believe it so.

However, many fictional stories reference real places, people. It happens today in the genre that is called historical fiction. Just because some book references SOME real places and people, does it necessarily mean that ALL in the book MUST be true? It would be irrational to assume so.

My example of Huck Finn is an appropriate one. We know Mark Twain intended fiction, although referencing real places. How do we know this? We have his other writings to review. You BELIEVE the bible to be true. Why do you believe this? I think it is because you have faith (the will to believe without evidence).

Thanks for the links. There are lots of pretty rock formations in the Middle East, aren't there?

Regards,

UndecidedFrog

[nebula]

I think I figured out what I was trying to say.

I think....

There are only two reasons for a person to "express his opinion."

One is for understanding - attempting the other party to understand you and where you are coming from.

The second is for swaying opinions, influencing actions, or something along those lines.

So Frog,

Unless I missed something, I have not seen an active interest in your part to understand us; therefore, I conclude that your posting here is not for the sake of understanding one another.

That leaves me to believe in the second.

If this is not so, can you explain otherwise?

[UndecidedFrog]

Dear nebula,

This is just my opinion. You don't have to accept it if you dislike it. DISCLAIMER: I am not a christian.

There are only two reasons for a person to "express his opinion."

One is for understanding - attempting the other party to understand you and where you are coming from.

The second is for swaying opinions, influencing actions, or something along those lines.

You present only two alternatives, as if there were no others. There may be others which you have not considered. My reasons to express my opinions is to be understood (i.e. have others understand where I am coming from).

So you will forgive me if I do not understand how you have twisted it around into this confused bit:

Unless I missed something, I have not seen an active interest in your part to understand us; therefore, I conclude that your posting here is not for the sake of understanding one another.

How does my wanting to express myself translate into my wanting to understand others (even though I do, but that is another subject and irrelevant to your current point)?

Forgive me for being slow, but I do not have the pleasure of understanding your reasoning here.

Regards,

UndecidedFrog

[Matthitjah]

Grace to you,

Undecided,

They would probably fall under the same values as those christians who do not value life and love murder as well.

Yes, I kinda thought you would say something like that my friend. Again you cannot absolve your sin against a Holy and Righteous God by diverting away from the point at hand.

Let us also clear up something? Value comes from your moral basis. Value is worth applied to persons to their life. Morality is the Doctrine or system of men in accord with their social charecter, the full duty of a man. Thus Morality then is the basis for your values or value to a given society.

What is the full duty of a man as defined by an atheist? It is not relative even by your own assesment. For if it were? You particularly would not have any problem with murder. Since each individual now derives his own set of Moral principles. It would be no less right to murder as it would be to not murder. The value of each life would be determined by the Moral code each man does follow. Meaning the man who does murder your wife or children has value and is practicing a set of values.

Is there a specific moral code that is common between all men?

Would you tend to agree that murder is wrong? Whether comitted by a Christian or an atheist?

Peace,

Dave

[UndecidedFrog]

Dear Dr. Luke,

This is just my opinion. You don't have to accept it if you dislike it. DISCLAIMER: I am not a christian.

Is there a specific moral code that is common between all men?

I would think that most humans (both christian and non-christian) would hold that murder is wrong. I also think that most humans hold to the golden rule. You will find that in most cultures, murder is punished by their laws. The tricky part comes when one tries to define murder.

Would you tend to agree that murder is wrong? Whether comitted by a Christian or an atheist?

I agree that murder is wrong. Of course, we may disagree as to what the word murder means. To me, murder means unjustified killing of another human. Hence, to an atheist, anyone trying to justify killing someone because their god justified it is a murderer. And, of course, the god-believer who claims that their god justified the killing would not admit to murder. Do you understand my point here?

Regards,

UndecidedFrog

[Matthitjah]

Grace to you,

Undecided,

I would think that most humans (both christian and non-christian) would hold that murder is wrong.

Why?

Secondly.

What is the full duty of a man in the atheist world view?

To me, murder means unjustified killing of another human.

God say's murder begins in your heart. That if you hate you have murdered.

Your first quote here indicates that you do believe that there is a specific moral code that all men have in common.

Why?

Do you think that code adds value to a mans life? Does this morality bring forth values?

Peace,

Dave

[UndecidedFrog]

Dear Dr. Luke,

This is just my opinion. You don't have to accept it if you dislike it. DISCLAIMER: I am not a christian.

Why?

Most humans hold that murder is wrong because they do not wished to be murdered if they condone murder as an acceptable behaviour. It is partly self-preservation (which is related to the golden rule). If you do not wish to be murdered, how can you consistently claim that murder is an acceptable behaviour? This can only be done if you differentiate it. For example:

You cannot murder, unless you murder people who do not believe as we do.

That statement provides safety to oneself. However, fortunately, most realize this to be flawed.

What is the full duty of a man in the atheist world view?

I do not know if there is an atheist world view beyond non-belief in god/s. Atheism is nothing more than the non-belief in god/s. It is not a religion, or claim to have a worldview beyond that simple non-belief in deities.

If you hone down that question to just me.... i.e. what is my worldview on the duty of humans? I think it is the duty of all humans to live life to the fullest, trying to extract as much happiness as possible without harming others, and to share that happiness with others.

God say's murder begins in your heart. That if you hate you have murdered.

I would have to disagree. Hate is not always the cause of murder. There have been cold blooded murders without hate. They are acts of murder nonetheless.

Your first quote here indicates that you do believe that there is a specific moral code that all men have in common.

Why?

My second quote also indicates that the commonality is subject to interpretation. But generally, most humans agree that murder (however they may define that differently) is wrong. This is because they do not wish to be murdered. By agreeing to prohibit this behaviour, they are trying to assure their survival.

Do you think that code adds value to a mans life? Does this morality bring forth values?

I think to the extent that code is adhered to, it brings some assurance to survival. I do not know if morality bring forths values as you define them.

Regards,

UndecidedFrog

[Guest shiloh357]

There have been cold blooded murders without hate.

That is called "manslaughter." Murder is a wanton act. You don't "murder" without hate. Murder is intentional.

Just like lying. Lying is an intentional act of deception. You don't lie on accident, or without attempting to deceive.

[UndecidedFrog]

Dear shiloh357,

This is just my opinion. You don't have to accept it if you dislike it. DISCLAIMER: I am not a christian.

That is called "manslaughter." Murder is a wanton act. You don't "murder" without hate. Murder is intentional.

Sorry to disagree with you. But there is such a thing as cold-blooded murder. It is not called manslaughter. Assassins murder without hate. Dictators murder without hate. Proponents of Dr. Kevorkian kill without hate. I think you are assuming too many things into what you define as hate.

Regards,

UndecidedFrog