@kimberley77 writes
"This is not meant to be mean or derogatory to anyone but it’s common sense that there’s a Creator"
So what you are basically saying is that if someone does not believe in a creator then they have no common sense. Now, if I believed there actually was such a thing as "common sense" I could take your comment as being mean and derogatory. If you go back to the OP and read the purpose of why the original question was posed , you could say that the above statement does not meet the criteria of a healthy discussion.
I believe that it does lineup with the question. Plus I was actually commenting about cookiecrumb and his take on value.
If everything has a maker someone that designed it or made it how could we not have a designer. If someone said to you the car that you’re driving just flew together or that is involved out of a swimming pool. You would think that was foolish. Probably because you have knowledge of the fact how the car is made. So if you investigate how we are made in the message and the code that goes into our intricate being. You really could not with your right mind think that we just evolved.
David wrote in Psalm 139 that we were intricately woven in our mothers womb.
Has anyone really ever investigated evolution I’m not talking about micro evolution, but there’s no evidence that we evolved from animals. There’s no evidence of the between stages. But there’s so much evidence that we were designed intelligently. Scientist all over the world believe in creation and believe in intelligent design they go to the same schools they learn the same thing but once you investigate it really look into it I don’t see how you can’t. Even the animals are made special. They are not just thrown together either.
I really believe that God can handle questions he can handle the hard questions that you have. Why not ask, why not seek him and find out for yourself.
Maybe I shouldn’t put that part in there. But maybe even if I didn’t put that part in there someone would find something to say to make me look bad when I’m just trying to tell people that God loves them. What’s so horrible about that what’s so horrible about knowing that we were made and designed lovingly cared about. That are cells give off codes to the new cells before they die. So that we can get regenerated. I mean we’re on the site to get comforted to get cozy and intimate. How can we truly get into it, if we don’t know how truly we are loved!!
This is not something I wrote but this is a quote. The fool says in their heart there is no God. I think the part where it says in your heart is where the foolishness comes from you may have a lot of questions but if you in your heart of hearts say there is no God… I don’t know there’s not much to say after that.
All humans are created (born) equal, what they make of their lives can make them lose their value. Ex: rape, abuse, murder etc.
I recently listened to a podcast and the guest was a coroner, who also had experience in the correction system in my home country (Brazil). According to him, 99.9% of people are good - although there is a portion that decides to make poor decisions, go the wrong way because of laziness, greed, or got involved with the wrong crowd, fell through some addiction... but they are not a 'lost cause'. He feels that the real problem are the 0.1% of truly, pure evil people, who can make considerable damage to many more. I thought it was an interesting point of view.
@MrPaul Are you feeling as though the "learning from each person's experience" is about the lesson that you learn?
Yes. However, the valve of a person is not always apparent. Just because we do not perceive the value doesn’t mean there isn’t value. I think there is something to be learned from each person’s experience.
@JoyfulHeart Awwwwww You are sweet. Thank you for your kind words.
@Leyhill Thank you for a little bit of redirection.
I absolutely BELIEVE that everyone involved in this discussion so far is interested in discussing and NOT tearing someone else down for their belief in an idea.
@cookiecrumb that was a lot of information.... Thank you for sharing your ideas and your belief about WHY you think humans are valuable.
Whether it could have been pared down is somewhat irrelevant. It is as @DaringSprinter and @Saysoh said it could be summed up to a shorter version of your truth but I wasn't asking anyone to curb their REASON as to why. I get it..... Religion and Religious ideas will get this thread locked up quickly because it sometimes becomes completely emotional and that's not what I want to have happen. We are practicing our debating tactics.
(That being said Ahem.... I will take a cue from @Saysoh..... and let you all know that I've poured a delicious evening drink and had a lovely cuddle today so my brain might be a bit fuzzy)
I don't think its reasonable for ANYONE to EVER SAY that its crazy another human doesn't believe something because "It's just common sense" There are a lot of things that are spoken that might make sense to one person and feel like "HOW COULD ANYONE NOT BELIEVE THIS?????" but the next person comes along and sees discrepancy and can't have the same opinion about the idea. So maybe we can all practicing taking that out of our vocabulary and say things like "It makes sense to me" or "Between the two presented ideas, this one is the one I choose to believe" Maybe that would be a way to approach things without being snarky or condescending, scoffing or disregarding to EITHER perspective.
Maybe if someone else has a desire to believe something that you choose to not align with you can just say that?
It would be easy if we could polarize everything in our world and not ever have an opinion that might lie somewhere in the middle. Or have truth from both aspects?
Lets try one more time. The world does not take the Bible as fact, so if you use the Bible to try and prove your point it doesn't really work. I am thankful that @kimberly77 @cookiecrumb @DaringSprinter @Saysoh @hogboblin @lots and lots of people have very strong opinions on this subject about valuing humans but maybe lets find a way to talk about it without as much religiosity?
No matter what has been stated so far.... it still seems to me that we as humans
(because even if you believe in a Creator you can't prove that there is value from them except for what you see in the Bible. Those who follow the idea of creation still have to choose to obey and CHOOSE to value other human beings)
The common ground we all seem to share is that sentient beings (which seems to be an agreeable term assigned to us as human beings) attribute value to other human beings because of CHOICE.
That was a quote from my essay of earlier 😂😂😂 boiled down to a sentence instead of an essay. hahahhaa
@sillysassy That which can be learned from each person’s experience is unique, as each person has a unique life path. Any individual can learn from any other individual. This is one of the functions of platforms like this forum. One may learn from one’s own experience, if a tendency for introspection is present.
I'm going to spoiler the following, so as to not go too far off topic. I guess. I'm not entirely sure why I'm doing this, as those who spread misinformation and falsehoods (in a blatant attempt to preach about Jeebus) rarely show the same courtesy, but here you go:
@kimberly77
"Has anyone really ever investigated evolution"
I'm pretty sure that's what evolutionary biologists do. In fact, I'm sure of it. Hey, look at what I found! Just one of many peer reviewed journals that deal with evolutionary biology!
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/14209101
"I’m not talking about micro evolution, but there’s no evidence that we evolved from animals."
Macroevolution doesn't need to be directly observed to know that it's a thing. Here's a link to a fun and informative paper written by someone who knows what they're talking about, and reviewed by people who also know what they're talking about!
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
"There’s no evidence of the between stages."
Sure, if you just ignore the mountains of evidence. For...some reason.
https://ncse.ngo/transitional-fossils-are-not-rare
"But there’s so much evidence that we were designed intelligently."
Like the pharynx? Or the incredibly delicate human spine—that can't even properly heal because neurons are super specialized and don't regenerate? Or the human mouth, which isn't quite big enough to hold all its teeth. Yes, very clever design there.
"Scientist all over the world believe in creation and believe in intelligent design"
People can be wrong all over the world. This could be construed as something heartwarming, I guess—everyone fails sometimes—but it's mostly just annoying.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Steve
If the universe is sentient and cares about human life, then why does it go through so much effort to try to kill us? Viruses, bacteria, disease, genetic mutations, earthquakes, tornadoes, hurricanes, drought, floods . . . If it were not for modern medicine, I probably would not have survived long after birth. Had I been born at an earlier time, I probably would have survived a month. Nature didn’t care.
It is claimed that the Judeo-Christian deity is all-powerful and all good. Yet that same deity apparently allows for natural disasters, disease, genetic defects, war, genocide. If they are all powerful and stand by and do nothing - in fact, cause these events - they cannot be all good. And if they are all good but do nothing, they must not be all powerful.
I see no evidence that the universe has any consciousness or cares one whit about life on this planet. If there is to be any meaning to life, it is up to us to create it, and if there is any caring to be done, it is up to us to do it.
Since the mods don't seem inclined to tackle all this misinformation (and who can blame them!) here are some corrections.
First, @cookiecrumb's claims.
If ... I believe as Darwin did that the laws of nature are writ in tooth and claw, then nihilism and the devaluation of others around me becomes a quick conclusion.
Any morals derived from evolution would have to recognize the fact that humans have evolved to be social animals. In a social setting, cooperation and even altruism lead to better fitness (Wedekind and Milinski 2000). The process of evolution leads naturally to social animals such as humans developing ethical principles such as the Golden Rule.
...the carbon dating method uses a C/C14 ratio ... no organism can accurately be dated in the millions of years.
Radiocarbon dating [that is, C14 dating] has been repeatedly tested, demonstrating its accuracy. It is calibrated by tree-ring data, which gives a nearly exact calendar for more than 11,000 years back. It has also been tested on items for which the age is known through historical records, such as parts of the Dead Sea scrolls and some wood from an Egyptian tomb (MNSU n.d.; Watson 2001). Multiple samples from a single object have been dated independently, yielding consistent results. Radiocarbon dating is also concordant with other dating techniques (e.g., Bard et al. 1990).
...the rate of decay of the human genome by copy errors in reproduction is faster than the supposed rate of evolution of the human genome.
As new harmful mutations enter the population, selection removes existing harmful traits. The genetic load of a stable population is an equilibrium between the two.
Bacteria mutate much faster than plants and animals do, yet their populations are not becoming less viable.
One could argue that molecule to man evolution is mathematically improbable since the possibility for evolution to occur (1:1x10^130) is greater than the number of atoms in the universe (1x10^80), and by no small margin.
You seem to be thinking of the odds of one protein molecule forming by chance. Evolution happens every day.
The calculation of odds assumes that the protein molecule formed by chance. However, biochemistry is not chance, making the calculated odds meaningless. Biochemistry produces complex products, and the products themselves interact in complex ways. For example, complex organic molecules are observed to form in the conditions that exist in space, and it is possible that they played a role in the formation of the first life (Spotts 2001).
The calculation of odds assumes that the protein molecule must take one certain form. However, there are innumerable possible proteins that promote biological activity. Any calculation of odds must take into account all possible molecules (not just proteins) that might function to promote life.
The calculation of odds ignores the fact that innumerable trials would have been occurring simultaneously.
No one has observed molecule to life evolution unassisted, much less molecule to man evolution
The evidence for evolution does not depend, even a little, on observing macroevolution directly. There is a very great deal of other evidence (Theobald 2004; see also evolution proof).
Microevolution has been observed and is taken for granted even by creationists. And because there is no known barrier to large change and because we can expect small changes to accumulate into large changes, microevolution implies macroevolution. Small changes to developmental genes or their regulation can cause relatively large changes in the adult organism (Shapiro et al. 2004).
And some more:
we have observed the decay of the human genome
What you're referring to is gene loss. You're ignoring gene gain... and the benefits of gene loss.
Some of the best studied cases on humans are coding gene losses with cell receptors (CCR5 and DUFFY), which make individuals more resistant to HIV infection and to plasmodium caused by malaria.
It’s the same as producing a Shakespearean play with enough monkeys, typewriters, paper, and time, while at the same time, copying the play and then copying the copy of the play, and copying copies, until the play cannot be distinguished enough to be a Shakespearean play.
It is not. Evolution has no long-term plans and does not progress toward some distant goal (such as humans)... or a Shakespearean play.
The evidence is extensive and consistent, and it points unambiguously to evolution, including common descent, change over time, and adaptation influenced by natural selection. It would be preposterous to refer to these as anything other than facts.
The evidence for Shakespeare's plays, on the other hand, does not point to a lot of monkeys with typewriters, no matter their methodology.
Next is the question of the Scripture as a valid historical document. There are numerous archaeological references to Israel as a nation prior to 1948, including stelae in Egypt and Babylon, as well as sites within the current borders of Israel.
The earliest surviving historical mention of the Israelites, the Egyptian Merneptah Stele (c. 1207 BCE), appears to place them in or around Canaan and gives no indication of any exodus.
The Exodus, which should have been a major event, does not appear in Egyptian records. There are no traces in the Sinai that one would expect from forty years of wandering of more than half a million people. And other archaeological evidence contradicts it, showing instead that the Hebrews were a native people (Finkelstein and Silberman 2001; Lazare 2002).
If you recall, the Bible claims there was an exodus. In fact, that's the name of one of its subsections, or "books."
The reign of Solomon is universally regarded as having begun in 970 BCE.
The career of Solomon, King of Israel, is known primarily through biblical references and traditions. The historical reality behind specific elements reported in these sources, however, varies greatly.
As with most biblical personages in the middle era of Israelite society, the historicity of Solomon is hotly debated. Current consensus states that regardless of whether or not a man named Solomon truly reigned as king over the Judean hills in the 10th century BCE, the Biblical descriptions of his apparent empire's lavishness is almost surely an anachronistic exaggeration.
There is much that can be researched by those who are honestly interested
This is true.
(Every word in the sentence above is a separate link.)
For the evolutionist, humanity is part of the animal kingdom, and there is no genetic purity.
There is no such thing as an "evolutionist." It's not an identity, like "creationist"—it's a made-up word like "roundearther."
The concept of genetic purity sounds, uh... familiar.
...I'm becoming mentally tired. There's so much falsehood to counter! I'll have to come back and do more debunking later.
Okay: here we go again.
Animals can mix with animals, so then humans can mix with animals. This is not only being done on a sexual level, but in the lab as well.
I can find no evidence of humans mixing—that is, reproducing with—other animals. The burden of evidence is yours, @cookiecrumb: do you have any evidence to support your claim?
(Note that I think this would be very cool.)
Next there's a whole lot of religious blather, including some frankly unusual interpretations of the Christian religious text... but it's all in-universe stuff with no more relation to reality than an equally unique interpretation of the story of Kahless, so I'm ignoring it.
The only other aspect where the discussion of human value can touch on is the matter of pay.
The first aspect was value given by a creator: either the Christian deity or "the universe," there being no other options given for how human beings might end up existing.
Now we find ourselves limited even further—either we're valued by a creator or an employer.
The value you have for yourself isn't an aspect on which the discussion of human value can touch. Nor is the value a child has to a parent, a parent to a child, a friend to a friend, a lover, a neighbor, a grandparent.
Quite the argument. And then....
This is more of an economics discussion than a values discussion, but I thought it prudent to inject to clarify its categorization.
Or, in other words, it doesn't have anything to do with human value either—not really. Which leaves only "whatever created you" as a source of value. Nothing and no one else, according to this argument, could possibly value you.
What may seem controversial in capital punishment is actually both a blessing and a deterrent: a life for a life. If capital punishment is not executed, then a murderer may kill 5 or 10 people before he is punished or executed.
I encourage you to study murder rates in countries and US states with and without the death penalty. Or just look at these graphs if you don't feel like following links:
The evidence suggests that "a life for a life" is about as helpful as "an eye for an eye."
If the life of one person is worth the life of another, then it follows that he should pay for the life he has taken with his own.
If the life of one person is worth the life of one other, then it follows that anyone who's killed more than once (even accidentally!) has won. Took two lives or more, only paid one? That's quite a deal.
Continuing with @cookiecrumb's claims....
One’s value is what one pays for something.
I hope this is a typo. At this point, I'm not sure. It does seem unlikely that anyone would seriously argue my value is whatever I pay for stuff.
In our case, in the case of humanity, the price was the life of the Son of God. Since that price was paid for all humanity and there was only one payment, then the value of each human is equal to the other.
Even within the Christian mythos, it's understood that Jesus Christ is a deity in human form: that is, he has (or had) one (1) physical human body, one (1) physical human life, and one (1) nonhuman, divine soul.
In Christian belief, therefore, every human ever is worth a teeny-tiny part of that one (1) human life that ended on the mythical Cross.
And equal. Yes.
We see this concept fleshed out in the Declaration of Independence. “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal.”
Do we? Funny. I wonder what the Founding Fathers' slaves thought of that sentence. I wonder what the women of the nation, denied the same rights as the men, thought. In any case, the beliefs of the USA's founding fathers don't make any difference to the facts.
...the value of human life does not seem as self-evident now as it was then.
I refer you to the value of black or female life in the 18th century. (The links are in my comments above: and more follow below.)
The value of human life was self-evident then, was it? When helpless people were being whipped to death and held in coverture with no legal rights of their own and so on? The value of their lives was self-evident, was it?
Sounds like a "Good Old Days" fallacy to me.
But what is also evident is the devaluation of humanity by the serpent and by our fellow human beings.
Right, yes, the serpent.
Anyway. I find it difficult to conceptualize the way people are treated today as being worse than the way they were treated in the supposed idyllic beginnings of the US. Are we devaluing humanity when we, say, give women an equal voice in government?
The logical flow of a valueless society
There is no such thing as a valueless society. Perhaps you don't value it, but I guarantee someone else does. Almost anything you can think of has value to someone. That's how humans work. That's how value works.
There can be no "logical flow" of a society that can't logically exist.
I'm tired too.
So much of this forum's activity lately has been focused on showing one another where they are wrong.
My purpose for being here is to discover what I have in common with my fellow human beings. I can walk out onto the street and find someone to disagree with. If I do, I feel no responsibility to reeducate the misguided masses.
I understand the enjoyment of deep discussion and the exchange of ideas: both teaching and learning.
This weekend I spent a number of hours with someone from this website. Neither of us felt the need to correct one another's worldviews. Instead, we enjoyed one another's warmth and company.
Everyone has a right to what they are doing on the forum as long as rules aren't being violated. That said, the streams of sarcasm and disrespect for one another's firmly held beliefs is exhausting.
This is a cuddle website, supposedly for people seeking warmth and acceptance. If I had joined this month and followed the forum posts, I would have considered looking elsewhere.
@JoyfulHeart
It's pretty nifty that using the general forum isn't mandatory, and that it isn't the sole means of interacting with other users on the site.
@HogboblinZwei Yup.
I usually like using it though.
Still going. @cookiecrumb made, in case you hadn't guessed, a large number of false and/or unverifiable claims. (For which I do not blame him: he obviously has bad info.) I am doing my best here.
We’ve produced glow-in-the-dark pigs by splicing them with jellyfish.
Scientists at the South China Agricultural University announced last week that they had successfully engineered 10 piglets that could glow green under black light.
Dr. Stefan Moisyadi, a bioscientist at the University of Hawaii medical school's Institute for Biogenesis Research (IBR) said the animals were not hurt by the fluorescent protein and are expected to have the same life span as other pigs.
Is that not just the coolest thing? I'm really happy to have heard about this.
Apparently it's a step towards being able to make enzymes like those that help hemophiliacs more quickly and easily—and other life-saving treatments and medications, too.
What more human-animal hybrids can we produce?
...The only hybrids he's mentioned so far are the pigs with a bit of jellyfish protein in their DNA. Which part of that is human? The jellyfish? Or the pig?
We have the ability to modify human DNA in an effort to stave off disease. But what do we produce but another class of humans, another reason to discriminate?
If getting a gene treatment makes you a different "class" of human, so does getting an artificial hip.
If any discrimination is taking place here, the problem is with the discrimination, not with the medical treatment.
The Scripture is the only book I have read that is vested in the wholesale blessing of the human race.
wholesale, adjective performed or existing on a large scale especially without discrimination
Hmmm.
"Whoever sacrifices to any god other than the LORD must be destroyed." Exodus 22:20
"Anyone who curses their father or mother is to be put to death. Because they have cursed their father or mother, their blood will be on their own head." Leviticus 20:9
"If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads." Leviticus 20:13
"Then the Lord said to Moses: 'Take the blasphemer outside the camp. All those who heard him are to lay their hands on his head, and the entire assembly is to stone him. Say to the Israelites: "Anyone who curses their God will be held responsible; anyone who blasphemes the name of the Lord is to be put to death. The entire assembly must stone them. Whether foreigner or native-born, when they blaspheme the Name they are to be put to death."'" Leviticus 24:13–16
"'I the LORD do not change.'" Malachi 3:6
"'Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it.'" Matthew 7:13,14
"Someone asked him, 'Lord, are only a few people going to be saved?'
"He said to them, 'Make every effort to enter through the narrow door, because many, I tell you, will try to enter and will not be able to.'" Luke 13:23,24
"God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden. One of you will say to me: 'Then why does God still blame us? For who is able to resist his will?' But who are you, a human being, to talk back to God? Shall what is formed say to the one who formed it, 'Why did you make me like this?' Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for special purposes and some for common use?" Romans 9:18–21
"…men who practice homosexuality … [will not] inherit the kingdom of God." 1 Corinthians 6:9 [μαλακοὶ, from μαλακία; ἀρσενοκοῖται]
"...women will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety." 1Timothy 2:15
There seems to be rather a lot of discrimination here, and not a lot of "wholesale blessing." I could go on!
Making sure truth gets at least equal time to lies may be exhausting, but I think it's worthwhile. I didn't have access to accurate information for years: if even one similarly cloistered person sees this, I'll be pleased.
There's a webcomic that once had a character say, "I can't go to sleep yet: there's someone wrong on the internet."
I appreciate your perspective, but you did say you were tired. Remember that it's ok to be kind to yourself.
@JoyfulHeart: Don't worry, I'm taking breaks. I know how to pace myself. I've only been up for about nine hours anyway—intellectual exhaustion on its own is easy enough to take care of.
I've pretty much wrapped up the first two posts full of inaccurate material. The third... well, @HogboblinZwei's addressed it, and there's a lot of overlap anyway. I might as well call it a night. It's not as though any of this has anything to do with the subject of the thread: I just don't like it when people tell me (and everyone else) to believe the lies I was fed my whole childhood.
I’ll just have to say I got a great nights sleep. Lol
yeah I’m not here to argue or to try to prove myself. That’s one thing I really hate is arguing. If anybody wanted to private message me and really wanted to know something or wanted me to share my experience, I would, but it sounds like everybody is set in their believes and that’s OK. I just thought what I was writing was really interesting and thought-provoking but I guess not. Sorry if I offended anyone.
"I just thought what I was writing was really interesting and thought-provoking but I guess not."
It kinda seemed like you were making claims about how things work. The whole "science is wrong but don't worry I've got the answers" angle really made it appear that way.
Huh.
Oh, yeah—if anybody has any questions about reality and the world we live in and all that, please don't ask me. Very nearly all the scientific information humanity has ever gained is available online. If you're not sure where to start, you could try here:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/index.html
But not me. Please don't ask me.
I don’t know, everything has a designer or a maker, but the most intricate most amazing design in the world the human was just thrown together or just popped in or evolved. Sorry that’s hard to believe. I really don’t have faith to believe that. So yeah I understand if you don’t have faith to believe what I believe I don’t have faith to believe what you guys believe so I guess we’re equal. But that’s all I’m gonna say. I love my personality and I love the way I was made, I like everything about me there’s a lot of things I could change and work on but for the most part I think I’m amazing not in an arrogant way, but in a way that gives credit to who made me. How thoughtful He was and giving me what I have. To me God is the perfect parent he’s my father and my mother. I’m not asking anybody to believe that. But if there is someone out there that is searching or is wondering I hope they find this thread it’s not for the rest of the people that are mocking me. Maybe nobody cares. But I just voiced what I wanted to say. When someone says the universe is there higher power I don’t mock them. When I said it’s common sense maybe it’s not common sense to others but it truly is to me. Even the scientist are figuring it out. Look up Francis Collins highly regarded scientist
Maybe you guys just have more intelligence than me, more smarts, more book smarts, better wording, better way of saying things. Maybe you’ll be more listened to because of your intellectual wordage. Really the only thing I could ever say is taste and see how good God is. How can I describe him anyway.
It sounds like your faith is very important to you. If you want to keep it (as I'm guessing you do), don't look at the facts—or if you must look at them, reject them.
As a child, I was repeatedly beaten by people who believe the same things as you, because they believe the same things as you.
The same book that says, "the fool says in his heart, 'there is no god'" also says "foolishness is bound up in the heart of a child, but the rod of correction will drive it far from him" and "do not withhold discipline from a child; if you strike him with a rod he will not die" and "he who spares the rod hates his son" and....
I cannot bear to see this faith promoted without speaking out against it.
I see that these ideas are precious to you. I see that this faith brings you comfort. I beg you: keep it to yourself. It does not bring the same comfort to everyone.
@DaringSprinter i’m so sorry, I have been religiously abused myself, I’m sorry that happened to you. But to me that’s called religion it’s false. I’ve heard many stories of religious abuse. I’m sorry to be so inconsiderate sometimes I forget what happens to people. I hope you find healing, and know that it was nothing that you did. Truly that was not the heart of God to see you abused like that. Sending hugs to you.- Kimberly
@DaringSprinter I'm sorry for the experiences that you had as a child. There is no valid justification for that under any circumstances, in my opinion.
I'm not sure how you expect to convince me that the Bible does not say what it says. Cut those verses out of your own Bible, if it pleases you, or add notes explaining them away. I won't be taking any version of the Bible as my manual for life, no matter how doctored—that's my personal decision. (It would take too much doctoring. I'd rather start from reality.)
I appreciate your sorrow. It doesn't change anything. But... know that I don't think you're a bad person. I just don't like what your holy book says.
No justification, maybe, but an explanation.
My parents valued me, and wanted me to live forever in a beautiful place called "Heaven." Their holy book told them what to do, and they believed it.
They acted in accordance with their beliefs.
That explains it.
@DaringSprinter I'm glad you said that. I was raised in a very religious background as well, and while the abuse I suffered wasn't beating, it did leave its mark.
People's actions certainly can be explained and still not be justified.
As an adult I've been working to pick up the pieces. I asked a lot of questions about things I was taught. I'm left with something that bears little resemblance to what I had demonstrated to me.
If I were to elaborate on that last sentence, this would be a long post. I'll sum it up like this: If there was a Jesus, and if he did start a church, there are many churches that don't teach anything that looks like what he taught.
@DaringSprinter 💛💛 i’m gonna let go of this thread. Hopefully we can have other conversations on different threads in the future.