Who murdered the most Innocent Human Beings on Earth?

[Dynamite Joe]

You are shifting the conversation, which was neither about religion, nor the absence or existence of God. It was about a statement you made regarding truth. You said:

"There is no absolute truth."

Is that statement an absolute truth?

Or maybe the answer didn't suit you. But it's still the same, I don’t have a monopoly on truth. You have yours and I have mine. But when it comes to proving it, I need not because I didn’t assert there’s a God and some universal truth about him.

You asked me to re-read the earlier posts which I did. DA was ranting about the sacred and ultimate ‘truth’, and if you disregard that ‘truth’ it’s a recipe for degeneration (meaning yours truly), and the usual condemnations found in his daily sermons... I presume by scared 'truth' he means Christ and his message… So I merely pointed out that truth is relative. It’s his truth but it means nothing to me, nor does it effect my life now or when I'm dead and buried. If I don't subscribe to his truth or the christian message, I don't expect to degenerate. Far from it, I'd say I'm doing rather well without basing my life around an ancient man or book. But then again, who's to say? Maybe I am a degenerate after all. The truth is in the eye of the beholder.

 

[Dynamite Joe]

Come think of it, even dictators are the product of their own society let alone elected leaders.
You’re right people who allow their leaders to be in power and use their tax money to destroy others are directly responsible for the outcome. There will be a price to pay for their lack of responsibilities.

As we’ve witness, only military resistance has given positive results for deterrence.

It's too bad, but at this stage of our evolution that's a fact. Unfortunately, it's going to take China, Russia or others to reach parity in military technology. I just hope when that happens, they learn not to use it. Instead, steer the world in a different direction from the old ways of our reptilian brain. We can interact and co-exist fine without being territorial and having hierarchies.

 

[JB81]

It's too bad, but at this stage of our evolution that's a fact. Unfortunately, it's going to take China, Russia or others to reach parity in military technology. I just hope when that happens, they learn not to use it. Instead, steer the world in a different direction from the old ways of our reptilian brain. We can interact and co-exist fine without being territorial and having hierarchies.

Being territorial and hierarchies are the most basic natural existence. How communism makes people live in lala land.... haram

 

[Viral]

I think Jesus cursed the fig tree for that reason in Matthew 21.

I’m reminded of all the mysteries and Church secrets they told us about when we were little.
Why do we need secrets to live a simple life? Unless we're in the Epstein business…
Then again, the French called one of their favorite fighters Mystère. May be they know something we don’t.

 

[Dynamite Joe]

I’m reminded of all the mysteries and Church secrets they told us about when we were little.
Why do we need secrets to live a simple life? Unless we're in the Epstein business…
Then again, the French called one of their favorite fighters Mystère. May be they know something we don’t.

That harkens me back to the tree of knowledge in the garden of eden, which was forbidden to partake from. It's the nightmare scenario for all control freaks that others should have access to knowledge. Once you acquire it, they are no longer revered and the strings are severed.

 

[Viral]

It's too bad, but at this stage of our evolution that's a fact. Unfortunately, it's going to take China, Russia or others to reach parity in military technology. I just hope when that happens, they learn not to use it. Instead, steer the world in a different direction from the old ways of our reptilian brain. We can interact and co-exist fine without being territorial and having hierarchies.

With no doubt we need power balance to deter and prevent the Nazi experience from recurring.

When governments no longer feel the threat from outside, they turn against their own people.

 

[JB81]

That harkens me back to the tree of knowledge in the garden of eden, which was forbidden to partake from. It's the nightmare scenario for all control freaks that others should have access to knowledge. Once you acquire it, they are no longer revered and the strings are severed.

With the low IQ you have, you should have no worries lol

 

[Dark Angel]

....
You asked me to re-read the earlier posts which I did. DA was ranting about the sacred and ultimate ‘truth’, and if you disregard that ‘truth’ it’s a recipe for degeneration (meaning yours truly), and the usual condemnations found in his daily sermons... I presume by scared 'truth' he means Christ and his message… So I merely pointed out that truth is relative. It’s his truth but it means nothing to me, nor does it effect my life now or when I'm dead and buried. If I don't subscribe to his truth or the christian message, I don't expect to degenerate. Far from it, I'd say I'm doing rather well without basing my life around an ancient man or book. But then again, who's to say? Maybe I am a degenerate after all. The truth is in the eye of the beholder.
....

i have said nothing that is closely related to what you are inferring, which goes to show the depth of the problems you have with truth.

but you got me curious. explain to me how did you understand what you have written above from my posts, which i copied below, i am really curious to see how your mind operates.

post 1:​

the reality of the matter is very simple, anyone who harbors an ill will for another, let alone end another person's life, has strayed away from Christ. this is a universally established truth about the Christian faith.​

​

it then follows that using people such as georges bush and many others in order to pass a general verdict on Christianity is, simply put, an act of vile malice, and though it is by far less nauseous than ending a life, it is a still quite a repugnant aggression against truth.​

​

the fundamental issue comes down to this, could there be any positive outcome to a dialogue with someone who does not subscribe to any notion of truth? and the answer to this one is rather obvious. some people simply have no truth in them.​

​

post 2:​

truth is sacred by all the standards that lift mankind up and enable the evolution of our intellectual faculties. your disregard for truth is a recipe not only for degeneration, but also for devolution. the fact that you are oblivious to the above makes almost all the discussions you are involved in all the more pathetic and futile, regardless of whether your maiming and twisting of truths and facts is intentional or not.​

​

do not worry though, you may be under the wrong impression that you are unique and that you are an evolutionary icon stepping where those adhering to truth have never laid foot before. the reality however is that you are neither. the fact is that you are a very common type. there is more of you than one would care to count, and that has always been the case across all ages, however they rarely leave any traces, rarely manage to induce an impact, and rarely deliver anything that others can build upon. this must be what is deluding you into believing that the path you have set yourself up on has not been threaded before by countless others.​

​

doesn't matter, everything that mankind has ever accomplished has been based on the honest communication of truth between people who believe in it and respect it.​

​

​

 

[Dynamite Joe]

i have said nothing that is closely related to what you are inferring,

truth is sacred by all the standards that lift mankind up and enable the evolution of our intellectual faculties. your disregard for truth is a recipe not only for degeneration, but also for devolution. the fact that you are oblivious to the above makes almost all the discussions you are involved in all the more pathetic and futile, regardless of whether your maiming and twisting of truths and facts is intentional or not.

do not worry though, you may be under the wrong impression that you are unique and that you are an evolutionary icon stepping where those adhering to truth have never laid foot before. the reality however is that you are neither. the fact is that you are a very common type. there is more of you than one would care to count, and that has always been the case across all ages, however they rarely leave any traces, rarely manage to induce an impact, and rarely deliver anything that others can build upon. this must be what is deluding you into believing that the path you have set yourself up on has not been threaded before by countless others.

doesn't matter, everything that mankind has ever accomplished has been based on the honest communication of truth between people who believe in it and respect it.

 

[Dark Angel]

^^^^^
@Dynamite Joe zero critical thinking and analytical abilities. bravo. i did not realize that something that clearly written and that basic was too difficult for you to grasp.

 

[Dark Angel]

something that is note worthy, true story. i have had couple of discussions with individuals who possessed no notion of Truth. they could not even understand the inferred meaning of the word, they usually confuse the intended universal and philosophical dimension with the one where truth is the strict opposite of intentionally telling a lie.

 

[Indie]

Or maybe the answer didn't suit you. But it's still the same, I don’t have a monopoly on truth. You have yours and I have mine. But when it comes to proving it, I need not because I didn’t assert there’s a God and some universal truth about him.

You don't have the monopoly on truth; yet, you make a definitive statement by saying that "there is no absolute truth."

Inherent in that statement is your conviction that the statement is absolutely true: thus, you believe absolute truth does exist...all while claiming it does not exist!

The statement is a contradiction in itself. An oxymoron that does not stand the test of logic.

You asked me to re-read the earlier posts which I did. DA was ranting about the sacred and ultimate ‘truth’, and if you disregard that ‘truth’ it’s a recipe for degeneration (meaning yours truly), and the usual condemnations found in his daily sermons... I presume by scared 'truth' he means Christ and his message… So I merely pointed out that truth is relative. It’s his truth but it means nothing to me, nor does it effect my life now or when I'm dead and buried. If I don't subscribe to his truth or the christian message, I don't expect to degenerate. Far from it, I'd say I'm doing rather well without basing my life around an ancient man or book. But then again, who's to say? Maybe I am a degenerate after all. The truth is in the eye of the beholder.

I asked you to read our conversation. Not the one you had with DA.

 

[Indie]

Being territorial and hierarchies are the most basic natural existence. How communism makes people live in lala land.... haram

We saw how people lived (and died) under communism. And some people still think it's going to "save" them from the "evil" West.

Given a choice between living in the U.S. or North Korea, we know where these same people go. It's easy to talk nonsense on an online forum.

 

[Indie]

That harkens me back to the tree of knowledge in the garden of eden, which was forbidden to partake from. It's the nightmare scenario for all control freaks that others should have access to knowledge. Once you acquire it, they are no longer revered and the strings are severed.

It's not just the "tree of knowledge." It's the "tree of knowledge of good and evil." Meaning, people deciding what is good and what is evil for themselves. Given that there are billions of people on earth, each person deciding what's good or evil (in other words: subjective truth) would lead to chaos.

God isn't "hoarding knowledge." If God didn't want us to have knowledge, he wouldn't have given us a human brain. He would have made us like the animals.

You don't even know what the tree stands for and you think you have the authority to judge the entire religion!

 

[JB81]

We saw how people lived (and died) under communism. And some people still think it's going to "save" them from the "evil" West.

Given a choice between living in the U.S. or North Korea, we know where these same people go. It's easy to talk nonsense on an online forum.

 

[joseph_lubnan]

It's not just the "tree of knowledge." It's the "tree of knowledge of good and evil." Meaning, people deciding what is good and what is evil for themselves. Given that there are billions of people on earth, each person deciding what's good or evil (in other words: subjective truth) would lead to chaos.

God isn't "hoarding knowledge." If God didn't want us to have knowledge, he wouldn't have given us a human brain. He would have made us like the animals.

You don't even know what the tree stands for and you think you have the authority to judge the entire religion!

The animals are better than humans

 

[light-in-dark]

in history, asiatic and Chinese dynasties killed more people and humans than the white Christians.
See only the mongols what they have done.

 

[Dynamite Joe]

You don't have the monopoly on truth; yet, you make a definitive statement by saying that "there is no absolute truth."

Inherent in that statement is your conviction that the statement is absolutely true: thus, you believe absolute truth does exist...all while claiming it does not exist!

The statement is a contradiction in itself. An oxymoron that does not stand the test of logic.


I asked you to read our conversation. Not the one you had with DA.

You’re arguing semantics and asking gotcha questions. If I say to you the earth absolutely rotates, that’s a scientific fact. You cannot apply that to religious beliefs. If a theist is absolutely convinced in the universal truth of Christ (which is why I cited truth relativism), that’s only relative to that person. On the other hand, I can say the abrahamic god absolutely does not exist with confidence. Since he’s the product of human imagination and is no more real than krishna, zeus, fairies and demons. What I cannot say absolutely is that there’s no intelligent designer, though I think it’s fairly improbable. Though again here, the burden of proof would fall on the claimant, not I.

 

[Dynamite Joe]

It's not just the "tree of knowledge." It's the "tree of knowledge of good and evil." Meaning, people deciding what is good and what is evil for themselves. Given that there are billions of people on earth, each person deciding what's good or evil (in other words: subjective truth) would lead to chaos.

God isn't "hoarding knowledge." If God didn't want us to have knowledge, he wouldn't have given us a human brain. He would have made us like the animals.

You don't even know what the tree stands for and you think you have the authority to judge the entire religion!

That’s your interpretation of a mythological text shared by many of your fellow christians and muslims. So Adam & Eve had to eat from a fig tree to realise being naked was a sin? What exactly is so sinful about being naked? I don’t think cavemen had their Diors or Armanis to suit up. Did their sudden knowledge lead them to worship other deities, which according to the Ten Commandments is the worst sin of them all. Did humanity start murdering each other at the point Eve was beguiled by the serpent? I say all this to illustrate the absurdity of such beliefs, whether it was meant allegorically or literally.

It’s no accident when the protestants broke away from the Church, its power waned. Once christians began to read and analyse scripture on their own, they became more likely to critique it. Before that, knowledge was handed down by the absolute authority, the Church. What it said was absolute truth and dogma. After all, it wasn't very wise, nor safe putting it mildly, to question his holiness, God's rep on earth, the infallible pope.

 

[Indie]

You’re arguing semantics and asking gotcha questions.

I didn't get you. You got yourself by making a self-contradicting statement. There's no shame in that. We've all been there. Just accept that you made a mistake and stop arguing the unarguable

If I say to you the earth absolutely rotates, that’s a scientific fact. You cannot apply that to religious beliefs. If a theist is absolutely convinced in the universal truth of Christ (which is why I cited truth relativism), that’s only relative to that person. On the other hand, I can say the abrahamic god absolutely does not exist with confidence. Since he’s the product of human imagination and is no more real than krishna, zeus, fairies and demons. What I cannot say absolutely is that there’s no intelligent designer, though I think it’s fairly improbable. Though again here, the burden of proof would fall on the claimant, not I.

Again, we are not talking about the rotation of the earth or the existence of God. Stop diverting the topic.

We are talking about the statement you made about truth: "There is no absolute truth."

Is that statement an absolute truth?