Giving itself is just a flaunting of status and/or strengthening of a mutually beneficial relationship. Plenty of social species have their own moral codes involving their own types of “selflessness” that is obviously an advantage for survival and reproduction. The fact that all of this needs to be yelled from the rooftops in 2023 is embarrassing. Let’s go in to discuss more important things..
>Giving itself is just a flaunting of status and/or strengthening of a mutually beneficial relationship.
I don't give out of any benefit here. And my status or any relationship with those receive is never apparent or necessarily goes anywhere. It's the same reason I can give up paths and goals and rewards that could solely benefit myself. Nothing means anything here. >Do not lay up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy and where thieves break in and steal, but lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust destroys and where thieves do not break in and steal. For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.-Matthew 6:19-21
not a good sign when science explains human sin and righteousness better than religion. The Bible simply says we are sinners by nature, without explaining why God made us like this.
God didn't make you like that. Death did. And scripture explained it clealry. Sin and death are entwined and may as well be one and the same. This is the meaning of "Original Sin". Which is really the original moment of death and mortality. This is what is passed from man to man. This is what causes him to distract himself with vice and hedonis or fear and acts of violence.
8 months ago
Anonymous
And yet Jesus was able to live and die as a man without sinning. How curious
8 months ago
Anonymous
He resisted mortality. Starting from the beginning. The first temptation of Satan was to simply to go for the most basic need: hunger. "Command this stone to become bread."
By the same will, he rose from the dead.
And only through him will you understand where righteousness comes from. As sin comes from the author of death. Righteousness comes from the author of Life.
8 months ago
Anonymous
He killed and ate innocent fish. Saying he was free of sin as a man is confusion from fifth century politics. He lived as close to perfectly as is possible within the limitations given by sin. You can't tempt omnipotence but you can tempt Christ. Santa Claus would accuse me of Arianism and punch me in the face for even mentioning this.
8 months ago
Anonymous
Killing and eating fish does not constitute sin (and it does not matter if the fish are "innocent", so you need not mention that) so your entire reply falls apart after that. Jesus lived a sinless life. He killed and ate fish and remained sinless.
8 months ago
Anonymous
That's the legalistic argument used to maintain the semantics that he's "equal" to God, which flesh can't be so it's confusing his soul and the flesh.
You noted that original sin is the cause of death but then it's also the cause of the need to eat. It's the cause of the fallen world where everything falls short of perfection, everything is messy including the material body of Christ. >This is what is passed from man to man.
And to the physical human body of Jesus that expressed the Logos as close to perfectly as is possible with flesh as the imperfect clay. Showing everyone the good news that they are not the flesh and they can be part of an eternal body.
I'm not against this approach but I've never seen anyone do it justice, as with evopsych in general, because they are really stupid and ignorant and single-minded. What's the point in contorting something to fit a narrow faithful slot that then totally fails as a model instead of honestly and carefully looking at the whole.
BTW you don't need evolution at all. You can say societies without the entrenched moral practices won't be able to maintain themselves or grow and will be overtaken by those that do. It's all taught so the magic bag 'evolution' or 'advantage' needn't be invoked at all. Simply that a practice developed over time and is passed down.
Darwin finished literally everything and humanity collectively decided to ignore him and condemn people who followed the obvious conclusions of evolution. If you believe in Darwinian evolution there is no reason whatsoever to not become a blackpilled Schopenhauerian atheist or a eugenicist warlord
there’s nothing wrong with having weak and dumb humans, as long as we pave the way for strong geniuses. You can’t have masters without slaves. Animals will not suffice for the Overman
Ugh, libshit "science" chapter trillion billion and twelve.
Science is dead.
Atheism is dead.
The meme is dead.
It's all so tiresome.
Giving itself is just a flaunting of status and/or strengthening of a mutually beneficial relationship. Plenty of social species have their own moral codes involving their own types of “selflessness” that is obviously an advantage for survival and reproduction. The fact that all of this needs to be yelled from the rooftops in 2023 is embarrassing. Let’s go in to discuss more important things..
>Giving itself is just a flaunting of status and/or strengthening of a mutually beneficial relationship.
I don't give out of any benefit here. And my status or any relationship with those receive is never apparent or necessarily goes anywhere. It's the same reason I can give up paths and goals and rewards that could solely benefit myself. Nothing means anything here.
>Do not lay up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy and where thieves break in and steal, but lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust destroys and where thieves do not break in and steal. For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.-Matthew 6:19-21
christcucks silent
Natural law?
not a good sign when science explains human sin and righteousness better than religion. The Bible simply says we are sinners by nature, without explaining why God made us like this.
God didn't make you like that. Death did. And scripture explained it clealry. Sin and death are entwined and may as well be one and the same. This is the meaning of "Original Sin". Which is really the original moment of death and mortality. This is what is passed from man to man. This is what causes him to distract himself with vice and hedonis or fear and acts of violence.
And yet Jesus was able to live and die as a man without sinning. How curious
He resisted mortality. Starting from the beginning. The first temptation of Satan was to simply to go for the most basic need: hunger. "Command this stone to become bread."
By the same will, he rose from the dead.
And only through him will you understand where righteousness comes from. As sin comes from the author of death. Righteousness comes from the author of Life.
He killed and ate innocent fish. Saying he was free of sin as a man is confusion from fifth century politics. He lived as close to perfectly as is possible within the limitations given by sin. You can't tempt omnipotence but you can tempt Christ. Santa Claus would accuse me of Arianism and punch me in the face for even mentioning this.
Killing and eating fish does not constitute sin (and it does not matter if the fish are "innocent", so you need not mention that) so your entire reply falls apart after that. Jesus lived a sinless life. He killed and ate fish and remained sinless.
That's the legalistic argument used to maintain the semantics that he's "equal" to God, which flesh can't be so it's confusing his soul and the flesh.
You noted that original sin is the cause of death but then it's also the cause of the need to eat. It's the cause of the fallen world where everything falls short of perfection, everything is messy including the material body of Christ.
>This is what is passed from man to man.
And to the physical human body of Jesus that expressed the Logos as close to perfectly as is possible with flesh as the imperfect clay. Showing everyone the good news that they are not the flesh and they can be part of an eternal body.
I'm not against this approach but I've never seen anyone do it justice, as with evopsych in general, because they are really stupid and ignorant and single-minded. What's the point in contorting something to fit a narrow faithful slot that then totally fails as a model instead of honestly and carefully looking at the whole.
BTW you don't need evolution at all. You can say societies without the entrenched moral practices won't be able to maintain themselves or grow and will be overtaken by those that do. It's all taught so the magic bag 'evolution' or 'advantage' needn't be invoked at all. Simply that a practice developed over time and is passed down.
that doesn’t explain instinctual behavior and why some people are more moral than others
Darwin finished literally everything and humanity collectively decided to ignore him and condemn people who followed the obvious conclusions of evolution. If you believe in Darwinian evolution there is no reason whatsoever to not become a blackpilled Schopenhauerian atheist or a eugenicist warlord
there’s nothing wrong with having weak and dumb humans, as long as we pave the way for strong geniuses. You can’t have masters without slaves. Animals will not suffice for the Overman
give me a single concrete evidence against Darwinism morality