Sorry, but those are lame and old excuses. The Soviets were doing the exact same thing too, why do you singular blame carving up of nations on the west? More than that, there has never been a time in all of human history when that was not happening. Before the British empire it was the Romans, before them it was the Egyptians, along the middle of that was mohammad and his crews attempts at their own empires.

I'm not willing to excuse atrocities and crimes because of earlier atrocities and crimes. The Sunni on Shia and Shia on Sunni violence predates America by a few centuries anyways, and it does nothing today to dissuade, prevent or even retaliate against the West. It is vile and far beyond what is seen by proponents of any other major religion.

http://www.usnews.com/science/articles/2010/01/12/egypt-new-find-shows-slaves-didnt-build-pyramids

"Dieter Wildung, a former director of Berlin's Egyptian Museum, said it is "common knowledge in serious Egyptology" that the pyramid builders were not slaves and that the construction of the pyramids and the story of the Israelites in Egypt were separated by hundreds of years."

@alcom

I hear you shinyblurry, but I feel that your argument meanders back to the original appeal to authority that most believers resort to when justifying their positions. I also find that the related video links provided by TheGenk provide a valid refutation of the idea that God is The One who put values of good and evil inside each of us.

There is always an appeal to authority, either to God or to men. There are either objective moral values which are imposed by God, or morality is relative and determined by men. If morality is relative then there is no good or evil, and what is considered good today may be evil tomorrow. If it isn't absolutely wrong to murder indiscriminately, for instance, then if enough people agreed that it was right, it would be. Yet, this does not cohere with reality because we all know that murdering indiscriminately is absolutely wrong. The true test of a worldview is its coherence to reality and atheism is incoherent with our experience, whereas Christian theism describes it perfectly.

If you feel the videos provide a valid refutation, could you articulate the argument that they are using so we can discuss them here?

In my mind, Zacharias' incoherence with the atheist's ability to love and live morally is influenced by his own understanding of the source of moral truth. Because he defines the origin of pure love as Jesus' sacrifice on behalf of mankind, it is unfathomable to him that love could be found as a result of human survival/selection based of traits of cooperation, peace and mutual benefits of our social structure. His logic is therefore coloured and his mind is closed to certain ideas and possibilities.

The idea of agape love is a Christian idea, and agape love is unconditional love. You do not get agape love out of natural selection because it is sacrificial and sacrificing your well being or your life has a very negative impact on your chance to survive and pass on your genes. However, Christ provided the perfect example of agape love by sacrificing His life not only for His friends and family, but for people who hate and despise Him. In the natural sense, since Jesus failed to pass on His genes His traits should be selected out of the gene pool. Christ demonstrated a higher love that transcends the worldly idea of love. Often when the world speaks of love, it is speaking of eros love, which is love based on physical attraction, or philial love, which is brotherly love. The world knows very little of agape love outside of Christ. Christ taught agape love as the universal duty of men towards God:

Luke 6:27 "But I say to you who hear, Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you,
Luke 6:28 bless those who curse you, pray for those who abuse you.
Luke 6:29 To one who strikes you on the cheek, offer the other also, and from one who takes away your cloak do not withhold your tunic either.
Luke 6:30 Give to everyone who begs from you, and from one who takes away your goods do not demand them back.
Luke 6:31 And as you wish that others would do to you, do so to them.
Luke 6:32 "If you love those who love you, what benefit is that to you? For even sinners love those who love them.
Luke 6:33 And if you do good to those who do good to you, what benefit is that to you? For even sinners do the same.
Luke 6:34 And if you lend to those from whom you expect to receive, what credit is that to you? Even sinners lend to sinners, to get back the same amount.
Luke 6:35 But love your enemies, and do good, and lend, expecting nothing in return, and your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High, for he is kind to the ungrateful and the evil.
Luke 6:36 Be merciful, even as your Father is merciful.

Indeed, moral foundations can and must change with the times. As our understanding of empathy, personal freedoms and the greater good of mankind develops with our societal and cultural evolution, so too must our standards of morality. This is most evident when concepts such as slavery and revenge (an eye for an eye) are seen as commonplace and acceptable throughout old scripture where modern society has evolved a greater understanding of the need for equality and basic human rights and policing and corrections as a measure of deterrence and rehabilitation for those individuals that stray from the path of greatest utility.

This is why slavery is no more, why racism is in decline and why eventually gay rights and green thought will be universal and our struggle to stifle the rights of gays and exploit the planet's resources to the point of our own self-extinction simply will be seen by future historians as sheer ignorance. Leviticus still pops up when people try to brand gays as deviant, even though most it is itself incoherent by today's standards. Remember that "defecating within the camp was unacceptable lest God step in it while walking in the evening." Well, today we just call that sewage management.

Some people, like Richard Dawkins, see infanticide as being the greatest utility. Some believe that to save the planet around 70 percent of the population must be exterminated. Green thought is to value the health of the planet above individual lives; to basically say that human lives are expendable to preserve the collective. This is why abortion is not questionable to many who hold these ideals; because human life isn't that valuable to them. I see many who have green thoughts contrast human beings to cattle or cockroaches. Utility is an insufficient moral standard because it is in the eye of the beholder.

In regards to the Levitical laws, those were given to the Jews and not the world, and for that time and place. God made a covenant with the Jewish people which they agreed to follow. The covenant God made with the world through Christ is different than the Mosaic law, and it makes those older laws irrelevant. If you would like to understand why God would give laws regarding slavery, or homosexuality, I can elucidate further.

In regards to your paraphrasing of Deuteronomy 23:13-14, this is really a classic example of how the scripture can be made to look like it is saying one thing, when it is actually saying something completely different. Did you read this scripture? It does not say that:

Deuteronomy 23:13 And you shall have a trowel with your tools, and when you sit down outside, you shall dig a hole with it and turn back and cover up your excrement.

Deuteronomy 23:14 Because the LORD your God walks in the midst of your camp, to deliver you and to give up your enemies before you, therefore your camp must be holy, so that he may not see anything indecent among you and turn away from you.

Gods home on Earth was in the tabernacle, and because God dwelled with His people, He exorted them to keep the camp holy out of reverence for Him.

The rules that God gave for cleanliness were 2500 years ahead of their time:

"In the Bible greater stress was placed upon prevention of disease than was given to the treatment of bodily ailments, and in this no race of people, before or since, has left us such a wealth of LAWS RELATIVE TO HYGIENE AND SANITATION as the Hebrews. These important laws, coming down through the ages, are still used to a marked degree in every country in the world sufficiently enlightened to observe them. One has but to read the book of Leviticus carefully and thoughtfully to conclude that the admonitions of Moses contained therein are, in fact, the groundwork of most of today's sanitary laws. As one closes the book, he must, regardless of his spiritual leanings, feel that the wisdom therein expressed regarding the rules to protect health are superior to any which then existed in the world and that to this day they have been little improved upon" (Magic, Myth and Medicine, Atkinson, p. 20). Dr. D. T. Atkinson

What's interesting about that is that Moses was trained in the knowledge of the Egyptians, the most advanced civilization in the world at that time. Yet you will not find even a shred of it in the bible. Their understanding of medicine at that time led to them doing things like rubbing feces into wounds; ie, it was completely primitive in comparison to the commands that God gave to Moses about cleanliness. Moses didn't know about germs but God did.

Paedophilia will never emerge as acceptable because it violates our basic understanding of human rights and the acceptable age of sexual consent. I know this is a common warning about the "slippery slope of a Godless definition of morality," but it's really a red herring. Do you honestly think society would someday deem that it carries a benefit to society? I just can't see it happening.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pederasty_in_Ancient_Greece

Yes, it is. Galloway states very, very clearly that he walked out because his opponent was Israeli. He restates this multiple times again in the video Gorillaman references. Substituting Chinese, Indian, Russian or Egyptian is EXACTLY what is being talked about.

Galloway staunchly defends that he refuses to debate Israeli's because they are Israeli. Changing it to another nationality changes nothing.

I see.....

So you believe it's just good form to let a person know the nationality of the people they will be speaking to or working with? Replace Israeli with Chinese, Indian, Russian or Egyptian and does the same still apply?

Galloway and apologists like him should be ashamed and our society should actively shun them as the narrow minded bigots they are.

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:

The glass myth is actually incorrect. I used to have this misconception, but glass is quite sturdy, with viscosity greater that many metals that are considered solids (depending on the glass of course).


Tl;dr: "If the windows found in early Colonial American homes were thicker at the bottom than the top because of "flow" then the glass found in Egyptian Tombs should be a puddle."

Jump like an Egyptian.

These aren't the Pyramid building Egyptians. That's for sure.

The issues here are all wrong.

He's right about "Innocence of Muslims" looking like it was made by "Rank amateurs in a basement studio, no doubt it was. It's so bad that no one would ever have seen or heard of it, if it wasn't for the hoopla it caused. I never would have. Once I did, I sought it out and watched it. Well sort of.

First of all, the quality is garbage, something less than what we would expect from a YouTube video. Past that, The editing, the writing and the acting is terrible. It's confusing and hard to follow. In all honestly, I ended up skimming large parts of it because I didn't get the point. It's that bad.

What I don't understand is why the Muslim community felt this piece of crap video was worth killing people over? What they did was promote the film, and in doing so, brought fame to it. They are just as much to blame in the distribution of said offensive material.

So, some no name, never heard of before Egyptian born person (Nakoula Basseley Nakoula) creates a 14 minute anti-muslim video. Naakoula is a graduate of the Faculty of Arts at Cairo University. Born and educated over seas, he comes to the US and creates a video called "Innocence of Bin Laden" After the film is finished, in post production, he over-dubs all the audio and changes the title to Innocence of Muslims and changes the meaning of the film altogether.

Nakoula has been arrested for the "intent to manufacture methamphetamine" for which he did prison time. Then he pleaded no contest to federal charges of bank fraud as he opened fake bank accounts in order to defraud the banks out of as much as $800,000. He was a criminal with no scruples or morals.

He went out of his way to create this movie just to piss people off. He even claimed it was funded by $5 million collected from 100 Jewish donors, and that he was an Israeli-Jew.

So, what is my point? This piece of scum set out to create an incident and he succeeded.
The Muslim world over reacted and went "Bat-shit insane" (my words). In a fit of rage, they misplaced the blame on everyone associated with the West. They held protests in almost every major country in the world. They killed people and turned this into an international state of panic. "Oh poor us, don't criticize our Mohammad." (insert screams of "oh how could you" here) and ("The western world hates us - kill them now")

Now as a result, we, the people that didn't do anything, are being told we need to be more tolerant of the bat-shit crazy people and start educating ourselves more on their religion and watch more of their movies.

Now I have no issue educating myself on other cultures, in fact I find it interesting. But what I don't like being told is that us Westerners are part of the problem and that if we'd only have educated ourselves, this insensitivity wouldn't have happened. This is so absolutely false and absurd.

I know not all Muslims are "bat-shit crazy," but I didn't see any of them standing up and pointing their finger in the right direction (at some scumbag from Egypt).

As far as I am concerned this is what I see:
1). A scumbag needs to be deported for succeeding in inciting riots causing death.
2). People should be able to have their own opinions and be able to speak them in all areas concerning religion or their lack of faith in them.
3). the Muslim people who took part in the riots and killings should all be punished to the full extent of the law and be shamed by the rest of the people.
4). Muslim people need to get over themselves, learn to accept that their way isn't the only way and learn to "turn the other cheek". (And I use the term "their way" loosely because I don't think even they can even decide and agree on what the rules of their religion are.)

Penn already knows the answer to his own question about why. But he can't answer it to others because the saying 'the truth will set you free' is a lie.

Mormonism is an interesting religion. The founding fathers of America were hoping that an utopian state could be born out of having a new beginning: they were able to break the shackles of imperailism, and with winning the war with the south, was able to attempt to become a democratic society where all people were treated equal. For its time, the ideas were very progressive. The only thing that was missing was a belief system that was born from this unique product: the religion was inherent still from the English.

About 60 years later, mormonism would fill that gap: it believed that America was the centre of the world religion; and it explained the values of its society. At that time, the Rosetta Stone was found and was early translated, and there was an egyptian revival period going on at that time.

Being able to combine freemasonry ideals (Especially ties between the Knights/Order of Malta), it would have been the ideal time to attempt to unite a nation under one religious banner.

Guess we're all supposed to feel bad about slavery, and if the cues weren't subtle enough, it has to be WHOOPIE! explaining it to Picard instead of, say, Riker.

Slavery was a worldwide enterprise for thousands of years. With the possible exception of Eskimos, there is not a race on the planet that hasn't been enlaved (or been the enslavers). Jews, Egyptians, Sumerians, Babylonians, Indians, Greeks, Romans, Chinese, Japanese, English, Irish, all have been slaves.

It's only a certain party of victimhood portraying American Blacks as the only people who were ever slaves.

Thanks
In reply to this comment by kulpims:
*promote

1. The Swedish government handed Mohammed al-Zari and Ahmed Agiza over to the Egyptians after they "obtained promises from the Egyptian authorities that the men would not be tortured or subjected to the death penalty, and would be given fair trials". Even Human Rights Watch conceded that this was done merely to "cover itself", knowing full well that these two would be tortured.

So yes, the Swedes are more than capable of sending Assange to the States.

2. According to Fair Trials International, Swedish law permits a level of secrecy for trials such as this that everyone should be concerned about. No public hearings and extended isolation, to name the key aspects.

3. As previously said, if Swedish authorities assured either Assange or the Ecuadorians that he wouldn't be handed over to the US, he'd be in Sweden already. It is entirely within their power to bring an end to this farce or to reveal Assange to be full of shit, should he still not comply even after acceptable guarantees were provided. But they chose not to make these assurances. And the stakes are too high for Assange to accept anything less, given the consequences he faces should he ever enter the US.

On a personal note: if it was me, I wouldn't believe any assurances by any country that took part in the CIA's extraordinary rendition program -- including my own country in the case of Khalid El-Masri.>> ^Babymech:

There is no way that any Swedish politician or authority would support Assange's extradition to the US. Nothing you ridiculous conspiracy theorists have come up with so far has indicated that they would. Maybe the US would kidnap him (?) but that could happen in London or Ecuador or wherever. Meanwhile, you delightful people think that alleged rapists should not have to collaborate with authorities investigating the charges as long as they're famous enough, and that the women making these claims should not have the basic rights that any other Swedish citizens normally would. Tasteful.