"Who is my brother." Look it up dipshitChapter and verse please. This should be good.
"Who is my brother." Look it up dipshitChapter and verse please. This should be good.
Not how it works dick mouth. You made a claim now show where it says he turned on his family. Piece of shit"Who is my brother." Look it up dipshit
copy it, put to search engine, with "jesus"Not how it works dick mouth. You made a claim now show where it says he turned on his family. Piece of shit
This is what follows your drivelcopy it, put to search engine, with "jesus"
This is why everyone calls you stupid.This is what follows your drivel
Matt 12:50
For whoever does the will of My Father who is in heaven, he is My brother, and sister, and mother.”
Hes not turning on anyone you dimwitted ignoramus.
Revisionism.And?
First off, the Constitution was ratified in 1789, after it cleared the New Hampshire signing in 1788. Regardless, I never said the BoR provides or confers rights.
I merely stated the fact that the BoR was "baked in" on the Constitution from the start. A guarantee of a BoR was a prerequisite to Pennsylvania, New York, Virginia, and New Hampshire agreeing to the Union.
Id rather be stupid than retarded like you. Stupid can be fixed. Yours is permanent dumbassThis is why everyone calls you stupid.
"When someone told Jesus that his mother and brothers were outside wanting to speak to him, Jesus replied, "Who is my mother? Who are my brothers?" He then pointed to his disciples and said that whoever does the will of God is his true brother, sister, and mother
back to ignoreId rather be stupid than retarded like you. Stupid can be fixed. Yours is permanent dumbass
And none of that is about him turning on his family except in that pea you call a brain that rattles around in your head
You creationists are all TERRIFIED of the fact that humans are just animals.When Oskar Schindler risked his life for complete strangers, he wasn't thinking about how he wanted to "stabilize the social network". He was thinking about how his conscience was shocked at witnessing absolute evil.
Many animals who live in social networks will kill members of other troops and packs. Being a social animal does not mean you will refrain from killing, stealing, violence and brutality.
That's not morality, that's self-interest and reciprocity.
You are not morally praise worthy for cooperating with your kin group. That is hard wired into Darwinian evolution. Slapping the label "morality " on it is just a delusion. Nothing is easier than helping your family, your friends, your kin group. That's not praiseworthy.
You are morally praise worthy when you have exercised a universal moral duty to refrain from killing, lying, cheating, insulting, demeaning, disparaging anyone, even if they are strangers, rivals, people outside your kin group or tribe.
That's not morality. That's Darwinian self interest and reciprocity.
Chimps are vicious and brutal to anyone outside their kin group.
I am satisfied that you have conceded there is no such thing as morality or moral duty, outside of preserving your life and the lives of your kin group and tribe.
Your belief that we should emulate chimpanzee society is revealing.
That is an extremely cynical worldview.
.
You should runback to ignore
If you had a heart problem im sure you're monkey doctor would figure out what the problem and save your life. The only thing is it might take as long as a monkey randomly typing out the great American novel. Hope spring eternal thoughYou creationists are all TERRIFIED of the fact that humans are just animals.
Grow up. We ain’t that special
None.No Im not trying to declare my morals as absolute Im saying there are moral absolutes.
According to their morals.As evidence of that I point to slave owners who thought it was fine to own slaves
Also according to their morals.would not have wanted to be salves themselves.
There aren't any absolute morals.Thats hardly irrelevant to the discussion of moral absolutes.
RQAA. According to your morals.If slavery was a good thing why didnt they want to be slaves themselves. Oh right, because slavery sucks and is nhumane.
A slave has different morals.Slavery isnt sentient but being slave is.
A chicken is not a human being. Do you think a chicken has morals?The chicken was an analogy and the reasoning is exactly the same.
A chicken is not a moral.The nature of a chicken doesnt change even if you think its something else.
Why? Slave owners obviously thought owning slaves was moral. A lot of his neighbors didn't think any of it either. It was just normal. They also thought owning slaves was moral.Telling me slave owners thought slavery was moral is nonsensical
According to your morals.and it didnt make slavery moral.
No such thing. You cannot impose your reality on anybody else. Your reality is yours, and yours alone.There is an absolute reality.
How do you know this? Omniscience fallacy.You will one day cease to be.
Unknown reference for this phrase. Care to elucidate?Sharing is not cheating. I said cheating.
Most of the time the Confederation of America was in force was during peacetime.The Articles of Confederation. Correct.
It was never intended to continue past the war for independence.
The Articles of Confederation did the job they were intended for. They were never intended to establish a lasting union.
...according to your morals. Learn what objective means, Cyborg.Torturing babies or burning children alive is absolutely and objectively wrong.
Morals are not consciouness.Because it's imprinted on the moral conscience.
Even when the Cannanites ritually burned babies alive to their pagan gods, they played drums so they wouldn't have to hear the screams.
Has somebody been embossing their initials on your brain?It's imprinted on the human mind.
Morals is not consciousness.Nobody knows why humans, and possibly a few of the higher sentient animals, have a moral conscience in a way that other life forms don't.
...according to your morals.Justification is the impact of actions, like FGM, on the person. That is what makes something immoral. It's the basis for making slavery, rape, child abuse, etc illegal - it's immoral because of what the action does the the victim.
Darwin did not create the Theory of Evolution.Nope. That's not an explanation.
Under scientific Darwinian evolution,
...according to who?rendering assistance and sacrificing your resources to aid strangers and rivals outside your kin group, tribe, or pack is a waste of time.
Perhaps it's too far to walk. The local pride is closer.You never see lions bringing meat charitably to a rival pride.
Darwin did not create the Theory of Evolution, Cyborg.The only thing that matters in Darwinian evolution
It is said that all men are brothers.is the protection and propagation of the genetic information of you and your kin group.
...according to his morals.When Oskar Schindler decided to risk his money and his life to save thousands of strangers, he was not thinking about how to make a 'productive society'. He was thinking about the absolute evil he was witnessing and felt compelled to do something.
Correct. Morals are not an impact on any 'victim'.No, moral relativism ignores that actual impact on the victim.
Morals are not a conensus.So, no matter how horrible, painful, mentally destructive an act is, you can label it as 'moral' if enough people say it's ok.
In the case of Hugo and many Democrats, this is true. They tend to be amoral. Their 'morals' almost literally shift with the wind.So, "moral" has no true meaning to you and most leftists.
Why would there be? An explanation is not science. ALL theories are explanatory arguments, even nonscientific ones.There is no scientific basis for that explanation.
It's not even that.It's just vague conjecture.
This part is correct.Fifty thousand years of human violence, warfare, greed, chaos, strife defy your claim that humans somehow just naturally cooperate for the preservation of peaceful productive societies.