Godbless everyone

[Sir Devil]

@thestrangest Well, MAD stands for Mutually Assured Destruction. It's kind of agreement between every single nation, that if you attack me and it leads to war, we both know that both of our countries would be destroyed. It's one of the major things that's stopping countries from making big moves, especially against similarly powerful nations, since you know, with the advancement in the nuclear weaponry, we can pretty much fuck up the entire civilizations overnight.

[TheStrangest]

@sir-devil said in Godbless everyone:

@sir-devil said in Godbless everyone:

Btw, notice that I said "Soldiers"

Again, a just in case reply. The violent stories depicted in the Old Testament are done by only a mere fraction of the people. There must have been a lot of peasants who lived their lives peacefully while abiding by their laws.

And participating in genital mutilation

Some may not even have slaves.

So much for helping my argument lol

They might have been that poor. They might have lived their lives peacefully without any harms. Hell, many Scholars throughout the history resort from committing any violence.

Dude. Let's say 90% of them are uneducated, unadvanced desert savages. Ok

There must have been Scholars back then too. Hence, I don't find them all to be either uneducated nor savage.

Sure. They would be in the 10%

The reason I posted this reply is echo.

[Sir Devil]

@thestrangest

Not really, that was a couple hundred years after the start hestoric period

I never said that. I think you misread "hiroic/heroic" as "hestoric"

huh?

[TheStrangest]

@sir-devil said in Godbless everyone:

@thestrangest

Not really, that was a couple hundred years after the start hestoric period

I never said that. I think you misread "hiroic/heroic" as "hestoric"

huh?

I guess it was a typo. Sorry

[TheStrangest]

@sir-devil said in Godbless everyone:

@thestrangest Well, MAD stands for Mutually Assured Destruction. It's kind of agreement between every single nation, that if you attack me and it leads to war, we both know that both of our countries would be destroyed. It's one of the major things that's stopping countries from making big moves, especially against similarly powerful nations, since you know, with the advancement in the nuclear weaponry, we can pretty much fuck up the entire civilizations overnight.

I learned something new today. Thanks

[Sir Devil]

@thestrangest said in Godbless everyone:

Dude. Let's say 90% of them are uneducated, unadvanced desert savages. Ok

Oh...okay. What makes you think that way?
What makes you think that only 10% were normal?

Why, couldn't more people live their lives peacefully?
What makes you so sure?
If you say the people portrayed in the Bible are like that, then let me say that they are only a mere fraction of all the people who lived through the decades

Standards don't change with time.

No, the standard does change with time. With the passage of time and subsequent discoveries, we gain more knowledge and we establish new theories and deconstruct previous theories. With this, the basic knowledge, one must possess in that time period increases and also, along with it the standard increases too.

Oh i am gonna generalise. People back then knew as much about existence, the universe and the meaning of life as today's 7 year olds

*sigh * http://dujs.dartmouth.edu/2013/02/is-our-collective-iq-increasing/

I can accept that the people back then didn't know much about the universe since they didn't have the necessary technology but existence and meaning of life???

Most major theories about existence and the meaning of life were established by philosophers from that time but you know what? They are still only theories, we still don't know exactly what is to exist and what is the meaning of life. There are still many philosophers pondering over this. So, if you tell me that today's 7 year old knew more about existence and the meaning of life, without proper evidence to back you up, I would call bullshit.

I expect them not to write their ignorance on paper and say it's the word of god. Like the earth being flat or not knowing where the sun went at night
They believed the earth is flat
Now, lol. Are you saying that they were uneducated because they didn't understand something? It's almost like saying that you and I are uneducated because we don't know what is dark matter is or what came before the big bang.

....and many people, still believe that earth is flat, even in this age of technology. lol.

So what. Well defined standards do not changewith time

Yes, they do. Do you know that WWI was the first war in the history of mankind, where the civilian casualty was larger than the military casualties but then again, now we can't impale people to death? I'm not saying that it's a good thing but you must see that there's a clear change of what we can do and what we can't in a war, which is the standards of a war.

supports slavery and violence

Oh, it depicted slavery and violence. Well, that's too bad, it supports slavery and violence. Now that I think about it movies like 12 years a slave also supports slavery, huh?

By raping their women and killing their babbies under the commands of god

Wait? Who raped his women? Are you referring to that story? but he didn't rape her. She was raped by bandits, something that happens even to this day.

[Sir Devil]

@thestrangest left out a few things...

Maybe but there probably was.

Well, as far as I know, there's none but if you know of any, feel free to educate me.

fell in it

Using euphemism doesn't really change the meaning.
fell in it == took __ stance

Some of them were well orginised, educated and not savage by the modern deffinition.

Well, one can be well organized and educated and still, behave savagely. One good example in BCE would be The Roman Empire. They had one of the most savage armies in that time and the things that they did can easily be said to be savage.

In order words, No matter what, War turn one into a savage.
Still giving you the benefit of the doubt, tell me more about these soldiers who fought in the wars, yet remain unsavage.

Kinda off subject but k

It is not off topic. I used it to illustrate my point. So, let me ask you a question. Imagine, you are a king. An opposing country attacks one of your major portside city and takes over. How would you reclaim your city without resorting to violence?

In case if you still think that it's still off topic, in my opinion in that time there would have no peaceful way to solve many issues without resorting to violence.

[TheStrangest]

@sir-devil said in Godbless everyone:

@thestrangest said in Godbless everyone:

Dude. Let's say 90% of them are uneducated, unadvanced desert savages. Ok

Oh...okay. What makes you think that way?
What makes you think that only 10% were normal?

Even only 5% not 10% because that's the amont of philosophy scholars, no other type of people can be called educated from back then.

Why, couldn't more people live their lives peacefully?

Because ignorance and technological unadvancements

What makes you so sure?

Historical documents from the time

If you say the people portrayed in the Bible are like that, then let me say that they are only a mere fraction of all the people who lived through the decades

Cool. Last time i checked average people from back then were still at least performing weird retuals like killing babies and burying them under buildings to prevent earthquakes and shit like that

Standards don't change with time.

No, the standard does change with time.

Nah. The standard i'm using doesn't. Im talking about not being stupid enough to participate in genital mutilation, to believe in myths, believe that the earth is flat...

With the passage of time and subsequent discoveries, we gain more knowledge and we establish new theories and deconstruct previous theories. With this, the basic knowledge, one must possess in that time period increases and also, along with it the standard increases too.

Makes sense but some people back then already knew the earth was round. I agree with you but here we are talking about people who claim to have revealed an all knowing beings sayings and stuff like that which is stupid if they don't even know the earth was round, the standard of comparisson changes for the people who wrote the bible because they wrote the bible.

Oh i am gonna generalise. People back then knew as much about existence, the universe and the meaning of life as today's 7 year olds

*sigh * http://dujs.dartmouth.edu/2013/02/is-our-collective-iq-increasing/

IQ has nothing to do with knowledge. My assertion still stands out as true. For example todays 5 year olds do understand that the earth is round and do understand the concept of negative numbers. Back then the best of men did not.

I can accept that the people back then didn't know much about the universe since they didn't have the necessary technology but existence and meaning of life???

Yeah. The meaning of life. What life is, how does it come into existence through breeding...
What is the perpus of life? Is the perpus predetermined or do you create your own perpus...

Most major theories about existence and the meaning of life were established by philosophers from that time but you know what?

That's why i excluded philosophers from the uneducated group

They are still only theories, we still don't know exactly what is to exist and what is the meaning of life.

That's where you are wrong. Existence as a consciousness is still not perfectly understood but the meaning of life is. Now we can assert with confidence that existentialism is true and that for nox science supports heavily an existentialist nihalist view of the universe

There are still many philosophers pondering over this.

Other than consciousness not really

So, if you tell me that today's 7 year old knew more about existence and the meaning of life, without proper evidence to back you up, I would call bullshit.

With this it's more like 12 as the age where you learn about exactly how life is born and to view things from an existential point of view(even if at 12 you had never heard of the word existentialism) but with the other stuff it is 7

I expect them not to write their ignorance on paper and say it's the word of god. Like the earth being flat or not knowing where the sun went at night
They believed the earth is flat
Now, lol. Are you saying that they were uneducated because they didn't understand something?

No. Because they literally did not understood everything they tried to explain in the bible if nothing at all. I already explained why my standards change for them

It's almost like saying that you and I are uneducated because we don't know what is dark matter is or what came before the big bang.

A man in the future would say that we are uneducated on the topic if we tried to write BS on a book which we later try to pass on as true words of an invisible man in the sky

....and many people, still believe that earth is flat, even in this age of technology. lol.

Many? I do not think there are more than a couple thousand. No more than 1% of the population. That is almost the opposite for back then

So what. Well defined standards do not changewith time

Yes, they do.

No they don't. That's what defining something means

Do you know that WWI was the first war in the history of mankind, where the civilian casualty was larger than the military casualties but then again, now we can't impale people to death? I'm not saying that it's a good thing but you must see that there's a clear change of what we can do and what we can't in a war, which is the standards of a war.

We are not talking about standards of war. We are talking about what standards are we using to call people uneducated or educated

supports slavery and violence

Oh, it depicted slavery and violence.

NOOOOO. FUCK NO. It clearly fucking SUPPORTED slavery and violence not just depicted it for fucks sake

Well, that's too bad, it supports slavery and violence.
Now that I think about it movies like 12 years a slave also supports slavery, huh?

Fucking hell. When did the movie give instructions on how to own slaves like the bible? When did it order slaves to be obidient like the bible?

Except for murder, slavery has got to be one of the most immoral things a person can do. Yet slavery is rampant throughout the Bible in both the Old and New Testaments. The Bible clearly approves of slavery in many passages, and it goes so far as to tell how to obtain slaves, how hard you can beat them, and when you can have sex with the female slaves

Except for murder, slavery has got to be one of the most immoral things a person can do. Yet slavery is rampant throughout the Bible in both the Old and New Testaments. The Bible clearly approves of slavery in many passages, and it goes so far as to tell how to obtain slaves, how hard you can beat them, and when you can have sex with the female slaves.

Many Jews and Christians will try to ignore the moral problems of slavery by saying that these slaves were actually servants or indentured servants. Many translations of the Bible use the word “servant”, “bondservant”, or “manservant” instead of “slave” to make the Bible seem less immoral than it really is. While many slaves may have worked as household servants, that doesn’t mean that they were not slaves who were bought, sold, and treated worse than livestock.

The following passage shows that slaves are clearly property to be bought and sold like livestock.

However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way. (Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT)

The following passage describes how the Hebrew slaves are to be treated.

If you buy a Hebrew slave, he is to serve for only six years. Set him free in the seventh year, and he will owe you nothing for his freedom. If he was single when he became your slave and then married afterward, only he will go free in the seventh year. But if he was married before he became a slave, then his wife will be freed with him. If his master gave him a wife while he was a slave, and they had sons or daughters, then the man will be free in the seventh year, but his wife and children will still belong to his master. But the slave may plainly declare, ‘I love my master, my wife, and my children. I would rather not go free.’ If he does this, his master must present him before God. Then his master must take him to the door and publicly pierce his ear with an awl. After that, the slave will belong to his master forever. (Exodus 21:2-6 NLT)

Notice how they can get a male Hebrew slave to become a permanent slave by keeping his wife and children hostage until he says he wants to become a permanent slave. What kind of family values are these?

The following passage describes the sickening practice of sex slavery. How can anyone think it is moral to sell your own daughter as a sex slave?

When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again. But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her. And if the slave girl’s owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave girl, but he must treat her as his daughter. If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail to sleep with her as his wife. If he fails in any of these three ways, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment. (Exodus 21:7-11 NLT)

So these are the Bible family values! A man can buy as many sex slaves as he wants as long as he feeds them, clothes them, and has sex with them!

What does the Bible say about beating slaves? It says you can beat both male and female slaves with a rod so hard that as long as they don’t die right away you are cleared of any wrong doing

When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property. (Exodus 21:20-21 NAB)

You would think that Jesus and the New Testament would have a different view of slavery, but slavery is still approved of in the New Testament, as the following passages show.

Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear. Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ. (Ephesians 6:5 NLT)

Christians who are slaves should give their masters full respect so that the name of God and his teaching will not be shamed. If your master is a Christian, that is no excuse for being disrespectful. You should work all the harder because you are helping another believer by your efforts. Teach these truths, Timothy, and encourage everyone to obey them. (1 Timothy 6:1-2 NLT)

In the following parable, Jesus clearly approves of beating slaves even if they didn’t know they were doing anything wrong.

The servant will be severely punished, for though he knew his duty, he refused to do it. “But people who are not aware that they are doing wrong will be punished only lightly. Much is required from those to whom much is given, and much more is required from those to whom much more is given.” (Luke 12:47-48 NLT)

By raping their women and killing their babbies under the commands of god

Wait? Who raped his women? Are you referring to that story? but he didn't rape her. She was raped by bandits, something that happens even to this day.

Sorry. Just killing women and babbies not raping

No. I'm reffering to this

“This is what the Lord Almighty says... ‘Now go and strike Amalek and devote to destruction all that they have. Do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.’” (1 Samuel 15:3)

[TheStrangest]

@sir-devil said in Godbless everyone:

@thestrangest left out a few things...

Maybe but there probably was.

Well, as far as I know, there's none but if you know of any, feel free to educate me.

I doubt people who lived at the south and north pole had slaves

fell in it

Using euphemism doesn't really change the meaning.
fell in it == took __ stance

The point is that i didn't decide to. And those are not synonymes. Fell in means i wasn't i control and took stance means that i consciously decided to.

Some of them were well orginised, educated and not savage by the modern deffinition.

Well, one can be well organized and educated and still, behave savagely. One good example in BCE would be The Roman Empire. They had one of the most savage armies in that time and the things that they did can easily be said to be savage.

Sure dude. I said 'some' as in soldures who mracticed martial arts and were very strategic and technical

In other words, No matter what, War turn one into a savage.

Not necissarely. I doubt ninjas in war time were savages for example

Still giving you the benefit of the doubt, tell me more about these soldiers who fought in the wars, yet remain unsavage.

Ninjas are a good example

Kinda off subject but k

It is not off topic. I used it to illustrate my point. So, let me ask you a question. Imagine, you are a king. An opposing country attacks one of your major portside city and takes over. How would you reclaim your city without resorting to violence?

God is omnipotent dude. We are talking about the hypothetical senerio here where this happens alongside the existence of a god.

Instead of god doing this:

“This is what the Lord Almighty says... ‘Now go and strike Amalek and devote to destruction all that they have. Do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.’” (1 Samuel 15:3)

He could have stopped the war and fighting with his omnipotence

In case if you still think that it's still off topic

I do

In my opinion in that time there would have no peaceful way to solve many issues without resorting to violence.

I doubt it, there were truces but i have to repeat that with god being omnipotent doesn't change that ordering people to kill each other to resolve a problem instead of using his omnipotence is evil and supporting violence

[Sir Devil]

@thestrangest

Sure dude. I said 'some' as in soldures who mracticed martial arts and were very strategic and technical

I thought I asked you for an example and you said "Ninjas". Fockin Ninjas. Let me get to that in a bit. The people you mentioned would be something like the Chinese monks. Not soldiers but monks. Then again, even they were savage. A Chinese historical document mentions them defending their countries' borders against enemies. It tells a story about a small group of monks defending an army against overwhelming odds using their superior combat skills and better weapons. Were they savage? Yes, of course, they were. Or do you have any better and precise examples?

Not necessarily. I doubt ninjas in wartime were savages for example
Ninjas are a good example

Let me get this straight. I asked an example of a soldier. You said, Ninja. Okay.
First things first, Ninjas were not soldiers. Ninja is a vague term used to describe peasants who took to arms after getting fed up with their shogun. Hence, they were more like an assassin. They were unorganized and they practiced guerilla warfare assassinating key officials on the cover of the night using household things. Later, the way the fought were recorded and were called as "Ninjutsu". Of course, that in itself is extremely vague too. Swift assassination requires one to be savage. Hence, of course, they were savage too.

I doubt people who lived at the south and north pole had slaves

Okay. I asked an example of a country. You gave a vague answer about the people of the north and south pole. Okay, let me set that straight. Antartica does not and has never had an indigenous population. Inuits of the high arctic, that is near the north pole were a nomadic tribe. Not a country but a nomadic tribe. They were virtually impossible to own a slave. That is because they do not have an economy because their society was "egalitarian". There were no rich or poor. The food they gather was distributed evenly among their tribe.
Some of the tribe migrated south to the arctic circle and settled down. They formed villages with a chieftain as their leader. The neighboring chieftain fought numerous wars with themselves and usually, I hope no one notices this, lol I wrote this on dec tweleth where's there is war, there's slavery and it is true in here too. They sold the captured villages' women and children as slaves. Few such tribe would be where the Vikings came from and we all know how they were.

God is an omnipotent dude.

We have already discussed it. We have already established that there is no solid evidence opposing and supporting the existence of god. The thing in the bible is that it never discussed the origin of god and even if it was mentioned, no one would have believed it, just like that. What if he is bound by rules like he can't directly interfere? What is he is just one of the god monitoring the vast multiverse? What if he can't directly control minds? What if he is not truly omnipotent? The point is we don't know. There's no evidence for that either way.
I thought that we have already established it and moved on to whether the people in time period Old testament takes place were "Uneducated desert savages"

genital mutilation

I don't know, why you are mentioning genital mutilation. As far as I searched there is no mention of it in the bible. Citation needed.

Last time I checked average people from back then were still at least performing weird rituals like killing babies and burying them under buildings to prevent earthquakes and shit like that

As far as I know, I do not find anything related to that in the bible. Citation needed.
Or are you mentioning something that some tribes did, that has nothing to do with what we were discussing.

some people back then already knew the earth was round

Yes, and the bible also does not comment on the shape of the shape of the earth. It sometimes says things like four corners of the earth but it's meant to be taken metaphorically. It does not mention anything directly related to the shape of the earth. During the early Church period, the spherical view was widely held, with just a few exceptions.

Refer this wiki page, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myth_of_the_flat_Earth

Because ignorance and technological unadvancements

That's exactly what I am saying. Peace was virtually impossible to attain due to their lack of knowledge and technological advancement. Today due to the advancement we attained over a period of several millenniums, we are able to attain said peace. Of course, there was truce back then but it was not possible to maintain it back then and hence, they were rarely held, especially with bigger nations. The reason why truces weren't effective, as I mentioned earlier would be the lack of any governing forces (like the UN) watching over those countries and maintain the peace.

12 as the age where you learn about exactly how life is born

Again, You were certain about an age. That means that you have proper evidence to back you up. Where is it? I would not have asked for it unless you were sure about it and asserts that it is indeed the truth.

And I wouldn't bet on every single prepubescent to know about their meaning of life. As far as the ones I was seen, they don't have a frickin clue or they don't care whatsoever.

No they don't. That's what defining something means

Yes, they do. Standard change with time. If you are too hung up on it, here's the definition of educational standard, "Learning //(also can be called educational)// standards are elements of declarative, procedural, schematic, and strategic knowledge that, as a body, define the specific content of an educational program."

and here's the definition of educational program, "An educational program is a program written by the institution or ministry of education which determines the learning progress of each subject in all the stages of formal education."

Notice that it says here "written by institution". With this two defenition, we can establish that the educational standard is something that depends on the current government. Hence, since with time both the government and the institution beneath it changes, the standards also change with time.

If you say that, that wasn't the defenition you had in mind of that my conclusion of the defenition was completely wrong, I do ask you provide us with an accurate defenotion of "Educational Standard"

[TheStrangest]

@sir-devil said in Godbless everyone:

@thestrangest

Sure dude. I said 'some' as in soldures who practiced martial arts and were very strategic and technical

I thought I asked you for an example and you said "Ninjas". Fockin Ninjas.

Yeh. Ninjas

Let me get to that in a bit. The people you mentioned would be something like the Chinese monks.

Close

Not soldiers but monks.

In old times monks used to protect temples like soldures or should i say AS soldures

Then again, even they were savage.

Don't think so

A Chinese historical document mentions them defending their countries' borders against enemies. It tells a story about a small group of monks defending an army against overwhelming odds using their superior combat skills and better weapons. Were they savage? Yes, of course, they were. Or do you have any better and precise examples?

No i don't but im still not convinced that all soldures are savage but i don't understand how this has to do with anything we were talking about

Not necessarily. I doubt ninjas in wartime were savages for example
Ninjas are a good example

See

Let me get this straight. I asked an example of a soldier.

Ninjas fought i war and traked down ennemies to protecc the emporor.

You said, Ninja. Okay.
First things first, Ninjas were not soldiers.

We can say they were. They worked under a leader and fought in war

Ninja is a vague term used to describe peasants who took to arms after getting fed up with their shogun.

True but they were also good enough to paid to protecc the emporor

Hence, they were more like an assassin.

Dude. True but you get my point

They were unorganized and they practiced guerilla warfare assassinating key officials on the cover of the night using household things.

True but wouldn't soldures do the same things to their ennemies in war time? Ninjas are soldures too man

Later, the way the fought were recorded and were called as "Ninjutsu".

I know

Of course, that in itself is extremely vague too. Swift assassination requires one to be savage. Hence, of course, they were savage too.

Nah. They were not, if your definition of savage is to be vague we are not using the same defenition. Ninjas were nothing but savage

I doubt people who lived at the south and north pole had slaves

Okay. I asked an example of a country.

NO. You said nation.

You gave a vague answer about the people of the north and south pole. Okay, let me set that straight. Antartica does not and has never had an indigenous population.

Sure but groups of people that can vaguemy be called nations live there from time to time.

Inuits of the high arctic, that is near the north pole were a nomadic tribe. Not a country but a nomadic tribe. They were virtually impossible to own a slave. That is because they do not have an economy because their society was "egalitarian". There were no rich or poor.

There you go. An exemple of a people that never used to own slaves.

The food they gather was distributed evenly among their tribe.
Some of the tribe migrated south to the arctic circle and settled down. They formed villages with a chieftain as their leader. The neighboring chieftain fought numerous wars with themselves and usually, where's there is war, there's slavery and it is true in here too.

Sure dude. I am bored of this convo. You might be right but as far as i know it's hard as fuck to disprove a negative like this one. How the fuck am i supposef to find a name of a nation that never owned slaves all i know is that there were too many for them all to have owned slaves at a point in their histories

They sold the captured villages' women and children as slaves. Few such tribe would be where the Vikings came from and we all know how they were.

God is an omnipotent dude.

We have already discussed it. We have already established that there is no solid evidence opposing and supporting the existence of god.

True. I never denied such things

The thing in the bible is that it never discussed the origin of god and even if it was mentioned, no one would have believed it, just like that. What if he is bound by rules like he can't directly interfere? What is he is just one of the god monitoring the vast multiverse?

No. In christian mythology god, yahweh is repeatidly described as all-wise, omnipotent...

What if he can't directly control minds?

In the bible he does with profets

What if he is not truly omnipotent?

Then why call him god?

The point is we don't know. There's no evidence for that either way.
I thought that we have already established it and moved on to whether the people in time period Old testament takes place were "Uneducated desert savages"

Yes they were

genital mutilation

I don't know, why you are mentioning genital mutilation. As far as I searched there is no mention of it in the bible. Citation needed.

JIGGA. CIRCOMSISION IS GENITAL MUTILATION

Last time I checked average people from back then were still at least performing weird rituals like killing babies and burying them under buildings to prevent earthquakes and shit like that

As far as I know, I do not find anything related to that in the bible.

I wasn't talking about the bible here

Or are you mentioning something that some tribes did, that has nothing to do with what we were discussing.

I am talking about the approximate period of time where the old testament takes place

some people back then already knew the earth was round

Yes, and the bible also does not comment on the shape of the shape of the earth.

It says the earth is flat

It sometimes says things like four corners of the earth but it's meant to be taken metaphorically.

No, who are you to decide that? As far as the bible explains, you are not in a place to say what can be metaphorical or not

It does not mention anything directly related to the shape of the earth. During the early Church period, the spherical view was widely held, with just a few exceptions.

Refer this wiki page, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myth_of_the_flat_Earth

I'm tited of this conversation. Ok man let's say the bible does not comment on the shape of the earth, we know that people and the apostels back then did not know where the sun went at night.

Because ignorance and technological unadvancements

That's exactly what I am saying. Peace was virtually impossible to attain due to their lack of knowledge and technological advancement. Today due to the advancement we attained over a period of several millenniums, we are able to attain said peace. Of course, there was truce back then but it was not possible to maintain it back then and hence, they were rarely held, especially with bigger nations.

You just admitted there were truces. I rest my case. The lenght of the truces do not matter for the argument

The reason why truces weren't effective, as I mentioned earlier would be the lack of any governing forces (like the UN) watching over those countries and maintain the peace.

12 as the age where you learn about exactly how life is born

Again, You were certain about an age. That means that you have proper evidence to back you up. Where is it?

First sex ed classes are normally at 12 y.o.

I would not have asked for it unless you were sure about it and asserts that it is indeed the truth.

K

And I wouldn't bet on every single prepubescent to know about their meaning of life. As far as the ones I was seen, they don't have a frickin clue or they don't care whatsoever.

Dude. Please im tired ok

No they don't. That's what defining something means

Yes, they do. Standard change with time. If you are too hung up on it, here's the definition of educational standard, "Learning //(also can be called educational)// standards are elements of declarative, procedural, schematic, and strategic knowledge that, as a body, define the specific content of an educational program."

and here's the definition of educational program, "An educational program is a program written by the institution or ministry of education which determines the learning progress of each subject in all the stages of formal education."

Notice that it says here "written by institution". With this two defenition, we can establish that the educational standard is something that depends on the current government. Hence, since with time both the government and the institution beneath it changes, the standards also change with time.

If you say that, that wasn't the defenition you had in mind of that my conclusion of the defenition was completely wrong, I do ask you provide us with an accurate defenotion of "Educational Standard"

Dude i am too tired of this convo. I don't have time to finnish reading what you said and i am not gonna, i am doing an internship this week and i'll be busy

[Sir Devil]

@thestrangest

First things, first. Congratulation on the Internship. Next, if you are indeed tired, you don't have to reply to this text. You could reply when you are capable of. Thirdly, You can't just argue against my arguments and also, say that I am not going to read any of it. It makes you look bad...

In old times monks used to protect temples like soldures or should i say AS soldures

Let me give you the definition of soldiers, "a person who serves in an army." Did they serve in an army? No, then they are not soldiers.

We can say they were. They worked under a leader and fought in war
No, we can't. Echo the definition.

Okay, for starters, before the Sengoku era (~15th century), Ninjas, as we call it now, were a group of peasants who took to the arms, usually after being fed up with their Shogun. Hence, they were nothing but an angry peasant who did not make much of the impact. This is evident due to lack of documents of them since they were consisted of low-class people and did not have much impact in the feudal Japan. Hence, the High-class Aristocrats and Historians did not even bother enough to write about them.
It is only during the Sengoku period that people started to record their fighting style. We vaguely and collectively call it "Ninjutsu". It is also during this period that Mercenaries who were taught in this started to emerge. Since the way they fought was covert but at the same time dishonorable, many Shogunates hired them to do their dirty work.
Since they were hired and not served, they could not be considered as a Soldier. They also did not give two shits about the emperor. Actually, when I think about it, nobody gave two shits about the emperor. He was just a figurehead for the most part of the history. Also, they were dishonorable. Hence, no shogun would have the guts to openly admit that they hired Ninjas.
Now coming back to the point, they didn't care about their emperor. They just killed for the money and since they did not have a code of honor, most just killed anybody, including women and Children. There are documents depicting the ninja's killing numerous innocents, just because they were paid for. Now if this is not savage. I don't what is.

You said nation.
Sure but groups of people that can vaguemy be called nations live there from time to time.

Okay, I used the term "Nation" at the start of the Chain. So, let's go with it. The defenition of Nation is, "Nations are culturally homogeneous groups of people, larger than a single tribe or community, which share a common language, institution, religion and historical experience." Notice that they says, "larger than a single tribe"

live there from time to time

I literally said that they were nomadic. Hence they didn't "live there from time to time"

know it's hard as fuck to disprove a negative like this one.

then why the fuck did you argue against it by saying "but then again, there probably were"? You brought this question upon yourself.

No. In christian mythology god, yahweh is repeatidly described as all-wise, omnipotent...

I was just throwing a bunch of What if questions.
This is exactly why I said that you are not able to read between the lines and understand the context. I had to even change up the order of the statements so that the reply would go like a flowchart and thus, making it easy for you. This also shows that you did not argue as a whole but against each breakdown of a statement, which is a bad way to argue.

The point is we don't know. There's no evidence for that either way.

I see that you have conveniently ignored this statement. I wrote this statement for an important reason. It just basically states the purpose of me writing those what if question. By ignoring this statement, you were able to argue against those individuals what if questions.

JIGGA. CIRCOMSISION IS GENITAL MUTILATION

Oh, okay. I was initially thinking something entirely different.
Now getting back to this, The Bible never said that Circumcision was an absolute necessity. What it did says it that God told Abraham to circumcise himself, his household and all his animals. But the tricky part, here is that it is said to come from Moses himself and there are records showing that his son was not circumcised. And every single Christian was freed from these laws in the Book of Acts and that is why, Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant churches never adopted circumcision.

Here's a site that compiles all of those, http://www.cirp.org/pages/cultural/glass2/.
Although it is bit religious, you would get the point in the first few paragraph.

I'm tited of this conversation. Ok man let's say the bible does not comment on the shape of the earth

sigh If you are going to say this, why oppose it twice before. It just seems unnecessary. Why are so predisposed to argue against each breakdown of my argument? And no, I didn't decide that they were meant to be taken metaphorically. Historians Did.

Btw, did you even go to that wiki page? It's a common wiki page available to edit by anyone. It says right there that medieval flat earth theory was nothing but a modern-day misconception with quite a few citations. If you did and still said that it said that Earth is flat, facepalm Sad...sad indeed.

we know that people and the apostels back then did not know where the sun went at night.

I don't know what you are talking about. Citation needed.

u just admitted there were truces. I rest my case. The lenght of the truces do not matter for the argument

I admit that there was a truce and the length of the truce do matter for the argument. If it does not last for a significant amount of time, it has no purpose. What is usually the ideal situation for a truce? Most of the time, truces were after significant losses on both sides in a war. That means that it was already a violent situation.

Of course, I would wholeheartedly support that truces were indeed extremely useful in BCE, if you a give a small list of times where truces held in BCE were indeed effective.

Nice try, ignoring the last sentence. (The reason why truces weren't effective, as I mentioned earlier would be the lack of any governing forces (like the UN) watching over those countries and maintain the peace.)

First sex ed classes are normally at 12 y.o.

No, no, no, no. You can't do that. I specifically said, "again". That means that I was repeating the previous request, where I asked you to provide some evidence, that 7-12 year children all around the world, knew about "The Meaning of Life". I repeat "The Meaning of Life" not how to create life. There's a difference.

You previously said that we have all figured about the meaning of life. But I see that there are philosophers discussing it in the modern era. I think, you were thinking about "What is Life?" and not about "The Meaning of Life". There's a subtle difference between them.

Dude. Please im tired ok

Why? Just Why? If you are indeed tired, why are you replying now? You could have taken rest and had more time to collect your thoughts. Why argue now and say that you are tired? It's not like I'm forcing you to reply within a time limit. You usually take about ~2 days to reply anyway.

[TheStrangest]

@sir-devil dude look. This convo has strained away from anything i was originally talking about. I want to end it. I wanna leave it alone. Wanna have the last word?

[Sir Devil]

@thestrangest I just wanted to ask you why to argue with my reply and also say a message like that. It could have been something just like this.

So...If you want to end it, let's end it. It's been fun.

[TheStrangest]

@sir-devil said in Godbless everyone:

@thestrangest I just wanted to ask you why to argue with my reply and also say a message like that. It could have been something just like this.

So...If you want to end it, let's end it. It's been fun.

I wanted to argue with your reply but got too tired half way through. Making a counter argument for one of your replies takes me a minimum of 20 min. I didn't even read your last text as a whole. Just the part where you congratulate me and tell me that i don't have tp reply to you

[GirlNextDoor]

@sir-devil amazing reply sir devil. Hats off to your research and knowledge

[TheStrangest]

@girlnextdoor said in Godbless everyone:

@sir-devil amazing reply sir devil. Hats off to your research and knowledge

I have to agree. Usually it's easy AF to counter peoples arguments but he's smart and argues stratigically

[Sir Devil]

@girlnextdoor Well, I can't argue with him without a proper strategy or research. Beleive me, I once had. I have to say that it was hard for me. I took my time to better myself with this.

[GirlNextDoor]

@thestrangest I like both your debates ... They help me discovers things I never thought about

[TheStrangest]

@sir-devil you were good man. It is just that it strained off topic. Now we were just arguing about if the people in the old testament are "uneducated desert savages" and i think you are very strongly defending the point of view that they are not but the only reason i said that they were is because you used "in their defence..." when talking about the justification of slavery in the old testament and i probable wrongly said "stop defending uneducated desert savages". I know you were not defending skavery but i wanted to say that no matter how normal it was that they supported (NOT ONLY DIPICTED) slavery in the bible an all moral god would have forbidden slavery in the bible therefore this poses a problem for the suggestion that god is all-moral but i guess you would agree with that so i want to end this because i said, countering one of your comments takes me a minimum of 20 min and i am busy more over this was not what i was originally trying to argue about. I'm sorry, i hope you understand. Thank you for this, it was very fun and informative