Total posts: 1,320
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
The Jews are maintaining their traditions until they recognize the Messiah.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
I don't understand why you need a precise definition for that for these purposes.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
The bald assertion is in speaking about God, as if God is a contingent being.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
You have still not explained to me your method of determining what any given deity would or would not find disrespectful. You have also failed to provide a definition of "contingent being" or demonstrated that the Yahweh can or should be excluded from this category.
It doesn't make sense to speak as if God is a contingent being, which would be disrespectful. Its necessary for you to be able to differentiate what the Jews call God, from claims of revelation.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Following the greatest commandment, the second is to love your neighbor as yourself. People are intolerant for the same basic reasons, not because they love God. To relate, think of your father. Does your love of family cause you to act with bigotry? No.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
It doesn't make sense to speak as if God is a contingent being, which would be disrespectful. Its necessary for you to be able to differentiate what the Jews call God, from claims of revelation. God, with a capital G denotes the highest reverence or utmost significance, in monotheism, the only reverence worthy of worship. It is said that the greatest commandment is to love God with all of your heart.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
You sound ignorant when you put "the" in front of a reference to a historical name once known by the Jews.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
That possibility is engrained into American politics. I suspect that it is relatively intuitive on some level among much of protestant culture to this day.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
@3RU7AL
Assuming the creator is of relevance, it is independent of whether the Jews have a special relationship. It doesn't make sense to speak as if God is a contingent being, which would be disrespectful. Its necessary for you to be able to differentiate what the Jews call God, from claims of revelation. I'm not sure the term "exist" is being used appropriately if it is limited by your world view.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Well, maybe, but I actually don't know the precise purpose of the thread.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
I'm not interested in the continuing on post #34 with you. The thread title says YHWH =/= conservative politics, not the commands of Yahweh =/= conservative politics. I'm not sure why commands were later introduced into the thread yet, as that is something that 3RU7UL has not expounded on.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
It makes me feel kinda special : ) Yeah, we are way off the topic. If that's what a red herring is, we are sure reeling them in.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
I said that 3RU7AL can take it up with me at least a couple of times. I'm not really able to apologize at this time, if that is warranted. Evidently, 3RU7AL has not been interested in that subject matter for this thread up till this time. I'm not either, meant no ill will to begin with and would otherwise be forgotten. They have sent me a PM.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Yeah, covered that already... I still don't know if post 72 is a red herring though
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
I made no allusion about my disinterest in continuing that topic with you. I also ceded all points to you, and said "you win". Then you said something about logical discourse being necessary so we both wouldn't lose.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Oooohh, I thought you wanted to talk about how to say "ass", which I wasn't interested in, and then we moved on to logical discourse. Is that a red herring?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Are you referring to post #74 as a red herring? I don't understand how that works yet.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
If a train is moving at 30 miles per hour, it will take approximately 2 hours to go 60 miles, assuming a relatively constant velocity. 60/30=2 You don't lose
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Okay, all points are ceded to you. I therefore do not meet any burden of proof, and you do. You win.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
I may note misinformation on my account when appropriate. Mistakes are not an uncommon occurrence on my part
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
I guess so. I'm not too interested in this subject of conversation with you. If the input is entirely unappreciated, I'll take that from 3RU7AL.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
I'm not presently schooled on the full history tracing back to the colonial era and beyond. For us Americans, what are considered rights is conceptually based in some sort of deistic natural law theory, thought to be derived from what the Jews and Christians call, God, not necessarily their teachings, which Americans may agree to disagree.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
You may be equating God, with attributed commandments or teachings that draw from biblical context. I can't conceive a thought process leading to the quoted statement in post 25 from post 22.I am willing to accept that I misunderstood your intended meaning.If that is indeed the case, please explain or expand upon or provide supporting evidence for the following quote.The declaration of human rights is a secular approach with respect to what Christians and Jews call God. [POST#22]
Secular was intended to connotate detachment from religion, or compatible between different religions. There isn't much here for you to misunderstand.
Put another way, maybe one could call it a backwards way of going about things, assuming that we may ascertain our relationship in the world we live in accordance with natural law. Its important to note that these rights as observed by the United States government are not considered absolute, not in legal theory nor in actuality. Some rights may be considered differently than others as fundamental by the Supreme Court, with a wide scope of protection for the theoretical right. As a brief reality check, obviously just because we can do something as an American citizen without fear of recourse, that wouldn't necessarily make it right. Rights do not come from the United States government. We conform our institutions in respect as best we can.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Red Herring
Okay, this is unintuitive to me. Are you saying this is a debate-thread and I'm going on a tangent from your subject of debate?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
In a formal debate setting, I can see how that could be poor conduct, and as I understand an ad hominem is fallacious and entirely counter productive. What is an ad hominem in your view? I welcome input from the relevant user, and by no means contend an insult in an unalterable sense towards them as a person.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
What is an ad hominem? Would you like to take this into private messages, a debate, or another thread?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
While my primary interest in this website is in the debate section, I simply do not have the time to involve myself in the commitment, although I still enjoy reading it. The forums can certainly prove useful to that end through thoughtful contribution, and that coincides with my general mentality in this setting.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
There is a section dedicated to debates that I intend to use for debates. I generally consider forums for the thought. I suppose it is safe to say that debate is your primary initiative in forum communications. I will continue to consider that unreasonable to assume for others.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Thanks. I don't consider this a debate setting, so there I suppose lies the confusion in this instance
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@disgusted
Sorry, but what is backpedalling? Are there supposed to be two sentences?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
I did not claim this.And I quote,The declaration of human rights is a secular approach with respect to what Christians and Jews call God. [POST#22]-Snoopy
"human rights" are (somehow) a secular version of "YHWH'S" commandments." [POST#25]-3RU7ALYour logical fallacy is "dime-store psychoanalysis" also known as "the mind reader" also known as "a rush to disqualify".
What do you mean by commandments?A teaching or command attributed to the "YHWH".
You may be equating God, with attributed commandments or teachings that draw from biblical context. I can't conceive a thought process leading to the quoted statement in post 25 from post 22.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
I did not claim this.And I quote,The declaration of human rights is a secular approach with respect to what Christians and Jews call God. [POST#22]-Snoopy
"human rights" are (somehow) a secular version of "YHWH'S" commandments."-3RU7ALYour logical fallacy is "dime-store psychoanalysis" also known as "the mind reader" also known as "a rush to disqualify".
What do you mean by commandments?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Deb-8-a-bull
Can you be a jew if you've a foreskin?Good day.
I think so. Good day to you as well
Created:
Posted in:
"human rights" are (somehow) a secular version of "YHWH'S" commandments."-3RU7AL
I did not claim this.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Please explain how defending the human rights of minorities forfeits "OUR RIGHTS"?
It doesn't.
Calling someone an "ass" is an ad hominem. Asking someone to "please speak clearly" is a polite request.
Sometimes, when someone calls you an ass, its just because you are being an ass.
And don't forget, you were going to explain your claim that "human rights" are (somehow) a secular version of "YHWH'S" commandments.
What makes you say that?
Your logical fallacy is "dime-store psychoanalysis" also known as "the mind reader" also known as "a rush to disqualify".
Apparently not
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
The name of this thread. "YHWH" =/= Conservative Politics.Exactly!!Yes exactly. The thread is specifically about a religious figure.
Thanks for the thought. What do you mean by "a religious figure"
Assuming such a being even exists what method have you used to determin what this hypothetical figure would or would not find disrespectful. Also in what way is referring to said being as a being, a creator and a ruler not referring to it as thpugh it were a creature?
God is God, and I personally don't find YHWH offensive from non believers. I don't mean disrespectful in a strictly empathetic manner. If you have a suggestion for me, I would be open to it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
The name of this thread. "YHWH" =/= Conservative Politics.
Exactly!!
I must conclude that you are reading a different thread than I am.
I'm curious.
Its also disrespectful for you to address God as you would address creation as we know it, like a sort of creature.What method have you used to determin what any given god(s) do or do not find disrespectful?
YHWH is referring to what the Jews and Christians call God, "I am that I am", The Creator, The Supreme Being, The Ultimate Reality, The Ruler of Creation as we know it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
And of course, the ad hominems. What, pray tell, am I "surrendering"? Please speak clearly.
OUR RIGHTS. Read the first sentence, rather than throwing out the term "ad hominem" and then proceeding to slide in "speak clearly". You know what was said to you, and I know you are still being an ass.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
By making up rights for a political stunt, people may argue you are reducing rights as something that bandied about like candy from politicians taking advantage of desperation, ignorance, idolatry etc... Basically, you are just being an ass, but also expressing yourself as if you are willing to surrender something of vital importance to your country for your political gain. There's no reason listed in this thread for you to start pivoting towards religion. Its also disrespectful for you to address God as you would address creation as we know it, like a sort of creature.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
The declaration of human rights is a secular approach with respect to what Christians and Jews call God.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
My experience has been that Stephen still speaks about what the Qur'an states. Contrastly, blamonkey as an example, only talks about Muslims in my experience, not Islam. Blamonkey has a different approach than Stephen, in that he has always seemed to speak with respect to international interests, like large scale conflicts in the Middle East.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@K_Michael
What do you mean by detriment?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
One might think. I don't know about that to tell you the truth, but I know you can also worship your self.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
I'm not sure what you mean by worships man as a god
I mean we are talking about ideology. Ideology is not necessarily a religious thing, For example, I think what is called "liberalism" (all nationals are free and equal in respect of one another), "nationalism" (sovereign states uniting voluntarily, probably not universally), and "multiculturalism" (different backgrounds, different ways) seem to be in accordance with natural law, and as such I think there is a degree of utility in politics whilst rulers mind their limitations. You can worship most anything I suppose, just a matter of what one reveres as a god. You can worship the sun. You can worship man.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
I'm not always too keen on the idea of followers. In this case, if they are cherry picking from an ideology and rationalizing their own chart then I'm not sure of how that term is deemed appropriate. I have to assume you are referring to a situation in which people worship man as a god.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
This actually highlights what I am talking about. A rational understanding of any given ideology is irrelevant to the behaviors that can and are justified by that ideologues proponents.
Now, you are not wrong in saying that people are not saved by knowledge. I'm not sure why you are repeating this idea that the content is irrelevant to the problem over and over again. In the real world, while it is not necessarily the root of the problem, it may not always be the case that it is irrelevant. An ideology could actually be a sort of platform on which people relate.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
So, in one respect you are coming from something that makes sense. If your leg causes you to sin, than it is better to cut it off than walk into hell. But you go too far in that you are disregarding societal problems. For one, humans cannot be thought of as robots, and a morally inclined solution to such a problem is not going to be of a strictly rational basis.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
As an atheist I do not believe thay any human is following the direct instructions of any god(s). Even if they were that is irrelevant to the utility of belief. If beliefs can be used to justify violence then the actual content of said beliefs is beside the point.
That's not necessarily so when you consider the societal aspect of how Muslims (real people) approach the problems they encounter.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Maybe but not on the instruction of the ChristIrrelevent. The teachings (whether they encourage violence or not) do not prevent the violence but are rather used as a justification for the violence throughout history including in the history presented in the bible itself.
Are you sure you aren't conflating the teachings, with what people deem to be "good" and therefore worth fighting for?
Created: