Total posts: 5,875
Posted in:
-->
@Intelligence_06
Why does anyone wants to be an anarchist?
Short answer? Ignorance.
But it takes a certain kind of ignorance. The kind that has been in a technologically advanced society long enough to have forgotten that nature has only been kept at Bay, not conquered, but is young enough not to have had any experience yet with their own mortality.
Anarchists tend to be exclusively under 35 liberals in decadent Western societies. Those are the only places one can be stupid and then be protected from the consequences of being stupid, lulling them into thinking anarchy is attractive.
Created:
-->
@Castin
I think Trump makes people feel more alive, whether they love or hate him, and that energy will be gone - or at least will begin to die down. And I am just fine with that.
Headline:
Castin in favor of people feeling less alive!!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
Since your IQ is higher, how many billions have you amassed in your successful business ventures? How many times have you achieved the highest office of the land?
Err... did you not use your high IQ, or are you lower than 77?
Created:
Posted in:
People calling for Trump to be impeached or put in jail are idiots. Who exactly is going to jail Trump when half the country thinks he was a good president?
It is amazing that TDS has caused Democrats not to remember the weeks of cities burning and police stations occupied and people and police officers being killed. But a handful of people being let into the Capitol one day - is treason on Trump. What hypocracy.
TRUMP 2024!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
I bet Oro and huffy think it was a great and sensible idea. These are the people now in charge of our govt.
May God have mercy on us.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
The hypocracy here is palpable.
Where were these concerned citizens as antifa and BLM burned down cities in 2020?
My God, TDS is insidious!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lunatic
The religion board has more than twice as many topics.
Look at the top 5 boards.
1. Forum Games- 463 Topics- 57,082 posts
2. Religion - 994 Topics- 53,365 posts
3. Politics- 1078 Topics- 41, 848 posts
4. DebateArt.com- 1017 Topics- 27,210 posts
6. Philosophy- 211 Topics- 15,277 posts
Seeing a type in the more popular boards?
Yet we have a mod team openly hostile to religion and philosophy. It would be amazing to me if I didn't know that the owner's purpose for the board is not a great and active debate site.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Please explain to me what "theoretical" "thing" meets your qualification of "not sourced from the mind OF MAN"?
The concept of God's morality.
The "moral code" of "YHWH" could only be considered "objective" if "YHWH" was defined as absolutely emotionless.
Illogical. God's code is objective TO MAN, as it is not sourced from, dependant on, or influenced by the mind OF any MAN, regardless of whether it is concrete or theoretical. God's emotional state is irrelevant. Objective does not mean, "emotion-free". This is the sense in which we use "objective" all the time when a 3rd party is brought in to arbitrate a case. No one inside the case makes the judgement.
You again wish to subject the claim to your bogus definition of "objective". That will not fly.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
I can see why you would love Trump. He had 5 kids with 3 different women and he gave the USA the first Soviet Union born First Lady that has a cute accent since English is not her first language.
And every one of those qualities is vital for a good president? The sheer pettiness of the derangement is astounding. I, and millions of American citizens, love Trump because he....
1. Kept his promises to us
2. Improved the economy
3. Respected our religious rights
4. Attended to America first
5. Did not tolerate loony leftist ideas
6. Started no wars
7. Kept our military strong
8. Placed sane judges on the courts
9. Did not care for political correctness
10. Was transparent, saying to us exactly what he thought
But I guess you think the number of kids he had was a better standard on which to judge his performance.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
Do you know what the purpose of a semicolon is in a definition? Typically its to explain a draw a link between a phrase and one word, in this instance - "not dependent on the mind for existence" is synonymous with actual, therefore "dependent on the mind for existence" is the direct antonym for that meaning of actual.
I know. But that is not the meaning of "objective" being used in the objective morality argument. Your definition is wrong... pay attention now.... for this argument.
Second, explain how that definition is bogus. Your proper reasoning, it is in reference to abstract concepts like morality, why are you claiming it to be bogus? What is your reasoning for throwing away that definition?
I have explained it. You tried to dodge it. I am not "throwing away" your definition, I'm saying, now for the 5th time, that the word has several definitions, the one you are trying to use for this argument is the incorrect one. For example, when we say, "Fred is feeling blue today" and you try to use the definition of "blue" denoting color. That would be incorrect. Sure, that definition is in the dictionary, but that is not how the word "blue" was used. Your definition of "objective" was not how the word was used in the argument.
You continue to assert that i'm using the wrong definition but have provided no reasoning for that
I have, but you must read my posts. In the argument at hand, "objective" has nothing to do with "actual/existence". The argument is not using "objective" in that sense.
- your claim that everything depends on the mind of god, demonstrate that claim.
I don't need to. I asked you, if God existed as the Bible says, would the morality of His mind be objective to men?" You answered "yes". That is the sense in which we are using "objective". My claim is coherant.
And also... no. Hypothetically speaking, if there were a god, he would create that with objectivity - the things to make it would exist, its not a product of that god's mind but their power or "omnipotence'. For example: I could create a model boat, that boat would still be objectively existent, it is not a direct product of my mind, it is one of my skill and hands. A machine could do that given the instruction without any need for a mind.
God creates out of nothing. He needs no raw material. But that is not the point, and does not affect the argument, God's morality would still not be caused by, or influenced by, the mind of any man, thus, if God existed, God's morality would be objective for human beings.
what is your definition of objective? Not that you've provided any reasoning to say mine is bad besides your opinion, but I'd like to hear yours since you hold it in such high regard
Objective - Not sourced from, dependant on, or influenced by the mind OF MAN, regardless of whether it is concrete or theoretical.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
by the way, "BLUE" is not a noun.
Blue can be used as a noun.
OBJECTIVE" AND "MORALITY" ARE MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE TERMS.
It depends on what sense "objective" is being used. Your self-serving definition of "objective" isnot the only definition of that word, and your understanding of it is not our roadmap.
Please explain how your concept of "morality" qualifies as, "Not dependent on the mind for existence; actual"
That isn't my concept. Please try to keep up.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
78 Million American Citizens:
We love President Trump
Trump is our President
We do not think he should be impeached
We do not think he should be removed from office
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
When it is defined as the opposite of "subjective", it can be objective.
Every thought and action a human being is capable of is FUNDAMENTALY SUBJECTIVE (SAMPLE BIASED).NOTHING YOU CAN SAY OR DO IS "UNBIASED".
I agree. Which is precisely why no morality of men can ever be authoritative and legitimate. The only truly objective morality would be one not sourced from humans beings.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
Half of that wasn't addressed to me, but I A) Gave you several examples of things which are objective; water, cats (new example yaay), Cactus, Disco Balls, Stars, The Universe, ect, ect, all of those things are objective - things which are social constructs are subjective typically - while some have routes in objectivity - the actual extrapolation is subjective.
When we say God's morality is objective, we aren't referring to whether its existence is concrete or not. Why is it difficult for you to understand that each definition of a word has a different meaning? Your definition of "objective" is incorrect in a discussion about objective morality.
And you still haven't quoted when I said actual before you said it I doubt that, could have I used a throwaway word like actual at one point with more context? Sure, but it doesn't matter.
Subjective - "Dependent on the mind or on an individual's perception for its existence."
Objective - "Not dependent on the mind for existence; actual"
Post #204
I'll just concede that it doesn't exactly mean actual, but it does... and again, the as demonstrated by the definitions that you did not quote or reference, they are literally exact opposites. You can illogically ignore that fact, but that would be handwaving. You are actually dodging a proper rebuttal.
Rebuttal to what? Your bogus definition? If I define "blue" as depressed in psychology, then the opposite of blue is happy. If I define "blue" as a color in photography, then the opposite of blue is yellow. Using the psychological definition of "blue" in a discussion on photography is silly. That is what you are doing with "objective". You are using the incorrect definition for our discussion.
Water, Cats, Cactus, Stars, and the Universe are all dependent on the mind for their existence. The mind of God. They are not dependent on the mind of any man, and that is why they are objective to men. An objective morality is one from the mind of God, not able to be changed or influenced by any man. Whether you believe God exists or not, the logic holds.
If God existed, His morality would be objective morality, not derived from, or dependant on any man.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
@3RU7AL
Your OP makes a good point about choice concerning morality Tarik.
-->@3RU7AL
Abstract concepts are not "objective".
Depends on how "objective" is being used. When it is defined as the opposite of "subjective", it can be objective. Concepts themselves are never concrete.
Logical tautologies (FACTS) do not "exist" in the same way that concrete OBJECTS "exist".
And he did not say or imply that they did. He said, "Facts can be objective". This is true given his d(and the orthodox) definition of "objective". He was not speaking to existence/non-existence, he was referring to objective/subjective. And facts, whether theoretical or concrete, are never subjective.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
@Theweakeredge
Dodging?
Yes. I am unsurprised that you deny it.
It would be dodging if I didn't address your point or change the subject,
Both you tried to do.
You are running. You are using a definition of "objective" that you claim is the opposite of subjective. It isn't. The foundational claim of your argument is wrong, there is no need for me to address anything past that point till you have fixed your thinking.
YOU used the word "actual". While that may in very narrow cases be a synonym for "objective", it is incorrect if you intend "objective" to be the opposite of "subjective". Your definition makes no logical sense.
To demonstrate this, please give us an example, by your definition, of something objective.
And "subjective" still does not mean "non-existent".
Are you familiar with the difference between an ABSTRACT noun and a CONCRETE noun?
"Blue" can be either an ABSTRACT noun or a CONCRETE noun, that doesn't mean that the definition of the word "blue" used to denote color would be correct in a discussion about depression. Droning that "it's in the dictionary!" would mean nothing. It would be incorrect usage.
If you were asked to describe an elephant, would you say, "not a hamburger"?
A definition is not a description. Theweakeredge defined "objective" as "actual". That is an incorrect definition of "objective" in a discussion about objective and subjective morality.
And I still say one does not window shop a dictionary. The correct definition of a word is determined by context. Without context, we will not know which is the "correct" one. Context makes some definitions of a word illogical, as a color definition of the word "blue" would be in a discussion about depression. In that case, "blue" would correctly be defined as "depressed" or "not happy". It would be incorrect to use "blue's" definition of color in that case, even though that definition IS "in the dictionary".
Theweakeredge is equivocating on the definition of "objective", and both Tarek and Fauxlaw have caught him on that error.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
Are you actually daft?
Perhaps. But I'm smart enough to have you running and dodging.
You don't think there can be more than one definition of a word?
There are many definitions of a word. You just have to use the correct one. You're now stalling to hide that you're dodging.
And "subjective" still does not mean "non-existent". Imagine that.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Dictionaries do not give different definitions for the same word. They would be useless if they did.
YES THEY DO.
Then what are dictionaries for Brut?
Which definition (specifically) do you think is "the correct" definition?
How can there be a "correct" definition when you say meaning just depends on which dictionary you use?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Vain repetition will not help you.
The word slave as used in the bible doesn't mean what you are trying to imply. Like all atheists with an agenda, you want us to look at the word "slave" and think no further, blocking all context.
You are now reduced to repeating words like a parrot because you have no rebut for my argument. You are simply assuming slaves were owned, though all the contexts say they were not. You have dodged explaining the differences between slavery in Hebrew times and slavery in the old south. You have failed to explain why a master would recompense a slave if the slave was bodily his property.
I have provided the citation you asked for. You ignored it and reposted your unsupported argument. Was that honest? If your argument is correct, why the dishonesty? Why the dodging of questions? Why are you ignoring citations you asked for?
Bibles are not hidden or private. Posting the verses is not an argument, and people seeing them will not make them automatically believe your interpretation.
But if all your argument is is like that of a bigot yelling "Homo! Homo!" Go ahead and post the word slave again. This time maybe use all caps. That might help people forget the the word "slave" used in the Bible does not mean what you want it to.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
THERE IS MORE THAN ONE DICTIONARY ON THE PLANET EARTH.
Dictionaries do not give different definitions for the same word. They would be useless if they did.
ALMOST EVERY SINGLE WORD HAS MORE THAN ONE DEFINITION.
I know. I have been the one saying so. The correct definition must be used. One is not free to cherry-pick amount the various definitions of a word.
WHICH ONE DO YOU USE?
I was addressing the definition used by theweakeredge, not suggesting one of my own.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
"Never means not actual" Really?
I said, "Subjective NEVER means " not actual". Yes really.
You think that? You weren't paying attention were you?
I saw you had to dishonestly edit my comment. I was paying enough attention.
This is the definition I was referencing, and just for you, I'll put em side by side, just so you can connect the two, I know it can be a bit hard for you at times:Subjective - "Dependent on the mind or on an individual's perception for its existence."Objective - "Not dependent on the mind for existence; actual"
"Actual" is not the opposite of subjective in any logical sense. If you include God, then NOTHING is "objective". And if nothing is objective, then nothing is subjective either. Your definition is incoherent.
The two are as opposite as they could be, please, before you try to make an assertion that is so easily fact checked, actually fact check! It's not that hard, or even, go back a page or two, and read of the tens of times I provided the definition of subjective here! This is only one claim in and I'm already in awe of how incorrect you are.
Your definition is incorrect for this argument. No one is talking about the existence of objectivity, the question is, can a morality be objective.
Your next claim "has nothing to do with existence" is hilarious whenever both definitions are setting up conditionals for existence.
We do not need definitions for existence. We need a definition for "objective", not "actual".
Again, you have literally no idea what you're talking about - are you trying to call me illogical? Yet you can't look further than your own assumptions? Thats pretty unreasonable.
No matter how you contort, "objective", the opposite of "subjective", does not mean " actual". Your "objective" is the opposite of "non-existent" , not the opposite of "subjective". You "prefer" that definition because it hides your pretence that your "objective" is the opposite of subjective.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Deuteronomy 24:7
7 If someone is caught kidnapping a fellow Israelite and treating or selling them as a slave, the kidnapper must die. You must purge the evil from among you.
fellow Israelitefellow Israelitefellow Israelitefellow Israelitefellow Israelite
You again forgot Exodus 21:16 - “Anyone who kidnaps someone is to be put to death, whether the victim has been sold or is still in the kidnapper’s possession.
This is a common logical error. Yes, Deuteronomy 24:7 says "fellow Israelite" . It DOES NOT say kidnapping a non-Israelite is permissable, but that is how you try to slant the verse.
You can own people and their children and bequeath them on as part of your children's inheritance.JUST DON'T POKE THEIR EYES OUT.
"Owning people" is your addition to the verse. It is the debt that is owned, not the person. In the old South, a master owed a slave nothing if he maimed him. You are simply assuming slaves were owned, though all the contexts say they were not. You have dodged explaining the differences between slavery in Hebrew times and slavery in the old south. You have failed to explain why a master would recompense a slave if the slave was bodily his property.
Like all atheists with an agenda, you want us to look at the word "slave" and think no further, blocking all context. That tactic has never worked, and it won't work now. The only people you will convince are the ones who already agree with you.
Hebrews could not own slaves as in the old souths because God said,
Eze 18:4 - Behold, all souls are mine; as the soul of the father, so also the soul of the son is mine: the soul that sinneth, it shall die.
God put the penality of slavery as death.
God called slave trading evil.
God said if a slave should seek refuge with you, do not return him.
Hebrew slavery was voluntary or else it was prohibited.
God said He owned all souls.
I have provided the citation you asked for. You ignored it and reposted your unsupported argument. Was that honest? If your argument is correct, why the dishonesty? Why the dodging of questions? Why are you ignoring citations you asked for?
When you areno longer ashamed to address the fact that "slave" in the bible doesn't mean what you are insinuating, I'll be here.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
The word Objective in our discussion does not mean actual.
Please make your personally preferred definition(s) EXPLICIT
Definition of words are established. I choose the correct definition, I do not cherry-pick based on my personal preference. I was telling theweakeredge that his definition is incorrect, not offering one of my own.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
Yes, there are different definitions of the word objective, and I could care less if you prefer that definition, I was referring to my case regarding subjective morality that objective and subjective terms I got from the Lexico dictionary the Oxford English and Spanish Dictionary, therefore is a definition I can use perfectly justifiably.
No you cannot. I am saying your definition is wrong FOR THIS CASE. When "objective" is defined as synonymous with "actual", it is NOT the opposite of subjective. Subjective NEVER means " not actual". It has nothing to do with preference.
Its not like I just made these definitions up out of thin air with no relation to the other dictionaries.
The definition of "blue" when it means "depressed" is in the dictionary, but because it's in the dictionary doesn't mean it is correct to use it in a discussion on the color of a car. The definition of "objective" you are using, has nothing to do with subjectivity, it has to do with existence. You have the right word but the wrong definition.
I will correct you, your definitions are much more in line with the colloquial use of the words, but that does not inherently mean that the colloquial definitions are the "better" definitions.
They are not only better, they are also correct if by "objective" we mean, not subjective.
That just doesn't apply. I specified that in your examples, you were describing a different sort of subjectivity than I was,...
My examples did not mention subjectivity. I was using objectivity. I was using objective as the opposite of subjective. You were using objective as the opposite of not actual. That is deception.
I don't care if you don't like that fact,...
My like or dislike does nothing to repair your error.
you have yet to convince me that you actually apply the criticism of others "not being logical" onto yourself.
There is no need for me to convince you of that.
By the way, you are supporting monarchy.... or are you saying that, generally speaking, people who create the rules aren't subject to them? Because if a "perfect being" makes rules then they are perfect, and should apply to everyone.... because they are necessarily perfect. Like... even if you tried to argue that "humans aren't perfect" apparently we were kinda then humans messed up. So.... not really perfect there. Of course you could argue that god.... intentionally made imperfect rules? Yeah... I think you should start to get the contradictions in your rhetoric.
Lol. I will leave the illogical mess above as I need not touch it. Perfection has nothing to do with it, authority does. I don't even know what a "perfect" rule would be. God is not "people". Parents are not subject to the same rules as their children, police are not subject to the same rules as their populations, God is not subject to the same rules as His creation. It is not a new or radical concept.
The way you are defining "objective" has nothing to do with morality, and cannot correctly be applied to morality. Your definition renders the word illogical inside a discussion on morality.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
I could just give you my definition - "Not dependent on the mind for existence; actual" - I use this definition because of the topic specifically:
Words can have more than one meaning. You seem to be using "objective" as synonymous with "actual", when you know in common usage, that is not the usual definition of objective. Observe.
Usually, when a judge is recused because he cannot be considered "objective", as in say, a case where his his mother is a defendant, what does "objective" mean in such a situation?
In this case- we are talking about being able to judge a case without influence from their emotions. Which is the other definition of subjective.
Subjective as opposed to "objective", having nothing to do with "actual".
If a company has developed a course of action (a plan) how to go about manufacturing a new technological device, and hires an outside consulting firm to to give them an "objective" evaluation of that plan, what does "objective" mean in such a situation?
the same as above, which, again, isn't quite what I'm talking about
But it is what the claim that only God is objective is about! The claim is saying that only God's morality is free from the influence of man's emotion, not that only God's morality is actual. You are being equivocal with the definition.
If God did exist the way the Bible says, would the thoughts of His mind be "objective" to men?
Well, if we were to assume that god had some sort of basis that he was using, yes that would be objective - if we are just talking about his mind? No,...
Well, if we are using the orthodox definition of "objective", not from the mind of man thus free from subjective human emotion, God's morality would be "objective" and what "basis" He used for it would be immaterial.
...if something comes from him, as in an idea, then it would be subjective without an objective basis, being god doesn't somehow make god not have a mind, and exempt from the rule
It is only one definition of a word with many definitions, not a "rule". And certainly not one that can be coherantly applied to God. You are trying to restrict the discussion to an incorrect definition of "objective".
Hopefully that helps clear things up
It did, but you are simply wrong. When we say God's morality is objective, we mean it is free from the subjectivity of man. It is this subjectivity which makes it wrong for one person's morality to be forced on another. It is this subjectivity which makes each person's morality of equal authority to all others.
...being god doesn't somehow make god not have a mind, and exempt from the rule
A God who is subject to "rules" created by his creation is incoherent. God existed before the "rule". If we posit God, subjecting Him to the "rule" is illogical. It attempts to change who God is. The word Objective in our discussion does not mean actual.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
@FLRW
Many Scriptures and books of the Bible (e.g. Philemon) were used as pro-slavery propagandain justifying the enslavement of African people.
So was the Constitution. So what? If a knife is used to murder, is the knife evil?
Exodus 21:26-27
26 “An owner who hits a male or female slave in the eye and destroys it must let the slave go free to compensate for the eye. 27 And an owner who knocks out the tooth of a male or female slave must let the slave go free to compensate for the tooth.
Does this sound like old south slavery? Why would a master need to compensate for what he owned if the slave was his property? The debt was his property, not the person. People sold themselves into debt.
I think that it's fair to suggest that the words "Slavery" and "Voluntary" are not synonymous.
Exactly! This is why kidnapping is prohibited, because slaves are never voluntary, they must be taken by force.
Exodus 21:16 - “Anyone who kidnaps someone is to be put to death, whether the victim has been sold or is still in the kidnapper’s possession.
No mention of Israelites only, it says anyone who kidnaps "someone".
Hebrews could not own slaves in the old souths because God said,
Eze 18:4 - Behold, all souls are mine; as the soul of the father, so also the soul of the son is mine: the soul that sinneth, it shall die.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
I'm going to hazard a guess that the slaves that were literally BORN INTO SLAVERY were "not voluntary".
You would be wrong. The kind of slavery the Bible is talking about is indentured servitude where a person worked off a debt.
"INDENTURED SERVITUDE" WAS FOR "FELLOW ISRAELITES".
Untrue. Indentured servitude was for everyone. That is why every 7 years Israel had a jubelee year.
LIFELONG SLAVERY AND OWNERSHIP OF YOUR SLAVES CHILDREN FOR LIFE WAS FOR THE "FOREIGN BORN".
I keep telling you, the word "slave" in the Bible doesn't mean what you assume it does. There were those who chose to remaining indentured servitude, those who had debts that could not be repaid in a lifetime, and those who had committed crimes while in indentured servitude. Just requiring verses saying "slaves" shows nothing if the word slave does not mean what you are trying to imply.
The bible explicitly forbids ownership of ANY human (slavery) and sets the penalty for slavery as death.
Citation please.
Why? Would you believe the Bible?
Exodus 21:16 - “Anyone who kidnaps someone is to be put to death, whether the victim has been sold or is still in the kidnapper’s possession.
1 Corinthians 7:21
21 Were you a slave when you were called? Don’t let it trouble you—although if you can gain your freedom, do so.
1 Timothy 1:10
10 for the sexually immoral, for those practicing homosexuality, for slave traders and liars and perjurers—and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine
Deuteronomy 23:15-16
15 If a slave has taken refuge with you, do not hand them over to their master. 16 Let them live among you wherever they like and in whatever town they choose. Do not oppress them.
Deuteronomy 24:7
7 If someone is caught kidnapping a fellow Israelite and treating or selling them as a slave, the kidnapper must die. You must purge the evil from among you.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Before we start teaching kids to speculate....We should show and tell them what is actually real.
Most of your posts here say nothing is real, or at least reality cannot be conclusively known. Contradict much?
Created:
Why does America have to be Canada. If you want Canada move there.
Exactly.
People think the nation would collapse if lIBERALS ran the show, but in Canada over the last 100 years liberals have ruled for abut 70 of those 100, look at the amazing job they did!
How would Canada have done if it's neighbor was not America? Every democratic run big city in America is on the verge of collapse but is being propped up by the federal system. Sort of the same dynamic with Canada.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Jasmine
Don't let the LBGTQ TUVWXYZ community hear you call it that! Can a woman even be a homophobe?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
When you flex your omniscience muscles sure.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
I'm trying to get a better idea of what objective means to you.
1. Usually, when a judge is recused because he cannot be considered "objective", as in say, a case where his his mother is a defendant, what does "objective" mean in such a situation?
2. If a company has developed a course of action (a plan) how to go about manufacturing a new technological device, and hires an outside consulting firm to to give them an "objective" evaluation of that plan, what does "objective" mean in such a situation?
3. If God did exist the way the Bible says, would the thoughts of His mind be "objective" to men?
You may go into detail if you want, but a yes or no will also suffice.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
Surely you've noticed that the Z-man is not interested in a logical look at the topic?
Like all of them, he has come here looking for attention. The content of the exchanges don't matter, as long as they can get you to notice them. Why else would an atheist come to a religion board and repeat the same "I don't believe in God" post over and over?
I noticed in Jesus day He was always being approached by non-believers. I know what the attraction was for those seeking God, but what was the attraction for atheists? I wondered about that till I logged onto a public religion board on the net.
Satan goes to and fro about the Earth seeking......
Zed couldn't care less about whether Stephen is honest or correct. In fact, he doesn't care about Stephen at all. All he wants is another opportunity to drone his mantra again. "I don't believe in God." For some reason, they think that bit of info is endlessly fascinating to theists.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Dee Dee is just another lost soul who takes his purpose from the internet because he has no real life.
But it is heartening to know you care for me so much.
But you rile easily
At your age, by now, you should know you are poor at reading people. But your concern makes up for your shortcomings. So take it from me, Bro D's are a dime a dozen on the net. I saw and dispacthed my first one on the net 2001.
Mrs. Ethan was concerned till you said you were too moderate to understand the homo stuff. She's relieved.
What homo stuff?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
That's like telling the DA that crime "stimulates" him... ( I can't say G spot or Ragnar will have another excuse to ban me for "sexual harassment")
It's my job Z. My calling. I'm the trashman, I take out the trash. It's a dirty job, but someone has to do it. You're liberal, so youwill see all interactions between men as either homosexuality or homophobia. So the only one with an "stimulated" Z spot seems to be you, and maybe our mods.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Try to leave your nazi-free Wales and you'll get a surprise.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
Yes. In fact, it was in Britain first, then exported to America. What most people don't know, is that slavery of this type, (owning the slave outright as personal property), is a relatively new thing as far as human history is concerned. When religion and race were placed into the mix is when we got the really onious slavery of the American South.
I think the enemies of Christ pushed this hard in America so as to be able to castigate the bible later. It is almost impossible to get an American not to see Kunta Kenté whenever the word "slavery" is mentioned from any time period or geographic location. In my discussions with American atheists, the terms "indentured servitude" make no sense, and they are incapable of understanding that "slavery" can mean different things. It's almost as if they need the bible to have condoned slavery!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
Nope Dee Dee, your post is still empty. No one cares who you think is a "runaway". No one cares who you think is "embarrassed". No one cares who you think is a "real" Christian. You look silly repeating those dim charges over and over. Surely you have a brain Dee Dee. Use it!
Your schtick cannot make me angry. It isn't even surprising anymore. It's old. Like the guy that's been yelling on the street corner at the top of his lungs for 5 years. You are just an empty windbag. That's why you must bold and capitalize, you know your schtick is old and tired.
But I will be here for you Dee Dee. My job is to assist people like you. When no one else will talk to you, I will allow you to display your emptiness. I was trained for it. Everytime you Spam a balloon template, I will be there with a sharp pin to show everyone there is nothing but hot air in it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
You can always tell when you've beaten the atheist when he starts to use your terms.
Sorry Dee Dee, your posts still are vacuous. Nothing in them but gibberish. Surely you can make a single post with something of substance in it? Even if it's only 2 sentences long.
By the way Dee Dee, are you feeling lonely? Missing a buddy? I finally contacted someone from your Landover loony church but they didn't want to comment. Strange cause usually they are so chatty.
I asked you in my last post, "Now that you know your shtick doesn't work, what will you do? Just keep repeating "run away" and "embarrassed?" Your childish taunts don't work. I don't care if you repeat "runaway"till you're blue in the face, and nothing you say can harm Jesus. So what will you do now?
Your schtick is useless. No one reads your loony posts. No one thinks you're original. No one cares.
All you can do is to keep repeating your silly empty posts because you are empty. You have nothing. No original thoughts, no informative insights, not even tidbits if interest. You are like an empty drum, load, all caps, all bold, but saying nothing. You have become a parody of yourself.
And I will roast you for as long as you can stay out of the party van. Which should not be long, as your schtick's uselessness gets more and more frustrating.
Next?
I'll always be next Dee Dee. Very few people want to talk to you. It's pointless. But I like you. I was trained for people like you. And I will be here for you. You will help me toast you, because you can do nothing else.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Well, I personally love the fact that you exist...It currently brightens my winter mornings.
Mrs. Ethan says the same thing!
And at least you admit that you deny the truth, just fine.
Lol. As long as we stipulate that I don't consider the jibberish in your head to be "the truth".
And it would seem that all Adolph has left...sorry did I say Adolph....Slip of the tongue....All that Donald has left, is his Nazi hoodlums.
Under Donald, there aren't police waiting to stop me from leaving my city, opening my business, or arresting me for not wearing a mask. How is your life in Wales under your non-nazi rulers Z?
God bless America hey?
He has. We don't have Sheria courts, mosques with loudspeakers, or primitive idiots running around with acid trying to "uphold" their honor like you guys do. Hope you don't get arrested walking outside your home in your nazi-free Wales Z.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
As you can see by the post directly below yours fauxlaw, atheists are loath to give up their southern Alabama idea of slavery. To them, it's just a ploy to extracate the bible.
However, there were also slaves who were so their entire lives, so it was both indentured servitude and slavery in a traditional sense.
First, southern US slavery was not "traditional". Very few places had the type of slavery the US South had, unpaid ad owned. While there were real slaves in biblical times, the bible did not condone slavery, and ancient Hebrews did not have a concept of owning another human being as to them, Jehovah Himself personally owned all humans.
My point was not that slavery did not exist, but that the bible does not condone or excuse it. The atheists who make this charge are wholly ignorant of the times AND the culture back then.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Here is a question for you. We're any of these slaves not voluntary?
Are you kidding me?
No.
I'm going to hazard a guess that the slaves that were literally BORN INTO SLAVERY were "not voluntary".
You would be wrong. The kind of slavery the Bible is talking about is indentured servitude where a person worked off a debt. It had to be voluntary. Stealing a man and forcing him into slavery was a crime punishable by death. After the debt was paid, the person was free and could leave or stay if he wanted. If the person died before full payment, his heir assumed the debt.
What was owned, sold, or inherited was the debt, not the person. So if the master died before a debt was repaid, his heir could inherit the debt payments.
In those days, there was no social safety net, no pensions, no job market, and no police. People had to attach themselves to a Noble house for protection and for shelter, and for food. So deals were made such that a "slave" would live under the master's roof, eat from his kitchen, and be kept safe by protection, in exchange for some service the slave would provide. It was voluntary. People who could not or would not attach themselves to a master, were left exposed to fend for themselves with no land, no job, and no future. They would quickly get picked off by slavers or bandits.
The "slavery" in the Bible is not like the slavery we know from the US South, where people were owned, and masters suffered no penalty for killing a slave except the loss of property. The bible explicitly forbids ownership of ANY human (slavery) and sets the penalty for slavery as death. But atheist website's never point out those verses.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Jarrett_Ludolph
Your move Jarrett....
Created:
Posted in:
Chess Match Jarrett_Ludolph VS Ethang5
Jarrett_Ludolph -White
Ethang5 - Black
Max time per move - 24 hours
White to play.
1.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
Glad you're back PW! Hope the new year is finding you well.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RoderickSpode
...the only reason I can think of to need to provide proof is if I'm insisting that you accept something as truth. And I don't do that with the Gospel/Bible, or anything else spiritually related.
The atheists simply assumes you are insisting that he accept something as truth, and goes from there.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@janesix
They think claiming to be "usetabee" christians makes them more legitimate. Almost all of them claim to have been "devout" christians.
Created:
I addressed it's contents. You graciously DID NOT say you were omniscient, yet you know what I dont't know.
So I didn't say something that you then imputed to me. Got it.
Sure, like my Not saying I didn't understand the original, but you "imputed" to me. I used deductive reasoning, for how else would you know what I know?
Meanwhile, I know Hebrew. Do you? If the answer is "no" then, yes, I know something you don't know.
Because omniscience.
The verb is "be" no matter which language you're using to carry the meaning. The meaning did not change.
Meaning isn't simply a function of root.
No one said it was.
And I have answered it 3 times now. But your agenda wants another answer.
Your answer is that the meaning wasn't changed. That is because you think "is" and "will be" mean the same thing.
No. You take them out of context and insist they mean something different. Of course they do when hung on a clothes line. As used in the verses in question, the meaning they convey is the same.
That's your understanding.
It also happens to be a simple fact.
You still could answer my actual question of what drove the translator who chose not follow the decision of other translators (and his own translation elsewhere) in this one case.
Context.
Or maybe you can't.
I suspect until I agree with you, I won't be a"able" to.
The facts speak for themselves. A particular word is translated in this one verse as something different from what it is translated as in other instances within a particular overall text. Therefore, there must be a reason. I have yet to see an answer other than "to make it connect to the Greek text of John."
You have yet to see an answer you like that fits your agenda other than "to make it connect to the Greek text of John."
Created: