Total posts: 5,875
-->
@zedvictor4
It's OK Zed, you're not the only one who wants to think he's "like" me.
You said you had a mantra, I didn't. You wish to pretend I do too because in your mind, that would make us similar. I'm used to the admiration.
But unlike the genius Dee Dee, at least you know you're a load of fun. Landover might be the perfect place for you. Check out their website.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
Ethang5, you are just too predictable...
Lol!! OK homer.
Your repetitive shtick isn't predictable at all.
Oh man! Can the class say clueless? I thought it could.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
Uh, yes, barring this Landover thingy you keep bringing up to try and save yourself,...
How will you being a member of a church of morons "save" me?
Steven being banned was self-evident in seeing a line through his moniker.
Lol. Do yo know why he was banned genius?
Ethang5, catch your breath for a moment, and understand that your assumed intellect is making it too easy for me to show everyone in what you truly are! LOL!
And yet its you chasing me around the board spamming the same silly shtick over and over. I don't have to "show" anyone what you truly are. You do that perfectly all by yourself.
Spam another repetitive shtick post again. No one needs to assume about your intellect.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
So you are celebrating that your 'victim' won an election to be president as a severe organised crime offender.
No. That's just your silly spin.
Right, now go ahead and compare him to George Floyd again, maybe it will make more sense the second time?
Was Trump abused by rogue law enforcement officers? Yes.
Was Floyd abused by rogue law enforcement officers? Yes.
Your irrational hatred of Trump cannot change empirical facts.
Why did Trump stop the FBI investigating him and dislike it during the investigation?
First, he did not stop it. The FBI did investigate and wiretap him.
Second, because the FBI was using trumped up fake data to gain a judges signature to investigate him.
Law enforcement Investigations should use legal means to justify the investigations.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
What are you even talking about? Death sentence is something that is stupid and ignores the rehabilitation aspect of justice, nonetheless it is legal.
Being given the death sentence on shoddy fake evidence such as the Steele dossier and the Mueller probe is not legal.
I am talking about unlawful murder at the point of arrest.
I am talking about rogue law enforcement officers out of control and breaking the law to violate the rights of a US citizen.
Trump is one of the most powerful people in the world right now,
The rogue law enforcement officers began abusing Trump before he was elected.
George Floyd was bottom of the food chain and preyed upon.
I agree. I also think everyone deserves fair treatment regardless of their position in the food chain.
FBI were not even wrong, Trump was involved in a lot of illegal tax evasions, tampering with votes via illicit lobbying strategies and much more.
Then he should be taken to court..... Wait, he was and won.
Or he should be impeached..... Wait, he was acquitted
Or, at the very least, he should be voted out of office.... Wait....
The only reason he got away with it is by playing the victim. Meanwhile, he will encourage them to investigate Hillary Clinton and call her pure evil for not wanting her own privacy invaded by the FBI.
That wasn't the reason he called her pure evil. His opinion of her was vindicated by the American people. She did not want the FBI investigating her because she committed crimes.
He is a disgusting hypocrite to the core of his being.
A rogue law enforcement officer is not excused because the person he abuses is unsavory. Floyd was a drug addict, rapist, and thug robber. His abuser still deserves prison. Similarly, Trumps character is irrelevant to the crimes committed against him by rogue law enforcement officers at the FBI.
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
You can keep pretending your mantra is truth.
Exactly what I was thinking about you...
Why? Unlike you, I do not claim to have a mantra.
...But don't be mad...Some people are reality challenged.
I tend to like reality challenged people.
Works both ways....that's the reality.
Errr. No. You can say it both ways, but it only works on people who are actually reality challenged. On the religion board, they are easy to spot. They are atheists who claim that religion is nothing but myth, but spend every waking hour on the religion board repeatedly spouting the same silly anti-theist clichés ad-nauseum.
They are loads of fun. Never learning, never growing, never progressing.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
Where he differs is that he genuinely doesn't care at all about what others think of him.
Even when what others think of him is overall positive. It works like a magic potion making me immune to petty activist mods, and moron trolls alike.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
Saying white people are the problem are inherently racist.
The way around that is to instead say, "Non-white people are NEVER the problem."
Black lives matter = Good
Blue lives matter = Bad
White lives matter = Bad
All lives matter = Bad
Orange lives matter = Very Bad
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
Trump has had no such thing happen to him.
Not by lack of trying. Trumps lawless rogue law enforcement officers attempted to get him charged with treason, a crime punishable by death.
Read what I said. "The bad apples at the FBI tried to do to Trump exactly what the bad apples at the MN police dept did to George Floyd." They were caught and exposed before their "insurance policy" could pay off.
If anyone can sympathize with what Floyd went through, Trump can. They were on his neck for 9 minutes, the Trump Deranged crowd has been on Trump's neck going on 4 years now. Unfortunately for George Floyd, he wasn't so "lucky".
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
Dear Gentle Reader, notice how the Landover Baptist seem to be poisonous to Dee Dee? I guess mentioning it breaks his 4th wall.
Hey homer, stop praising yourself, it is obvious even you don't think that highly of yourself. And again, when you have nothing intelligent to say, posting silliness is not a worthy substitute.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
Crowds are now gathered in front of De Blasio's house, calling for him to resign.
Who's going to make sure that crowd doesn't get unruly?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@sadolite
Back in 2016 I bet everyone on DDO that Trump was gonna win and I was roasted and lambasted for suggesting such a thing.
I remember that thread. It was hilarious. Especially right after the election when the unstoppable force of reality met the immovable object of liberal delusion.
Created:
Posted in:
Both Trump and George Floyd are victims of rogue law enforcement officers breaking the law.
The bad apples at the FBI tried to do to Trump exactly what the bad apples at the MN police dept did to George Floyd.
See any liberals calling for reform at the FBI? Trump is white, so he can't possibly be a victim.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
HOLY JESUS CHRIST! Wow, are you lucky or what? In Stephen's banning you were saved further embarrassment by not having to address his FACTS towards you!
Sort of the way you think you're saved further embarrassment by not having to address the topics of the threads you infect? Hmmm Dee Dee?
I am so happy that you finally returned from Jesus and I Bible Slapping you Silly!
Deluded as you are, you still knew your fellow Landover Baptist church deacon Stephen had been banned. Whose going to shout "amen" at your shtick now? Surely your church has more than one member?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
I watched a "protester" shout, "We're not going to let Trump hijack our movement with looting!"
And 2 thoughts immediately came to mind,
1. Did Trump do any looting?? And...
2. Do the owners of the looted properties not deserve mention?
Trying to talk to get through to them while they continue to suckle on the teat of the MSM is almost impossible.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RoderickSpode
Rod, you will find that they cannot answer you. They cannot tell you on what their claim is based. Some will simply switch to another claim, ("most Christians don't realize what's in the bible?") but will still not be anywhere near able to tell you on what fact the claim is based.
They are telling you how they feel, and for most of them, how they feel is indistinguishable from fact.
Created:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
Next?
You're next Dee Dee. Landover Baptist is front of the line.
Babble about slapping and running again, it was so funny the 100th time you posted it.
The hilarity is, you actually think you're mocking Christians! Lol.
The one shtick wonder.
Satan is so proud of you, praise!
He must hate you with your holy prostitutes. Lol.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Danielle
Two weeks ago if you told me Fox News would be calling for more body cameras, squashing impunity, better oversight, less tolerance for aggression, less force in policing, less militarization of police, etc. I would have told you that you were smoking crack.
Conservatives have always been for those things. You must not watch Fox news much. But when conservatives say, "less militarization of police," they do not mean more anarchy and lawlessness.
If the left has to "settle" for mass police reform lol mock their movement all you want... they won.
Reports of your "win" will prove to be premature, just as in 1969. After the MSM has bled this story of all the blood it can squeeze out, it will move on. The kids rolling down fifth Ave with wheel barrels full of loot will grow up and get jobs, just like the peaceniks putting flowers in the gun barrels of police guns in 1969.
We'll see how much you feel like a "winner" in Nov. after Trump has won again.
Created:
Posted in:
no. the thread is a about a criminal abuse of power where the president ordered peaceful protesters to be shot so he could have a photo op.
Let's count the lies in the one sentence...
....criminal abuse of power
There was no abuse of power.
where the president ordered
The President gave no orders to Law enforcement.
peaceful protesters
They were not peaceful, and disobeyed the police.
to be shot
No protestor was shot by the police
so he could have a photo op.
So He could tell America that He took the protection of their churches and property seriously, Unlike that photo op of the Rev'm Sharpton hugging Floyd's mother.
Phew! Talk about CNN sheeple!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RoderickSpode
In a way, it did, but Paul inadvertantly broke character when he was caught in that movie theater playing with himself. And as you can see with Dee Dee, breaking character seems to be their worst fear. Dee Dee's posts appear to be Pee Wee's equivalent of, "I know you are, but what am I?"
It would be funny for longer if we were all still 13.
Created:
-->
@EtrnlVw
...penetrate his pile of internal data...
Lol! I could have sworn it was a pile of something else!
Funny.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
Hey Dee Dee, a thesaurus would help you. Really, spamming the same silly thing over and over makes you look clueless. Or is that the effect you're going for? If it is, you're doing a bang up job.
Don't you guys at Landover Baptist learn any other tricks? What? Is the thread topic toxic to you? Do you have monitors who watch that you stay on script? Hey, Dee Dee, where is your fellow elder Stephen?
Lol!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PressF4Respect
The problem with saying that God knows X because you chose X is that it implies some sort of backwards causality between the cause (your decision) and the effect (God knowing about your decision).
No. For God, neither His knowing your decision was "first". The only causality is your decision causing God to state what your decision was.
Another problem you would face even if God is merely the observer is that once the result of a choice is known,...
Sorry. God has always known. And His knowing does not precede your decision. Neither does it affect your decision. You seem to be thinking that God is locked on the river of time the way you are.
...it is causally impossible for the events leading up to that choice to not result in that choice.
Right, because decisions have results. Why would the same events leading up to that choice result in different choices? That isn't logical. The events leading up to that choice could have been different, but then God would have "seen" the difference and still have mentioned your actual choice.
It would be causally impossible for the events of any choice to not result in that choice, thus resulting in a single chain of events (the ones that do end up happening). This would lock you into a position of hard determinism.
Nope. God doesn't "see" potentialities or possibilities, He sees actualities. When God says you will die in 2015 for example, form His vantage point, you have already died, not because His comment locks it in, but because that IS what happened. You, stuck in time, find it difficult to see it from God's timeless perspective.
Tell me what you think these verses mean, especially the bolded part.
Rev 13:7 - And it was given unto him to make war with the saints, and to overcome them: and power was given him over all kindreds, and tongues, and nations.
How could Jesus have been slain from the foundation of the world?
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
As if an omniscient creator would care about all that human B.S.
He does. He said so Himself, and no one is more surprised than Christians are. As the bible itself asks, "What is man, that you are mindful of him?"
Mantra for today.....We've created many gods in our minds, but none as yet in reality.
Making a mantra doesn't make it truth. You can keep pretending your "mantra" is truth, but as for us Christians, we will stick with the more rational, the more dependable, "I am the Way, the TRUTH, and the Life..." spoken by the very real King of Glory. His Royal Highness, King Jesus Christ.
Don't be mad, some people are reality challenged.
Created:
It will be interesting to see how empiricism, devoid of being, is more reasonable than a Creator.
It isn't more reasonable. It cannot be, but as the bible says...
Rom 1:20 - For since the creation of the world [God's] invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse,
Rom 1:21 - because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened.
Rom 1:26 - For this reason God gave them up to vile passions.
Rom 1:28 - And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a debased mind, to do those things which are not fitting;
This is why they argue, because they do not like to retain God in their knowledge. But we will proclaim Him. We will keep Him front and center. It will annoy and incite them, but we will forever honor and glorify the great King who gave Himself for us, and saved us when we were just sinners.
We love Him, because He first loved us.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@EtrnlVw
Ethang! good to see ya around...
And you too Etrnl.
...the loonies are getting too much free time and patting each other on the backs (pretending people are scared)
Yeah. I see that Stephen has joined Dee Dee at the Landover Baptist Church. Hilarious.
...because no one want to socialize with them due to their lack of intelligence, they delude themselves in their nonsensical posts. Don't be too hard on them, their a bit volatile.
You know me Etrnl, Velvet Gloves is my middle name. ; )
Created:
Posted in:
Hey Mr Ascerbic.
Hi Adolph.
You always dodge the biggest question of all....Can you actually prove that a god exists?
I've answered you. Yes I can. But you mislead by not posting your entire question. Your question actually is, "can I prove God exists TO YOU?"
This is like Joseph Goebbels asking if I can prove that Jews are not sub-human. Sure I can, but just not to HIM.
And in fairness, that conditioned mental block compels you to dodge. I do understand.
You should, that "mental block" exists entirely in your mind. For example, I cannot prove to an illiterate, that time is relative depending on the velocity of the observer. Being illiterate, he cannot understand the concepts needed to comprehend the answer to the question.
And being illiterate, when the concepts are explained to you, it comes across as gibberish, because to illiterates, whatever they don't know, is untrue.
P.S.I hope that you were aware of protestations I made against your ban...… And Regards to Mrs Ethan.
I am aware. And thanks.
Virt views me as a "homophobe", and in his progressive liberal activist zeal, sees banning me as an act of social good. One has to take the rain with the sunshine. Mrs. Ethan is one of the main reasons why bans on little obscure websites don't amount to much.
Created:
Posted in:
And what is that intention Stevie? You don't say.
(2) Because the intention is clear.
It may be clear to you, but it isn't clear to anyone not a member of the Landover Baptist Church. And if it was so clear to you, you'd be able to state it.
But you seen this all in my op and you have tried to poke holes in the very contradiction shown by [C] and failed.
Then why can't you answer the questions put to you? If Jesus tells us to buy swords, that doesn't necessarily mean we are to use them in every instance. Your argument is simply silly.
Now see, I'm a Christian wanting to discuss the content of scripture,...
And instead, you make a self-serving commentary on your biased post. Let's discuss the content of scripture homer. You don't want to contradict your own claim that Christians run away from discussing the contents of scripture do you?
Basically, you act as if words can have only one meaning. That greatly hampers your reading comprehension.
(10) That will come under (15) Redefine words to suit your narrative and agenda. & possibly (17) Doctor members comments to enable you to respond to a question.
Can words have more than one meaning Abdul? Well? What is the meaning of "jealous". Can you discuss the content of scripture or will you again dodge with some silly reference to your scatterbrained post?
Your comments are contradicted by your history. In every thread I can cite, you dodged questions, became vulgar and loud, and then ran away. Would you like me to cite them?
(12) No.
Lol. I didn't think so.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
Your first premise is fine. Your second premise is where the syllogism falls apart. "Free will" doesn't stipulate that there are two or more outcomes, where each outcome has a non-zero probability of happening. "Free will" delineates that two or more outcomes are possible (not probable) subject to the decisions of the (moral) agent. Free will is about leaving that which one can do to one's discretion, not that which one will do.
(Underlining mine) Well said Athias. The OP is making the logical error of blaming God for decisions made by others. And most of the anti-theist rabble want to focus on the existence of God rather than the logical error in the OP.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Perhaps you made the logical error by believing in a god.
And when you can argue it instead of simply repeating it over and over, someone will take you more seriously than a disgruntled anti-theist infecting the religion board.
Created:
Posted in:
Few here will (or can) remember, but the current mood in the country is just like the mood in the late 1960's. Where do you think the word "pig" for the police comes from? The kids were in the streets all over the country talking about "peace and love", ending the Vietnam War, and even disbanding the military. And the mass media ate it up, proclaiming a "new" shift in society.
And the country elected Richard Nixon and became more conservative. The peace and love Hippies disappeared, and the age of Aquarius fizzled.
This current "movement" will similarly overreach, becoming loony in their list for far left policies, and the rest of the country, the rational majority, will come out in Nov and nip it in the bud.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PressF4Respect
I have never found Bill Barr to be untrustworthy.
The protesters in the Park did not have a right to disobey the police. Protesting does not confer the freedom of disobeying the police.
Law enforcement officers told them to move back, they should have done so. It was not an "attack", that is just leftist propaganda. And they were not peaceful.
The question is, do the churchgoers and shop owners also deserve a President who protects their rights?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
Dee Dee, when you have nothing to say, don't post.
Created:
-->
@PGA2.0
So the scrutiny you place upon the Christian or theist worldview in answering your questions you are not willing to reciprocate by answering questions about your worldview? IOW's, you can question us but we can't question you in holding you accountable for what you believe as reasonable. I was quite willing to discuss the two and find out how you answer these difficult questions to test your belief system as you are testing the theistic position. It appears to me to be a one-way street. You set up five threads in which you can question theists but are not willing to have the tables turned. IMO, this is a double-standard and it confirms to me to date that you have not been able to make sense of what you believe
Is a formal debate even necessary anymore?
Good job as always PGA.
Created:
Posted in:
Welcome back Ethan.
Thanks Rod.
I just had a weird thought. I wonder if they're any Christians devious enough to pose as a pseudo Freedom From Religion Foundation type atheist activist group, with the intention of making American atheist activists look like a Pol Pot regime?
Of course not. That sort of derangement seems to be reserved for atheists. But though that may have been Dee Dee's original intent, it's obvious that he got lost somewhere in the mime and it has now developed into a personality disorder. Funny thing is, the shtick has trapped him and he can no longer be a normal person.
Remember Andy Kaufman from "Taxi"? Same thing happened to him. But your " weird thought" is telling. How an atheist could be this invested in what he says is an imaginary story is indicative of the emptiness of atheism.
Good thread.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PressF4Respect
Press, let me show you one of the places your logic train went off the tracks.
P2: Free will stipulates that if there are two or more outcomes for a being to choose, then each outcome has a non-zero probability of happening.
Here, your focus is the probability of the outcome of the decision maker.
P5: It can't be the case that an outcome has both a zero and a non-zero chance of happening.
As God is not the decision maker, His knowledge has no baring on the probability of the outcome of the decision.
I don't think that needs further explanation. You've made a logical error.
Further, your, "P3: God is never wrong." is incorrect and misleading, as God is not guessing. Your implication is that God is not wrong about probability of an outcome, but there are no probabilities from God's perspective, God knows the probability of the outcome not because He guessed it correctly, but because He "observed" it occur.
God's omniscience are not guesses about the future, God has no "future". When His says you will do X next year, He is not predicting, He is telling you what has transpired. For you, doing X is in your future, for God, it has occurred.
So the typical question to this "dilemma", " Could the person have made a different decision?" is illogical. Because had the person made a different decision, God would have "seen" that and said so, because He is not predicting, He is commenting.
It is not God's omniscience that causes you to do X, it is your doing X that causes God to be omniscient about it.
Created:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
No one runs away Dee Dee. No one wants to talk to you because you're like an autistic bot. All your posts are the same, juvinile. Have you not noticed that in most threads no one pays any attention to your loony posts?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
Dee Dee, when you have nothing to say on the thread topic, posting makes you look...lame.
Your "parody" website lost its entertainment value years ago. Your schtick is as stale as a dead fish. But as always, I like you Dee Dee. I find you entertaining.
Myself, all of the pseudo-christians,...
Lol!
So tell us, Would you consider this evidence or will you post in caps and bold yet again?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Christians never seem to be able to or really want to discuss the actual content of biblical scriptures themselves
I can cite more than 5 threads right now where you ran away from discussing the content of scripture. Would you like me to?
So, the intention is clear at [A] and [B]...
And what is that intention Stevie? You don't say.
...that is until we get to [C] which contradicts both [A] & [B].
How? You haven't told us the intention of A, B, or C. Should we assume? How do they contradict?
Now see, I'm a Christian wanting to discuss the content of scripture, and my guess is you will become biligerant, and dodge all my questions, if your history is any indication.
A Christian will try to explain this away by....
Let the Christian explain himself. If your argument is good, you will not have to offer the Christian's argument for him.
Here is a question, not for you dodger, but for the gentle reader.
Q: If Jesus told his disciples to carry a sword, did that necessarily mean He wanted them to use it in every situation?
So then it is consistent that Jesus could have told His disciples to get a sword, but could have told them not to use one in a particular situation. What? You knew this already? Of course you did Gentle Reader. A 12 year old child knows this. People not suffering from God Derangement Syndrome (GDS) know this. People with common sense know this.
I take it as a direct insult when I am told that I "cannot read".
Your reading comprehension skills are exceptionally poor. No offence meant. Even this post shows it. Basically you act as if words can have only one meaning. That greatly hampers your reading comprehension.
That "I am taking thing out of context".
Taking things out of context is possible. You do it unconsciously because you don't know the context of the things you speak of in the first place. For example, you don't know that the context of A and B was the evil days to come after Jesus' death, and C was the particular case of Jesus' arrest. Or maybe you know but are hoping a bit of dishonesty will power your silly argument through. I don't know.
They have not been prepared to really be challenged on these scriptures and that is why they disappear once their excuses and arguments have fallen flat...
In every thread I can cite, you dodged questions, became vulgar and loud, and then ran away. Would you like me to cite them? Your comments are contradicted by your history.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@K_Michael
@BrotherDThomas
Dee Dee doesn't answer questions K_Michael. He's too far gone into his parody. Sort of like an atheist who starts to actually believe in the flying spaghetti monster.
Christianity isn't his religion, silliness is. As for lying, since he is his own moral standard, he simply judges it as good when he does it.
Dee Dee, you managed to get yourself banned while I was away. Want to bet you'll repeat your history?
Incidentally, I agree with the people saying it would not be evidence.
Created:
Posted in:
Brother Dee Dee is a card carrying member of the Landover Baptist Church,
A sitirical parody website of Christianity. Dee Dee seems to be a little too invested in the mime. Sort of like the theist who really tries to debunk the flying spaghetti monster, Dee Dee has crossed over and gotten lost in the parody, becoming a parody himself.
Created:
Posted in:
Hi everyone.
Now that
Ramshitu
Harikrish
Wylted
Disgusted
Brother D. Thomas, and
Willows
Have been dusted off, the board has little use for a trashman anymore. (Though they still need to figure out how to stop Willows from embarrassing them. But it seems they think its easier to pretend his sock isn't him, than face the embarrassment that they don't know how to keep him off)
So Ethan is going to gunsling in the more western regions. I thoroughly enjoyed my time here.
If any of you see me somewhere else on the net, say hi.
Created:
-->
@ILikePie5
If he gets his way, there won't be an America in 20 years.
Created:
Posted in:
She is actually a man taking estrogen hormones to pass as a woman. She's dating a white tranny so I know she's an uncle tom. (Or is that Auntie Tammy?)
Created:
Posted in:
Untrue. Most of my recent threads have been outside the religion board. But again you have let your petty emotion blind you to the disservice to the board.Don't worry about this, this is Ethangs normal behavior anyway.
If the new design encourages such behavior, it will be a detriment to the board as a whole.
And as we can see, participation has already begun to fall off. How come the people with the least participation are often the most strident on what could be better?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Lol! Two geniuses brag about not reading the post they responded to.
Does this not explain the intelligence level of their responses?
I can't wait for their movie reviews of films they didn't watch. I bet the intellectual quality will be similarly sterling.
Lol!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Envisage
Hi Envisage! (My god is that a cool name or what?)
Yes, but before the reformer changes the standpoint, the society considers it moral, and the reformer considers it immoral, hence his push for reform.Then reformers simply change the standpoint, which in turn changes whether or not an action is moral/immoral.
Moral reformers are members of a society that stand outside that society’s moral code and pronounce a need for reform and change in that code.
If moral relativism is true, then these reformers were immoral. You see, if an act is right if and only if it is in keeping with a given society’s code, then the moral reformer himself is by definition an immoral person.
...because he wants to change what society already considers to be moral!
Unless the current standpoint is "changing the standpoint is immoral", then there isn't an issue with reforming
The current standpoint is that the current standpoint is moral. Thus, anyone standing on the outside of that society’s moral code and pronouncing a need for reform and change in that code, is advocating immorality.
From the societies viewpoint, the reformer wants to move away from what is considered moral, towards something else. Because, according to moral relativism, only what the society considers moral, is moral.
In all respect I think your argument fails on this point.
This is just flat out false, since the problem of evil can be presented as a formal reductio ad absurdum argument.
I don't think so. Let me show you why. Remember the argument said...
The force of this objection rests upon moral evil being real and some things being objectively wrong.
Yet your argument, which denies objective good, attempts to use objective evil to make its point. That is illogical, because as the OP's argument points out...
...such a claim is peculiar if we understand the nature of evil. Evil is a perversion of good. There can be good without evil, but not evil without good. There can be right without wrong, but not wrong unless there is first right. If morality is ultimately a matter of personal tastes, like ice cream flavor, the argument against God’s existence based on evil vanishes. If evil is real, then so is absolute good, which means moral relativism is false.
A moral relativist only needs to agree with P1&2, and P1 is a conditional premise assuming a theistic worldview (thus not committing to their own, relativistic, one) is correct for the argument.
P1 is neither a correct premise, or a theistic worldview. I think your argument fails here too.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
No, Rosends is telling you that "killing" can have more than one meaning, as when a police officer does it to save a baby, and when a rapist does it to gain access to a woman's body.
You believe words can only have your meaning when they are in the bible. But no one else has to abide by such silliness.
Your belief that God is immoral is just your biased opinion, nothing else. And it's based on nothing but your irrational bias.
Created: