Total posts: 5,875
Posted in:
-->
@Deb-8-a-bull
That bible book thing you got.Its. Well it's brilliant FULL STOP
We know Deb. That's why no other book has even come close to what the Bible has done.
Some try to play it down, but when you look at the reality of what the bible has done, you have to admit there is something there.
Created:
Posted in:
Did you know that concepts made popular in science fiction were first in the bible?
I won't post the passages unless asked, but here are a few of those concepts, found only in the Bible 2,000 years ago. Some have stopped being fiction, but I find it amazing that a book dismissed as the writings if illiterate goatherds could contain sophisticated concept that would take the world Years to discover.
1. Time travel - The bible has the concept within it that time is fluid and relative, and movement forwards or backwards in time is possible.
2. Teleportation - there are instances of instantaneous teleportation in the bible. Today, scientists are able to teleport elementary particles, but are working to get results with larger loads. But the concept was in the bible all along.
3. Water in the mantle of the Earth. A lot of it. So much that Scientists today are considering changing their theories about how the Earth got water. But 2,000 years ago, the concept was in the bible.
4. The concept of Genetics - The bible has stories of how genetics were used to get animals with desired characteristics more than 2,000 years ago.
5. Different Dimensions - Only the bible has this concept of "outside" the created universe, where not only is there no "time", but that instances there are not synchronous with time inside the universe.
My intent here is not to prove the bible true because it has these concepts, but to marvel that such advanced concepts are in the bible at all.
When science one day makes possible something we presently call a miracle, will we still doubt the miracle?
Even the concept of the attributes of God are unique to Christianity.
Omniscience - that God knows all that can be known is an advance concept, treated with much more nuance in the bible than skeptics usually admit.
Omnipotence - In the bible, omnipotence is not just that God is more powerful than anyone else, but that all power in the universe is His power, even the power used by His enemies. The bible treats energy as if it is all the same thing within the universe.
Omnipresence - This concept in the bible treats physical location within the universe as if it is spacetime, not just space. A concept it took man thousands of years to develop.
Immutability - This concept came to the fore when scientists discovered elementary particles. These particles are more energy than matter, and we now know energy cannot be changed. Immutability may be built into the universe! But 2,000 years ago, the concept was in the bible.
Finally, the concept of eternity. That God is eternal is not simply that He lasts forever, but that He is not bound by time. This is a concept made understandable by Einstein. And this means that God is the only non-relative observer in the universe. A very high concept indeed!
Is it not amazing that these complex concepts are in a document dated at 6,000 to 2,000 years ago?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
so he will continue creating alts for a week
Much longer. He is compulsive and cannot stop as long as his compulsion has not found another outlet.
Then he will move on to either social media or a completely different internet community and spam his religious nonsense
And promptly get banned as he has been at every other site he has infected.
And as usual he will ignore all the evidence of him being a moron troll and insist that he has made valuable, thought-provoking and ethical contributions to social forums for many years, never admitting that for those many years, everyone called him an idiot.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
@TheRealNihilist
Your a moron and I don't care enough about you nor I don't think I will in the future to change that.
People would disagree with this
Most sensible ones would, yes.
Created:
-->
@dustryder
Now quote the report saying so.
Stop being lazy.
Stop being dishonest. Do you think we spent months and millions of dollars to find a crime, found crimes, and then simply did nothing? Talk about delusion!
Blatant lie. Or you've confused your own words.
It should be easy for you to cite this "lie" of mine that only you and Adam Shiff can see.
OK Adolph, but in democracies, trials are to determine innocent or guilt, and unless the defendant is found guilty, the law considers him innocent, since that is what he was before the trial.
Impeachment isn't a criminal trial.
But it is a trial, and he was innocent before the trial.
You lack evidence. And without evidence, your inferences are just subjective nonsense.
Vacuous statement
What is vacuous is your claim to have evidence. For 2 years Adam Shiff and others claimed to have evidence too. But just like you, when asked to produce that evidence, you offer only your irrational bias. Both you and Adam have been proven vacuous.
One drumming of democratic elites was not enough. November has another lesson coming for you.
Vacuous statement
This November, with the reality of President staring you in the face, you will again dance the dance of the obtuse.
I said that the Senate disagrees with you. The proof is that they dismissed the impeachment.
Blatant lie and/or confused own argument progression
Unlike you, I can cite where I said so.
Right, there is tons of evidence ¹but the senate is dishonest, and ²the supreme court is packed with conservatives, and ³Mueller was hamstrung, and the ⁴American people are dumb.
Ironically, closer to the truth in satire than ever was in seriousness.
100% truth. Each of the 4 is a lame excuse you use to deny the reality facing you.
1. The Democrats in the Senate ARE dishonest, as are the dems in the house.
2. The Supreme Court is packed with people who dwarf you in intelligence and integrity.
3. Mueller was not hamstrung in any way, and his report was published.
4. If the American people were dumb, the "reality" you claim would actually be.... well, reality. It isn't.
OK Clem. Pay attention now. Have you been exonerated?
To what accusation? By who?
Doesn't matter. If you haven't been exonerated, then by your logic, you're guilty. Accusations alone convict right?
And by how you're dodging a simple yes or no question, I infer that you're guilty. My inference was based on the "evidence" of you dodging the question.
Ya know, fascism sure makes finding people guilty easy!
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Some are even now saying, "Have no children!"
The cost being extinction.
Created:
-->
@dustryder
Can you name a crime of Trump discovered by Meuller?
Obstruction of justice
Now quote the report saying so.
You're confusing Mueller's investigation with the Zelensky case.
No sir. Its all the same case with you rabid democrats anyway.
We were discussing if "Very few of them" believed he should've been impeached
"Them" referred to the American people. Now the democrats know that too.
No. The slightly less than half did, which is more than "very few of them"
All the democrats. Your single party coup failed.
The topic revolves around about whether Trump did anything wrong in terms of Zelensky and public perception of such. Not whether the American people agree that Trump should've been impeached.
You have shown nothing other than your bias that Trump did wrong, and Trumps approval ratings increased after the sham impeachment. Sorry, reality matters.
1. A vote for acquittal does not mean "done nothing wrong".
OK Adolph, but in democracies, trials are to determine innocent or guilt, and unless the defendant is found guilty, the law considers him innocent, since that is what he was before the trial.
..this should be obvious given that Clinton clearly committed perjury and yet was also not removed
Clinton confessed. The evidence was there. The dems played politics. In Trumps case, you had no evidence, just a sham.
You're entitled to your interpretation of the intent of the senate, but note that it but one interpretation and poorly supported at that.
I have reality and law. Reality supports me.
I said that a majority of Americans did not think Trump should have been impeached. This is true. Your semantic dancing now will not save you.
Actually false
After you've danced yourself out, you'll see that it's true.
The majority of the senate that voted to dismiss represents a minority of americans.
Going by how senators are apportioned, it is impossible for a majority of Senators to represent a minority of Americans. You need a civics class.
And the fact you're trying to dodge is still there. The Senate voted to dismiss the sham impeachment, and most of America agreed with that judgement.
I'm sorry, but your interpretation of my inferences is wrong. I should know, because they are my inferences.
You inferences alone cannot be used to convict anyone Clem. You lack evidence. And without evidence, your inferences are just subjective nonsense.
Do inferences use evidence or do they not use evidence?
Your inferences don't because you have no evidence. That is why both the Meuller investigation and the impeachment trial came to the same conclusion. No evidence, so no charges against Trump. Its called reality, Chet.
If they do use evidence, why can't they be used to convict anyone?
If. Your bias is not evidence. Get some real evidence. Something not dependant on your subjective and biased opinion, and Trump will be convicted. Until then, reality will always disappoint you.
Well many thumbprints have been found. Again, your biases are getting in the way.
Not in the way of reality apparently. Maybe Trump will one day be found guilty based just on your TDS. Keep hope alive!
Plenty of people in America are convicted on inference alone.
And when the courts are alerted to such unconstitutionality, they reverse those convictions.
I'm sorry you're blind the state of your country.
Lol. The state of my country will be fine as long as people like you, who want to convict on accusations and inference alone, never rise to power.
No. I think they are just dishonest.
Right, democrats are honest. Lol.
The citizens are uninformed however
And they will remain uninformed of your loony irrationality with Trump. One drumming of democratic elites was not enough. November has another lesson coming for you.
Well you are delusional since Mueller did find crimes of Trump.
Can you cite those crimes in the report? See, your bias isn't in the report so....
You've explicitly said that very few of the senate believed Trump should've been impeached which is what I addressed.
You addressed your strawman, not what I said. I said that the Senate disagrees with you. The proof is that they dismissed the impeachment.
I do believe denial of reality counts as a delusion.
Right, there is tons of evidence but the senate is dishonest, and the supreme court is packed with conservatives, and Mueller was hamstrung, and the American people are dumb.
Do you know what it means when no one but you and Adam Shiff can see your "reality"?
It might surprise that it's not only used in the context of indictments.
OK Clem. Pay attention now. Have you been exonerated?
Feel free to continue dancing.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Willows
@Mint_Slice
I think you've beaten spacetime for having the most sock puppets banned in a single thread.
In the end, you might prove to be more toxic than hari.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Which seem to be the permanent state of liberals.It's an absolutely hilarious failure of critical thinking and logical reasoning.
Created:
-->
@dustryder
...while there appears to have been sufficient evidence for crime,
Can you name a crime of Trump discovered by Meuller?
the crime itself was not determined to meet the bar for impeachment
Yet the democratic partisan hacks impeached.
To be clear, if about half of the senate...
The democratic "half".
were willing to have Trump removed,...
And yet he was not removed and the single party case from the house was dismissed. Reality matters Clem.
I'm quite sure at the very least that half of the senate agree that Trump should've been impeached.
So in the vote to confirm or dismiss the impeachment, did half of the Senate vote for impeachment? Your claims don't even give a passing glance to reality.
No wordplay here. The discussion was on whether Trump had done something wrong. You're the one trying to expand the argument.
No sir. I said that the majority of American people did not agree Trump should be impeached. You tried to change "impeached" into "did something wrong". And as yet, just like Meuller, you cannot show us anything Trump did wrong other than your biased opinion.
Well the reality is that Trump did something wrong. Hence the impeachment.
Then why did the founding fathers require the Senate to decide on it? The Senate found that the "impeachment" was a single party coup attempt. Trump was found to have done nothing wrong, and the impeachment was dismissed.
You mean the duly elected house?
No, Democrats are not the house. They are only a single party in the house.
No crimes of Trump.
He did find crimes of Trump.
He did not. And the reality is, you cannot cite a single crime of Trump discovered by Meuller. Reality matters Chet.
The senate members that voted to acquit represent > 50 of the countries people.
I said that a majority of Americans did not think Trump should have been impeached. This is true. Your semantic dancing now will not save you.
Hence they do not represent the majority.
I said nothing about them representing the majority. I said they were more representative than a single party. The majority of the Senate voted to dismiss. They represented the majority of Americans who also did not agree with impeachment, republicans, democrats, and independents.
Inferences implicitly use evidence. So evidence is used.
Inferences should use evidence. But you have no evidence other than your bias. So you think you can substitute your bias for evidence.
Since your denial of inference is a denial of evidence,
I did not deny inference. I said inference alone cannot be used to convict anyone.
your standard of evidence excludes evidence and requires a standard nothing short of sworn confession.
Nice try Chet. But as you yourself said, inference should be made from evidence, and I have demonstrated that you have no evidence. You pretend you bias is "evidence". It is not.
This is proven by reality in that Trump remains unconvicted of any crime. The standard you are trying to apply to Trump is the one used in countries like Iran and Congo, not the one stipulated by the US constitution.
The inferences are based upon the thumbprints.
Sorry, Mueller looked, the Senate looked, the Supreme Court looked, and the electorate looked. No thumbprints were found. Your inferences are based on your bias.
And America and in every other first world nation.
You only wish that America was a socialist nation, it is not. No one in America is convicted on inference alone. We have laws that prohibit that. And that is why Trump remains unconvicted.
Personally I'd just call them the uninformed.
The US Senate is uninformed? The constitution calls "them" citizens, and luckily, they are not judged by your biased standard. They have not been informed by your bias, I concede that.
And reality agrees with me, that's why Meuller found no crimes of Trump. And the Senate quashed the fake single party impeachment, and why Trump will be reelected in November.
Only in your delusions
"In my delusion" the Senate quashed the fake single party impeachment? And "in my delusion" Meuller found no crimes of Trump? Lol. OK Einstein.
Ethang5's assertion that very few of the senate agree with me is patently false when slightly less than half were willing to vote to remove.
Untrue. I said that the Senate disagrees with you. The proof is that they dismissed the impeachment. Trying to use the fakery of individual senators is deceptive.
"Slightly less than half" must be your euphemism for "democrats". A single party witch hunt is not democratic, and it is not as representative as a Senate that had acquit votes from both parties.
An exoneration is not predicated on an indictment.
I didn't say it was. Under our law, unindicted people are considered innocent, and innocent people need no exoneration. Your fascism, along with Bernie's socialism, has been rejected by the American people.
And in November, we will have a rerun of the delusion that gripped you SJW snowflakes in 2016. But considering your immunity to reality, you'll probably deny that a majority of Americans voted for Trump.
But the reality will remain that Trump is President. Do you know why? Reality matters Clem.
Created:
-->
@dustryder
Yet nothing was done? Very few of them believe Trump should have been impeached, even the ones who agreed his behavior was not the best....about half of them still agree with the interpretation that Trump did something wrong.
The majority of the American populace agree that Trump should not have been impeached. Playing with words will not help you win....the majority of the American populace agree that Trump did something wrong.
The reality is the Trump did something wrong, judging by your quality of argument.
The reality is that Trump did nothing wrong, judging by reality itself. Reality matters Clem.
Trump was impeached
By democrats. A single party. And that foolishness was thrown out by the Senate.
2. Mueller did find crimes
No crimes of Trump.
3. The senate does not represent the majority of the country
Yes they do. Every part of the country has a Senator. And they are more representative than a single party.
4. The chambers of congress follow their own agenda. While this agenda is often lead by their constituents desires, quite often it is not.
Like when Democratic partisan hacks tried to engineer a single party coup.
Correct. But they are based upon evidence
If you had evidence, you wouldn't need inference to convict, you'd use the evidence.
I vaguely recall that you bash other politicians from time to time?
Lol! My God, I'm glad you aren't a judge.
Tell where me in the books of law does it state that a person must make a sworn tape confession in order to be convicted.
Please stop being dense. The law says people will be convicted on a preponderance of evidence, not on bias and inference.
...a thumbprint found in the scene of the crime belonging to the thief is the evidence. The conclusion that the thief must've been at the scene of the crime is the inference.
You have no thumbprints. You only have baseless inference.
So yes, murderers are convicted upon inferences.
In China, Cuba, and North Korea sure. Not in America since 1957.
For example, a large amount of Americans just aren't well informed enough.
Yes. Deplorables. I heard of them.
That said, as previously mentioned, you're actually in a minority in this matter, and your views are incredibly extreme despite having access to all the facts of the matter. Hence you are biased.
I guess my views would seem extreme to a far left liberal. But sorry, I am not in the minority. You need to watch more varied news outlets.
And reality agrees with me, that's why Meuller found no crimes of Trump. And the Senate quashed the fake single party impeachment, and why Trump will be reelected in November.
"..., it also does not exonerate him" - Mueller Report, "Conclusion," Vol. 2, pg 182
An unindicted person needs no exoneration.
You will keep on pretending your views are mainstream, and that your bias is evidence, and that the country sees all these "crimes" but just does nothing about it. Reality will go right on despite your TDS.
Created:
Posted in:
TradeSecret was on my list at DDO, and now that he's here, I have added him.
Polite to a fault, great at research, and willing to assume the best of his opponents. His arguments are fresh and original too.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
@oromagi
@Dr.Franklin
Dr.Franklin's theory is that there is a secret liberal conspiracy between top voters, which is not true since there is no vote specific communication or agreement between us
How do we know this? Anyway, there doesn't need to be vote specific communication or agreement between you. All that is needed is a loose group of mods and old members who are activist liberals and it just happens that way spontaneously. The same could happen with conservatives, except conservatives are not often activists.
...but I do think that there are certain liberal or conservative positions/topics that make me more likely to vote and that my liberal bias probably informs that vote even when I try hard to keep an open mind about the better argument.
Thank you. That was refreshingly honest.
Assuming others do the same, there is some element of truth to Dr.Franklin's complaint.
Doc is right. I just wish other liberals would see the inherent bias in the system. It is killing member participation in debates. Members are even reluctant to vote in debates.
But right now the status quo benefits the powers that be, so nothing changes, and the clique keeps wrapping up the wins and pooh-pooling attacks on the fake system as a "conspiracy theory".
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
@Tim_Tam
aka, zero reply....an old, unargued post...
Lol
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Willows
@Tim_Tam
Quite right.And I have never made any such pretense that anyone has to do what I want.
Which is why we ignore your stupid contention that we should not discuss religion because you find it outlandish and insulting.
You initiated a discussion and surely I have a right to offer my view without being derided in such a way.
No moron. You have no right. First, you are illegally here. You have been banned for repeated stupidity.
Second, your view is irrationally stupid in that it says religion is not a worthy topic for the religion board. Too stupid for a reasoned reply.
Third, you always felt you had a right to deride Christians in such a way. Well, I feel I have a right to deride you in such a way. Sue me
Perhaps you may wish to consider your response and reply to fellow human beings in a more human manner.
When a human being responds, I will reply in a human manner. For you, you get what you deserve. Don't cry now. I tried to warn you many times, you were resistant to good sense.
You're still taking the path of stupidity. And as promised, I'm still here for you. You are a sick compulsive moron. You will be treated as one.
Go back to hari loser, he's your class.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Willows
@Tim_Tam
Right, you will show your stupidity and hypocrisy by sock puppetry.
You got banned because you're an idiot. You always get banned because you're an idiot. This is your "game"? To force your way onto a board that doesn't want you, exposing your shame like a crack whore?
As always, you're going to now rationalize your compulsion. You actually stupidly think this is going to bother the mods or end well for you. I'm glad because everything I said and predicted you will now validate.
Everyone is wrong but you. Dude, no one lives forever. Go find a life before you die.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
Thanks for waiting TS. Now to your points.
Yet, I suspect the Holy Spirit was a witness at the time - as indeed Mary probably was as well. In history we also have the witness of both Matthew and Luke who recorded it - and Isaiah who prophesied about it.
I meant human witnesses. We learned about it after the fact, but did not witness it, though we are witnesses for it in that we testify Christ.
...but I don't recall Jesus talking about that either. Nor do I recall any of the disciples or other letters mentioning it too.
Correct. There was no need to. Unlike other miracles, it's main purpose was not to validate that Jesus had come from God, but was needed for the inner mechanics of the plan of salvation.
I am not persuaded that "everything after its kind" is referring to spiritual death or even covenantal death.
I agree. "After its kind" is referring to a state, not to any kind of death. For example, ducks give birth to ducks because "duck" is a state of being. The state of duckness so to speak. Ducks can only reproduce ducks, or to be more precise, ducks can only reproduce others in the same state as they are, and that is the state of duckiness. (Sorry, no better words)
I don't agree that so called original sin is unbiblical. It may well not be the best term for what happened to Adam, but the concept is clear.
We were born in the same state Adam was, but we did not inherit his sin. No one is charged with the sins of their parents.
Ezekiel 18:20: “The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not bear the guilt of the father, nor the father bear the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself ”
Jesus' death covers not only sins - all sins past present and future, but also the estate of sin - that which I would term original sin.
Then we agree, but use different terms. I don't call it original sin because first, the term causes confusion, it makes people think we are being charged with Adam's sin, and second, the bible clearly says children do not inherit the sins of their parents.
I am not sure I like the word "hooked", I think I prefer the notion of adoption rather than hooked.
The bible itself used the word adopted, so we have no real disagreement here. "Hooked" referred to how were were adopted into the new line. I could have said "grafted" as Jesus did in John, but our young audience today may not be as familiar with horticulture as Jesus' audience was in His day.
So Jesus became God's first born of the new line, and all who believe on Him, He will kill, (be crucified with Him), recreate, (be born again) and resurrect (on the last day)
I am not sure of that line. It sounds rather "out there".
Of course it does. God's plan of salvation is intelligent brilliance. But every point in my argument can be verified with verses. If you ask, I'll cite them.
Jesus was descended from Adam. Luke 3:38.
Luke 3:23 says, And Jesus.....being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph.
Jesus did have an earthly mother, her name is Mary.
A mother in the sense that she birthed Him. But I will give you two reasons why Jesus could not have been the genetic child of Mary.
His father was the Holy Spirit. Joseph was his step father.
All true. But if Mary's egg was used for Jesus, then it was the Holy Spirit who fertilized Mary's egg with the other 23 chromosomes, and this would lend credibility to the gross atheist's charge of God having sex with Mary. Jesus' divinity was not because of His genetics. Jesus was divine despite His humanity.
But there is another, more profound reason Mary's egg could not have been used which I will come to shortly.
If you are correct, then Jesus was only Fully God. He was not fully human. (If that is not what you are saying, then please explain more fully how he can be fully human and not be genetically descended from humans.)
OK. (I'm so used to people not thinking here that your rational responses are making me swoon) : )
...how he [Jesus] can be fully human and not be genetically descended from humans
Was Adam genetically descended from humans? No.
Was Adam genetically human? Yes.
The book of Romans goes to pains to show us that God created a New Line of Humans with Jesus! Fully human, but not from the line of Adam.
2Co 5:17 - Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.
If you remember the account in Genesis, Eve was created using the cells of Adam. Thus Eve had the same genetics as Adam. She was essentially a female clone of Adam! (Some interesting thoughts about man and wife being one here!)
And this is the more profound reason Mary's egg could not have been used, Mary's egg was from the same tainted line as Adam.
Gen 2:23 - And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.
...I reject (at least until I can be shown otherwise) that it was to demonstrate he was not genetically descended from humans.
But does Jesus need to be descendent from Adam to be human? No, for Adam was fully human and yet not descendent from any humans.
God is able to create ex nihilo, that is, God does not need raw materials to create, He can create from nothing.
You are correct in thinking that Jesus had to be fully human, the bible says so, but you are wrong in thinking that the only way He could be fully human was to use the genes of Adam (or any of his descendants, including Eve)
If our ancestry terminates in Christ and not Adam, then Christians ought not to sin any more. This is not the case.
This very question was posed in the Bible by Paul!
Rom 6:2 - God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?
And the full answer deserves a whole thread on its own.
Rom 7:18 - For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not.
Our ancestry has changed, but our corrupt flesh has not.
Instead of going into it now, because it will make an already long post unwieldy, let me suggest some reading material and we can tackle it in another thread or after we have settled most of the current topic.
Read Romans chapters 3 to 7
Yet it is because we remain descended from Adam genetically that we continue to sin.
Rom 8:7 - Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.
Rom 8:8 - So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God.
Are you sure? Does the Bible say that it is ancestry of Adam that causes us to sin? Adam was not descendant from any human, and he continued to sin. So did Satan.
We don't need to be descendant from humans to have a tendency to sin. But we can come back to this topic later.
I just cannot come at parts of it. In particular, Jesus not being descended genetically from Adam. Nor that Mary was not his genetic mother. It is true that only in Jesus can we be reconciled back to the Father - and that only by trusting him can we be truly redeemed and have our sins and sin forgiven. We must be born again - because we cannot save ourselves. Yet Jesus is FULLY MAN and he is FULLY GOD. This cannot be the case if Jesus is not descended genetically from Adam.
I hope you will agree I've demonstrated that this can indeed be the case if Jesus, as the Bible tells us, is the first human in a new line created purposely for the adoption of His new sons and daughters in Christ.
Jesus had to be fully human, true, but to be so, He did not have to be descended from Adam.
Adam did not gain the genes that made him human from anyone but God, exactly the same with Jesus. The difference with Jesus is that He was not ONLY human.
Thanks Ethang, for this topic.
And thank again you for your thoughtful reply. I like how you clearly state what you disagree with and why you disagree with it. That forces me to think.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tim_Tam
Hi Willows. Yes I do.
That is the purpose of the board. If you don't like the topic, go find another board.
No one is under your dumb delusion, and everyone is free to discuss what they want. No one has to do what you want.
You don't decide what is worthy of discussion. That is part of the reason you were banned, and your compulsive sock puppetry proves you were worthy to be banned.
Please, go find a life.
Created:
-->
@dustryder
To be clear, about half of the senate agrees with the general direction of this inference.
Yet they threw out the impeachment. Reality matters dustryder.
More than half of the American populace also agree.
Untrue. Most people disagreed that Trump should be impeached, and that number grew AFTER the dems laid out their case.
You are in the minority here.
Yet Trump is President, still in office, and remains unconvicted of any crime. Reality matters dustryder.
I believe that's your logic right there.
You are biased. If a majority of the country believed as you claim, Trump would have been impeached, Kavenaugh would not be a supreme court juror, and Meuller would have found a crime. Reality matters dustryder.
No, you're biased because of your systematic rejection of reality despite the evidence otherwise.
Sorry. Your inferences are not evidence.
...it's clear that you do not apply this standard consistently.
Where have I applied this standard inconsistently? The standard is not mine. We do not convict people on accusations and inferences alone. This does not change no matter how much you hate Trump.
Actually no. The standard is lower.
Untrue. The standard is written down and codified. It is not lower.
Funnily enough, murderers don't often confess their deeds and yet are regardless convicted
No murderer is convicted on accusation alone, not since 1957 in the deep south anyway. Without confessions, murderers get convicted on evidence, not inference.
Because you clearly haven't examined the facts or refuse to honestly apply the facts, and yet you are so obviously inclined to bend over for Trump regardless.
Yes, me, the United States Senate, the Supreme Court, Robert Mueller, and the Attorney General, and a majority of Americans are all biased, and you alone see clearly.
Reality matters Dustryder.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
According to Dustryder, history is biased for Trump. He inferred it.
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
Evolving is a fact of nature.
The cuttlefish, the catapillar, the crow....
The cocoon will always stand between crawling blind and sighted flight.
Created:
-->
@dustryder
Rather, a reasonable inference is made, drawn from several points of evidence.
For some reason, you operate under the belief that your inferences are reasonable, and that your bias can be evidence. Reality keeps proving you wrong, but you just keep pretending you're right.
Is everyone in the Senate wrong? Is more than half of America unable to make a reasonable inference? Any yokel call himself reasonable. How come most reasonable people didn't see your inference?
The fact is, you are biased for Trump, and you are interpreting anything to do with him in the most charitable light possible, which is ridiculous.
That is ridiculous. Which is why again, it is yet another one of your "reasonable" inferences. Because I won't convict a person based on inference, I'm biased?
Not MY standard Clem, the standard set by the constitution and bill of rights of your own country.If we were to follow your standard of evidence, no one would be convicted of anything short of sworn tape recordings admitting guilt.
Trump has been tried in the FBI with Meuller, He has been tried in Congress with impeachment, He has been taken to the SCOTUS several times, and has been tried in the court of public opinion in a national election, and today he remains conviction free.
Which of is is biased? You can't even answer questions about Kavenaugh, but you're supposed to be objective and virtually the rest of the country biased and wrong?
It least you admit to making inferences. You aren't completely under TDS yet. Hopefully one sober day you'll understand that making inferences is your right, but convicting people on just your inference is fascist. This is America, not 1941 Germany. And thank God that the Senate, the Supreme Court, and over 52% of Americans still know this.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Alec
I would say the constitution is better than a theocracy.
OK. That still doesn't make God subject to our constitution. And why the US constitution? Other countries have constitutions. You actually believe everyone should be subject to your tastes and desires. Life has some rude surprises coming for you.
The constitution can be tweaked if enough people support it. Bible law is set in stone, until God decides to change it, which he has done, confirming that he doesn't know everything.
So is "Bible law" set in stone or not? You seem confused. Still, nothing you've said here justifies you thinking God should be subject to any constitution.
Also, does God even exist? If so, I don't see the evidence.
And the atheist runs back to his fav obsession. Your thread said, "If God exists...." And IF he does, expecting Him to be "All Loving" or under the laws of His creation is patiently silly.
Lol. Your train of thought finds staying on the tracks difficult huh? This is the result of a morality based on personal tastes.No need in worshiping God if he doesn't exist. He might though.
God created me, but now that He has, He ought to obey me and do things the way I like."
Good luck with that wish Alec.
Created:
Posted in:
I wonder what God did those quadrillion of eons before the US constitution was written?Theocratic justice is cruel and unusual punishment; it violates the 4th amendment.
This young man thinks God should be under the US constitution! Ah, America!
When I was in Africa, I met an American who was angry that people there didn't speak English.
Alec reminds me of him.
Created:
-->
@Swagnarok
+1
Good post.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Alec
Everyone would simply ignore the UN. Pretty much how the UN is treated now. The UN doesn't have the authority, and it has even less power than the US.The UN can with America doing it first within it's borders...
Given that most African countries have pro life laws and want to eliminate abortions, this bill ought to make the African countries very happy since they get what they want.
Other countries are able to get what they want without some other country forcing them. People are never happy being forced. What they want is to make their own laws and be the masters of their fate.
The goal is to eliminate abortions.
Not by forcing people to undergo invasive surgeries.
If you are fine with banning abortions to prevent them from happening, the same logic can be applied to mandatory vasectomies.
The same "logic" can be applied to murder.
How is this a Nazi ideology exactly?
Nazis are not democratic. With them, the people do not decide, they do. They use force.
..forcing women to be pregnant for 9 months
Illogical. No one forced the woman to become pregnant.
...forcing vasectomies
You are confused. You have no right to force anyone no matter how much you love your dogma.
Even more retarded is thinking you have the right to force people of other countries. Twice the Nazis tried to force their brand of "less freedom being taken away" on the world, and both times the world told them to fck themselves.
If the latter is fine to do, so is the former.
Wrong premises bring about wrong conclusions. No one is "forcing" any woman. She wanted sex, she wanted unprotected sex, who forced her?
And abortions in other countries are not your business or your responsibility.
Created:
-->
@dustryder
Since you've thus far been unable to substantiate what you've been claiming past vague allusions
Can you?
Probably. It depends on what claim I've made that you have a problem with.
Well, thus far you've been unable to substantiate what you've been claiming past vague assumptions. Did President Trump ask for Biden to be investigated using the threat of withholding aid so as to smear Biden?
Sorry, stupidity is a poor shield. None of those things is in the text. You assume them. You assume them because you are biased. And you think your assumptions are fact because you are unable to differentiate between reality, and what passes for thought between your ears.
It makes a difference on condemning and convicting someone whether we use facts, or our assumptions. This is America, to convict someone, facts are required, not biased assumptions.
I can bet right now you thought Dr. Ford was telling the truth and that Judge Kavenaugh was guilty. And you think this dispute the fact that there was not one shred of evidence against the Judge.
Thank God there are still enough sane people with integrity in America that this type of jackbooted atrocity doesn't prevail.
You are unable to tell the difference between your feelings and reality, a common liberal ailment.
And every time someone tries to give you some help, you run and hide behind silly humor.
If I ask you, like the OP does, "What favor did President Trump request of Ukraine President Zekensky?"
Your answer will not be what actually transpired, but will be assumptions you made based on your bias.
Kavenaugh was seated on the SCOTUS. Trump was not removed from office.
There was no quid pro quo with Ukraine.
That those things happened should tell you how ludicrous your beliefs are.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Alec
There is so much wrong with this I don't know where to start!we could implement mandatory vasectomies to males worldwide.
First, who is we? America? America cannot make a law mandatory worldwide. It doesn't have the authority or the power to do so. You are aware that other counties, even African ones, are sovereign aren't you?
If anyone told me it was mandatory that I have evasive surgery to satisfy his PC goals, I would laugh in his face and walk away.
As a pro lifer, I could get behind that. Thoughts?
I'm a pro-lifer too, but I'm also not a Nazi, so I have a little problem with it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
Thanks for this thoughtful post TS. This is what the religion board ought to be! I'm putting finishing touches on my reply, its coming shortly.
Created:
-->
@dustryder
Can you?Since you've thus far been unable to substantiate what you've been claiming past vague allusions, I'm going to go ahead and assume you're full of shit.
You place your assumptive interpretation on what Trump did, and this in itself is fine, but then you proceed to treat your assumption as if it is fact. That is not fine.
Can you not see that the claim that Trump was asking for an investigation on Biden is YOUR INTERPRETATION of his intent, and not necessarily his intent?
The "crime" is in your head. And your head is full of something too.
Created:
-->
@dustryder
I assume typically cases of suspected high illegality should be referred to the DoJ?
The same DOJ that was bugging him and had an "insurance policy" against his being elected?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
He's got you beat on goobie speak by 25% Zed! Sad. Lol.
Created:
-->
@K_Michael
All the laws and dispositions we have based off of Christian philosophy that made us great would not be there.
Self sacrifice, treating others how we want to be treated, punishment matching crimes, personal relationship with God, deferring gratification, the nobility of honor, faith and integrity.
We would be lesser, and more like other backward cultures of today. Less inventive, less strong, less empathetic, and less artistic.
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
Why can't a taoist be on the site?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Deb-8-a-bull
You don't cringe and feel embarrassed for yourself, though how you don't is cringeworthy in itself.I rarely cringe , and feal embarrassed for people.
As usual, I couldn't make sense of most of the scattered nonsense you posted, but your jealousy is showing.
If I had to pay for the space in your head I occupy, you'd be rich. Lol.
Then it become clear When i received my warning.
It will become even clearer homer. Just watch.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Jaxalton
Wow. A resolute moderation team is great for increasing the quality of the work of some posters! Wouldn't you say Jax?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ludofl3x
Thanks, I'll wait till the next thread where, as usual, you will have forgotten, but still will not have gained any additional knowledge.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
"Some". No..... Religion in general..... I'm not picky.
You're not objective either.
As I always say, all hypotheses are valid as such.
Why would you always say a thing that is untrue?
If a god does exist,....
Aaaaand the uni-topic atheist is back to his obsession. God does not exist.
...it surely doesn't require a multi-billion dollar industry here on Earth to back it up
Does modern art require a multi-billion dollar industry here on Earth to back it up?
Know what I think I'll do? I'm going to make thread "Does God Exist?" that will act as a trawling net to catch all the atheists who are incapable of arguing anything other than "Does God Exist?", who keep contaminating and derailing every thread with their inexplicable obsession.
Modern art is a scam, and these geniuses are here again whining that God doesn't exist. Where is that face-palm emoji when you need it?
Created:
-->
@dustryder
Even if your claim is granted, Biden and his son were involved. How would a US president who is charged with enforcing his country's laws, look into things in Ukraine without the investigation touching Joe and Hunter Biden?
And if they are involved in any illegality, why should they not be investigated? An investigation is not a crime. In fact, an investigation would clear a clean Hunter and Joe.
But just like with Kavenaugh, and Russia collusion, and impeachment, democrat want to pretend they know a person's internal intent.
The reasonable interpretation...
Fine, but people are convicted by evidence, not hunches. But democrats want convictions on "reasonable interpretations", when it should be preponderance of evidence.
The tactics used on Judge Kavenaugh, in the Russia Collusion case, in the impeachment are basically fascist. Same with the absolutely silly and dangerous idea that any woman making a rape claim should be automatically believed.
Were it up to democrats, people would be found guilty on accusations alone. Trump, Kavenaugh, those poor college boys accused of rape who the courts have exonerated, and those catholic school boys accused of "disrespecting" that fake Native Indian elder.
It is fascism. No exaggeration. Imagine the day when all a woman has to do to put you in jail is simply make an accusation!
When whatever seems like a "reasonable interpretation" to someone is what convicts you instead of hard evidence.
The time is fast coming when we will have to fight for our freedom or bow to enslavement.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ludofl3x
Okay, okay, relax, there's no need to froth at the mouth about it.
What's wrong with frothing at the mouth? Its better than frothing at the brain.
You want to believe it says indentured servants and whatever else, great, you're right, obviously, the bible definitely doesn't include very clear words about buying foreigners, okay?
OK. The words are clear and have been clear for centuries. The militant neo anti-theists just popping onto the scene do not change that.
You are going to burst a vessel, take a deep breath.
Lol. My beating you is interpreted as bursting a blood vessel?
My position on slavery isn't hinging on the bible, so it's really not a huge deal to me.
Logical, as the bible is in no way responsible for slavery.
Truth is a huge deal to me, and I have beliefs worth living for.It's clearly a huge deal to you.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ludofl3x
Boy, some dumb ass god then, making a book the guidebook without being able to update it for modern times then.
Only idiots need updates. Normal people are not crippled by irrational bias.
Maybe they should change the bible text, huh?
Or you should sprout some intellectual integrity.
Because I'm not trying to interpret it at all. I'm looking at the words and saying, okay, they mean what they mean.
Words don't mean what they mean jasper, they carry the meaning of their context.
You're the one interpreting it. Where does the bible tell you to interpret it that way, anyway?
There is nothing wrong with interpretation, it just should be done with logic and honesty.
Where does the bible mention purchasing debt? Which annotated version of the bible is that in?
You keep asking me these questions that highlight your ignorance, and when I answer you, you run away. If you don't know what the bible says, why doesn't your cluelessness give you caution?
Why is that version the right version? Why should I believe some mortal scholar trying to inject hteir own meaning into the holiest words of holiness?
If you're right, why can't you answer simple questions concerning the very text? You contort as much as you like, but words do not have static meaning, and you will not win an argument by obtuse insistence.
I have to say, amazing level of projection there, though. I'm just reading the words that are there. Take it up with Jesus.
Right. And then inserting your meaning, as if the words must have only your meaning. Jesus is not here trying to use idiocy as a debate tool. I'm taking it up with you.
If the Israelite was purchasing people, why would he be punished if he hurt the person? You can't answer.
Maybe...
Maybe?? You mean you don't know?
because they were trying to curb abject cruelty to slaves, I don't know, this is a question for Jesus.
No, it's a question for you. Who was trying to curb abject cruelty to slaves? Why couldn't a man do what he wanted to the slave if the slave was his property?
You do know. But your irrational bias forces you to be a semp. The person was Not his property, the debt was his property.
Maybe "two or three days" actually means two weeks or months, I mean if you interpret it a certain way.
The time makes no difference homer. If the slave was his property, he would not be punished for maiming or killing the slave. You have already admitted you don't know, don't shame yourself any more.
If the Israelite could own a human being, why was the punishment for slavery death? You can't answer.
It isn't. At least not in the whole bible. Maybe in some obscure passage from Timothy.
No sir. It is all over the Bible, starting in the 2nd book of the OT all through to the NT. It's "obscure" to you because you're ignorant of the subject matter.
And again with the maybe. If the punishment for slavery was death, what sort of imbicility must one imploy to conclude that the bible does NOT condemn slavery?
That's not me, that's you.
I consider context jasper. You run from it.
You may purchase slaves both male and female from foreigners around you. There's no mention of debt.
Because you don't know the text. You're just parroting what you've heard, and think because you don't know it, it isn't there.
There's no mention of voluntary indentured servitude.
Of course there is. For the life of me, why does your extreme lack of knowledge not make you less reckless?
There's no mention of penalty for doing so.
And here is where jasper lies. Doing "so" becomes "owning a human being". Atheist with article. Again I ask, if your case is so good, why the need to lie?
Again, take it up with Jesus, maybe they should revise the book.
Jesus isn't the one here embarrassing Himself by pretending to be obtuse. You are, and I'm taking it up with you. No revision will make any book idiot proof.
What's six thousand years ago, exactly? The bible isn't six thousand years old.
Lol. Really? How old is it? You should stop talking when you don't know.
What's that number refer to?
Roughly the amount of years ago of the timeframe of the text.
This might be interpreted as a prohibition on stealing someone else's slave, too:
Suddenly, what the verse DOESN'T say
doesn't matter eh? The verse doesn't say slave. But we already know stealing is wrong.
And "stealing a man" to sell him is the slave trade jasper, since one must gain a slave by force.
don't steal a slave and sell him because he already belongs to someone else.
So if he is not already owned as a slave, stealing him is OK? Do you see how dumb your argument requires you to be?
I'm sure there's a good reason you have for not interpreting it that way,...
Yes, that good reason is called logic and integrity.
...but the words as they are leave that option available.
To the chronically dishonest and/or the terminally stupid, sure. But I honestly don't think that is you.
And I have posted the verses on indentured servitude, voluntary indebtedness, and the evils of slavery several times, so I know it isn't ignorance making you claim not to know them.
That leaves poor reading comprehension or dishonesty, and I know your reading is fine.
Created:
-->
@fauxlaw
Reality doesn't matter with the liberals.
They did the same thing with Kavenaugh. No evidence, witnesses contradict story, and still the yahoos insisted Kavenaugh was guilty.
Same with the collusion hoax. They had the evidence. The crime was clear. No doubt. Then nothing.
Then impeachment. Proof they scream! It's proven beyond a doubt they shot! Then they want more witnesses. Why? Isn't the case airtight?
Biden brags on tape of forcing the Ukrainians to fire their AG or lose their aid. But Trump gets charged. No crime, no quid pro quo. No withholding aid. No favors. Yet the deranged lemmings insist Trump is the one guilty.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Barney
Wow, things have gotten toxic even without Ethan. Weird huh?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Manuel_Layba
Post #3 Manuel_Layba as Willows wrote:
It's no secret and certainly no surprise that it is very easy for DART members to respond to questions since DART actually tells them how to respond.
Did Dart tell you how to spell too loser? Lol!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Alpheus
As a Christian, I think that this is an important question.... - Willows as Alpheus wrote
Then, Of course, I will gladly become a Christian.First I'll try and when that doesn't work, I shall get on my knees and kiss Tradie's arse.Then, I guess I shall just wait around feeling all excited waiting for God to sprinkle some oogidy-boogidy dust on me and, Hey presto! I will be a real Christian and I will be living proof that God exists. Or er, At least the Christian God, Since of course, That is the only God, Isn't it?
Then when I get up there I will give you a high five and say, "you were right all along Ethong. How stupid of me to ever doubt that God existed."Sound like a plan to you?
Absolutely! Tradie is already bending over. Pucker up loser!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Bespoked
Why do you find it necessary to anonymously make a public display of being a stupid idiot?
- Bespoked as Willows on DDO
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ludofl3x
No sir. This is 6,000 years ago. "Slave" does not mean here the purchase of people, it means the purchase of his or her debt.
You are trying to shoehorn a meaning into the word. The meaning of words change over time.
This is why you can't answer questions to your lame interpretation.
If the Israelite was purchasing people, why would he be punished if he hurt the person? You can't answer.
If the Israelite could own a human being, why was the punishment for slavery death? You can't answer.
If the Israelite could own a human being, what about all the verses saying God owned all human beings and only God could? You can't answer.
You want to pretend that the verses showing that indentured servitude was a voluntary contract between the "slave" and the "master".
Your irrational bias forces you to fake and pretend, ignoring all the evidence showing you are wrong.
Focus on meanings Clyde, not just words. The meaning of words change. Stop being dishonest just to convict the bible. That is below you.
Created:
Posted in:
These verses are...
Exo 21:16 - And he that steals a man, and sells him, or if he be found in his hand, he shall surely be put to death.
1Ti 1:10 - For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, slave traders, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;
But they aren't enough for obtuse Omar.
Notice that the slightest hint by the bible that homosexuality is a sin, even never using the words sex or homosexuality, and Omar is yelping like a triggered snowflake, but unless the bible says exactly the sequence of words he wants on slavery, it doesn't condemn slavery. Funny no?
For homosexuality which they want the bible to condemn, they get the meaning of the words immediately, but for slavery which they do not want the bible to condemn, they are obtuse. Its the word sequence, not the meaning of the words that is important.
If you need dishonesty to float your argument, how good can that argument be?
Created: