Total posts: 5,875
-->
@3RU7AL
So how do you explain the FUNDAMENTAL differences in interpretation...
Same way I explain all FUNDAMENTAL differences in interpretation. Different people, different experiences, bias, hidden agendas, insanity, low IQ.
you believe the claim that "the bible is the 100% factually true word of a perfect god" is functionally indistinguishable from FALSE(THEN) we are in agreement regarding this particular claim.
Nope.
You are committing a logical fallacy. The "bible" refers to 66 separate books with different authors written over a period of 6,000+ years. Each part of the bible does not necessarily carry all the qualities of the whole.
For example, a car is %100 a vehicle, but a tire isn't. The bible is true, but everything in it isn't. Satan speaks in the bible. But what he says is untrue. Thus, not everything in the bible is true. Some things are just records of innocuous conversations. Not "true" or "false" in the factual sense.
Must everything with you always be about the truth of the bible? I'm showing your claim insisting that any work be taken as wholly literal or wholly figurative is illogical, and all you're consumed with is to discredit the bible.
Sometimes we want to discuss things other than is the bible/god true? If you can't discuss other things than that, get out of the way and let people with broader interests talk.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
(EITHER) the bible must be taken totally literally (OR) the bible must be taken totally figuratively (ELSE) you must provide some rigorous (non-subjective) framework to explain exactly WHEN you believe the bible must be taken literally and when you believe it must be taken figuratively (otherwise your framework is purely subjective and therefore logically incoherent).
Nah, I don't think there was any agreement or misunderstanding.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Deb-8-a-bull
Maybe there is a grease fire singing group? But how does one choose which grease fire singing group to join?
Lol. Ah, the internet. Where you can talk in real time to completely insane people in complete safety
I wonder if there is a singing group for insane people?
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
No sir. Your logic is shoddy. Watch.
Bald assertion. Appeal to ignorance
You should watch first instead of knee-jerking first.
The argument that the bible must be taken totally literally hinges on the claim that it is the 100% factually true word of a perfect god.
Then the argument that the bible must be taken totally literally is even more stupid than I thought.
Would a perfect god lie to us?
No. But not because of perfection, but because of omniscience.
Would a perfect god write a muddled and confusing book that nobody, even "true believers" (thousands of denominations and sects) can't agree upon?
No. The book seeming "muddled and confusing" is only in your mind. To normal, unbiased, non-antitheist people, the bible is the world great work of literature.
The bible contains songs. Who thinks song are always completely literal?
Songs can be literal.
OK, now answer the question I asked.
Did Albert Camus make the claim that their work is the 100% factually true word of a perfect god?
No. Did any of the 60 writers of the bible make that claim?
Did Winston Churchill make the claim that their work is the 100% factually true word of a perfect god?
No. Did any of the 60 writers of the bible make that claim?
And if they did, how does a response that the work must be taken either totally literally or totally figuratively make sense? It is nonsense.
Skepticism should be the default position of any investigator.
Exactly, not the completely ludicrous claim that the work must be taken either totally literally or totally figuratively.
A skeptic would approach any tome as wholly fictional until each specific claim was either verified or demonstrated to be logically necessary.
An idiot skeptic maybe. Is that how you approached, say, Winston Churchill's account of WWII? Did you verify all of it?
..purely subjective and therefore logically incoherent.
Purely subjective does not equal logically incoherent.
Any statement that is not an explicit, rigorously defined, appeal to LOGOS (logic) is a fallacy (functionally indistinguishable from incoherent).
Purely subjective statements, like your statement above, still does not equal "logically incoherent."
Notice that most works of literature don't come with pre-packaged claims that their work is the 100% factually true word of a perfect god.
The bible doesn't either. And if it did, the claim that it must be taken either all literally or all figuratively is idiotic.
This is the exact same standard I apply to all books and all claims.
While I have my doubts, I'm telling you that this is just an ad hoc illogical burden you slap onto the bible.
NONE of these examples are widely considered to be unbiased, purely factual and 100% accurate records.
Then it is untrue that this is the exact same standard you apply to all books and all claims.
The bible doesn't claim to be an unbiased, purely factual and 100% accurate record.
The claim that the bible (or any work) must be taken as all figuratively or all literal is brain dead. It is irrational.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
When you get past your tea time, and are ready to face the moral implications of your belief, we'll talk.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
And you will eventually forget who your wife and children are when they come to visit.
But you will be continually asking the nurse.... when is mummy coming to get me..
You don't know this, and if I did, it wouldn't validate your pet theory.
Both my grandmother and my great grandmother on my mother's side lived past 100 and neither lost their memory.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
...early years conditioning is what makes the difference between you and I and explains the fundamental differences in the way we think and the way we tend to formulate and output data sequences in a similar but slightly different way.
I disagree, I and its clear you don't have children. You believe this because you are totally invested in your material mindset.
I have two children....What was the point you were trying to make?
Children are different long before early years conditioning kicks in. They come out of the womb already different.
...acquiescing to conditioning remains unavoidable, to even the most intellectually gifted individuals.
A quick glance at history proves you wrong. Acquiescing to conditioning is not unavoidable, people escape it everyday.
A quick glance at history proves you wrong.For example. Neither Einstein nor Darwin were able to fully allow their intellect to exceed their theistic upbringings.
That is your bias causing you to be illogical. I tend not to waste time against purely emotional arguments.
Both Einstein and Darwin were able to rise above the contexts of their societies and see new truths.
Not acquiescing doesn't mean one rejects all conditioning, but that one does not allow their thinking to be limited by that conditioning.
We are talking about them years after their deaths precisely because they did not acquiesce to early conditioning and rose above the boundaries set by their societies. Neither Einstein or Darwin were intellectual sloths.
They did not blindly hang on to what their societies called correct. They rejected the senseless and held on to the truth even under great social pressure.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
You guys always miss (ignore) the point. I'm not just telling you that your morality is simply your personal tastes. If it is, so what? I'm telling you, because your morality is just your personal tastes, any moral judgement you make of someone's else's behavior is illogical nonsense.And I think also exactly the point that secularmerlin and myself were attempting to put across.
No one can be immoral because they do what you personally find distasteful. Telling us that a certain behavior is not to your personal tastes carries no useful information. We are talking morality, why are you telling us your personal tastes?
And before you start babbling that my morality is this or that too, accept or deny my charge about your morality.
How can you call anyone moral or immoral when for you, those terms can only mean, "I personally like" and "I personally don't like"? How is what you personally like relevant to a discussion of morality?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
You will disprove nothing if you use the posts by atheists on the religion board. Consider Ludo's first post in this very thread. He ends by calling me "cranky". That he sees the OP as cranky is a function of his bias, there is nothing cranky in the post.More big generalizations that are easily disproved.
Your little fantasy world where atheists are all intelligent, polite, and well read, is just that, a fantasy. A quick scan of the atheist's posts here will show they are rude, ill-informed, cynical, and militant.
but none of the claims are inherently atheistic in nature.
I didn't say they were.
You did quite explicitly when you titled your list : "5 Atheist Urban Myths."
No sir. Leave your bias at the door, it's crippling your thinking. The myths themselves are held by atheists, but not ONLY by atheists. But my post is addressed to atheists. I don't care for now who else believes them.
So I said nothing about these beliefs being "inherently atheistic in nature", that is just you trying to pretend to be intellectual. I didn't even use the word " inherent".
So the belief in YE is only held by Bible bashers?
Don't care. My point was not about YE or bible bashers. Let me remind you of what I said.
"These are things atheists mistakenly think Christianity teaches. I'm only pointing out things atheists mistakenly believe Christianity teaches."
Immediately you started claiming some Christians believe the claims too. So what? How does that affect or change the truth of what I said?
This is like if I said, "Birds fly", and you jump on saying, "not only birds fly!" I didn't say only birds fly. I said birds fly.
Or, "flying is not inherently avian in nature."
I didn't say flying was avian.
So please, I didn't say only atheist believe things things. And I said nothing about whether they were "inherent" in anything.
Your bias and poor reading comprehension has completely confused you. Read slowly and address what I say, not what you feel.
I would naturally expect any debater arguing that the Bible promotes immorality to quote from that Bible.
But the doofuses quote from this "immoral" bible to show how the theist ISN'T moral! The same bible they call "immoral" is the bible they use as the standard of morality the theist is not living up to. That my friend, is illogical and hypocritical.
...getting generally less moral the further back in time we go
This is another urban myth. But this time one held by liberal progressive snowflakes. It is untrue. The further back we go, the less PC the morality was. And since your personal tastes, which for you is what morality is, was not what the ancients practised, you conclude they were less moral than you.
You're so wrapped up in your self-righteousness, you are unable to see the logical fallacies you're falling to.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
Americans overall to know that the U.S. Constitution says “no religious test” shall be necessary to hold public office."
Right. They just sensibly won't elect any self-described atheist.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
ATHEISM is "an absence of belief in the existence of deities."That's the only characteristic that atheists hold in common.
I beg to differ. They are cynical, rude, ignorant, militant, and disrespectful.
but none of the claims are inherently atheistic in nature.
I didn't say they were. I said all of those claims were untrue.
ethang5 is essentially complaining that some people make false assumptions about his beliefs regarding the bible because they assume he shares all the beliefs of some other Bible believers.
Not quite. ethang5 is essentially saying that some people make false assumptions about the bible regarding Christianity because they assume it shares all their beliefs of some other Bible bashers.
I love it when atheists start quoting the "evil, immoral" bible to support their charge of immorality. Lol.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ludofl3x
Are you saying there are literally zero Christians that believe you can earn salvation?
No. I'm saying that atheists mistakenly believe Christianity teaches that salvation is earned. Why is this difficult for you to understand? Its a simple concept.
Where are the atheists asking why Christians don't stone homosexuals?
On any thread on this site concerning homosexuality.
And no atheists think anything in the bible is a divine command. Otherwise they wouldn't be atheists.
Lol. Whoooosh!!
Right, and when society figured out this was wrong, they changed the laws so no one could think you can own slaves anymore.
The part of the constitution used to support slavery has not been changed. People using it to support slavery were just wrong.
There are literally zero atheists who believe these things, and they aren't urban myths.
I don't blame you for not wanting to own the atheist trolls. But sorry, they are atheists.
Once again...another own goal for Ethan. Awww.
Lol. You sound like Dee Dee. Empty, bitter, and stupid
It would be sad if you weren't such an ass to everyone all the time, but...alas.
It looks like someone wants to take disgusted's position. It job is open Ludo. Send in an application and you will be considered.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
None of that will be understood by the atheist.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
Umberto Eco's Foucault's Pendulum is wonderful. It is difficult to believe the original Italian could be better. Wow.
Thank you for that.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ludofl3x
I know.I don't believe anything in the bible is a divine command.
So far, we're not off to a great
Lol. A great start being your agreement?
In your view, does anything in the bible qualify as a divine command?
Sure, the 10 commandments.
So yes, there are Christians who believe all commands in the bible are divine commands.
I didn't say there weren't. But your claim is wrong. For example no Christian thinks homosexuals should be stoned. But atheists keep asking why don't we stone homosexuals. They think even the societal laws in Leviticus are divine command.
THere aren't any atheists who think the bible is full of divine commands.
I guess Disgusted, Seth, Willows, Salixes, Der Dee, and Stephen are not atheists. My bad.
there are definitely Christians that believe the earth is 6000 years old
Who said there weren't? Stop boxing that strawman and address the topic of the thread.
Atheists don't believe this at all. Certain sects of Christianity do, though.
So you, an atheist, believe that Christians believe this. OK. Lol!
The bible was used in equal parts to both support and condemn the practice of owning slaves,
So was your constitution.
I get that this makes you really sad and uncomfortable inside,...
You sound happy. I wonder why? Does slavery excite you Ludo? Is that why you're willing to be dishonest to pin it on the bible?
It would seem strange for them to own slaves if the bible, their inerrant moral code source, actually prohibited slave ownership, right?
Wrong. The bible prohibits murder too, but Christians still do it. Do you guys ever stop to notice how silly you look with these comments?
No atheist believes 1 or 4,...
How do you know this? Every theist on this site reading this almost chokes. It's so obviously wrong I need say nothing.
you seem to completely misunderstand the usage of the term 'urban myth,'
OK Ludo. In your zeal to prove that Christians also believe, (what that has to do with the topic is anyone's guess) you missed the point, but still managed to validate it. Thanks for that.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
Your trolldar is awesome!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
The only system of government superior to the United States is the Kingdom of His Glorious Majesty, King Jesus Christ.
And I am proud and humbled to say I am a loyal subject of that splendiferous kingdom. A lowly citizen true, but a citizen no less. I tingle with joy in the anticipation of the return of my wonderful Lord and Master!
If Jesus was any more awesome, I would just explode with happiness!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
We do. Rosends is not only very intelligent, he/she is an excellent writer. His/her posts and logic are a joy to read.
He/she debated Athias in another thread and I tingled with anticipation because Athias is another very intelligent member with near English professor level writing skills. It was a good skirmish. I wish we could see more debates between the two of them.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Why say masters be nice to your slaves rather than don't own slaves?
Now watch me answer instead of dodge like you do. Because the bible is not talking about owning people, but indentured servitude, and agreement between the servant and the master. See how easy it is when one's worldview is honest?
Unless of course the ownership of slaves is permitted.
But "slave" didn't mean what you think it means 6,000 years ago junior. Indentured servitude was allowed, owning people was not.
And without a citation to change my mind I have the understanding that only Jewish slaves were released after seven years and only i .
That is a logical fallacy. The law says Jewish slaves had to be released, it does not say non-jewish slaves could not be released.
You are misrepresenting the verses. The person had the choice to remain or to leave. In some cases, it was better for the slave to stay, but either way, it was his choice. Proving it was not "slavery" like you want it to be.Their family held hostage, they do not agree to have a rather interesting ear piercing and just go ahead and be your slave forever.
Sorry, but you are going to have to hold on to your erroneous view knowing its bogus.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ludofl3x
Aren't these also things that Christians of some stripe either currently believe (1 - 4)
No. These are things atheists mistakenly think Christianity teaches
or at one time believed (5)?
I'm only pointing out things atheists mistakenly believe Christianity teaches.
I've never heard anyone refer to #3,
Well then, it must have never happened.
but you seem pretty sure, maybe you can tell me why atheists would think that.
I couldn't tell you why atheists think half of the ridiculous things they do. You're an atheist. Why do you think the loony things you do?
Did someone wake up cranky today?
Do you ever wake up any other way?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
Depends on what you mean by "alienated".
Look at it this way, if your right to be free, for example, is inalienable, you retain the right even if imprisoned. It is a violation of your right.
Inalienable rights are not changed by local conditions.
But if your right to be free, for example, is NOT inalienable, then you lose the right when imprisoned. It is not a violation, as your right to freedom has been curtailed.
Dispute what SecMer says, the right to be free does not come from human consensus. It can be protected or violated by men, but it is not sourced in men.
Created:
Posted in:
Every one of the below claims is untrue.
1. Everything in the Bible is a Divine command.
2. The Bible says the Earth is 6,000 years old.
3. The Bible doesn't say that Jesus is God.
4. Salvation, (and thus Heaven) is earned.
5. The Bible condones Slavery.
These are urban myths, perpetuated by atheists quoting a bible they have not read.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Hey Doc,
By humane morals, SecMer means his own personal morals.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
Do you disagree?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
@rosends
definition of terms establishes parameters and limits scope of a question.
Not with SecMer. There are no limits to his questioning.
Once words are agreed upon, a good way to advance understanding is to test claims by extending and expanding them and asking about the intended consequences.
Only SecMer doesn't answer questions. Oh, he responds to them, and will tell you what other people think of them, but will rarely answer them. I have never seen him answer questions about the consequences of his arguments.
Questions are like whittling away wood. Each moves closer to a point, but more immediately, forces one to turn the wood, and ask from another angle.
At some point, if whittling doesn't stop, one runs out of wood
Couldn't have said it better myself.
No, you couldn't have, hardly anyone on this site could have.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
What is it about in the UK?
Created:
Posted in:
Up 300 points this morning.
These are supposed to be patriotic Americans giddy at the thought of a stock market crash.
You love your country right? Only you hate Trump more.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
No, no, no, no! The Lib Dems want more of the same failed policies that have mired us in debt and multicultural malaise.
You must be a Trump clone.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
I disagree, I and its clear you don't have children. You believe this because you are totally invested in your material mindset....early years conditioning is what makes the difference between you and I and explains the fundamental differences in the way we think and the way we tend to formulate and output data sequences in a similar but slightly different way.
...acquiescing to conditioning remains unavoidable, to even the most intellectually gifted individuals.
A quick glance at history proves you wrong. Acquiescing to conditioning is unavoidable, people escape it everyday.
It is intellectual laziness, and, from what I know about your IQ, below you.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Slaves for life not for seven years.
Only if they agreed to continue as slaves after their debt was paid off.
Own them as property.
Own their debt as property, not their person. The same language is used today in pro soccer.
Bequeath them to your children.
Debt can be bought, sold, or bequeathed. And from previous verses, we know it is debt the bible is talking about.
Perhaps they believed God really owned them but that is immaterial if they were treated like property.
A few people misbehaving do not confirm your argument. They simply were not doing what the bible dictates.
Only other Israelites were to be freed after seven years
The 7 year law did not prohibit freedom for non-israelis. It was to limit indenture. Hardly any master could purchase a debt of more than 2 years, and many non-israeli were also freed in the year of jubelee.
I mention it to show Israeli thinking on the matter of human ownership of humans.
Ephesians 6:9 - And masters, treat your slaves in the same way. Do not threaten them, since you know that he who is both their Master and yours is in heaven, and there is no favoritism with him.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
@zedvictor4
Why should anyone care if you don't like being owned? Why should they care if you liked being owned?
They don't necessarily but I hope they do care about my freedom and I care about their freedom.
You're missing the point. Your feelings are not the point. The purpose of morality is to allow people to live harmoniously in societies, if everyone simply uses his own personal morality as the standard, society cannot function.
The point here is what are "rights"? You say there are no inalienable rights. That means you disagree with our constitution. You could not morally disagree with slavery. You can only say you personally don't like it. But so what? Your feelings can change. How can someone rights be based on how you feel?
Your moral system works only with others who share your subjective opinions.
Well stated. Out of curiosity how exactly is your moral not just a subjective opinion?
Wait. Don't run away. Whatever my morals, it will not save you from the problems I'm pointing out in your morality.
You cannot call any behavior immoral. You can only say that behavior is not your taste. But so what? When people morally object to something, they are not referring to their personal taste, or else their judgement is frivolous.
Why should I have a debate with you about your personal tastes? That is like debating you about you preferring chocolate icecream. So what?
Morality carries an "ought". This means that people "ought" to respect and follow it. But no one "ought" to respect and follow your personal tastes.
Your position completely invalidates the concept of morality, and reduces it to mere personal tastes. But yet you irrationally want to keep the qualities that come only with actual morality.
Zed - They only become concrete, when either forcibly applied by one group or individual upon another group or individual
And no one's personal tastes should be forcibly applied by one group or individual upon another group or individual. Neither should anyone be judged morality by the personal tastes of another.
But if we only have personal tastes, as SecMer says, morality becomes incoherent and unfair.
There is nothing we have to say to each other SecMer. We aren't talking about the same thing, and your argument is not rational. It's emotional.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Regardless of the word you use the meaning is owning a person as property.
Sorry, but the meaning is determined by the text, not your bias.
You may use whatever word you like but that is the meaning.
No sir. Neither of us may use whatever word we like. The meaning is decided by the text.
You come into a text and simply declare that "this" is the meaning? By ignoring previous verses setting the context? By being hyper-literal? By assuming meanings instead of getting them from the text?
You think if you run away from questions, your flawed argument is correct? You must build your case, not simply keep it unexplored.
Here are some contextual points you are being obtuse about.
*Jews did not have a concept of humans owning other humans. They believed only God could own a human being. The verses must be interpreted with this belief in mind.
*Previous verses condemn slavery, the taking by force of a person for slavery, and the selling of a person into slavery. The verses must be interpreted with this law in mind.
*Slaves were not owned as evidenced by the two facts, they were to be freed (from their indenture) if deliberately maimed, and they were to be automatically freed every 7 years regardless of debt.
*You take your meaning from your 20th century ideas about slavery which is tainted by the American experience. Your meaning should come from the text.
Hyper-realism is for the mentally weak. I can go through your last few posts and question you using the same hyper-literal standard you want to use on the bible, and you will run and dodge the questions like an illogical jack rabbit.
Just like the "buying and selling" of pro athletes today, it is not the person which is bought or sold, but his debt, or talent, or service. Using your hyper literal standard, Manchester United's management should be in jail for slavery.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Are you sure?
Very.
It is based on a very simple idea.
I know. But the complexity or simplicity of the idea matters not. The authority is what matters.
I would not like to be owned and so I don't think it would be right for me to own another.
And yet you can't see that this assumes that if you did like being owned, your morality would consider slavery moral. Basing morality on what you like is irrational and dangerous.
No number of people sharing a subjective opinion will transform such an opinion into an objective fact. Rights are qualia.
That is exactly right! But that us my point to you. The number of people who agree (or disagree) mean nothing to morality.
They are meaningful and important but not objective measurable facts
Then your expectation that others observe your subjective opinions is nonsense. Why should anyone care if you don't like being owned? Why should they care if you liked being owned?
Your moral system works only with others who share your subjective opinions. That is why your system naively assumes everyone is like you, and likes (and hates) the same things. And that is why you have to dodge questions that expose that failing.
Ought tools by definition are subjective.
No sir. You must not know what an "ought" is in ethics (morality being a subset) Only objective values can carry an ought. No subjective value can be an "ought" for another person.
Your morality is your personal tastes. That is fine, till you start condemning others for not observing your personal tastes.
The only difference between your morality and a fascist is that you have less power to impose your personal tastes.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Barney
It's tough being beautiful.Maybe he's really a noob and you've just got that magnetic a personality?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
The text is thousands of years old, words change their meaning over time. Words can also have more than one meaning....although the word slave is definitely used in many translations
If that is not what the passage means...
What is "that" slick? Don't use an article. Spell it out.
The bible had previously spelled out that it is referring to indentured servitude. It says so several times in several places.
I have no choice but to believe that it means exactly what it says.
But it doesn't mean what you say it means.
Sorry, the verses have a context, and that context is not your myopic western, 20th century take.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
And that is why your opinion that owning people is immoral is illogical nonsense.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ludofl3x
Okay then phobia must mean heterosexual, is that correct?
Nope.
Phobia means - an extreme or irrational fear of or aversion to something.
Homophobia is as logical as beingstabbedinthechestbyalunaticphobia.
How is it irrational to fear being stabbed in the chest? And how could such a fear be extreme?
Ever heard of genocidophobia? RapeOphobia? Terrophobia? You haven't. Know why? Because fear of genocide, or rape, or terror is not irrational.
Neither is homophobia. Homophobia is an irrational concept advanced by the loony left. Aversion to homosexuals is natural, and not a phobia.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
OK. That is dangerous and in unamerican, but logically consistent to your POV.
You cannot possibly believe morality exists. For you, morality is two people saying, "I agree".
This is why your opinion that owning people is immoral is illogical nonsense. All it means is that you think many people don't like it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Yet I have people who say my style of addressing every point is exasperating. But if I miss one of your arguments, just point it out to me and I will eviscerate it promptly.Give him ten points to consider and he will probably only respond to the one or two that he can twist in his favour.
But as always, if you dodge my questions, I will similarly dismiss yours.
Nonetheless, it's entertaining debating with Mr Ethan.
Thanks. Debate with you is fun too, but only when you're not doing the Zed the Nihilist bit. That's lame.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
We are all conditioned, it's unavoidable.....
No, but it doesn't have to be crippling.
Basic operating data if you like....difficult to erase.
It need not be erased, simply controlled.
Acquiescing to "conditioning" is intellectually lazy. Every advancement of this world has been on the brute force of original, independent thinkers.
Another word for conditioning is instinct. Man can rise above and control instinct.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
I agree and yet we seem to still be in disagreement.
Because you aren't taking what it says. You are taking your bias.
For the same reason you would be held legally accountable for abusing a dog even though you own the animal as property.
Ancient Israel had cruelty to animal laws? Please don't be ludicrous.
I am taking them completely at face value
Untrue. For example, one verse say, if a brother falls into hard times and sells himself to you, do not great him as a slave. What "face value" is that? Another verse says anyone kidnapping someone for slavery, or to be sold into slavery, deserves the death penalty, how do you get condoning slavery from that?
What is face value to you? "You must purge the evil of slavery from among you." What face value does that give you? Everyone has some sort of bias, but few people are are clueless about their bias as you are.
I have gone into no tangents. I address what you bring up. And if my arguments were inefficient, you wouldn't be dancing and dodging as you are.
Your claim was that the bible condones slavery. I have shown you that that is untrue by posting numerous verses that unequivocally condemn slavery.
You claim that the bible contradicts itself on slavery is untrue. Your claim that the bible needs much interpretation to make it against slavery is illogical.
Your opinion of the bible on slavery is based simply on your personal bias. Nothing else. And that is fine, my issue is that you seem unaware that your personal bias is not reality.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
No one is asking you about many people. Are you allergic to yes and no, or do you not have any beliefs?There are rights that many people agree...
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ludofl3x
OKay, so you think "homo" means "homosexual".
No slick. Not I think, that IS the meaning in English. And I didn't set it that way.
I'll try again.
OK.
Homo = gay personPhobia = FearStill not oxymoronic.
Phobia doesn't mean fear.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
I respond to posts that I find interesting.So I must find your posts interesting
You and a ton of other people.
It was how I was conditioned to think...
I will share a truth with you, a person can rise above how they were conditioned to think, and become an original, Independent thinker.
Really.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
This is a copout and deceptive. You do not believe in morality. How we approach the bible should be determined by what it says, not what other take it as.If you feel that the bible is not meant as a moral guide or that it makes a poor one we can approach it as such.
Only contradictions if the text is taken at face value. The bible is only contradictory if it means what it says.
That is your little anti-intellectual hidey-hole. That is why you cannot address the analogy of the terms used today in the sales of pro athletes.
You assume a meaning and then claim your assumed meaning is what the bible means. To prove this, when I ask you, "If the bible means owning people, why is a master punished for maiming or killing his slave?" you run away. Because an honest answer would obliterate your claim and your obtuse ploy.
It is interesting however how much interpretation the passages seem to need before they can be said to agree.
So you say, but your position has always been, and remains a fringe one. What you mean of course is that the passages seem to need a lot of interpretation away from your spin before they can be said to agree
...but if that is the case then why does it matter what it says?
Truth matters. Your claim that the bible condones slavery is obviously untrue.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
The Gentle Readers see your dodge. That is enough.
And pos #14 is specific enough.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
So you believe that there are no self evident inalienable rights?...still argue that all rights are merely popularly held opinions about what we are entitled to.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
That is not pointless if his goal is a conversation with himself.
Lol!! Pointless doesn't mean without a point. It means the point of the action is illogical.
It is hardly my fault that answering a question often naturally leads to another querry.
It doesn't naturally lead to another querry endlessly in normal, honest people.
But since its you asking the endless questions, I find it difficult to see how it isn't your fault
Created: