Total posts: 5,875
Posted in:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
My, you are bright!
I am pretty certain you will solve it. I was taken aback by how many correct numbers there were. I'm still trying to figure out the relationship between them.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Post #12 - He doesn't know that "asleep" is the term used for the dead in Christ. But of course, his ignorance causes him no
caution.
Nothing at post 15 explains what it means to be _ as you put it - " dead in Christ"
All believers in Christ are called asleep when dead. Repeated in the thread trice.
Christians do not die because they have received eternal life and will be awakened by his Glorious Majesty, Jesus Christ at His coming.
Why are you afraid to simply explain what it is these biblical terms actually mean.
Ask yourself. Is it harder to explain or to answer questions? Why are you afraid to answer questions?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@drafterman
OK. Though I still think your choice of analogy said something about how you view God's relationship to you.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
Good work. Your method was impressive too. I'm not surprised it was you first.
But 1 does break rule 5 as it is a multiple of every whole number.
So kudos for an impressive try, and for being so quick, but 914725 violates rule #5. Try again?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
So where are these documents that YOU, as part of the fkn collective "we" have in your possession...
Thank you for correcting your lie.
..."to prove that The Trinity
Mopac said nothing about "proving" the trinity. He said he had documents to prove that the church believed the trinity before nicea. Read more slowly, Cletus.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Hey Gomer, I know homosexuals who have fathered and birthed children. Homosexuals are not genetically different from heterosexuals, and are not genetically fkd up. You are just ignorant and illiterate.
God made nothing bad. It is us who take the good God created and change them into bad things.
Leviticus 20:13 does not specify homosexuals. Anyone performing that sin is guilty, even heterosexuals. But your reading comprehension is poor.
Created:
Posted in:
Any atheists want to defend this claim?We also have overwhelming, irrefutable evidence that life is the result of evolution by natural selection.
This is what happens when technology gives a voice to what are basically ignorant people.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Not the point you silly little man.
You made the point and called it a contradiction. Are yo confused?
When did I say that? Are you lying again? God did not create your loony thread.Everything is gods creation according to you.
I mean, how is it that we man is supposed to " be fruitful and increase in number; multiply on the earth and increase upon it", when there are those that simply cannot because of....
Now watch the genius. He either means that homosexuals are geneticly fkd up, or that homosexuals cannot have children.
...the genetic fk up created by non other than your god.
Lol! He went with homosexuals being genetic freaks.
So let me get this straight. The contradiction is that God told man to be fruitful and multiply and homosexuals cannot (because of god, and not their own volition), so that is contradictory?
Too funny.
Well Sal. Stephen's answer to your thread's question is certainly "Yes". You won't like that he calls homosexuals genetic freaks, but you will love that he blames god for it anyway.
Stephen, I think I can let your silliness be. There is little I can do to make you look more ignorant.
Notice you atheist lemmings, that Stephen is an atheist calling homosexuals - genetic fk ups.
Maybe they need gene therapy genius! Lol.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Read post #15 again. Slooowly.I am still waiting for your explanation as to what it means to be, as you put it _ "dead in Christ"
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Jesus is mentioned by more than 15 ancient sources. That is better than for Plato or King Tut. Ever hear an atheist doubt the existence of either of those?
So just for once, stop with your lying bullshit and address the questions that arose from your own statement.
My statement did not mention Josephus, doofus.
Josephus is a classic among ancient sources. What's more, Josephus is a classic ancient source of theological history.
So?
Are you denying this , princess?
How can I be denying anything when I said nothing? Are you trying to be stupid?
How many times do you believe Jesus the Christ is mentioned by historian Josephus?
Irrelevant. I said nothing about Josephus. Address what I said, not what your poor reading comprehension fooled you into thinking I wrote.
Is not the works of Jewish historian Josephus 37 AD - 100 AD regarded as an ancient source in your tiny mind then?
What do I care? If you want to talk about Josephus, who's stopping you? I said nothing about Josephus. So you can prattle about him on your own.
OK now name them and the citations.
No. 1. Your reading comprehension is too poor. You'll probably start asking me about olive oil.
2. You never answer my questions so you don't get to order me to do what you won't do yourself. I reject hypocrites.
3. Confirm first that you realize that I said nothing about Josephus. We cannot proceed with you still in delusion.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@drafterman
OK. It sure seemed like it did.Nope. The analogy has nothing to do with God.
Created:
Posted in:
1. Can you write a 6 digit number where...
2. Digits cannot all be in ascending order ex. (134579)
3. Digits cannot all be in descending order ex. (964321)
4. No digit can be zero.
5. No digit can be a multiple of a digit beside it. ex. (374852) 4 and 8 are side by side, and 4 is a multiple of 8.
6. No digit can be used more than once. ex. (375594) 5 is used twice.
7. No digit can be 1 more or 1 less than the digit before or after it. ex. (253894) 9 is one more than 8.
8. No digits beside each other can share a multiple. ex. (386947) 8 and 6 are beside each other, and 2 is a multiple of both. 6 and 9 are beside each other, and 3 is a multiple of both.
9. The six digit number cannot have more than 3 consecutive odd numbers.
ex. (495372) 953 and 7 are all consecutive and all odd numbers.
10. Finally, neither the first or last 3 digits of your 6 digit number should have a sum of more than 15
(352947) 9+4+7=20
------------------------------------------
Can you do it?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Salixes
11 threads in one day is dangerous too. Eleven! After a previous day of 10 threads!
I'll say your compulsion to post is dangerous to your health.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
Experience is often times proof. So your formula is rather strange.
Then there is a tree you plant. It grows. You grow with it. You live life around the tree.Experience the tree.
Brilliant!
You took his challenge, even with his fake and unfair restrictions, and destroyed his bogus formula in one post.
Experience the tree
Beautiful image.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Deb-8-a-bull
No you didn't Deb. It was only in your mind.Did i just say that out loud?
That post was not ment for you, sorry big fella.
No worries. I liked this one better anyway.
Atheists don't believe in hypnotism, but it works on them anyway, slooooowly.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
...why god created a man that was only sexually attracted to someone of the same sex.
When did God do that? Was it before He declared everything as good?
I am sure now that the theist will jump to defend their god and this blinding contradiction...
Another "blinding" contradiction. You're like the boy who cried contradiction. When God declared everything was good, were there any homosexuals around?
So where then is the contradiction you're sure that theist will jump to defend their god from? You've farted yet another fake contradiction haven't you goober?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Why are you prattling about something I didn't talk about? The topic is not Josephus,
Stop lying this is what you wrote at post #14 above:
Added: 02.07.20 05:47PM--> @ethang5 Jesus is mentioned by more than 15 ancient sources.
I said nothing about Josephus genius. Read it again. Sloooowly.
YOU brought the idea of JESUS IN "Ancient sources" into the conversation, not me!!!
I said nothing about Josephus Pedro. Read it again. Sloooowly.
how many times do you believe Jesus the Christ is mentioned by historian Josephus
I said nothing about Josephus Bevis. Read it again. Sloooowly.
You see princess, FLAVIUS JOSEPHUS THE JEWISH HISTORIAN is a classic example of the "ancient sources" that YOU brought into this thread. I didn't, YOU DID!
I said nothing about Josephus Nedward.
Read it again. Sloooowly.
...something the YOU introduced into the conversation.
I did not introduce Josephus Maynard, you did. I said nothing about Josephus.
The last one being well over a year ago!!!!!!! And one of those only three is not really religion related:
Uh oh. I feel a repeat of history coming on.
THIS TELLS ME THAT YOU ARE ONLY HERE TO AGITATE AND DISRUPT OTHER MEMBERS THREADS AND TOPICS.
All caps, all bold, all underlined. And you're not a troll, right?
Jesus is mentioned by more than 15 ancient sources.
How many times do you believe Jesus the Christ is mentioned by historian Josephus?
I said nothing about Josephus goober.
Is not the works of Jewish historian Josephus 37 AD - 100 AD regarded as an ancient source in your tiny mind then?
I said nothing about Josephus, genius. I don't care how Josephus is regarded. Address what I say.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Jesus lied exactly as he did to those disciples who were with him in the case of Lazarus where he first told them Lazarus was not dead but asleep.
He doesn't know that "asleep" is the term used for the dead in Christ. But of course, his ignorance causes him no caution.
Act 7:60 - Then he knelt down and cried out with a loud voice, “Lord, do not charge them with this sin.” And when he had said this, he fell asleep.
Stephen is killed but is said to be asleep.
Act 13:36 - “For David, after he had served his own generation by the will of God, fell asleep, was buried with his fathers, and saw corruption;
David's death is called falling asleep.
1Co 15:6 - After that He was seen by over five hundred brethren at once, of whom the greater part remain to the present, but some have fallen asleep.
Some have died, but those deaths are called falling asleep.
1Co 15:18 - Then also those who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished.
Their murder is called falling asleep.
1Co 15:20 - But now Christ is risen from the dead, and has become the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep.
All believers in Christ are called asleep when dead.
1Th 4:13 - But I do not want you to be ignorant, brethren, concerning those who have fallen asleep, lest you sorrow as others who have no hope.
All believers in Christ are called asleep when dead.
1Th 4:15 - For this we say to you by the word of the Lord, that we who are alive and remain until the coming of the Lord will by no means precede those who are asleep.
All believers in Christ are called asleep when dead.
But your ignorance of Christianity and your deceit has caused you to claim Jesus is lying.
And you know you are being dishonest, but you don't care as long as your lies allow you to attack Christianity.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@drafterman
I was comparing the answer "God takes as long as he takes" with the answer "the bus will get here when it gets here." As in, those are both equally pointless and useless answers to the question at hand.
I know Draft.
But your choice of analogy does belie your mindset.
You think God is offering you a service, selling you something, and that you can sit back and evaluate this offer as to whether it suits your preference.
You think God needs you.
The verses from James I posted tell you why God sometimes does not answer requests. He is not a bus driver tasked with picking up customers to cover his salary. The traveller is the reason the bus driver exists.
A more apt analogy is you're on the side of the road with your thumb out. God knows you're there. He knows if you have your thumb out. If you really need that ride, and you do, you will keep that thumb out till God comes speeding by in that GTO convertible.
If you got tired waiting, or figured you did not need a lift, and dropped your thumb, God will speed right by. He's fine. You're the one who needs Him.
If you don't think you need Him. Fine. But He certainly is not going to submit His schedule to you for your convenience. As the verse says,
“God resists the proud, But gives grace to the humble.”
Pride will make you drop your thumb. But that fleeting rush you get by keeping your pride from not submitting, will be empty as you huddle starving by the roadside in the cold and rain.
Created:
Posted in:
Post the quote then that this member here made ON ANOTHER SITE!!!!! !!!! that I quoted here. Can you do that genius?You have openly admitted to posting on this site, quotes that a member here made ON ANOTHER SITE!!!!! !!!!
Do you actually think multiple exclamation marks will make you seem less loony?
Posting comments from another site is not necessarily a violation of the rule genius. Virtually every thread has quotes from other sites.
Let the mods do their job. If they needed you, they would have asked you to mod. Your reading comprehension is way too poor for you to judge what others write.
Focus on the thread topics and what you want to say about it. Stop trying to play keystone cop. Ask a mod to explain the rule to you so that you stop embarrassing yourself.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
I did not mention Josephus homer.Is not Josephus regarded as an ancient source in your tiny mind then?
And have you never heard of or studied his classics? Of course you haven't have you.
Why are you prattling about something I didn't talk about? The topic is not Josephus, Hosea.
In case you've forgotten, here is a reminder.
The point is that the existence of Jesus is valid, more so than many historical characters you losers have taken for granted.
This is the accepted mainstream position. If you disagree, please present your argument. But your personal doubt will not cancel the truth.
Read it slowly, genius.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@drafterman
You invited Jesus into your life?? Wow.
But if you thought the bus driver analogy was apt, I can see why He didn't come.
Jas 4:3 - You ask and do not receive, because you ask amiss, that you may spend it on your pleasures.
Jas 4:4 - Adulterers and adulteresses! Do you not know that friendship with the world is enmity with God? Whoever therefore wants to be a friend of the world makes himself an enemy of God.
Jas 4:5 - Or do you think that the Scripture says in vain, “The Spirit who dwells in us yearns jealously”?
Jas 4:6 - But He gives more grace. Therefore He says:
“God resists the proud,
But gives grace to the humble.”
But gives grace to the humble.”
Humility Cures Worldliness
Jas 4:7 - Therefore submit to God. Resist the devil and he will flee from you.
Jas 4:8 - Draw near to God and He will draw near to you. Cleanse your hands, you sinners; and purify your hearts, you double-minded.
----------------------------------------------------
God is not akin to your bus driver.
Created:
Posted in:
...Jesus lied exactly as he did to those disciples who were with him in the case of Lazarus where he first told them Lazarus was not dead but asleep.
He doesn't know that "asleep" is the term used for the dead in Christ. But of course, his ignorance causes him no caution.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
So you know the beauty of South Africa too.
I do. It is stunning.
I lived in Africa for 15 years. West Africa mostly. But I was visiting SA.Were you working in Africa or just visiting?
I will pray that your sister finds the only cure for cancer. Good thing you are her brother. Be strong man, Jesus is willing and able to save.
Created:
Posted in:
Once again, nothing in your statements inform one's going against one's own values...
Repetition will not make you right. Morality is between people. If another person "is not there" as in blind, or too young or old, or from an alien society, some people do not feel the moral prohibitions they would if they were in their societies.
but instead inform my deduction that they behaved in a manner influenced by their environment like "a prude who never would go naked, going naked in the woods when she thinks no one will see her."
Tautology. Everyone always behaves in a manner influenced by their environment. Influenced by environment or not, they went against their personal values by going topless.
So yes, that is the dichotomy presented, which is not false in and of itself.
It is false as it tries to explain a real occurrence. Those were not the only 2 options. You need the options limited so as to float your "deduction" as correct.
Either they did it of their own will and volition, or they were coerced.
No sir. They also could have felt no prohibition against violating their value because they felt away from their culture.
I'm not asking you to define "objective." I'm asking you to explain how the law meets your description of "objective."
Moral law is not sourced in, or affected by, the mind of any man. If you ask again, the answer will be the same.
And now I request that you give examples. Are there any examples to cite?
Plenty. But none are necessary.
My "want" is irrelevant.
Not to your understanding it's not.
Perhaps you are not able to understand.
Perhaps.
I suspect you would not be able to admit this if it were true.
You wouldn't have to repeat if you explained.
I don't have to repeat.
When I ask questions, I seek explanation--otherwise, there would be no need for me to ask.
You either accept the explanation given or don't, but repeating the question hoping for a different explanation will not work with me.
So then, would "consideration of material possessions and physical comfort as more important than spiritual values" be an apt description?
Apt description of what?
I'm asking you to define reality in order to establish communication and understanding.
Defining reality will not do that. Our realities must be the same for there to be communication and understanding.
So then how is seeking that communication and understanding "evidence" of their not being needed?
If you are seeking a definition of reality, you are not sane enough to comprehend the definition. Hence, it isn't needed. We both must already inhabit the same reality for there to be communication and understanding.
If not dropping the gun in your example is "defiance" then not dropping one's gun is far from "letting" something happen.
Many a criminal has found out to their regret that this is untrue. And I was not giving an example of defence, but an example of suicide by police. You asked.
You specifically cited a district attorney presumably for reasons concerning their capacity as an agent of the law.
Their capacity as agents of the law who are also moral agents. It gives them a unique perspective.
You said you weren't discussing this from a legal context,...
I'm not.
what relevance does your citation of a district attorney have in this discussion, let alone in a rebuttal against my argument?
Professionals trained to distinguish between morality and law, and whose job requires them to be moral, disagree with you.
As soon as you set the rubric to notions of "agreement,"...
I did not. You just thought I did.
I did not imply it. That was your impression, which is not the same as an implication.
You did imply it. Perhaps you did not intend to. But I can only go by what you do.
I'm telling you that description is epistemologically insignificant. Because subjects of knowledge require the use of one's mind.
Objective subjects of knowledge exist before they are in ones mind. Objective morality is not sourced in the minds of men, bit can exist on the minds of men.
An alleged generality which does not apply to my capacity as a debater.
Who is judging that capacity? OK.
Agreeing with you would make me wrong.
How is that? Elaborate.
You are wrong. If I agree with you I become wrong too.
You're being equivocal with the meaning of logic. It isn't important to my argument.
There's nothing equivocal about my description. Confirm it for yourself, if necessary.
Its obvious. You are using "logical" in it's broadest sense. That is not what is generally meant by logic when talking about logical arguments. You're defining "logical" so broadly, no argument can be illogical.
And I await your explanation as to how morality whether it be legal, religious, philosophical, etc. meets the description you offered of "objective."
I've already told you.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Ancient SourceS. Learn to read.
The point is that the existence of Jesus is valid, more so than many historical characters taken for granted.
This is the accepted mainstream position. If you disagree, please present your argument. But your doubt will not cancel the truth.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ronjs
...but neither are literally dead.
To people like Steven, Salixes, and Dee Dee, words in the bible can have only one meaning. Metaphors, similes, and figure of speech are tricks of theists.
You have to explain this to an adult?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Salixes
There are 2 ways I can answer this.
Where is God?I look under my bedNope, not hereI looked in the mirror and my face wasn't redSo, he wasn't up there.I finally found Him, now that's oddHe's in my head.
Sorry to tell you God isn't in your head either.
But if God is so evil and bad, why are you so desperately looking for Him?
------------------------------------------------------
The second way...
Where is God?I look under my bedNope, not hereI looked in the mirror and my face wasn't redSo, he wasn't up there.I finally found Him, now that's oddHe's in my head.
It's no surprise to us that the evil god you rant against is only in your head. Tell us something we don't know.
That means the evil and doom and gloom you see is also only in your head. It's called delusion, and that's one of the reasons why it's a fringe belief.
You're welcome.
Created:
Posted in:
The funny thing is, Sal is supposed to be the representative of the "more intelligent" atheist. Lol.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Salixes
Do atheist know how many historical characters are mentioned by only one source that they take as validated? No.Do you honestly believe that just because the name of Christ was "mentioned" by other obscure and dubious sources it any way validates the existence of such a character?
Jesus is mentioned by more than 15 ancient sources. That is better than for Plato or King Tut. Ever hear an atheist doubt the existence of either of those?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Like referring to he or she being "sheep" doesn't actually mean a literal "sheep". Lol.So it appears then that referring to he or she being "dead" doesn't actually mean a literal "death".
Like metaphorical sheep!...it simply means a metaphorical death
What then do we make of the other stories concerning so called "dead" people?
Well, sensible normal people read each one to see whether the death is literal or metaphorical. Idiots pretend that there is some sort of "confusion" in simple stories even children get.
And all the above BIBLICAL evidence can now explain this enigmatic ambiguous verse
Lol. Atheist Stephen is preaching! Explain those verses to us genius!
Poor guy didn't know where to go after his clunker was exploded, and became a temp Christian explaining the verses. Too funny.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
I am amazed you haven't been flagged for your brazen flaunting and the utter disregard and contempt you have shown for these simple basic rules.
Maybe your sleazy post will fool them into "flagging" me hey?
You'd be ecstatic if they did wouldn't you shemp? Lol.
Your bias is fooling you genius, I'm not breaking any board rules, your irrational hate is not the standard of the mods.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
That is so interesting to know! That helps explain the maturity in your posts.I was born in Zambia (Northern Rhodesia at that time). I like Botswana. I worked in South Africa for a while. That is where my mom was born.
When I was in SA, driving on the "wrong" side of the road drove me crazy, but the weather was divine!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
I bet the mods roll their eys and do facepalms as they read your clunky posts.
Lol.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Salixes
Neither of us are racists.You are even making Ethan look like an innocent fairy.
Created:
Posted in:
Is God A Joke?You can push your crappy agenda by disguising it in a load of convincing tripe that just slides easily off the palate.
Is God A Tyrant?
Is God A Devil?
Is God A Delusion?
Is God A Fantasy?
Is God A Drug?
Is God A Fiction?
Is God A Dictator?
Is God A Killer?
Is God A ___________?
Like that?
Lol!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
I don't know what the "that" in your post refers to, but I do know that everything Jesus did was right and morally appropriate.
I had parents who loved me, and most times that love came as a staff to guide me. But sometimes it came as a rod, to correct me.
Isa 5:20 - Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!
Isa 5:21 - Woe unto them that are wise in their own eyes, and prudent in their own sight!
I suspect the "that" in your post you claim doesn't work in the real world, is the rod, from "thy rod and thy staff"...
But notice he gets comfort from both the staff which guides him and the rod, which disciplines him.
The real world will teach you that Jesus is always right, but your idea of Him is not. I have no worries, the sincere find Him, and the wisdom they need.
Created:
Posted in:
Grugore - has been added to my list of "must read" posters.
Drafterman - was on my list before he became a mod. His name will not now be subsumed under mods because I would read his posts even if he were not a mod.
To be fair, I should do the same with Virt and Rag, because I would read their posts even if they were not mods, but I'm too lazy for all that change.
Whiteflame is a great poster, but it's sad to consider he saw nothing worth posting about or no one worth posting to.
Created:
Posted in:
Everybody in politics claims to want to get everybody out of poverty. What's the opposite? Wealth. And what is often criticized by the left? Wealth.
- Rush Limbaugh
Created:
Posted in:
The First Amendment doesn't give anybody the right to be heard. People don't have to listen to you.
- Rush Limbuagh
Created:
Posted in:
A trio of posts in honor of the great Rush Limbaugh. Medal of Honor recipient.
Most people's historical perspective begins with the day of their birth.
Rush Limbuagh
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Salixes
That's your compulsion. It's an illness.I feel a new skit coming on....
Created:
Posted in:
Christians hold idiosyncratic views detached from mainstream society and that are offensive to others,
Oh, I forgot. Sal also thinks his fringe views are Mainstream, and Christians are "idiosyncratic".
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
My, that was a good series of posts!
Jesus is world renown.
You know it, and you know you know it!
The Omnipotent, Eternal, Lord of Glory, His Majestic Excellence, King Jesus is world renown!
Went to Botswana recently. While there I visited several towns. Everyone knew Jesus, No one knew Darth Vader.
Created:
Posted in:
I know. But remember, sin must be pointed out. Having standards is not condemnation.It is not my intent to condemn Salixes.
Something that is important to understand about those who are deceived is that they by definition are not aware that they are deceived.
True, and when part of his deception is that he views love as hate, loving him only makes him more angry and bitter. Love is much more than kindness and tolerance. Even with a scourge in Hand, Jesus was being loving.
I encourage you to interact with Sal. Nothing will sharpen doctrine than its testing in the real world.
Created:
Posted in:
No. I actually meant semantic ploy, but I didn't want you to feel insulted.
No need to concern yourself with my feelings. Your responses have remained pertinent to our discussion; therefore, I find no particular reason to feel insulted even if you're characterizing one of my responses as a "semantic ploy."
Well, that is what it was.
Neither. Its a false dichotomy. Sematic ploys are that way.
Presenting a dichotomy does not in and of itself make it false. We've established two things:
- They partook in a local custom where they took off their tops.
- They were not forced to participate.
You argued that their participation went against their values because they wouldn't have done the same in the states. But this does not convey going against their own values; it only demonstrates that their comfort with certain actions depends on the environment and/or circumstance. Actions and decisions also reflect values, so their participation either reflected their values or was brought about through coercion. You've already dismissed the latter.
And therein is the false dichotomy. The former and latter are not the only choices. They were going against their values, but felt that because there was no one there who shared their values, the prohibition was not felt. Like a prude who never would go naked, going naked in the woods when she thinks no one will see her.
That is not a "semantic ploy." It's deduction.
OK. Call it what you will. A rose by any other name would still smell as sweet.
The law is always objective.
How is (moral) law objective? Please explain.
Objective means, not sourced in, or influenced by, the mind of any man.
Maximization of profit. Minimization of intolerance. Sex. Racism.
Give me examples of moral frameworks based on profit maximization, minimization of intolerance, sex, and racism.
No. You asked for different standards. I gave them.
No. I just think I haven't made you understand what I mean by moral authority.
So what do you mean by moral authority?
I've told you. Perhaps you don't want to understand. Perhaps you are not able to understand. But I will not keep repeating simply because you keep asking.
Same as the dictionary.
The dictionary has a few definitions. Perhaps you could narrow it down for me?Are we talking about the philosophical monism?
No.
True. But you have not yet opposed my argument.
What is that argument?
I said moral authority justifies the use of power. It is not the use of power.
How is that any different from my description:
You argue that moral authority is the justification to exercise power.
Moral authority justifies the use of power, the use of power does not justify morality.
No. If I have to define reality for you our communication ships have already passed each other by.
I wouldn't have demanded a definition if I weren't earnest. Define reality.
How earnest you are doesn't matter. Reality is what we must assume is common to the both of us for there to be communication and understanding. If I have to define reality for you that is enough evidence for me that a definition is not needed.
Letting the police shoot you when you're too weak to kill yourself. Police assisted suicide in your lexicon.
How does one "let" the police shoot them? Can targets revise protocol?
By not dropping the gun when told to do so.
I don't know of a single DA in any country who agrees with you.
You said you're weren't arguing from a legal context, so: (1) what relevance does the judgement of a D.A. bear,
D.A.'s are moral agents who also know the law.
and (2) doesn't placing the referendum on a D.A.'s agreement undermine the premise of your contention--that is the counterargument against the one you allege I'm making?
No.
It is not a Non sequitur. And the comment is true.
It is a non sequitur, and I'm not scrutinizing the veracity of your statement. I'm informing you that I did not make it.
You implied it.
One that exists outside the mind of man.
That's epistemologically insignificant.
It is the description of the quality "objective". You asked for it.
Yes. You are contradicting yourself. Most people do not readily see their internal contradictions.
I have no problem seeing contradiction; I do not readily see unsubstantiated claims of contradiction.
Internal contradictions are not readily see in oneself.
No, but if I agreed with you I would be.
How is that?
Agreeing with you would make me wrong.
That has not been my experience.
Your experience is irrelevant; logic is logic; reason is reason; all arguments are logical; all arguments are rational. The scrutiny is in its relevance and consistency within the context of reason and logic.
You're being equivocal with the meaning of logic. It isn't important to my argument.
Yes. Impotence is impotence, even when the reasons for the impotence differ.
Then "communism" is irrelevant.
Ok.
Moral behavior not based on personal tastes or subjective opinions.
How have you formulated such a framework?
Logic. Morality is objective.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
He's also a racist. I may post some of his better quotes one day.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
Because you're a genuinely good person, you tend to assume most people are like you. Sal may be out of your experience range.
I like it that he has engaged somewhat.
He's been sacked from every moderated site he's been on (including this one) so he's trying to be careful.
I'll let you see how he is yourself.
Created: