Total posts: 5,875
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
I was told by a moderator not to use the correct term relating to you of "perpetual RUNAWAY" anymore when addressing you.
Do you know why?
Furthermore, I cannot show the truth..
Why not?
...of you not addressing the fact that you haven't posted a new thread upon your own in ONE YEAR AND 24 DAYS!
Lol. Maybe the mods have a thing for honesty and truth? They can be worrisome that way, Dee Dee.
But telling us PM's of how the mods admonish you doesn't make you look particularly good Dee Dee. Keep those things to yourself.
A word to the wise....
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ludofl3x
So you're asking me if a verse that isn't in the bible would have prevented something that happened, a lot, and was perpetuated BY BELIEVERS USING THE BIBLE AS SUPPORT?
You said it should be there. Did you have a reason for saying so?
I'm not sure it would have stopped it everywhere for all time as the bible doesn't apply to everyone at every time according to some of your arguments,...
Lol. I've never said that the bible doesn't apply to everyone at every time, but that's part of the kitchen sink so we'll shelve it for now.
...but for the sake of brevity, I'll say "probably not."
Thank you. Was that difficult? Now, if you agree it would not have stopped slavery, why do you think it should be there?
But again, the verse "Don't own slaves" isn't in any of the 60+ books of the bible,
Sure it is. It just isn't in the word sequence you personally deem acceptable. To that I say, "so what?"
..so there's little to dispute here.
Funny then that you're multi-posting and dodging verses*. There is a dispute here, and you're losing.
It doesn't prohibit slavery, I'm sorry.
It prohibits taking people by force, and prohibits selling them as a slave, and prohibits even treating them as slaves, calling slavery an "evil" that must be purged, yet you say it doesn't prohibit slavery?
How is slavery possible if kidnapping, selling, buying, and treating people as slaves is prohibited? I always say, being an anti-theist should not mean one has to abandon intellectual integrity.
THe passage isn't attributed to Jesus or God, so what else would it be? A letter, written by a regular old person, unless you want to demonstrate otherwise, is just one man's opinion. Timothy doesn't make commandments, right?
Well then I fail to see what your issue is here. Did Moses make commandments? Something written by a regular old person, is just one man's opinion. Are you telling us how you think some regular old person's opinion should have been worded? Really?
...wouldn't have had god on its side for so long.
They never did have God on their side, as evidenced by it being Christians using the bible who successfully rolled back slavery in England and America.
Look here what you quoted, but didn't cite:
I cited it earlier.
To whom does this verse apply?
So we are agreed that the bible opposed some slavery. That is still a defeat for the OP.
Now that you've admitted that the bible does prohibit some slavery, consider the verse you've been dodging.*
Where does this verse, which I've responded to in the quote, say "anyone"? It says "Israelite."
The verse you're dodging says "anyone".
Exodus 21:16 - Anyone who kidnaps someone is to be put to death, whether
the victim has been sold or is still in the kidnapper’s possession.
The slave owner isn't mentioned, for example...but the kidnapper is.
1 Timothy 1:10 - for the sexually immoral, for those practicing homosexuality, for slave traders and liars and perjurers—and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine
You can bend yourself into any kind of contortion you like, the fact remains that the bible clearly views slavery as an evil contrary to "sound doctrine".
You are emotionally invested in the bible advocating slavery because your worldview is built on that urban myth. I get it. But saying that these verses do not prohibit slavery is ludicrous.
...at least the brand propped up in America
When the bible was written, American slavery, where a human being was viewed as owned by another human being, was thousands of years in the future.
The Bible is referring to indentured servitude, where a person voluntarily sold his service, and was not owned and not to be treated as a slave.
In cases where the person was taken against his will to be kept or sold as a slave, the bible clearly calls that wrong and gives a verdict of death.
Dishonest anti-theist equivocate on the word "slavery" and use the emotional baggage Americans carry with that word to imply that the bible is talking about, and condones old south slavery.
Interesting fact. When bibles were finally given to slaves in the American south, they had removed several verses calling slavery wrong and evil.
Facts remain facts no matter how much you dislike them Ludo. Obstinacy will not win arguments.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Zaradi
My only thought in opposition to it is that it could be too broad of an example and that itd need to be focused down more into lawful killings and unlawful killings before it could really be applied to the same lines of reasoning as your example of war.Thoughts?
You mistake what I'm saying.
I've found that in the context of morality, dealing with underlying principle is better than just focusing on individual actions. With individual actions, we can "what about" them forever.
The OP implied that having rules and regulations for a behavior meant that the rule maker condoned the behavior. Is this true or not? If this principle is true, any instance of it will also be true.
In response, he asks a disingenuous question, "So God instructs us how to partake in sin?" When we must first assume his claim is true for his subsequent question to make sense.
But it is only him who has accepted that the bible has no verses prohibiting slavery.
So no, I do not need to focus down more into lawful killings and unlawful killings before it could really be applied to the same lines of reasoning as your example of war.
The UN charter is attempting to govern war, not killings specifically. So the principle is the same as the Bible having rules for behavior concerning servitude.
This will probably be viewed as confrontational, given what subforum we're in, but I'm actually genuinely curious.
Your wording was intelligent and polite, only an idiot would view it as confrontational. I hope I addressed what you meant.
Created:
Posted in:
I did not say it was a single reporter, but that most reports were by a single reporter.
But we're glad things seem to be improving.
Created:
Their cross thread contamination is not a violation. For them, only things other people do are wrong.
I doubt if a mod can make sense in what either genius is babbling about.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Salixes
Maybe you're deluded.I wasn't aware of reaching a conclusion.
Created:
-->
@n8nrgmi
what do you think of the issues posed in this thread?
They are tooth achingly silly.
as far as i can see, this is a contradiction.
God said they were unclean, then God made them clean. Where is the contradiction?
Do you even know what unclean means as used in the bible?
Created:
-->
@n8nrgmi
you're pretty good at defending the bible.
The bible needs no defense.
what do you think of the verse in the opening post?
The same thing I think of all verses. It's informative.
“If a man’s testicles are crushed or his penis is cut off, he may not be admitted to the assembly of the LORD." deuteronomy 23
does that also mean said person can't enter heaven too?
No.
plus i dont understand the wisdom in this teaching?
Your questions alerted us to that.
please, teach me what i am missing here
Lol. You're like a Brother Dee Dee light. Sorry, but experience has shown me that it is folly to take an insincere person seriously.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
Because EtrnlVw has already answered you twice. Plus, I can see by how you are asking that you aren't equipped to comprehend the answer.YOU DID NOT ANSWER THIS SIMPLE QUESTION OTHER THAN TO RUN AWAY FROM IT LIKE SO MANY OTHER TIMES.
I told you, if you behave as you do, few people will take you seriously. I don't.
Calm down. Drop the crazy internet hobo act, and we will talk like intelligent human beings. Or you can continue dancing for lolz for us. Its all the same to me.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
Equally relevant no matter the time period in which it is considered,...
The beliefs you hoist on me are not relevant. I have never called the bible timeless, and it is perfect only in that it is exactly what God intended.
If you want to know what I believe, ask me. Unlike your cohorts, I answer questions put to me. A perk of having a logical worldview.
Don't assume one for me and then build castles in the sky on your assumption.
I'm sure you know what you mean by timeless, but as it isn't my belief, I don't care what you mean by it, so it isn't relevant to me.
Welcome to the English language.
In the university I attended, English was not omniscience.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
Incest and idol worship are clearly prohibited.
So is slavery. You just refuse to accept that the bible makes a distinction between indentured servitude and old south slavery.
Also, incest and idol worship have narrower meanings than slavery, but notice all three carried the same penalty. Death. Wow huh?
That didn't stop either of these things from occuring but they were clearly prohibited anyway.
So was slavery. The guidelines in the bible are not governing slavery, but indentured servitude.
The idea that "clearly prohibiting slavery would not have stopped slavery and therefore would have been pointless to do" is contradicted by these examples.
Which is why you want it to be my argument. Israelis did not believe a human being could own another human being. They believed all men were owned by God, as such, it would be silly for the bible to say something they considered impossible was wrong.
Instead, the bible says, kidnapping (taking by force) and buying and selling a kidnapped human beings is wrong, and punishable by death.
The bible says we should not even treat a person indebted to us as slaves, and should not return a slave into slavery if he escapes into our care.
The bible clearly prohibits slavery, in law and in the spirit of the law.
I've noticed the position has softened. The OP started out saying he was unaware of any verse prohibiting slavery.
I showed several verses. The position now is that those verses are not "clear", though the verses used the word slavery and condemn the behavior with death.
I think we can consider the OP's claim to be adequately debunked.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@n8nrgmi
so are you saying that the bible says slavery is wrong or a sin,
Yes. But its the Bible saying so, not just me. At least now you know.
No. God gave clear instruction how to behave with people indebted to you and paying off that debt with servitude. The word "slave" is used, which anti-theist use to slot in the old South US meaning of that word. But that is not what the Bible means...but that God gave clear instructions on how to partake of that sin?
But I notice again, you have dodged all of my questions and asked an additional one of me. Why do you guys think you don't need to answer questions? Why do you think your questions deserve answers?
The underlying assumption is that the Bible is talking about the slavery of the old south. And Americans assume this without question. In my travels, I've found only Americans do this. Probably because of their history.
God gave guidelines so that we would not wander into sin in such a power lop-sided relationship.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
Do you think that would have stopped slavery? Really?
No of course not,
Then why would God add it in? Thanks for simply answering the question too.
..but it would have stopped the Israelites from doing it
Really? Did the Israelites murder? Is there not a law against murder? It would not have stopped people from doing it.
None-the-less, God did make it clear that it was wrong. You're currently pretending not to have seen the verses.
..and set a clear example for people thousands of years later (us) as to what gods moral standard was (assuming slavery is against his moral standard that is).
What part of, "treating or selling them as a slave, the kidnapper must die. You must purge the evil from among you." do you not understand?
How is the penalty of death not clear? Incidentally, some genius will soon pipe up that the penalty was too harsh. And when I ask him, "penalty for what?" He'll dodge the question and do what we just saw Ludo do. Post a bloated wall-o-text about tangential issues.
You are the one claiming this text is timeless and perfect with no need for revision, not me.
No sir. You are the one assuming my position for me. I don't even know what the atheist means by "timeless", and I doubt it makes sense.
The OP implied that bible did not have a verse opposing slavery. I have posted several. That is a fact.
If you have anything which counters, please post them.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ludofl3x
No, I'm asking you a clear question you're again dodging.Are you saying that god was in fact powerless to stop slavery,
Again no. I'm asking you if you think t would have stopped slavery. Can you answer?...or that he decided not to bother adding this verse because "Eh, people are going to do it anyway"?
Why not just read what I write and answer it instead of this silly spin? Is the question difficult?I don't get it, it's almost like you're saying the bible overblows god's actual practical powers...
But....since god made people according to you, and god either wrote or inspired the bible according to you, and people are flawed and interpretations vary so widely, aren't you then saying god designed people poorly,
No. That is your argument you wish to substitute for mine. The thread is about whether Christian doctrine allows slavery, not whether the Bible is written the way you like. In dodging my question, you've asked me 5 frivolous ones.
If only there were a reliable way to figure out whose interpretation of the book, [snip] is correct!
Lol. If we could, maybe Christianity would flourish on every continent and be the world's leading religion! Maybe Christianity would have influenced human history, literature, and art, and have built schools, hospitals, and orphanages all over the world.... wait....
Lol.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ludofl3x
( ; ) told ya) it says kidnap and sell. I guess you agree the bible says kidnapping and selling a person was wrong, but enslaving them was not. LolWhere does this verse say "slave" or "slavery"?
It doesn't have anything to do with slaves purchased legally from non-Israelite tribes.
The verse says "anyone".
What it unequivocally prohibits is kidnapping.
And selling who you kidnapped. Lol. The verse doesn't say what he wants. Was it not you asking for a verse prohibiting owning a human being?
Sure looks really possible according to American history.
No slave owner actually owned a human being. Just as a thief never actually owns another persons property.
Sure looks really possible according to American history.
Yet here you are condemning the book that prohibited it! Weird huh?
This doesn't prohibit slavery. It says don't return escaped slaves.
Why do you think it says that?
That's not the same thing by a long shot. It could say "Don't own slaves at all." It doesn't.
Yes. It doesn't say what you want. But the letter is not addressed to a slaver owner, so saying don't own slaves at all would have left him free to return the slave! D'oh!
Odd that homosexuals = slave traders = those that kill their parents. It looks like "law breakers" is the real concern here if you look at the wider context of the passage.
Yes, things the bible is against. Its funny to see the atheist contort.
Great! So all we need is the verse showing that any form of chattel slavery is against the law. Which...you haven't been able to produce.
I have. You're in pretend mode. I'm used to it.
That makes this Timothy's opinion.
That's new! It's in the bible, written by an Apostle, saying slavery is wrong, but it's only the writer's opinion. Hee! Hee!
Not to mention the bible has passages allowing....
And here we he to the real reasons for the pretense, so the atheist can throw out everything he has against God. Soon we'll see the kitchen sink come flying out.
Feel free to make this case.
Thanks so much for offering an argument for me, but I think I'll stick to the Bible's contradiction of the OP's claim.
What part of, "treating or selling them as a slave, the kidnapper must die. You must purge the evil from among you." do you not understand?
Note that it is wrong even to treat another person as a slave. This verse has the word slave. Maybe because it's not plural, you can keep up your pretense?
If any of your fellow Israelites become poor and sell themselves to you, do not make them work as slaves.
Yep. It's obvious the Bible loves and condones slavery, just as that UN loves and condones war! You must purge that evil from among you! But it sure is great!
That is how those passages read to the anti-theist with his obtuse glasses on. Hilarious.
Created:
Posted in:
I've had this debate many times with atheists. It always goes the same way.
First they will claim there is no verse against slavery.
When I post one, they say it is only for Israelis, not gentiles.
When I show it prohibits slavery for anyone, they complain that it isn't worded how they like!
But only half of them. One half simply keeps pretending they haven't seen the verse, the other half pretends it isn't clear.
When you ask them how the UN can have rules governing war, they will quickly move the goal posts. But if they claim the bible condones slavery by having rules governing slavery, how can they not say that the UN condones war by having rules governing war?
Whether the UN can control war makes no difference to the principle. And if the UN could control war, it would need no rules governing war!
After all this, a few weeks later, you will find yet another thread claiming that the bible doesn't prohibit slavery, and the process starts again. Often with the same players.
Its as if they want/need the bible to be silent on slavery. It probably is such a long held, deep seated, core belief, that it disorients them to find out it isn't true.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ludofl3x
But it seems to have skipped the verse that very clearly and simply states "Don't own another human being as property."
Yet another stubbornly unaware atheist. Right after a post containing 5 (count em) verses prohibiting slavery!
All of it could have been solved with a commandment or a saying from Jesus someplace, but nope!
Ever notice that the people willfully disobeying God's known commandments are the very ones asking why He didn't make extra ones? Lol!
Eze 18:4 - Behold, all souls are mine; as the soul of the father, so also the soul of the son is mine: the soul that sinneth, it shall die.
It is impossible for a human being to own another human being, so the bible makes no law against impossibilities. Just as it does not forbid the artificial creation of life. Cannot be done.
Each of the posters so far have dodged the verse unequivocally prohibiting slavery for anyone, and focused on the verse saying it was wrong for Israelites, so I will post it here again.
Exodus 21:16 - Anyone who kidnaps someone is to be put to death, whether the victim has been sold or is still in the kidnapper’s possession.
Perhaps they may stumble as they jump to dodge it this time.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
Untrue.Jews were forbidden from enslaving their fellow Jews but permitted to enslave foreigners at will.
Exodus 21:16 - Anyone who kidnaps someone is to be put to death, whether
the victim has been sold or is still in the kidnapper’s possession.
this idea of god not really caring what race you are only starts to appear in the new testament.
Again untrue. Exodus is the second book of the bible, written some 6,000 years before the new testament. And the verse says, "anyone" who kidnaps "someone".
Does the UN have the power to end all wars forever?
Does the bible? Can you hear that goal post move? The OP implied that there was no verse explicitly forbidding slavery. I have posted several.
You next comment has so many delicious answers, I'm going to answer it several times...
Did god have the power to add a verse saying "Slavery is not permitted under any circumstances"?
Sure. Did the UN have the power to add an article saying " war is not permitted under any circumstance?
Did god have the power to add a verse saying "Slavery is not permitted under any circumstances"?
Do you think that would have stopped slavery? Really?
Did god have the power to add a verse saying "Slavery is not permitted under any circumstances"?
What part of, "treating or selling them as a slave, the kidnapper must die. You must purge the evil from among you." do you not understand?
There. Nice.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
The U.S. has been using military violence in an attempt to end supposed nonsense for decades now and got nowhere.
No sir. Untrue. Every time sensible Americans have tried to use military force, the bleeding heart moron liberals start crying that people shouldn't die in wars.
You cripple our military and then cry that they aren't effective.
The only real diplomatic solution to the problem would be if the Israelis were to remove themselves form the region.
Lol. Right, there are many burglars who think the same way about my house.
As I have suggested before an area of the Southern U.S. would do just fine for them.
Do you own the Southern US? And why should Israel move away from their land and be closer to you? Especially with the ..."issues" you have with ....semitic people?
Especially as you are all such great pals.
My pals all have land. Jordan would be nice for the Palestinians though, that is where they're from anyway.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
I'm not asking who is throwing the stones. I'm asking who is instigating the violence.
The ones throwing the stones. You know, the tolerant, inclusive, antifa.
The manipulated media will...
Aha! You know the media is manipulated?
...broadcast what it wants to broadcast Big Bro.
Sure, but faking buildings burning in Berkeley is kinda hard to fake.
And the obsequious arrogance of the Orange Man and the Zionist should tell you what the Right has to offer.
Certainly not antisemitism at least.
(Gentle Reader, You may have wondered, "huh? When did Zionists come in?" They see Jews around every corner these jackboots.For them, Zionists are behind every evil.)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
True. At some point, the choices for Israel boil down to surrender, or hell no.
I think Israeli surrender is less likely than Palestine dropping the idea of unlimited right of return.
We need to stop ignoring reality. War is inevitable, and this time, if Israel has any sense, it will end this nonsense.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Trumps plan is to force the Palestinians to open their eyes to reality. It is brilliant.
What liberals will not tell us here are two things. First, that for the first time, Islamic countries like Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Kuwait, Oman, and Bahrain are not outright against the plan.
The second thing is, they will not fess up to a history of failed peace attempts. They can only fail, and attack others who try.
For the first time in history, it isn't the Muslim world against a western peace plan for Palestinians. Trump did that.
Created:
Posted in:
i'm not aware of any verses that forbids slavery.
Exodus 21:16 - Anyone who kidnaps someone is to be put to death, whether the victim has been sold or is still in the kidnapper’s possession.
What you've done here is called posting from ignorance.
How about this one?
Deut 23:15 - If a slave has taken refuge with you, do not hand them over to their master.
Or this one?
Deut 24:7 - If someone is caught kidnapping a fellow Israelite and treating or selling them as a slave, the kidnapper must die. You must purge the evil from among you.
How about from the New Testament?
1 Timothy 1:10 - for the sexually immoral, for those practicing homosexuality, for slave traders and liars and perjurers—and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine
...but i can find some that allows it.
Untrue. You can find verses that set rules governing slavery, but none that allow it.
The rules of war, or international humanitarian law (as it is known formally) are a set of international rules that set out what can and cannot be done during an armed conflict. ... The rules of war are universal. The Geneva Conventions (which are the core element of IHL) have been ratified by all 196 states.
The law of war refers to the component of international law that regulates the conditions for war and the conduct of warring parties. Laws of war define sovereignty and nationhood, states and territories, occupation, and other critical terms of international law.
Do you think the UN advocates war? “Allows” war? I bet you aren't confused when it’s the UN regulating something considered wrong. Lol.
Here is a parting verse to help with your awareness.
Leviticus 25:39 - If any of your fellow Israelites become poor and sell themselves to you, do not make them work as slaves.
Because I know this will come up, note here that a person can "sell" themselves and still not be a slave.
Here comes the damage control from the Christians
Lol! From you being admittedly cluelessly unaware, to causing "damage" all in one post? Funny.
Created:
Posted in:
There will never be a solution until the Palestinians give up the delusion that Israel is their land.
Thank God we finally have a President not hoodwinked by that nonsense.
Created:
-->
@rbelivb
Yes. He may think he's advocating equality of outcomes, but he is either confused, stupid, or dishonest.So, are you saying that someone advocating for closing the wealth gap isn't actually advocating equality of outcomes?
And what is redistribution of wealth? Who "distributes" wealth? Wealth is generated by working people, it is not doled out by governments.
Taking wealth from wealth generators and giving it to deadbeats does not move us closer to an equality of outcomes, it does not reduce the wealth gap, for lazy deadbeats soon become destitute again, and it insults the idea of equality of opportunity.
I'm confused as to what your definition is of outcomes.
You must think "outcomes" is, here Pedro, take this $1,000. There, you have a free thousand so your "outcome" has been improved.
That is ludicrous. "Outcomes" is what Pedro does with the thousand. Does it increase his wellbeing and the wellbeing of society?
If history is any indication, Pedro buys drugs with 250, buys alcohol with 250, gambles away 250, and pays a people smuggler 250 to illegally sneak in his nephews, Julio, Fernando, and Octavio.
Outcomes are much worse.
With people, outcomes cannot be guaranteed. Its a liberal illusion.
Created:
Posted in:
-->@Historybuff
you know what you can fk off with you libel accusations.
lol you are ashamed of your constant attacks on people who can't defend themselves so you attack others who point them out. That is right on point for you.
Can't block everyone can you muftar?
Calling for fiscal responsibility is not an attack, but calling everyone racist is.
You really need a safe space. Lol
Created:
Posted in:
And how many 2nd generation immigrant families are on welfare?
Very, very many. Too many. How many 2nd generation morons are terrorists? Same answer.
Not much. None if you deduct their cost to society.How much value to do those immigrants add to society?
Created:
-->
@rbelivb
How is that a distinction?
They are starkly different?
Neither one is totally possible,...
No. Equality of outcomes isn't possible AT ALL. We can't even deliberately move closer to it.
..but we can move closer or further away from equality.
Equality in what? Equality in outcomes is totally unpredictable and unstable.
If there is less of a gap in wealth, influence, etc, between various groups, then don't they have more equal outcomes?
No. Because outcomes are determined by more than wealth, influence, etc. Outcomes cannot be controlled, but opportunity can. This one of those illogical things liberals seem not to be able to comprehend are illogical.
Your intent is benevolent, but your method will only increase poverty and disillusion because it is based on an untruth.
Created:
It isn't. Equality of opportunity is what was said, and it is a goal, the closer we can get to it, the better.How is it logically possible for everyone to have identical opportunities in the real world...
Equality of outcomes is tautology. It isn't possible. It cannot be a goal. That is a real distinction.
Created:
Posted in:
But you reeeally wanted me to make it right?Who'd have guessed the best way to get you to zip it...
Liberals are always surprised when theists "eh" on them. They view themselves as so wonderful, the theist must want to talk to them, or else he's afraid to do so.
...irony isn't quite dead yet!
Zip it! Tell me! Zip it! Tell me!
No ludo, irony isn't dead at all.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@David
Thanks, but since reports may not actually represent the CoC state of the board, and the vast number of those reports come from one person, I meant, when you examine those reports, has behavior improved or not?
I will redouble my effort and encourage theists to do the same.
Created:
-->
@Stephen
So what?
Lol. That is your defense?
Hee hee!
Created:
Posted in:
It wouldn't be correct to scribble the name Jesus out of the bible and replace it with "God" for the simple reason that this is not what is written.
Deb thinks truth, accuracy, and precision are overrated.
But groups! Oh now, Deb believes groups are the thing. Especially singing groups.
For Deb, groups cannot be overrated.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
We're imitating you genius. Like it?And I notice both you and Ethang Popoff have avoided the question concerning Satan?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
Not to mention the historical record that is much more conclusive than the records for Plato or Isaac Newton.I'll take the authority of the church as being legitimate enough of a basis.
Created:
-->
@Stephen
Not sure what it is you're saying there Brother,
Join the club. Hardly anyone knows what Dee Dee is trying to say.
...but I did point out first that ethang - Popoff - 5 should speak for himself and not the whole membership when he used the inclusive "we" as if he had the agreement and support of the whole fkn membership here, which he doesn't.
I didn't use the "we" genius, the person I was speaking to claimed we didn't like Dee Dee because Dee Dee was was speaking the truth. So I asked,
"Is that why we don't like him, or is that why you think we don't like him?"
If either you or Dee Dee were not suffering from poor reading comprehension, you would see that I did not claim anyone disliked Dee Dee. I spoke for no one but me. In effect, I was asking, "Why do you say we don't like Dee Dee?" Not saying "We don't like Dee Dee."
Again, using the term "we" which includes the entire membership.
The person I was asking the question of said we didn't like Dee Dee. How did you and Dee Dee graduate from high school with such dismal reading comprehension?
I like Dee Dee. They're creepy as hell, but generally, I like clowns.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
The ones who dodge questions and pretend not to see replies, yes.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@David
Can you give us an update on how things are going in your opinion?
Has the board gotten better, stayed the same or gotten worse?
Created:
-->
@rbelivb
Really? An equality of outcomes is a logical impossibility in the real world, and an equality of opportunity is the only fair way to run a society....not a real distinction.
The distinction seems sharp.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SirAnonymous
Amen, and amen.SirAnonymous, unworthy child of the only worthy King. To Him be all the glory.
:::sniff:::
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
I have asked why is life so cheap to this god?
You have not shown that life is cheap to this God.
Oh I am sorry, did you miss this>>
No. A bible passage and your personal interpretation are not the same thing.
The bible makes no argument for you genius. You must make your own.
As I told you, you seem to think posting a verse is itself an argument, it isn't.
That God considers life, which He owns, cheap, is your opinion. It is based on ignorance. That is why you can't answer questions put to you.
Dodging questions after making a charge is itself a form of dishonesty. You dodge questions because you are empty. A fraud only interested in accusations, never truth.
And I can promise you, I will point out your fakery for longer than you can dodge. Every time you post one of these fake threads, I will shine a light on your emptiness, and show everyone how vacuous your claims are, and how you can't defend them.
You might want to establish a permanent line to the mods cause you're going to be crying to them often if you think my destroying your bogus claims are attacks.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
A politicians answer.
It is the truth no matter what spin you put on it.
But who instigates the violence when pro-abortionists march?
Pro-abortionists. a.k.a. antifa.
If pro-abortionists were left alone to march peacefully, isn't it extremely unlikely that they would want to attack themselves?
Yes. Which is why they attack cars and buildings when there are no people with opposing beliefs for them to attack.
Therefore isn't it also fair to say that when pro-lifers march, that they are left alone and allowed to protest peacefully?
History and facts contradict you. Marches by the left invariably turn violent, they either attack the police, others they view as having non-liberal points of view, or they smash cars and set buildings on fire.
Which would logically imply that pro-lifers are the ones most likely to be responsible for the violence at pro-abortionist marches.
There was no logic in what you said. It was pseudo-logic contortion not reflected in reality.
Only liberals attack speakers at universities, only liberals attack govt. officials eating at restaurants. We watched video after video of the "tolerant" left assaulting and abusing people and police officers alike.
And this is why Trump will win again and the right is ascending in countries all over the world. Liberals just don't get it. Reality makes no dent in the liberal fantasy world. They deny the truth all around them till Orange Man is in the White House, then stumble around babbling about Collusion, quid-pro-quo, and impeachment like deranged morons.
These days, the violent demonstrations are all on TV, and its almost always progressive liberals throwing the stones and assaulting people.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ludofl3x
I always feel free. I need a voiced affirmative. You say X is immoral, I say X is not. So what?I already said feel free.
We can uselessly continue slapping "moral" or "immoral" on individual actions, or we can work out a formula to determine when an action is moral.
Final time. Do you agree to the both of us working out a way to judge the morality of actions BEFORE we start judging specific actions?
If your answer is anything other than a yes, then have a nice day.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
I'm not an idiot, so I know the word "discover" has more than one meaning...therefore when Jesus is omniscient and discovers nothing like you explicitly stated, then Jesus' words that state "and the Lord will discover their secret parts" is moot, and a lie made by Jesus because He doesn't have to discover anything, remember?
The verse does not say "perceive" Dee Dee. Reading comprehension again?Therefore, what did Jesus perceive to be a woman's "secret parts?"
Reread my comment slowly.
Of course you are completely clueless that words have more than one meaning, and that "discover" can mean something other than what your perverted mind thinks."
Lol!! Will that include grammar, logic, and reading comprehension? Lord knows you're qualified to teach those.I will be giving him a class and subject matter on how to create a new topic of his own...
Lol. Comic relief.
Created:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
Can you contradict it?Can you substantiate your quote above 100%?
Since when do you get the authority to make decisions for the entire membership?
I made no decision Dee Dee. I only told you what they think. I didn't make them think that. You did.
Who appointed you as the spokesman for DEBATEART regarding my godly presence upon this forum?
Probably the same idiot who called your presence "godly".
As explicitly shown, ethang5 has not, and I repeat, has not addressed the main topic of this thread,..
You haven't either, and you created the thread Dee Dee!
Really Dee Dee, when you have nothing to say, making a vacuous thread is silly.
Created:
-->
@bmdrocks21
Two years isn't long enough.
Some things cannot be cut without a court order or two thirds of congress, and a majority party may still not have a two thirds majority.
In most cases, the minority party still has enough votes to block cuts or use activist judges to block policy.
Which is what happened.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ludofl3x
You're conflating a legal argument with a moral argument, they're not the same.
No I'm not. I'm saying we need to start out by agreeing to a standard of how we determine whether an action is moral or not.
You want us to simply decide this or that action is moral, and this or that action is not. No. Let's agree on how we decided that, and only then, judge actions.
It's never moral at any age to torture an animal, for example.
Are you saying there is an objective morality? Is a two year old immoral for torturing an animal? Can a two year understand the concept required to be charged with immorality?
Is it ever moral to drown a newborn?
You want us to jump to judging moral actions when we have not agreed on a system of deciding what is moral and what is not.
It's never moral to commit a genocide, can we agree on that?
Not yet. Yes, we agree that genocide is immoral, but how do you decide an action is genocide?
Feel free
Not good enough. Do you agree we first decide together how to determine whether an action is moral or not? If you aren't going to go through the process with me, we are only going to state what we see as moral or immoral and never come to an understanding on what morality even is.
Let me give you an example.
Ludo and Eth do a math problem, 8+4=?. Both of them answer 12
The teacher then asks Ludo, why did you answer 12 Ludo? And Ludo says, "Because when I subtract either 8 or 4 from 12, I get the other number in the equation."
Then the teacher asked Eth the same question, and he answers, "Because 12 is my lucky number."
Both Eth and Ludo answered 12, the "correct" answer, but Eth obviously has no clue of what addition is.
So it is with morality. Anyone can say genocide is immoral, but how did you decide that an action is genocide? There are people who call the allies fight against Hitler's Germany a genocide, and want to put Winston Churchill in prison. I don't think such people have a clue of what morality is.
So, will you work with me on figuring out when actions are moral? If not, then have a nice day.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
I like you. You are positive for the board. If you come back, you will be welcomed.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Are you not simply selectively moral relative to your conditioned sensibilities?
That house that antifa burned down killed no one. But Sulimani did kill people. See, the aggressor is not morally equal to the innocent in my moral code. I am morally selective yes, but relative to reality
I am selectively morally outraged relative to the moral guilt or innocence of the person in question.
I don't buy the crazy liberal idea of moral equivalence.
Irrespective of which crowd marches. Who instigates the violence?
There is no violence when pro-life marches.
Created: