Total posts: 5,875
-->
@ludofl3x
Feel free to start a topic and argue for the restrictions I guess.
What's wrong with this tread?
But you, and most other atheists never give us a chance to present our argument.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
I was answering another person genius, and the "you" on my post refers to him, not you. Stop being stupid.IRRELEVANT!!!!!!!. It is on this thread. It concerns the subject matter of this thread - MY FKN thread
I have shown you FOUR FKN times now that you are WRONG.... AGAIN!!!!
The only thing you've shown is that your reading comprehension is pretty poor. You made a mistake and thought my post to Dee Dee was to you. I was not wrong. You were.
Just leave thread.
No.
"Not a single verse you offered mentioned baptism,"
So ffs stop with your persistent lies and denials just for the fkn sake of it
The "you" in my comment above refers to Dee Dee genius. So I could not be referring to your verses. Think homer.
I couldn't care less about your opinion.
GOOD then leave the fkn thread .It is that simple!!
No. There is no reason for me to obey some crackpot yelling on the net.
QUESTIONS GONE UNANSWERED BY THE RESIDENT DEVOUT.
I could make 5 separate threads on the questions of mine you've dodged.
Answer questions yourself shaheed. Otherwise your lame questions get tossed.
And stop yelling. Your rants are not why people are here.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
But Bernie can't win. He comes across like a grouchy old crackpot. That anyone can think he would make a good candidate against Trump is amazing.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
What any sane human being would determine was personally "bad", as in bad for him.What do you mean by empirically bad?
The phrase "personal tastes" inherently has the implication that the subject is not one of great importance. Morality on the other hand is generally considered to be an important subject.
I don't mean to give that impression. I'm approaching it from the context of "moral authority" and our personal tastes hold no moral authority over other people.
Therefore the answer to your question is "personal tastes and moral judgements differ in that they are ascribed different levels of importance".
That's different. I don't think I agree. For no matter how much importance you ascribe to your personal morality or taste, it never becomes morally binding for me.
But I do agree that moral values are generally considered more serious than personal tastes.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Calling a post by Athias well stated is like calling Meagan Markle beautiful. Tell us something that isn't already blazingly obvious you brute!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
You position is internally rational.
My issue with people on both sides of the morality argument is when they refuse to accept the logical consequences of their beliefs.
You for example, cannot call any action immoral, because you do not believe morality exists. You can only call actions different from other actions.
And though I suspect you would kill or rape, your reasons for not doing so are flimsy. I am cautious of the moral solidity of materialists.
Created:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
What I'd like to know is why Dee Dee mentions me in every thread. Hey Dee Dee, are you obsessed with me? Because I haven't even began to burn you yet. If you're thin skinned, good advice would be to get over your obsession. Just sayin."
WHENEVER ANYONE MAKES A STATEMENT LIKE YOURS, THEY ARE SCARED! YOUR RIGHTFUL POSITION IS DULY NOTED.
Wow. All caps and all bold. I think Dee Dee, that your obsession with me is better evidence that you're scared.
This isn't even to mention that you run away from my questions. A sure sign of fear. I still don't know why, other than an unhealthy obsession, you have to mention me in all of your posts.
You are probably so lost in your haze, you don't know why yourself.
I will give you a reason to be obsessed.
Created:
-->
@Deb-8-a-bull
Or what their God might tell them next, if you're ignorant about the bible. Its been 2,000 years deb8. Buy a clue.It sounds like ........You can never guess what it is that they might make their God tell them next.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Steven are you a JW or former JW?
Neither,
Then why do you refer to John as only the JW's do? The name John the Baptizer comes from their corrupt NWT translation of the Bible.
If you were never a JW, what were you? Cause we know all militant anti-theists are usetabee "christian" something's.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
You are LYING AGAIN!!! those verses are there and you are simply LYING AGAIN to disrupt the thread MY THREAD... AGAIN. You claimed falsely that
"Not a single verse you offered mentioned baptism",
Look at who that post is addressed to genius. It isn't you, unless you and Dee Dee are the same person. Your IQ's match.
Here are those verses that you keep denying have the word "baptism in them"...... AGAIN!!!
I did not deny any verses have the word "baptism in them poor reader. I denied any verse said we are saved by baptism.
Dee Dee then offered some verses that he claimed were supposed to show that baptism saves. None of the verses he offered spoke of baptism. You, in your clueless haze, somehow think that post is to you and you begin foaming at the mouth.
You have offered no verse saying that baptism saves. When you do, you won't need to cackle like a crazy person, I will address it.
Nothing you have posted here has gone anywhere in rebutting my opinion that John and Jesus were rivals.
I couldn't care less about your opinion.
Now stop your unnecessary argumentative behavior and start answering those questions or simply leave the fkn thread . It is not a hard choice.
If it isn't, why is it so hard for you to answer questions?
I've asked you three times now about the verses you offered that talk about the " baptism of repentance", and each time you've dodged, while buttaching about not having your insipid questions answered.
No one is here for your grilling homer. If you run away from questions, it proves your intent is trollish.
I asked you before. Why do you think anyone will answer your never ending questions when you never answer any?
Grow a spine Abdul. You posted the verses, answer questions put to them.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
Yes, that is the whole idea, Jesus to ethang5, hello? You can't admit it, because you have to try and save face within this forum,
Since silly comments like this are not arguments, I can dismiss them.
We have verses stating one needs to be baptized to remove your sins, as shown,
You've shown no such verse. Your ignorant assumptions are not scripture.
then we have verses that just say you will be saved regardless of baptism and the removal of sins.
Untrue again. No verse says this.
Salvation and baptism in the total verses shown are 180 degrees apart, and even your Satanic thinking has to admit this,
They aren't, except in your confused mind. When I challenged you, you posted verses talking about repentance.
And to prove it conclusively, you dodged the questions to you.
You think salvation and baptism are "180 degrees apart" because you are ignorant. Which is why you dodge questions so that your ignorance doesn't show. You've failed on that front.
"Why would we be calling and confessing if we haven't repented? Think Dee Dee. Even you said..."
That’s it?
No. It's lacking your answer.
This is the best you can do regarding the question of no repentance is needed in the following passages?!
I cited no verses. You did, and I've asked you why would we be calling and confessing, as the verses you offered say, if we haven't repented?
You are now doing a Stephen obtuse jig around the question. We will wait.
Within context, there is absolutely no repentance needed...
The verses talk about confessing sins DeeDee. The context is repentance. Which is why you can't answer, why would we be calling on Jesus and confessing our sins if we have not repented.
Unrepentant people do not confess their sins in calling the Savior. You really need to think.
Therefore, in prayer with Jesus today, He told me to...
I will send you a smart phone if you promise to record your demo...sorry, your god the next time he talks to you. Deal?
"Our genius thinks baptism is for remission of sins.”
You're still clueless. And you still cannot present any verses saying that baptism saves.
You can't explain how Judas, who was baptised, was not saved, or how the thief on the cross, who was never baptized, was saved.
You did present verses talking about the "baptism of repentance", but when I asked you what that was, you ran away.
Come on Dee Dee, tell us again how embarrassed I am while I dismember your non-argument and make you run from questions.
Lol.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Deb-8-a-bull
Not off the top of my head but would not be surprised if there was such an act. My guess is one can be found with a good enough semantic trick.
Created:
-->
@ludofl3x
Except neither you nor he can demonstrate that this explanation, or start of an explanation, has one thing required to be valid: existence.
I remember PGA saying it was a better and more plausible explanation than saying nothing brought forth the universe. And he is right.
You are demanding we show it to be true, when even science cannot do that. What we do say however, is that it is logically consistent, and more reasonable, and more than what atheism offers.
If we can't do that, then god is on the same playing field as the fairies and the grecoroman pantheon and mind in a vat.
Untrue. The Christian God has logical validity. Fairies do not. There are many facts in science that were found to be logically true long before empirical evidence was found for them.
You want to pretend that theoretical logic is of no value.
I can agree with you that SOMETHING caused the universe. I need to understand the path you follow from that nebulous something to your own conclusioin.
You are right. But you, and most other atheists never give us a chance to present our argument. You insist we offer proof of God in one sentence immediately.
If something caused the universe, can we agree on some logical restrictions about this something?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Not a single verse you offered mentioned baptism,
Now that is just outright lies for the sake of fkn lying.
I don't know if you're coming unhinged, but that post you answered was addressed to Dee Dee, not you.
Here are the verses he offered.
For “everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.” (Romans 10:13)
"If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness." (1 John 1:9)
"For if you forgive others their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you, but if you do not forgive others their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses." (Matthew 6:14-15)
“Judge not, and you will not be judged; condemn not, and you will not be condemned; forgive, and you will be forgiven. (Luke 6:37)
Tell us which one speaks about baptism?
Every single one of those verses mentions baptism and its reasons. Why are you blatantly lying!??
Maybe you think I'm lying because, unlike you, I can read?
John appeared, baptizing in the wilderness and proclaiming a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins.
What is the baptism of repentance?
Is it the repentance or the baptism that saves?
I told you that the bible does not say that baptism saves. You post a verse saying that we must repent to be saved. Where is the problem?
I showed you that Judas was baptized, but was never saved, and the thief on the cross was never baptized, but was saved.
You dodged all of that and spent 3 paragraphs of your lame post ranting about unrelated stupidity.
Your posts don't make sense Pedro. Your questions are based on silly assumptions, and when you are asked for clarifications, you rant like a street-corner lunatic.
Calm down. If your position is so strong, why are you ranting and cursing?
What is your point? That John doubted? So what? All men doubt. The bible says so.
Christians do not need to answer the dumb questions that occur to you because they do not make the invalid assumptions you do. They know those questions come from ignorance.
We also see that you aren't interested in dialogue, you just want to rant, so we treat you accordingly.
If you want to be respected, act respectfully.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
The only people who refer to John as "John the baptizer" are Jehovah witnesses.John the baptizer actually baptized people,...
It would not surprise me one bit if Steven is a JW. The poor reading comprehension and the disjointed logic is typical.
Steven are you a JW or former JW?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
Hey Dee Dee, as you can see, the verses you offered said, "baptism of repentance"."
Yes!
So is it the repenting or the baptising that washes away sin Dee Dee?
(Our Stephen clone runs away.)
Why don't you geniuses know that dodging questions ruins your entire pretend world?
The verses you offered contradict you.
I'm the one who should make you look ignorant, I can do so without your help.
Why would anyone be calling on and confessing to God if they had not repented?
Can't you do the silly "True Christian" routine and still answer questions? Are you a one trick pony?
...once again, SORRY! :(
No need to apologize homer. You did well. You showed once again that your posts are empty, and you are ignorant of the subject you are ranting about.
I am traveling in my Salvation Bus towards Nevada to save even more courtesans in their ungodly Houses of Ill Repute.
Use protection. "Real Christians" do not get STD's.
Created:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
I was in DEBATEART at the time "incognito" with another handle that I use in other forums around the net,
Why am I not surprised that you infect other forums with your silly "True Christian" shtick in all bold and all caps too?
But the phrase you slipped up on was C&P Franklin. See, it's a little to specific for two different people to have come up with it....and Icon was there, and I realized what a great word "pseudo-christian" is relative to FAKE Christians like you!
Advice? Stop talking when you're busted.
I will venture forth and show fake Christians like ethang5, Dr. Franklin, PGA.2, et al, just how wrong they are in Jesus' name.
You do that Dee Dee, and I will continue to toss you for lolz. OK?
Lol. Where do these geniuses come from?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TwoMan
If your action violated my moral code then I would find you to have acted immorally. I do have the moral authority to do that.
I don't mean you cannot say it. I mean your saying it means nothing to whether I have really been immoral or not.
Let me quickly try to explain "authority" in the context of morality. It is very different from "authority" in the context of legality.
A husband has moral authority to sexually touch his wife. A father has the moral authority to make decisions for his child. Your doctor has the moral authority to cut into your body.
Anyone can touch your wife sexually, or make decisions for a child, or cut you, but not everyone has the moral authority to do those things.
I just don't have the legal authority to do anything about it.
You would have to be King or Dictator to be able to "do something" about someone breaking your personal moral code.
That is the definition of fascism and tyranny. Judging and punishing others based on your personal tastes.
His moral code would be frowned upon in this culture. Do you find him to be immoral?
Yes, but not because he broke my personal moral code.
Do you have the moral authority to make such a determination?
If the moral code I used to do so is an "ought" for everyone, yes. If it is my personal moral code, Sulimani is not morally obligated to observe it.
Do you have the legal authority to assassinate him? No. Did our president? Possibly.
Legal authority is not the same as moral authority.
What about two people who share the same moral code but still disagree as to whether your action was immoral? Happens all the time.
Illogical. If they share the same moral code, they cannot judge the same action differently. A moral code is like a standard of measure. You are saying two people using the same unit of measurement can come to different answers for a fixed distance.
Then it's not so much a moral code being about personal taste, but the interpretation and implementation of the code that appears to be personal taste but is more likely a matter of different data processing, emotion and other influences.
Again illogical, for this view renders standards as irrelevant. A moral code is a standard, like the meter. It is not subject to interpretation. It cannot be if it is to be useful.
Can you imagine how much choas would ensue if everyone had their own "interpretation" for how long a meter was?
A non-religious moral code is not necessarily personal taste.
I did not say it was.
It can be based on any number of things.
And if those things were chosen by the person themselves, then it is based on their personal tastes.
Hopefully logically sound concepts that can show a demonstrable and agreed upon "good" and "bad.
Do you know any moral code agreed upon by all? Even if we restrict it to only your culture?
There was a time everyone believed sacrificing a virgin was "good". True morality should not be about how many people "agree".
Consistency is also important, otherwise it might look a lot like personal taste if your definition of good and bad are constantly vacillating.
That is exactly what happens! And when definitions of good and bad constantly vacillate, it cannot be anything other than taste.
Any society is fine to pick their morality based on anything they think works for them, but if the bases is personal taste, that morality lacks the moral authority to be an "ought" to anyone not sharing those tastes.
And so our societies fester with jails, prisons, police, armies, judges and courts. Everyone following his own tastes and expecting others do so too.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
The issue I find with your query is that your intention is to exclude personal tastes
Not really my intention. I will explain below.
Morality in part is based on personal tastes.
True. And I am asking, first, should it be? And second, if it is based on personal tastes, how can anyone's personal tastes be an "ought" for another person?
Morality as a framework for social interaction ought to offer each individual his or her own optimal path to pursuing his or her happiness/contentment.
Then the system of everyone having his own moral code has not worked very well has it? This is why we have jails, police, and courts.
My point is that when morality is used only as a framework for social interaction, and is based on personal taste, moral chaos is the only possible result. So societies produced a "morality" and officers to force us into a single moral code called the law.
"Bad" is anything that violates or infringes on an individual's capacity to pursue his or her self interest through a (morally) consistent framework.
But everyone has a different idea of what a morally consistent framework is. This is saying how things ought to be. But things are never that way, and have never been that way. Your comment amounts to the impotent "We should all get along".
And one last point: morality is not about that which we can do. After all, we can do anything. It's about that which we ought to do,
Thank you! And what we ALL ought to do cannot be set by the personal tastes of a few. "Ought" implies a moral imperative for all.
I'm asking, "What makes a morality an ought?"
If you believe like Zed, that morality is only subjective, then no morality is an "ought" for everyone. Only people who accept a certain moral code are bound to that morality.
If you believe, like I do, that there is a moral code that IS an ought for everyone, then that moral code is the most coherent standard on which to base a framework for social interaction.
..an argument that's fundamentally normative. And therefore, subject to personal values.
Not necessarily. This is true only if we first accept the materialist's view of reality.
And still, the materialist must tell us why we should follow his moral code, and why we are immoral if we don't.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
So you are staunchly materialistic and do not believe morality actually exists.
I disagree with you, but we cannot debate about a concept you believe doesn't exist.
I do support your right to believe as you wish though.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TwoMan
To desire is to be human. There is no immorality in thinking that something is desirable.
Agreed.
Acting upon a desire that might harm another in some way is what is immoral (according to my moral code).
OK. If I acted upon my desire that, in your estimation, harmed another person in some way, but I disagreed about whether it did harm another person, would you judge my action by my moral code that absolves me, or your moral code that convicts me?
If you say I did not act immorally, then morally to you is based on personal taste. Just that everyone goes by their own personal taste, and you can never can never call another person's action immoral if their personal moral codes absolves them.
If you say I did act immorally, then you are judging me by your moral code and ignoring mine. You don't have the moral authority to do that. There is no reason for another person's actions to judged by your moral code.
That would be my personal moral code that is based on empathy, logic and the wisdom of humanity through the ages.
But clearly people interpret those things differently. Sulimani has access to the same "wisdom of humanity through the ages" and yet had a very different morality to yours. And his morality was probably closer to his great grandfather than your morality is to yours.
Does a given action fall closer to one end of the scale or the other? That determines if the action is immoral.
That is rational, but is still based on your personal taste. I still see no real difference between your personal taste and your morality.
I'm on the fence as to whether it is immoral to harm oneself.
I sense an internal contradiction. If you believe this;
An overly simple description of it would be a scale that emphasizes the maximum amount of suffering for all sentient beings at one end and the least amount of suffering at the other. That determines if the action is immoral.
Then why is your own action directed towards yourself exempt?
I think you have stumbled across one of the 3 truths of morality. #3. Morality is determined by authority, and since we assume we have authority over self, perhaps that authority absolves us.
(The others are #1 - Intent and #2 - Relationship)
I would need to decide if the suffering from my self abuse is greater than whatever pleasure I receive from it.
That is a morality based on pleasure. It is extremely dangerous, as anyone can decide whether the suffering from their abuse of another is greater than whatever pleasure they receive from it. Rapists and child molesters operate on that principle. (NOT implying you are such)
I've read many of your posts and would guess that based on your religious nature, you would consider self abuse to be immoral from that perspective.
Yes, I think self abuse is immoral. But we might differ on what "abuse" is. Neither my body or my life is owned by me, thus I cannot morally do just anything with either.
That was a very good post. Just the sort of intellectual exchange I came here looking for. If you can, would it be possible for you to gave some examples of what you consider "self- abuse"?
Created:
-->
@PGA2.0
@ludofl3x
Saying Jesus did anything or bible God or any god, doesn't EXPLAIN anything.
It is part of an explanation. For example, to best understand how my watch disappeared, it is important to know WHO took it, not only how it was taken. The HOW can depend on the WHO.
If it was my wife taking it to engrave a happy 25th anniversary message on the back for me, she knows my safe combination, if it was my neighbors son, he was unmonitored when I left it open.
Answering "God" does explain some things.
He is right. Observe from my example above. If someone should accuse my neighbor's son of taking my watch, he would immediately reply that since he doesn't know the combination to my safe, HOW could he have taken the watch?It doesn't say "how", which is what you seem to be asking ME to do.
You are saying it was not God, so then PGA is asking you how it was done, because only God has the combination to the safe. He is completely right to ask you "how", given your answer for, "who".
You can ask him the same thing too. But given that you've admitted that you don't know how, you cannot possibly know the who.
Now, if we can establish that only my wife knows the combination, and the safe showed no signs of being broken into, then I must conclude it was my wife and not my neighbor's son.
PGA is convinced that only God could have created the universe, and our observation of the universe says everything has a cause, he logically concludes that cause must be God.
So though PGA doesn't yet know the intricate workings of "how", but at least can now eliminate the rabbit's hole of the neighbor's son.
He has part of the explanation. The "who". Much more than you have.
Created:
I read the CoC again and saw this I missed the first time around.
Other Prohibited Conduct:
Contravening or Disregarding Moderation
Failing to obey or adhere to licit orders issued by a mod acting within their authority is prohibited.So I re-read the whole thing. The CoC is much better. It's clearer and has guts.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Alec
Badda-boom!...he loves Greece and I don't know what he ate on Thanksgiving because as a Greek, he hates Turkey.
Lol!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@coal
Time is relative Coal. What to you is "so much?"
I have fast internet and it usually takes me only about 30 minutes to read all the posts in my "must read" list.
I'm also retired, so I get to decide on how my time is spent, with the approval of Mrs. Ethan of course.
Incidentally, you almost made the list, because you are very well educated. But your posts are not often enjoyable. You seem unhappy... grouchy. It's just my personal take, I'm not stating facts.
What do you think of your own sense of humor? Do you value humor?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
I am traveling in my Salvation Bus to Nevada once again to save as many whores as possible...
Translation: crack baby basketball
Lol!!
The Bible Thumping pastor Dee Dee is going to sin city to "save" whores, and he will be offline for a hot minute.
I bet the good pastor comes back from the whorehouse refreshed.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
So.... repentance. Lol....you must be true to your sins and don't do them again!
He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins
Not a single verse you offered mentioned baptism, though every single one spoke of salvation. You are aware of which side of this argument you are on right Dee Dee?
No repentance is needed with the aforementioned inspired by Jesus passages.
For “everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.” (Romans 10:13)
"If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness." (1 John 1:9)
Why would we be calling and confessing if we haven't repented? Think Dee Dee. Even you said...
...you must be true to your sins and don't do them again!
The actual meaning of the word rendered as "repent" in English is "don't do again" or "turn around" or "quit and go the other way".
Why do you make it so easy for me and Stephen? LOL!
It's all for the lolz Dee Dee, all for the lolz.
I am traveling in my Salvation Bus towards...
So you got the clunker working? Or did Jesus Himself come down and grab a wrench for you? Lol.
You go do whatever you all do when you're not afflicting the net with all bold and all caps eyesores. Dee Dee will entertain the troops till you return.
...once again, SORRY! :(
No need to apologize. You did well. We all laughed.... Well, those few who bothered to read your loony post that is. But you did fine. Lolz are always good.
Created:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
But unlike most, he's funny. I like them with a high lolz factor. I do have the Gentle Reader to entertain.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@EtrnlVw
But by deciding which was positive or negative, you did pick the contents.I picked positive and negative, not the contents.
Is positive and negative or what is immoral and moral the discussion at hand?
What makes something immoral or moral is what is the discussion at hand.
Lol what are the other options?
Profitable and unprofitable. Old and new. Pretty and ugly. Caucasian and negroid. Or to the person, what is a "positive" to you, is a negative to them. Or a person may have no "categories" at all.
The bottom line is that you are still picking based on your tastes.
It might be as I admitted I could be wrong.
Sorry. I don't mean to imply that you're wrong. I'm only asking on what are your moral categories based?
However I don't think it is all that complicated to decide whether or not an action is negative or positive.
Sure, but everyone would not all come to the same conclusions about what was negative or positive. The question is not what is negative or positive, but what made something negative or positive.
I expressed no personal taste as far as I know.
Well, that is what I'm trying to find out.
All I did was create two categories. Notice the categories don't say immoral and moral, it's what actions produce a negative or a positive.
Sorry, the thought experiment said we would agree that immoral actions are "bad", and I equated your "negative" to bad. You seem to be placing value on positive and negative. And that is an expression of taste.
For example, could another person decide an action was positive that you thought was negative? Then one or both of you are deciding on personal taste.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TwoMan
Is there anything in the moral code you believe/use that is not your personal taste?
Yes. I won't go into it in detail though.
Fair enough. But now we're getting somewhere.
Suffice it to say that I desire things that would not be morally appropriate to attain.
OK, let's break that down. You're in a restaurant and the guy at the next table is eating something you didn't know you could order but you find it very desirable. It would be wrong to amble over to his table and start eating his food. I'm sure that isn't what you mean by "desiring things that would not be morally inappropriate to attain "right?
So first question, is it the desire itself that that is morally appropriate? Or simply the attaining of what you desire? What exactly is immoral about desiring or attaining what you desire? Is the immorality in how you attain it?
Second question, if we accept that you desire something that would not be morally appropriate to attain, who is it making the law that it would be immoral?
You are not following your desire. What are you following? On what is your belief that this thing would be immoral to attain based if not your desire?
I will understand if you feel the questions too personal.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TwoMan
True. So then let me ask you.
Do you have a moral code?
Is there anything in the moral code you believe/use that is not your personal taste?
Created:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
So Dee Dee slipped up and used the same phrase he used to use as iconoclast? Lol....we all know your Iconoclast
And it was halirious, though you asked him first, he ran away and accused you of running away as he himself ran away!
So much for the TRUE CHRISTIAN shtick.
Created:
What I'd like to know is why Dee Dee mentions me in every thread. Hey Dee Dee, are you obsessed with me?
Because I haven't even began to burn you yet. If you're thin skinned, good advice would be to get over your obsession.
Just sayin.
Created:
Posted in:
This complaint always strikes me as incoherent.
Ever see a jihadist assert America is immoral because we we don't follow Islam? The atheist is doing the same thing with this complaint.
First, he pretends that his particular moral code is objective and universal, and then condemns anyone who doesn't follow it.
All n8nrgmi is saying is that God should follow his personal moral code, and because he doesn't, God is immoral.
Every time I've asked someone espousing this belief why they think God should be bound by their personal moral code, they hurumph. Its self evident. "I wouldn't want to worship a God that didn't follow my personal moral code" they imply.
The basic objection here is that God refuses to submit to them.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
Lol. His other posts cover the other books.
Created:
Posted in:
Its going to be sweet when the senate quashes this bit of democrat stupidity.
And then in a short while, Trump will win the election and we can watch TDS tear the snowflakes apart again.
Good times are coming.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@EtrnlVw
He don't care, since he isn't interested in the answers....do you even know what you ask others to answer?
The genius thinks he's hurting Christianity simply by posting and respamming his clunkers.
Created:
Posted in:
Lol.
This is like watching a slow motion train wreck.
Created:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
Ya gonna striketh me downeth with lightning? LolHOW DARE YOU CONDUCT BLASPHEMY AGAINST THE BIBLE?!
ETHANG5, SATAN THANKS YOU FOR LEAVING THE BIBLE OPEN TO RIDICULE AGAIN!
You're delivering messages for Satan now? Moving up in the world aren't you Dee Dee?
Still hooked on the troll all caps and bolding compulsion huh? What is it with you geniuses?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
Sorry Dee Dee, I'm an adult and I no longer play pretend games online to stroke a weak ego.
Go be a TRUE CHRISTIAN. Have fun.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@EtrnlVw
But you simply picked your own "categories". Someone else might pick different categories, or put different things in the categories you picked. How is this not based on your tastes?
Can your moral code give us an moral action that is empirically "bad"?
According to the categories that would be impossible I would think.
Then that must mean that morality doesn't exist!
Is there a way to tell a personal taste from a moral truth?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@EtrnlVw
But you simply picked your own "categories". Someone else might pick different categories, or put different things in the categories you picked. How is this not based on your tastes?
Can your moral code give us an moral action that is empirically "bad"?
According to the categories that would be impossible I would think.
Then that must mean that morality doesn't exist!
Is there a way to tell a personal taste from a moral truth?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TwoMan
So then, how is morality different from personal tastes?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
Hey Dee Dee, as you can see, the verses you offered said, "baptism of repentance".
Do you know what that is?
Peter replied, "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins,
Is it the repenting or the baptising that washes away sin Dee Dee?
The thief on the cross beside Jesus was never baptised, yet Jesus guaranteed Paradise for him. Judas was baptised, yet Jesus said he was lost.
If you are going to play the role of Christian heretic you thought was so original, it helps to actually know the bible. Hmmm?
While I have you Dee Dee, could you fix your silly posts with the long emptiness at the ends? It makes for needlessly long threads.
I know you have time to fix it, as you obviously aren't using your time to study the bible.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Who said I did think that, princess?
Your repeated posts asking me questions and then buttaching that I don't answer them.
I don't care at all what you don't give about my questions.
And yet you keep asking them and then running away from the answers. Strange no?
When you start answering questions instead of dodging and playing obtuse, people might stop thinking of you as an insignificant troll. I think you would like that, but why you don't do it remains mystery.
Created:
Posted in:
Let us do a thought experiment.
Let us agree that immoral actions are bad.
Not just that immoral actions break a certain moral code, but immoral actions are "not good" in an empirical way.
Given this scenario, is it possible to say why an immoral action is bad?
Sure, we could point to the "bad" an action caused, but that would only prove that the action caused bad in the world, the question remains, even if we all agree that the action caused bad, what makes "bad" immoral?
What makes "bad" of lesser value than good?
So murder is immoral. But exactly why is it immoral? Can there be any reason that is not based on someone's tastes?
Can your moral code give us an moral action that is empirically "bad"?
If it cannot, how is your morality different from your personal tastes?
Created:
Posted in:
Just clean out of answers and explanations and totally redundant aren't you.
You dodge every question of mine, why in the world would you think I give a flying fig about your questions?
And you missed this.
I missed nothing. You said, explain "..to those that give a fk". You dont give a fk.
When you start answering questions instead of dodging and playing obtuse, people might stop thinking of you as an insignificant troll. I think you would like that, but why you don't do it is a mystery.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@janesix
Rom 7:15 - For I do not understand my own actions. For I do not do what I want, but I do the very thing I hate.
Rom 7:16 - Now if I do what I do not want, I agree with the law, that it is good.
Rom 7:17 - So now it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells within me.
Rom 7:18 - For I know that nothing good dwells in me, that is, in my flesh. For I have the desire to do what is right, but not the ability to carry it out.
Rom 7:19 - For I do not do the good I want, but the evil I do not want is what I keep on doing.
Rom 7:20 - Now if I do what I do not want, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells within me.
Rom 7:21 - So I find it to be a law that when I want to do right, evil lies close at hand.
Rom 7:22 - For I delight in the law of God, in my inner being,
Rom 7:23 - but I see in my members another law waging war against the law of my mind and making me captive to the law of sin that dwells in my members
Jane - There is another mind somewhere doing things.
Created:
-->
@Stephen
You are saying that MoPac is not a literal sheep
No...
So you are saying MoPac is a literal sheep?
(No answer from our genius.)
Could not the bible be using different meanings of the words love and hate also?
They are different words. and they do mean TWO DIFFERENT things.
Depends on the meaning genius. Sheep and human are different words too. You called a human a sheep.
(No explanation from our genius)
FFS try reading this contradictory crap for yourself and keep up.
I've read your contradictory crap, and I am trying to get you to stop dodging and address it.
Calling a human a sheep is a contradiction genius. Maybe you don't know what a contradiction is.
Do you?
(The genius dodges the question again)
Try spamming your old post again, maybe it'll confuse people into not noticing you're using hypocritical fakery.
Created: