(January 30, 2016 at 9:38 pm)Nihilist Virus Wrote: I hate to break it to you, but skin color and booty size is not a large amount of variance.  I mean, yes, 99% of running backs and wide receivers are black.  Where do you want to go from there?

Again sport your are arguing with Historical fact not me.
And skin color or color variation if consistent is enough to add a sub species, not to mention hair consistancy and a genetic predisposition to be bigger and stronger than some other races.

Perfect example would be the fact that the American walking hound is about 16" bigger than a beagle has a different hair make up and has a different color variation. Therefore they get a different subspecies classification.

Aside from the physical appearances, their are indeed medical/genetic differences between 'black people' and other races. Ever heard of sickle cell? why do only black people get this affliction? Because their genetic make up is different and it is susceptible to this disease when others are not. This genetic difference sets them apart and makes them unique. Now 100 years ago this difference was indeed recognized accepted and cataloged. Again, that's history, Politically correct or not. It wasn't till Hitler tried to use these genetic differences to justify genocide, that triggered a compromise in our scientific integrity in an effort to try and unify all of under one house or banner.

The point of all of this was to show how even the mighty 'science' serves pop morality, by withholding up popular truth so that society can push propaganda and agenda.

Quote:So? Jesus Himself said they were a perversion of what God intended. He even took acouple apart to show the wickness found in their 'morality.'
You are confusing the laws of the Jews with the law of God. The Jews added to the laws of God and as a result had over 600 does and don't.
as were the law of God.
As i pointed out, Rape was apart of the survival of the species then.
As distastful as it is now, then it ensured a proper genetic diversity. Don't like rape? know somewhere down your genetic line, one of your grandmothers was indeed raped, and you are here because of it.
Not true. Their were commands detailing the minimum age one could be to be married. (which wasn't until they were considered to be adults.) to have sex with someone before they were confirmed to be an adult was punishable by death. (God's law) which if you or your source material just did a 'thou shalt not be a pedophile' google search I could see how one would assume that.
Which subsequently how we know marry to be a virgin. Joseph took her to be his wife, but they were not married. This means he took responsibility (provided for her fed her) till she was old enough to be married. back then that was the only reason to wait to get married.
Again not true.
The command is no one is to have sex outside the confines of a sanctified marriage. or rather a Marriage is the only place to have sanctified sex. which means all other sexual encounters are forbidden. Deu 22 backs into this command by saying a man can marry a woman for the purpose of having sex. This is the only command that sanctifies it in the OT all other examples are forbidden.

The problem here is the same as your 'thou shalt not be a pedophile' claim.. You were looking for an expressed command using the terminology of today. while the terms were not formlized in the OT the principles were indeed spelled out.

maybe if you read a bible you could actually speak intelligently about it, that way you would not have to rely on anti God web sites and bloggers who hate the bible and God to give you a wrong slanted view of it. So that when you get up on your high horse/soap box and begin to arrogantly bestow all the injustices of God, someone who has book chapter and verse won't make you look like a 'stupid head' by contradicting all of the moral points you were so eager to make.

Quote:So? Jesus Himself said they were a perversion of what God intended. He even took acouple apart to show the wickness found in their 'morality.'

You are confusing the laws of the Jews with the law of God. The Jews added to the laws of God and as a result had over 600 does and don't.

If I don't find the absolute morality of God in the Bible, then where do I find it?

It is in the bible, but so is the 'morality'/changes the jews made.

Quote:In the OP you said this:

"Meaning if you have no absolutes standards in your life (like the bible,)"

So which is it?  Is the Bible the standard of absolute morality or not?  If not, where do you get your morality?

God's absolutes are absolutely in the bible, But as Jesus pointed out not all the laws the Jews made were of God.
Study, the church or a question to the right person/google will show you where to find God's law.

Quote:As i pointed out, Rape was apart of the survival of the species then.

As distastful as it is now, then it ensured a proper genetic diversity. Don't like rape? know somewhere down your genetic line, one of your grandmothers was indeed raped, and you are here because of it.

Humans are among the few animals where the female can be sexually open while not being fertile, so your comments don't add up.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Natural_History_of_Rape


Not true. Their were commands detailing the minimum age one could be to be married. (which wasn't until they were considered to be adults.) to have sex with someone before they were confirmed to be an adult was punishable by death. (God's law) which if you or your source material just did a 'thou shalt not be a pedophile' google search I could see how one would assume that.

Which subsequently how we know marry to be a virgin. Joseph took her to be his wife, but they were not married. This means he took responsibility (provided for her fed her) till she was old enough to be married. back then that was the only reason to wait to get married. 

Quote:Firstly, I want you to show me chapter and verse where these laws are laid out.  Secondly, if the laws in the Torah are "a perversion of what God intended" then it is irrelevant whether or not "Thou shalt not ___" is included because we can't know if it's what God intended or not.

I already did that. Deut 22 Read the chapter for context. If you do you will find the only context in which man is permitted to have sex with a woman. And it does not come in the form of a thou shalt... It simply says "a man may marry a woman to have sex with her..." That's the 'permission" Not "thou must be married to have sex."



Again not true.

The command is no one is to have sex outside the confines of a sanctified marriage. or rather a Marriage is the only place to have sanctified sex. which means all other sexual encounters are forbidden. Deu 22 backs into this command by saying a man can marry a woman for the purpose of having sex. This is the only command that sanctifies it in the OT all other examples are forbidden.

The problem here is the same as your 'thou shalt not be a pedophile' claim.. You were looking for an expressed command using the terminology of today. while the terms were not formlized in the OT the principles were indeed spelled out.

Quote:Do you have something more specific than "Deu 22"?  Deuteronomy is a pretty dry read.  I don't want to read a whole chapter.

That is why you fail.

The truth is right there but because it is not worded in a way to tickle your ears, you'd rather read a lie that is interesting.

If you want to have this debate on what Chapter 22 says, read chapter 22. Otherwise I will leave this ya,huh nut, uh argument to you to complete on your own.


maybe if you read a bible you could actually speak intelligently about it, that way you would not have to rely on anti God web sites and bloggers who hate the bible and God to give you a wrong slanted view of it. So that when you get up on your high horse/soap box and begin to arrogantly bestow all the injustices of God, someone who has book chapter and verse won't make you look like a 'stupid head' by contradicting all of the moral points you were so eager to make.


I have read the entire Bible - that's why I'm an atheist.  Duh.
[/quote]

(January 31, 2016 at 9:41 am)loganonekenobi Wrote: "1 thess 5:21
Question ALL Things and Hold on to what is Good!
This does not mean question only the questionable, it means question the foundational.. How is it do you think I can answer your questions if I first did not ask them myself?"

So i'm suppose to just take your version of things because you did all the asking for me?  We are humans and so naturally will think at least somewhat differently on most subjects. Also what is the difference between the "questionable" and the "foundational"?  Anything that can be imagined, like God, can be questioned (gasp!).

When did I say any of that? I provided an example of me questioning God and Him answering me. The Verse is a charge to 'Question all things and to hold on to what is Good.' If you ask God you will get the same answers.

Quote:your version of "it our fault and not God's" sounds a lot like being a victim in an abusive relationship.  I question the "morality" of living in guilt.

Do not ignore this next question.. Where did I say it is our fault Ever?
You guys make me ill with your generic christian questions rather than any original thought that addresses what it is I've brought to the table. Do you think I am selling what those types of charges were designed to silence? Then why use them?

Quote:No i didn't study theology for 15 years since i had to put my learning pursuits to something more practical and real so that i could earn a living.

what makes you think I hadn't?

Quote:  However, it does not mean that i can't think for myself and see clearly that morality is something you choose everyday.

then why do your arguments look like everyone elses who holds a similar position?

Quote: We are human and that limitation is to be reckoned with.  It is by far better than making up a fiction about sin, guilt, blood sacrifice, and punishment. It is also far better to learn from the past by not repeating the mistakes instead of going back to the same way of thinking that has caused suffering in this world.

Ironically you are describing your version of Morality. EVERYTHING I am trying to show you people is the oppsite of what you have just describes and yet, you still assume God wants any of the things you just mentioned.

Quote:Don't give me that "chapter and verse" song and dance.  You know very well that the one thing that all christian teaching has in common is that we are damned to hell due to Eve's choice of knowledge over obedience and the only way out is to cow tow to Christ.  From what i have seen the Christian "morality" starts and ends with that.

No, How many times do I have to say this?!?!
I do not teach or advocate original sin. Paul tells us we all have our very own 'eve' moment the first time we truly understand right and wrong, and choose to sin anyway. In my Romans study I go into this in some detail as Paul explains all of this. Bottom line is Eve sinned and so too did Adam have his own 'eve moment.' which simply passed an ability to identify sin. (The Tree of knoweledge of Good and evil) Because we have this cognitive ability to identify sin and know it is outside of God's expressed will, we then are responsible for the sin we commit. Unless we accept atonement.

That said 'christian morality' is just as bad as any other form. What I am discussing here is a form of righteousness not based on 'moral acts.' That is why all your arguments fail. You are talking about replacing one set of rules for another. I'm talking about what God provided, the removal of consequence for all rules.

(January 31, 2016 at 10:12 am)downbeatplumb Wrote:

(January 30, 2016 at 5:04 pm)Drich Wrote: Pop morality is what a given region or generation thinks is moral... So the morality in 1940 germany is one form like the morality in 1940 america is another verse 2016 america.

My question asks which one is right, and how do we know we haven't slipped past the evil of 1940's Germany

Well if I direct my inate empathy at to this question I find that the treatment of the jews and others would make me feel uncomfortable. Empathy is a part of most people without mental disorders. It can be subverted by propaganda. Equating the jews to lesser beings such as "rats" was common in the Third Reich to try and separate them from deserving of empathy. you can see the same propaganda today being used by the right against migrants and muslims. the migrants are a "swarm" (a term usually used for insects) etc.
I would say that it is easy to see that my morals and the morals of the majority here are better than the 1940s NAZI regime. I can't say the same for the religious right, who seem to be right there with the old guard, clinging to their prejudices and hate.
I say again the early part of this century is looking a lot like the early part of the last century. only this time the evil demagogue looks like it might be a US thing, Trump scares me.

Here's the problem with your "moral anchor..."

The German removal of empathy was systematic over a period of 20+ years in that the were being forced to pay for damages cause by WWI that would take them way beyond their life times. Alot of the figure heads/the people that were blamed were the Jews. Because they held pominate positions that did not seem affected. They were not made to endure such hardships.

Now imagine if 'we' were made to feel greater than our great depression level economic down turn brought on by a terrorist act.. Like for instance a nuke was detonated in NYC and the city was uninhabitable. this would destroy our economy. and it would be decades before we recovered.

Imagine your level of 'empathy' after say 25 years of standing bread lines for food, watching your children starve to death and die, poison in the air and water all because of "Radical Muslims".. How long would you have empathy for them? What if DC was next? The maybe LA... How many cities? How many lives would it take before you understood that your 'terrorists' were attempting genocide on people like you?
Now what if as with 9/11 the Muslim community as a whole did not condemn these acts or again as with 9/11 it took years for any of them to say anything condemning?
What then would you say when you found out in the Koran it is permitted to them to condemn and deny their faith and pledge alliance to a foreign government as a means of infiltration?
or never mind all of that,
Let's say you suffered only as much than the typical German citizen after WWI, due to a religious act of terror, do you still think your empathy would be intact?

You can only judge the Germans because you have no Empathy for them. Now who's the sociopath?

(January 31, 2016 at 11:34 am)TheRocketSurgeon Wrote:

(January 31, 2016 at 10:12 am)downbeatplumb Wrote: Well if I direct my inate empathy at to this question I find that the treatment of the jews and others would make me feel uncomfortable. Empathy is a part of most people without mental disorders. It can be subverted by propaganda. Equating the jews to lesser beings such as "rats" was common in the Third Reich to try and separate them from deserving of empathy. you can see the same propaganda today being used by the right against migrants and muslims. the migrants are a "swarm" (a term usually used for insects) etc.
I would say that it is easy to see that my morals and the morals of the majority here are better than the 1940s NAZI regime. I can't say the same for the religious right, who seem to be right there with the old guard, clinging to their prejudices and hate.
I say again the early part of this century is looking a lot like the early part of the last century. only this time the evil demagogue looks like it might be a US thing, Trump scares me.

QFT!

For a famous example of how  morals are subverted by propaganda (and our chimanzee-tribe evolved psychology), look at the "deference to authority" studies done by Stanley Milgram, et al.

http://www.amazon.com/Obedience-Authorit...006176521X

http://www.apa.org/monitor/oct04/goodbad.aspx

"In fact, the classic electric shock experiment by social psychologist Stanley Milgram, PhD, showed that when given an order by someone in authority, people would deliver what they believed to be extreme levels of electrical shock to other study participants who answered questions incorrectly.
Zimbardo said the experiment provides several lessons about how situations can foster evil:
Provide people with an ideology to justify beliefs for actions. Make people take a small first step toward a harmful act with a minor, trivial action and then gradually increase those small actions. Make those in charge seem like a "just authority." Transform a once compassionate leader into a dictatorial figure. Provide people with vague and ever-changing rules. Relabel the situation's actors and their actions to legitimize the ideology. Provide people with social models of compliance. Allow dissent, but only if people continue to comply with orders. Make exiting the situation difficult.
Particularly notable, Zimbardo said, is that people are seduced into evil by dehumanizing and labeling others.
"They semantically change their perception of victims, of the evil act, and change the relationship of the aggressor to their aggression--so 'killing' or 'hurting' becomes the same as 'helping,'" he said.
For example, in a 1975 experiment by psychologist Albert Bandura, PhD, college students were told they'd work with students from another school on a group task. In one condition, they overheard an assistant calling the other students "animals" and in another condition, "nice." Bandura found students were more apt to deliver what they believed were increased levels of electrical shock to the other students if they had heard them called "animals."

Sound like religion to anyone else? Label your enemies "sinners", "apostates", "infidels", "perverts", etc.

It angers me to see atheists compared to Hitler, since as far as I can tell, Hitler and Lenin simply took their cues for building a social power structure directly from religious methodology.

Your an idiot if you think I am comparing atheists to Hitler. Or rather you think your peers are in this blatant attempt at  trying to create a straw man, and win favor or support. What happened to all you eloquent diatribe?

I am showing a direct parallel between pop morality now and the popular morality of Nazi germany. I am simply asking if your only absolute to define what right and wrong is pop culture, then what keeps us/soceity from following the path of the Nazis?

(January 31, 2016 at 12:16 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote:

(January 29, 2016 at 4:18 pm)Drich Wrote: Do you argue that empathy is not controllable on a societal level? if it is controlled, it can be taught.

Well...I'm not arguing society -versus- human nature in regards to empathy.  I'm arguing that to approach empathy from this type of binary perspective is to oversimplify it, and it is not an accurate reflection of reality.  Does that make sense?  

Why is this an over simplified view?

It is why the Nazi's sold their empathy for the Jews in exchange for Homes, food and jobs. If you are not willing to look at a core value from all angles (even the simple ones) because it leaves it open to attack then you should really question whether or not that value is indeed a 'core value' or standard that is taught.

I know why most of you do not want to admit that empathy is taught because it suggests that you all have been duped already or preprogrammed.. My question is, what if you are? what in your bag -o- trix do you have that would help you not only detect this, but to eliminate if you saw it as being harmful to you?

(February 1, 2016 at 11:44 am)Drich Wrote:

(January 30, 2016 at 9:38 pm)Nihilist Virus Wrote: I hate to break it to you, but skin color and booty size is not a large amount of variance.  I mean, yes, 99% of running backs and wide receivers are black.  Where do you want to go from there?

Again sport your are arguing with Historical fact not me.
And skin color or color variation if consistent is enough to add a sub species, not to mention hair consistancy and a genetic predisposition to be bigger and stronger than some other races.

Perfect example would be the fact that the American walking hound is about 16" bigger than a beagle has a different hair make up and has a different color variation. Therefore they get a different subspecies classification.

Aside from the physical appearances, their are indeed medical/genetic differences between 'black people' and other races. Ever heard of sickle cell? why do only black people get this affliction? Because their genetic make up is different and it is susceptible to this disease when others are not. This genetic difference sets them apart and makes them unique. Now 100 years ago this difference was indeed recognized accepted and cataloged. Again, that's history, Politically correct or not. It wasn't till Hitler tried to use these genetic differences to justify genocide, that triggered a compromise in our scientific integrity in an effort to try and unify all of under one house or banner.

The point of all of this was to show how even the mighty 'science' serves pop morality, by withholding up popular truth so that society can push propaganda and agenda.    

Quote:So? Jesus Himself said they were a perversion of what God intended. He even took acouple apart to show the wickness found in their 'morality.'
You are confusing the laws of the Jews with the law of God. The Jews added to the laws of God and as a result had over 600 does and don't.
as were the law of God.
As i pointed out, Rape was apart of the survival of the species then.
As distastful as it is now, then it ensured a proper genetic diversity. Don't like rape? know somewhere down your genetic line, one of your grandmothers was indeed raped, and you are here because of it.
Not true. Their were commands detailing the minimum age one could be to be married. (which wasn't until they were considered to be adults.) to have sex with someone before they were confirmed to be an adult was punishable by death. (God's law) which if you or your source material just did a 'thou shalt not be a pedophile' google search I could see how one would assume that.
Which subsequently how we know marry to be a virgin. Joseph took her to be his wife, but they were not married. This means he took responsibility (provided for her fed her) till she was old enough to be married. back then that was the only reason to wait to get married.
Again not true.
The command is no one is to have sex outside the confines of a sanctified marriage. or rather a Marriage is the only place to have sanctified sex. which means all other sexual encounters are forbidden. Deu 22 backs into this command by saying a man can marry a woman for the purpose of having sex. This is the only command that sanctifies it in the OT all other examples are forbidden.

The problem here is the same as your 'thou shalt not be a pedophile' claim.. You were looking for an expressed command using the terminology of today. while the terms were not formlized in the OT the principles were indeed spelled out.

maybe if you read a bible you could actually speak intelligently about it, that way you would not have to rely on anti God web sites and bloggers who hate the bible and God to give you a wrong slanted view of it. So that when you get up on your high horse/soap box and begin to arrogantly bestow all the injustices of God, someone who has book chapter and verse won't make you look like a 'stupid head' by contradicting all of the moral points you were so eager to make.

Quote:So? Jesus Himself said they were a perversion of what God intended. He even took acouple apart to show the wickness found in their 'morality.'

You are confusing the laws of the Jews with the law of God. The Jews added to the laws of God and as a result had over 600 does and don't.

If I don't find the absolute morality of God in the Bible, then where do I find it?

It is in the bible, but so is the 'morality'/changes the jews made.

Quote:In the OP you said this:

"Meaning if you have no absolutes standards in your life (like the bible,)"

So which is it?  Is the Bible the standard of absolute morality or not?  If not, where do you get your morality?

God's absolutes are absolutely in the bible, But as Jesus pointed out not all the laws the Jews made were of God.
Study, the church or a question to the right person/google will show you where to find God's law.

Quote:As i pointed out, Rape was apart of the survival of the species then.

As distastful as it is now, then it ensured a proper genetic diversity. Don't like rape? know somewhere down your genetic line, one of your grandmothers was indeed raped, and you are here because of it.

Humans are among the few animals where the female can be sexually open while not being fertile, so your comments don't add up.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Natural_History_of_Rape


Not true. Their were commands detailing the minimum age one could be to be married. (which wasn't until they were considered to be adults.) to have sex with someone before they were confirmed to be an adult was punishable by death. (God's law) which if you or your source material just did a 'thou shalt not be a pedophile' google search I could see how one would assume that.

Which subsequently how we know marry to be a virgin. Joseph took her to be his wife, but they were not married. This means he took responsibility (provided for her fed her) till she was old enough to be married. back then that was the only reason to wait to get married. 

Quote:Firstly, I want you to show me chapter and verse where these laws are laid out.  Secondly, if the laws in the Torah are "a perversion of what God intended" then it is irrelevant whether or not "Thou shalt not ___" is included because we can't know if it's what God intended or not.

I already did that. Deut 22 Read the chapter for context. If you do you will find the only context in which man is permitted to have sex with a woman. And it does not come in the form of a thou shalt... It simply says "a man may marry a woman to have sex with her..." That's the 'permission" Not "thou must be married to have sex."



Again not true.

The command is no one is to have sex outside the confines of a sanctified marriage. or rather a Marriage is the only place to have sanctified sex. which means all other sexual encounters are forbidden. Deu 22 backs into this command by saying a man can marry a woman for the purpose of having sex. This is the only command that sanctifies it in the OT all other examples are forbidden.

The problem here is the same as your 'thou shalt not be a pedophile' claim.. You were looking for an expressed command using the terminology of today. while the terms were not formlized in the OT the principles were indeed spelled out.

Quote:Do you have something more specific than "Deu 22"?  Deuteronomy is a pretty dry read.  I don't want to read a whole chapter.

That is why you fail.

The truth is right there but because it is not worded in a way to tickle your ears, you'd rather read a lie that is interesting.

If you want to have this debate on what Chapter 22 says, read chapter 22. Otherwise I will leave this ya,huh nut, uh argument to you to complete on your own.


maybe if you read a bible you could actually speak intelligently about it, that way you would not have to rely on anti God web sites and bloggers who hate the bible and God to give you a wrong slanted view of it. So that when you get up on your high horse/soap box and begin to arrogantly bestow all the injustices of God, someone who has book chapter and verse won't make you look like a 'stupid head' by contradicting all of the moral points you were so eager to make.


I have read the entire Bible - that's why I'm an atheist.  Duh.

[/quote]



1. As expected half of Deuteronomy 22 has nothing to do with sex.  And also as expected, there's no age of consent given in the chapter, which is exactly what we were supposed to be talking about.  Remember I said pedophilia is not outlawed in the Bible, and you're like, "Yes it is, read this chapter that has the famous passage about a rape victim marrying her rapist.  Viva la Absolute Morality."

2. Regarding Hitler using actual science to determine that his race was superior, I gave you a nudge to present me with the science.  I'm arguing with history, not with you... OK... so what science did he cite as the reason for Jews being swines or whatever he called them?  What science did he cite for Africans being whatever he called them?

3. I showed in the OP you said that the Bible is the source of absolute morality... you later backpedal and say that the Torah is a perversion of absolute morality... I ask where in the Bible I can find this absolute morality... you tell me to google it.  Sir, you're the one making the claim here.  If you don't tell me where the Bible gives absolute morality, you're not backing up your own claim.

(January 31, 2016 at 1:01 pm)TheRocketSurgeon Wrote:

(January 31, 2016 at 12:43 pm)Whateverist the White Wrote: Yes, yes it does.  I know you can start to feel pretty out there in a conversation with someone dedicated to their 'objective' belief.

LFC is dead-on. 

But I agree, when they start arguing that their moral beliefs are "objective" while everyone else's are "subjective", simply because theirs are found in holy scriptures "from God" ("well, sure it was written by men, but it's really from Gawd, you see"), it's already a lost conversation. You can show them all day that theirs are just as subjective as anyone else's, and they'll never listen, because they're convinced of the legitimacy of their authority figure(s).

1) "The Bible is the Objective Moral Guide." (What makes you say that?, replies the atheist.)

OMG...
NO! for the 1000th time NO!
It's an absolute, NOT meant to be followed or looked at as a 'moral guide!"

It's only purpose is to identify sin and lay out the plan for atonement.

Once atoned/saved the Law ONLY judges the Unatoned/sinners.

For the Save it serves as a mile marker for the changes you will automatically want to undergo, but won't be able to complete in this life.

NOT A MORAL STANDARD.
The rest of your argument is crap!

Quote:2) "Because the Bible Says So and God as we have defined him is unchanging, therefore objective." (But your Biblical morality changes all the time, both internally--see Moses vs. Jesus' rules about divorce, Paul's new rules about Levitical Law, etc.-- and externally as society changes, such as the verses justifying genocide, women as property, and heritable permanent slavery for other races, not to mention the penalties for worshiping other gods, freedom of speech, etc.)

3) "Yeah but you have no external guide at all, so because you think you're just animals, anything is permissible to you, even baby rape and HITLER!!" (Um, Hitler was a Christian and the Nazis actively promoted "God is with Us" religiousity... also, we eat babies, we don't rape them.)

And arooouuuuunnnnd we go!

actually no one told you to go on the merry go round... You are just pulling out all the old tricks to try and refute what you can't seem to grasp...
I got an idea! Instead of just rambling off good olde atheist standby arguements that give you all such great comfort, how abouts asking a question rather than putting me in a position where I have to decide how to call you stupid with out setting you off all the time. How about asking a question, and stop assuming you know the basics of a religion you clearly know very little about. How about stop doing your victory lap over some other race you won, and maybe for once speak on point/get back into this race.

(January 31, 2016 at 2:53 pm)Nihilist Virus Wrote:

(January 31, 2016 at 1:33 pm)Crossless1 Wrote: The thing to always remember about Drich is that he is a True Believer in Paul and Paul's Christ, so he takes seriously Paul's claim that the law, as supposedly revealed to Moses, is really nothing more than a stumbling block meant to demonstrate the insufficiency of any moral code and our utter inability to redeem ourselves through acts -- hence the need for grace and Christ's atonement. It's the perfect theology for unembarrassed sociopaths.

I'm getting the same tune.  

"Objective morality comes from only the Bible"

So slavery is ok?

"Those laws are not the real objective standard."

But you said it's in the Bible...

If Paul is the new Moses then women who speak in church are blasphemers... women who don't cover their heads are a shame to the church. Right. I can see how this is a good objective morality that leads to optimal happiness.

What is the difference between the absolute standard of God and 'morality'?

If you knew this distinction, I don't think you could make this argument and not feel stupid. If you don't know this distinction then why make this claim?

(January 31, 2016 at 3:13 pm)robvalue Wrote: The problem is agreeing what "morality" even means, with a religious person. They often seem to want it to be somehow to do with wellbeing and doing what God wants at the same time.

But these are either contradictory in parts, or else the God part is redundant. We know what is good for wellbeing. We don't need to be told it by an old book. I've managed to be considerate of people's wellbeing my whole life, and I didn't read any of the bible until a few years ago. So clearly it's not required to even read the book to get its "power", which makes me wonder what the point of it is.

Slavery, rape, genocide based on voices in your head are clearly not good for wellbeing in general, so at this point what "God says" becomes irrelevant. I already do the actual good things the bible has to say, and like any nice Christian, I ignore the bad parts.

See above.

You all still do not understand you can not judge anything based on a flexible standard. Your morality is a flexible standard..
To judge an absolute with some thing that varies from person to person will mean it will always fall short or be too much except in the very rare case the two coincidentally line up.

(February 1, 2016 at 8:36 am)Brakeman Wrote:

(January 30, 2016 at 5:36 pm)Drich Wrote:
Maybe the better question is "does Drich care what brakeman and his followers thinks about his lack of empathy?" Does drich care if he is labeled a sociopath because he can truly look at himself and the society he lives in objectively in such a real way his empathy is questioned?

If you answered yes to either of these questions then know you will have to try and find another way to manipulate me. I'd much rather be labeled a sociopath than be control by what douche bags think of me.

No, I don't expect you to be concerned with your seemingly socio-pathic lack of empathy. I further don't think you will consider the irony of it's hypocrisy with your stated claim of having jesus inside you.

That's ok though.
Just remember, we're laughing at you, not with you.

Brakeman Can't Manipulate Drich by calling his empathy into question =/= sociopath. It simply means I'd rather be called a name by a douche bag stranger, than yield my position.
maybe try puppeting someone else with that crap it isn't going to work here.