Douchrich still avoiding the question...

To clarify, you DO want to defer to a rabbi in the case of the law, but you DO NOT want to defer to a rabbi in the case of the messiah. Am I correct on this?

(February 7, 2016 at 6:00 am)downbeatplumb Wrote:

(February 6, 2016 at 6:53 pm)Drich Wrote: ...And you guys call yourself thinkers...

We are IN A RELIGIOUS GENOCIDAL WAR!!! It does not matter how the BBC or CNN spins it! The people we are fighting will not stop till we are all gone. Like wise just because Anderson Cooper hasn't told you that we are going to have to Kill Every Man woman and Child in the Islamic State, and or organizations like that Does not mean our goverments are not gearing up for these fights. Look at the past wars these people take on. they don't last decades, but centuries! Until all of one side or another are dead. And we are not fighting an army who will line up in front of us as we line up infront of them and blast till one set of soldiers kills another set. This is every man woman and child who belong to this radical group is a potential combatant, why? not for geopotical reasons no, it's because their gods say so. The Last time we faced a prospect like this, and a decades long fight  we deployed Nuclear bombs. The only reason we did not keep bombing is because Japan's 'god' was afraid of getting nuked so he surrendered.

Guess what... Their god is not going to surrender. So because this is about heaven and hell for them, they will not stop.

This has nothing to do with me one way or another. This is soceity, this is pop culture and it is just a matter of time before we have to demote people of that specific brand of islam out of the human race... And for people like you who blindly follow pop morality you will do what ever with out question

There are always nuts running around killing people, I can't really see what's so urgent now. There's the Christian nuts in Africa Joseph Kony etc, Islamic Boko Haram and ISIS etc and the political/criminals accross the world, it has always been this way, in fact more so in the past, so I see no need for exterminations "to the last child", which is what you seem to be having a hard on for.

Again, I'm just a student of history that is identifying a pattern that plays out ever so many generations in the United States. I see the pattern already in motion and to date has yet to disappoint in it's completion of the cycle.

This is why it's been said those who do not know History are doomed to repeat it. History is the record of human nature. In society we always think ourselves better than everyone else. (even the bad guys.) When this self righteousness takes over a society it allows for all sorts of evil justifications. When two large soceities develop this at the same time it always means the same thing. Genocide.

Now, 'the west' is one self righteous society. and the middle East is the other. Ask yourself will one adopt the 'evil' acts of the other? will either ever back down or will it escalate? And so goes the pattern.

(February 7, 2016 at 5:15 am)robvalue Wrote: So let's say I kill and rape a bunch of people, and say God told me to do it.

That would be "righteous", yes? All that matters is whether it's in line with what God wants. And if he commanded it, it must be what he wants. Unless you're calling God a liar.

Something tells me people who subscribe to this line of reasoning wouldn't congratulate me for killing their family based on voices in my head. I imagine they'd suddenly remember what scepticism is, and they'd care about the outcome of actions after all.

I don't know, maybe they wouldn't. Maybe they'd willingly hand over their family into slavery to me if I said God told me to take them as property.

Do you want help with this reasoning or are you simply looking to be right?

You and brake man are completely lost. Now I have gone over and over and over this concept and you two still don't seem to get it.

Do i need to start over with you or do you want to just take pot shots from the bushes?

Typically thats what you guys do.. You take pot shot with one to two line quips and your out. If and when I put some attention of you you pull out.

So my question is a serious one. Do you want me to take the time to catch you back up? what do you plan to do once you understand the topic?

(February 7, 2016 at 2:51 pm)Nihilist Virus Wrote: Douchrich still avoiding the question...

To clarify, you DO want to defer to a rabbi in the case of the law, but you DO NOT want to defer to a rabbi in the case of the messiah. Am I correct on this?

First explain how this is not a red herring.

How this does not change the subject in your favor

How this is not designed take the pressure off you and your failed line of reasoning and puts it one me.

Then explain if this is a red herring designed to turn the tables of the conversation why I should answer this question when clearly I have humiliated you and your failed understanding of basic Jewish law, when in fact Jewish law was the Only Subject being discussed.

See what you did?

You woke the dragon, I gave you the last word, and let you try and save face.. However you still think your smarter, even despite your repeated failures. you haven't quite yet got the idea that my spelling is not a direct correlative to my intelligence, let alone the decades I have in study, and debate on this subject. If you need a good teeth kicking I will be happy to obliged you. But first as per my request tell me why I should, when clearly I won our last debate.

Tell me why I should soundly humiliate you again? Don't think for a moment I don't have an answer to your question, I do.. and what's better the answer is painfully obvious which means your going to look like an even bigger fool than you do now...

The problem? your not committed enough to this new topic. I need a full committal from you I need to know you are full vested so when I kick your teeth in this time I get to make a big big show of it. i want to squash the virus so you need to change your name and avatar again. But, in order to do this I need you to tell me why I should bother. why should I not just rest on your last failure, and just sit back and snipe your current efforts...

Thats what you guys do. You all love being in my position where a theist makes a mistake or God forbid contradicts himself and you just hold his feet to the fire not allowing the subject matter to progress. Matter of fact that what you and a few of your friends were doing when you called me a liar for 'changing the scripture.'

So again, tell me why I shouldn't do the same.

(Here is another chance for you to just get a last word and walk away. just cuss and call me names and we can say you 'won.' because i will not respond to that.)

(February 7, 2016 at 3:18 pm)Drich Wrote:

(February 7, 2016 at 2:51 pm)Nihilist Virus Wrote: Douchrich still avoiding the question...

To clarify, you DO want to defer to a rabbi in the case of the law, but you DO NOT want to defer to a rabbi in the case of the messiah. Am I correct on this?

First explain how this is not a red herring.

How this does not change the subject in your favor

How this is not designed take the pressure off you and your failed line of reasoning and puts it one me.

Then explain if this is a red herring designed to turn the tables of the conversation why I should answer this question when clearly I have humiliated you and your failed understanding of basic Jewish law, when in fact Jewish law was the Only Subject being discussed.

See what you did?

You woke the dragon, I gave you the last word, and let you try and save face.. However you still think your smarter, even despite your repeated failures. you haven't quite yet got the idea that my spelling is not a direct correlative to my intelligence, let alone the decades I have in study, and debate on this subject. If you need a good teeth kicking I will be happy to obliged you. But first as per my request tell me why I should, when clearly I won our last debate.

Tell me why I should soundly humiliate you again? Don't think for a moment I don't have an answer to your question, I do.. and what's better the answer is painfully obvious which means your going to look like an even bigger fool than you do now...

The problem? your not committed enough to this new topic. I need a full committal from you I need to know you are full vested so when I kick your teeth in this time I get to make a big big show of it. i want to squash the virus so you need to change your name and avatar again. But, in order to do this I need you to tell me why I should bother. why should I not just rest on your last failure, and just sit back and snipe your current efforts...

Thats what you guys do. You all love being in my position where a theist makes a mistake or God forbid contradicts himself and you just hold his feet to the fire not allowing the subject matter to progress. Matter of fact that what you and a few of your friends were doing when you called me a liar for 'changing the scripture.'

So again, tell me why I shouldn't do the same.

(Here is another chance for you to just get a last word and walk away. just cuss and call me names and we can say you 'won.' because i will not respond to that.)

Red herring?  I'm asking you what Deuteronomy 23:18 has to do with marriage and you cite me some bullshit website that I can't know is legitimate or not.  I'm going by what the Bible SAYS.  Anything else is a red herring.  So please find me a collection of verses that outlaw any of the elements of heterosexual infant rape.  BIBLE VERSES.  In prain Engrish. If you're so sure the English version has it wrong, please explain WHY all English versions are wrong, or else find an English version that has it right.

(February 2, 2016 at 2:45 pm)Drich Wrote:

(February 2, 2016 at 2:13 pm)Jenny A Wrote: @ Dritch

Just to be clear, what I'm hearing from you is this:

1.  All morallity is popular (relative) morality.

Yes

Quote:2.  God's law as defined by Jesus, is purposely designed to be unfollowable by mortal man.  

yes

Quote:3. Those portions of god's laws that appear immoral (like slavery, rape, aborting the babies of unfaithful wives, discriminating against bastards, gneocide, etc.) are good because they have helped humanity in some way.

Not good or bad they are neutral, and were or are necessary.

Quote:4.  The punishment for all violations of god's law is enternal damnation.

All meaning Any yes, Damnation meaning Hell/eternal seperation/2nd death yes

Quote:5. All violations of god's laws are equally bad.

Yes

Quote:6. Violations of god's laws are debts to god.

More or less, they are also describe as being a debt you accumilate that is yet to be paid.
(as in the wages of sin is Death.)

Quote:7. Whether other human beings are hurt by your actions is not relevent to whether the action is a sin.

All pain we identify is not sinful, no. On the other hand God identifies other 'pain' we cause one another and identifies it as sin. like divorce.

Quote:8. To be rightious is to seek atonement from god.

Only God is righteous. We seek atonement to cloth ourselves in the righteousness of Christ.

Quote:9. God's law is objective.

God's law is based on His will, and therefore does not change.

Quote:10. Morality is bad because it changes with time and place.

No, All I am saying is morality is a non stable standard and to judge yourself by it or anything else is foolish, because it can be literally made to say anything is right to wrong.

Quote:11. Atheists prefer morality because it's less strict than god's law.

No because they can justify anything they want with it.

Quote:12. Jews are an exception in that they can follow OT God's law to the letter instead of the impossible NT standard and that's OK with god.

No I refer to OT jews following the law. Their are no more OT jews, that means non are exempt. Even modern day Jews do not follow the practices of OT jews, even the most devout.

Quote:Is that correct?  If not, which of the above is wrong?  I'm not asking for the whys.  Just trying to see if I understand your position.

:thumbsup:

@ Dritch I went to some effort to understand you.  Above is your recognition that I do indeed understand.  I think most of the rest of us do too. We just think you are wrong.

Your first error is in thinking that there is a god and you personally understand his will. Your second error is in thinking that a being who would create the system you describe is worthy of worship.  Your third error is in thinking that the fact moral consensus changes over time makes it valueless.  Your fourth error is in thinking atheists don't believe in god for the purpose of avoiding god's stricter law. 

My only concern is that you appear to believe genocide and slavery are necessary or even morally neutral. Other than sociopathic positions like that, I have no interest in god's law absent credible evidence of god. To the extent you and others believe such things, I think your god story is morally abhorrent and a danger to society.

Do you understand my position? Have you tried to understand it?

Bravo Jenny!

(February 7, 2016 at 3:26 pm)Nihilist Virus Wrote:

(February 7, 2016 at 3:18 pm)Drich Wrote: First explain how this is not a red herring.

How this does not change the subject in your favor

How this is not designed take the pressure off you and your failed line of reasoning and puts it one me.

Then explain if this is a red herring designed to turn the tables of the conversation why I should answer this question when clearly I have humiliated you and your failed understanding of basic Jewish law, when in fact Jewish law was the Only Subject being discussed.

See what you did?

You woke the dragon, I gave you the last word, and let you try and save face.. However you still think your smarter, even despite your repeated failures. you haven't quite yet got the idea that my spelling is not a direct correlative to my intelligence, let alone the decades I have in study, and debate on this subject. If you need a good teeth kicking I will be happy to obliged you. But first as per my request tell me why I should, when clearly I won our last debate.

Tell me why I should soundly humiliate you again? Don't think for a moment I don't have an answer to your question, I do.. and what's better the answer is painfully obvious which means your going to look like an even bigger fool than you do now...

The problem? your not committed enough to this new topic. I need a full committal from you I need to know you are full vested so when I kick your teeth in this time I get to make a big big show of it. i want to squash the virus so you need to change your name and avatar again. But, in order to do this I need you to tell me why I should bother. why should I not just rest on your last failure, and just sit back and snipe your current efforts...

Thats what you guys do. You all love being in my position where a theist makes a mistake or God forbid contradicts himself and you just hold his feet to the fire not allowing the subject matter to progress. Matter of fact that what you and a few of your friends were doing when you called me a liar for 'changing the scripture.'

So again, tell me why I shouldn't do the same.

(Here is another chance for you to just get a last word and walk away. just cuss and call me names and we can say you 'won.' because i will not respond to that.)

Red herring?  I'm asking you what Deuteronomy 23:18 has to do with marriage and you cite me some bullshit website that I can't know is legitimate or not.  I'm going by what the Bible SAYS.  Anything else is a red herring.  So please find me a collection of verses that outlaw any of the elements of heterosexual infant rape.  BIBLE VERSES.  In prain Engrish.  If you're so sure the English version has it wrong, please explain WHY all English versions are wrong, or else find an English version that has it right.

Try harder.. This is still a red herring because the explanation you seek was given in post 331 when i Identified the Hebrew word and gave you the definition. Nice to see you finally catching up (your logic and reasoning seems to only be about 4 pages behind at this point.)

(February 7, 2016 at 4:01 pm)Jenny A Wrote: [quote='Drich' pid='1192767' dateline='1454438721']
Yes

yes

Not good or bad they are neutral, and were or are necessary.

All meaning Any yes, Damnation meaning Hell/eternal seperation/2nd death yes
Yes

More or less, they are also describe as being a debt you accumilate that is yet to be paid.
(as in the wages of sin is Death.)
All pain we identify is not sinful, no. On the other hand God identifies other 'pain' we cause one another and identifies it as sin. like divorce.
Only God is righteous. We seek atonement to cloth ourselves in the righteousness of Christ.

God's law is based on His will, and therefore does not change.
No, All I am saying is morality is a non stable standard and to judge yourself by it or anything else is foolish, because it can be literally made to say anything is right to wrong.
No because they can justify anything they want with it.
No I refer to OT jews following the law. Their are no more OT jews, that means non are exempt. Even modern day Jews do not follow the practices of OT jews, even the most devout.

:thumbsup:

Quote:@ Dritch I went to some effort to understand you.  Above is your recognition that I do indeed understand.  I think most of the rest of us do too. We just think you are wrong.

If you do understand my position, it doesn't mean your logic or final conclusion is correct.
Besides if you will note I had to make several key changes to your understanding. (I said NO Several times) Your last post suggests that you did not incorporate those changes into your final conclusion, because as this post seems to suggest you feel that you are 'close enough.'

Quote:Your first error is in thinking that there is a god and you personally understand his will.

and this is evidenced by what?? Wishful thinking on your part?
God's will is not a mystery. It is laid out in our very own language word for word. All any need do to know this will is to study and read the bible.

Quote: Your second error is in thinking that a being who would create the system you describe is worthy of worship.

and what is this empty assertion based on? Snips and snails and puppy Dog tails? Boy oh boy, someone really thinks highly of her opinion to just put it out there and not back it with anything.. As if her word was enough to just 'wake someone up.'
So Sorry Jen-a, but people who are not related to you don't generally work that way. It would be pretty difficult to get me to just blindly follow your direction on a good day, but here God has directly given me sooo much, their is next to nothing you could do to change my mind on that.

Quote: Your third error is in thinking that the fact moral consensus changes over time makes it valueless.

:Roflol:
Seriously... just for a moment think about what you just said...
" that the fact moral consensus changes over time (doesn't) makes it valueless"

If it had value why would it need to change? What happens to the 'old moral consensus? does it still retain value? So what will happen to the current 'moral consensus' when it changes again will it retain any value, what so ever?

So then what value is their in the current 'moral consensus' outside the fact that it is the current moral consensus?

...And that's what i am talking about when I trivialize 'pop morality.' it only has value to those who currently live by the standard.. What's more (the reason I bring up the Nazis) no culture or society deems themselves evil by their own pop moral standard. Not even the Nazis.

So again, If two completely polar opposite standards stand in complete contradiction to one another, are you saying both retain equal value?

What if right now the Nazi standard was the way of the world outside of history books. could this 'morality' be ever truly deemed just?

My question is then how do we know we are selves haven't already crossed the Nazi line of pop morality?
(Doing truly EVIL things and morally justifying them.)

Quote: Your fourth error is in thinking atheists don't believe in god for the purpose of avoiding god's stricter law. 

This is your 4th error. I don't think atheists even know what I am talking about when I say "we are to live apart from God's law as Christians. If they did they would not accuse me of 'thinking atheist dont believe in God's law to avoid a stricter law.'

(tell me again how you understand my position)

Quote:My only concern is that you appear to believe genocide and slavery are necessary or even morally neutral. Other than sociopathic positions like that, I have no interest in god's law absent credible evidence of god. To the extent you and others believe such things, I think your god story is morally abhorrent and a danger to society.

Do you understand my position? Have you tried to understand it?

No. What I have said IS THIS CULTURE HAS ADOPTED SLAVERY AND GENOCIDE, But Relabled it so it seems 'morally just.' Which is extremely dangerous because without being honest with ourselves we put no terms or limits on slavery or our genocidal war.

I am waving the flag, bring attention to how this society is actively participating in no restriction Slavery and is gearing up for a genocidal war, and in your mind I'm the one who endorses it?? What kind of broken mind do you have?
The problem little miss doesn't thinks she wrong, is that without owning your immoral behaivor/Changing your immorality to judtify your actions, you are making it ok to literally do the things you yourself claim is immoral!

How can you not see that?

(February 8, 2016 at 3:17 am)robvalue Wrote: Bravo Jenny!

So you don't want clarity on the topic so you can speak intelligently is that what you are saying??