(November 30, 2018 at 9:24 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote:

(November 30, 2018 at 12:31 pm)Drich Wrote: Then I suppose you will count this as a win as well. because I made my points I said my piece and all my major points have been made and are not factually contested. what I see here is basically a letter of disagreement and disdain.. so be it. I don't have to make you like me or how I do things. 

Not factually contested?  What the fuck is wrong with you?  This is nothing more than a bald faced lie.  I contested that the article you cited claimed what you claimed it did.  That's a factual contestation.  I disputed whether or not you had quoted Norse canon.  Yet another contested fact!  I contested your claim that you had provided evidence for your claim about Hitler by pointing out that you didn't provide evidence for what you claimed but rather for something else.  You can't provide evidence for that original claim.  You claimed that I dismissed people without evaluating their arguments.  Yet another supposed fact under dispute.  You claimed that I was motivated by anger.  Disputed!  You claimed that I was following my emotions rather than the evidence and facts.  Again, disputed!  

To claim that your facts are uncontested is a transparently obvious lie to anyone who can read.  Do you think that these lies are likely to escape the attention of those present?  Apparently you don't care.  Backed against a wall, you choose to attempt to lie your way out of difficulty.  You're nothing but a liar for Jesus.  Answer my points or don't, but this notion that your 'facts' are uncontested and that your major points have been made is sheer bollocks.

What on earth makes you think you can get away with such shit?  Do you have no personal integrity at all?

(November 30, 2018 at 12:31 pm)Drich Wrote: Know this or not I am not here to provoke you to wrath or push you into a corner where there is no way out each and every time.

I wouldn't know about that given that you've never succeeded in pushing me into such a corner.  This appears to be more of your useless and delusional wishful thinking.

And again you conclude that 'wrath' or anger is even in the picture.  A sentiment you've already been refuted on.  Never let the falseness of something prevent you from repeating it ad nauseum in hopes that sheer repitition will lead to its acceptance.  Christian 'scholars' like David Barton employ similarly bankrupt strategies, so you're in good company with your fellow Christians.

(November 30, 2018 at 12:31 pm)Drich Wrote: I am however always open to questions:

Glad to hear it.

(November 30, 2018 at 12:31 pm)Drich Wrote: Why is it you think I post so many links to so many other pages of people works? I promise you 9 times out of 10 the things I speak about... are things I hear about in the news, then I research to find corroborating stories or evidence and condense it in such a way as to provoke thought  and post it. like I heard the term 'global warming was only 40+ years old which corroborated a statement I was making about ever changing science and how before this period of global warming the chicken littles of the world (climate 'scientists') were clucking about how the sky was falling due to global freezing and a coming ice age. This is in contrast to science claiming the records of global warming have gone back 100+ years.  Which I know to be untrue because I lived through the 'panic' of the next ice age by 2000.

Not my question, Drich.  I specifically asked what you base your opinion of your general competence upon.  That you cite sources does not help if your reading of them is faulty due to generally poor reading comprehension (as documented several times), if your inferences or the arguments you construct are faulty because of general incompetence, or you believe that certain inferences are valid when they are not due to a lack of skill at reasoning.  It's said that a workman is only as good as his tools, and the primary tool you depend upon is your mind and your ability to reason with it.  If that is not sound, appealing to the fact that you cite sources does no good, as your citations, as I've documented, don't support your arguments, and your arguments themselves are filled with errors of reasoning.  So the question is, on what basis do you form your belief that you possess adequate mental competence to back your claims and arguments, and on what do you base your beliefs about your competence, intelligence and reasoning abilities?  You've said in the past that you had educational difficulties in acquiring competence as a reader and a writer.  Given such a history, on what basis do you conclude that you have competent reading comprehension.  Flaws in that skill have already been pointed out to you.  You say that you are successful in your business and that you have some engineering achievements related to such.  That might provide some evidence in favor of competence except for two things.  First, specialized competence is not a reliable indicator of general competence.  Many people with great skill in their specialization lack similar competence in their general ability to reason and think.  The second problem is that you have attributed these successes to intervention from God.  If God is indeed behind your competence in these or other areas, that offers no evidence of competence that you personally possess.  It would be highly inappropriate of you to argue that they are effects of God when you want to witness in favor of belief in God, only to turn around and claim the reverse when you need to establish your own competence.  That would undermine both your arguments about God, as well as about your general competence given the obvious illogical shenanigans going on in doing so.

So, to put the question back under the microscope, what evidence are you appealing to in order to conclude that you are generally competent, intelligent, and capable of reasoning well?  It's important because if you don't have evidence of these things, then it makes no sense to attribute them to you, and if you can't claim them as your own, what other capacity could you possibly appeal to in order to provide a justified conclusion that your arguments are sound, well made, and well supported?  Do you have any independent evidence of such that you have not already sacrificed upon the altar of your faith?

(November 30, 2018 at 12:31 pm)Drich Wrote: my ability to identify and the general use of primary secondary and tertairy source material when building and deconstructing statements or arguments. I isolate 'facts and evidence and counter them with established points of reference so that when a conclusion is question I can point to the chain of evidence and the strength of the source material..

These are simply your own opinions of your ability.  I specifically asked if you have evidence supporting your opinion of your own abilities that was separate from your opinion, because as I noted, self generated opinions about one's own competence don't have a strong correlation with reliability.  Intelligent people think they are able and competent.  But so do idiots and morons.  What evidence do you have that you are not among the latter group?

Which is miles above your efforts to destroy you opponents credibility in an effort to discredit his message.

(November 30, 2018 at 12:31 pm)Drich Wrote: When you threaten to expose my supposedly shotty argument through all of your research and back study, me simply saying "i'm calling your bluff. means I've called your bluff. show me what you have. show me your research show me what you think you have on me. If you think you won something show me.. and we can conclude this to it's end if you wish. If you don't think I was calling your bluff before know I am calling it now!

What bluff, exactly, is it that you think you've called.  It can't be the Hitler and Rosenberg affair because of the reasons stated, so what bluff do you think that you've called?

(November 30, 2018 at 12:31 pm)Drich Wrote: Look snow flake.. if you are but hurt because I abbreviated your screen names THEN PICK A SHORTER NAME! Why did I call you Alpo, because it was short for alphopheninia or whatever the hell your first name was... why do I call you jorie because it is short for 'Jörmungandr' Why did I call you Angery Dragon lady? 1 you said you don't like jorgie or alpo. because of all of your personal attacks on me. despite what you claim one can not say more than once a person has a defective brain, cite or create reading comprehension errors repeatedly slam a person personly for their thoughts and ideas and not be angry. Not only that you do these thing unsolicited.. meaning most of the time you interject yourself into a conversation that has nothing to do with you. the point is you are seeking opportunity to destroy again another act indicating anger. Anger however is not a unique identifier as 99% of the people here are angry with me. However you choose to represent yourself with a norse dragon serpent a "wyrm" (again a dragon with no legs) So now you are an angry dragon which puts you in a position of strength which when speaking to you That is ground I do not want to give. So I sought to cut your self image down a little and added lady as a dragon lady was to us growing up was a mean squawking old lady who is never happy who never compromises who always wants things done her way right now. which to me describes you. Now that fact that your asian too bonus! double meaning for those smart enough to get it (meaning probably only you) at least by your own estimation.. But the fact that you would pull a yellow card on me and make this about race?!?!

You've already been corrected on the angry part.  This is just willful stupidity on your part.  That you infer from  my actions that I am angry cuts no ice as you have repeatedly shown yourself incapable of drawing correct inferences reliably.  Like A Theist recently, that you can't imagine an alternate explanation simply points to a lack of imagination on your part.  But even if I were angry, it would be irrelevant, as your claim was that my anger was leading me to inappropriately and incorrectly draw conclusions based upon those feelings rather than upon the facts and the evidence.  That someone is angry doesn't automatically lead to the conclusion that they are doing so, and so that's a non sequitur.  I could be angry and still be reasoning appropriately about the facts and evidence.  The two aren't necessarily in conflict, and your belief that they are just points to more incompetence on your part.  Regardless, since I'm not angry, and I'm the only one here capable of making that determination, all your arguments to the contrary are worth nothing.

And I never said that I don't like Jorgie.  Plenty of people call me that and I haven't once objected to it.  I point out your use of the alpo moniker because using derogatory nicknames for people you are debating is childish and shows your general emotional immaturity, as well as your inability to correctly conclude that such tactics are going to be useless against a mature and intelligent debater, at best, and turned against you, at worst.  You could have easily called me 'Apo' -- everybody else did.  No, Drich, we know the reasons you use such disparaging nicknames and it has nothing to do with the length of my name, difficulty in spelling it, or my objection to using shortened versions of my name for convenience.  These are tantamount to more lies on your part.

(November 30, 2018 at 12:31 pm)Drich Wrote: One that is a cowards panic stop button. I know that in you world pulling your yellow card/race card is always a instant win. Never mind the fact the heritage I supposedly insulted is SHARED between us! Which only means to me that you do not count anything but a full blooded asian as being asian... Or Do You not understand I grew up first generation born here in the US, that I'm not some 3 or 4 or 1000 times removed nancy pelosi asian.. Your attitude if you know I am 50%/(my mother and her whole family is 100% korean and chinese) and still feel I don't count, despite being raise growing eating and preparing the food and speaking the language.. If that is what you believe, your belief is a bigoted one. In that only pure bred people should count or to speak about someone else in the same race..

which is why when with my mother's family and friends I had to be 200% asian and with my dads people 200% white. or i was not counted and cast aside. Which is what you just did here. Do you have any idea how hard it is not to be able to identify with any race completely? Not belonging anywhere but knowing and completely understand both cultures?

Which is why I identify as an american first. and if you are one then I see you as the same. which is what I was going off of (because mastery of the language and insight to pop culture references) which is why I had the same name for you as anyone one else in a similar circumstance.

I have never claimed that only persons possessed of 100% Asian heritage are superior to those without, or that people of mixed heritage aren't truly Asian.  Where you get that from, I have no idea.  That seems to be something you pulled from your anxiety closet.  I didn't in any way discount you on the basis of your ethnicity.  What I did do was point out that, if you research and prepare as thoroughly as you claim, then your use of what is an ethnic slur was an intentional act, intended to play on Asian stereotypes in order to demean me.  

And for the record, I find your use of insulting Asian stereotypes, derisive nicknames like 'alpo', and so forth, do more to undermine you then they are ever going to effect me.  I have a healthy reputation on this forum.  Your nicknames and ethnic slurs simply undermine your credibility and the opinions of your maturity and intelligence among those that you hope to reach with your missionary efforts.

As I noted when I started this conversation, I don't take you seriously, Drich.  That would be a bar you'd have to meet before I became butthurt over the things you do and say.

(November 30, 2018 at 12:31 pm)Drich Wrote: any other questions?

I think that's enough for now.  I reserve the right to ask further questions as they occur to me.

  I have a wall of text from you that says otherwise..

Watch what happens when one doesnot take another seriously....

You watching?

Keep watching...

Be patient..

So, no actual response. My engagement with you is because I don't take you seriously and do it for the lulz. But thanks for pointing out yet one more thing you don't understand.

I expected a non-reply to my prior post, and you didn't disappoint. Your incomprehension of my motives and reasons is simply another aspect of the fact that you're a fucking moron.

I'm more than happy to point out the idiocy of a religious moron, not because I take them seriously, but because I enjoy pointing out the idiocy of religious morons.

Congratulations, Drich. You've proved what we already knew, that you're a religious moron with no answer to anything.

(December 4, 2018 at 12:19 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote: So, no actual response.  My engagement with you is because I don't take you seriously and do it for the lulz.  But thanks for pointing out yet one more thing you don't understand.

I expected a non-reply to my prior post, and you didn't disappoint.  Your incomprehension of my motives and reasons is simply another aspect of the fact that you're a fucking moron.

I'm more than happy to point out the idiocy of a religious moron, not because I take them seriously, but because I enjoy pointing out the idiocy of religious morons.

Congratulations, Drich.  You've proved what we already knew, that you're a religious moron with no answer to anything.

told you already sport you won.. I know how ... Mad you get when I just keep hammering, That plus you offered no more questions to answer nor made any assertion that I have not already corrected, so the rest is rant and flaming anger I want no part of.

The only thing i would like to point out not that it is a big deal, is how many times have you see a white person on this site pull the race card on another white person or latino on latino? yet you pulled it on me and then redirected saying I pulled your comment out of my anxiety closet! WFT Your direct comment: 

Quote:Feel free to call me whatever names you like, but making light of my Asian heritage is low, even for you, Drich.  Oh wait.   No it's not.  It's actually just about your speed.

did you see it? "YOUR ASIAN Heritage... " What about my asian heritage? are you deny access to reference my own life experience because you do not feel someone of my 'bloodline' should be counted among the like of yourself? then again... what separates your asian heritage from mine? 

Because incase you are a little too white washed assigning signs of the chinese zodiac to someone is not meant in a derogatory way. Calling someone a rabbit means he is quick or fast at his job or I've even heard it spoken about someone's mind. Or a rooster as being a protector and a good leader. while dragons are often though as uncontrolled or unharnessed power, and despite what you say your anger is obvious. No doubt you want to be more dragon like and be detached/to have wanton destruction as a simply reflex of your nature and not a uncontrolled reflex, but it is what  it is. what's more it is obvious to everyone but you it seems.

And again no ill will here I'm just not going pages of text with you defending myself that you don't read anyway. we were almost 5 posts in before you picked up on the 'norse God cannon' bait and what's more it took someone else to point it out to you. If your not reading everything I write what's the point?

What would be the point of reading anything you write, lol..is probably the better question. I know why I do it, for all the topkek.....but I wouldn't recommend it to anyone else.

Plea for Sodom
Genesis 18:16-33

Having paid Abraham a visit, God and the two angels with him are about to head to Sodom and Gomorrah with the intention to destroy the two cities because of the utter wickedness of their inhabitants. Abraham is about to make a great plea for Sodom, for his nephew Lot just happens to live there.

I'm going to post here the part of the passage where Abraham pleads to God, just because it makes for some relatively great storytelling.

Quote:Then the Lord said, “The outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is so great and their sin so grievous that I will go down and see if what they have done is as bad as the outcry that has reached me. If not, I will know.”

The men turned away and went toward Sodom, but Abraham remained standing before the Lord. Then Abraham approached him and said: “Will you sweep away the righteous with the wicked? What if there are fifty righteous people in the city? Will you really sweep it away and not spare the place for the sake of the fifty righteous people in it? Far be it from you to do such a thing—to kill the righteous with the wicked, treating the righteous and the wicked alike. Far be it from you! Will not the Judge of all the earth do right?”

The Lord said, “If I find fifty righteous people in the city of Sodom, I will spare the whole place for their sake.”

Then Abraham spoke up again: “Now that I have been so bold as to speak to the Lord, though I am nothing but dust and ashes, what if the number of the righteous is five less than fifty? Will you destroy the whole city for lack of five people?”

“If I find forty-five there,” he said, “I will not destroy it.”

Once again he spoke to him, “What if only forty are found there?”

He said, “For the sake of forty, I will not do it.”

Then he said, “May the Lord not be angry, but let me speak. What if only thirty can be found there?”

He answered, “I will not do it if I find thirty there.”

Abraham said, “Now that I have been so bold as to speak to the Lord, what if only twenty can be found there?”

He said, “For the sake of twenty, I will not destroy it.”

Then he said, “May the Lord not be angry, but let me speak just once more. What if only ten can be found there?”

He answered, “For the sake of ten, I will not destroy it.”

When the Lord had finished speaking with Abraham, he left, and Abraham returned home.

In a previous post, I said something about how Abraham had a privileged sort of relationship with God, and this passage clearly illustrates this as Abraham boldly questions God a number of times, and yet not a word of rebuke is uttered by God. In fact, God welcomes Abraham's repeating questions, showing a seemingly uncharacteristic level of divine patience.

That said, Abraham doesn't seem to get the kind of answer he is after, and he is left hoping for the best at the end. Nevertheless, it's quite a dramatic passage. Abraham must have felt anxiety and hesitation everytime he coerced himself to ask God a question. And each answer given by God (except perhaps for the last one) just made Abraham more in want of a satisfactory answer. I can imagine that Abraham stopped asking at the end simply because he didn't want to trouble God any further, not because he was satisfied with the final answer.

Horse trading with the great destructor. Awesome.

(December 9, 2018 at 9:46 am)Grandizer Wrote: Plea for Sodom
Genesis 18:16-33

Having paid Abraham a visit, God and the two angels with him are about to head to Sodom and Gomorrah with the intention to destroy the two cities because of the utter wickedness of their inhabitants. Abraham is about to make a great plea for Sodom, for his nephew Lot just happens to live there.

I'm going to post here the part of the passage where Abraham pleads to God, just because it makes for some relatively great storytelling.

Quote:Then the Lord said, “The outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is so great and their sin so grievous that I will go down and see if what they have done is as bad as the outcry that has reached me. If not, I will know.”

The men turned away and went toward Sodom, but Abraham remained standing before the Lord. Then Abraham approached him and said: “Will you sweep away the righteous with the wicked? What if there are fifty righteous people in the city? Will you really sweep it away and not spare the place for the sake of the fifty righteous people in it? Far be it from you to do such a thing—to kill the righteous with the wicked, treating the righteous and the wicked alike. Far be it from you! Will not the Judge of all the earth do right?”

The Lord said, “If I find fifty righteous people in the city of Sodom, I will spare the whole place for their sake.”

Then Abraham spoke up again: “Now that I have been so bold as to speak to the Lord, though I am nothing but dust and ashes, what if the number of the righteous is five less than fifty? Will you destroy the whole city for lack of five people?”

“If I find forty-five there,” he said, “I will not destroy it.”

Once again he spoke to him, “What if only forty are found there?”

He said, “For the sake of forty, I will not do it.”

Then he said, “May the Lord not be angry, but let me speak. What if only thirty can be found there?”

He answered, “I will not do it if I find thirty there.”

Abraham said, “Now that I have been so bold as to speak to the Lord, what if only twenty can be found there?”

He said, “For the sake of twenty, I will not destroy it.”

Then he said, “May the Lord not be angry, but let me speak just once more. What if only ten can be found there?”

He answered, “For the sake of ten, I will not destroy it.”

When the Lord had finished speaking with Abraham, he left, and Abraham returned home.

In a previous post, I said something about how Abraham had a privileged sort of relationship with God, and this passage clearly illustrates this as Abraham boldly questions God a number of times, and yet not a word of rebuke is uttered by God. In fact, God welcomes Abraham's repeating questions, showing a seemingly uncharacteristic level of divine patience.

That said, Abraham doesn't seem to get the kind of answer he is after, and he is left hoping for the best at the end. Nevertheless, it's quite a dramatic passage. Abraham must have felt anxiety and hesitation everytime he coerced himself to ask God a question. And each answer given by God (except perhaps for the last one) just made Abraham more in want of a satisfactory answer. I can imagine that Abraham stopped asking at the end simply because he didn't want to trouble God any further, not because he was satisfied with the final answer.

I don't think the opposite but I do think differently of abraham's motivation in asking for mercy on the people of Sodom.. In that abraham knew lot was a good man and abraham knew the king to be honorable/He had dealings with them (people and the king) just a few chapters ago (when he saved lot and those of sodom taken into slavery) an assumed most of the people in sodom were basically "good people." Then to his surprise far fewer were 'good' then he was sent to critically examine them. and he was taught to see what God saw. noting not even the people he saved were worth saving down to even lot's wife.

He stopped asking at 10 righteous people because he knew if he had to critically examine Lot then he too would have to be left there to be burned up as well, and saw what God did (spare lot despite being a resident of the corrupt city and being corrupt himself) as a mercy. As we will we see lot and his daughters were products of sodom..

Abraham's mistake was he believed that people were all 'basically good.' when he was made to honestly look he could not find even one. I think this is our mistake as well when we automatically assume when God is done with a people like sodom and gomorrah or the people of the flood that there are basically good people in the group. as you can see God always take out the good or even close to good/lot and his daughters then levels his judgement.

Grandizer, I don't think Abraham had any more of a privileged relationship with God than anyone else today has. I actually with Drich's assessment of Abraham's mistake. I believe he wanted compassion for "good" people and forgot that being good doesn't mean anything at all when all have sinned and all sins are equal.

(December 10, 2018 at 4:20 pm)tackattack Wrote: Grandizer, I don't think Abraham had any more of a privileged relationship with God than anyone else today has. I actually with Drich's assessment of Abraham's mistake. I believe he wanted compassion for "good" people and forgot that being good doesn't mean anything at all when all have sinned and all sins are equal.

 

Ah, no.. sorry sport but the 'law' was not a 'thing yet, therefore no establish sin. No established sin= all sin are not equal as no sin has been identified. Rememebr we did not get the law till moses almost 1200 years later? 

So why did God punish Sodom and gomorrah morrah? According to the narrative, Because of the prayers of the righteous cry out for justice for the evil men who lived there. So even by the standards of man sodom and gomorrah was an evil place. so evil.. God sent to 'messengers to check it out.' 

That's when abraham rolls up to the two angels and says hey will you destroy the righteous with the wicked? ( that is found in verse 25 and 26. those verses obliterates your exegesis of this passage)  

Quote:"I believe he wanted compassion for "good" people and forgot that being good doesn't mean anything at all when all have sinned and all sins are equal."

HEre's why: because in 26 they say no not if you find 50 righteous men/men like abraham and who he thought lot to be.. , then 40 then 30 then 20 and finally 10.. when he got to 10 Abraham knew There were no good people period even lot and is famly was corrupt, and the fact he was allowed to retreive them was a mercy. Examples of lot's corruption: the wife being caught looking back and longing/sadden for the city was turned ito a pilar of salt and later we find out lot's daughters have a drunken orgy with LOT! 

So no NOT ONE RIGHTEOUS person came from that place! That said Abraham despite his 'sin' is still found righteous to God which in of itself contradicts your idea of all being equal in sin. In fact this idea doesn't become canonical till after the resurrection of Christ. Meaning for people who lived before this passage was penned, they did not live under this rule.

These people were not christian and had no hope of being christian so they are not judged by the rules people born after christ will be.

Are you really arguing against me when I was actually agreeing with you? People are sinful by nature because of original sin.

I agree no one was righteous from that place 100% I also agree it was a mercy that He saved Lot. But as highlighted above, those before the law still had the law on their hearts, all had sinned, and sins aren't differentiated without the law.
In fact just go read Romans 3 and 4. They speak directly to justification of Abraham and original sin.