(November 14, 2012 at 4:38 am)Daniel Wrote: [It was still wrong for them to apply it individually, yes, you had to go to the correct priest.

Which obviously begs the question - was it sinful for the priest? Was it sinful for others once they had the priest's approval?

The High Priest got to go into the Holies of Holies - anyone else who went there would be met with death...

(November 14, 2012 at 9:09 am)Daniel Wrote: Delight in his suffering? No!

Yes you do...otherwise you do not have a religion...yes??

---

(November 14, 2012 at 9:17 am)Daniel Wrote: The High Priest got to go into the Holies of Holies - anyone else who went there would be met with death...

Oh?? Is THAT what they call anal sex now??

(November 14, 2012 at 9:32 am)KichigaiNeko Wrote: Oh?? Is THAT what they call anal sex now??

(November 13, 2012 at 5:59 pm)Rhythm Wrote: I am not the OP. Mandatory given...lol.
…
Far less troubling for those who oppose the opinions I'd say. Not that this need be established, mind you, so long as as you're willing to own the opinions in the interim we can have a discussion, but the very moment "godopinesit" comes up that's a full stop.
…
Whether or not the bible is true has little to do with my opinions of what is or is not celebrated by it's adherents. If the bible is true, and if the bible is not true don't have the power to change my opinion on some issues...and on some of those issues I disagree with the majority of theists I've spoken to. I find it much more useful to poke at what any given person might -wish- to be true..regardless of whether or not it is. Reminding you, for example, that you cannot demonstrate that this or that portion of the bible (in this case the opinions of a god) is true only serves to highlight the ethereal nature of what is going to follow from that point.
…
See, we're elaborating. The obvious caveat here is that you cannot demonstrate that the author of the book in question is a god. Who's opinions are we supposed to be talking about? You're assuming what I would have you demonstrate in an effort to justify the assumption itself.

Whether the Bible is true is clearly a red herring for purposes of this thread, and bringing it up at this point comes across as desperation.

Quote:So you think your own taste in food is refutable?

No, as it’s subjective.

Quote:You don't have a compelling reason to like chocolate?

No, I don’t. I simply like it.

Quote:You require your reasons for having specific tastes in food to be something more than subjective?

I don’t have reasons for my tastes. I simply have tastes.

(November 14, 2012 at 9:17 am)Daniel Wrote: The High Priest got to go into the Holies of Holies

Please stop talking dirty... You are getting me excited.

(November 14, 2012 at 10:59 am)frankiej Wrote:

(November 14, 2012 at 9:17 am)Daniel Wrote: The High Priest got to go into the Holies of Holies

Please stop talking dirty... You are getting me excited.

(November 14, 2012 at 10:41 am)John V Wrote: Whether the Bible is true is clearly a red herring for purposes of this thread, and bringing it up at this point comes across as desperation.

Desperation? I don't actually care John, I really don't. Again, "godopinesit" is a full stop because there is no avenue for elaboration whether or not the narrative is accurate. If you ask me why I opine it, I can tell you why, we can find the areas where we agree and disagree, and that allows us to weigh our respective opinions against each other..ultimately we may even be able to claim that one or the other is the "better" opinion. Happens to me plenty of the time. I go into something with an opinion, and after discussion my opinion changes. That the accuracy of the narrative can't be established is inconsequential to whether or not it can be elaborated upon, but very much relevant if someone feels that they are not required to elaborate upon what god opines. This is why a statement like "you would criticize god for doing the same thing" is so aggravating for me. Because god isn't giving any opinions - god isn't "doing the same thing" (even if he were- you just can't be fucking bothered to establish that can you), so already the comment is empty - meaningless...... but further, the "opinions" offered are not even opinions in any meaningful way if we line them up next to our own. But hey, feel free to elaborate on your opinion of why this is desperation? Maybe you have compelling reasons for holding this opinion?

Quote:No, as it’s subjective.

Then that would make your explanations for your tastes compelling, an inability to be refuted (by definition no less)...so I suppose you agree with me after all. Compelling reasons can be given for subjective opinions, and compelling reasons do not automatically confer objectivity to a subjective opinion. To be fair, it's very easy to have compelling reasons for a subjective opinion because the bar is much lower. Such is also the case for the opinions of god. -If- someone was willing to own them as subjective then a much more productive conversation could be had. If one insists that they are not subjective then it becomes fairly damned important to demonstrate that they are objective...and a major component of that is discussed above (and seems to be uniformly dismissed -in this case you decided to pull the desperation card- by those who might be inclined to claim that they are ). Now clearly I have no idea whether you feel that the opinions of god..whatever they may be, are subjective or objective, but it isn't for lack of opportunity to present them as either. You must have an opinion on this to have formed a statement like the one that I entered this thread with.

Quote:No, I don’t. I simply like it.

I doubt that, and I bet if we explored it we'll end up two pages later in the same situation we are re: subjectivity and compelling reasons.

Quote:I don’t have reasons for my tastes. I simply have tastes.

Again, doubtful. What keeps you from loving mushrooms one day, gagging on them the next, loving them again when you wake up the third - and then not giving two shits either way when you fall asleep that night? If you'd like to play a stonewalling game after I've been so participatory you can imagine the effect on my desire to continue this conversation with you, yes?

(November 14, 2012 at 10:41 am)John V Wrote: Whether the Bible is true is clearly a red herring for purposes of this thread, and bringing it up at this point comes across as desperation.

The only reason to ever bring up the obvious incredibility of the Bible is when a theist makes an argument assuming that what is in it is true. Which, of course, happens pretty much all the time.

But, save for that, you're right, it does not matter whether or not the Bible is factual. What matters is that it is a tome which depicts the worst kinds of crimes and calls them good acts of a good God, and that if you believe that the Bible is true, and you do not condemn both the crimes and the criminal who inspired every one of them, you are celebrating everything I listed (and more) and worshiping history's worst monster. And you do so without the excuse of ignorance.

(November 14, 2012 at 11:44 am)Ryantology Wrote: The only reason to ever bring up the obvious incredibility of the Bible is when a theist makes an argument assuming that what is in it is true. Which, of course, happens pretty much all the time.

Such as a statement about something god has done or is doing..like asserting it's opinions. Precisely the point of my frustration and the very reason that it becomes relevant in the very limited scope of my personal opinions on the matter. I'm kind of aggravated that John feels that I'm the one who brought it up....