(November 22, 2012 at 12:51 pm)Minimalist Wrote:

Quote:With His death comes freedom from the Law as the only way to obtain righteousness.

That is not what your dickhead of a god said, old bean. Or perhaps you are simply a very poor follower.

Quote:King James Bible (Cambridge Ed.)
For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

BECAUSE ALL OF IT STILL APPLIES! Otherwise if it passed away you all would be saved as well, and Christ would not have needed to die!

Because it did not pass away (all of it) we are all in sin. Sin requires a sacerfice. Christ Is That Sacerfice. (for those who accept what He has done for them.)

---

(November 22, 2012 at 2:54 pm)genkaus Wrote: So how many neighbors have you stoned to death for working on a Sunday?

Sin and attonement was the purpose of the Law. In the OT God identified sin and established the high price of sin. Sin has since been redeemed. Sin does not change nor did the price of sin change.

Quote:Consult a dictionary. Righteousness means morality. Thus god's standard is his morality - and its nowhere near perfect.

Consult a lexicon. When establishing the terms and defination of a forgein language understand not every word directly translates into the second language. Righteousness is seperate from man's morality, because it is an attribute of God not shared by man.
http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexi...6666&t=KJV

Quote:Nope, I'm saying that the logic you pointed to as faulty was not - in fact - faulty. Which is why you chose to put it as "fallacy of logic" instead of naming it. It is your ignorance of logic and your laziness to correct it that are being indicated by that phrase.

What a d-bag. I very carfully identified all of the elements that make this a deductive fallacy, but unless it is a strawman or a red herring your lost.
From the link I provided to you last post:

Deductive fallacy

Main articles: Deductive fallacy and formal fallacy

In philosophy, the term logical fallacy properly refers to a formal fallacy: a flaw in the structure of a deductive argument which renders the argument invalid.

However, the same terms are used in informal discourse to mean an argument which is problematic for any reason.

A logical form such as A and B is independent of any particular conjunction of meaningful propositions. Logical form alone can guarantee that given true premises, a true conclusion must follow. However, formal logic makes no such guarantee if any premise is false, the conclusion can be either true or false. Any formal mistake or logical fallacy similarly invalidates the deductive guarantee. The so-called fallacy fallacy is a failure to understand that all bets are off unless the argument is formally flawless and all premises are true.

Quote:The creator would not have automatic authority over his creation./Again being a creator does not give one the right over his creation. Especially if the creation is a sentient, rational and self-aware being.

Who says? You??? Why? Because You say so? Great arguement.

Quote:BECAUSE ALL OF IT STILL APPLIES! Otherwise if it passed away you all would be saved as well, and Christ would not have needed to die!

Then answer the question put to you above. How many sabbath-breakers have you stoned to death? How many unruly children have you killed for Yahweh the Bloody-Handed?

If it all applies then it ALL applies. You don't get to cherry-pick "god's" laws because you want to.

Perhaps now you understand why I think you are full of shit?

Quote:The creator would not have automatic authority over his creation./Again being a creator does not give one the right over his creation. Especially if the creation is a sentient, rational and self-aware being.

Quote:Who says? You??? Why? Because You say so?

So according to you, Drich, if I create an artificial intelligence I can do it whatever I want, and it's never immoral. I think that most philosophers of morality would disagree with you. Sentient beings have rights simply for the fact that they're sentient. Even the (alleged) creator of those beings would have to respect these rights.

(November 23, 2012 at 2:06 pm)Minimalist Wrote:

Quote:BECAUSE ALL OF IT STILL APPLIES! Otherwise if it passed away you all would be saved as well, and Christ would not have needed to die!

Then answer the question put to you above. How many sabbath-breakers have you stoned to death? How many unruly children have you killed for Yahweh the Bloody-Handed?

If it all applies then it ALL applies. You don't get to cherry-pick "god's" laws because you want to.

Perhaps now you understand why I think you are full of shit?

Do you still not understand Grace? The OT law and consenquences/punishment was to establish what would happen if one is outside of the Grace of God. Once Christ died then grace abounds or is shared in this life to everyone. Christ said He will "allow the Wheat and the weeds to grow together till the final harvest." Their is no need to 'weed' because God will sift the wheat from the weeds Himself. Just because judgement is not required upon discovery of sin does not mean judgement is not forth comming. The same OT wrath you are asking for will be visited upon the unrepentant sinner. Just not by me.

---

(November 23, 2012 at 2:20 pm)Kirbmarc Wrote:

Quote:The creator would not have automatic authority over his creation./Again being a creator does not give one the right over his creation. Especially if the creation is a sentient, rational and self-aware being.

Quote:Who says? You??? Why? Because You say so?

So according to you, Drich, if I create an artificial intelligence I can do it whatever I want, and it's never immoral. I think that most philosophers of morality would disagree with you. Sentient beings have rights simply for the fact that they're sentient. Even the (alleged) creator of those beings would have to respect these rights.

If it is 'artificial' then it is not intelligent. It is simply able to mimic intellegence. I believe the term you are looking for is synthetic intellegence.(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synthetic_intelligence AI is an out dated 90's term.)

That said, If you were involved in this process in anyother way besides magic-ing a synthetic intellegence into existance then I would contend that you and your philosphers would be wrong. For if you would have written the endless code that would have sustained this conscousness. In effect you have control and responsiablity over that being. What if your program created real cylons or Sky Net? Do you not think you would be held responsiable by the rest of us? What if the cylons or sky net you created followed the Sci-fi dipictions of them and tried to take over humanity, would you just roll over and 'respect' their intellegent desision to destroy humanity, or would you judge this 'creation' to be 'sinful?' and do your part to stop them?

(November 23, 2012 at 4:06 pm)Drich Wrote: If it is 'artificial' then it is not intelligent. It is simply able to mimic intellegence. I believe the term you are looking for is synthetic intellegence.(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synthetic_intelligence AI is an out dated 90's term.)

If an AI (which, is in, fact not an obsolete term at all) exhibits intelligence and sentience completely indistinguishable from 'natural' intelligence, then there is no moral ground on which to say that one intelligence is more legitimate than the other.

Though, since Christians distrust and belittle human intelligence at every opportunity, I understand your position on this matter.

Quote:That said, If you were involved in this process in anyother way besides magic-ing a synthetic intellegence into existance then I would contend that you and your philosphers would be wrong. For if you would have written the endless code that would have sustained this conscousness. In effect you have control and responsiablity over that being. What if your program created real cylons or Sky Net? Do you not think you would be held responsiable by the rest of us? What if the cylons or sky net you created followed the Sci-fi dipictions of them and tried to take over humanity, would you just roll over and 'respect' their intellegent desision to destroy humanity, or would you judge this 'creation' to be 'sinful?' and do your part to stop them?

This is a meaningless scenario in regards to this argument. Humans pose no threat to an allegedly all-powerful being, and God is never on record fearing destruction at our hands. I would not 'roll over' and respect an AI's decision to obliterate all life on earth.

If I created an AI, I would, however, respect its decision to, say, not worship its creator, because unlike God, I am not a jealous and immature bitch.

(November 23, 2012 at 4:46 pm)Ryantology Wrote:

(November 23, 2012 at 4:06 pm)Drich Wrote: If it is 'artificial' then it is not intelligent. It is simply able to mimic intellegence. I believe the term you are looking for is synthetic intellegence.(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synthetic_intelligence AI is an out dated 90's term.)

If an AI (which, is in, fact not an obsolete term at all) exhibits intelligence and sentience completely indistinguishable from 'natural' intelligence, then there is no moral ground on which to say that one intelligence is more legitimate than the other.

Though, since Christians distrust and belittle human intelligence at every opportunity, I understand your position on this matter.

Quote:That said, If you were involved in this process in anyother way besides magic-ing a synthetic intellegence into existance then I would contend that you and your philosphers would be wrong. For if you would have written the endless code that would have sustained this conscousness. In effect you have control and responsiablity over that being. What if your program created real cylons or Sky Net? Do you not think you would be held responsiable by the rest of us? What if the cylons or sky net you created followed the Sci-fi dipictions of them and tried to take over humanity, would you just roll over and 'respect' their intellegent desision to destroy humanity, or would you judge this 'creation' to be 'sinful?' and do your part to stop them?

This is a meaningless scenario in regards to this argument. Humans pose no threat to an allegedly all-powerful being, and God is never on record fearing destruction at our hands. I would not 'roll over' and respect an AI's decision to obliterate all life on earth.

If I created an AI, I would, however, respect its decision to, say, not worship its creator, because unlike God, I am not a jealous and immature bitch.

(November 23, 2012 at 11:12 pm)Drich Wrote:

Your sex life is no doubt interesting but I do not see how it relates to my post.

So......someone in this thread is totally okay with the notion of the ownership of human beings. That's just fucking awesome. Good for them......

(November 22, 2012 at 12:44 pm)Drich Wrote:

(November 21, 2012 at 1:57 pm)Darkstar Wrote: Oops, I keep forgetting that one. You are right, there is a fourth argument.
There is just one [major] problem: Righteousness being objective does not make it objectively good.
Scratch that, there are two problems. The one where Jesus contradicts one of Yahweh's laws. (as in my previous post) If the law was objectively good, then why would Jesus prevent it from being carried out? (Note: I'm going to be gone for a few days, so I'll get back to this later).

Nothing has been condraticted. The old Law demanded Death to attone for sin. Christ died. With His death comes freedom from the Law as the only way to obtain righteousness.

If you read the Bible, then you know that each person shall die for their own sin... Just sayin...

(November 24, 2012 at 2:28 am)catfish Wrote: If you read the Bible, then you know that each person shall die for their own sin... Just sayin...

What sins were committed by the untold thousands of children murdered in God's ethnic cleansing episodes? How were the firstborn of Egypt, many of them certainly infants and toddlers, complicit in the crimes of the Pharaoh?