(December 23, 2014 at 11:30 am)Drich Wrote:

(December 23, 2014 at 9:42 am)Spooky Wrote: Asshole, douchbag, fuckwit. It's all the same.

I direct you to Matthew 7 Verse 5:

---

Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.

---

The 'Beam' has been attoned for. Now let me help you.

I direct you to Matthew 6 Verses 1-34:



If I'm in any need of help, not only will it not come from you, but you're woefully under qualified. I do not need "saving". This is not some mission from god. Your "suffering" here will not be somehow rewarded. Your defense of something so completely flawed means that you are the delusional one in need of "help".

You're effectively howling at the moon.

(December 23, 2014 at 1:00 pm)Drich Wrote: The Irony is you live in a world that has been secured by torture and slavery, yet selfrighteousness and hyprocrisy will not allowed you to acknoweledge that your rest in the shade the tree of slavery and 'EIT's provide.

Yes, I'm well aware that aspects of the world I live in came about due to these things; that doesn't require me to like them or advocate for them. What a completely ridiculous position to take.

We're imperfect people working through imperfect means, but that doesn't entail that we should simply pretend that nobody ever made mistakes in the past; we need to acknowledge and learn from those mistakes no matter if we benefited from them or not.

Quote:That is why I say it is no big deal, because I enjoy the world we live in and I am not ashamed as to how it came about.

Which also carries the implied assumption that you think the world couldn't possibly have been better than it is now, if those things had never happened. I'd love to know how you came to that conclusion.

Besides, where is the connection between enjoying the world you live in, and being bound to think of its history as completely perfect?

Quote:The only difference between me and someone like you is I am not afraid to say the life, soceity/country I live in takes a big dump on the idea of absolute 'moral values' and makes everything relitive. That I am not defined by what others think of me 'morally.' That I am not defined by a hypocritical standard that has me DIRECTLY BENEFIT from practices i am supposed to be offended by.

And again, the assertion of moral relativism sans evidence or justification.

And if you benefit from slavery and torture now, that's on you; I certainly don't. If it happened in the past then I and my moral standard can hardly be blamed for that, and if it's happening in the present then I actively disassociate from it. It'd only be hypocritical if I operated through the bizarre prism you interpret the world through, and I don't.

Quote:Again, this is where you people abandon common sense in favor of hyprocrisy to save your crap 'morality.' Even If the worst of us lived in a cities like Kandahar, Gardez or even Kabul where there are terror attacks daily, and all it took was to take those in custody and expose them to EIT's. you people would look at the lessor of two evils (One being the deaths and terrorization of your lives/families, the other being a non life threatening EIT) and demand the EIT in exchange for the life you now live!!!

Yeah, because inflicting violence upon a group of people who are already disposed to using violence themselves has never galvanized and sharpened their own hatred and willingness to use violence.

Torture is a short term solution, Drich: you can't torture everyone, and by torturing anyone you're just giving legitimacy to the grievances of the violent party. But then, it's not surprising that you're only thinking of the simplistic, short term solutions.

(December 23, 2014 at 9:11 am)Drich Wrote: What you guys fail to understand through the thin veil of morality you hide behind.

Our failing to understand you isn't due to morality, it's to do with how good you are at communication combined with a stunned disbelief at some of the ridiculous bs you spout. Sometimes it beggars belief that you hold some of the positions that you do.

(December 23, 2014 at 12:40 am)Drich Wrote: It is not that I am pretending to say Those who seek redemption are better in any way.

At least you get how demonstrably untrue that is.

(December 23, 2014 at 12:40 am)Drich Wrote: As so many of you are so quick to point out, we understand we are often times worse than those who hide behind vain righteousness that is spawned from with in yourselves or your culture. That is why we often are made to seek redemption.

But apparently being made to try to be better people was an afterthought at best.

(December 23, 2014 at 12:40 am)Drich Wrote: It is because we can not pretend to be all high and mighty, or we understand that being "good Moral people" is the same as being the lessor of two evils (in the we are still evil) and as such still not worthy of eternal life.

I'm pretty sure that you're a special snowlflake in considering morality evil, so you might want to stay away from 'we'. What you're actually saying doesn't seem to be coherent. I can only imagine that your point is that no one is perfect, but you're on some sort of medication that makes your mind go around in a few circles before getting there.

(December 23, 2014 at 12:40 am)Drich Wrote: So that mean all the posts and posters who pointed out that I am less "moral" than you hold yourselves to are I deed correct.

That's fixable if you care to trouble yourself. I don't think the bar is set so high that it's impossible for you to be morally exemplary compared to the best of us or particularly hard to be as good as most of us.

(December 23, 2014 at 12:40 am)Drich Wrote: I don't pretend to hold myself to the standards of this generation's popular culture.

So you're a moral relativist. Intersting.

(December 23, 2014 at 12:40 am)Drich Wrote: As such I know I need to find attonement and redemption for my evil, and not just hide it by comparing it to another person's 'more' evil ways.

What a minimally decent person needs to do is learn from their mistakes and try to be a better person going forward. To know you're wrong about something and persist in it is far worse than doing wrong from ignorance or thoughtlessness.

And no one here is 'hiding' behind their supposed better morality. Morality isn't the kind of thing that anything can be hidden behind. It's a method for determining whether a behavior is right or wrong. Everyone has some measure of good and bad.

(December 23, 2014 at 12:40 am)Drich Wrote: What are examples of over sensitivity?
The reaction to the advanced interrogation techniques. Why isn't this torture? Again torture is not legal, these techniques were deemed legal.

It's an example of moral paucity to appeal to legal definitions to justify the morality of something. That's like saying something isn't wrong if it isn't on the books as a crime. Awful things can be legal, and harmless things can be illiegal. And you know that.

(December 23, 2014 at 12:40 am)Drich Wrote: The other example of over sensitivity was to the discussion of slavery we just had.

Please don't be about to try to justify slavery. Please.

(December 23, 2014 at 12:40 am)Drich Wrote: This is where common sense has failed most of you. In that we currently live in the backs of slaves and your over sensitivity to that word has kept you from acknowledging your personal role in the employment of slaves to provide you with the western life style you currently enjoy.

And that makes it right how?

(December 23, 2014 at 12:40 am)Drich Wrote: This over sensitivity/loss of common sense has also kept you from acknoweledging that for those who are slaves need their slavery to survive. Because with out their jobs they would literally starve trying to live in the societal model we currently live in.

You seem to be using a peculiar meaning for 'slave'. Slaves don't get paid.

(December 23, 2014 at 12:40 am)Drich Wrote: I can think of a few more but I think the pot is stirred well enough.

You know what someone who just tries to stir the pot on the internet is, don't you?

(December 23, 2014 at 12:35 pm)Drich Wrote: The Senate can find whatever it likes, The people who authorized the EIT's pointed very specifically to useful information. https://www.cia.gov/news-information/pre...ogram.html

How about instead of letting someone do your thinking for you, you venture out to the source and learn to make up your own mind.

There is much political gain in a senate who tries to take the 'moral high ground' once the danger has past. But, where were your senators when these events were taking place? Are you so naive to think that the senate had no idea what was happening in git-mo before this report was released? The see a band wagon and the all jumped on it.

I absolutely disagree with you on your morality comments, but I want to focus on this issue of torture, which is enhanced interrogation by another name. I want you to watch this video of Christopher Hitchens voluntarily being waterboarded, as well as another video demonstrating it. Watch those and tell me that's not torture. Watch those and tell me that you wouldn't say anything your torturers wanted you to if you were being subjected to something so horrific.

Quote:- Or I'm starting to make sense and it scares you...

You do scare me at times, but it's not because you make sense.

Quite the opposite, in fact.

Am I getting this right? Is Drich trying to claim moral superiority over non believers because... he has fewer morals?

(December 23, 2014 at 2:04 pm)rexbeccarox Wrote: Am I getting this right? Is Drich trying to claim moral superiority over non believers because... he has fewer morals?

Pretty much.

Or to put it other words, he's trying to give us a lecture on authoritarian values as opposed to "mob morality".

Mob morality, aka the social order.

(December 23, 2014 at 12:31 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote: It's just you, thinking you can generalize about a whole demographic from your limited personal experiences, and discounting the role your own behavior plays in your experiences.

What I have sucessfully done is describe a sub set in a whole demographic, otherwise why else would this discussion have triggered so many responses. As i have already pointed out I am not speaking to everyone, but I am speaking those in whom my message applies.

(December 23, 2014 at 12:40 am)Drich Wrote: Or they are trying to fill that hole in their hearts with overly 'moral' gestures and extra sensitivity to everything. to the point they are willing to suspend common sense and even the truth to try and pretend they some how are better than those who simply seek redemption..

Quote:Since your premise is wrong-or at least completely unsuppored by objective evidence-, whatever follows from it is in error.

Again if my primise is wrong then why have so many of your brethern rush to defend against what has said?
what your saying is like telling someone there is a hole in the boat but the bilge remains dry.
This is incontrast to me saying there is a hole in your boat and the shipboard passengers all scramble to plug it.

If the ship board passengers did not see water then why do the work so hard to plug the hole?

Quote:Our efforts may not amount to much, but they're all anyone has. Doing what you're able to do means something. Theists can't do more than they can do, either.

Indeed. That it why we seek attonement, because we know our best means nothing.

Quote:Innumerable acts of kindness add up to more good done than all the 'True Righteousness' ™ in the world?

"Good acts" according to who? a 'good act' even in this country just a few generations ago can be consider a misdeed today.
My grandfather was a milk man when they had them and one of this 'act of kindness' was to give the 'pick up milk' (What we would considered to be expired) to the poor who could not afford milk.

Could you imagine the scandel if a milk truck drive was caught doing this to some shelter or homeless kitchen today? There would be law suits and people fired from this act. In today's morality it is better to take expired milk to the dump wether it is bad or not.

I was also told by Him Hospitals and their equivelant of a homeless shelter would issue unwashed blankets to the bums when it was cold out. Again another example of one generation's good deed is another's misdeed.

Unless there is an unchanging standard like Righteousness to define what is Good and what is not, 'good deeds' then become subjective to the 'morality' of the day. Why is that a bad thing? Because even in Hitler's germany the vast majority of followers considered themselves to also be 'moral.'

(December 23, 2014 at 12:40 am)Drich Wrote: Man's morality demands that the lessor of two evils is what is to be deemed 'moral.'

Quote:The lesser of two evils isn't moral, it's just less immoral. Our options are limited and almost always we have to do the best we can with what we've got.

Indeed, but again this is what morality is. Example Which of the following is a moral act: Stealing to feed the literal starving? watching someone go hungry because the law will not allow you to feed them?
(We have a vagerancy law on the books right now that says only a certified soup kitchen can feed the homless.)

Quote:Hands that are open to help are of more benefit to others than hands clasped tightly in prayer.

Hands that pray are far more likly to help than those who make such observations.

Quote:Of course, there's no reason a person can't be both devout and as kind and generous as possible. Some people think those traits ought to go together.

indeed

Quote:Morality is how we determine the difference between right and wrong. Even if you believe yours comes from God, that's what it is: a method of distinguishing right and wrong. It doesn't even make sense to talk about it in terms of being a lesser evil.

If my 'morality' comes from God then that standard never changes. Man's morality (apart from God) is an ever changing standard. Just look at what this country thought about drinking, drug, music and gay people 70 years ago, now look at what it thinks. So then ask yourself why the change? In each and every instance of moral shift a case was presented that showed the old belief being somehow more evil that allowing what was once those to be 'morally wrong.'

You and your friends may not like to hear that but it is the truth. Everythime there is a generational shift in morality the case is made that the old moral values cause far greater harm that the morally netural act in question. Abortion, Homosexuality, Substance abuse, and a whole host of others has all faded to what has been defined as the lessor evil.

Quote:No kidding. As is often the case with your threads, the title is seeming more and more ironic the farther we get into your opening post.

I'm glad someone noticed

Quote:Morality is not the lessor of two evils. What's the greater evil that it's supposed to be 'lessor than'?

given which subject of morality?

(December 23, 2014 at 12:40 am)Drich Wrote: Since we can not produce righteousness, we must seek it from another source. Thankfully Christ is that other source.

Quote:Asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.

What would you consider to be evidence? I can't provide evidence unless you know what it is your looking for. For me evidence is found in the bible and the verse I took that passage from. Somehow I think for you this will not be enough, so again please tell me what your looking for.

Quote:So God voluntarily makes himself blind to our sins if we believe one particular legend? Well, that's your story, and it's clear that you're sticking to it.

Actually no. Sin= Death period. I sinned that means someone had to die. Christ died in place of me. So no blind eye was given. My debt was paid.

(December 23, 2014 at 12:40 am)Drich Wrote: This allows God to love us not for what we do, but for ourselves.

Quote:What is the nature of the impairment God has that makes him unable to love us for ourselves unless we believe one particular legends out of all the millions and millions in the world?

Look at the cost paid in the 'ledgend.' If you paid such a high price would you demand those who directly benfit from it respect your efforts?

Quote:What is this limit on his supposed omnipotence, and why can you say he's omnipotent if he can't even love someone for themselves unless they jump through some particular hoops in a world filled with hoops?

God describes Himself as the Alpha and the Omega the beginning and end to all thing, further more He describes Himself as the Great I am. This means God is who He wants to be. As such is not subject to any rule principle, governing authority or philosphy. That means He is only limited by the limits He imposes on Himself. If he wishes to be limited here then a true alpha and Omega has the power and authority to draw a line here. That is the defination of true omnipotence. Being able to be who or what you want to be and not defined by a term or principle/what people think you should be because you use a term to define a certain aspect of yourself.

Quote:Our morals help us get along better and make life better. If they please some deity, that's a happy coincidence.

Again our morals allow us to do whatever we want to do. It is the given tempreture of a soceity/mob of people living in a certain place in a certain time. Or do you really think the followers of Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Kim's etc consider themselves to be immoral?

(December 23, 2014 at 12:40 am)Drich Wrote: This grace this love is what keeps the redeemed from having to check our common sense at the door in favor for extra sensitivity to making sure we are on the side of 'morality' even if it engangers ourselves or our way of life.

Quote:All that just to get to an excuse for not trying to be a better person than you already are?

Actually "all of that" to be honest with who I am, and How I get to live this life, the realization of the other lives I am stepping on to live at this level. and in turn the responsiblities placed on me to care for those under me when I can. Then when change is demanded the full force of whatever influence i have, and the rallying call to others to effect change. One can't do this with their heads in the sand/Lying to themselves about who they are.

Meaning if you pretend to live a supremely moral life, free from the need of things like Slavery and EIT's you will allow those who live in the shadows who keep slaves and perform EIT's the luxury of doing so without any oversight.

If however I can except that I am not 'moral' by the douche bag standard everyone has adopted for themselves, I can retain my common sense and see where I may unfairly benfit from others, and in doing so can effect change when needed. This is in contrast to pretending that I am perfect in what I do now, and who I am because I have labled myself in accordance with the rules of 'morality' thus get to pretend that I do not effect my fellow man in any negitive way shape or form. but in all actuality I allow far greater crimes against my fellow man because the men who provide this life built on the backs of slaves and tortured men can do so with out concern because there is no oversight. There is no oversight because again I (The moral among you) do not live in a world that has such things.

---

(December 23, 2014 at 2:04 pm)rexbeccarox Wrote: Am I getting this right? Is Drich trying to claim moral superiority over non believers because... he has fewer morals?

Quite the oppsite infact.

Because I do not consider myself to be 'moral' by the standard of man I get to be honest with myself, about the impact my life has on the world at large. I don't have to pretend that i do not live a life provided by slavery. i do not pretend I do not enjoy the freedom EIT's has provided me, I do not pretend that I am something I am not.

Because I can honestly look at my short commings and identify them I can then inturn seek redemption. The other big thing that the 'moral' can not do. Because if one is 'moral' why would he need redemption?

---

(December 23, 2014 at 1:30 pm)Strider Wrote:

(December 23, 2014 at 12:35 pm)Drich Wrote: The Senate can find whatever it likes, The people who authorized the EIT's pointed very specifically to useful information. https://www.cia.gov/news-information/pre...ogram.html

How about instead of letting someone do your thinking for you, you venture out to the source and learn to make up your own mind.

There is much political gain in a senate who tries to take the 'moral high ground' once the danger has past. But, where were your senators when these events were taking place? Are you so naive to think that the senate had no idea what was happening in git-mo before this report was released? The see a band wagon and the all jumped on it.

I absolutely disagree with you on your morality comments, but I want to focus on this issue of torture, which is enhanced interrogation by another name. I want you to watch this video of Christopher Hitchens voluntarily being waterboarded, as well as another video demonstrating it. Watch those and tell me that's not torture. Watch those and tell me that you wouldn't say anything your torturers wanted you to if you were being subjected to something so horrific.
http://youtu.be/4LPubUCJv58

http://youtu.be/823cXoWW9Gw

Quote:- Or I'm starting to make sense and it scares you...

You do scare me at times, but it's not because you make sense.
[/hide][/quote]

do you see how quickly this particular EIT put people at the end of their thresh hold for discomfort?
The 'safe words' here would be akin to the terrorist info we would be looking for in a real situation. If a 'safe word' was given with in a minute how much longer do you think a terrorist could hold out?

I am not going to post a video of our our people are treated/beheaded by members of the same/similar goup.

What you people don't seem to understand is that we would not EIT every man woman or child, just those in a position to tell us of comming attacks, while on the other hand our enemy would behead as many of us as it would take to break the will of our remaining nation to not only submit to their rule, but to live underthem.

If me and the majority of the country says Hell, No! then rest assured we will make room for people like you to reap the benfits of the world we provide, and still allow you to ride your moral high horse... Just know from time to time a few of us will call you on your hyprocrisy.

Why? Because even though you pretend to stand against all of this, you still eat, live, love, shave and sh*t by the freedom EIT's provide Douche Bag!

(December 23, 2014 at 12:40 am)Drich Wrote: Is it just me or do people who don't know God far more likly to be overly sensitive to EVERYTHING? It's like they are over compensating for something.

Well, for many years, the godly were burning the un-godly at the stake. Fortunately, in modern times, the godly have settled down to mostly snide bickering and petty character assassination. So, when you walk around telling people they're evil beings that deserve eternal damnation, they tend to start to become sensitive to the things you say.

Of course, in your case, understanding all of this would require a certain level of self-reflection.