pop morality

[Drich]

I don't know about yall, but when I think of things taken to be morally just by my society ..........exploitative migrant labor conditions and foreign sweatshops just jump right up at me as great examples.  I mean, think about it...every day on the news we see opinion pieces extolling the moral justness of sub par wages and substandard working conditions.  People and businesses clamor to attach their names to productive sweatshops and the worst illegal labor violations, there are committees which hand out citations to the most cruel and usory of sweatshop operations and labor law violations...so we can know who these great americans are.   When we discover them in our midst, they're universally loved and respected for their involvement with such morally just endeavors, and news broadcasts hound them constantly for an opportunity to praise them for their efforts and ethics.....................

And why not??? do you not understand without these goods and services 2/3rds population of this planet that live off of slave wages would starve and die? Where do you think the money to feed these people would come from otherwise?

Oh I know we'll tax the 1% to 99% of their income and the 1%-ers can pay for everything

Or do you not understand your blessing on slavery is granted when you continually buy products slaves produce? you may want to pretend that you maintain your moral high ground, but when black friday rolls around and a big box store is door busting a 65" next gen HD tv for less than 200 dollars, no one can say no, or better yet no one is boycotting produce meat or dairy coming out of central/south America. Doesnt anyone remember you are not supposed to have access to the same fresh fruits and vegetables year round? That's why we canned and froze them for so long.

You can pretend that you are better but where you spend your money says differently. So either you are a 'bad person' or we condone this type of slavery, and that is why it gets renamed. Not to mention their is a real need on both sides for this. If we just owned our deeds and stop covering them up, we could regulate slavery so that it would not have to be an all bad thing.

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?

I think that there's a little man waving a flag in your christian head, trying to get your attention....but he hasn't seen the outside world in so long he doesn't have a representative picture of reality anymore.

ouch, I'm sooo hurt by that comment, that doesnt address the point I was making. Statement withdrawn.. oh wait no, that's the same point I just made to you!

[Drich]

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.

I bristle at the suggestion I do not know history. I like to think I know rather more on the subject than you.

The first person who has to brag about their knowledge in something in something like this is generally the person most insecure of their standing in that field.
just saying...

[Drich]

We're skipping one of the most important elements of Drippy's argument, namely that he points to horrible actions done by society and thinks that we approve of whatever society says is okay, rather than using our own sense of empathy-based morality to determine what we feel is actually better for all involved*. Sometimes, powerful people get their way and try to excuse their actions based on jingoism, or religion, or whatever philosophical means they feel can help them achieve their ends... since you're referring to Nazis constantly, I'd point out that the intellectuals (even among his own party) were among the first people Hitler-and-company targeted, since they spoke out against his ideas, his abuse of science, and his violent rhetoric.

What's being skipped here is that the Bible is also (clearly, to an outside observer) a construct of society; in particular, two societies. One was an extremely violent, patriarchal warrior-tribe that believed in slavery, genocide, and blood rituals, among other things we in post-Enlightenment circles consider morally abhorrent. The second was a post-Hellenic Judea and Asia Minor under Roman control, and the reaction of people as they tried to reconcile the ancient teachings with more modern philosophical influences (particularly Paul, of course). All were written by the hands of men--they claimed to be inspired by Gawd, of course, according to Drippy and his kind--and all were constructs of their societies, with all the obvious baggage.

The difference is that we look to society and try to correct it onto an ever-better course, one that takes the maximal good for everyone involved and reduces harm to everyone. They take what was constructed 2500-1700 years ago and try to massage it until they can still tolerate the intolerable things contained within, while simultaneously trying to claim it is we who need to correct our path back onto the program set out by that ancient society. Thus all this bizarre chatter about "obedience to the will of God", which no one can quite discern in a way that everyone else agrees upon, but all seem to agree that it really is The Will of God™ that they've personally tapped into, they have a strong emotional motive for clinging desperately to it and refusing to even listen to others who try to tell them the problem with their Bronze Age moral constructs.

Because they quite literally think of the Bible as "dictated-by-God-to-His-secretaries", they refuse to see the obvious and instead must claim that is is we who "don't get it".

But we do get it. It's as plain as noses on faces. And it's pathetic.

*Edit to Add: When I say "for all involved", I mean that sometimes rights are a trade-off, or they are not supported by the majority but must be minority rights protected against the majority (see both the Federalist papers and the US Constitution). For instance, with your example of abortion and the emotional trap of "sucking baby brains out" (or however you phrased it), our courts determined that it was a far worse evil for the government to dictate to women and their doctors what they were allowed to do to their reproductive systems. They went to great lengths to explain why, and it's available online if you care enough to read Roe or Casey.  Another cited example is homosexual behavior, which you referenced earlier... it's another case of there being no harm except to the people who follow a religious book, so their right to liberty was determined to be more important, as was also the case with the recent decision on gay marriage. More people get rights, and while some are offended by that fact for ideological reasons, it really is the greatest good versus the degree of harm, a fairly simple moral/social system that we have developed in this country which should be lauded, not scorned. You Christers whine and scream about it, but the fact is all that is happening is that people are no longer being forced to follow the social constructs of a Bronze Age blood-sacrificing, genocidal sheepherder tribe, and we think that's A Good Thing™.

Swing and another miss.
I'm not saying one society is better than another. I am simply point out the justification processes you all use to make yourself seem better, then I am showing you your own hypocrisy in that no matter how much you claim this society has evolved.. by definition NOTHING HAS CHANGED! That is why your 'morality' is a crap standard that can not be used to judge anything except your own self delusion. Your 'morality' is nothing more than society lying to itself that it has changed and things are better. For some this is true, but is generally at the cost of the rest of the world's opportunity to be what we have become.

Or did you think that whole middle eastern rage against the west was just about religion?

Again not saying the world would be better off or that their society would befit the world better than this one. Just again pointing out the method in which they too use to justify their acts. Just like us, and just like the nazis they think they are the 'good guys.'

Funny how no one in the world going into a war set out to destroy the 'good guys.' That's the power 'morality' has. that is what you d-bags are defending. a system that can justify your actions no matter what they are, it just has to be marketed to the masses correctly. (which by all accounts and definitions is the meaning for the term propaganda.)

So why then do you defend a system that is controlled and regulated by propaganda?

[SofaKingHigh]

You truly are a repugnant, nasty cuntbag Drich.

[TheRocketSurgeon]

Swing and another miss.
I'm not saying one society is better than another. I am simply point out the justification processes you all use to make yourself seem better, then I am showing you your own hypocrisy in that no matter how much you claim this society has evolved.. by definition NOTHING HAS CHANGED! That is why your 'morality' is a crap standard that can not be used to judge anything except your own self delusion. Your 'morality' is nothing more than society lying to itself that it has changed and things are better. For some this is true, but is generally at the cost of the rest of the world's opportunity to be what we have become.

Or did you think that whole middle eastern rage against the west was just about religion?

Again not saying the world would be better off or that their society would befit the world better than this one. Just again pointing out the method in which they too use to justify their acts. Just like us, and just like the nazis they think they are the 'good guys.'

Funny how no one in the world going into a war set out to destroy the 'good guys.' That's the power 'morality' has. that is what you d-bags are defending. a system that can justify your actions no matter what they are, it just has to be marketed to the masses correctly. (which by all accounts and definitions is the meaning for the term propaganda.)

So why then do you defend a system that is controlled and regulated by propaganda?

I think you make some excellent points (here and in your similar reply to Rhythm), for once, Drich, and so I'll start with your last question:

We defend a secular society and the moral/ethical concepts that flow from working together because, while it often goes wrong when hijacked by powerful people with an agenda (especially, as you point out, when they have control of media/propaganda). it can be set right. It will never be perfect, but we can try to perfect  it.

So now I need to pause and ask, which is it? You seem to be implying that we here are enamored with the Capitalist system, while I constantly take flak from others who think we're all a bunch of Commies. Can it be that we're more complex than that?

And while I agree that no one ever claimed they went to war to hurt "the good guys", I will disagree with you that there is no such thing as justified warfare. Some people will only listen to force; I doubt Osama bin Laden could have been convinced by rhetoric to stop killing innocent civilians for the sins (as he saw it) of their governments. I doubt we could've talked Hitler into giving Poland back. 

On the other hand, there's quite a bit of evidence that the American public was tricked into joining that war for global hegemony by practically forcing the Japanese to attack us over the oil interests in the South Pacific. We did everything to provoke them except commit an act of war or send our Ambassador to tweak the Emperor on the nose!

But for all our sins as a government, in this regard (and they are many!), we do continue to improve. Yes, our Capitalists have twisted this country into a mockery of what it's supposed to stand for in many ways-- but we still have the power to fight back against this, and we have millions of people trying to convince the tens of millions of others to do so. You're quite right that OBL and the others in the Muslim radical world like him who hate us so much do not simply hate us for not sharing their beliefs, but for the ways in which our foreign affairs/actions conflict with their social values (such as not liking to be exploited and artificially divided into fake nations with puppet monarchs to serve the West's greed, tied up and bound with exploitative contracts/treaties that favor us, the powerful), but religion is still the main recruiting tool for their fodder-minions, just like it works here.

It is incumbent upon us to ask moral questions constantly, and to search for better solutions to problems, because no government or society is perfect, but it can always be made a little better for everyone. America is too-slowly waking up to the fact that it's not an island, and that the changes-for-the-better that we're seeing in other First World nations are not being enacted here because it doesn't serve our wealthy elite to make the changes, but we are awakening. We're seeing the exploitation of others, and trying to put a stop to it, but it's hard to turn the Queen Elizabeth II.  

So, respectfully, you're wrong. Lots of things have changed. Ask our mixed-race President. Not very long ago (1967) miscegenation was illegal in numerous states. Technically, had President Obama been born in Virginia, he'd have been a felony.

Some things have indeed been relabeled and continued in another guise. Lots of things need to be changed for the better. Some things have been allowed to get worse while nobody was looking. But none of that means that we don't use our personal, subjective ideas about morality to try to improve things in our societies. The argument is not "society makes it right or wrong", but "we try to make society more right and less wrong, together, by reducing harm to others, by using our personal ideas of what-is-moral, and by convincing other people of why the present idea is more harmful/wrong/worse than our idea.

[Drich]

If you honestly think I didn't "understand" it before then you are not listening. To anyone. Or perhaps resorting to condescension in desperation.
You do not know what Gods instruction is. You have your best guess. You conceded this.

Where is the confusion for you? where or how do you assume I do not know the Will of God?
It is plainly Spelled out in the Gospel message. The message that ALL 30K+ Christ centered religions have in common.. So again how are you confused to the nature of God's will? Maybe you are expecting a list of do's and don'ts. If this is the case then clearly all my 'condescension' was well placed because you still exhibit pride not due you nor your understanding of this topic.

Your "obedience" is to your own interpretation which you have gone so far as to say doesn't matter whether its correct or not. By your own rules you can do no wrong. Either in terms of facts or morality.

Again how can you claim understanding when your synopsis is so wrong? I didn't say it does not matter/we can do no wrong. Clearly it does otherwise we would not have to accept the atonement offered. taking it a step back even further if 'we could do no wrong' then Christ would not have to had died on the cross.
What you seem to be still missing is the idea that Christ is offering us his 'morality' to cover or exchange with our own. As a direct result our ability to follow the law is no longer counted as righteousness. Because again we have put on the righteousness of Christ. As one who has adopted the righteousness of Christ we then are to try and follow Christ. That said here is where righteousness departs from 'morality.' Morality is works based so it demands an account of our actions to determine our 'right/wrong-ness' Pop morality takes this a step firther in that rather than to try and meet an impossible standard it lowers the bar. With righteousness, we know we can never live up to this impossible standard and with the atonement of Christ we do not have to. However rather than try and justify our misdeeds so we can point to our deeds to define our 'right-ness' we own our sins and point to Christ for taking away the consequences of them.

So to sum it up our sins do matter, otherwise Christ would not have had to die for them.

This is important because the point made was that Gods morality being perfect should be obvious to everyone that it is the path to follow.

The perfect standard was never meant to be followed. In the Garden what power did the forbidden tree give A&E?
did this tree's fruit push them off of a perfect path? Or did it just make them responsible for being off of that path?
The tree's name is the key to this. It was the tree of knowledge of Good and evil. The knoweledge of Good and evil makes us responsible for it. It what makes an act sinful, not the act itself. i have said this from the beginning of my time here. Our actions despite what some think have no intrinsic moral value in of themselves. Pop morality or the existence of it proves this. As does the fact that God can command a certain act and then issue a command against it. It's not our actions that has a right or wrong value it is what God says about a act, and our capacity to acknowledge his will that makes a given act wrong/sin. that said His standard of life is intentionally set our ability to live it. Therefore to say " Gods morality being perfect should be obvious to everyone that it is the path to follow." is incorrect. Because the only option we have is to seek atonement to right the righteousness needed to be with God. Living by his standard only shows an honest man his sin, a dishonest man an opportunity to formulate 'morality.'

The interpretation you offer is that not only is it not obvious its unknowable and we will get into heaven by doing what we think is the right thing... which sounds like the flawed human moral compass has more influence and more clarity than the  God moral compass.

Again no. No. No!
This wouldn't be so tragic if you did not fancy yourself sooo smart.
We (Meaning Christians) Get to Heaven DESPITE What we think is right. Because it is the 'morality' (using your terms) of Christ that we arrive on, not our own.

No, this is not about us righting a wrong. Atonement and Redemption is about what Christ did on the cross to right a wrong. We are give these tools so we may not boast about our deeds to 'right a wrong.'

Again, I thought you couldn't make judgement on Gods morality. Yet this sounds like what you're doing when you announce to everyone that Christ dying on the cross was redemption for mankind. That statement not only requires a moral compass to have any weight but a moral compass that has an understanding of Gods moral compass. Otherwise you're just parroting words from the Bible without any understanding of what they mean. Do you have an understanding of Gods moral compass?
If so would you care to share it?

Oy, vey... And he's a smart one?

We have been given God's law. (the OT Jews)

Christ extended the law to include thought. Meaning no one could be found righteous under the law by their works.

This means we have to now find a new way to righteousness.

We do so in the atonement offered by Christ.

Now one may ask, does this atonement wipe out the law? No in my Romans' study we find out that Paul tells us the OT Law, and Christ's extension is in full effect. Then one should ask to what end, because aren't Christians free from the law? Yes they are, but everyone else is not.

Do you understand? that is why it is said 8 For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; 9 not as a result of works, so that no one may boast.

I do agree many people parrot this passage back with out understanding, I am not one of those people. This passage tells us that our works are not being counted, in this passage the atonement of Christ is counted or identified as God's Grace, which it is. This grace is a gift, and not something to be earned by works. Our only means to accept this gift is first to be honest with ourselves by evaluating our situation by a true reading of the law. All of it. If we can not measure us, we are not to ignore or 'morally justify' a different life style, but we are to seek atonement, and it is only through faith that we can receive this gift. Again not of our works/following the law/living a moral life. So that no one can boast.

Oh you mean people who need a comparison to be comparable? Yeah, total bastards. So unreasonable.
There is a world of difference between a woman who makes a choice with her body and a woman who does not. There is as much a difference between a fetus whos brain has barely developed and a baby. The only reason you can't see it is because you have this moronic delusion that every cluster of cells that might become a human has an immortal soul. There are no fully developed babies being legally murdered in the U.S or the U.K. The refugee camps you are talking about are in countries outside of our control, outside our societies and so should be outside of this conversation.
If you want to make another thread on abortion then do so but I will retain focus inside this thread on the subject we started with. That subject is the "superior" morality of Yahweh and why in all its perfection, from your perspective, it eludes the vast majority.

https://www.youtube.com/results?search_q...+abortions
educate yourself fool.

While it is true we all suffer bonds of one form or another. I am more bound by my principles than I am by the law. The law can be evaded, my principles can't. That leash extends as much as I do.

"my principles can't" till they are.

Then it sounds like God is as much a craftsman as he is an orator. Crafting a soul with full knowledge of what will happen to it and making it so fragile seems either grossly incompetent or breathtakingly cruel. Like placing a slug on a floor littered with broken glass and salt.
You know nothing of my sense of right and wrong. You have asked me no questions on the matter.

Your sense of right and wrong is irrelevant. the topic is pop morality. The topic encompasses whatever anyone wants to justify as right, and what anyone is willing to vilify as wrong. Your specifics have no bearing, because they can only be counted as another statistic. Such is the case for all 'works based morality.'

This is in contrast to to looking at all human actions as being morally neutral, not having a inherent worth solely based on the act itself, but rather how God identifies this act.

Now it is obvious you have not adopted this understanding as you have yet to be able to summarize it yet. therefore whatever you believe can get thrown on the pile of morality as everyone else.

I'm not looking to be offended. I'm pointing out presumptions and unbacked judgement. If I am made as I am, on the path I am then who are you to suggest what I am doesn't fully fall inline with Gods moral compass?

because you like the rest fall short of said compass, and if you have nothing else you have been given just in our conversation a complete overview of the gospel, This is your one talent. your unwillingness to use this talent is akin to the servant who burried the talent he was given.

If someone delivered a car to me with a frame and three quarters of the engine missing I would ask for my money back. Thats what the third trimester is. The beginning of the process to conscious life. Not the middle, not the end. If left alittle longer then yes, it could be argued to be a viable human being but at that point it is no- why am I still debating this? Its unrelated. This is not the subject.

The point is the this soceity condones infanticide under a different name. Third trimester abortions are relevant because 80% of all premature births as early as week 25 are viable babies. just FYI 25th week is in the second trimester, that means by the third they are fully formed human babies.
That means for the sake of this analogy they are fully functional completely assembled cars, waiting for delivery.
https://www.ucsfhealth.org/conditions/pr...sters.html

So what a million? 10 million?? 100 Million? a billion In the WHole bible that spans 4 or 5000 years??
how about 1.4 billion since 1980. In just 36 years we have more than likely doubled/quadrupled  All of the infant deaths that anyone could ever attribute to God, and yet Idiots claim god is a monster because he kills babies...
This is what Jesus meant by take the friggen plank out of your eye before you worry about the speck in the eye of your neighbor.
http://www.numberofabortions.com/
You keep calling me shameless... what's actually shameful is you appealing to my modesty when you do not want to look at immoral truths of pop culture/morality that would force you to reconsile the propaganda you have adopted that affords you the level of self righteousness you lord over everyone and every thing that challenges your 'moral security.'

That sport is shame full or rather you should be ashamed of hiding from the truth just because it challenges your 'moral foundation.'

A 'moral foundation' that you yourself can not live up to. a 'moral foundation' that you will be judged by, and be found wanting.

Yeah, I guess I'd be trying to shut down the conversation too if someone hit a never that close to home. I'd call everything they believe into question and I would try and shame them off topic as well.

Nice try, but no. the facts remain, and if you don't like talking about them then i suggest that you find someone else to try and defend you morality to them. Maybe they will let you manipulate the topic so you are not faced with a hard reality to answer for.

Seriously? Thats your estimate from that description? Countless. Literally countless. Is abortion literally the only thing you're capable of discussing? Like, I get what you're doing. "Oh yeah, you think Gods bad? Check out how bad your society is! " Putting aside the abortion example is invalid for the U.K. and the U.S, our societies, how do you think thats a good arguement? "Oh well, we can't really know Gods morality... and from what we do know its horrible... but quick! Look at this! This is also horrible!"
Seriously? Is that seriously the best counter you have?

What the argument says, is you can not use your friggen broken morality to judge God.
ITS HYPOCRISY!!! Take the Plank out of your eye before you try and get the spec out of your neighbors eye is all about HYPOCRISY! Don't be a hypocrite and condemn someone for the things you yourself do! Can you really be this stupid or is this just a shameful attempt or trying to go on the offense without a leg to stand on? The whole point to this abortion topic is to show this society Kill babies by the billions, judges this act moral, and yet wants to judge God evil for his role in planning a future with out a people that would destroy what He was trying to protect? Again Hypocrite take the plank out of your own eye FIRST!

You people Kill babies as a form of birth control, giving no thought to who this child is or is to become. it's all about the convenience of having a child.

Not what you typed. You typed about that which transcends rules. If this is the perfect moral compass then why all the different interpretations? Aside from the ten commandments (three of them are basically the same thing) there are all types of commandments moses handed down which you would happily ignore.
Sinful thoughts? Like what?

see above for complete explaination

Actually the roflol emoji was more helpful advice. It does not help you.

I'm not looking for it to help me.
I want to express how I feel. Me laughing at your 'well thought out' statement should give you some indication that you've made a serious error in theology or logic. Again no help needed I just letting you know at a glance that your about to be 'corrected.'

Then God is not a moral authority, he has no morality. All he requires is that we live as we will based on moral codes we would likely form anyway and worship him. The most successful followers spread their interpretation and that becomes gospel among the religious. Through guile, through cunning, through force or through sheer numbers. Its all good. The right interpretation can justify anything. Ultimately might makes right. God is power, it is all he is.

Actually the truth of God's Gospel has transcended the best efforts of the christian religion to change it.

[downbeatplumb]

I bristle at the suggestion I do not know history. I like to think I know rather more on the subject than you.

The first person who has to brag about their knowledge in something in something like this is generally the person most insecure of their standing in that field.
just saying...

I just said my knowledge was better than yours. This is not much of a brag. A bit like like saying I'm less of a dick than Donald Trump.

[The Grand Nudger]

And why not??? do you not understand without these goods and services 2/3rds population of this planet that live off of slave wages would starve and die? Where do you think the money to feed these people would come from otherwise?

The fact that they're paid those low wages effects the rate at which they starve and die greatly.  Where would the money come from...we could start by looking to those who exploit them - as we do, couldn't we?  By we I mean us...since you're not interested.  

Oh I know we'll tax the 1% to 99% of their income and the 1%-ers can pay for everything

I would caution against defending the 1% in a response centering around substandard wages, working conditions, and who condones them....

Or do you not understand your blessing on slavery is granted when you continually buy products slaves produce? you may want to pretend that you maintain your moral high ground, but when black friday rolls around and a big box store is door busting a 65" next gen HD tv for less than 200 dollars, no one can say no, or better yet no one is boycotting produce meat or dairy coming out of central/south America. Doesnt  anyone remember you are not supposed to have access to the same fresh fruits and vegetables year round? That's why we canned and froze them for so long.

Haven't we already discussed this?  You don't have an inventory of my household goods, nor do you know where my food comes from.  You're bitching, literally, about nothing.  

You can pretend that you are better but where you spend your money says differently. So either you are a 'bad person' or we condone this type of slavery, and that is why it gets renamed. Not to mention their is a real need on both sides for this. If we just owned our deeds and stop covering them up, we could regulate slavery so that it would not have to be an all bad thing.

Better, perhaps..than you, but I'd hardly call it pretending.  Fight the good fight in defense of slavery Drich, you're all alone.

[Drich]

The first person who has to brag about their knowledge in something in something like this is generally the person most insecure of their standing in that field.
just saying...

I just said my knowledge was better than yours. This is not much of a brag. A bit like like saying I'm less of a dick than Donald Trump.

The point you fail to understand is that the only legit reason you would have to sum up and announce your own evaluation, it is because you don't have a fair representation of your work out there to judge your abilities.

Now in as much history that has been talked about in this forum in the last few years, if you don't feel you can be judged on your merits alone, still admits to a deficiency... However this deficiency can't be about the volume of your work to be evaluated. (as youve been a long time member who has weigh in on several different subjects.) This speaks to content, or the lack there of.

Hence, the need for the proclamation/reassurance check you are asking from your peers, and that supports my initial assertion.

The first person who has to brag about their knowledge in something in something like this is generally the person most insecure of their standing in that field.

[downbeatplumb]

I just said my knowledge was better than yours. This is not much of a brag. A bit like like saying I'm less of a dick than Donald Trump.

The point you fail to understand is that the only legit reason you would have to sum up and announce your own evaluation, it is because you don't have a fair representation of your work out there to judge your abilities.

Now in as much history that has been talked about in this forum in the last few years, if you don't feel you can be judged on your merits alone, still admits to a deficiency... However this deficiency can't be about the volume of your work to be evaluated. (as youve been a long time member who has weigh in on several different subjects.) This speaks to content, or the lack there of.

Hence, the need for the proclamation/reassurance check you are asking from your peers, and that supports my initial assertion.

You are the one who cast the first stone here buddy boy, you questioned my knowledge of history, YOU, a person who still believes in the biblical flood. So forgive me if I put your knowledge of history as being of dubious value.