What IS good, and how do we determine it?

[Ravenshire]

Why? So no one is held accountable when they contradict themselves?

Because you try to make make every thread about it. Grow the fuck up Huggies.

[Ravenshire]

IOW, not only does he not believe in God but he is opposed to anyone who does.

Is there anything you won't twist to prop up your bullshit assertions?!?

[Huggy Bear]

Nobody is duped by it, Judi, so don't worry about it ^_^

As if the truth is meant to "dupe" someone.... I provided links to every instance so people could go read for themselves, which would be counter productive if my goal was to "dupe" people.

Let me ask you this so people can see who you are for themselves.

Does "separation of church and state" exist in Denmark? that is a easy yes or no question that I suspect you'll have an excuse for not answering.

Why? So no one is held accountable when they contradict themselves?

Because you try to make make every thread about it. Grow the fuck up Huggies.

Only when I'm called a liar.

[Ravenshire]

Thinking can be untwisted by study and logic. How does one undo the other?

I always thought so, but you're sure proving to be the exception.

[Jackalope]

Just to clarify this false statement made by the poster above, the software allows for people to put everyone but the staff on ignore (which is what I presume the poster was referring to).

This is for good reasons, namely so that we know that if, as an example, we verbally warn or speedbump a thread, every poster can see it. If people can ignore it, then the message isn't getting through, which makes it pointless. It also works the other way around. We are unable to ignore people, because our job as volunteer staff who volunteer their time and money of their own volition, is to ensure that we maintain a standard. We can't do that if we put people on ignore.

If the person above is unable to put someone on ignore who is not staff, please bring it to the staff's attention so that we can look into it as this is obviously a fault with the software. If otherwise, please reacquaint yourself with the rules until you feel able to contribute.

Thanks.

Thank you for the clarification. I did not mean to imply otherwise.

My objection is that staffers should have two accounts: one mod and one regular user (and your identity should be anonymous, btw)

If you want to tee off on someone as a regular user, then others could ignore you.

You would only switch to your mod account when taking action as needed.

As it is, there are more atheist mods in this Christianity forum than there are Christians to take action against.

Cthulhu Dreaming has suggested that I use the Suggestions forum to propose ideas like this, and I may do so. This post is just for discussion...in a "discussion forum".

FFS, Randy.

[Ravenshire]

You can't accuse me of misrepresentation when I provided a link to every single post. Feel free to go back and read them in the proper context if you wish.

If you still feel that I "twisted and misrepresented" any ones words, then provide the evidence, otherwise as Esquilax so eloquently put it "your wild, baseless assertions don't mean anything to me."

Emphasis mine. Is this an implicit admission that these quotes have not been presented in their proper context? That is called quote mining and is one of the most dishonest practices of all. If you really think that simply because you've pulled words someone actually said that they mean the same thing without the context, you fail to grasp the very basics of communication.

For the love of Pete, stop digging and think, please!

Of course he quoted out of context. Huggies hoards quotes he thinks he can use later to embarrass others the way a miser hoards gold.

[Ravenshire]

Why are you ignoring the fact that even if you were right about Cato's presuppositions, you still have your own to account for? You quite adamantly presuppose that god exists at the beginning of every argument. Still a failed tu quoque.

It's funny you should ask, dude.

I've been reading about the differences between presuppositional apologetics and evidential apologetics, but I have decided what I want to be when I grow up.

At least you've admitted you've yet to grow up.

[Huggy Bear]

Okay, so if you beat your slave, and he doesn't die, you will not be punished.  In what goofy semantics does that not mean you can beat your slave?

I want you to quote the Bible passage that says something like, "Thou shall not beat thy slave, because that's dickish, unnecessary, and cruel, and because the slave is a person, too, and therefore protected by the all-encompassing love of your Lord God."

Okay, I'm waiting.

As I explained earlier, accidental deaths (manslaughter) wasn't punished by the authorities. Beating someone only to have them die days later shows that there wasn't an intent to kill, and though the authorities didn't punish you, the victims family had a right to punish you (read kill) themselves, unless you made it to one of the cities of refuge, where you were safe as long as you stayed in the city. This means, if you were a landlord with servants, you lost everything.

So yes, there was punishment for beating a servant and him dying days later....

From my earlier post.

Hebrew law is very clear on distinguishing murder from killing someone unintentionally (manslaughter). If you commit murder then you were punished by the authorities, In the case of manslaughter the family of the victim had a right to kill you (eye for an eye) unless you made it to a city of refuge. Beating a slave and him dying days later show that the death wasn't intentional, and though the law doesn't punish you, it doesn't mean the victims family won't come after you.

I'll post the relevant scriptures from the NIV since it's dumbed down enough for you mouth-breathers to understand.

Deuteronomy 19
4 This is the rule concerning anyone who kills a person and flees there for safety—anyone who kills a neighbor unintentionally, without malice aforethought. 5 For instance, a man may go into the forest with his neighbor to cut wood, and as he swings his ax to fell a tree, the head may fly off and hit his neighbor and kill him. That man may flee to one of these cities and save his life. 6 Otherwise, the avenger of blood might pursue him in a rage, overtake him if the distance is too great, and kill him even though he is not deserving of death, since he did it to his neighbor without malice aforethought. 7 This is why I command you to set aside for yourselves three cities.

Deuteronomy 19
11 But if out of hate someone lies in wait, assaults and kills a neighbor, and then flees to one of these cities, 12 the killer shall be sent for by the town elders, be brought back from the city, and be handed over to the avenger of blood to die. 13 Show no pity. You must purge from Israel the guilt of shedding innocent blood, so that it may go well with you.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cities_of_Refuge

The Cities of Refuge were towns in the Kingdom of Israel and Kingdom of Judah in which the perpetrators of manslaughter could claim the right of asylum; outside of these cities, blood vengeance against such perpetrators was allowed by law.

[Ravenshire]

Only when I'm called a liar.

Quit giving us the ammo.

[Huggy Bear]

Only when I'm called a liar.

Quit giving us the ammo.

But you don't have the ammo, do you? I've asked for just one example where I was being dishonest, haven't seen it yet....

In the meantime I could provide at least 10 examples (there's more if you're interested) of Atheists being dishonest, I'm just pointing out the hypocrisy...that's it. I mean come on, Atheists criticize priests for sexually abusing underage boys, but run to the defense of a gay guy doing the exact same thing... and YOU think MY actions of pointing out the hypocrisy of that reprehensible.

smh