The less you attend church the more likly you are willing to support douch baggery

[Faith No More]

At first, "The Drich Show" was slightly amusing. Then it became annoying, frustrating, disgusting, and finally vomit-inducing. But the fact that this has been pointed out to him over and over and it still goes on has made the whole thing just extremely sad. Now, just seeing that he's created a thread like this is extremely depressing, because the lack of awareness and understanding of the consequences of his ideas just makes me feel awkward pity towards him. It's like watching a clown at a children's birthday party that refuses to leave, even after the party has been over for hours.

Of course, none of this will pierce the "messenger of god" bubble he lives in, but what the hell. I can only watch a person embarrass himself so much without saying something.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Is it just me or do people who don't know God far more likly to be overly sensitive to EVERYTHING?

It's just you. Now finish your dinner and go beddie-bye.

---

Over sensitive to things like people supporting torture?

... or asserting that slavery is good, sure.

---

Again torture is not legal, these techniques were deemed legal. That's it.

Waterboarding is illegal, Atticus. We prosecuted Japanese war criminals for it after WWII. An American soldier in Vietnam was given a special court-martial after this picture of him assisting a waterboarding in the field was published:



I don't care whether you say it isn't torture. International law says it is.

[KevinM1]

Hey, Drich, buddy? I say this with all sincerity:

Fuck you.
Fuck your god.
Fuck the Bronze Age morality you so desperately cling to.

Also, the word you're looking for is 'lesser' not 'lessor'. For fuck's sake, if you're going to try defending your god, can you at least pretend you passed 3rd grade English?

[Mister Agenda]

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.

The subset of people who go to church less than other people? You can't even possibly know if your description is accurate. And it's the nature of trollish pot-stirring to elicit many responses, as you well know.

As i have already pointed out I am not speaking to everyone, but I am speaking those in whom my message applies.

It's the internet. You're speaking to everyone unless you qualify your statements. 'I'm only talking to those to whom my message applies' is just a dodge to try to get out of being specific about to whom you are talking. Your thread title is comically false. If we supported douche-baggery, we would necessarily support you.

Again if my primise is wrong then why have so many of your brethern rush to defend against what has said?

When you say something false, as a general rule, you will get more responses than if you say something true. You've been on the internet long enough to know that, I think. Try starting a thread that claims 'America is a constitutional repupblic' and 'America is a communist dictatorship', and see which one gets more posts.

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?

That whole bit didn't make any sense.

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

And you want some father figure to love you anyway. If that's what you need, it doesn't bother me. Too bad it bothers you so much when other people don't think wanting a 'cosmic forgiver' does't have anything to do with whether there is one.

"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.

We're more aware of the risks of drinking expired milk than people were then. Contaminated raw milk may contain salmonella, Escherichia coli, and the bacteria that cause illnesses such as tuberculosis, diphtheria, streptococcal infections, typhoid fever and other illnesses. Ignorance of the risk is an excuse. Your grandfather was lucky no one got seriously ill from the milk he gave them, but it was not a 'bad act', just misguided.

Could you imagine the scandel if a milk truck drive was caught doing this to some shelter or homeless kitchen today?

It's actually much safer to do with the pasteurized milk that is typical now, which is unlikely to be fatal if it spoils.

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.

But not because the method of determining what's right or wrong has changed. It's because the consequences are better understood, and the risks can be better assessed.

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.

Another example that we know more about taking better care of people now than we did then.

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.

You haven't established that the 'morality of the day' is different, only that the principles of caring for others while doing no harm may lead to different understanding of the greater good in light of additional knowledge. We were supposed to care for the less fortunate and not harm them then, and it's what we're supposed to do now. Only the methods of following those principles have changed. For the better.

Why is that a bad thing? Because even in Hitler's germany the vast majority of followers considered themselves to also be 'moral.'

Whether someone considers themselves moral isn't the measure of their morality. People who think they're being moral are often wrong.

Indeed, but again this is what morality is.

No, it isn't.

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.)

Stealing to feed the literal starving if it's the only way you can save their lives is the lesser evil.Morality is what we use to determine which is the lesser evil, not the lesser evil itself.

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

Asserted without evidence, dismissed.

If my 'morality' comes from God then that standard never changes.

I'm pretty sure you've read the Bible. How can you say that with a straight face? You'd get arrested if you tried to follow all the rules in the Bible, probably for murder.

Man's morality (apart from God) is an ever changing standard.

Way better than adhering stubbornly to a bad standard because for some reason you think that something that doesn't change is intrinsically better than something that does. If we didn't strive to improve our knowledge and ways of life, we'd still be using straw to make bricks, and how would that be better than what we have now?

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?

Progress.

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.

Why would I (and my friends) not like to hear it? You're actually making sense for a change. Of course a case must be made for a moral shift.

What would you consider to be evidence?

Christians being the best at feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, welcoming the unwanted, caring for the ill, loving their enemies, and at treating others the way they'd want to be treated themselves (nods to Steve Marabolli), Christians claim to have something different in their lives that no one else has. They should be able to show it. They should be remarkable for it.

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.

When what's in a book isn't borne out by reality, it's pretty clear the book is wrong. Righteous is as righteous does.

Actually no. Sin= Death period.

Except when you jump through the right hoop. Don't you know that when you state 'period', that means there aren't any exceptions? You sin you die means everyone who sins, dies, especially if you say, you sin, you die, period.

I sinned that means someone had to die.

No one should have to die for what someone else did, it's inherently unjust and in no way exculpates what they did. Shooting my brother for what I did doesn't make me less guilty, it makes me MORE guilty, because now I have someone else being punished in my place on my conscience.

Christ died in place of me. So no blind eye was given. My debt was paid.

According to your story, only for those who do certain things and continue to believe them until they die. If you change your opinion on the matter, suddenly, your 'paid debt' becomes 'unpaid' again.

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?

No. I'm not that petty. Maybe I wouldn't throw myself on a live grenade. It hasn't come up. But I know I wouldn't throw myself on a grenade hoping only the people who will appreciate my sacrifice will be saved. I'd do it for all of them. And there are plenty of legends where the hero dies at the end, the enormity of the sacrifice described has no bearing on whether or not the legend is true.

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.

So God could decide to be other than what he is now (whatever that is). And there was nothing in there that remotely requires God to be good or decent or loving or caring or vindictive or angry or really anything at all. God is only as omnipotent as he feels like being. That must be very handy for having your cake and eating it, too.

Again our morals allow us to do whatever we want to do.

I dare you to misunderstand what the word 'morals' means more thoroughly.

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?

Moral is as moral does. Actions speak louder than words. No one is impressed by them thinking they were moral but you. And you literally don't know what the word means.

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.

When you're aware of who you are inadvertently hurting, it's no longer inadvertent. If you think the way you're living your life is a net harm to others, change how you live. Or don't and be honest about not giving enough of a shit to bother. What has it got to do with going to church? If anything, you're providing an example that going to church doesn't make a whit of difference.

Then when change is demanded the full force of whatever influence i have, and the rallying call to others to effect change.

If you can't lead by example, keep it to yourself. You're more harm than good to your own cause, otherwise.

One can't do this with their heads in the sand/Lying to themselves about who they are.

Your misconceptions and strawmen abound.

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.

Who is pretending to live a supremenly moral life? Who is claiming to be doing more than the best they can under the circumstances?

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.

Ah. By 'douchebag' you mean basic decency. Everything you've said makes a lot more sense now that you've made that clear.

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.

What are you smoking?

[CapnAwesome]

The reaction to the advanced interrogation techniques. Why isn't this torture? Again torture is not legal, these techniques were deemed legal. That's it. our actions were in direct response to the threat our leaders thought we were under. They at the time had to weigh and sift though all the info presented and plot a course that lead us to a point in time where we now have the luxury to look back in self righteous judgement. Looking back we have the luxury of knowing that the events are always set in stone, that it is why it is so easy to almost always make a better desision (there are no variables any more)

Legality is not morality.

[Esquilax]

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.

"I must be right, else why would so many people explain to me, in excruciating detail, why I'm wrong? The only reason someone ever tells someone else that they think they're wrong, is because they secretly think they're right!"

Drich, in all sincerity, what the hell is wrong with you?

Again if my primise is wrong then why have so many of your brethern rush to defend against what has said?

Because they think that you are wrong.

If my 'morality' comes from God then that standard never changes.

... Aren't you the same guy who says that the Old Testament and the New are distinct, morally speaking, and that the things that were moral in the Old Testament are no longer necessarily applicable to you guys? Isn't that, you know, a fucking change in the standard?

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.'

Yes, that is a little thing called "learning." I'm not surprised you've never heard of it, but it's what happens when you were wrong once, and discover that. I'd also point out that all those things we've later learned to be morally wrong? Incited by religion, most commonly christianity. Says a lot about your religion, that.

[robvalue]

Holy crap. I'm done talking to you Drich. I can only hope you don't actually believe the vile filth that you spew out.

[abaris]

... Aren't you the same guy who says that the Old Testament and the New are distinct, morally speaking, and that the things that were moral in the Old Testament are no longer necessarily applicable to you guys? Isn't that, you know, a fucking change in the standard?

Unless it's about attacking gays. Then Leviticus is all the rage.

[Bad Wolf]

Did I miss the party?

[Mister Agenda]

At first, "The Drich Show" was slightly amusing. Then it became annoying, frustrating, disgusting, and finally vomit-inducing.

I think it's a cycle. Soon he should leave the forum for awhile, regain his bearings, and come back much better...at first.