Yikes, sky dad...morals are absolute, though

[ding]

Then it shouldn't be too hard for you to prove that, right?

I dont cater to your whims, I have rational discussions with folks who are honest and worthwhile and I dont consider you to be either. You can rah rah until youre blue in the face about how wrong I might be, but I know better so...you dont really belong in my discuasion threads to begin with. Theyre over your head.

No. You just make accusations you can't back up.

Dude, first off save your sophistry for somewhere else.... I already fucking linked you to someone destroying lewis' "logic" on one thing of the many and if you didnt already know that his fallacies are taught in literal courses than you just havent taken any lately. I guess age is a factor, but you still have google and B ~ posting like 8 posts in a row of just walls of blanket text on a messageboard is just a total douche move.

I just think you're all in all a real shitty human, and Im not sure why that makes you think Id like to discuss things with you like I do other adults. I dont. I dont like you, your act is lame as fuck and see through to me.

Take off, if ya needed a hint

Can you explain it? It shouldn't be too hard, GT. All you have to do is state one of Lewis' points and then use logic to destroy it. Can you do that, GT?

I already did that, as well. I see it zoomed past ya.


And you didnt expose this thread as a fallacy, you exposed that you dont believe in the literal interpretation of the bible and then called that MY fallacy as though I was arguing a point to folks who DONT believe in the literal interpretation of the bible

You are a fucking moron.

ummm... no you didn't. Prove it. It shouldn't be too hard. Make me look bad.

 

[ding]

Here let me explain how to read the Bible...

The Bible has several literary types; allegorical, historical, law, poetic, prophetic, epistle and proverbial. I'm sure others may add or subtract to this list, but this is a pretty good start. When trying to understand the meaning of passages it is helpful to understand which literary type one is reading and also to place or read the passage in the proper historical light.

Let's start with the tree of knowledge of good and evil and the fall from grace. Genesis is allegorical. It starts with the allegorical account of Creation. After every step God would say "and it was good." So basically everything God created was good. Which makes sense because things like evil, darkness and cold or not extant. They don't exist on their own. They exist as the absence of something else. Cold is the absence of heat. Darkness is the absence of light. And evil is the absence of good.

Man knows right from wrong, but when he violates it, rather than abandoning the concept of right and wrong, he rationalizes that he didn't violate it. After Adam and Eve had sinned and realized they were naked, they hid when they heard God coming. They hid because they knew that they had done wrong. Then when God asked point blank if they had done it, they rationalized that it wasn't their fault. Adam, did you eat the apple? The woman you made gave it to me. Eve did you eat the apple? The serpent deceived me.

Man is the only animal capable of knowledge of good and evil. No other creature has this concept. Sure animals can have empathy, but not like man. Animals function on impulse and instinct. Man functions on these too, but in man's case he has the unique ability to override his impulses and instinct for the sake of good. That is free will. It's a choice. Everything is choice.

I don't believe that Genesis is implying that had Adam and Eve never committed the original sin, we would live in paradise forever. I believe Genesis is saying that man has the capacity to do good and evil. So then the question begs why did God create such a world. I believe that that is an artifact of life. In other words, I don't believe God had a choice. It is part and parcel of the extant nature of good. I know people will howl that I said God had no choice but the reality is there are things God can't do. For instance, God can't oppose Himself; He can't go against His own nature.

So there are two very interesting things which come out of free will. One is that evil has the effect of making good better. It's like salt and sugar. Salt makes sugar taste sweeter. We are told elsewhere that He uses all things for the good of those who love Him. Among other things the Jews discovered is that there is meaning in suffering. 07 Judaism

The other interesting thing is that good has no meaning unless there is evil. In other words, it is not virtuous if you are forced to be virtuous.

In closing, man prefers good over evil. We don't do evil for evil's sake. We do evil for the sake of our own good and when we do, we rationalize that we didn't do evil. But from these acts, goodness will arise and we will be stronger for it. It is a self compensating feature whose sole purpose is to propel consciousness to the next rung in the anthropological ladder.

I didn't think anyone would touch this.

 

[G.T.]

You got to love someone who practices sophistry accusing others of sophistry.

I can at least follow the thesis of a thread..

this one's for bible literalists, and how theyd defend god as having non relative morals

youre not a bible literalist..

so.....youre just triggered like usual and being antagonistic with walls and walls of fallacial text of someone WELL KNOWN to be quoted as more dogma for fundamental theists


you never could and wont ever fool me, ding. youre a shitty human its tough not to tell and im honest.

 

[ding]

He created mankind and then after a few thousands years saw that they were all wicked so he drown every man woman and child except one family who then had incestual sex to repopulate the Earth with righteous people who then became wicked as the people that were drown.

This whole story sounds like something you'd do in a bad video game if you were terrible at video games.

Or a story about an actual event that was passed down for 1000's of years.

You do realize it was captured as symbols in the Chinese language 1500 years before Moses recorded it, right? The account of the tower of babel - which was an allegorical account of the great migration from the cradle of civilization - explains how it was captured as symbols in the Chinese language 1500 years before Moses penned it.

 

[BULLDOG]

Which parts do you choose to like?

You mean like how the Tower of Babel was an allegorical account of the migration of the cradle of civilization?

I mean like "I believe this, but I don't believe that"

I believe that there is a final state of fact for everything. We call this objective truth or reality. That once discovered it is known that it was always that way and will always be that way. In other words, it is eternal and unchanging. Which is the only solution to the first cause conundrum. This I know to be God. Ergo, God is existence. I am.

So what criteria do you use when you pick and choose between all the fantastic stories in the bible? Christians here will say you're going to hell if you don't think the entire thing is literal fact.

I read for context by placing it in context. You should give it a try.

I don't worry what other people believe. Do you?

That's not really an answer, is it? What context makes it OK for Lot to send his daughter out to be raped, or for a father to sacrefice his child?

 

[ding]

You got to love someone who practices sophistry accusing others of sophistry.

I can at least follow the thesis of a thread..

this one's for bible literalists, and how theyd defend god as having non relative morals

youre not a bible literalist..

so.....youre just triggered like usual and being antagonistic with walls and walls of fallacial text of someone WELL KNOWN to be quoted as more dogma for fundamental theists


you never could and wont ever fool me, ding. youre a shitty human its tough not to tell and im honest.

Your thesis is a strawman of convenience. It is easier for you to do that than to engage in serious debate.

 

[G.T.]

I dont cater to your whims, I have rational discussions with folks who are honest and worthwhile and I dont consider you to be either. You can rah rah until youre blue in the face about how wrong I might be, but I know better so...you dont really belong in my discuasion threads to begin with. Theyre over your head.

No. You just make accusations you can't back up.

Dude, first off save your sophistry for somewhere else.... I already fucking linked you to someone destroying lewis' "logic" on one thing of the many and if you didnt already know that his fallacies are taught in literal courses than you just havent taken any lately. I guess age is a factor, but you still have google and B ~ posting like 8 posts in a row of just walls of blanket text on a messageboard is just a total douche move.

I just think you're all in all a real shitty human, and Im not sure why that makes you think Id like to discuss things with you like I do other adults. I dont. I dont like you, your act is lame as fuck and see through to me.

Take off, if ya needed a hint

Can you explain it? It shouldn't be too hard, GT. All you have to do is state one of Lewis' points and then use logic to destroy it. Can you do that, GT?

I already did that, as well. I see it zoomed past ya.


And you didnt expose this thread as a fallacy, you exposed that you dont believe in the literal interpretation of the bible and then called that MY fallacy as though I was arguing a point to folks who DONT believe in the literal interpretation of the bible

You are a fucking moron.

ummm... no you didn't. Prove it. It shouldn't be too hard. Make me look bad.

"nuh uh" isnt an argument. I linked you and also took the liberty of telling you already the glaring(easily spotted) fallacy.

Mind you, you were dumb enough to assume that what you pasted had anything whatsoever to do with this thread to begin with.

You have no argument for the OP, because you dont believe in the bible, literally. So...bye

 

[del]

I didn't think anyone would touch this.

i'm just trying to stay upwind of it

 

[ding]

You mean like how the Tower of Babel was an allegorical account of the migration of the cradle of civilization?

I mean like "I believe this, but I don't believe that"

I believe that there is a final state of fact for everything. We call this objective truth or reality. That once discovered it is known that it was always that way and will always be that way. In other words, it is eternal and unchanging. Which is the only solution to the first cause conundrum. This I know to be God. Ergo, God is existence. I am.

So what criteria do you use when you pick and choose between all the fantastic stories in the bible? Christians here will say you're going to hell if you don't think the entire thing is literal fact.

I read for context by placing it in context. You should give it a try.

I don't worry what other people believe. Do you?

That's not really an answer, is it? What context makes it OK for Lot to send his daughter out to be raped, or for a father to sacrefice his child?

The context of the world they lived in 4000 years ago or whenever it was.

 

[ding]

Are you upset that I have exposed your beef with the Jews, GT?

you've only exposed your beef with the jews.

not that it was exactly like finding the lost ark

I don't have a beef with the Jews, del.

I read the Bible in context of the day it was written.

I've exposed the fallacy of this thread.

you've cut and pasted some drivel from c.s. lewis and revealed your anti semitism

oh, and given me a good laugh for which i thank you

Anyone who scoffs at accepting knowledge on the authority of others - like you just did - would have to go through life knowing next nothing as the vast knowledge we possess is accepted on authority from others, del.

Here let me explain how to read the Bible...

The Bible has several literary types; allegorical, historical, law, poetic, prophetic, epistle and proverbial. I'm sure others may add or subtract to this list, but this is a pretty good start. When trying to understand the meaning of passages it is helpful to understand which literary type one is reading and also to place or read the passage in the proper historical light.

Let's start with the tree of knowledge of good and evil and the fall from grace. Genesis is allegorical. It starts with the allegorical account of Creation. After every step God would say "and it was good." So basically everything God created was good. Which makes sense because things like evil, darkness and cold or not extant. They don't exist on their own. They exist as the absence of something else. Cold is the absence of heat. Darkness is the absence of light. And evil is the absence of good.

Man knows right from wrong, but when he violates it, rather than abandoning the concept of right and wrong, he rationalizes that he didn't violate it. After Adam and Eve had sinned and realized they were naked, they hid when they heard God coming. They hid because they knew that they had done wrong. Then when God asked point blank if they had done it, they rationalized that it wasn't their fault. Adam, did you eat the apple? The woman you made gave it to me. Eve did you eat the apple? The serpent deceived me.

Man is the only animal capable of knowledge of good and evil. No other creature has this concept. Sure animals can have empathy, but not like man. Animals function on impulse and instinct. Man functions on these too, but in man's case he has the unique ability to override his impulses and instinct for the sake of good. That is free will. It's a choice. Everything is choice.

I don't believe that Genesis is implying that had Adam and Eve never committed the original sin, we would live in paradise forever. I believe Genesis is saying that man has the capacity to do good and evil. So then the question begs why did God create such a world. I believe that that is an artifact of life. In other words, I don't believe God had a choice. It is part and parcel of the extant nature of good. I know people will howl that I said God had no choice but the reality is there are things God can't do. For instance, God can't oppose Himself; He can't go against His own nature.

So there are two very interesting things which come out of free will. One is that evil has the effect of making good better. It's like salt and sugar. Salt makes sugar taste sweeter. We are told elsewhere that He uses all things for the good of those who love Him. Among other things the Jews discovered is that there is meaning in suffering. 07 Judaism

The other interesting thing is that good has no meaning unless there is evil. In other words, it is not virtuous if you are forced to be virtuous.

In closing, man prefers good over evil. We don't do evil for evil's sake. We do evil for the sake of our own good and when we do, we rationalize that we didn't do evil. But from these acts, goodness will arise and we will be stronger for it. It is a self compensating feature whose sole purpose is to propel consciousness to the next rung in the anthropological ladder.

I didn't think anyone would touch this.

i'm just trying to stay upwind of it

I couldn't be happier for you.

 

[ding]

No. You just make accusations you can't back up.

Dude, first off save your sophistry for somewhere else.... I already fucking linked you to someone destroying lewis' "logic" on one thing of the many and if you didnt already know that his fallacies are taught in literal courses than you just havent taken any lately. I guess age is a factor, but you still have google and B ~ posting like 8 posts in a row of just walls of blanket text on a messageboard is just a total douche move.

I just think you're all in all a real shitty human, and Im not sure why that makes you think Id like to discuss things with you like I do other adults. I dont. I dont like you, your act is lame as fuck and see through to me.

Take off, if ya needed a hint

Can you explain it? It shouldn't be too hard, GT. All you have to do is state one of Lewis' points and then use logic to destroy it. Can you do that, GT?

I already did that, as well. I see it zoomed past ya.


And you didnt expose this thread as a fallacy, you exposed that you dont believe in the literal interpretation of the bible and then called that MY fallacy as though I was arguing a point to folks who DONT believe in the literal interpretation of the bible

You are a fucking moron.

ummm... no you didn't. Prove it. It shouldn't be too hard. Make me look bad.

"nuh uh" isnt an argument. I linked you and also took the liberty of telling you already the glaring(easily spotted) fallacy.

Mind you, you were dumb enough to assume that what you pasted had anything whatsoever to do with this thread to begin with.

You have no argument for the OP, because you dont believe in the bible, literally. So...bye

Still waiting for your powerful undressing of C.S. Lewis.

 

[G.T.]

You got to love someone who practices sophistry accusing others of sophistry.

I can at least follow the thesis of a thread..

this one's for bible literalists, and how theyd defend god as having non relative morals

youre not a bible literalist..

so.....youre just triggered like usual and being antagonistic with walls and walls of fallacial text of someone WELL KNOWN to be quoted as more dogma for fundamental theists


you never could and wont ever fool me, ding. youre a shitty human its tough not to tell and im honest.

Your thesis is a strawman of convenience. It is easier for you to do that than to engage in serious debate.

Do you know what a strawman is?


In order for my thesis to be a strawman, two conditions would have to be met:

#1. There are no biblical literalists.
#2. The quoted texts did not involve the morality of the god of text.



You, in your narcissistic glory... think that its a strawman because you think its of...and for....YOU.

Its not, dingerred. Youre not a biblical literalist and therefore you dont have any justification for the relativist morals described therein.

Its over your head....I know

 

[G.T.]

Dude, first off save your sophistry for somewhere else.... I already fucking linked you to someone destroying lewis' "logic" on one thing of the many and if you didnt already know that his fallacies are taught in literal courses than you just havent taken any lately. I guess age is a factor, but you still have google and B ~ posting like 8 posts in a row of just walls of blanket text on a messageboard is just a total douche move.

I just think you're all in all a real shitty human, and Im not sure why that makes you think Id like to discuss things with you like I do other adults. I dont. I dont like you, your act is lame as fuck and see through to me.

Take off, if ya needed a hint

Can you explain it? It shouldn't be too hard, GT. All you have to do is state one of Lewis' points and then use logic to destroy it. Can you do that, GT?

I already did that, as well. I see it zoomed past ya.


And you didnt expose this thread as a fallacy, you exposed that you dont believe in the literal interpretation of the bible and then called that MY fallacy as though I was arguing a point to folks who DONT believe in the literal interpretation of the bible

You are a fucking moron.

ummm... no you didn't. Prove it. It shouldn't be too hard. Make me look bad.

"nuh uh" isnt an argument. I linked you and also took the liberty of telling you already the glaring(easily spotted) fallacy.

Mind you, you were dumb enough to assume that what you pasted had anything whatsoever to do with this thread to begin with.

You have no argument for the OP, because you dont believe in the bible, literally. So...bye

Still waiting for your powerful undressing of C.S. Lewis.

Hold your breath.

 

[ding]

So the real question is what kind of people have a need to subordinate religion?

 

[ding]

dingerred

Urban Dictionary: dingerred

 

[G.T.]

So the real question is what kind of people have a need to subordinate religion?

The ones who understand dogma, and how and why it works on fools such as yourself.

 

[ding]

So the real question is what kind of people have a need to subordinate religion?

The ones who understand dogma, and how and why it works on fools such as yourself.

Like the Founding Fathers of Freedom and Liberty?

I don't think so.

More like the Founding Fathers of Communism, GT. You are in excellent company.

 

[ding]

So the real question is what kind of people have a need to subordinate religion?

The ones who understand dogma, and how and why it works on fools such as yourself.

Does this sound like you, GT?

"...The combating of religion cannot be confined to abstract ideological preaching, and it must not be reduced to such preaching. It must be linked up with the concrete practice of the class movement, which aims at eliminating the social roots of religion..." Vladimir Lenin

 

[G.T.]

So the real question is what kind of people have a need to subordinate religion?

The ones who understand dogma, and how and why it works on fools such as yourself.

Like the Founding Fathers of Freedom and Liberty?

I don't think so.

More like the Founding Fathers of Communism, GT. You are in excellent company.

Thats a fallacy ^ Do I need to name the academic name of that fallacy for ya dingbat?

 

[G.T.]

So the real question is what kind of people have a need to subordinate religion?

The ones who understand dogma, and how and why it works on fools such as yourself.

Does this sound like you, GT?

"...The combating of religion cannot be confined to abstract ideological preaching, and it must not be reduced to such preaching. It must be linked up with the concrete practice of the class movement, which aims at eliminating the social roots of religion..." Vladimir Lenin

No, I have other motives that I tell the folks I respect. How come you dont know my motives?