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

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?
Or does this sound like your beliefs, GT?

...in order to charm the golden birds, out of the pockets of his dearly beloved neighbours in Christ. He puts himself at the service of the other’s most depraved fancies, plays the pimp between him and his need, excites in him morbid appetites, lies in wait for each of his weaknesses – all so that he can then demand the cash for this service of love. (Every product is a bait with which to seduce away the other’s very being, his money; every real and possible need is a weakness which will lead the fly to the glue-pot. General exploitation of communal human nature, just as every imperfection in man, is a bond with heaven – an avenue giving the priest access to his heart; every need is an opportunity to approach one’s neighbour under the guise of the utmost amiability and to say to him: Dear friend, I give you what you need, but you know the conditio sine qua non; you know the ink in which you have to sign yourself over to me; in providing for your pleasure, I fleece you.)" Karl Marx
 
Aight mod time to clean this horseshit so that the actual discussion becomes a possibility.
 
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?
Or does this sound like your beliefs, GT?

...in order to charm the golden birds, out of the pockets of his dearly beloved neighbours in Christ. He puts himself at the service of the other’s most depraved fancies, plays the pimp between him and his need, excites in him morbid appetites, lies in wait for each of his weaknesses – all so that he can then demand the cash for this service of love. (Every product is a bait with which to seduce away the other’s very being, his money; every real and possible need is a weakness which will lead the fly to the glue-pot. General exploitation of communal human nature, just as every imperfection in man, is a bond with heaven – an avenue giving the priest access to his heart; every need is an opportunity to approach one’s neighbour under the guise of the utmost amiability and to say to him: Dear friend, I give you what you need, but you know the conditio sine qua non; you know the ink in which you have to sign yourself over to me; in providing for your pleasure, I fleece you.)" Karl Marx
tl;dr.

Seems you read a lot more dogma than most.
 
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?
You wound me, GT.
 
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?
Or does this sound like your beliefs, GT?

...in order to charm the golden birds, out of the pockets of his dearly beloved neighbours in Christ. He puts himself at the service of the other’s most depraved fancies, plays the pimp between him and his need, excites in him morbid appetites, lies in wait for each of his weaknesses – all so that he can then demand the cash for this service of love. (Every product is a bait with which to seduce away the other’s very being, his money; every real and possible need is a weakness which will lead the fly to the glue-pot. General exploitation of communal human nature, just as every imperfection in man, is a bond with heaven – an avenue giving the priest access to his heart; every need is an opportunity to approach one’s neighbour under the guise of the utmost amiability and to say to him: Dear friend, I give you what you need, but you know the conditio sine qua non; you know the ink in which you have to sign yourself over to me; in providing for your pleasure, I fleece you.)" Karl Marx
tl;dr.

Seems you read a lot more dogma than most.
It's OK. Others will.
 
AyeCantSeeYou when you get a shot...can you see post#31 where I clarified for ding that my thread was designed to discuss biblical morals...

and he stated outright hes not a biblical literalist because of some jewish blahblah...

And now hes just here to be antagonistic about completely unrelated shit?

Thanks for reviewing if you get a shot
 
AyeCantSeeYou when you get a shot...can you see post#31 where I clarified for ding that my thread was designed to discuss biblical morals...

and he stated outright hes not a biblical literalist because of some jewish blahblah...

And now hes just here to be antagonistic about completely unrelated shit?

Thanks for reviewing if you get a shot
I am questioning the validity of the foundation of the argument and it made them upset and you can see who really started the antagonistic behavior.

Morals are absolute.
 
In fact, the title of the OP was intended to be antagonistic because it was intended to be disrespectful of the beliefs of others.
 
AyeCantSeeYou when you get a shot...can you see post#31 where I clarified for ding that my thread was designed to discuss biblical morals...

and he stated outright hes not a biblical literalist because of some jewish blahblah...

And now hes just here to be antagonistic about completely unrelated shit?

Thanks for reviewing if you get a shot
I am questioning the validity of the foundation of the argument and it made them upset and you can see who really started the antagonistic behavior.

Morals are absolute.
The foundation of the argument is a literal belief in the bible ~

You dont possess one. You admitted as much.

I clarified for you that my OP is about the relative morals of the god of the literal text.

Do you need a google translator to help you?
 
AyeCantSeeYou when you get a shot...can you see post#31 where I clarified for ding that my thread was designed to discuss biblical morals...

and he stated outright hes not a biblical literalist because of some jewish blahblah...

And now hes just here to be antagonistic about completely unrelated shit?

Thanks for reviewing if you get a shot
I am questioning the validity of the foundation of the argument and it made them upset and you can see who really started the antagonistic behavior.

Morals are absolute.
The foundation of the argument is a literal belief in the bible ~

You dont possess one. You admitted as much.

I clarified for you that my OP is about the relative morals of the god of the literal text.

Do you need a google translator to help you?
I don't need a translator to see your disrespect for the beliefs of others, GT.

I think you've spent too much time in the flame zone.
 
In fact, the title of the OP was intended to be antagonistic because it was intended to be disrespectful of the beliefs of others.
The title was antagonistic. The discussion is a valid one to be had, and thats with biblical literalists and how they square that with objective morality.

Its not for you, if you wanna go talk to some kind ear about how you cherry pick which parts of the bible to believe...go for it
 
AyeCantSeeYou when you get a shot...can you see post#31 where I clarified for ding that my thread was designed to discuss biblical morals...

and he stated outright hes not a biblical literalist because of some jewish blahblah...

And now hes just here to be antagonistic about completely unrelated shit?

Thanks for reviewing if you get a shot
I am questioning the validity of the foundation of the argument and it made them upset and you can see who really started the antagonistic behavior.

Morals are absolute.
The foundation of the argument is a literal belief in the bible ~

You dont possess one. You admitted as much.

I clarified for you that my OP is about the relative morals of the god of the literal text.

Do you need a google translator to help you?
I absolutely do have a foundation for my beliefs, but it would be illogical to discuss them with someone whose only purpose here is to troll believers of faith like you are doing.
 
AyeCantSeeYou when you get a shot...can you see post#31 where I clarified for ding that my thread was designed to discuss biblical morals...

and he stated outright hes not a biblical literalist because of some jewish blahblah...

And now hes just here to be antagonistic about completely unrelated shit?

Thanks for reviewing if you get a shot
I am questioning the validity of the foundation of the argument and it made them upset and you can see who really started the antagonistic behavior.

Morals are absolute.
The foundation of the argument is a literal belief in the bible ~

You dont possess one. You admitted as much.

I clarified for you that my OP is about the relative morals of the god of the literal text.

Do you need a google translator to help you?
I don't need a translator to see your disrespect for the beliefs of others, GT.

I think you've spent too much time in the flame zone.
I dont care about your sanctimoneous act, ding. Its not fooling anyone ~ if folks are bothered by my title they can fly on by, you included.
 
In fact, the title of the OP was intended to be antagonistic because it was intended to be disrespectful of the beliefs of others.
The title was antagonistic. The discussion is a valid one to be had, and thats with biblical literalists and how they square that with objective morality.

Its not for you, if you wanna go talk to some kind ear about how you cherry pick which parts of the bible to believe...go for it
Ummm... no it's not. You are trolling.
 
AyeCantSeeYou when you get a shot...can you see post#31 where I clarified for ding that my thread was designed to discuss biblical morals...

and he stated outright hes not a biblical literalist because of some jewish blahblah...

And now hes just here to be antagonistic about completely unrelated shit?

Thanks for reviewing if you get a shot
I am questioning the validity of the foundation of the argument and it made them upset and you can see who really started the antagonistic behavior.

Morals are absolute.
The foundation of the argument is a literal belief in the bible ~

You dont possess one. You admitted as much.

I clarified for you that my OP is about the relative morals of the god of the literal text.

Do you need a google translator to help you?
I absolutely do have a foundation for my beliefs, but it would be illogical to discuss them with someone whose only purpose here is to troll believers of faith like you are doing.
good, bye.
 
AyeCantSeeYou when you get a shot...can you see post#31 where I clarified for ding that my thread was designed to discuss biblical morals...

and he stated outright hes not a biblical literalist because of some jewish blahblah...

And now hes just here to be antagonistic about completely unrelated shit?

Thanks for reviewing if you get a shot
I am questioning the validity of the foundation of the argument and it made them upset and you can see who really started the antagonistic behavior.

Morals are absolute.
The foundation of the argument is a literal belief in the bible ~

You dont possess one. You admitted as much.

I clarified for you that my OP is about the relative morals of the god of the literal text.

Do you need a google translator to help you?
I don't need a translator to see your disrespect for the beliefs of others, GT.

I think you've spent too much time in the flame zone.
I dont care about your sanctimoneous act, ding. Its not fooling anyone ~ if folks are bothered by my title they can fly on by, you included.
I don't claim to be a saint, GT. But you can't admit what your motive was. You are the one who is behaving sanctimoniously, bro.
 
In fact, the title of the OP was intended to be antagonistic because it was intended to be disrespectful of the beliefs of others.
The title was antagonistic. The discussion is a valid one to be had, and thats with biblical literalists and how they square that with objective morality.

Its not for you, if you wanna go talk to some kind ear about how you cherry pick which parts of the bible to believe...go for it
Ummm... no it's not. You are trolling.
good, bye.
 
AyeCantSeeYou when you get a shot...can you see post#31 where I clarified for ding that my thread was designed to discuss biblical morals...

and he stated outright hes not a biblical literalist because of some jewish blahblah...

And now hes just here to be antagonistic about completely unrelated shit?

Thanks for reviewing if you get a shot
I am questioning the validity of the foundation of the argument and it made them upset and you can see who really started the antagonistic behavior.

Morals are absolute.
The foundation of the argument is a literal belief in the bible ~

You dont possess one. You admitted as much.

I clarified for you that my OP is about the relative morals of the god of the literal text.

Do you need a google translator to help you?
I absolutely do have a foundation for my beliefs, but it would be illogical to discuss them with someone whose only purpose here is to troll believers of faith like you are doing.
good, bye.
Have a good night, GT.
 
AyeCantSeeYou when you get a shot...can you see post#31 where I clarified for ding that my thread was designed to discuss biblical morals...

and he stated outright hes not a biblical literalist because of some jewish blahblah...

And now hes just here to be antagonistic about completely unrelated shit?

Thanks for reviewing if you get a shot
I am questioning the validity of the foundation of the argument and it made them upset and you can see who really started the antagonistic behavior.

Morals are absolute.
The foundation of the argument is a literal belief in the bible ~

You dont possess one. You admitted as much.

I clarified for you that my OP is about the relative morals of the god of the literal text.

Do you need a google translator to help you?
I don't need a translator to see your disrespect for the beliefs of others, GT.

I think you've spent too much time in the flame zone.
I dont care about your sanctimoneous act, ding. Its not fooling anyone ~ if folks are bothered by my title they can fly on by, you included.
I don't claim to be a saint, GT. But you can't admit what your motive was. You are the one who is behaving sanctimoniously, bro.
sweet. see ya.
 

Forum List

Back
Top