Jump to content


Photo

Things That Don't Exist?


  • Please log in to reply
27 replies to this topic

#21 Mike Summers

Mike Summers

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,115 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Information theory, electronics, videography, writing, human psychology, psychotherapy
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Detroit Michigan area

Posted 24 July 2016 - 11:10 AM

Mike Said:
 

Well said Mike. And we should remember what a powerful emotion hate is. Like you Mike, I don't want hatred and bitterness in my system. Jesus said if we hate we are in danger of the commandment, "do not murder".

Right! I remember how our beloed brother Stephen, when disbievers were stonning him, asked the Lord not to lay it not their charge! He realized that given the deception they that Satan had deceived his attackers into believing, thinking an doing what they did. Because of the decption, I try to get us all to think about our thinking so we can become aware of crooked thinking. You do the same.

An atheist can't magically tell someone they have hate because only the person with hate can know they are feeling that emotion.

Exactly, Bro. How many times have I tried to teach this fact to my clients! Even as we try to do it here and now.
No one can feel hate unless they trigger it in their mind. I personally, because of built in references that God put into our sofftware, don't like feeling the emotion hate. Since I have the ability not to trigger it by not thinking its trigger thoughts, I don't trigger that emotion.

The only way to know hate is if there is a clearly overt display of hatred such as calling people harsh and mean-spirited, prejudiced names, etc, and trying to stop them from living freely.

The ahte emotion is antecedant to hateful behavior. 100% right on! Exactly!
It's TEB. We think, emote and then behave. Cognition mediates at all levels of the process. We have the ability to think about our theinking, theink about the resulatan emotion and think about if we what e want to do and if indeed we want to act on the emotion and after the fact decide if we ere right to behave the way we chose to behave. We have all this built in contngncy--safeguards to monitor at all levels. We are without excuse! I know to much to try and get away with not thinking about my thinking.

As you know we have no hatred in our babarized systems.newbaba2.jpg :D I find it amusing to be accused of hatred, because obviously I know that I don't hate, the same way an innocent man in prison knows he is innocent of a crime people accuse him of committing.

I remeber when you made the comment before that you couldn't prove to another that you were inocent of a crime. But you knew you were innocent. We are aware of ourselves and that is our greatest gift to ourselves. We are aware that we control our thinking, emoting and behaving--not the environment or others words or deeds. Jesus set us that example when He said from the cross, "Father forgve them for they know not what the do."

I am not worried if they continue to accuse me because Jesus said, "blessed are you" when they say false things about you. Words have no power to hurt us or make us something we're not.

Couldn't have said it better. As our beloved Lord said, "And you shall know the truth and the truth shall set you free!"

We bless Fjuri and Goku, and re-invite them to friendship. Prediction: hostility from Fjuri, silence from Goku. Lol!

I noticed that too. That's their pattern alright. LOL

Maybe someday our efforts will yield fruit and the narble will hit the hole. As the poet said, they will turn the corner and run into themselves. Maybe finally they will admit that they create most not all of their issues in their own ninds. Then they will create us into their friends. I am lookig forward to that! In the mean time I havee your friendship and you have mine and the rest of our converted brothers and sisters. 7 billion more to go! LOL

(surely they must ask themselves why they can't friendify us - isn't that a sign of prejudice? If a G*y person joined EFF, me and Mike would friendify them straight away. It doesn't matter to me if Bob's man-pipe gets lodged inside Pete's lust shaft, causing satan's grapes to grow, and I would be happy to recommend a haemorrhoid cream to exorcise those grapes, and even pay for it if they were desperate.) :rotfl3: Just don't ask me to tread grapes, I don't engage in strange fetish behaviours. :rotfl3:

I would guess they are to busy collectig inustces to make themselve upset and falsely blame it on others.
LOL:)



#22 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,078 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Refuting baloney, crushing codswallop, outwitting Khan.
  • Age: 33
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 24 July 2016 - 12:34 PM

 

 

Mike: Maybe someday our efforts will yield fruit and the narble will hit the hole. As the poet said, they will turn the corner and run into themselves. Maybe finally they will admit that they create most not all of their issues in their own ninds. Then they will create us into their friends. I am lookig forward to that! In the mean time I havee your friendship and you have mine and the rest of our converted brothers and sisters. 7 billion more to go! LOL

 

Lol. You are very optimistic, I suspect Fjuri would rather turn me into some kind of glue than be a friend with the "enemy" of evo. ;)

 

I notice how silent the duo are, I guess we have defused their word-bombs by not neurotically agreeing to them, or justifying ourselves to them.

 

I think that's the key Mike;

 

1. Don't accept the false words they say.

2. Don't over-exert yourself to defend your name, because this gives those words power and it justifies their self-deception that they are superior, and we must answer to their moral code.

 

As I have shown, relative moral codes are actually formulated according to the person's desires. Can you imagine how absurd it would be if the moors murderer joined this forum and asked me to justify something I had said? 

 

"And do not overcome evil with evil, but overcome evil with good."

 

There is nothing more effective than asking our opponents to be our friends Mike. That makes them scarper so fast that they practically get a hernia in a hurry to leave the EFF building. LOL! (what, be friends with them! Hell no, not if you paid me to do it!) 

 

;)

 

Remember in the war, when on Christmas day there was a truce, and germans and the allies had a Christmas dinner together? 

 

I repent in dust and ashes Fjuri, for the hate you created and I did not feel.  :rotfl3: 



#23 Goku

Goku

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 626 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 25
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • USA

Posted 24 July 2016 - 04:37 PM

There is physical harm caused by the G*y act because in case you don't know very obvious things, a flesh pipe was not designed to penetrate a man-tunnel. If you believe it was, please now provide the anatomical evidence to support your claim.

 
Also, think how silly it is to argue that any harm from the G*y lifestyle came from medical ignorance. If that is true, and that was the cause of the harm, then what about the harm the G*y act caused BEFORE medical science existed? Can you answer this question directly please and not avoid it? Here is the question; if a lack of medical educations causes the damage caused by G*y s@x then what caused the damage caused by G*y s@x before medical science existed? ?(moreover me and Mike would provide G*y people with any medical help, and they are free to access that help, so we don't accept guilt-by-association.)
 
Your argument is that murder isn't the cause of murder for stabbing-victims, but rather the cause of their murder was their lack of education that would teach them to wear a protective shield
 
It's a classic error which I see in court a lot, where people CONFLATE the lack of a preventive measure, with cause.
 
Example: "had you worn a seat belt you wouldn't have been harmed, so Bob was not in the wrong to run a red light and smash into your car".
 
Here you commit a classic error, so you're you're dardly in any position to tell us our thinking is wrong for accepting the Lord's word, the bible when your thinking is this clouded.

 

Sodomy is not restricted to G*y couples; plenty of straight couples like to switch around the holes they use. I thought you were referring to HIV, which is usually what people mean when they say it is harmful.

 

As for putting stuff up your butt, yeah I can agree you shouldn't do that too often (I have heard stories from my G*y friends that people who do it too much have to wear diapers in their later years). In moderation, and done properly with care, the risks are minimal. Even too much normal intercourse in a short period of time can leave the women with urinary track infections. Every activity carries its risks.

 

The go-to question people ask preachers that preach against sodomy is this: Why did God put nerves up the butt that are stimulated during sodomy and can lead to intense orgasms?

 

What is the, "Christian paradigm"? What you see as the, "Christian paradigm" I see as the genetic fallacy. We only have one genuine Christian source, the bible. It says nothing h*m*ph*bic, which is defined as prejudice and hatred towards people and we are commanded not to cast the stone by Christ, a we are Christians, not O.T. Jewish. (gentiles)

 

The bible is taken as a whole by us and says, "God is love" and there is, "no unrighteousness in Him". We can't just look at the statement about the G*y act but we have to look at all of the scriptures together as a whole, and see what the message is. The fruit of the spirit doesn't allow us to be prejudiced nor does Christ's commands. You have given a morally relative opinion that the bible is false. I can find others that would disagree, why are they wrong and you right, if it is all a matter of relativity? (what, did you think I would forget again?) LOL!

 

Like Mike says, you are using the group thing to imply "us" and "them", You say, "theist" as though to imply homophobia comes from theism, and us creationists, and you the, "we" are innocent.

 

Lol!

 

In the most strict sense the Christian paradigm is the doctrine of Christianity. The Bible most certainly says h*m*ph*bic things. In the OT they say to kill g*ys solely because they are G*y; if that is not homophobia please tell me what would count as homophobia? In the NT it explicitly states that G*y people will not inherit the kingdom of Heaven just the same as thieves and murderers.

 

Yes God is love, except when he tells people to kill G*y people because they are G*y, or is that an expression of God's love too? You can't hide behind the new covenant on this one; God does not change, Jesus did not come to abolish the Law, and God has commanded in the past that G*y people need to die.

 

I never said my morality was correct; my argument is that the Bible's morality is clearly the culmination of ancient human thought and not that of some transcendent entity.

 

I never said theism is the root cause of homophobia. I said, twice (once in PM with you and once in this thread), that the general public has h*m*ph*bic tendencies that are exacerbated by theism.

 

Let's assume that is true for a moment. What then would make their morality, "wrong" and your morality, "right" if all morality is relative and there isn't some objective "right and wrong" that exists? :acigar:

 

Think about it, here in this post I had to show how cloudy your judgement was by the mistakes you made, yet you imply my judgement is wrong in accepting the bible

 

So if you were trying to say, "I think you idiots believe in a false book", then sorry to say this but this post demonstrates that I'm, "LAUGHING at the superior intellect."

 

At least TRY and understand Mike's first post of the thread.

 

I never said my morality is "right" in some ultimate, cosmic, objective way. The justification for my saying that h*m*s*xuality is not immoral is that it doesn't harm or effect anyone not involved.

 

Your points are not as good as you believe them to be.



#24 Goku

Goku

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 626 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 25
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • USA

Posted 24 July 2016 - 04:54 PM

Unless Goku answers my questions instead of re-ranting, I suggest the readers dismiss his posts. Please Jury, dismiss his statements, because if he can't answer my questions and can only avoid them and instead provide a new rhetoric that EVADES them, then the most pertinent question the jury must ask is this; "why can't Goku answer the questions?" "Why can he only formulate new rhetoric instead of answering the questions put to him, and evade them?"

 

Question: if all views of morality are relative, why is the biblical relative morality, wrong, and Goku's morality, "right" given under that circumstance, there can't be a relative group which is right and another that is wrong, for they would all be opinion-based?

 

I've talked about it before; what constitutes moral or immoral behavior depends on the principles said individual or school of thought holds as important.

 

I never said my morality is the ultimately correct view. In essence I am saying h*m*s*xuality is not immoral because it doesn't harm people, and when I ask you to justify your calling it immoral I get nothing but an argument from authority. To that end my point, besides that it is an argument from authority and what that logically entails, is that what you perceive as this ultimate authority is really the relative morality of an ancient sect of people without any influence from some transcendent entity.

 

Question: Why does goku self-righteoussly, always commit begging-the-question by assuming that his morality is correct and we must answer to it, and why does Fjuri pretend we must answer to his morality as though they are God and we are their subjects? Indeed, why do all atheists act this way and argue-from-outrage? Example: "you are a disgrace, all of the oppression and hate towards G*y people you Christians have caused! I am furious that you have the gaul to even talk to me!"

 

And you never assume your morality is correct and that I must answer to it? At least my reasoning doesn't hinge on arguments from authority.



#25 MarkForbes

MarkForbes

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,140 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Africa
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Waverley

Posted 24 July 2016 - 06:52 PM

I've talked about it before; what constitutes moral or immoral behavior depends on the principles said individual or school of thought holds as important.

 

I never said my morality is the ultimately correct view. In essence I am saying h*m*s*xuality is not immoral because it doesn't harm people, and when I ask you to justify your calling it immoral I get nothing but an argument from authority. To that end my point, besides that it is an argument from authority and what that logically entails, is that what you perceive as this ultimate authority is really the relative morality of an ancient sect of people without any influence from some transcendent entity.

 

 

And you never assume your morality is correct and that I must answer to it? At least my reasoning doesn't hinge on arguments from authority.

Just a few thoughts. 

- There are several schools of thought concerning ethics that can be subdivided into several classes. e.g.: Deontological Ethics (duty based), Utilitarian Ethics (Greatest pleasure, utility from action ), Virtue Ethics (how would a person of good character act), rights ethics (propose rights, ask if someone's rights are violated).

- If a school of thoughts principles are correct, wouldn't that depend on whether that schools of thoughts idea is true or not?

- Your statement that h*m*s*xuality doesn't harm people, how do you know that this is true?

- You complain that your're opponent's view hinges on argument from authority. I got to tell you, yours does as well. Let me briefly explain:

-- I assess your ethics briefly: If it doesn't "harm people", it's OK and moral to do. I'd assign that into the Utilitarian Category combined with the rights ethics. The utilitarians are more meta-ethical and may form a basis for declaring rights. 

-- Your "It doesn't harm, so it's OK" is the axiomatic principle of your ethics. It's an authoritative statement, without defined authority, but it nevertheless is.
-- Hence, you are arguing from authority as well!

 

But is that true that "h*m*s*xuality doesn't harm people"? How do you know that, what's the evidence for that? I think there is quite some indicators that point the other way. Now you can say:"But as long as it's consensual between grown-ups, it should be allowed!". Sounds great at first sight, but what if there are unethical/immoral things that take place with consensus between people. I mean that would be possible for sure. Like lying to each other, would that also be "no harm" as long as it's consensual meaning tolerated, by the side that is lied to?!


  • mike the wiz likes this

#26 Mike Summers

Mike Summers

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,115 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Information theory, electronics, videography, writing, human psychology, psychotherapy
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Detroit Michigan area

Posted 24 July 2016 - 08:34 PM


Yes God is love, except when he tells people to kill G*y people because they are G*y, or is that an expression of God's love too? You can't hide behind the new covenant on this one; God does not change, Jesus did not come to abolish the Law, and God has commanded in the past that G*y people need to die.

There you go again. There is nothing any of us can do about the past. My suggestion is that you forgive (accept reality). God can do anything he wants. He has the abilit'y to reason and does chage his mind. If you read the bible you wouldn't create such ignorant answers. These are NT times.


I never said my morality was correct; my argument is that the Bible's morality is clearly the culmination of ancient human thought and not that of some transcendent entity.

Whatever but, it still boils down to two choices. Love or hate, good or evil. "How long halt ye between two opinions?"


I never said theism is the root cause of homophobia. I said, twice (once in PM with you and once in this thread), that the general public has h*m*ph*bic tendencies that are exacerbated by theism.

Individual people and their beliefs are the cause of homophobia not non existent entities.

Evo did it? Right? It supposedly did everything. Right?

I never said my morality is "right" in some ultimate, cosmic, objective way. The justification for my saying that h*m*s*xuality is not immoral is that it doesn't harm or effect anyone not involved.

I've talked about it before; what constitutes moral or immoral behavior depends on the principles said individual or school of thought holds as important.

I would like you to less vague and accept the morality that you create.

I never said my morality is the ultimately correct view. In essence I am saying h*m*s*xuality is not immoral because it doesn't harm people, and when I ask you to justify your calling it immoral I get nothing but an argument from authority. To that end my point, besides that it is an argument from authority and what that logically entails, is that what you perceive as this ultimate authority is really the relative morality of an ancient sect of people without any influence from some transcendent entity.

At leas according to your created story. But in the end it comes down to what you do because you are a free moral agent. You seem to be arguing that point pretty forcefully from reading the above prose.

Question: Why does goku self-righteoussly, always commit begging-the-question by assuming Example: "you are a disgrace, all of the oppression and hate towards G*y people you Christians have caused! I am furious that you have the gaul to even talk to me!"

Once again we are a group not indviduals. I have never presecuted G*y people. So who is he talking to.

And you never assume your mora
lity is correct and that I must answer to it? At least my reasoning doesn't hinge on arguments from authority.

Christias are told not to persecute anyonne! the scripture says vengence is mine sayeth the lord. So if anyone is persecuted it's not on God rquest. We all act in a unilateral manner.
Oh but it does depennd on your arguments and you are the authority in your arguments.

#27 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,078 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Refuting baloney, crushing codswallop, outwitting Khan.
  • Age: 33
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 25 July 2016 - 03:01 AM

 

Goku: In the most strict sense the Christian paradigm is the doctrine of Christianity. The Bible most certainly says h*m*ph*bic things. In the OT they say to kill g*ys solely because they are G*y; if that is not homophobia please tell me what would count as homophobia? In the NT it explicitly states that G*y people will not inherit the kingdom of Heaven just the same as thieves and murderers.

 

Yes God is love, except when he tells people to kill G*y people because they are G*y, or is that an expression of God's love too?

 

Hang on a minute...you're getting way ahead here, I haven't read the scriptures you are talking about(though I can guess which ones), nor do I necessarily agree with your interpretation which is cynical.

 

From our perspective, God kills people a lot in the bible. Because God created all life, He has the moral right to take it away. Since God is omniscient, and is love, it would be pretty obtuse to infer the non-sequitur that any action He commands in the bible, means He is evil.

 

That is the ad-nauseam argument I get a lot from you, you always basically argue this; "the bible says X this time, therefore God is not moral", but not only do we not agree, we also would not have a cynical interpretation like you.

 

For example, when the bible says, "h*m*sexuals" will not inherit the kingdom, it can't possibly mean that if you are born G*y that you will go straight to hell. That would be a very silly argument. It is pretty obvious that the definition of H*mos*xual back then, refers to the act. All through the bible we are shown laws to do and not do certain things, but never does it suggest that simply being born a certain way is a sin.

 

So I am not cynical about what God means. God wouldn't simply have people killed, but rather the OT says that a man shouldn't sleep with a man, nor a woman with a woman, and if they do, there is a punishment God has decided. My reaction to that is, that I don't know better than God, like you presume to.

 

I would also say that apart from sodomy, there is a whole lot of negative effects such as disease and emotional hurts, and spiritual hurts. We are told that when flesh joins they become one, which implies there is a connection between a man and wife, so then we also have to consider God's intentions. From God's perspective, He is saying that He has not designed men to be with men that they should become one flesh.

 

So your arguments basically depend on assuming the bible is false. But we're not going to agree with you on that. Just fishing for things in the bible then saying, "ergo the bible is false" is one of those errors the link I quoted, gave. (non-sequiturs).

 

I would agree that from our perspective (limited human, relative reasonings/opinions) it does seem very harsh some of the things God commanded, and I agree that from a surface-reading of the text, it does seem (from that perspective) almost as though God is commanding people to do immoral things from time to time. But really then you have to decide, do you value magisterial reason MORE than ministerial reason? That is to say - do we make a decision that our thinking, in our limited capacity, IS GOD. (pride)

 

For me that is unthinkable. It is better to, "trust in the Lord with all your heart, and lean not on your own understanding". - Proverbs. (there is an obvious reason why we should not lean on our human reason, if God knows better).

 

A good example of this is when Lazarus dies and Jesus lets him, or when Jesus tells Peter to let down his nets for a fish-catch. In both examples it would seem very patently obvious to our human-reason, that Jesus does not care about Lazarus and lets him die, and that Jesus does not know what He is doing when He suggests catching fish in the day time, as He has no knowledge of fishing and Peter is an expert.

 

Peter decides to trust Jesus. First Peter makes a statement about human reason (magisterial) THEN he basically says, "but I choose to believe you are who you are, and know better". Peter makes a choice of faith by saying something like this; "Lord we have caught not fish all night, nevertheless I will do as you have commanded." (paraphrase)

 

 

 

Mike: Oh but it does depennd on your arguments and you are the authority in your arguments. 

 

Exactly, Goku says his morals aren't the correct one, then give us his moral opinions about the bible, as though there is some objective reality that makes his opinions somehow correct, and not Bob the agnostic, who isn't cynical about the bible. If Goku says it is wrong, it is, and we must just trust in the Goku-god.

:P



#28 Mike Summers

Mike Summers

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,115 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Information theory, electronics, videography, writing, human psychology, psychotherapy
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Detroit Michigan area

Posted 25 July 2016 - 03:51 AM

Fjuri and Goku,

Your biblical equivalent is Job.
You guys seem so proud of yourself for not bashing g*ys but, you have no problem bashng God and Christians. Aren't Chrstians humans? Aren't we hmans like you? Or do you belong to the master race and Mike the wiz and me are miscreants--rejectees from the fit gene pool?

So, what's the dfferennce between bashing g*ys and Mike and me (as well as other Christians)?
Bashing is bashing!

How ironic that you accuse two Chrtians of hating someone we don't hate--and bashing people we have never bashed?

We make every effort to explain ourselves to you including our desire to be your friend but, all you do is attack us and claim we hate people we don't and do things we say we have don't do (bashig another human being). Nevertheless, like the unjust judge mentioned in the bible, you declare us guilty of wrong doing anyway!

When we say we haven't done any bashing, you go into your neurotic agreement "group" mode. One person n the group dd something    wrong everyone is guilty. this is foolishness. You infer we are guilty because eeome one else is guilty. My mom used to have an expression she used that seems to fit your behavior perfectly "The cuckoo calls himself by his own name."

I hope you have one of those moments called an Aha moment and you see just how selfrigteous you have created yourself into being! No, bro you are not the pillar of virtue you seem to think you are! You bash christians1

I dont, say this stuff with hostility but because I want you to quit perecuting people. :)






1 user(s) are reading this topic

1 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users


    Mambo