Frankly, I was shocked that anyone would think that killing children was EVER acceptable.
You ought to amend your manner of speech to reflect that.
If you wanted to avoid it, you would not have participated in the debate that was in process.
By not pointing out flaws in reasoning?
I was initially defending Stefan Molyneux from inacurate statements made about him. That is how this all started.
Yes, actually.
What other reason is there to ban a voice of opposition - that for the most part disrupted nothing in the boards?
This is a fundamental portion of any cult. My sneaking suspicion originally was that Molyneux would ban any and all voices of opposition - he fulfills most other qualities already. Molyneux, however, had not banned me even after voicing opposition - this gave me the impression that he was open to outside claims.
That, however, became incorrect when Molyneux revealed he had no knowledget that the Niccolò on his precious board was the same Niccolò that wrote those mean things about Dr. Turtle-Head.
This confirmed my first suspicion and convinced me that, whether conscious of it or not, Molyneux is indeed forming a political cult. As for divin revelation, I tend not to get into theological debates with Atheists because so few no what they’re talking about it seems pitiful and wasteful of my time - simply put, no comment.
Wow… Wait to miss the point of both examples.
The sacrifice of Isaac by Abraham is a parable on the purpose and importance of faith, as indicated by Soren Kierkegaard.
You’re assuming that Abraham was insane. This is common in all militant atheist analyses. Assume all religion is nuts and attack from there.
You ignore the logic in the statement that if God is God and the embodiment of morality, then whatever action He makes must be, by logic, a moral action.
Now, you will of course say, “BUT GOD DON’T EXIST!” fine. Along with the assumption of insanity, Atheists often assume that all Christians and other people of faith care about convincing them of the truth of God. Quite frankly, I don’t care. Don’t hold any faith, do, whatever you want.
You don’t grasp the logic yet. Jephthah’s promise does not override God’s commandment. God’s direct order does override the standing order of his commandment. This is really basic stuff–I’d like to impress upon you that what you’re considering to be powerful arguments are the usual trivialities that every beginner (or, for those raised in a church, young children) raise. I suspect the reason you’re making such poor arguments is that you consider all believers too stupid to merit actual mental effort on your part. You’re mistaken.
Not only is it trivial, by the way, but you already know it. If you have a child, you’ve told him not to cross the road alone. If he promises you to retrieve your frisbee, and later you find out that he crossed a road to do it, you’ll punish him. Conversely, if you order him to cross the road in a particular instance, you will punish him for refusing.
I don’t recall saying any such thing. I made the general observation that free people can dislike each other and refrain from associating. I don’t have a problem with non-theists. I do have a problem with condescending jerks, but nevertheless I don’t usually avoid them.
That statement too is poorly founded. Practically all humans, at least since the upper Paleolithic, have believed in one religion or other. To say that religious people kill and steal is to say that humans kill and steal. The record of atheists as individuals is no better; there has never been a nation of atheists, so you can hardly gloat about the humanitarian record of atheist nations.
As for your bigot credentials, it’s hard to say–there’s a continuum. Your condescension, etc., suggests some level of bigotry, but nothing like the obsession shown by some atheists. I merely point out that “bigotry” as a cause of violence is well documented. That model not only subsumes religious violence–which is usually based in bigotry–but it also explains violence committed by atheist skinheads against blacks.
–Len.
Interesting! So, for example, if a seventeen-year-old gang member attempts to rape and kill your wife, you would counsel her to lie back and think about ponies? Personally, I’d want my wife to defend herself with her sidearm.
To each his own, I guess. I admit I’m shocked to learn that you think it’s dandy for your wife to be raped and killed, though.
–Len.
Exactly. Direct orders such as Jesus’ annulment of the OT laws.
OK, so, in your view, what is the importance of faith?
Even assuming he was not, it could be a justification to be used either by an oportunist, an insane person, or even a sane person who is halucinating.
I have never assumed that. I have never had a member of the Society of Friends try to convert me. I have never had an Amish person try to convert me (yes, I do live in an area where Amsih live.) I have never had a Jewish person try to convert me. I have never had a Unitarian-Universalist try to convert me. Not all faiths require their members do evangelizing.
To state the obvious, this is called self-defense which is a different matter altogether.
Ah! I see now! God can contradict himself!
Of course He can. Assuming that God created the world and all mankind, we occupy the world under His liscence. The terms of which, being consistent with private property theory, He may change at any time.
That is all I needed to know.
Ah, cool. Hopefully the next time we talk it will be in a thread on whose topic we agree.
The topic of religion is an emotional one, which is why I was hesitant to get into it from the get go. Look at some of my early posts in this thread. But as far as I am concerned this clears the whole issue up for me.
[:|]
[Y]
I do too, I also enjoy Halal food which is similar but not exactly the same. I think many of the religous leaders at the time these laws were written did so for health reasons. They observed people getting physically ill after eating certain foods but did not understand why (Louis Pasteur had not yet been born).
Wow… What an A-S-S
As existence is absurd, to rely on pure reason would be a fundamental mistake that would only result in inevitable disillusion.
To be happy as an individual, there takes a certain amount of faith that, through the virtue of the absurd, life will improve and the passion one finds so important will be delivered to him.
Maybe it would. This is where you’re confusing man’s justice with moral thought, however. A man acting on faith, transcending the ethical, acts with full knowledge that if he is successful and God’s desire was indeed for him to sacrifice his son, then he will still face the consequences, but consequences be damned! It is more important to act on faith than to act in fear.
If your concern is that it will be a justification, it will not - a knight of faith accepts the consequences because he knows that it is what he must do.
I still don’t see what’s wrong with sharing one’s faith. Have the Christian bullies really held you down and forced bibles down your throat?
You said that killing “children” is “NEVER” acceptable. Now you suddenly discover an exception: self-defense. And that’s OK: when you contradict yourself, it’s “another matter altogether.” When your disputants appear to do so (though in reality you’re just confused), you see this as damning. Thanks to your double-standard, you’re blissfully unaware of the point. The point is that you need to treat others courteously, and stop acting like an ass.
–Len.