|
rudatron posted:So to review, you believe a judgement requires a 'law' between the two subjects (judge and defendant), and as the the arbiter of the 'ultimate law', you can't judge 'god'. Correct? There are two problems I have with that. The first problem I'm having, as you guess, is I think you're metaphysicalizing law (or 'gods law' or whatever) as a 'thing' that exists in the universe. I cannot accept that, not at face value at least. Values and judgements exists from the perspective of a subject, they are not an object in the universe. 'Law' is an agreement between subjects, but again does not exist as an object. The second problem is the way you're treating this law: it automatically supersedes any other law. It is an 'ultimate' law right? But I can't interpret that as anything other than you're own judgement. You (and supposing god) believe in it's 'ultimate' nature, but what does that matter to anyone else? The first part seems accurate to me. But I'm not sure I understand what you're saying about the law a as a "thing." The Law is with God, obviously. As for your view on the exclusive perspective of the subject, isn't this objection pretty much given, based on your individualistic atheism? I think one could say: They exist also from the perspective of the "supreme subject," who decides what they truly are, as opposed to what the "subordinate subjects" perceive them to be. I don't know if this is a good way of putting it, the terms seem quite inaccurate. But maybe that conveys the basic message. Stripped down to its most basic elements and general meaning, a law tells us that under certain circumstances, certain phenomena should occur. No need for agreement there. But you're right about the inter-subjectivity as long as we're talking about the laws of the courts. My point is that other types of laws operate without our agreement. All the subject can do is perceive, interpret and communicate them. I'm guessing your objection will be: They are laws only because the subjects regard them as such. Without the subjects, there would be no-one to experience them as laws since the laws are not independent objects. My answer, and yours in turn, should not be difficult to guess at by now. For the purposes of this discussion, it matters to someone saying "God is evil," for reasons I have already mentioned earlier. quote:But okay, you believe both of these to be so. An argument takes premises, and results in a conclusion. Construct an argument, with premises of that are purely descriptive, that result in a normative conclusion. If this 'ultimate law' is truly an object, this should be possible. If, on the other hand, it's not possible, then that would bring into question your objection, no? Again, I don't think I understand what you mean by calling the law an "object." Are we talking past each other here? The Law is with God, it's not a beach ball floating around in space. God creates the Law but that doesn't mean it escapes His grasp. As for the necessity of our agreement, ignorance of the law is rarely an excuse even in the courts. quote:Your talk on standards again is similar: law as object, god creates all objects, so has control. But what follows is a little different, so I'll take it on its own terms: Criticism of god on the subject's own terms use their own understanding, if you believe that understanding is incorrect (angry sky man as opposed to god) then by all means, talk about that understanding on a case by case basis. But that does not imply a lack of standards. Secondly, as for the strange nature, I'm not really seeing how 'evil' and 'laziness' conflict. Though I suppose something that seeks evil at every turn cannot be lazy, I still think it's valid to call something evil based on its actions without worrying about the, uh, lost opportunity costs of pure evil. I don't think it's a misunderstanding, and the general features seem similar enough from case to case for a general critique to be possible. A mutilated caricature of god is presented and then easily revealed for a cruel cosmic joke and then toppled, since that was the purpose for which it was created. The limitations one must accept to make this creature possible make no sense and are extremely difficult to reconcile with any claim to be arguing in good, uh, faith. On to the second part: The entity is evil because it was lazy and simply never bothered to decide that it is in fact good, and not evil? Is that more or less it? A most fortuitous lacuna, from the atheist's perspective, I think you'll agree.* But I don't think that would work anyway. Is this entity at all self-aware? If yes, then why would it take more "effort" for it to decide that it is good rather than evil, or than to say "I don't care either way." I guess you could say "the thought never occurred to it," or "because of its laziness, it never gave the matter any thought," but that clearly wouldn't be an omniscient being. * I'm really sorry about what is by now rapidly approaching Russel Brand-levels of verbosity and pretentiousness on my part.
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2014 20:11
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 19:43 |
|
|
Kyrie eleison posted:It is technically the position of the Church that the Bible is "inerrant". We are not likely to back away from this line. We will acknowledge that the firmament does not actually exist, but we will still consider the Bible inerrant. I view the firmament as an (intentionally) poetic thing, and sometimes when I am outside I like to look at the sky and imagine the firmament holding back the cosmic waters. How could you possibly hold the view "the Bible is inerrant" and "there are things in the Bible that aren't true" at the same time? Also, I'm curious about your take on why there are two genealogies of Jesus in the Gospels
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2014 20:25
|
|
|
Miltank posted:No, that's wrong. quote:For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2014 20:28
|
|
|
I'd like to go back to your court example, wherein the judge passed a verdict and the accused says the judge is a dick. That whole scenario is one big false equivalency argument. You are comparing a legal judgement to a moral judgement, two wholly different things. And while it's true that the judge's judgement has the backing of force from the government and the accused' moral judgement is backed by nothing that does not mean that the moral judgement has somehow been invalidated. Might does not make right. When you speak of God's Law I'm assuming you're speaking of his "thou shalt" commandments. These are more akin to legal judgements even though many people base their moralities on them. And it's true that God is the ultimate arbiter of what these laws are and to whom they apply. But moral judgements are subjective, and the person making the judgements is the final arbiter of the criteria and to whom they apply. So when I judge God I am the arbiter of my own judgements. And when you judge someone or something then you have the final say on those things. The fact that we as individuals cannot enforce these judgements in some way does not somehow make God immune to my judgements or beyond my ability to judge. Only I can make those distinctions for myself, no one else, not even God, can say otherwise. As an aside, do you yourself believe in a God and do you believe he is a just and/or moral God?
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2014 20:31
|
|
|
Miltank posted:Only internet atheists can tell if someone is a real Christian or not. No, everyone gets to determine themselves what religion they are. You gatekeeping for Christianity is just as messed up as some rear end in a top hat gatekeeping for sexual orientation or racial identity.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2014 21:04
|
|
|
the USSR was communism.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2014 21:06
|
|
|
Miltank posted:the USSR was communism. Insomuch as there were self-identified communists in the USSR, sure that's accurate.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2014 21:09
|
|
|
Miltank posted:the USSR was communism. Are/were you a Soviet? I don't think you get to speak for their identity otherwise. But please keep being the religious version of the creepy guy who keeps saying Barack Obama isn't "really black".
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2014 21:19
|
|
|
does a communist get to decide whether another person is a communist or not? e:black is something you are born as and is something that some people are objectively not. e2:V should have said transethnic. Miltank fucked around with this message at 22:05 on Nov 27, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2014 21:32
|
|
|
GAINING WEIGHT... posted:How could you possibly hold the view "the Bible is inerrant" and "there are things in the Bible that aren't true" at the same time? I don't hold that there are things in the Bible that aren't true. I hold that the firmament was intended to be poetic. The genealogies of Jesus, the basic idea is that they are harmonious, i.e., do not contradict each other. rkajdi posted:No, everyone gets to determine themselves what religion they are. You gatekeeping for Christianity is just as messed up as some rear end in a top hat gatekeeping for sexual orientation or racial identity. That's not realistic. I'm wondering what you think of otherkin.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2014 21:38
|
|
|
Kyrie eleison posted:I don't hold that there are things in the Bible that aren't true. I hold that the firmament was intended to be poetic. They also don't matter since god's been dead for 57 years.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2014 21:42
|
|
|
Miltank posted:does a communist get to decide whether another person is a communist or not? Nope, sorry. We've moved towards a personal definition of identity versus having it imposed on us. Welcome to the 21st century. quote:e:black is something you are born as and is something that some people are objectively not. I'm not sure if you're just trying to be wrong on as many things as possible, or are just a reject from the 19th century. Race isn't a real thing, and has no objective definition. But please go on thinking that backwards racial science that was debunked by the middle of last century actually holds some water.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2014 21:43
|
|
|
rkajdi posted:Nope, sorry. We've moved towards a personal definition of identity versus having it imposed on us. Welcome to the 21st century. rkajdi posted:I'm not sure if you're just trying to be wrong on as many things as possible, or are just a reject from the 19th century. Race isn't a real thing, and has no objective definition. But please go on thinking that backwards racial science that was debunked by the middle of last century actually holds some water. Some people are considered black people and others aren't, right? Race is subjective, but the effects of racism in society are not. e: im just gonna lol if your next post is all about how some people can be considered white or black like that has anything to do with my point or this thread. Miltank fucked around with this message at 22:02 on Nov 27, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2014 21:55
|
|
|
Kyrie eleison posted:That's not realistic. I'm wondering what you think of otherkin. Otherkin I don't get, but again I don't get what the point on worrying about it is. Also, you're better off not using arguments cribbed from the standard internet racist.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2014 22:02
|
|
|
rkajdi posted:Nope, sorry. We've moved towards a personal definition of identity versus having it imposed on us. Welcome to the 21st century. I'm afraid your identity politics revolution is over, comrade. We abide by the rules of the collective, and by reason, once again. rkajdi posted:Otherkin I don't get, but again I don't get what the point on worrying about it is. Also, you're better off not using arguments cribbed from the standard internet racist. I don't identify as a racist, so I'm not racist.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2014 22:20
|
|
|
Miltank posted:you are wrong. Thanks for the meaningful response. Again, join the real world and stop trying to get a chub keeping people out of the Christian club. quote:Some people are considered black people and others aren't, right? Race is subjective, but the effects of racism in society are not. There's no argument that race has an effect on society. The people who are considered part of that race are incredibly fluid, hence concepts like passing. hell, that concept even factored into one of the most famous court cases on race (Plessy v. Ferguson) Plessy was considered an "octoroon" so while appearing basically white was treated as black by some Louisiana racist trash. He wasn't really considered black otherwise, since he had enough features to not be picked out immediately as part black. What race is he, and since it's "objective" how did you come to that answer? What's the metric, is it peer-reviewed and tested for validity? Maybe I'm using too many words here, but the point is that identity is subjective as hell, and we're better off just letting everyone be whatever they want to be, regardless of how silly or "wrong" you think it is. To do otherwise puts you in league with such luminaries as TERFs and "race realists". You should probably just give up while you're really behind.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2014 22:21
|
|
|
Kyrie eleison posted:The genealogies of Jesus, the basic idea is that they are harmonious, i.e., do not contradict each other. Okay, but...how? There are two genealogies, they both seem to be presenting a lineage from Abraham to Joseph, and there are different names and a different number of people represented. How are they harmonious?
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2014 22:30
|
|
|
BrandorKP posted:I keep trying to communicate this but it doesn't get through. Talk about God is talk about us, about humanity. We are the ones doing the talking, people wrote the texts, people make the arguments. And that is true about talk about God in the OT, too. This is being pedantic. God is not us, god is the guy who is claimed, in those texts and talking WE do, to have created us. He is also the one that actively tried to kill us for not being the obedient robots that he wanted. Miltank posted:No, that's wrong. If you follow Christ, you are a Christian, if the majority of your teachings are about Jesus Christ, and your religion centers around him, that makes you Christian. They are not a mainstream sect, no, but they are Christian. Even IF you are not trolling, this is a really poorly thought out argument. Miltank posted:Only internet atheists can tell if someone is a real Christian or not. On internet Christians can determine what is a Christian sect or not, apparently. For all your dislike of internet atheists, you are not doing much better. Kyrie eleison posted:I don't identify as a racist, so I'm not racist. A lot of racists do not think they are racist. They think they are being realists. "I'm not racist, buuuuut...."
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2014 22:31
|
|
|
rkajdi posted:Thanks for the meaningful response. Again, join the real world and stop trying to get a chub keeping people out of the Christian club. my response was just as meaningful an argument as yours, ie an unsupported assertion.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2014 22:33
|
|
|
Kyrie eleison posted:I'm afraid your identity politics revolution is over, comrade. We abide by the rules of the collective, and by reason, once again. So we get to vote on people's identities? Or what collective are we talking about? I'm being obtuse because you plan has holes like white people not including the Irish (along with other ethnic groups) until it did. When exactly is the line drawn? Do people's identities get retroactively changed? It's also funny/sad seeing you appeal to some undefined reason more often that your average Bright. quote:I don't identify as a racist, so I'm not racist. I didn't say you were, just you were using their arguments. Plus, racist isn't an identity. Is it so hard to figure the different between an identity and the actions you commit? It's why you get distinctions like MSM vs. gay. It's one you can understand, if what you've previously posted is true.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2014 22:37
|
|
|
GAINING WEIGHT... posted:Okay, but...how? There are two genealogies, they both seem to be presenting a lineage from Abraham to Joseph, and there are different names and a different number of people represented. How are they harmonious? I'm not really an expert in this point, but I took a look at the Catholic Encyclopedia entry on the Genealogy of Christ and recommend you read it for any further questions on this subject. CommieGIR posted:A lot of racists do not think they are racist. They think they are being realists. *sigh* this is my point, please read the context. A person's self-identification is not the ultimate truth of things. Think. Think. As a more cheerful sentiment on this feast day, I encourage everyone to give either directly to those on the street (if you live in such a situation that the needy are present...) and/or to charities so that people might be fed.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2014 22:39
|
|
|
Kyrie eleison posted:*sigh* this is my point, please read the context. A person's self-identification is not the ultimate truth of things. Think. Think. This from the guy who has spent all his time arguing that only you know the 'True Religion' Think. Think Kyrie eleison posted:I'm not really an expert in this point, but I took a look at the Catholic Encyclopedia entry on the Genealogy of Christ and recommend you read it for any further questions on this subject. "Here, read the CORRECT version from a biased source that supports my viewpoints only" CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 22:46 on Nov 27, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2014 22:44
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:This from the guy who has spent all his time arguing that only you know the 'True Religion' I would not associate only me with the entire true Church of God, the single most important institution in all of human history!
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2014 22:46
|
|
|
Kyrie eleison posted:I would not associate only me with the entire true Church of God, the single most important institution in all of human history! In the context of this thread? Yeah, you think you've got it down.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2014 22:47
|
|
|
Miltank posted:my response was just as meaningful an argument as yours, ie an unsupported assertion. I'm a person from the actual 21st century talking about the way things are now handled. You are some sort of special snowflake Christian who thinks he's the gatekeeper for a bunch of different religious sects. Any reason why you are so special that you get to determine this and not say the Westboro Bible Church? You do understand you get to check the race box yourself on forms and such now, right? That should start giving you the idea that identity is self-determined now.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2014 22:47
|
|
|
Kyrie eleison posted:I would not associate only me with the entire true Church of God, the single most important institution in all of human history! Yeah, like I said earlier, unless you're talking about Overpass Phil then you're wrong.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2014 22:49
|
|
|
rkajdi posted:You do understand you get to check the race box yourself on forms and such now, right? That should start giving you the idea that identity is self-determined now. lol if you think this is a 21st century invention based on identity politics and not simply a form of expedience which has been around as long as government forms have been filled out by multiple races. If you select the wrong box, by the way, you are guilty of perjury.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2014 22:50
|
|
|
Kyrie eleison posted:lol if you think this is a 21st century invention based on identity politics and not simply a form of expedience which has been around as long as government forms have been filled out by multiple races. Its okay, considering race was used as a definition for marking Cain's people, I guess that makes god slightly racist.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2014 23:03
|
|
|
Kyrie eleison posted:lol if you think this is a 21st century invention based on identity politics and not simply a form of expedience which has been around as long as government forms have been filled out by multiple races. If you select the wrong box, by the way, you are guilty of perjury. Now we're getting somewhere. Do you think the state (or more aptly a bureaucrat in the proper position) gets to be the arbiter of identity? Or is it literally "12 random people chosen from your local community" (i.e. a jury) that decide this? And you do understand that this ends up with a completely unchartable route for mixed people-- is Tiger Woods black or "asian" (because lol if you a white Syrian and check this box)? How about Barack Obama? How about the child of two "black" people who happens to be fair-skinned? How do you expect a mixed person to fill these things out if a bunch of A. Wyatt Men are going to second guess them and threaten them with criminal charges? I know this isn't something you thought at all about, because you're primarily concern with identity policing religions along with the special snowflakes. But all of this should really show you're trying to come up with the identity version of an objective difference between "a little" and "a lot".
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2014 23:10
|
|
|
You really want to talk about race huh?
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2014 23:18
|
|
|
Kyrie eleison posted:I would not associate only me with the entire true Church of God, the single most important institution in all of human history! The most important to pedophiles looking for sanctuary, no doubt.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2014 23:32
|
|
|
Miltank posted:You really want to talk about race huh? It can only end in something glorious.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2014 23:43
|
|
|
Miltank posted:You really want to talk about race huh? No, you just brought up wrongheaded ideas about it. I primarily want you assholes to give up on your identity policing. Just call it empathy I feel from having other assholes do the same to my identity. You should look into the whole empathy and supporting the downtrodden thing-- it's something that I thought Christians were supposed to have, but you obviously missed that lesson.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2014 23:48
|
|
|
You said that calling Mormons unchristian was the same as saying Obama isn't really black, so perhaps maybe it is you that is an idiot? e: I have zero respect for 'Christianity' as some sort of meaningless buzzword identity phrase denied of all substance or truth. That poo poo is mad offensive. Miltank fucked around with this message at 00:21 on Nov 28, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2014 00:15
|
|
|
Miltank posted:You said that calling Mormons unchristian was the same as saying Obama isn't really black, so perhaps maybe it is you that is an idiot? People calling themselves Christians is truly worse than any racial slur, all right. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2014 00:24
|
|
|
Please stop making GBS threads on my discussions with others, WWN.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2014 00:28
|
|
|
Please don't equivocate people calling themselves Christians with anything actually offensive.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2014 00:38
|
|
|
Miltank posted:You said that calling Mormons unchristian was the same as saying Obama isn't really black, so perhaps maybe it is you that is an idiot? Belief in the Savior is meaningless?
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2014 00:40
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Please don't equivocate people calling themselves Christians with anything actually offensive.  Belief as in literal knowledge of the savior is meaningless, yes. e:meaningless in the sense that it is not enough just to know that jesus existed. "Not all who say to me Lord, Lord.." Miltank fucked around with this message at 00:50 on Nov 28, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2014 00:43
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 19:43 |
|
|
Miltank posted:Please stop making GBS threads on my discussions with others, WWN. Its okay, you literally poo poo on others discussions. Remember the first half of the thread? Calling people's arguments 'stupid'? Pot, meet kettle.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2014 00:58
|
|