The question of right and wrong is never "twaddle"....except to humanists. I'm not one. Are you?
I'm wondering if you are even human?
The question of right and wrong is never "twaddle"....except to humanists. I'm not one. Are you?
Ah, so you don't claim to know what I think and believe as I'm "bloviating", and you don't label me stupid and a fundy....with "bile" and "insipid crap"?
Ah, there's nothing like the smell of hypocrites in the morning. :thumb:
So much for my TV series idea: 'The Counter Tenors' then...lain:
Good point...
Beats my "Night Tenors" all to heck and back. lain:It would have to be "The Six Counter Tenors" to have any impact!
She doesn't appear to know much about humanism. It's just a label she can slap on like an insult and uses to distinguish her superiority, hence the error followed by the distinction that she isn't one of those and the question/inference. Humanism doesn't reject morality, it rejects the assertion of theists regarding the root of that morality. So we can differ with humanists all day long, especially Sunday, but we should understand what we're objecting to and we don't have to misrepresent it to do that.I'm wondering if you are even human?
Not very subtle and another "rape" thread but hopefully this one might just lay to rest the insidious theme that's been going about and end the crap once and for all.
Does anyone agree with the following from the TOL "stalwart" of good taste, scholarly debate and outright bollards on this for example:
"likewise, I would say that certain circumstances exist in which a woman deserves to be raped, in that she had earned it by her actions"
http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4528653&postcount=106
I submit that if you do agree with the above then you're either a psychopath, a sociopath, or a complete troll who needs something to keep his bridge warm at night.
Does anyone deserve to be raped, at all?
Speaking of "deserve."
artie said:"likewise, I would say that certain circumstances exist in which a woman deserves to be raped, in that she had earned it by her actions"
Notice the qualifier he provided, which I highlighted? It makes a totally different point than you want him to have made.
I grant that "deserve" seems to be more of a moral judgment which others may be making, or which some (like you) want to dishonestly make on behalf of others who are NOT making it. Either way, I and others am not and have not made any such judgment. I'm simply appealing to the universal law of natural consequences: choose to put yourself in a situation with an increased likelihood of avoidable danger and you must bear some responsibility if that danger results. Condense it down to "play stupid games, win stupid prizes" and the principle is the same. There's nothing remotely sociopathic in pointing that out; it's what good parents teach their children because it's a fact of life.
It's also God's viewpoint on the matter.
So it's YOU, with your typically shallow, emotion-driven thinking, who are wicked and evil for denying that fact.
joseph, cast into a pit and then sold into slavery by his brothers:
by that measure, no evil came to the African American slaves of the South :idunno:
Yes, they prospered from the life they had come from too.
Genesis 47:7 KJVJoseph was sold into slavery and never saw his father again.
Genesis 47:7 KJV
(7) And Joseph brought in Jacob his father, and set him before Pharaoh: and Jacob blessed Pharaoh.
She likes to move goalposts, LS. A while ago what she just did was something she'd have called "gutless". But then she did it and changed the rule, twice.Hey, Tex.
Yeah, I thought I might be mistaken about that part after I went to bed last night.
My point, however, stands. It was God using someone's evil deeds for a purpose...which is why I gave this example. Town was claiming God never does that and, in fact, wouldn't countenance any such thing.
You know who can do that with ease? Relativists.
From my perspective, GD's argument is rooted in the idea that morality is absolute and unchanging. Feel free to correct me if I am wrong, but when someone subscribes to the Bible for their sense of morality, it is unchanging. (You know, since the thing was compiled 1600ish years ago and hasn't changed much. )I guess that means everybody, because every Christian is at heart a 'relativist'.
'Absolute morals' have become something of a bad joke in this era. There's not a single damn thing you can find among general society that ultimately isn't relativistic.
I dropped the line because I thought it might invite this...I don't agree, Cruc. The absolute is real for adherents. I don't expect to find it in the secular world. No one should.I guess that means everybody, because every Christian is at heart a 'relativist'.
'Absolute morals' have become a parody in this era. There's not a single damn thing you can find among general society that ultimately isn't relativistic.
They meant to do evil, but no evil came of it.
From my perspective, GD's argument is rooted in the idea that morality is absolute and unchanging. Feel free to correct me if I am wrong, but when someone subscribes to the Bible for their sense of morality, it is unchanging. (You know, since the thing was compiled 1600ish years ago and hasn't changed much. )
This was so close to being a good post and then it turned into your broken record all over again. You are frustrating sometimes.God knew man might say that. But you can't deny that man was created with a conscience built right in him. It's why man is without excuse.
Romans 1:19-20Even the stripper knows in her heart she is doing wrong. It's why she would be quicker than the pc police to admit she deserved whatever she got.
Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: