Said every loser in history. It's ALWAYS possible to do better. Mankind has proved that if nothing else.
Would Jesus, the Bringer of Light, condemn Yahweh for his mass murders?
- Thread starter French Patriot
- Start date
Well thanks, that's very kind. Frankly you're correct, most of these issues are far more complex a discussion than a format like this place would allow for.
That looks like three false statements.
Do you have an argument to go with your false statements?
How exactly would you do better than hitting a bullseye?
Regards
DL
If there is a victim, be it to sin or crime, then there might be a sin or crime.
Without a victim or complainant, I do not apply the terms of sin or crime.
Even if there is a complaint, if mens rea is applied and the presence of an evil intent is not show, as with the insane, then there can be no guilt assigned.
Satan would have it no other way, because if she ain't there to watch, there is no evil to see.
As In Job 2;3, God is the creator of evil while Satan is just the one who is moving him to do it.
Regards
DL
only to blind idiots. Oh .. right.
Yes - but it's more complicated than 1+1=2 so you wouldn't get it.
Put the target twice as far away and hit it then. Honestly that didn't occur to you? Wow. I can't even imagine living in a brain that small.
It allows for it, but people do not do it much.
Years back, when I began posting, good arguments could be found.
These days, no attention span and insult dropping have created a toxic place.
The religious are the ones killing religions by their ways and the rest of the world will gain the rewards of less religiosity, which creates more peaceful and law abiding nations.
Growing pains as we rid ourselves of vile religions.
Regards
DL
Not surprised given your rather simple mind that you'd think so. Sorry it's already been determined you're not quite smart enough for this conversation. You have to be at least THIIIS smart for this ride
??
Look at yourself and how you did not argue your points and just turned to pointless insults.
Go away, --- mental garbage.
Regards
DL
Thanks for the gratuitous insults.Not surprised given your rather simple mind that you'd think so. Sorry it's already been determined you're not quite smart enough for this conversation. You have to be at least THIIIS smart for this ride
It shows your I.Q. and inabilities to think.
Done here.
Regards
DL
Yeah. You're a joke, and nothing more. What, did you honestly think anyone would take you seriously after your previous comments?
Except - putting the target twice as far away is actually a valid answer to the question. Guess you weren't smart enough to figure that out. Have you never shot a gun or a bow or anything? Sigh.
Talking to that mirror again i see
No problem - i know most will say you're not even worth THAT much mental effort but i was feeling generous
Kid - if you don't want to be the butt of jokes and held in contempt - don't act like a fool or behave contemptibly. That's a choice you're going to have to make.
Laughing at an idiot who hasn't learned his lesson doesn't affect my intelligence
Sorry.
Philosophy, san supernatural or metaphysical considerations, is fantastic.
It is easy to see why Martin Luther said that logic and reason were a curse to his belief system.
I find that the simpler the scenario, the easier it is to understand.
I can understand E=MC2.
I doubt that I would understand the math that confirms the law.
I find morality to be reasonably easy, given that I let simple concepts, like doing unto others, guide it.
What else does one need?
Regards
DL
Yet your statement did just that, IMO.
Argument.
Few and many represent numerical values, and you inadvertently just agreed with the moral worth of the adage.
Regards
DL
Actually it did not as was noted later by both him and myself. but - that would have required reading more than one line or two.
Few is not a numeric value. Neither is many.
Here's the definition of 'numeric':
numeric noun
: number, numeral
So what number is 'many'? What numeral is 'few'?
Seriously you don't even understand the words you are using.
And as previously noted, further in the discussion it's noted that the argument doesn't have a moral worth. It doesn't even stand up well as a general philosophical axiom.
So ... now you're just lying to try to make a point? How sad. No wonder nobody respects your opinion.
Yes. You're a provocative and intelligent thinker Foxie.
I think you're confusing some pretty basic things. For instance, your post:
"Yet your statement did just that, IMO.
Argument.
Few and many represent numerical values, and you inadvertently just agreed with the moral worth of the adage."
Few and many are not numerical values, any more than more and less are numerical values, they're just comparative terms when it comes to counting things. And just because you can count things doesn't imply anything about their morality, or the morality of any statement containing counts of things. Mathematics has no moral or ethical content.
Your response:
If there is a victim, be it to sin or crime, then there might be a sin or crime.
Without a victim or complainant, I do not apply the terms of sin or crime.
Even if there is a complaint, if mens rea is applied and the presence of an evil intent is not show, as with the insane, then there can be no guilt assigned.
Satan would have it no other way, because if she ain't there to watch, there is no evil to see.
As In Job 2;3, God is the creator of evil while Satan is just the one who is moving him to do it.
Here is what Jesus taught:
“You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, ‘You shall not murder,[a] and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.’ But I tell you that anyone who is angry with a brother or sister[b][c] will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to a brother or sister, ‘Raca,’[d] is answerable to the court. And anyone who says, ‘You fool!’ will be in danger of the fire of hell" (Matthew 5:21-22, NIV).
a. Matthew 5:22 The Greek word for brother or sister (adelphos) refers here to a fellow disciple, whether man or woman; also in verse 23.
b. Matthew 5:22 Some manuscripts brother or sister without cause
c. Matthew 5:22 An Aramaic term of contempt
Does Jesus condemn us for our murderous thoughts and words, DL?
Probably. The Ten Commandments contain a very clear prohibition against even thinking about certain things, what George Orwell called thoughtcrime. Murder isn't one of them, it's just coveting your neighbour's property (which includes his wife), and there's another passage that says even looking upon a woman with lust means you've already committed adultery. Murderous thoughts would presumably be looked upon even less favourably, but in any event it's clear that we can be condemned for our thoughts. Revelation makes it pretty clear that most of us aren't going to make it anyway, only Jesus and the saints and martyrs get to heaven, the rest of us get to sizzle with Satan for eternity in a lake of burning sulphur.