Religious Freedom and the Freedom to Discriminate

Then you haven't understood the choices. It may be my fault for not explaining it correctly. What you say below is part of the second option I mentioned. There is something independent of God's will which makes rape wrong.

I agree 100%. And I agree with the reasoning provided.

 

That's the same thing I mean.

I'll ask you once to stop lying about my position. Three strikes and you are on ignore. Do not tell me what I mean again. I've already explained what I mean. Your desperate attempts to twist that into something else are as immoral as they are dishonest.

You clearly don't understand my "consent argument" if you think it means that.

Treat others as you would like to be treated. Stop lying about other members of this forum. Try doing the Christian thing for once.

 

I don't follow your religion, you twit, why the (*)(*)(*)(*) should I follow it's morality? What gives you the power to demand it? Are you somehow superior to me??

 

Wow, so much anger (such is to be expected from the Godless).

Anyway, religion is morality. Nonbelievers don't have morality, as they regard individual freedom as supreme. And I couldn't care less if you don't follow my morality. But it's not like the Godless don't want to force their ways on us. They are just more subtle about it.

 

I'm not "godless", though I don't subscribe to yours. And you have no right to demand that I adhere to your so-called morality. You are free to live any way you like. And I am, too.

 

Um, I told you, I don't care if you don't want to live under my morality. But you certainly want me to live under your belief system. You just don't see that because you take it all for granted.

 

Not at all. You are free to live as you will, provided you don't try to impose your morality on others, including me, but not only me. I couldn't care less how you care to live until you attempt to demand it of others.

 

Stop deflecting with out of place outrage and try to get the point.

Legally you can't say race and sexual orientation is the same thing...unless you are willing to accept all sexual orientations the same way we accept all races.

Or if it helps you "get it":

Legally a court can't accept partial list of sexual orientations if it rates sexual orientation in the same category as race.

A court can act like "king" and denote some sexual orientations as "good" and some orientations as "bad"---but obviously the race argument is then out.

And yes, the ignore function is there if you can't handle the truth of the argument.

 

Really? Well, 'if' you had noticed, my response accepted your 'if' statement as true... and therefore the counter measure I made regarding what the non-theists do. I notice that you did not refute that comment.

Pyrrhonic is only an adjective describing a type of skepticism. So it is conceivable that they would use Pyrrhonic skepticism without ever mentioning the description of the type of skepticism they were using. So, your comment about you having never seen any nontheist bringing up Pyrrhonic skepticism is irrelevant. Have you read every post on every thread of this section of the forum? Hmmm. I doubt that you have.

Why bother, you obviously did not want to talk about it even with Goomba or me... so it would appear that you brought it up with no rationale behind bringing it up.

"excludes fruitful discussion". Well now that you are attempting to define Pyrrhonism, I will at this point refer to an outside source: "Pyrrhonism
1. the Skeptic doctrines of Pyrrho and his followers, especially the assertion that, since all perceptions tend to be faulty, the wise man will consider the external circumstances of life to be unimportant and thus preserve tranquility.
2. extreme or absolute skepticism. Cf. Skepticism. — Pyrrhonist, n. — Pyrrhonian, Pyrrhonic, n., adj.

"

Btw: What does "grows old" mean in the context in which you are using it"?

"unintelligible"? Wow! Now talking about a grandiose declaration, but very true IMHO. Likewise.. it could be Buddha. Tom Jones, Hank Snow, etc.... Point being... the term used is irrelevant because no-one knows the actual name (if there is one) which God has assigned to His own being other than what is described as "I am that I am." Now those words are not so "unintelligible" are they? "I am that I am I Am that I Am (אֶהְיֶה אֲשֶׁר אֶהְיֶה, ʾehyeh ʾašer ʾehyeh [ʔehˈje ʔaˈʃer ʔehˈje]) is a common English translation (JPS among others) of the response God used in the Hebrew Bible when Moses asked for his name (Exodus 3:14). It is one of the most famous verses in the Torah. Hayah means "existed" or "was" in Hebrew; "ehyeh" is the first person singular imperfect form and is usually translated in English Bibles as "I will be" (or "I shall be"), for example, at Exodus 3:12. Ehyeh asher ehyeh literally translates as "I Will Be What I Will Be", with attendant theological and mystical implications in Jewish tradition. However, in most English Bibles, this phrase is rendered as I am that I am."[SUP][1] "
[/SUP]

Seemingly you do. You object to me stating my opinions. You tell me that I need to start another thread because I challenge something you have stated and in which I seek clarificaation of your intent.

 

You lied about my statements. You were the one deflecting, and doing so dishonestly, and outrage is a perfectly rational response.

Where did I say any of that? Take the time to actually read what I've said about equality if you are going to pretend to want to talk about it.

Have fun with your straw man. If you would actually like to debate, address what I've actually said about equality.

You lied about my statements in the last quote. You haven't done so in this one. The ignore function is there if you go back to preferring to lie about my position rather than getting to the actual truth of the argument. Misunderstandings and ignorance, like your recent post, are excusable. Lying, like the post before, isn't.

 

Outstanding post. Make sure you keep this one for your personal use.

 

this guy is not a serious poster or thinker, he regularly ignores the intent and meaning of the topic and poster to focus on parsing every single word and then dissecting it. It is useless to engage with him and I suggest taking his advice, ignore him.

 

You've lost me. I have no idea what you are trying to communicate.

Not to anyone educated as to what this type of skepticism is.

This is irrelevant. I have no need to go through every post of the forum to see that you are being hypocritical. You are refusing to treat individuals in the way that you, as an individual, which to be treated.

Then you clearly haven't been following the discussion between me and Goomba. I've talked about it in nearly every post I've had with him. You also don't seem to have read my last post to you. I'm fine with discussing this with you but, because it is the only thing you want to discuss an it isn't part of a larger on-topic conversation -- as it is with Goomba -- I'll only do so in a thread where it is a suitable topic.

Then, again, you must not have been following the conversation.

Now are we not only going down the exact road I said I had no interest in discussion, but we are also getting back to your semantic word games, which I also have no interest in discussing. There is no worthwhile communication to be had here. I'd rather not waste my time.

And all of that leaves us in the same place we were before: we aren't actually talking about anything. We are using word-symbols that don't symbolize anything intelligible. We might as well be talking about Flargenarg.

No, I don't.

I've asked you to start another thread because this discussion is derailing this thread.

 

Then you have an inadequate communications skill. Gee... Based on what my education tells me, Pyrrho was assigned the title of being the founder of skepticism (scepticism). So, all types of skepticism had it foundation in and through the philosophy established by Pyrrho.

Then it may be as simple as you learning the meaning of the term 'hypocritical'. I really don't care how people treat me. Uh oh... that would have the inverse meaning of 'I don't care how I treat others.' Now, with that said, I am beginning to sound like a non-theist.

So you bring it up in context to your discussion with Goomba, yet you feel it is not an appropriate issue to discuss with me in the same thread that you are discussing it in context to your discussion with Goomba. Wow... I am seeking clarification and you simply refuse to show that clarification and instead, you allege that I need to start another thread to learn what context you have for using that term in this thread with Goomba.

Of course I have been following the conversation, and I found that point in which I questioned you to be interesting and a point that needed clarification.

So you then are finding it to be a 'waste' of your 'time' to clarify what you are writing about? Like double wow.

That is not true. I read the words in your paragraph above and they were all intelligible with exception of your use of "Flargenarg" (which I presume is some fictitious word you fabricated for demonstration purposes).

"I'd rather not waste my time." Yes you do! Plainly, you feel that my opinions are a "waste" of "time".

If there is a derailing, it is due to you not wanting to clarify your intent which I questioned you about.

 

In my opinion...… you wrote up an excellent opening post!

If and when that final Elijah person comes along who.... Rabbi Yeshua - Jesus predicted would somehow "restore all things".... I suspect he or she might just have to confront America with a similar question to what he put in front of the Northern Kingdom of Israel during one of his other lifetimes.

This time around the question might be........."Is the being of light of near death experience fame Messiah Yeshua - Jesus in his glorified form, or.......... is this being of light a fallen angel masquerading as an angel of light?"

http://www.near-death.com/andreason.html#a11

.....


http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=1Ki&c=18&t=KJV
1Kings 18:21


"And Elijah came unto all the people, and said, How long halt ye between two opinions? if the LORD be God, follow him: but if Baal, then follow him. And the people answered him not a word. "


2Corinthians 11:14


"And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light."

 

Sorry, but I've made a handsome career of my communication skills.

Then you should do more homework.

If you don't care how you treat people in a debate, then this conversation is over. Learn to be more Christian.

You are seeking to discuss something in isolation that, if we are to discuss it in isolation, belongs on another thread. Start one if you want to discuss it.

If you had

No amount of clarification seems to work with you, as evidenced in nearly all of the debates we have had. Even when I clarify, you pretend that the clarification doesn't exist.

I thought you agreed to the fact that the word "God" refers to something unintelligible? Likewise, so does Flargenarg.

I said I had no problem with people stating an opinion. What is so hard to understand about that. I have no problem with people recording nu mental music either, but that doesn't mean I have any desire to listen to it.

Every time I have indulged your request for clarification in the past, you have either ignored it or invented new meanings for it to lie about my position.

 

Well that is nice that you hold such high OPINION of your accomplishments. However irrelevant they might be to this conversation.

Shouldn't all of us do more homework?

Are you Christian? No? Then perhaps it is you who should learn to be more Christian.

It is not in isolation... it is openly in this thread for all to see... not isolated.

If I had what?

Not pretending... just emphasizing that the arguments you have presented do not compel my mind to accept your assertions as true.

I agreed that the word "Flargenarg" could be a substitute word for "God", as a rose by any other name is still a rose.

Then when you engage in forums such as this, the opinions submitted by others must meet with some personal level of approval to your ego, before you will "listen to" them? Nice admission guy.

If your meanings are not clear and concise and you do not place any delimiters to your statement, then those statements are open to interpretation. As such, your arguments have not compelled my mind to accept them as true. Plain and simple.

 

It was a response to a comment that was irrelevant to the conversation. You made a personal attack and I defended.

Except that "rose" refers to something intelligible. Flargenarg and God don't.

And you resort to misrepresenting my statements again. I will engage in discussion when I anticipate that a fruitful discussion can be had -- although obviously I have been making exceptions -- and when the topic interests me.

 

"personal attack"? Where? Why didn't you report this alleged personal attack to the Moderators?

Well, "Flargenarg" (a creation of your mind, presumably) must have some meaning to you and therefore it cannot be unintelligible to you. What specifically does "Flargenarg" represent?

Well, exception or not, you are still engaging my input so my input must be of some topical interest to you.

 

Not anymore. This conversation is going nowhere.

 

Thank you Dennis. You are the type of Christian who I can respect. Thanks also for the interesting links

 

I wasn't lying. But I did show you the flaw within your argument. If you can't handle that then fine. Put me on ignore and I will ignore someone who really isn't interested in true debate.

 

You said I stated things that I didn't say, in fact things I specifically argued against. And the argument you are talking about isn't mine. But it is clear who here isn't interested in true debate. Goodbye.

 

Thank you immensely ProgressivePatriot!

Chapter 10 of Christian Andreason's NDE account is all about the issue of sex and he elaborates greatly there on what he was shown about homosexuality.

http://www.allaboutchristian.com/spirituality/

........................

 

Thank you again ! The music was very pleasant and the words inspiring. I hope that certain other people see this, although I'm cynical about the extent to which it will bring about change