Who here believes in an objective and/or metaphysical morality?

I gave a very short, but accurate recount of what occurred in the book of Exodus. What are you suggesting I poisoned the well with?

Sent from my HTC One M9 using Tapatalk

 

You'll do better to put me on ignore, as the most you can expect from this approach is frustration on your end.

Such males may not adhere to a moral system, but neither do they adhere to conscience, which exists independently of any moral system.

I'm about the last one here doing anything like that, obviously.

You haven't got a clue. Which is bad enough...

...and you don't want one, which is worse.

Worst of all, though, is that you don't want anyone else to have a clue either.

I don't acknowledge lies as truth, sorry for any inconvenience.

Why am I not surprised that find odd the wording of a perfectly straightforward question?

A way of knowing what harm is, obviously.

Who the hell do you think you're kidding?

You conflated commands direct from God with people saying they've been commanded by God.

 

Gee, another poster who thinks they have special dominion over meanings of words. How unique...

I explained what I recognize as temptation. Again, that was, being led toward something which you either know is wrong or not good for you OR being led toward something you didn't previously know you wanted by appealing to your senses.

You say I haven't got a clue, and yet, you can't correct or replace what I said either, or you should and probably would have. Either provide a better definition or usage or your own personal understanding, or I'll just accept that you don't have one.

If someone sold you a crystal ball or some device which would supposedly allow you to know my thoughts or motivations, it isn't working so well. You should get a refund. In the meantime, stick to the argument(s) instead of nonsensical personal attacks.

Funny how that is the only way faith works for some people.

Now I supposedly don't know what harm is? Is that your insinuation?

At no point was I not serious, and unless you really want an answer as to who I think you are at this point, please rethink your question. I'd rather this not get personal, even though that appears to be your sole intent.

Well, let's see what Exodus 32 has to say on that subject.

God was ticked at the people of Israel and vowed to destroy them in order to make Israel great by starting over. Moses pleaded with Him to not bring destruction on His people. God relented. Moses went down the mountain with the tablets. He got back home and saw the golden calf and the partying and blew his top. He asked Aaron what happened. Aaron told him. Moses told Aaron to gather the Levites and gave this speech:

Now, God didn't say that. Moses said God said that. God was going to destroy them, Moses talked Him out of it, and then changed his mind when he got back, and gave this select group an order to genocide the rest, acting as if he were God himself, having the Levites carry out the destruction he talked God out of doing.

I didn't conflate squat. You need to actually read that special book of yours, if you're going to pretend you know it so well.

 

Of course I can.

No I shouldn't, because you'll use it as a springboard for yet another argument about nothing.

Please, I understand your motivation way better than you do.

There was no insinuation, I just answered the question. That said, since you bring it up, there isn't a doubt in my mind that you often do harm, thinking you're doing good.

 

I will believe it when I see it. Until then, there's no reason to.

Now I can call you a liar, flat out.

You're entitled to believe whatever you like, however wrong it might be. You weren't expecting agreement were you?

And nothing to add about the Bible, Moses, the book of Exodus, right? It's tough realizing you're wrong about something, isn't it? It'll be even better when you learn to admit it.



Sent from my HTC One M9 using Tapatalk

 

What the hell do I care?

Sure you can, only because there are no immediate consequences - although as rule 2 is generally interpreted it's an infraction, in case you're interested.

No, I was expecting mindless gainsaying - and of course you did not disappoint.

Not to you, no.

You should know.

 

You started this by contradicting me about what temptation is. You didn't offer a correction or anything; just a contradiction. I don't know or care about your motivations; it's a forum. You do what you do for whatever reasons.

One of the purposes, at least for some of us, to post in a forum, is to test and challenge ideas. It was fine and good for you to challenge me on my use of temptation, but you failed to follow through, mostly because you didn't have anything more than 'I disagree' which you could only voice as 'you're wrong'. So I defended my position, successfully, and you had no superior position to challenge it with. That failure led you to where so many go when they can't properly argue; being evasive and insulting and making claims to things you know that you couldn't possibly, such as my motivations, and how I must harm others. If I committed any infraction by an interpretation of a rule, you've broken that rule outright yourself a few times over now, and honestly, if calling a liar a liar is wrong, I don't want to be right.

The saddest part though, is this. You claim to know my motivations but have no clue about your own.

Learn to argue, and get back to me then.

Good day.

 

Of course I do. I just haven't vouchesafed you a presentation thereof, for the reason already given.

Of course there is always the possiblity that someone with genuine interest will challenge me on it, in which case you'll have the opportunity to distort my response to your heart's content.

The failure is all yours, and it happened long before this conversation began.

Get real, there's no one better at it than yours truly.