Islam, is it a religion of peace or war?

#302
#302
Orange_Crush said:
Paint me amazed that you disagree with God. No. Wait. Don't, because I'm not amazed at all.

Now that you've had your chance to express your personal opinion, is there anywhere else you want to go with it? Maybe you also want an opportunity to say that people who prefer chocolate ice cream are evil as well?
Click to expand...

I don’t believe they are just the same that you don’t. And we are both using our own opinion and judgement. Pointing to a source doesn’t make you any more objective because YOU are still deciding that source is an objective one, based on the notion of a personal God.

At the end of the day we believe what we want, and that’s all there is.
 
#303
#303
rjd970 said:
I don’t believe they are just the same that you don’t. And we are both using our own opinion and judgement. Pointing to a source doesn’t make you any more objective because YOU are still deciding that source is an objective one, based on the notion of a personal God.

At the end of the day we believe what we want, and that’s all there is.
Click to expand...
You're side steppng the fact that it's a conversation of sufficiency of presuppositions.
 
#306
#306
Orange_Crush said:
Is it your argument that the argument has been wrong because the doctrine wasn't named to your liking?
Click to expand...

Seems like Stomp is looking for a "Thou shall not" when it comes to homosexuals and their acceptance/treatment in today's world.
 
#307
#307
T-TownVol said:
Seems like Stomp is looking for a "Thou shall not" when it comes to homosexuals and their acceptance/treatment in today's world.
Click to expand...
Stomp ignored the description of the doctrine in favor of building an equivocation. Homosexuality is still a sin. God called Israel as a theocracy with a specific mission, thus He told Israel what Israel was to do with their national laws.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: T-TownVol
#308
#308
Orange_Crush said:
Is it your argument that the argument has been wrong because the doctrine wasn't named to your liking?
Click to expand...

No, just the way it's being presented seems obviously contradictory. "God doesn't change; it's in his nature to change, so that isn't really a change."

What equivocation are you whining about? Tell me how I am not immutable according to your definition. I only act within my own nature so what's the difference?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Septic and MercyPercy
#309
#309
Orange_Crush said:
You're side steppng the fact that it's a conversation of sufficiency of presuppositions.
Click to expand...

I’m not sure stepping anything, I’m denying a presupposition is needed in the first place. We believe what we believe. You God, then his morals (whichever version you CHOOSE) and me, just morals based on my experience, time, etc. we are both, however, absolutely are choosing.

Claiming I can’t make a moral determination without an objective reference while claiming you have one based on a belief is a tired scapegoat. Again, at the end of the day we believe what we want to believe, you are just taking an extra step whereas mine are more direct and honest. This nonsense about “you can’t say it’s wrong” is absurd and stupid.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MercyPercy
#310
#310
Wafflestomper said:
No, just the way it's being presented seems obviously contradictory. "God doesn't change; it's in his nature to change, so that isn't really a change."

What equivocation are you whining about? Tell me how I am not immutable according to your definition. I only act within my own nature so what's the difference?
Click to expand...
Do you really need a lesson in what Classical theology defines as immutability? Geez
 
#311
#311
rjd970 said:
I’m not sure stepping anything, I’m denying a presupposition is needed in the first place. We believe what we believe. You God, then his morals (whichever version you CHOOSE) and me, just morals based on my experience, time, etc. we are both, however, absolutely are choosing.

Claiming I can’t make a moral determination without an objective reference while claiming you have one based on a belief is a tired scapegoat. Again, at the end of the day we believe what we want to believe, you are just taking an extra step whereas mine are more direct and honest. This nonsense about “you can’t say it’s wrong” is absurd and stupid.
Click to expand...
No, your morals are based on God. You simply suppress the truth in unrighteousness. You believe morals are rooted in some objective truth, but you deny it. Nothing honest about stealing.
 
#312
#312
Wafflestomper said:
No, just the way it's being presented seems obviously contradictory. "God doesn't change; it's in his nature to change, so that isn't really a change."

What equivocation are you whining about? Tell me how I am not immutable according to your definition. I only act within my own nature so what's the difference?
Click to expand...
I explained the doctrine. You whined about its name. Anything else?

As explained, it's the doctrine of immutability because he's immutable in character/nature.
 
#313
#313
ClearwaterVol said:
I like the way you resort to personal insults when you get angry. Either your God condones slavery or he does not. Which is it?
Click to expand...
I'm not angry. Not in the least. You're an antagonist with no interest in truth. That's not an insult. You demonstrated it to perfection in this thread.
 
#314
#314
rjd970 said:
I’m not sure stepping anything, I’m denying a presupposition is needed in the first place. We believe what we believe. You God, then his morals (whichever version you CHOOSE) and me, just morals based on my experience, time, etc. we are both, however, absolutely are choosing.

Claiming I can’t make a moral determination without an objective reference while claiming you have one based on a belief is a tired scapegoat. Again, at the end of the day we believe what we want to believe, you are just taking an extra step whereas mine are more direct and honest. This nonsense about “you can’t say it’s wrong” is absurd and stupid.
Click to expand...
That's not the claim. You aren't following the argument. The claim is that your argument doesn't follow your worldview presuppositions. I'm asking you to be rational. You are giving an illogical, emotional basis for epistemology because you don't want to deal with the failures of your worldview.

Geez. And you guys call theists anti rational.
 
#316
#316
MercyPercy said:
I certainly don't ignore the time and culture in which the bible was written. In fact, I wish more people would take that into consideration when deciding whether they should take it literally or not.
Click to expand...
There are truths and instructions within the books of the bible that are prescriptive and subtective to a people and time. Most specifically, Israel. Then there are truths in the bible that are universal. True and all times and places. One doesn't have to be a scholar to figure it out. If the text address a specific group of people (here ye o' Israel) and someone wants to apply that elsewhere, then the burden is on them to support the case.
 
#317
#317
Orange_Crush said:
That's not the claim. You aren't following the argument. The claim is that your argument doesn't follow your worldview presuppositions. I'm asking you to be rational. You are giving an illogical, emotional basis for epistemology because you don't want to deal with the failures of your worldview.

Geez. And you guys call theists anti rational.
Click to expand...

No, I’m not. I say something is because I believe it is wrong. You say something is wrong because you believe a God said it was wrong.

There is zero difference there. We are both making a determination based on what we believe. I’m just owning the belief instead of having to argue varying/unvarying mental gymnastics with slavery and homosexuality.
 
#318
#318
Orange_Crush said:
I explained the doctrine. You whined about its name. Anything else?

As explained, it's the doctrine of immutability because he's immutable in character/nature.
Click to expand...

Where did I whine about its name? You were arguing that God doesn't change, he varies. I'm saying that change and vary are synonyms, so your argument is an obvious contradiction.
 
#319
#319
MercyPercy said:
He's immutable in character and nature, except when he's not, but even then he still is, because... he is?

Religious apologetics takes you to some weird places.
Click to expand...

You wouldn't care even if we could prove the doctrine. You have no interest in truth. You could provide your biggest objection, i could answer it soundly, and it wouldn't change a ****ing thing.
 
#320
#320
Roustabout said:
No, your morals are based on God. You simply suppress the truth in unrighteousness. You believe morals are rooted in some objective truth, but you deny it. Nothing honest about stealing.
Click to expand...

Not a single sentence is correct. Impressive.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Septic
#321
#321
rjd970 said:
No, I’m not. I say something is because I believe it is wrong. You say something is wrong because you believe a God said it was wrong.

There is zero difference there. We are both making a determination based on what we believe. I’m just owning the belief instead of having to argue varying/unvarying mental gymnastics with slavery and homosexuality.
Click to expand...
You are claiming that humans have inherent value with no worldview basis to do so.
 
#324
#324
Orange_Crush said:
You are claiming that humans have inherent value with no worldview basis to do so.
Click to expand...

Why do I need one other than what I believe? I have my worldview.

You also have worldview, or in this case, somebody else’s you subscribe to. Congrats. It’s still your belief.
 
#325
#325
Roustabout said:
You wouldn't care even if we could prove the doctrine. You have no interest in truth. You could provide your biggest objection, i could answer it soundly, and it wouldn't change a ****ing thing.
Click to expand...

I am certainly interested in your ability to defend these notions, though I admit I do not imagine your arguments will be particularly convincing since they all seem to be based on circular logic. But let's be honest, you aren't getting your mind changed either, so why this little tantrum?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Septic
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top