It does strike me as suspicious that if the Kremlin had voiced its support for Trump and tries to establish a narrative of a corrupt Clinton and the FBI was aware of clandestine Russian operations, that Comey nevertheless brought up Clinton's emails right before the election. Comey is Republican. Obviously a deep state conspiracy to steal the election from the Democrats.

informative post. Wasted on raza but at least others can benefit.

Evidence thereof, within >...........< — raza

Everything you wrote.

EDIT: sorry, there's a second option and that's you're just batshit insane.

They want you to merely believe, and that is what you are doing. — raza

Said the Russian shill.

And yet, YOU have not seen evidence.

The government military industrial complex lies ad finitum. Always have.

How is your wardrobe of brown shirts? — raza

I’m not interested until I see the evidence. Until then my opinions and theories are as worthy as yours.

What you decide to believe is true is a belief nonetheless. — raza

No you tin-foiled shill. That's not how it works. Your opinion and theories are decidedly not as worthy as mine because you spout conspirational bullshit. Neither I nor you has seen evidence of the maximum speed of light in vacuum, quantum entanglement or surface temperature of the sun. Yet there are theories supported by available evidence why we accept that it's 299 792 458 m/s, entanglement is real and the surface temperature of the sun is 5,778 K.

That Russians meddled in the elections is supported by the available evidence which you ignore for the transparant reason that you have an agenda. Unless you provide proof directly discrediting that, you have nothing. That you construct an alternative narrative by ignoring available evidence because you haven't seen it with your own eyes but at the same constructing your narrative based on evidence you haven't seen with your own eyes is hypocrisy. All you have is a fucking runway meeting that you weren't present to where it concerns collusion, a miserable understanding of computer forensic research with no understanding how meta-data is changed through regular copy-move actions and a host of websites with right-wing conspiracy material.

They received Crowdstrike’s analysis. — raza

True AND they received an image from the DNC for their own investigative purposes. So what's your point?

Your non-sensical focus on two sentences doesn't prove a thing. It is an indisputable fact the Russians meddled in the elections as corroborated by various intelligence agencies independently of each other. You don't have proof all of them are lying, there is no ground to assume that they are, so you have nothing. Here's some facts:

• the DNC was hacked
• files from those servers were published by WikiLeaks
• WikiLeaks received them from Guccifer 2.0
• Guccifer 2.0 was a front for Russian intelligence
• Guccifer 2.0 was unmasked as he forgot to activate a VPN once and left digital footprints that lead back to Russia
• He couldn't speak proper Romanian
• He could use a Russian language VPN service
• Russia has a history of inventing "a lone hacker or an hacktivist to deflect blame" with the French and German hacks
• the above is corroborated by the Dutch, UK, German and US intelligence agencies

The Mueller indictment shows a larger conspiracy. You should read it.

I would say it is merely something they have been doing with the US for decades just as the US have been doing to them for decades.

You really think this stuff is new? No memory of hearing about the Cold War?

This crap relies on short memories and zero insight of sheeples. — raza

That the Americans did it, is further proof that the Russians now did it as well. Either as retaliation or because every country that means something does it nowadays. I vote the latter. So we're in agreement then the Russians did meddle?

Now you are sliding from what you were arguing about. Now you’re back to Facebook ads. — raza

It's an indisputable fact the Russians have spend millions on building up an apparatus to influence US public opinion and undermine US democracy. Quite succesfully as you exemplify everytime you write anything.

It is indisputable that this is the only “evidence YOU have seen:

“We assess with high confidence that the GRU relayed material it acquired from the DNC and senior Democratic officials to WikiLeaks. Moscow most likely chose WikiLeaks because of its self- proclaimed reputation for authenticity. Disclosures through WikiLeaks did not contain any evident forgeries“ — raza

What is indisputable is that the Russians meddled in the US election.

Now that is stupid. Access to the server does not automatically equate with “scrummaging around in it”. — raza

No, what's stupid is that you comment on IT issues without having any knowledge how it works. Access to the server with the purpose to investigate means scrummaging around in it, otherwise you don't need access. You wouldn't ask access for the sake of access but to use that access for another purpose. It's like asking permission to enter the building and then not ever entering it. Silly.

Again, you cannot access files without changing their records. Hence, forensic research of computer systems is done on the basis of an image, which the FBI received.

Why no server? Why image and not the server itself?

You are the intended audience of this nonsense. — raza

I just told you. Are you unable to read comprehensively? Do you suffer from dyslexia? Have a serious case of cognitive dissonance that doesn't allow you to process facts contrary to your pre-conceived ideas of reality?

Access to the server changes the records if you go scrummaging around in it. It's like having people trample all over a crime scene. An image is better as it becomes "static" data, like having a professional forensic scientist take photographs and collect evidence at a crime scene.

The FBI were denied access to the DNC server. — raza

We went over this before Mr Shill. They had an image of the server. You do know how that works right? Here's a link in case you don't. disk imaging software

Second, it's common practice not to provide access to the systems themselves because doing so would alter the records of the system. You want the image, not the access.

Third, the Dutch, UK and German intelligence agencies warned the US about the hacks. That's why they know they hacked the DNC systems already back in 2015 because the Dutch had hacked the Russian hackers and could see what they were doing in real-time. Since US-based tin-foil conspirators are so obsessed with the US only, there's not yet a story out there you can link to how all those Western agencies conspired against Trump. Go and write something about that and make some friends in the right-wing corners of the internet instead of bothering us with your Trump obsession, faulty reasoning, hypocrisy and inability to accept facts that contradict your worldview.

That document is not about evidence of the Trump election campaign colluding with the Russian government. — raza

Tin-foiled shill, you need to read accurately. You were discussing whether the Russians hacked the DNC emails. They did and Audax replied to your claim there was no evidence for this.

You seriously have issues with... thinking. — Michael

Fixed it.

For what it's worth. There's a few issues to unpack here. Jesus was sent to fulfill the Law.

Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. — Matthew

Here's an important clue as to what fulfill meant and it doesn't mean "obey" the Law. Or at least, not under the interpretation of the Law offered back then as a strictly legalistic endeavour. The law, to Jesus, was justice, mercy and faithfulness (Matthew 23:23) and mercy and forgiveness was emphasised in his sermon on the Mount. That sermon also emphasises the moral character of the law but not the punishment. He only mentions ending up in hell as punishment, not capital punishment.

Looking at John 1-11. The adulterer was guilty but forgiven (she was judged by Jesus). We obey the Law even when punishment is humane and even when we forgive.

Also, the trap the Pharisees set up in that event wasn't that both the man and woman had to be present but because the romans forbade stoning other than imposed by Roman courts and adultery want in the list of capital crimes. Mosaic Law required it.

I'm sure there's more in this but it's been almost 30 years since I studied the Bible and turned atheist.

It seems even Ancient Jews had trouble with it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_and_corporal_punishment_in_Judaism

The harshness of the death penalty indicated the seriousness of the crime. Jewish philosophers argue that the whole point of corporal punishment was to serve as a reminder to the community of the severe nature of certain acts. This is why, in Jewish law, the death penalty is more of a principle than a practice. The numerous references to a death penalty in the Torah underscore the severity of the sin rather than the expectation of death. This is bolstered by the standards of proof required for application of the death penalty, which has always been extremely stringent (Babylonian Talmud Makkoth 7b). The Mishnah (tractate Makkoth 1:10) outlines the views of several prominent first-century CE Rabbis on the subject:

"A Sanhedrin that puts a man to death once in seven years is called a murderous one. Rabbi Eliezer ben Azariah says 'Or even once in 70 years.' Rabbi Tarfon and Rabbi Akiba said, 'If we had been in the Sanhedrin no death sentence would ever have been passed'; Rabban Simeon ben Gamaliel said: 'If so, they would have multiplied murderers in Israel.'"[11] — wiki

Also, what the hell man?! You know everyone is going to press that little reveal button. :vomit:

You said:

Extreme violence, barbarity, murdering, raping, pillaging, etc. are evil. — Agustino

-emphasis mine

It is clear what you mean with the word and have meant with the word in the past. No dictionary is going to tell us how you actually use it but that sentence above puts it succintly enough. It has been used by you continuously as a moral condemnation. So you condemned stoning in this thread, hence moral relativism. That this doesn't compute with your incomprehensible approach to ethics is because your moral system is nonsense and evil. At least your initial moral intuition with regard to stoning people to death was initially correct. Your misplaced rationalisation of what you "really meant" when that meaning was abundantly clear is what makes you an immoral character. Not only are you dishonest with us but with yourself as well.

I just checked my dictionary and barbaric does not mean immoral. — Agustino

Which is why I checked how you use it. And of course, no value judgment at all where it's defined as "savagely cruel". Please continue with the back pedaling. It's entertaining.

He didn't admit collusion. He admitted to now knowing about the existence of a meeting between his son and Russians about dirt on Clinton but that he wasn't aware at the time.

I don't claim stoning would be immoral today. It wouldn't. It would just offend our sensibilities, but it would not be immoral. There is no moral relativism there at all. You and Benkei are both misreading what I've written. — Agustino

You said it was barbaric, which is a clear moral judgment. I didn't misread you, you're just back-pedaling because you can't admit you're wrong. Here is an overview as to how your use the word barbaric which proves it beyond a doubt:

Agustino says "barbaric"

:rofl:

If you think there are a range of appropriate (or just) punishments, does that make you a moral relativist? — Agustino

But you don't. You said one of them is barbaric. So relativism.

I wouldn't personally advocate for such laws because I'm not used to living in such a society (and I personally find it barbaric), but I can certainly imagine living back in the day and accepting such laws as part of the way the world is. — Agustino

Sure, I agree. — Agustino

Then explain to me what this meant

There is nothing immoral about stoning adulterers if such is the law and everyone knows that the law is such. — Agustino

There is nothing immoral about stoning adulterers if such is the law and everyone knows that the law is such. — Agustino

That something is legal does not mean it's moral.

That's not being a moral relativist. I did not claim that X or Y is immoral at one time in history and not at another. I did, however, claim that stoning as punishment, or jail as punishment in the case of adultery are both just forms of punishment, and if society was structured such that these types of punishments were the norm and would not offend our sensibility, I would have no problem with it. — Agustino

Relativism with regard to the appropriate punishment is still moral relativism. Apparently you think stoning is going a step too far, that's a different ethical rule and you accepted that in the past it wat appropriate but not now. It's textbook relativism.

Adultery is also quite natural. You're inconsistent. — frank

Why if adultery unnatural? Why not marriage itself?

In any case, I find the distinction natural and unnatural unhelpful. Anything that is, is natural. It's better, I think, to differentiate between caused by humans and not caused by humans. That's the basis on which being struck by lightning is bad luck and murder or stoning adulterers immoral.

ah, so you are a moral relativist,

Nobody here has seen it. Having a strong opinion either way is just signalling allegiance, which we already knew with regards to you.

Today, interview with the Bin Laden family

Bin Ladens

I just thought it was interesting as far as a human interest story goes.

It absolutely does. Justice demands that one is ruthless. If one isn't ruthless, one cannot be just. Ruthless not in a bad sense, but in a good sense - in the sense of applying the law, sticking to what is right, etc. So to be a moral human being, you must absolutely be ruthless. — Agustino

Probably a language thing but there is no "good sense" for ruthlessness because that is devoid of compassion. You just seem to mean strict.

The comment in itself is devoid of content because it's very unclear under which circumstances you meant it to apply. Certainly not all because that would be stupid. I'm all for holding people to their word (eg. Be strict) but before there's a contract ruthlessness gets you nothing and strictness very little. It's just not a good negotiating strategy as it would never result in a win - win as you'll be too focused on your own requirements. You only need to be strict with regard to your bottom line in that respect, the rest should be all flexibility. That's some free advice. In any case, your personal experiences are worthless as an argument to begin with.

Also, I was wondering whether you'd want to retract your conclusion earlier that Tibetans are savages or whether I'm free to conclude you're a discriminating (in the bad sense) person. It will save us a lot of time in future discussions if you could clear that up.

In all honesty, that sentence missed the word "again" but I didn't want to admit I read them as part of my Catholic upbringing. Not that I was forced, I just read everything I could get my hands on as a kid. Also the reason I stopped believing, too many irreconcilable contradictions in a book that only contained "truth". Logic trumped faith when I was 14 or so.

Had an agnostic period for a while. It was more of a respect for others misguided belief thing. Now I wish Philosophy of Religion would just die already with all the "proofs for Gods" having been disproved by now.

Emoticons in authentic written interaction provide information about how an utterance is supposed to be interpreted. Emoticons function as contextualization cues, which serve to organize interpersonal relations in written interaction. They serve several communicative functions.

In other words, get with the program and become a better communicator. :up:

This thread, by the way, is proof nobody likes good news. :cry:

No, no. I definitely meant "less words" considering the joke I was making.

That is quite false, Lewis is one of the best in the last 100 years. — Agustino

Only in the eyes of Christians that are weak in their fate that they need apologists to shore up their faith. Lewis does not write with the logical rigour of Aquinas for instance.

You've linked me to the part about Ius ad Bellum and Ius in Bello (coincidentally, my graduation thesis was on that). It has no bearing on the adultery discussion though.

First time you quote that to me. Give me the Confessions and Summa. Lewis is a fucking amateur.

It's all fairy tales, mate. Sorry.

The Catholic Church prefers adultery to be forgiven by the spouse? — frank

Yes. Canon law tells you you may stop conjugal life as the innocent spouse. You may do this up to 6 months and you can petition the Church for a divorce within that time. If you don't then after 6 months you should move back in and forgive the adulterer. It is laudable in any case to forgive even before that time limit.

Where is the answer to my question? You have failed to answer my question and the rest is an empty red herring. — Agustino

You can read yourself can't you?

This is false. Jesus clearly stated that adultery is grounds for divorce - in fact, the only such grounds. — Agustino

Grounds for divorce does not mean it is the best course of action.

And yours is what? Don't you see how ridiculous you are? You give me an article, I cite several sources, and mine is "appeal to authority", and what is yours? Appeal to a weaker authority, obviously. — Agustino

My arguments can be found in the link, which is a short article. You didn't provide sources but names of authors. I have no intention of reading Confessions and the Summa Theologiae. So unless you're going to give me the exact places where I can find their arguments, you only appealed to authority.

To begin with, I am not a Catholic. Nowhere does the Bible state that divorce is not morally right in the case of adultery. — Agustino

I never stated this wasn't the case. I said you can divorce but the Church prefers the innocent spouse to forgive the adulterer. You're getting way to emotional.

I'm happy for you that you're not a Catholic as you'd most certainly burn in hell if you were.

Adultery does no more harm than homosexuality does. Therefore harm can't be the problem.

It's just a broken promise. That's all. — frank

Socially yes. But it's also a sin. Which is preferably forgiven by the spouse where the Catholic Church is concerned.

All this if you believe in fairy tales.

Save sinners from what? From the consequences of sin so that they can keep sinning?! — Agustino

I thought you were knowledgeable about Christianity but it is now clear you don't know what you're talking about. Timothy 1:1 15, 1:2 3, John 12: 47, Galatian 4: 3-7. etc. etc.

This does not preclude judgment on the final day. But Jesus did not come to earth to judge but to save sinners. This is so blatantly clear and repeated throughout the Bible and expressed and imparted again and again by the Catholic Church that denying it really only demonstrate the personal grudge you hold against sinners and the bias of your personal views when interpreting the Bible. The Dei Verbum tells you when interpreting SCripture you have to investigate what meaning the writers intended and what God wanted to manifest by means of their words. You are instead using scripture to fit a pre-conceived result. This makes you a sinner yourself because Jesus commands you to forgive the sinner, even if he sins 77 times (Matthew 18:22). And you should heed it as we conclude in Matthew 18: “This is how my heavenly Father will treat each of you unless you forgive your brother or sister from your heart.”

It's not true that forgiveness is preferred over divorce in this case. God hates adultery more than He hates divorce - that is why adultery is listed amongst the 10 Commandments, which say nothing about divorce at all. — Agustino

Yes it is.

Can. 1155 The innocent spouse laudably can readmit the other spouse to conjugal life; in this case the innocent spouse renounces the right to separate. — Canon Law

Moreover, the 10 commandments are old testament. It doesn't apply in the way the new testament does. The apostolic writings take pre-eminence. And while adultery is prohibited and is condemnable to death in the old testament, the new testament does not and preaches forgiveness as the better option.

I read it. But I also read the Church Fathers such as Augustine or Aquinas (and other theologians such as C.S. Lewis), and I find their position providing much better arguments. All through human history justice was rendered by force, and in no other way. God Himself, will come in full force in Revelation to render justice. Christians aren't commanded not to judge, but rather to judge rightly - — Agustino

Appeal to authority. I don't see an argument here.

I really don't understand this modern antipathy to force. It is certainly not Christian, and it is precisely one of the main reasons why injustice and sin are permitted to spread. Governing men takes a strong hand. Without a strong hand you cannot keep evil at bay. And Machiavelli was right - in government it is better to be feared, than to be loved.

I noticed this from business dealings. People respond to threats much better than they respond to kindness. Trying to be kind in business is the way to ruin. Instead, one has to be ruthless - this isn't the same as abusive, one must be just, but that justice has to be enforced by the threat of a big stick. — Agustino

Wonderful. You just equated using force with judging, which are quite obviously different things. Also, your personal experience is besides the point. You might want to reread St Augustine on the use of force. The Sermon on the Mount has a rather clear passage on judging others as well. Try reading that again too.

So then it isn't punishment to stop the possibility of unlawful behaviour by putting adulterers in jail, no? — Agustino

No. And what kind of messed up reasoning are you going through to see the equivalence there? The equivalent would be stopping the adulterers in the act or barring access to the place they'd plan to have sex.

That passage is precisely about the fact that Christians can judge for themselves, and should not take their internal problems to be judged by the unrighteous.

This doesn't conflict what I said in any way. You're also mightily missing my point. "Washed, sanctified and justified".

No - cite me the passage where this is the case. It is only when there is repentance that forgiveness is possible. "Forgiving" someone who persists in their crime is not "righteous" but a sign of great moral weakness and a soft heart - it is immoral. — Agustino

Matthew again. I already mentioned it above.

EDIT: I forgot. All this of course only if you believe in fairy tales.