Hot Potato



↪Valentinus I agree.Boasting morality is a filthy business. — Hot Potato

Taking a high position is how one either gets knocked down by the opposition, or proves he is correct via debate and discussion.

Some mystics say that one should not be for or against any proposition, but to me, sitting on the fence just drives a fence post up the ass of the fence sitters.

Those who complain of my stance, just do so because they are not able to either knock me aside or refute my views. Losers are like that.

Regards
DL

When I grew up, I understood that my life is mine and only mine.
I would die for it. I'd beg for it, I'd fight for it, I'd run for it. I'd do whatever it is in my reach to keep it with me. This survival instinct, I cannot say that it was given to me by a god since I cannot say that gods exist. However, it comes naturally to me as it comes naturally to any other living thing there is. This constantly-present wish/desire to keep my life is as mine as my own life is. Again, I cannot say it was given to me by a god because I do not know if gods exist.

I do not know if gods exist. — Daniel

Good thinking.

No one does. many lie about it. Especially lying preachers.

We have evidence of nature. We have no evidence of a god.

Nothing should be believed on faith without facts. Faith without facts is for fools.

Regards
DL

I'd change that last part a bit and say that faith, in itself, is for fools.

You've got yourself lost in your own labyrinth of confusion.

No one does. many lie about it. Especially lying preachers.

We have evidence of nature. We have no evidence of a god. — Gnostic Christian Bishop

This is not true, I think. There are some experts who claim God has been identified by modern radio-telescopes, radio-astronomy at the very fringes of our own Universe, almost as if honeycombing this universe and all others too! I'm not kidding you. :grin:

Check for God on ghost setting of radio-waves frequencies! :grin:

I'd change that last part a bit and say that faith, in itself, is for fools. — Daniel

You may. I don't think I will, only because I read somewhere that using the same first letter word in a sentence is supposed to give it flair. :-)

Yours is likely mare grammatically accurate.

Accuracy does not effect believers and I hope that flair does.

Regards
DL

You've got yourself lost in your own labyrinth of confusion. — Hot Potato

I can really defend myself against your gratuitous insult, especially when I have no more clue of what you are talking about than you do.

Get smarter and less gauche or shove your worthless insult back up where it came from.

Regards
DL

DrOlsnesLea — DrOlsnesLea

I would rather check my toast.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G_BCNio07gU

Regards
DL

I am not here to hide. If you do not like it, and think you have a better moral stance, share it. — Gnostic Christian Bishop

I did not mean my remarks about self righteousness to be a charge against you as a person. You see no good coming from a certain tradition. I recognize that it has brought much needless suffering. The language of tearing out something root and branch is in your language and the worst of those you condemn. I object to both.

You are way out of your depths. What you've written on the last two pages is a textbook example of hypocrisy and trying to bluff your way out of it isn't working very well.

I object to both. — Valentinus

I don't care as I have seen too many softer and gentler posters try to soften their blows and they get shit on even more than I.

The the vile Christians recognize them as weak and try to kill them verbally.

Jesus had to run from people more than once and so would I if I was speaking in a public place to Christians.

But I am willing to learn. If you think you can teach.

How would you tell Christians, in your softer terms, that to idol worship a genocidal prick of a god is immoral and so is being a part of his homophobic and misogynist religion?

Regards
DL

You are way out of your depths. What you've written on the last two pages is a textbook example of hypocrisy and trying to bluff your way out of it isn't working very well. — Hot Potato

Thanks for accusing without showing anything.

You win this debate, a hole.

Oh, and you are one ugly guy. That is undeniable so I win on that one, ugly.

Regards
DL

All of that yet your personal character didn't improve the slightest bit.

Why would I change perfection?

You have already shown your garbage personal character with your gratuitous insults and claims without even showing what you are referring to.

Go away, fool.

Regards
DL

The Christianity I understand is not very soft. It calls for a lot from a person. Pretty much everything one has to give.
There are many points of view that object to that demand. They are interesting and include valid considerations arguing that such an either/or is not correct or necessary.
You stake out this other place that does not seem to have anything to do with that conversation.
Why should anybody think your point of view exists?

The Christianity I understand is not very soft. — Valentinus

Read what I put again please. I said nothing of a soft Christianity.

Regards
DL

:chin:

If no g/G, then no g/G-given X.

If no g/G is needed to explain anything that requires (a rigorously testable) explanation, then no g/G-given X explains, or justifies, anything including itself.

If communities do not assume (in order to tolerate varieties of) 'belief in g/G', then such communities do not recognize, or establish, any g/G-given X.

God given rights. Do you really have any? — Gnostic Christian Bishop

Rights, Bishop, are demanded and defended, not "given"; if only because whatever is "given" can also be taken back (or away) and therefore aren't ever "really had".

That is a bullshit response. You are the one who has put the the whole Christian tradition into question.
It was interesting until you abandoned your own project.

If you are feeling insulted then it is from your conscious because I haven't insulted you.

That he "abandoned his own project". Did you notice it too? That is also precisely what I'm trying to tell him.

It will be best if you make your arguments in that regard as you see them.
I am a cantankerous old guy on the verge of being banned for losing his temper periodically.
This venue has given me more than I have given it.

I'm 73 myself and as cantankerous as they come. I don't know if I am easily "angered" but irritation does set in from time to time. However, I suspect that our friend is flipping and flopping "his own project" intentionally either to upset us or to cover up and back-peddle his original mistake.

[reply="Hot Potato;419279"
I look at my objections as a call to do better, to myself as much as it may involve other people.
It is much easier to call out other people for their shortcomings than come up with something better that one personally understands. That contrast is what I understand is peculiarly Christian. A kind of self awareness more than a certainty about what is good and necessary.

I do not agree that Christianity is the way to self-awareness for the benefit of "doing better, good, and necessary". Not at all. Not in the least. Not in the slightest.

Noah Harrari would agree with you. He believes that man was able to dominate the planet and coordinate on a massive scale due to legal fiction and fiction. Apes can coordinate in groups of approximately 150. Humans can coordinate in the millions and due to money in the billions. I'm not a big fan of globalism but its ok if you disagree. I'm sure you'll have a comment for me on that.

Rights are not given by God, nor are they self-evident and eternal in the way moral precepts may be. One may argue that the ten commandments are given by God since most of them correspond to universal moral concepts. Murder is a violation against nature, but from that it doesn’t follow that humans have a natural right to life. We were given life for free, but that doesn’t mean we have a right to it. If someone gives you a present, you don’t automatically have a right to it.

Do you have something to add to your expression of strong disapproval?
My statement was not a thesis as much as an explanation of interest.
What do you think it is all about?

Disagreement ≠ Disapproval. Iteration ≠ Strong

Rights, Bishop, are demanded and defended, not "given"; — 180 Proof

I agree that rights and privileges are something taken and cannot really be given.

As you say there might be Indian givers out there.

Even some freed slaves did not want to accept their freedom when the North offered it to them.

Regards
DL