I hope that Frank didn't really remove A2K from his computer.
mesquite, Never fear; Frank will be back - sooner or later. He's still in touch with several a2kers on the east coast, and even participates at some of their "gatherings."
I like Frank. He cussed me out regularly and he was totally about face from reason, (IMHO
) but there was never any passive aggressive wimpiness on his part. He is a much needed spice and I have asked him to come back. 'course he generally doesn't listen to me, being as he knows I'm from New Jersey.
cicerone imposter wrote:Man will never completely learn to "govern their own affairs." That is too subjective of a goal. If past and current history is any indication of what we can expect for the future, there's nothing "promising" about man's ability to govern our own affairs.
Spoken like a true liberal. We need the Nannystate, don't we CI?
Howdy RL. Glad to see you in on this one.
Thank you sir. You are much too kind.
If you don't believe it, ask one of my many detractors.
While you are here RL, why do you suppose the God of the Bible considered slavery to be moral?
Yeah, RL, but don't get stuck on the word 'moral'. That's Frank's bloviation.
mor·al
-adjective
1. of, pertaining to, or concerned with the principles or rules of right conduct or the distinction between right and wrong; ethical: moral attitudes.
2. expressing or conveying truths or counsel as to right conduct, as a speaker or a literary work; moralizing: a moral novel.
3. founded on the fundamental principles of right conduct rather than on legalities, enactment, or custom: moral obligations.
4. capable of conforming to the rules of right conduct: a moral being.
5. conforming to the rules of right conduct (opposed to immoral): a moral man.
Nice try neo, but since God made the rules giving slavery a pass, by definition he had to consider it moral.
mesquite wrote:mor·al
-adjective
1. of, pertaining to, or concerned with the principles or rules of right conduct or the distinction between right and wrong; ethical: moral attitudes.
2. expressing or conveying truths or counsel as to right conduct, as a speaker or a literary work; moralizing: a moral novel.
3. founded on the fundamental principles of right conduct rather than on legalities, enactment, or custom: moral obligations.
4. capable of conforming to the rules of right conduct: a moral being.
5. conforming to the rules of right conduct (opposed to immoral): a moral man.
Nice try neo, but since God made the rules giving slavery a pass, by definition he had to consider it moral.
No more moral than the multiple marriages and divorces he tolerated because of the Hebrews' hardheartedness. (Matthew 19:8)
neologist wrote:snood wrote:Quote:I'm a man of few words, myself.
...and here I am, thinking you never shut the hell up.
...proof that we are don't necessarily appear to others as we think we do.
Frank Apisa, earlier in this thread wrote: . . .
Jeez, Snood, I knew if you kept on posting, eventually you would say something reasonable -- something that mattered.
Now here you've gone and done it. Unfortunately, you've spoiled that amazing series of posts that went nowhere; did nothing; and contributed zip.
Oh well, I imagine you will start again very soon.
Or will you eventually shake whatever is bothering you and get back to posting with intelligence?
Glad to see you have returned with your usual erudition.
Frank and I long since made our peace. Jeez that hadda be a couple years old. The pseudo-profound pap you endlessly pull out of your smarter end, on the other hand, is fresh.
CI:
Quote:One point for neo. LOL
Let's see, how best to reply to such a shameless buttboy show of cheerleading.....
Bite me, CI.
neologist wrote:mesquite wrote:mor·al
-adjective
1. of, pertaining to, or concerned with the principles or rules of right conduct or the distinction between right and wrong; ethical: moral attitudes.
2. expressing or conveying truths or counsel as to right conduct, as a speaker or a literary work; moralizing: a moral novel.
3. founded on the fundamental principles of right conduct rather than on legalities, enactment, or custom: moral obligations.
4. capable of conforming to the rules of right conduct: a moral being.
5. conforming to the rules of right conduct (opposed to immoral): a moral man.
Nice try neo, but since God made the rules giving slavery a pass, by definition he had to consider it moral.
No more moral than the multiple marriages and divorces he tolerated because of the Hebrews' hardheartedness. (Matthew 19:8)
Quote:Mat 19:8 He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.
And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except [it be] for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.
Now that is really nice. A wife gets dumped by her husband and she becomes forever screwed. How did single women support themselves back in those days? Another fine family value.
But I digress. Pointing out one of the contradictions between NT and OT does not change the fact that the rules laid down by God set the moral standard. Joe said quite well
here.
joefromchicago wrote:agrote wrote:But I suspect you're right... I think maybe God's word is what makes things right or wrong in Christianity.
I think that's correct. After all, that's the only way to explain those Christians who say that it is impossible for atheists to have a system of morality. If deeds were good or bad
intrinsically, rather than good or bad in relation to how closely they conformed to god's command, then an atheist could be just as moral as a Christian, which, I'm sure, is a completely unacceptable conclusion for some Christians.
Those who call themselves christian, and who deny the moral standards of atheists have missed an important point regarding conscience.
I've posted this before, but Paul said at Romans 2: 14-15:
"For whenever people of the nations that do not have law do by nature the things of the law, these people, although not having law, are a law to themselves. 15 They are the very ones who demonstrate the matter of the law to be written in their hearts. . ."
So, regardless of where the good moral standards came from, they exist in all religious groups and non religious groups. As screwed up as the world may be, most people have these standards.
I just happen to believe they were put there by the one who created us.
neologist wrote:I just happen to believe they were put there by the one who created us.
So are you saying that the laws he put there regarding slavery were good ones?
mesquite wrote:neologist wrote:I just happen to believe they were put there by the one who created us.
So are you saying that the laws he put there regarding slavery were good ones?
Taking the bible as a whole, yes.
snood wrote: . . . The pseudo-profound pap you endlessly pull out of your smarter end, on the other hand, is fresh. . .
I'm sorry if my often pompous posts have caused you to focus on my personality to the exclusion of issues.
For that I am very sorry. I'm sure your contributions to this thread would dazzle us with their rhetorical logic.
So I humbly step aside and wait for your discourse.
Another point for neo. The best snood has provided so far is "bite me."
neologist wrote:mesquite wrote:neologist wrote:I just happen to believe they were put there by the one who created us.
So are you saying that the laws he put there regarding slavery were good ones?
Taking the bible as a whole, yes.
Do you have some other part of the bible that would help a poor slave that was beaten to within two days of death to feel better?
