"I think we should throw those books in a fire"

[Cow Poke]

I'm sorry you think people disagreeing with you is 'unreasoning'. Sounds like a personal problem.

That's your opinion!

[Gondwanaland]

Yes, it is the appropriate response to intractable unreasoning hostility.

I'm sorry you think people disagreeing with you is 'unreasoning'. Sounds like a personal problem.

[tabibito]

Yeah, I'd run away too if I were you.

Yes, it is the appropriate response to intractable unreasoning hostility.

[Gondwanaland]

I'm done...

Yeah, I'd run away too if I were you.

[seer]

Depends entirely on your interpretation, which Bible version you use, what other books you use, etc.

Very likely, yes.

See above/


That you don't like the answer is not my problem.

I'm done...

[Gondwanaland]

How does Christ explicitly teach us to treat our fellow man?

Depends entirely on your interpretation, which Bible version you use, what other books you use, etc.

Even our enemies? Did the first century followers ever pick up the sword to harm others?

Very likely, yes.

And even in your references Christ never explicitly calls for an attack of anykind.

See above/

You keep saying that but you also keep avoiding the question.

That you don't like the answer is not my problem.

[seer]

That's nice, but has no bearing on reality. And an appeal to tradition, especially with something so mired in terror as your Bible, ain't the best look.

Good grief, but my answer would not be special pleading by definition. You are all over the map...

No, you just don't like the answer.

Sheesh - there was no answer!

[seer]

I do know scripture. I just don't agree with your interpretations of it. Nor did many other of your own fellow Christians, for that matter.
And that's what people like you and MM can't stand, and thus resort to this sort of nonsense of 'well you didn't march in lockstep with me so that means you don't know scripture' .

How does Christ explicitly teach us to treat our fellow man? Even our enemies? Did the first century followers ever pick up the sword to harm others? And even in your references Christ never explicitly calls for an attack of anykind.

That you don't have a scooby how morality developed.

You keep saying that but you also keep avoiding the question.

[Gondwanaland]

It is not special pleading, it is what Scripture teaches... And had taught that long before these debates came up....

That's nice, but has no bearing on reality. And an appeal to tradition, especially with something so mired in terror as your Bible, ain't the best look.

So you have no answer...

No, you just don't like the answer.

[Gondwanaland]

I think you are being dishonest now.

And if you know scripture as well as you claimed you know that you are taking these out of context of the general teachings of Christ and the New Testament.

I do know scripture. I just don't agree with your interpretations of it. Nor did many other of your own fellow Christians, for that matter.
And that's what people like you and MM can't stand, and thus resort to this sort of nonsense of 'well you didn't march in lockstep with me so that means you don't know scripture' .

Then show me how it can logically be otherwise. Why is your moral preference more correct or valid than the Maoist's for instance?

Try the link.

That makes no sense. Evidence of what?

That you don't have a scooby how morality developed.

[seer]

Special pleading.

It is not special pleading, it is what Scripture teaches... And had taught that long before these debates came up....

See above.

So you have no answer...

[seer]

I understand the post-hoc rationalizations Christians try to use, sure.

I know the way CHristians try to interpret the verses when they are inconvenient to them, certainly.

I think you are being dishonest now. And if you know scripture as well as you claimed you know that you are taking these out of context of the general teachings of Christ and the New Testament.

No.

Then show me how it can logically be otherwise. Why is your moral preference more correct or valid than the Maoist's for instance?

More evidence.

That makes no sense. Evidence of what?

[Gondwanaland]

And your moral sense is just an accident of birth and time. You are largely parroting what you were brought up to believe. More likely in the Christian influenced West.

Nope. But thanks for tacitly admitting I was right.

[Gondwanaland]

Nonsense, since the Creator had no beginning.

Special pleading.

As far as Occam's Razor, you would have to show that all the things I mentioned did actually come about naturally - and do it with out begging the question.

See above.

[Gondwanaland]

Even you understand the analogies here.

I understand the post-hoc rationalizations Christians try to use, sure.

The sword thing was about self defense, the peace thing between other men and within families is about the fact that our faith may cause division with others (not that we get to attack them). Of course, since you were 'almost' a pastor you already knew this. Don't be disingenuous.

I know the way CHristians try to interpret the verses when they are inconvenient to them, certainly.

So you agree that if moral relativism is true then no moral position is more correct than its opposite?

No.

Really? How is your moral opinion more than preference?

More evidence.