Ethical naivete?

[Charles]

Charles,

Perhaps if you would spend more time stating your beliefs, or engaging in one-one-one discussions, instead of trying to referee discussions between third parties, it wouldn't be so easy to come to wrong conclusions about what you believe.

Just a thought.

Or just another post to take focus away from the huge number of false statements from MM.

[Cow Poke]

Or just another post to take focus away from the huge number of false statements from MM.

No, Charles, that stuff is still there, and there's no doubt you won't let it go away. I'm simply saying that I have been wrong about some of your positions in the past because you spend FAR more time trying to be the patrol boy for everybody's discussions than you do actually engaging in discussions yourself.

[Charles]

No, Charles, that stuff is still there, and there's no doubt you won't let it go away. I'm simply saying that I have been wrong about some of your positions in the past because you spend FAR more time trying to be the patrol boy for everybody's discussions than you do actually engaging in discussions yourself.

If you are in doubt about my position on topics which I have not talked about feel free to ask. Asking or even making a mistake in understanding a position is quite different from what MM has done in this thread in which he has made one false statement after the other and has gone on to support his false statements with other false statements instead of admitting he was wrong.

[Cow Poke]

If you are in doubt about my position on topics which I have not talked about feel free to ask.

I have, Charles.

Asking or even making a mistake in understanding a position is quite different from what MM has done in this thread in which he has made one false statement after the other and has gone on to support his false statements with other false statements instead of admitting he was wrong.

So, you object to me getting involved in your battle with MM?

[rogue06]

I have, Charles.



So, you object to me getting involved in your battle with MM?

I'm shocked -- shocked -- that you'd ever think Charles is trying to stir up conflict.

[Charles]

Of course you do.

False statement. Are you pretending to be a mind reader or?

Do you accept Jesus' call to repentance and a life in total devotion to God? Do you believe that Jesus was God in the flesh who came to die for our sins and who resurrected so that we can share in his victory over death? Do you believe that those who accept God's forgiveness will live for eternity in heaven? When you discuss these topics with Christians, do you give them the benefit of the doubt that they could be right and treat their beliefs with due respect, asking questions with an open mind and a genuine desire to be convinced?

I hope you note the absurdity of asking these questions to an agnostic. And I hope you note the absurdity of concluding based on a false statement that I despise Christian beliefs before asking these questions.

I do note that you leave out all Jesus' statements in which he identifies with the weak, the stranger, those who are hungry and the like. All that stuff is once again left out. It is so obviously selective and I wonder who you think you are fooling.

You see, you are selectively picking up stuff that fits your agenda, statements I have never claimed to believe. That I do not believe them does not cause me to have disrespect for those who believe them. I have disrespect for those who claim to be believers, make false statements about others and only actually follow part of what Jesus said while claiming they are Christians.

If there's that side to you, then I've never seen it, and you've apparently gone to great lengths to keep it hidden on this forum, preferring, instead, to snipe from the sidelines and attempt to pit Christian against Christian. Unfortunately, you seem to have drawn oxmixmudd into your net, so congratulations, I guess.

False statement again. I have cited Christian philosophers, theologians and writers and have been taking part in those discussions. The fact that you find it disturbing or an attempt to pit Christian against Christian might be because it actually points to some truth in how selective an interpretation of Christianity one finds on tweb.

With regards to your Christian against Christian I feel it is time that you take your own responsibility for the way you have trated Ox instead of pretending it is a problem I have anything to do with.

Oh, and before you try to split hairs and say that you respect the Christian worldview even though you reject as false, understand that the Bible leaves you no middle ground. You're either saved, or you're condemned. You're either for God, or you're against him. There are literally no other options.

Understand that the Bible leaves you no room to make false statements about others as you have done time and time again in this thread. Understand that the Bible challenges those who are so convinced that they are the right believers. Understand that your "no middle ground" is not my reason, as a non believer, to claim all statements in the Bible false, to disregard the wisdom and strong ethical statements (often forgotten on tweb). Understand that I do not believe in your interpretation of the "no middle ground" statement and thus I do not have to follow it. Since I am not obliged to it, I do not have to be narrowed by it. In that context I note that there is a much wider interpretation of the statement than the ones seen in your particular interpretation. I see your urge to create a false conflict and make false statements about my person and belief. As I have repeatedly said, you need to start with the truth.

[Mountain Man]

I do note that you leave out all Jesus' statements in which he identifies with the weak, the stranger, those who are hungry and the like. All that stuff is once again left out.

Yes, I left out admonitions from Jesus that you agree with, and for what should be obvious reasons. What you're missing is that unlike you, I accept everything Jesus says (but not your interpretation or application of it; for one thing, I don't believe that good personal policy necessarily makes for good government policy); I don't pick and choose only those things I consider to be politically and socially expedient. To claim that some of Jesus' statements are worthy of taking to heart only because you happen to agree with them while rejecting others is hypocritical.

As I have repeatedly said, you need to start with the truth.

Jesus said to him, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me."

"Whoever is not with me is against me, and whoever does not gather with me scatters."

[Timothy]

Yeah, but I don't know that it was because Trump was all that great, or that Hillary was all that bad. I never really looked into "behind the scenes" with BG on Trump.



I, for one, have never, and will never, defend Trump's moral faults or failures. Neither do I hate him. Therefore, according to the loonies on the left, I'm a "Trumpster".

You ARE a "Trumpster" because you refer to people who weren't able to support Clinton OR Trump as "loonies on the left". Your true colors shine out whether or not you think you can hide them. From your position EVERYONE is to the left of you. (and therefore a lunatic in your eyes)
You need to repent of your condescending attitude toward everyone who doesn't think just the way you want them to.

[Cow Poke]

You ARE a "Trumpster" because you refer to people who weren't able to support Clinton OR Trump as "loonies on the left".

Oh

Your true colors shine out whether or not you think you can hide them.

Well, I'm colorblind, so...

From your position EVERYONE is to the left of you. (and therefore a lunatic in your eyes)

So, if I can name ONE PERSON here to whom I am on the left, your accusation would be false?

You need to repent of your condescending attitude toward everyone who doesn't think just the way you want them to.

Says the guy scolding me from his own high horse.

You're cute, Timothy.

[Timothy]

Oh



Well, I'm colorblind, so...



So, if I can name ONE PERSON here to whom I am on the left, your accusation would be false?



Says the guy scolding me from his own high horse.

You're cute, Timothy.

Maybe, just maybe, try not calling people "loonies of the left". Then see if people respect you more. No high horse here.

[Cow Poke]

Maybe, just maybe, try not calling people "loonies of the left".

If people are on the loony left, like advocating abortion - particularly late term abortion - I will note their leftist looniness.

Then see if people respect you more.

I'm not here for the praise of man.

No high horse here.

Yell louder, I can't hear you from way up there.

But, thank you, dear brother, for the love and concern you show with your kind admonitions.

[Cow Poke]

You ARE a "Trumpster" because you refer to people who weren't able to support Clinton OR Trump as "loonies on the left".

Just curious to see if you can back up this notion that I call "people who weren't able to support Clinton OR Trump" as "loonies of the left". And would I know who these people are?

Just one example, please.

[Charles]

Yes, I left out admonitions from Jesus that you agree with, and for what should be obvious reasons. What you're missing is that unlike you, I accept everything Jesus says (but not your interpretation or application of it; for one thing, I don't believe that good personal policy necessarily makes for good government policy); I don't pick and choose only those things I consider to be politically and socially expedient. To claim that some of Jesus' statements are worthy of taking to heart only because you happen to agree with them while rejecting others is hypocritical.

Jesus said to him, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me."

"Whoever is not with me is against me, and whoever does not gather with me scatters."

Your posts gives the expression you pick and choose and that your claim to accept everything is one made for particular situations and then forgotten when confronted with posters, etchical and political discussions. You are not going to convince me you believe Jesus identified with the stranger, the hungry and the like. Not a chance given what you have been writing.

I respect the qoutes in your post and have known those statements for as long as I can remember. Do remember to read them in context.

[Bill the Cat]

If that is the level of concern you have got for the people, including innocent children, suffering the consequences of inhuman policies and statements i think we are past the level of ethical naivete. What has hardened your heart to the level where you feel it is ok to describe human tragedies as if it is melodrama and somehing to make fun of?

The melodrama I was chiding was your loaded trigger words, Charles. Now that I have a few minutes, I'll give your drivel a proper response.

Item #1:

To us, taking innocent children away from their parents is something we should remain silent about or we might even come up with all sorts of absurd excuses for this evil.

First off, their parents (if in fact they are their parents) are to blame for being separated from their children. The law stipulates that the adults must be detained. And the law stipulates that juveniles may not be detained in the same facility as adults. Morality says to follow the law until it is changed.

Item #2

To us, it is not a problem that the president uses a dehumanizing language. We remain silent about it since he is not talking about us.

As Dennis Prager stated, his personal morality is FAR overshadowed by his political moral policies. Hurt feelings is in no way in the same moral league as helping millions get and stay employed.

Item #3

To us, it is not a problem that many people are hurt by statements made by the president that they perceive as racist.

Same argument as #2. Same response

Item #4

To us, it is not a problem that the president lies.

Same premise as #2 and 3. Same response.

Item 5

To us, if there is anything about Trump's actions and our support for him that shows us to be hypocrites it is enough to point out that others did the same.

This has very little to do with actual moral impact of Trump's decisions. Again, accomplishing the greater good is the morally superior position.

Item 6

To us, it is enough to point out that he is not a preach or church leader when he does something for which others will have to pay a tremendous price.

Again, the greater good must trump the individual desire. That is the moral high ground.

[Charles]

The melodrama I was chiding was your loaded trigger words, Charles. Now that I have a few minutes, I'll give your drivel a proper response.

I think the above is what could be described as loaded words along with your original statement about "melodrama".

Item #1:


First off, their parents (if in fact they are their parents) are to blame for being separated from their children. The law stipulates that the adults must be detained. And the law stipulates that juveniles may not be detained in the same facility as adults. Morality says to follow the law until it is changed.

The child bearing the consequences described by some as terror is still completely innocent. And I don't assume the law makes sure there should be no plan for reunification? You might go for higher moral standards than what follows from the law, you may work to change the law. The assumption you can blindly follow the law and then will not be to blame is naive and absurd and even a limited understanding of history shows why this is a path we should not follow.

Item #2


As Dennis Prager stated, his personal morality is FAR overshadowed by his political moral policies. Hurt feelings is in no way in the same moral league as helping millions get and stay employed.

This is a very, very telling about your approach. You talk about dehumanizing talks as something that might "hurt feelings". That is a naive understanding. As history clearly shows, dehumanizing language might very well lead to actual consequences for real people. To think this is about "feelings" is to close your eyes to reality.

And another point. It seems you are willing to sell out on certain areas due to economical gains on others. If money is in another moral league than respecting the basic value of human life you are selling what is basically invaluable for money. If you put a price on dignity you have already lost it.

Item #3


Same argument as #2. Same response

Item #4


Same premise as #2 and 3. Same response.

See above. Same error all the way through. A complete sellout of the value of human life. Even the truth is something you are willing to sell for something you seem to percieve as more valuable.

Item 5


This has very little to do with actual moral impact of Trump's decisions. Again, accomplishing the greater good is the morally superior position.

It is not about the impact of Trump's decisions but about the impact of those who try to justify what cannot be justified. Your "greater good" is obviously not truth, decency and the equal value of all human life.

Item 6


Again, the greater good must trump the individual desire. That is the moral high ground.

The point you respond to is not about individual desire. Based on your willingness to accept dehumanizing talk and action and your disregard for truth in search for a "greater good" I see no reason why you talk about the "moral high ground". You have just provided the opposite.