Believers, Non-Believers & Morality

Originally posted by @romans1009
It’s interesting you feel the need to reply for Ghost. Perhaps you subconsciously also realize he doesn’t express himself well and needs help?

I'd say he has writing skills that are superior to almost every other poster here. You might find it interesting that I have said that, too.

Originally posted by @fmf
Your bruised-sounding perspective is duly noted.

Hardly bruised. I’m just sick of your nonsense. No wonder you had to write a public apology to our community AND apologize to this website’s owners for your behavior.

You’re still a troll and haven’t learned your lesson at all.

Originally posted by @fmf
I'd say he has writing skills that are superior to almost every other poster here. You might find it interesting that I have said that, too.

It’s his thinking skills that are the issue. I think wires get crossed in his noodle between when he gets a thought and when he tries to communicate that thought in writing.

Originally posted by @romans1009
It’s his thinking skills that are the issue. I think wires get crossed in his noodle between when he gets a thought and when he tries to communicate that thought in writing.

Ghost of a Duke is an atheist and a theology graduate. When he says he has "no notion of divine law", it obviously means he doesn't believe there is a divine lawmaker, and - just as obviously - it does not mean that he doesn't know that such a thing as a "notion of divine law" exists.

Originally posted by @fmf
Why do you think I have to find examples of it? We both know exactly what I am talking about ~ I've broached it with you countless times ~ and you know exactly when it happened because on dozens and dozens of occasions I pointed it out to you, post by post. I don't need to go "find" examples.

Is it dozens or hundreds? Can't you make up your mind?

Also a strange coincidence that whenever you have your back to the wall you claim that you have already answered a question and not once have you been able to produce an answer from an earlier date that you had supposedly answered? I think not.

Originally posted by @fmf
Ghost of a Duke is an atheist and a theology graduate. When he says he has "no notion of divine law", it obviously means he doesn't believe there is a divine lawmaker, and - just as obviously - it does not mean that he doesn't know that such a thing as a "notion of divine law" exists.

As I said previously, his intended meaning would have been expressed much better had he said he doesn’t recognize divine law or puts no credence in it.

Originally posted by @dj2becker
Is it dozens or hundreds? Can't you make up your mind?

I have been clear. Go back and read my words. You have pretended that we have not already discussed something [or that I haven't already answered something] on maybe more than a hundred times. Meanwhile, on dozens and dozens of occasions, I have pointed it out to you.

Originally posted by @romans1009
As I said previously, his intended meaning would have been expressed much better had he said he doesn’t recognize divine law or puts no credence in it.

What he posted meant exactly that.

Originally posted by @dj2becker
Also a strange coincidence that whenever you have your back to the wall you claim that you have already answered a question and not once have you been able to produce an answer from an earlier date that you had supposedly answered? I think not.

We have discussed this before. My stance hasn't changed.

Originally posted by @fmf
I have been clear. Go back and read my words. You have pretended that we have not already discussed something [or that I haven't already answered something] on maybe more than a hundred times. Meanwhile, on dozens and dozens of occasions, I have pointed it out to you.

I would agree that you have on dozens of occasions, claimed that you aren't going to answer a question (which coincidentally happened to have you with your back to the wall) because you had supposedly done so before, yet not once have you been able to refer me back to this supposed answer of yours.

Originally posted by @fmf
What he posted meant exactly that.

Actually, it didn’t. But I hardly expect you to admit that.

Originally posted by @dj2becker
I would agree that you have on dozens of occasions, claimed that you aren't going to answer a question (which coincidentally happened to have you with your back to the wall) because you had supposedly done so before, yet not once have you been able to refer me back to this supposed answer of yours.

Why would I want to refer you back to an answer I gave in a discussion or in a post of mine that you were pretending not to have read and, furthermore, why would I want to do your bidding by doing this on dozens of occasions?

It was enough for me to state that my stance had not changed since that previous discussion. There was no reason for me to play along with what I saw as nothing more than a rhetorical trick on your part.

Originally posted by @romans1009
Actually, it didn’t. But I hardly expect you to admit that.

Ghost of a Duke doesn't have notions of everlasting life, divine law and "sin". dj2becker said to him: Without the notions of divine law and sin, morality becomes a matter of personal preference. Ghost of a Duke replied: I have no notion of divine law but that doesn't mean my morality is a personal preference.

Clearly then, he doesn’t recognize divine law and puts no credence in it. It's what the OP is about. What can those who don't have notions of everlasting life, divine law and "sin" learn about morality from those that do? Read page 1 again.

Originally posted by @romans1009
You’re an insufferable, deceitful, trolling and pool-whizzing pain in the neck.

You think you’re smart but endless repetition does not an argument make. Because you lack the intelligence to win an argument legitimately or on the merits, you resort to endless (and frequently pointless) questioning and falsely claim you already answered others’ questions or “can’t be bothered” to reply.

Are these posts of yours a result of your "carnal mind" or do you think they are a result of the inspiration of "God's Holy Spirit"?

Originally posted by @fmf
Why would I want to refer you back to an answer I gave in a discussion or in a post of mine that you were pretending not to have read and, furthermore, why would I want to do your bidding by doing this on dozens of occasions?

It was enough for me to state that my stance had not changed since that previous discussion. There was no reason for me to play along with what I saw as nothing more than a rhetorical trick on your part.

If you weren't trolling you would be able to back up your claims.