25 Jan 18
I got to say, you do shift the goalposts or simply drop a point if the debate doesn't go the direction that you want, FNF.. For instance, you acted like having sex before marriage wasn't some reliable, virtuous position and then when I provided some good reasons, you dropped it. I am not mad at you but then you went on to nitpick some other issue as opposed to be friendly and encouraging.
And now I do not even know what you are trying to do with this Anne Frank stuff, as if it is so miserable and low of me that I used her as an example. I do not even know what you are trying to do there.
It sounds like you could be anti-Semitic.
25 Jan 18
Originally posted by @jacob-vervilleNonsense. I believe sex before marriage, although it may well be "sinful" to some people - you for instance - and though it could lead to immoral behaviour, is, in and of itself, not morally unsound. And that is the case as long as there is no wilful damage, deception or coercion, or negligence that results in those things.
...you acted like having sex before marriage wasn't some reliable, virtuous position and then when I provided some good reasons, you dropped it..
25 Jan 18
Originally posted by @jacob-vervilleWhat did I "nitpick"? Perhaps you are trying to deprecate some concern or interest of mine by dismissing it as "nitpicking"? What are you on about?
I am not mad at you but then you went on to nitpick some other issue as opposed to be friendly and encouraging.
25 Jan 18
Originally posted by @jacob-vervilleI have not mentioned Anne Frank on this thread. What are you on about?
And now I do not even know what you are trying to do with this Anne Frank stuff, as if it is so miserable and low of me that I used her as an example.
Originally posted by @jacob-vervilleOh? Well, well, you seem to have all sorts of gambits at your disposal. OK, then. Talk me through this idea of yours. I could be anti-Semitic? How so?
It sounds like you could be anti-Semitic.
Originally posted by @jacob-vervilleYeah, OK, I get it. You do not accept the Bible as a text that is accurate and so getting your morality from it is wrong, right? Or have I mischaracterized the position?
"The point is that, as such, the Bible is not a reliable basis for determining what is or is not 'moral'."
Yeah, OK, I get it. You do not accept the Bible as a text that is accurate and so getting your morality from it is wrong, right? Or have I mischaracterized the position?
Obviously, that is a much bigger debate. We could start that here bu ...[text shortened]... bvious, how come it has not even come into existence until 2000 years after the birth of Christ?
Yes. You have mischaracterized my position once again. Even after I've made attempts to strip it down and lay it out as simply as possible. Your ability to completely miss the point is truly remarkable - in trying to understand what I and others have written.
If this position was so obvious, how come it has not even come into existence until 2000 years after the birth of Christ?
Because long-held prejudices and biases are extremely difficult to eradicate. One need only look at slavery, racism, sexism, homophobia, xenophobia etc. and how the Bible has been used and continues to be used as a weapon by bigots to perpetuate them.
Originally posted by @fmfMy apologies, Jacob Verville, I thought the Anne Frank thing you raised was on the other thread we are exchanging posts on. Look, OK. If I can't tackle you on the question mark hanging over your intellectual discernment that your being impressed by the analogy creates, then so be it. Your evasions in answer to my questions about it indicate that you may have some inkling of how facile it sounds. Never mind.
I have not mentioned Anne Frank on this thread. What are you on about?
26 Jan 18
Originally posted by @jacob-vervilleIt wasn't a debate tactic, nor did I say anything about your being a fool. It was a suggestion that maybe you should be careful with such sweeping statements, because people might get the wrong idea.
When I said "regardless of who it was towards," the concept of hate crimes had been mentioned shortly before. We were discussing homosexuality actively, and the point was that we all deserve equal protection of the law...
I think that isn't a good debate tactic: decontextualizing something and then saying, "Oh, but look at that... You spoke generally and do not account for self-defense! WHAT A FOOL!"
26 Jan 18
Originally posted by @jacob-verville...because public verificationism and empiricsm do not comprise the totality of our human reality.So what? Is there anything real that would NOT submit to public verificationism and empiricsm?
27 Jan 18
Originally posted by @jacob-vervilleI hear you. We still need standards.
...
Imagine stripping the diary of Anne Frank of everything that cannot be publicly verified. There'd be almost nothing left. ...
29 Jan 18
Originally posted by @thinkofoneAlright, that's fine. I am not a very smart guy and I cannot decipher what everyone is saying all the time. Feel free to put some more words out on your position so I can have a better chance at understanding it.
[b]Yeah, OK, I get it. You do not accept the Bible as a text that is accurate and so getting your morality from it is wrong, right? Or have I mischaracterized the position?
Yes. You have mischaracterized my position once again. Even after I've made attempts to strip it down and lay it out as simply as possible. Your ability to completely miss the ...[text shortened]... d how the Bible has been used and continues to be used as a weapon by bigots to perpetuate them.[/b]
Be charitable to me, for I am just a regular fellah.
+
"Because long-held prejudices and biases are extremely difficult to eradicate. One need only look at slavery, racism, sexism, homophobia, xenophobia etc. and how the Bible has been used and continues to be used as a weapon by bigots to perpetuate them"
Do you think the Bible itself is homophobic, sexist, etc, itself, and that the ideas within it are imperfect?
Because then... in a sense... you should agree with the conservatives who maintain the standard interpretation of the Bible, the one that has been in circulation for 2,000 years (and an interpretation that was prominent while homosexuality was very prominent in the Roman Empire).
or do you think there is some interpretation of the Bible that is fundamentally liberal, and is the true heir of Christianity's legacy?
29 Jan 18
Originally posted by @apathistYes, like your thoughts or feelings.
So what? Is there anything real that would NOT submit to public verificationism and empiricsm?
These things are very important, actually, and we have cases every single day where people's careers and even their freedom from prison depends on somehow demonstrating their intention in a certain situation so as to ameliorate the nature of their actions.
The will is also important to us even when it is something far less consequential...
What if it came out that Bernie Sanders was really a prototypical politician and simply held those views, gave off that vibe, etc., becuase he thought of it as the most successful thing to do..? It'd break a lot of Sanders supporters hearts.
What if it came out that Pres. Trump was equally ingenuine?
You can see how these thoughts & feelings are not verifiable and, moreover, have a massive impact... and perhasp the fact that we cannot know these things is quite impactful.
29 Jan 18
Originally posted by @fmfThere's millions of abortions a year. It would be safe to assume a large amount have to do with promiscuous sexual relations outside of marriage.
Nonsense. I believe sex before marriage, although it may well be "sinful" to some people - you for instance - and though it could lead to immoral behaviour, is, in and of itself, not morally unsound. And that is the case as long as there is no wilful damage, deception or coercion, or negligence that results in those things.
In a sense, we have come to a point where we terminate children's lives in order to have more convenient promiscuous sexuality.
I think this is one example where the sexual ethos of a secular society that measures everything in rationally measured results gets way out from under it. And now we have millions of children terminated.
So while it's not a big deal by itself, it creates an environment that is a big deal.
Much like teenagers drinking isn't itself "the end of the world" and probably 99 times out of 100 nothing bad happens... but by allowing such to occur frequently, big mistakes are bound to happen, and the environment created is collectively wrong.
30 Jan 18
Originally posted by @jacob-vervilleI've probably posted 45,000 times on this forum. You won't find even a hint of anti-Semitic sentiment in any single one of those posts. Are you trying to poison the well?
It sounds like you could be anti-Semitic.
30 Jan 18
Originally posted by @jacob-vervilleI believe sex before marriage is not, in and of itself, morally unsound.
There's millions of abortions a year. It would be safe to assume a large amount have to do with promiscuous sexual relations outside of marriage.
In a sense, we have come to a point where we terminate children's lives in order to have more convenient promiscuous sexuality.
I think this is one example where the sexual ethos of a secular societ ...[text shortened]... frequently, big mistakes are bound to happen, and the environment created is collectively wrong.