Although not religious myself ...

[Keevan_Colton]

Actually, I was offering some of my opinions on the matter there along with posing the questions was looking for you to answer, thanks to the way message boards work its best to put as much as you can into a post.
I didnt say you were wrong I said it seemed that you didnt have it right from the way you had posted about debating.

As for the title being there simply because mike doesnt like you or what you say, I've never seen mike give them out for that....I cannot say anything on the matter of lies however.

Most of my comments were in regards to the hypothetical "christian coming and getting flamed" particularly those relating to what was said about debate etc.

[Jonathan]

Actually, I was offering some of my opinions on the matter there along with posing the questions was looking for you to answer, thanks to the way message boards work its best to put as much as you can into a post.
I didnt say you were wrong I said it seemed that you didnt have it right from the way you had posted about debating.

If you don't have it right, then surely you have it wrong?

And how is

'there is a differene between receiving debate in a place intended for such debate, and receiving flames for presenting an opinion people do not agree with.'

suggesting that I disagree with

'You require evidence to support an assertion, if you have none expect to get shot down in flames by people who do...its how things work.'?

I saw no reason for thinking that I made the wrong idea about debate since I hadn't even explained yet, other than to say that it wasn't flaming people for having a different opinion.

As for the title being there simply because mike doesnt like you or what you say, I've never seen mike give them out for that.

He's fairly rapidly anti-anyone-who-takes-the-ent-re-Bible-as-the-word-of-God. But better antagonistic than apathetic, I've always said :^)

I've had bad experiences with Mike. Stuck up for him in a few cases against rapid Trekkies depsite being pro-Trek on ASVS and got called a racist by him because I called him Wong, though he later apologised for it. I think he jumps the gun too often though and jumps to conclusions about people far too easily. When you're persecuted, I guess it's an easy instinct to develop, so I understand why we would do it, but it doesn't mean it isn't irritating.

...I cannot say anything on the matter of lies however.

It was a few months ago and very messy. Basically me in a thread against ten other guys. Lies is probably the wrong word. More like self-deception and confusion. People see what they expect to see and if so many people claiming to have seen it, they all convince each other that they really did see it. When you're the lone voice disputing this, you tend to get shouted down. Maybe things have changed a bit now. I hope so.

[Darth Wong]

The label exists because Mike doesn't like what I say and people make up things about me.

Either that, or it exists because you really are a fundamentalist moron. Anyone can search on your posts to verify that (not to mention your spirited defense of the morality of Biblical slavery, mass-murder, infanticide, etc).

And I like the way you keep saying that you've been on my side in the past with respect to SWvST and try to deflect the issue to my personality, neither of which have anything to do with the fact that you ARE a fundamentalist moron.

[Jonathan]

The label exists because Mike doesn't like what I say and people make up things about me.

Either that, or it exists because you really are a fundamentalist moron.

In what way?

Anyone can search on your posts to verify that (not to mention your spirited defense of the morality of Biblical slavery,

Ahhh, here we go. I actually pointed out the verses in the Bible that said you shouldn't keep slaves and that any place where the word 'slave' was used in any sort of positive this is permissable context, the conditions in surrounding verses made it clear that it is not the same term as we would think of when someone says slavery today, but in fact referred to some sort of servant job. which is easily verifiable by looking up my posts.

mass-murder, infanticide, etc).

Denied that it was murder actually and said it would be wrong for a Christian to go round killing people.

And I like the way you keep saying that you've been on my side in the past with respect to SWvST and try to deflect the issue to my personality, neither of which have anything to do with the fact that you ARE a fundamentalist moron.

I like the way you ignore the fact that I brought that up in response to a query about why I thought you simply didn't like me and was therefore describing our relationship so that he could understand the position. But why let the facts get in the way, eh Mike?

[Darth Wong]

The label exists because Mike doesn't like what I say and people make up things about me.

Either that, or it exists because you really are a fundamentalist moron.

In what way?

Your refusal to admit that killing people for having different beliefs is wrong in the Old Testament, for example.

Anyone can search on your posts to verify that (not to mention your spirited defense of the morality of Biblical slavery,

Ahhh, here we go. I actually pointed out the verses in the Bible that said you shouldn't keep slaves and that any place where the word 'slave' was used in any sort of positive this is permissable context, the conditions in surrounding verses made it clear that it is not the same term as we would think of when someone says slavery today, but in fact referred to some sort of servant job. which is easily verifiable by looking up my posts.

For the umpteenth time, you pointed out the parts where it said you should not keep FELLOW ISRAELITES as slaves, and then pretended that despite this, slavery was not a bad thing when it was applied to non-Israelites. Classic wall-of-ignorance debating bullshit. No wonder you cloak yourself when you browse these forums.

mass-murder, infanticide, etc).

Denied that it was murder actually and said it would be wrong for a Christian to go round killing people.

Ah yes, because it's only murder when it's bad to kill, and it's not bad for the ancient Israelites to slaughter women and children. Nice fucked-up excuse.

I like the way you ignore the fact that I brought that up in response to a query about why I thought you simply didn't like me and was therefore describing our relationship so that he could understand the position. But why let the facts get in the way, eh Mike?

Yet another attempt to turn this into an attack on my character, in order to evade the fact that the title "fundamentalist moron" is 100% accurate.

[Jonathan]

Your refusal to admit that killing people for having different beliefs is wrong in the Old Testament, for example.

You want me to admit to something which you have never proved is a truth that should be admitted to. Am I a moron simply because I believe something different to you Mike? Do you feel the need to label those who are different, to act differently toward them?

For the umpteenth time, you pointed out the parts where it said you should not keep FELLOW ISRAELITES as slaves, and then pretended that despite this, slavery was not a bad thing when it was applied to non-Israelites. Classic wall-of-ignorance debating bullshit.

Once again, not true. I pointed out quotes saying that foreigners should not be mistreated and certainly shouldn't be treated as the Hebrews were in Egypt. They were slaves in Egypt. Fairly clear to me what it is saying. You never had a good answer to that and always just yell wall of ignorance. Ah, the irony. I'll never get anaemia debating here ;^)

No wonder you cloak yourself when you browse these forums.

lol, that's rich. I use my real name, my primary email address, give out the names of the two places I live, freely answer questions about who I am and would hand out my actual address if someone wanted to post me something, or my mobile number if someone wanted to call me. What is your justification for saying that I cloak myself, or is this just a personal attack to distract from the debate?

Ah yes, because it's only murder when it's bad to kill, and it's not bad for the ancient Israelites to slaughter women and children. Nice fucked-up excuse.

I've covered this in other posts tonight.

Yet another attempt to turn this into an attack on my character, in order to evade the fact that the title "fundamentalist moron" is 100% accurate.

I was saying that I thought that calling me a moron was unjustified and the reason was personal. I was claiming you were attacking my character.

[Darth Wong]

Your refusal to admit that killing people for having different beliefs is wrong in the Old Testament, for example.

You want me to admit to something which you have never proved is a truth that should be admitted to. Am I a moron simply because I believe something different to you Mike? Do you feel the need to label those who are different, to act differently toward them?

No, I feel the need to label people who defend the merciless killing of women and children. You can only hide behind the "it's just different" excuse for so long.

Once again, not true. I pointed out quotes saying that foreigners should not be mistreated and certainly shouldn't be treated as the Hebrews were in Egypt. They were slaves in Egypt. Fairly clear to me what it is saying. You never had a good answer to that and always just yell wall of ignorance. Ah, the irony. I'll never get anaemia debating here ;^)

Yes, you claimed it was OK to keep people as slaves and even beat them as prescribed explicitly in the OT, because it wasn't quite as bad as what the Egyptians supposedly did to them. And you didn't understand the rebuttals because you apparently stuck your fingers in your ears.

lol, that's rich. I use my real name, my primary email address, give out the names of the two places I live, freely answer questions about who I am and would hand out my actual address if someone wanted to post me something, or my mobile number if someone wanted to call me. What is your justification for saying that I cloak myself, or is this just a personal attack to distract from the debate?

Since you have no leg to stand on with regard to the question of morality in this thread, feel free to concentrate more on this tiny victory.

I was saying that I thought that calling me a moron was unjustified and the reason was personal. I was claiming you were attacking my character.

Wow, I'm attacking the character of someone who says it's OK to mercilessly kill women and children if you think God wants you to? How shocking!

[Jonathan]

No, I feel the need to label people who defend the merciless killing of women and children. You can only hide behind the "it's just different" excuse for so long.

I don't believe that it was merciless. It was sparing the world evil, which is a mercy in itself. And I don't believe that following Jesus' resurrection, it would happen any more.

Yes, you claimed it was OK to keep people as slaves and even beat them as prescribed explicitly in the OT, because it wasn't quite as bad as what the Egyptians supposedly did to them. And you didn't understand the rebuttals because you apparently stuck your fingers in your ears.

Can't say I recall that. Of course, it was a while ago.

lol, that's rich. I use my real name, my primary email address, give out the names of the two places I live, freely answer questions about who I am and would hand out my actual address if someone wanted to post me something, or my mobile number if someone wanted to call me. What is your justification for saying that I cloak myself, or is this just a personal attack to distract from the debate?

Since you have no leg to stand on with regard to the question of morality in this thread, feel free to concentrate more on this tiny victory.

Ah, you're a pillar of the community Mike. It's a wonder there aren't more people seeking to emulate the sincerity of your apologies. And I find it most amusing that you condemn me on the matter of morality as if you had some absolute truth about the issue. Tell me, when was this truth revealed to you? Which equation did it become most apparent in?

Wow, I'm attacking the character of someone who says it's OK to mercilessly kill women and children if you think God wants you to? How shocking!

Not exactly what I said, but not surprising given that you've just failed to apologise for making an unwarranted and completely fictitious claim about me hiding my identity (see, this is what I mean by the whole lying and not liking me thing) and instead seem to be crowing about it.

You're a very odd man.

[Darth Wong]

No, I feel the need to label people who defend the merciless killing of women and children. You can only hide behind the "it's just different" excuse for so long.

I don't believe that it was merciless. It was sparing the world evil, which is a mercy in itself. And I don't believe that following Jesus' resurrection, it would happen any more.

So after being presented with quotes showing that women and children were butchered, you say "I don't believe that it was merciless." Thank you for adding yet another piece to the pile of evidence that you have no moral values.

Ah, you're a pillar of the community Mike. It's a wonder there aren't more people seeking to emulate the sincerity of your apologies.

You seem to think I was apologizing. I wasn't. Your sophistry, subject changes, and general use of ad-hominems while screaming about the same are all quite clear in this thread, and I see no reason to apologize for accusing you of being evasive.

Besides, you just opened a second account called "JonathanBoyd" which is in fact cloaked, and don't bullshit me because I can see all of your profile info. As I said, I see no reason to apologize for accusing you of cloaking your presence on the board.

And I find it most amusing that you condemn me on the matter of morality as if you had some absolute truth about the issue. Tell me, when was this truth revealed to you? Which equation did it become most apparent in?

It became apparent in the simple fact that life is good, and killing is bad. But of course, you don't recognize that simple fact, do you? After all, you think it's OK to murder women and children if God "called you to".

Not exactly what I said, but not surprising given that you've just failed to apologise for making an unwarranted and completely fictitious claim about me hiding my identity (see, this is what I mean by the whole lying and not liking me thing) and instead seem to be crowing about it.

Still harping on that, eh? The fact is that you have admitted that you think it's OK to kill women and children if God "called you to", and now you're trying to focus attention on a side-issue.

You're a very odd man.

Nothing wrong with being odd. There IS something wrong with believing it's OK to kill people if God "called you to".

[Jonathan]

You seem to think I was apologizing. I wasn't. Your sophistry, subject changes, and general use of ad-hominems while screaming about the same are all quite clear in this thread, and I see no reason to apologize for accusing you of being evasive.

You accussed me of cloaking myself, which was a blatant lie, you accuse me of ad hominens when you're the one runnign round calling people names while I sugggest we have a big group hug and when I answer questions, you claim that I haven't, possibly because you don't want to deal with the answer. I don't know. I really don't understand you. You don't buy me presents, you never take me out... I'm starting to think you don't love me any more Mike!

[Darth Wong]

You accussed me of cloaking myself, which was a blatant lie,

Fuck off, whiner. You created a cloaked account tonight, so don't bullshit me.

you accuse me of ad hominens when you're the one runnign round calling people names while I sugggest we have a big group hug

The ad-hominem fallacy is to try to change the subject by focusing on the man. Gratuitous insults do not necessarily represent an attempt to change the subject. Your ignorance of logic rears its ugly head yet again.

and when I answer questions, you claim that I haven't, possibly because you don't want to deal with the answer.

That's because you have not answered the questions; you have evaded them. For the umpteenth time, if you sincerely believed God wanted you to kill a baby, WOULD YOU DO IT?

I don't know. I really don't understand you. You don't buy me presents, you never take me out... I'm starting to think you don't love me any more Mike!

I think you're a rabid fanatic, and you can try to dismiss the argument with flippant remarks all you like, but that fact won't change. You probably think it's quite clever to try and defuse the situation like this, but when someone says it's OK to kill people if God says so, you can't just say "lighten up" and try to distract the audience with hand-waving.

[Jonathan]

You accussed me of cloaking myself, which was a blatant lie,

Fuck off, whiner. You created a cloaked account tonight, so don't bullshit me.

I couldn't remember my user name, so I created a new account which was pretty much the same as this one, except I called myself JonathanBoyd, instead of Jonathan. Then I found the email with my name and password, so I've been using my old account. I take it then that by 'cloaking', you are referring to not appearing as on-line? I only do that because I didn't want to be bothered by people sending me messages. It takes long enough to do these posts as it is. I fail to see how that is the terribly evil act you made it out to be. If you have a problem with it, why not remove the option? Sheesh. Besides, I'm not even using that account. I haven't even logged in with it.

The ad-hominem fallacy is to try to change the subject by focusing on the man. Gratuitous insults do not necessarily represent an attempt to change the subject. Your ignorance of logic rears its ugly head yet again.

Attacking an opponent with insults is a clear attempt to discredit him and distract from the subject at hand. Rather than concentrate on the debate, you concentrate on making fun of the opponent. It's a kid's game you play.

That's because you have not answered the questions; you have evaded them. For the umpteenth time, if you sincerely believed God wanted you to kill a baby, WOULD YOU DO IT?

I've pointed out why certain question cannot be answered as they would not be representative of my beliefs. So I went to the bother of thinking of a similar question that would fit within my beliefs. Yet you call this evasion, which is most bizarre and inconsistent with what anyone else would call evasion.

I think you're a rabid fanatic, and you can try to dismiss the argument with flippant remarks all you like, but that fact won't change. You probably think it's quite clever to try and defuse the situation like this, but when someone says it's OK to kill people if God says so, you can't just say "lighten up" and try to distract the audience with hand-waving.

I made it pretty clear that any of that stuff was applicable to before Jesus came. And I've hardly been trying to distract, just lighten the mood. Give people something to read other than your endless insults. What do they add to the debate?

[Jonathan]

Besides, you just opened a second account called "JonathanBoyd" which is in fact cloaked, and don't bullshit me because I can see all of your profile info. As I said, I see no reason to apologize for accusing you of cloaking your presence on the board.

An account I'm not using and have never logged in with because I managed to find my previous detailss, so I'm not cloaking. And by cloaking, I previously assumed you meant hiding details about who I was. What's the problem with not showing you're on-line? If it's such a great sin, why do you allow it? Maybe I like a bit of privacy. Do you have a problem with that? And, given that I've posted, what 50 posts in the last few hours, I hardly think that I'm hiding. If it'll make you sleep better, go delete the other account.

[Darth Gojira]

Like it or not, John, Lord Wong kicked your ass fair and square.

Now, could you two please get back on topic?

[Hethrir]

At work or socially i usually don't talk about it - it's just not the time. If religion comes up, then i have a nice chat about it. All it does is put people off. Ironcially, some of my better friends are new age and satanists...don't ask how

[Jonathan]

Like it or not, John, Lord Wong kicked your ass fair and square.

Where on earth did you get that idea? He's a liar who makes insults to distract from his arguments. He shows no interest in an honest debate, preferring to bellow invectives at the top of us voice.

And Jon has no h.

[Hethrir]

he who fights a runs away, lives to fight another day.

from what i have seen, Darth Wong gives people a fair chance before he starts to call them trolls.

[Darth Wong]

Like it or not, John, Lord Wong kicked your ass fair and square.

Where on earth did you get that idea? He's a liar who makes insults to distract from his arguments. He shows no interest in an honest debate, preferring to bellow invectives at the top of us voice.

Ha ha, notice how he refuses to address the facts of the argument (that he admitted he thinks it's OK to kill babies if God commands you to) and attacks me on character instead, as if a man who thinks it's OK to kill babies at God's command has ANY right to attack anyone else on character. Is it wrong to use harsh terms to describe someone who thinks it's OK to kill babies at God's command?

PS. I like the way he adopts the Darkstar tactic of calling me a liar and complaining that I try to "distract" people from the point with insults, even though he spent most of the argument trying to evade the main thrust of the argument and the central question I kept asking him. The only "lie" he ever identified was me saying he was cloaked, and he DID create a cloaked user account (which he made a lot of excuses for ... typical). The sad thing is that I think he really does believe he did well in that exchange

[Hobot]

Like it or not, John, Lord Wong kicked your ass fair and square.

Where on earth did you get that idea? He's a liar who makes insults to distract from his arguments. He shows no interest in an honest debate, preferring to bellow invectives at the top of us voice.

And Jon has no h.

Why does it matter if he insults you? It doesn't make his arguments any less valid. You basically admitted that you think it's ok to kill men, women, children and even infants if God commands it. I don't care what you say to back that up, that's just plain FUCKED UP.

[Queeb Salaron]

Your refusal to admit that killing people for having different beliefs is wrong in the Old Testament, for example.

::Sighs:: You know, Vatican II DID come out and expressly say that the fundamental laws stated in the OT were context-dependent and no longer applied to contemporary society. You did know that, right? It's doctrine now. Christians don't believe it anymore. Like, they don't think people should be put to death if they're gay, regardless of the Church's opinion of gays.

Just making sure you realized that.

[Keevan_Colton]

At work or socially i usually don't talk about it - it's just not the time. If religion comes up, then i have a nice chat about it. All it does is put people off. Ironcially, some of my better friends are new age and satanists...don't ask how

Hey, at least the morality there is usually fairly clear....
"Do as you will so long as you harm none" for most of the new age style things or "Do unto others as they DO to you." for satanisim.......

[Temjin]

Your refusal to admit that killing people for having different beliefs is wrong in the Old Testament, for example.

::Sighs:: You know, Vatican II DID come out and expressly say that the fundamental laws stated in the OT were context-dependent and no longer applied to contemporary society. You did know that, right? It's doctrine now. Christians don't believe it anymore. Like, they don't think people should be put to death if they're gay, regardless of the Church's opinion of gays.

Just making sure you realized that.

Ah.

So it was okay back then to kill people who held different beliefs.

You don't see anything wrong with this?

[Queeb Salaron]

Ah.

So it was okay back then to kill people who held different beliefs.

You don't see anything wrong with this?

Of course I do. Luckily, so did the Catholic church. That was the purpose of Vatican II: to change the faults in Catholic Christian doctrine. Essentially, the pulled a Luther on themselves and righted the wrongs that they saw, particularly dealing with the OT. Catholicism is MUCH less bigoted than it has been in the past. Over the last 30 years, there have been so many reforms that it's almost an entirely different religion.

[jegs2]

::Sighs:: You know, Vatican II DID come out and expressly say that the fundamental laws stated in the OT were context-dependent and no longer applied to contemporary society. You did know that, right? It's doctrine now. Christians don't believe it anymore. Like, they don't think people should be put to death if they're gay, regardless of the Church's opinion of gays.

Just making sure you realized that.

I personally pay no attention to anything that comes from Rome or the Roman Catholic Church, however, I do pay attention to what is written in the Bible. As far as which Biblical laws should be applied to contemorary society, we must first determine what contemporary society is. Looking strictly at these United States (and I count Canada as well), we are not a Christian (or Jewish) nation, so it would be disingenuous at best for us to attempt to follow either Jewish law or Christian principles, IMO. What is Jewish law? The books of Exodus and Leviticus lay out laws for the Theocracy and later Kingdom of Israel. Those laws were intended for Israel. Are there some laws that are applicable to modern society? Certainly, but there are also many which obviously have no place in modern society. For example, in the days of the theocracy and later kingdom of Israel, the world had slaves. So there were necessarily laws concerning slavery. As slaves no longer exist (at least in the US/Canada), there is no need for laws concerning them. Moreover, the penalties for breaking laws in the theocracy of Israel were very harsh, and I see no need for such harshness in today's society, save for crimes like murder. Now to the Christian faith -- do the laws that applied to Israel apply to Christians? Let's take a look and see what the Bible says:

Acts 15:7-11
7 After much discussion, Peter got up and addressed them: "Brothers, you know that some time ago God made a choice among you that the Gentiles might hear from my lips the message of the gospel and believe.
8 God, who knows the heart, showed that he accepted them by giving the Holy Spirit to them, just as he did to us.
9 He made no distinction between us and them, for he purified their hearts by faith.
10 Now then, why do you try to test God by putting on the necks of the disciples a yoke that neither we nor our fathers have been able to bear?
11 No! We believe it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as they are."
(NIV)
As we can see from the above, it is not keeping of Jewish law that determines who is a Christian, but rather faith in Jesus is the ultimate requirement. Moreover, the apostles pointed out that Israel was unable to keep the laws, so why should those of the Faith be burdoned with the same requirements. Does that mean that the Christian should pay only lip service and do anything he wants to do, even if it is sinful? Let's take a look:

Gal 5:16-26
16 So I say, live by the Spirit, and you will not gratify the desires of the sinful nature.
17 For the sinful nature desires what is contrary to the Spirit, and the Spirit what is contrary to the sinful nature. They are in conflict with each other, so that you do not do what you want.
18 But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under law.
19 The acts of the sinful nature are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery;
20 idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions
21 and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God.
22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness,
23 gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law.
24 Those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the sinful nature with its passions and desires.
25 Since we live by the Spirit, let us keep in step with the Spirit.
26 Let us not become conceited, provoking and envying each other.
(NIV)


James 2:19-26
19 You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that-- and shudder.
20 You foolish man, do you want evidence that faith without deeds is useless?
21 Was not our ancestor Abraham considered righteous for what he did when he offered his son Isaac on the altar?
22 You see that his faith and his actions were working together, and his faith was made complete by what he did.
23 And the scripture was fulfilled that says, "Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness," and he was called God's friend.
24 You see that a person is justified by what he does and not by faith alone.
25 In the same way, was not even Rahab the prostitute considered righteous for what she did when she gave lodging to the spies and sent them off in a different direction?
26 As the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without deeds is dead.
(NIV)

We can see that good works is a result of the spirit. Moreover, we can also see that faith without works is dead. That means that those who have Christ (the Spirit) in them will show the fruits of that through what is listed in Verse 22. So while we can see that keeping of the law is not a requirement for Salvation, it is a result of that Salvation.

What does any of that have to do with US (or any nation's) law? IMO, no nation should be held accountable for either Jewish law or Christian principles, for no nation should be a theocracy. Can some laws found in the Bible be applicable to modern law? Yes. Some things are seen as wrong from any angle (or at least most angles): Murder, adultery, stealing, etc. It is up to a nation's people to determine which laws will be written and how they will be enforced.