- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
Originally posted by @fmfGet use to it.
sonship, I can see why you are dodging - deflecting from - these three bumped questions - and the basic question that you have been dodging for days and days.
As I go over some threads lately, I really don't see me doing anything you don't do yourself. if you choose to ignore a question ... guess what ? You do.
As I recollect though, it seems that what you want me to say is something like -
"Yea, FMF. That's exactly it. You got it!. Christian morals are like any other morals except for the imaginary Jesus."
Look, get use to me not walking into your trap. That's all.
21 Nov 17
Originally posted by @sonshipMore ridiculously prideful dodging.
Get use to it.
As I go over some threads lately, I really don't see me doing anything you don't do yourself. if you choose to ignore a question ... guess what ? You do.
As I recollect though, it seems that what you want me to say is something like -
"Yea, FMF. That's exactly it. You got it!. Christian morals are like any other morals except for the imaginary Jesus."
Look, get use to me not walking into your trap. That's all.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
Originally posted by @fmfNot.
"Christian morals" = ordinary morals + certain (Christian) religious beliefs. True or not?
But by now I have indicated that there are many moral codes.
The experience of blending with another Person is so unique.
living by any other moral system that I can think of doesn't require that the originator of that system be alive, available, present.
Code of Hammarabi doesn't need Mr. Hammarabi to be with you.
Code of Confucius doesn't require Confucius to be alive or avaiable.
Even the law of Moses doesn't require Moses to be alive.
To live by the grace of Christ requires Christ.
'He who is joined to the Lord is one spirit" (1 Cor. 6:17)
I would definitely consider it miraculous.
I would consider it something of the supernatural.
Your job is to convince yourself that Christ is not alive, not unique, not "God with us" and of no consequence.
Hence the repeated thrust of your question - "Its just like the boy scouts code of honor or some fraternity's rules or any other moral code ... right? right? bump? Right? bump, bump? ..."
21 Nov 17
Originally posted by @sonshipBut you aren't talking about behaviour, conduct, actions. You are talking about stuff you think, stuff you say, stuff you believe. "The experience of blending with another Person is so unique". This supposed "blending" with your god figure is something you think about, it is something you believe. So clearly you are saying that "Christian morals" are ordinary human virtues and morals - you explicitly conceded this - PLUS all the stuff you think in connection with your religion.
Not.
But by now I have indicated that there are many moral codes.
The experience of blending with another Person is so unique.
living by any other moral system that I can think of doesn't require that the originator of that system be alive, available, present.
Code of Hammarabi doesn't need Mr. Hammarabi to be with you.
Code of Confucius doesn ...[text shortened]... some fraternity's rules or any other moral code ... right? right? bump? Right? bump, bump? ..."
21 Nov 17
Originally posted by @sonshipI have not mentioned "the boy scouts code of honor" or any such thing in this conversation. Indeed I have been citing the very things you yourself have been saying: i.e. your Christian theology. I have not once used anything like "the boy scouts code of honor" or "some fraternity's rules" as an analogy. I have been referring to the Christian beliefs you have been detailing.
Hence the repeated thrust of your question - "Its just like the boy scouts code of honor or some fraternity's rules or any other moral code ... right? right? bump? Right? bump, bump? ..."
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
So did everyone get that the Law of Moses, according to the Bible itself, was not able to give ZOE [divine life] ?
This is important, I think, in discussions touching the moral argument for the existence of God.
God gave the law. But chiefly God gave the law to expose the depths of mankinds alienation and rebellion from God.
God gave the law. And the law is good, spiritual, holy, and right. But the NT says that it was WEAK through the fact that man is polluted with the sin nature in his fallen body.
" So then the law is holy, and the commandment holy and righteous and good.
Did then that which is good become death to me? Absolutely not! But sin did, that it might be shown to be sin by working out death in me through that which is good,
that sin through the commandment might become exceedingly sinful.
For we know that the law is spiritual; but I am fleshy, sold under sin." (Rom. 7:12-14)
Originally posted by @sonshipWhy are you posting messages to me, but only doing so to dodge and deflect? Why not return to your monologues and ignore my attempts to discuss or debate the thread topic with you?
Now work on some slimy rationalization to explain this away.
If my different beliefs and my tenacity make me "slimy" in yours and other people's eyes, then sling your insult and be done with it. People will decide.
And if they decide that your inability to answer my posts means something and that your behaviour forms part of the discourse, as does mine, then so be it.
I am interested in what you have said about "Christian morals" but you appear to want me to sit at your feet rather than engage you in the straightforward and on-topic way that I have.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
21 Nov 17
Originally posted by @fmfYou refer to my posts as "waffle," your posts can be referred to as "slimy."
Why are you posting messages to me, but only doing so to dodge and deflect? Why not return to your monologues and ignore my attempts to discuss or debate the thread topic with you?
If my different beliefs and my tenacity make me "slimy" in yours and other people's eyes, then sling your insult and be done with it. People will decide.
And if they decide t ...[text shortened]... to sit at your feet rather than engage you in the straightforward and on-topic way that I have.
Let me say it again. You want to refer to my carefully thought out posts as "waffle" then your replies and questions and explanations I can refer to as "slimy".
Cut with the innocent victim figure already.
Originally posted by @sonshipIf you want to call me "slimy", and if you think that has the same interpersonal tone as describing verbosity and manifold red herrings and tangents as "waffle", then so be it. But why yet another post addressed to me that isn't about "Christian morals"?
You refer to my posts as "waffle," your posts can be referred to as "slimy."
Let me say it again. You want to refer to my carefully thought out posts as "waffle" then your replies and questions and explanations I can refer to as "slimy".
Cut with the innocent victim figure already.
Originally posted by @sonshipI don't think I am "so picked on" at all. Why are you seeking to attribute this 'feeling' or perspective to me? You are making it up. Why these constant deflections. There are questions about Judas Iscariot, the Good Samaritan and about "Christian morals" that remain dodged.
Says FMF pretty much -
"Oh, I'm SOOOO picked on around here"
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
If my different beliefs and my tenacity make me "slimy" in yours and other people's eyes, then sling your insult and be done with it. People will decide.
Fair
Let me borrow your solution.
If my different beliefs and my tenacity make me ["waffle"] in yours and other people's eyes, then sling your insult and be done with it. People will decide.
That'll work.
People can decide.
Originally posted by @sonshipStill nothing on what you said to me about Judas Iscariot, or on the "Satan's morals" of the 'Good Samaritan', or my still unanswered question about the thread topic. If "Christian morals" = ordinary morals + certain (Christian) religious beliefs is not true, and there is something else in addition to your religious beliefs in supernatural causality that alters those ordinary morals, then explain what it is.If my different beliefs and my tenacity make me "slimy" in yours and other people's eyes, then sling your insult and be done with it. People will decide.
Fair
Let me borrow your solution.
If my different beliefs and my tenacity make me ["waffle"] in yours and other people's eyes, then sling your insult and be done with it. People will decide.
That'll work.
People can decide.
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
28 Nov 17
Originally posted by @fmfOrdinary morals are based upon human opinions. The Bible, as I see it, isn’t.
Still nothing on what you said to me about Judas Iscariot, or on the "Satan's morals" of the 'Good Samaritan', or my still unanswered question about the thread topic. If "Christian morals" = ordinary morals + certain (Christian) religious beliefs is not true, and there is something else in addition to your religious beliefs in supernatural causality that alters those ordinary morals, then explain what it is.