View unanswered posts | View active topics It is currently July 31st, 2014, 1:35 pm



Reply to topic  [ 68 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
 Racy Superbowl Ad Shot down by Fox. 
Author Message
RIP Killer
User avatar

Joined: June 26th, 2006, 1:03 pm
Posts: 13429
Post Re: Racy Superbowl Ad Shot down by Fox.
Difference without a distinction. You are ARE questioning it because you don't apply the same rigor to dictations. You don't use that wordage at all for a book that used a writer to coauthor a CEO or Celeb. To point it out here as something special is pushing more inconsistency from those who doubt.

Look, you call it touch, I call it making sure misinformation and double standards aren't pushed more and more. It's already dangerous enough letting you use scissors, I can't let you trying to tell others logical problems you seem want to try and find... O:)

_________________
regularjoe12 - "You are crackin me up! really! HILARIOUS um let me quote some intellgent people in this coneversation: Steensn:"


April 8th, 2011, 10:19 am
Profile
Modmin Dude
User avatar

Joined: December 31st, 2004, 9:55 am
Posts: 11945
Post Re: Racy Superbowl Ad Shot down by Fox.
steensn wrote:
Difference without a distinction. You are ARE questioning it because you don't apply the same rigor to dictations. .You don't use that wordage at all for a book that used a writer to coauthor a CEO or Celeb To point it out here as something special is pushing more inconsistency from those who doubt.

Look, you call it touch, I call it making sure misinformation and double standards aren't pushed more and more. It's already dangerous enough letting you use scissors, I can't let you trying to tell others logical problems you seem want to try and find... O:)

Maybe because from a certain point of view the CEO or Celeb is real, whereas God isn't.

_________________
Quote:
Clowns to the left of me, Jokers to the right....


April 8th, 2011, 11:17 am
Profile
RIP Killer
User avatar

Joined: June 26th, 2006, 1:03 pm
Posts: 13429
Post Re: Racy Superbowl Ad Shot down by Fox.
Sure, from a point of view there is more confirmation that the person exist, but not that they wrote or intended to write any of that. We don't even question it, that is my point.

But you are mixing up the issues here. either you believe the Bible is from God or not. If you don't believe it is from God, then humans made it up. If you do believe it is from God then it is no different than someone dictating a novel to a writer. You cannot mix up one belief with the situation, it muddies the discussion. When you do you make double standards that are logically flawed from the start.

Just because we are talking about God as the author doesn't change anything regarding how we treat dictations and authorship. It is a double standard to act as if it is any different. The issue of whether God is real or not is a SEPERATE and DISTINCT discussion that has no bearing on this because to say "It is God's word and authorship" assumes an axium of God's existence and God's authorship through dictation. If one wants to question that axium then don't muddy the discussion with whether or not someone was "speaking for God" or not. It is a red herring at that point because it ignores the REAL conflict and pits axium vs axium without discussing the real issue, the disagreement in the axium itself.

_________________
regularjoe12 - "You are crackin me up! really! HILARIOUS um let me quote some intellgent people in this coneversation: Steensn:"


April 8th, 2011, 11:26 am
Profile
Modmin Dude
User avatar

Joined: December 31st, 2004, 9:55 am
Posts: 11945
Post Re: Racy Superbowl Ad Shot down by Fox.
](*,)

_________________
Quote:
Clowns to the left of me, Jokers to the right....


April 8th, 2011, 11:49 am
Profile
RIP Killer
User avatar

Joined: June 26th, 2006, 1:03 pm
Posts: 13429
Post Re: Racy Superbowl Ad Shot down by Fox.
Come on Wags... don;t resport to that. You know as well as I do that once something becomes "religious" we change our level of rigor and requirements based on our own beliefs. Act like I'm being difficult all you want but I am just applying the same cultural requirements for religious things and non-religious things.

If you want to take your personal beliefs as an axium to find logical fallacies and pick t hings apart you are starting from the wrong spot. You cannot claim different beliefs as the basis for different standards. You may feel like ](*,) but it isn't you that should be.

_________________
regularjoe12 - "You are crackin me up! really! HILARIOUS um let me quote some intellgent people in this coneversation: Steensn:"


April 8th, 2011, 11:55 am
Profile
RIP Killer
User avatar

Joined: August 6th, 2004, 9:21 am
Posts: 9378
Location: Dallas
Post Re: Racy Superbowl Ad Shot down by Fox.
speaking of religeon and taking this off course a bit further, I need your take on something steensn. So this morning there was a rather large moth in our office, I eventually caught him and started to head outside so I could release him (or her). All the "Christians" in the office were upset that I didn't kill him. I don't get this - WWJD?

Are we not all God's creatures? Or does this just apply to humans?

_________________
Image
LB Tweet


April 8th, 2011, 12:07 pm
Profile WWW
Player of the Year - Defense

Joined: September 25th, 2007, 3:20 am
Posts: 2741
Post Re: Racy Superbowl Ad Shot down by Fox.
Did you touch the wings at all? Unless you caught it in a jar or something you did, which means it would lose its ability to fly correctly and thus suffer. So yes, sometimes killing something and putting it out of its misery is better than releasing it to die a slow death. Just like a lot of things, how you view it comes down to perspective.


April 8th, 2011, 12:37 pm
Profile
RIP Killer
User avatar

Joined: August 6th, 2004, 9:21 am
Posts: 9378
Location: Dallas
Post Re: Racy Superbowl Ad Shot down by Fox.
njroar wrote:
Did you touch the wings at all? Unless you caught it in a jar or something you did, which means it would lose its ability to fly correctly and thus suffer. So yes, sometimes killing something and putting it out of its misery is better than releasing it to die a slow death. Just like a lot of things, how you view it comes down to perspective.


Yes, caught it in a jar. And there perspective was to kill insects, especially spiders, after further discussion. Just don't get it and need some enlightening...

_________________
Image
LB Tweet


April 8th, 2011, 12:56 pm
Profile WWW
Modmin Dude
User avatar

Joined: December 31st, 2004, 9:55 am
Posts: 11945
Post Re: Racy Superbowl Ad Shot down by Fox.
steensn wrote:
Come on Wags... don;t resport to that. You know as well as I do that once something becomes "religious" we change our level of rigor and requirements based on our own beliefs. Act like I'm being difficult all you want but I am just applying the same cultural requirements for religious things and non-religious things.

If you want to take your personal beliefs as an axium to find logical fallacies and pick t hings apart you are starting from the wrong spot. You cannot claim different beliefs as the basis for different standards. You may feel like ](*,) but it isn't you that should be.

No steensn, I think I'm finally done discussing this topic with you. You claim to have an open mind, however your words tell a different story.
Wish you nothing but the best.

Peace bother.

_________________
Quote:
Clowns to the left of me, Jokers to the right....


April 8th, 2011, 1:14 pm
Profile
RIP Killer
User avatar

Joined: June 26th, 2006, 1:03 pm
Posts: 13429
Post Re: Racy Superbowl Ad Shot down by Fox.
Very interesting issue. I need to make to distinctions that the Bible assumes is true, so it is a Christina point of view. I do't want any funny business like above taking non-Christian viewpoints and logic to try and show hypocrisy or logical fallacies. I will call it out just like I did before...

Axiums (factually how it happened, doesn't matter, but the intended the stories does):

1) God created everything, somehow, and said it was good/perfect
2) That creation had sin enter at one point through manand creation was no longer perfectly good.
3) Through that, creation has in it plants and animals that make it hard for us to live and get what we need to survive. The Bible talks of "weeds" that will make it hard to grow food from the field, thorns, etc.
4) We see that God had man protect themselves from creation from the obviously ok killing of a Lion to protect the sheep to pulling the weeds to keep the fields healthy.
5) God tells us that man has domininon over the Earth, meaning we are the most important creation on Earth, we are in charge, and yes, we are RESPONCABLE as well.
6) God created MAN in his own image, giving humans a distinct difference to the animals.
7) Animals do not have a soul, plants do not have a soul.
8) Animals were used as sacrifice for our sins, not for food, not to keep us safe, just to offer up a sacrifice for our sin. Not a lot of love for creation there from God.

So, if we take all of this into account, killing plants and animals in essense in NOT a sin and is not important. They are here for us to eat (that is why they are so tasty, that is why pork is my favorite animal), they are also inhibiters of our well being and thus we absolutaly have the authority to protect ourself and our needs safe from the rest of creation. If it is a pick between humans and our needs vs anything else in the Earthly creation, it is clear in the Bible that we win, because all of creation is simply here for our service.

So if you have a spider in the house, it may cause potential harm to you, there is no issue killing it even if you could safely catch it and send it outside. The intention is what matters. You don't need to worry about looking it up on the internet to see if it is poisonous or harmful, it is not that big of a deal. The moth, I am no expert, I know that some destroy clothes and other things we need to survive. I don't find them directly harmful personally so I would likely shoo it out the window, but if someone sees it more as a direct threat to something they need to survive I certainly think there is no issue killing it without getting all the details of what kind and what it does and if it is harmful at all.

But essentially, the answer is that neither action is correct or wrong, yours or the Christians in the office. God only has special protection for humans as individuals, not everything else. Your dead dog isn't waiting for you in heaven, neither is your cat. The Bible is clearly against killing other humans to eat for food, but it all for eating anything else. It is extremely clear that God does NOT individually care for every creature in his creation to keep them safe. Spiders eat fly's, they are MADE to eat them, there is no protection for fly's. Just one example. The Bible is clear that we are not called to individually care or protect certain parts of creation.

For example, it is clear you cared enough to let the moth go free, but why doesn't that same caring instinct apply to the weeds you rip out of the garden or the herboside you spray to keep the lawn grassy (obvious generalization as I don't know if you have a garden or not, but you get teh point). If God cares for all creation, why not all of it? Where would we draw the line? It is clear that we are in opposition to our survival and some parts of creation are there JUST for that reason.

So from a general standpoint, the Bible clearly has no issue with the killing of creation for reasons outside of simply just for food. Jesus clearly grubbed himself some beef, lamb, and mutton. Jesus focused on caring for our fellow man and never onced cared to indicate any love for the bugs while he took extensive amounts time talking about how important every single person is. You asked WWJD, it is clear he though his creation was tasty, it is clear he didn't preach or give indication of not killing animals for certain reasons.

I do believe though that the intent when killing an animal matters though. If there is intent to harm, torture, mame, etc. for fun, basically intent baed on malice to the creation, then I do believe it is a sin as it then acts out an emotion that is sinful in nature.

_________________
regularjoe12 - "You are crackin me up! really! HILARIOUS um let me quote some intellgent people in this coneversation: Steensn:"


April 8th, 2011, 1:26 pm
Profile
RIP Killer
User avatar

Joined: June 26th, 2006, 1:03 pm
Posts: 13429
Post Re: Racy Superbowl Ad Shot down by Fox.
TheRealWags wrote:
steensn wrote:
Come on Wags... don;t resport to that. You know as well as I do that once something becomes "religious" we change our level of rigor and requirements based on our own beliefs. Act like I'm being difficult all you want but I am just applying the same cultural requirements for religious things and non-religious things.

If you want to take your personal beliefs as an axium to find logical fallacies and pick t hings apart you are starting from the wrong spot. You cannot claim different beliefs as the basis for different standards. You may feel like ](*,) but it isn't you that should be.

No steensn, I think I'm finally done discussing this topic with you. You claim to have an open mind, however your words tell a different story.
Wish you nothing but the best.

Peace bother.


Sorry Wags, think what you want, but I'm open to the axium of God and what is truth, not applying other peoples beliefs to another belief to find terrible logical arguments.

If you find be going to the source of the disagreement not being open minded, then I'm not because you have scoped "open mindedness" to "any beliefe no matter how nonsensical and logically flawed it is based on." I am NOT open minded to someone claiming something is illogical by picking an axium we do not even agree on.

If you wish to think that because it is "religion" that "open minded" means "anyhing goes" then you are being very hypocritical. I don;t mind if you don't wish to discuss it with me, that is your decision, but I can't fake being open minded to nonsensical claims and double standards. I have taken the painstaking time to explain this VERY well without being dismissive at all. I couldn't be more clear regarding what I have a problem with and if you want to transform it inot something esle, you are free to, but it is very much not the case.

Religion is a touchy subject because for some reason it get's different standards and rigor than anything else. Why? Because it becomes personal. Well, almost anything else, politics gets the same nonsense, but other than that the double standards are so obviously aparent that it is clera people really don't care.

If you really think that the fact someone doesn't believe the Bible to be true matters when discussing whether Christians believe the Bible to be God's word or not is utter nonsense. It is logically flawed fromt he beginning because the disagreement is about the base belief, not whether God using people through dictations means it is his direct words or not. If the disagreement is about the axiums, THEN LETS TALK ABOUT THEM, instead of going around in circles about nonsense.

I am putting the discussion AT the point of dispute, that is what I am open minded about. I am NOT open minded about nonsensical one liners or logical fallacies based on claims flawed because it is based on axiums we haven't even agreed on yet.

You are trying to straddle the line betweeen post modernism and modernis. you require modernism proof for Christianity and then rely on post modern regor for your own beliefs. This is creating quite a bit of nonsense claims about me and your projections of what I am willing to be open to and not open to.

If we cannot agree on objective, subjective, absolute, and relative truth/morality... how can we have an opne minded discussion about anything else? If we cannot even agree on the basic premises needed to expound upon for detailed discussions, how can we determine who is open minded and who is not? It's silly. It is like arguing mathamatical expressions while we haven't even decided if we are in time domain or frequency domain. It's liek trying to grade a paper for grammer when you haven't even picked a language yet.

Why does anyone expect open mindedness for all ideas if we cannot even agree on the basic principles to which it make a conclusion on? We simply cannot discuss the Bible's legitimacy if one side believes that truth is subjective/relative and the other believes truth is objective/absolute. Just because I point that out doesn't make me closed minded, it means I realize the REAL disagreement and the root of the problem. If that makes me closed minded in your eyes... guilty...

_________________
regularjoe12 - "You are crackin me up! really! HILARIOUS um let me quote some intellgent people in this coneversation: Steensn:"


April 8th, 2011, 1:51 pm
Profile
RIP Killer
User avatar

Joined: August 6th, 2004, 9:21 am
Posts: 9378
Location: Dallas
Post Re: Racy Superbowl Ad Shot down by Fox.
steensn wrote:
Very interesting issue. I need to make to distinctions that the Bible assumes is true, so it is a Christina point of view. I do't want any funny business like above taking non-Christian viewpoints and logic to try and show hypocrisy or logical fallacies. I will call it out just like I did before...

Axiums (factually how it happened, doesn't matter, but the intended the stories does):

1) God created everything, somehow, and said it was good/perfect
2) That creation had sin enter at one point through manand creation was no longer perfectly good.
3) Through that, creation has in it plants and animals that make it hard for us to live and get what we need to survive. The Bible talks of "weeds" that will make it hard to grow food from the field, thorns, etc.
4) We see that God had man protect themselves from creation from the obviously ok killing of a Lion to protect the sheep to pulling the weeds to keep the fields healthy.
5) God tells us that man has domininon over the Earth, meaning we are the most important creation on Earth, we are in charge, and yes, we are RESPONCABLE as well.
6) God created MAN in his own image, giving humans a distinct difference to the animals.
7) Animals do not have a soul, plants do not have a soul.
8) Animals were used as sacrifice for our sins, not for food, not to keep us safe, just to offer up a sacrifice for our sin. Not a lot of love for creation there from God.

So, if we take all of this into account, killing plants and animals in essense in NOT a sin and is not important. They are here for us to eat (that is why they are so tasty, that is why pork is my favorite animal), they are also inhibiters of our well being and thus we absolutaly have the authority to protect ourself and our needs safe from the rest of creation. If it is a pick between humans and our needs vs anything else in the Earthly creation, it is clear in the Bible that we win, because all of creation is simply here for our service.

So if you have a spider in the house, it may cause potential harm to you, there is no issue killing it even if you could safely catch it and send it outside. The intention is what matters. You don't need to worry about looking it up on the internet to see if it is poisonous or harmful, it is not that big of a deal. The moth, I am no expert, I know that some destroy clothes and other things we need to survive. I don't find them directly harmful personally so I would likely shoo it out the window, but if someone sees it more as a direct threat to something they need to survive I certainly think there is no issue killing it without getting all the details of what kind and what it does and if it is harmful at all.

But essentially, the answer is that neither action is correct or wrong, yours or the Christians in the office. God only has special protection for humans as individuals, not everything else. Your dead dog isn't waiting for you in heaven, neither is your cat. The Bible is clearly against killing other humans to eat for food, but it all for eating anything else. It is extremely clear that God does NOT individually care for every creature in his creation to keep them safe. Spiders eat fly's, they are MADE to eat them, there is no protection for fly's. Just one example. The Bible is clear that we are not called to individually care or protect certain parts of creation.

For example, it is clear you cared enough to let the moth go free, but why doesn't that same caring instinct apply to the weeds you rip out of the garden or the herboside you spray to keep the lawn grassy (obvious generalization as I don't know if you have a garden or not, but you get teh point). If God cares for all creation, why not all of it? Where would we draw the line? It is clear that we are in opposition to our survival and some parts of creation are there JUST for that reason.

So from a general standpoint, the Bible clearly has no issue with the killing of creation for reasons outside of simply just for food. Jesus clearly grubbed himself some beef, lamb, and mutton. Jesus focused on caring for our fellow man and never onced cared to indicate any love for the bugs while he took extensive amounts time talking about how important every single person is. You asked WWJD, it is clear he though his creation was tasty, it is clear he didn't preach or give indication of not killing animals for certain reasons.

I do believe though that the intent when killing an animal matters though. If there is intent to harm, torture, mame, etc. for fun, basically intent baed on malice to the creation, then I do believe it is a sin as it then acts out an emotion that is sinful in nature.


Thank you for the detailed response, I even got a bonus of finding out what your favorite meat was... I knew you could shed some light on this issue, much appreciated.

_________________
Image
LB Tweet


April 8th, 2011, 2:01 pm
Profile WWW
RIP Killer
User avatar

Joined: June 26th, 2006, 1:03 pm
Posts: 13429
Post Re: Racy Superbowl Ad Shot down by Fox.
And you are totally capable of disagreeing in principle that animals are worth X value compared to humans per your own beliefs. I only contend to show what the Biblical stance is on this based on the Christian belief that the Bible is 100% truth and God's word. I'm not claiming to be more correct than you, just giving insight to with the given axiums of Christianity what the world view of it is.

And just a question, can you find a more versatile animal than pork? Really? You name it, it can be used for it.... mmm mmm good.

_________________
regularjoe12 - "You are crackin me up! really! HILARIOUS um let me quote some intellgent people in this coneversation: Steensn:"


April 8th, 2011, 2:31 pm
Profile
RIP Killer
User avatar

Joined: August 6th, 2004, 9:21 am
Posts: 9378
Location: Dallas
Post Re: Racy Superbowl Ad Shot down by Fox.
steensn wrote:
And you are totally capable of disagreeing in principle that animals are worth X value compared to humans per your own beliefs. I only contend to show what the Biblical stance is on this based on the Christian belief that the Bible is 100% truth and God's word. I'm not claiming to be more correct than you, just giving insight to with the given axiums of Christianity what the world view of it is.

And just a question, can you find a more versatile animal than pork? Really? You name it, it can be used for it.... mmm mmm good.


All I was looking for was the Biblical stance, which you provided. While I naturally value humans over, say insects, I believe in not harming animals whenever possible (and I eat meat and love it) - I was just trying to get a better understanding of their viewpoints. Givin the historical context of when the Bible was written, I'm not surprised by the outlook towards animals. While I don't agree with it, I must certainly thank God for creating all these wonderful and varied species, and Noah for preserving them through the great flood if that indeed is what happened.

As for pork, I love bacon, ham and ribs so I'm not going to question the yumminess. Give the big man some serious credit on that one.

_________________
Image
LB Tweet


April 8th, 2011, 3:04 pm
Profile WWW
RIP Killer
User avatar

Joined: June 26th, 2006, 1:03 pm
Posts: 13429
Post Re: Racy Superbowl Ad Shot down by Fox.
Pablo wrote:
All I was looking for was the Biblical stance, which you provided. While I naturally value humans over, say insects, I believe in not harming animals whenever possible (and I eat meat and love it) - I was just trying to get a better understanding of their viewpoints. Givin the historical context of when the Bible was written, I'm not surprised by the outlook towards animals. While I don't agree with it, I must certainly thank God for creating all these wonderful and varied species, and Noah for preserving them through the great flood if that indeed is what happened.

As for pork, I love bacon, ham and ribs so I'm not going to question the yumminess. Give the big man some serious credit on that one.


That is good, this is usually where the disagreement breaks down, see above. You are aware that the conclusions are based on different axiums and discussion isn't who conclusions are correct but rather who's axiums are if we really wanted to discuss it and talk about "open mindedness."

_________________
regularjoe12 - "You are crackin me up! really! HILARIOUS um let me quote some intellgent people in this coneversation: Steensn:"


April 8th, 2011, 3:07 pm
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic   [ 68 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: rao, Touchdown Jesus and 3 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group.
Designed by STSoftware.