re: White House disses Easter

You know... some people celebrate taking shots developed using murdered baby cells kept alive through super cold temperatures.

To each their own.

I don't mind if you call me part of a cult as long as you admit that you are part of an anti-historic cult.

I separate religion from history, you replace history with what you were taught to believe.

I’m not religious and most of my friends are not religious, but I’m appalled by it and I’m not the only non-Christian to be appalled. Whether or not I agree with their beliefs, devout Christians care deeply about their faith and this is the most important day of the year, and has been since they started officially recognizing it in the 2nd century or so. Christians make up 63% of the population and this was a blatant woke slap in the face. You just don’t do that.

I had an agnostic Democrat friend post a 3 minute video on social media as to why this was horrible and wrong to do this. Even non-Christians are offended. You don’t have to agree but at least be respectful of the dominant religion in the country that, let’s be honest, made the country what it is.

real or the Bee?

quote:

---

Surprised we're not getting Fidel or Che Guevara days.

---

Soon...

The fact that they are doing dumb political shite like this tells me they know they have the election stolen again. This grab things has royally pissed people off.

Your "sources" are all "cult"
I'm here telling you if you are quoting something other than Tacitus or similar you are in the realm of conspiracy theory or religion.

Not sure what your wide reading of evolutionary biologist has to do with first century historical facts.

Critical biblical scholars are just as religious as religious ones, the only difference is that instead of taking late first century/ early 2nd century religious documents as gospel, they take late 2nd century or later religious documents as gospel.

It would break you to admit this, but everything past the few written records and arch digs is religion. You want to believe something so you throw away your rational mind to chase something you want to believe.

Then you feel all superior to others and try to lord over them with your lack of awareness.

quote:

---

his was a blatant woke slap in the face. You just don’t do that.

---

It's a bit more than that, they want to destroy Christianity over time.

quote:

---

Projecting your own faults onto others… what’s new?

---

I'm not projecting at all. Previous discussions with you bear this out as you frequently criticize the biblical text according to other non-biblical sources. You say why a consistent biblical interpretation cannot be accurate because of other standards that you impose on the Bible from outside the Bible.

quote:

---

Paul tells you he didn’t see eye to eye with Kephas. Open your eyes.

---

Paul rebuked Peter for his inconsistency in practice regarding his treatment of Jews and Gentiles, but that wasn't what I was talking about. My point was that you believe in a fundamental difference between the writings of the authors of Scripture because you believe the Bible is entirely man made rather than coming from the same source in God through His Spirit. Both Paul and Peter teach the same Gospel.

quote:

---

I don’t assume. I look at it rationally and if it contradicts, it contradicts. If Jesus says not to talk a staff, and also tells his apostles to take a staff in the same story of a different gospel, it’s a contradiction. You choose to insert meaning into the text and in your head that isn’t there to try to rationalize the contradiction.

---

Wrong, you are assume a contradiction and you can't see how, logically, a contradiction is not necessary where there are plausible ways to reconcile the apparent inconsistencies. You believe a contradiction must exist in the text because you start with the presupposition the the Bible is a fallible composition written by fallible human beings without any sort of supernatural guidance. So yes, you are assuming. Time and time again, you claim a contradiction exists and will argue until you're blue in the face that the contradiction still exists when others give you reasonable arguments for why a contradiction is not necessary. You can't accept a contradiction isn't really a contradiction because your entire goal of engaging in these discussions is to prove that the Bible is false in order to destroy the faith of Christians and to justify your own rejection of your Creator. You really need to stop pretending like your an entirely neutral witness in this with no ulterior motives other than understanding the truth, because your actions prove otherwise.

quote:

---

Neither one of us has objective morality because it doesn’t exist. However, you’ve already stated it is objectively moral and acceptable to kill babies. How awful.

---

You contradict yourself in this short statement. On the one hand, you admit that you don't believe objective morality exists, while on the other hand, you say that my belief (which you again mischaracterized) is "awful". You can't even be consistent within your own worldview here, because if you were consistent, you wouldn't use such words. You wouldn't say anything at all is "awful" or "wrong" or "evil", because such words would have no meaning. You want to portray a biblical understanding of morality as objectively evil and something every rational person should reject while at the same time denying that anything is objectively evil. As I say time and time again, you are a walking contradiction, and you can't be anything but a walking contradiction because your worldview doesn't comport with reality. You were made in the image of God as a moral being and you know there are objective moral judgements that can be made (as you make them regularly), but then turn around and act as if the moral judgements you make aren't actually meaningful. This shows an utter intellectual bankruptcy in your worldview as well as a moral bankruptcy.

quote:

---

crazy deluded stupidity

---

Not at all. In the last quote, I just demonstrated how you are the one who is deluded, because you act as if there is an objective moral standard to judge me by while at the same time denying that objective morality even exists.

quote:

---

Who are the sons of God, the bene Elohim, of psalms 89 and 82 and Deut 32:8 and Genesis 6? In your theology, Jesus was not the only son of God. Stop. Lying.

---

Your ignorance of Christian theology is astounding for someone who portrays himself an expert beyond even life-long Christians who have studied the Bible for far longer than you have. You think "son of God" means only one thing in the Bible? Christians believe that we, as Christians, are sons (and daughters) of God due to adoption. The term "only begotten Son" speaking of Jesus is not that there are no others called "sons of God", but that Jesus has a prominent place as a son of the Father that is unique. Just as Isaac is called Abraham's only son (Gen. 22:2) even though he had Ishmael as a son, so too Jesus is God's only son in a unique and special relational way. Jesus is the Son of God in a way that humans or any other creatures could never be, because Jesus is uniquely begotten of the Father from eternity past. You don't even understand biblical terminology and you think you are making objective and rational interpretations of the text?

quote:

---

Another vicious circular fallacy. I told you you were the master of that fallacy on this site and you aren’t disappointing us.

---

I'm enjoying your use of "vicious circular fallacy". I don't recall you using that until I called out the distinction of a reasonable circular argument compared to a fallacious one, and now you are using that word quite a lot.

A vicious circle is one in which the premise assumes the conclusion instead of providing an evidence to lead to or justify the conclusion. There aren't many circular arguments that aren't vicious, because circular reasoning merely begs the question without good reason. When it comes to authority, whatever your highest authority is has to be highest by definition, so when you seek to justify a claim based on authority, eventually it has to become circular, otherwise you get into an infinite regression which is a different fallacy.

If God is the highest authority, then there is no higher authority to appeal to, so then appealing to God as the highest authority is not viciously circular but logically necessary.

quote:

---

Can you finally just admit that you believe it is objectively moral to kill babies? We all know it, you sicko.

---

Again, I'm being careful with my words because you are not, and you twist my words to make a judgement that you are logically incapable of making according to your own professed worldview and moral framework.

Your statement is uncareful and imprecise, and it is so on purpose because you want to be able to frame me as a person who thinks it's OK for anyone to kill babies at any time by saying, "look! he thinks it's morally good to kill babies!!", and I don't believe that at all, because the biblical narrative and teaching on the 6th commandment is very clear and specific in terms of authorized taking of life vs. unauthorized taking of life. There is no way to take a unique historical account and apply it as a broad moral standard for all people in all places in all time, which is what you're attempting to do.

It is objectively moral for God to take take the lives of any He determines to take, due to our moral guilt as a fallen human beings, and God is not immoral or unjust in taking the lives of any of His creatures, even children. To say otherwise is to make an emotional plea rather than a logical one.

And again, you are making a moral judgement by calling me a "sicko", which again betrays the inconsistency of your position and why you adhere to an irrational worldview.

quote:

---

Your morals are an abomination.

---

According to what standard? Morality is entirely subjective, right?

quote:

---

I cannot be outraged by a non existent mythical entity.

---

And yet you are an instigator against Him on this forum. You can't let hardly any topic go without trying to show that He doesn't exist and His word isn't true.

quote:

---

you want to be able to frame me as a person who thinks it's OK for anyone to kill babies at any time by saying, "look! he thinks it's morally good to kill babies!!", and I don't believe that at all, because the biblical narrative and teaching on the 6th commandment is very clear and specific in terms of authorized taking of life vs. unauthorized taking of life.

---

You are finally bringing up what I wanted you to. “God” told Joshua to kill all those babies. Then “God” (before Joshua) gives a commandment not to murder others. Killing babies in some case isn’t murder (when it is just) but is murder when it isn’t justified. So even if objective morality did exist, you can’t say that it is objectively immoral to kill babies. Conversely, it is objectively moral to kill babies (sometimes) in your brain. Killing babies is not objectively wrong according to your Bible. Sucks for you to believe that crap. Your beliefs are subjectively immoral based on the prevailing moral relativism and cultural norms of our society. The only objective morality in your Bible is to do whatever god says, plain and simple. If killing is sometimes moral and sometimes immoral then it cannot be objective. Do whatever the imaginary man in your head tells you. Pretty scary. That’s how we end up with women drowning their own children and terrorists blowing up people.

What else can you justify? Your Bible says slavery is permitted. Rape - permitted. Thievery- permitted as long as you are stealing from some other group like Egypt or Philistines or Moab. Rebellious child? Stone them. Adultery? Stone them. Sex with same sex? Stone them. Sex with animal? Stone them. You see a witch or an Amelekite? Stone them. Have sex with opposite sex but without for the purpose of conception of a child? God might strike you dead. Great moral framework!!!

Or modern system of justice and laws didn’t borrow from Christianity like you mentioned. It’s the opposite. Our founding fathers rejected your laws and your fairy tales.

ETA: the Google AI bot must’ve infiltrated my phone as this just came across my feed!
Don’t Kill Children challenge with Dr William Lane Craig
Perfect match for our discussion. Dr Craig plays you perfectly in this video.