RE: is religion a tool created to control knowledge

RE: is religion a tool created to control knowledge (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

Kirata -> RE: is religion a tool created to control knowledge (1/19/2014 3:39:38 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: GotSteel Let's talk about some of the more contextually appropriate definitions for murder. They are only more "contextually appropriate" given certain presumptions. For example, if you presume it to be the case that when you're dead you're dead, that this is the only life you'll ever have, then the act of taking it from you unjustly is worthy of abhorrence. But if you presume that death is not the end, that there is life after death, for the good and for the innocent a much better one, then having your life recalled by its giver presents a very different context. However, neither you nor Milesnmiles can possibly know that your presumptions are correct. So, all this posturing amounts to nothing more or less than a food-fight between a couple of priests. K.

Milesnmiles -> RE: is religion a tool created to control knowledge (1/19/2014 5:06:59 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: GotSteel quote: ORIGINAL: Milesnmiles ]Perhaps this will help you with your reading comprehension; "Murder is the unlawful killing, with malice aforethought, of another human". (Wikipedia) Interestingly, none of this definition applies to God. [sm=rofl.gif] Remember how we were talking about that issue with your thought process: quote: ORIGINAL: GotSteel ignore/bend/invent everything else to fit that presupposition This is another perfect example. You're contesting my statement that Yahweh murders innocent children because out of the multiple common definitions for the word murder you chose to misattribute one of the definitions that didn't fit instead of using a appropriate definition. In other words you're bending things to fit your presupposition. Actually it is a perfect example of your inability to reason. I went to bing, I typed in "murder", the first thing top of the list was Wikipedia. Since you cited Wikipedia I thought you might accept it but no, you choose to accuse me of choosing to ""misattribute" one of the definitions that didn't fit instead of using a appropriate definition", of "bending thing to fit". The thing is you just don't like the actual definition of the word and now you're upset because it doesn't fit your idea of what murder should mean. I think you need to get a grip. ;-)

Milesnmiles -> RE: is religion a tool created to control knowledge (1/19/2014 6:27:32 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: GotSteel Let's talk about some of the more contextually appropriate definitions for murder. Okay. quote: Ponder for a moment that we've been talking about the killing of a good child, innocent of the "crime" for which punishment is being carried out. This good child is killed specifically to sadistically torture someone else. We are talking about the death of a child and not about a child that was killed. There is no mention of torture, that is you again "ignore/bend/invent everything else to fit" what you want it to say. quote: Ergo it would be reasonable to conclude that my use of the word is to convey my sense of abhorrence at the cruel and unreasonable nature of the act stemming solely from Yahweh's own anger management problems as opposed to anything the child deserved. As I have already answered your "evidence", your conclusion thus does not follow. quote: So you should be looking at definitions more like these instead of disregarding my point on account of a technical loophole which you added to my statement. As I have already pointed out; I went to bing, I typed in "murder", the first thing top of the list was Wikipedia. Since you cited Wikipedia I thought you might accept it but no, you choose to accuse me of choosing to ""misattribute" one of the definitions that didn't fit instead of using a appropriate definition", of "bending thing to fit". quote: ORIGINAL: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/murder 5. to kill or slaughter inhumanly or barbarously. How far did you have to search to come up with this definition, that that is not even a primary definition, so it would fit your presuppositions? quote: ORIGINAL: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/murder 2. To kill brutally or inhumanly. How far did you have to search to come up with this definition, that that is not even a primary definition, so it would fit your presuppositions?

mnottertail -> RE: is religion a tool created to control knowledge (1/20/2014 5:11:35 AM)
Uh, learn about dictionaries before you blather on about that shit, the nuances of the definitions contain no primary or secondary or tertiary definitions. the definition marked 2007 is as valid and useable as the one marked one. (there could be some quibble if it is marked (archaic) but no, one does not favor another.

vincentML -> RE: is religion a tool created to control knowledge (1/20/2014 8:57:18 AM)
quote: It is something that has happened and was witnessed by many. Just because you weren't here doesn't mean it didn't happen. Ah, no. People did not witness the resurrection. Only the empty tomb. All else may have been conjecture or hysteria with hallucinations added. So, not a fact until tested in this world. We know of no other world as fact. quote: Justify? If mankind followed the principles already put forth by God in his word the Bible, the Holocaust would not have happened. Now because mankind ignores the principles God has laid out to be followed and kill each other in large numbers it is God's fault? So, god was willing to stand by and watch the murder of 6 million in Europe to uphold a principle? What a bastard! And yet he condoned ethnic cleansing at Jericho. So, why did he abandon his chosen people in 1941?

EdBowie -> RE: is religion a tool created to control knowledge (1/20/2014 9:00:50 AM)
You can make up as many imaginary attributes for a deity as you wish, you don't get to make up imaginary rules as to which definition in the dictionary is 'allowed'. quote: ORIGINAL: Milesnmiles quote: ORIGINAL: GotSteel Let's talk about some of the more contextually appropriate definitions for murder. Okay. quote: Ponder for a moment that we've been talking about the killing of a good child, innocent of the "crime" for which punishment is being carried out. This good child is killed specifically to sadistically torture someone else. We are talking about the death of a child and not about a child that was killed. There is no mention of torture, that is you again "ignore/bend/invent everything else to fit" what you want it to say. quote: Ergo it would be reasonable to conclude that my use of the word is to convey my sense of abhorrence at the cruel and unreasonable nature of the act stemming solely from Yahweh's own anger management problems as opposed to anything the child deserved. As I have already answered your "evidence", your conclusion thus does not follow. quote: So you should be looking at definitions more like these instead of disregarding my point on account of a technical loophole which you added to my statement. As I have already pointed out; I went to bing, I typed in "murder", the first thing top of the list was Wikipedia. Since you cited Wikipedia I thought you might accept it but no, you choose to accuse me of choosing to ""misattribute" one of the definitions that didn't fit instead of using a appropriate definition", of "bending thing to fit". quote: ORIGINAL: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/murder 5. to kill or slaughter inhumanly or barbarously. How far did you have to search to come up with this definition, that that is not even a primary definition, so it would fit your presuppositions? quote: ORIGINAL: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/murder 2. To kill brutally or inhumanly. How far did you have to search to come up with this definition, that that is not even a primary definition, so it would fit your presuppositions?

altoonamaster -> RE: is religion a tool created to control knowledge (1/20/2014 9:00:59 AM)
religion now is the biggest con game going

GotSteel -> RE: is religion a tool created to control knowledge (1/20/2014 9:03:09 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail Uh, learn about dictionaries before you blather on about that shit, the nuances of the definitions contain no primary or secondary or tertiary definitions. the definition marked 2007 is as valid and useable as the one marked one. (there could be some quibble if it is marked (archaic) but no, one does not favor another. Milesn miles it seems like I owe you an apology over my claim that you were bending things. My reasoning involved the premise that you had at least an elementary school level of ability at operating dictionaries. Bad assumption on my part, sorry.

vincentML -> RE: is religion a tool created to control knowledge (1/20/2014 9:14:42 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: chatterbox24 No I can not. This is why I believe it's very important people read and find their very own paths. We all have individual destinations. Sometimes you have to be the sheep in wolves clothing. Know when to follow and know when not too. If you were in a meadow even a well fed wolf would prefer the sheep in the meadow rather then wolves. Wolves are predators and will eat their own if let to their own devices. But sheep would starve and it would never occur to them to eat their own. That's the difference between animals and humans. We have superior choices to be either a wolf or a sheep and the intellect when to be either with the right knowledge. What you say is commendable and accurately reflects the conflicts individuals face when constrained by their learned morals. Well said. However, history is replete with the collaborative evil of priests and princes that exploited the innocent and defenseless. My point is that the structural power for evil of that collaboration answers the question posed in the OP. Sadly, it continues. Now Islam persecutes Christians. Bummer.

vincentML -> RE: is religion a tool created to control knowledge (1/20/2014 9:16:18 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: altoonamaster religion now is the biggest con game going welcome to the lower depths of CM :)

GotSteel -> RE: is religion a tool created to control knowledge (1/20/2014 9:20:17 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Milesnmiles There is no mention of torture, that is you again "ignore/bend/invent everything else to fit" what you want it to say. When I said sadisticly torture I was referring to how Yahweh instead of just punishing the "guilty" brags to Jeroboam to go look and see that Yahweh is destroying/burning up the guy's family right now. I'm pretty sure I'd made that clear in a previous post. quote: ORIGINAL: Milesnmiles We are talking about the death of a child and not about a child that was killed [sm=rofl.gif] WTF I thought you believed the Bible...Yahweh flat out says he's destroying the goog child. Are you calling Yahweh a liar?

vincentML -> RE: is religion a tool created to control knowledge (1/20/2014 9:23:46 AM)
quote: Strange, I didn't read there that "Yahweh" murdered that child. Read the passage more carefully. The Lord said: I will bring disaster on your dynasty and will destroy every one of your male descendants, slave and free alike, In the next section the child is referred to as HIM Seems pretty clear.

mnottertail -> RE: is religion a tool created to control knowledge (1/20/2014 9:36:09 AM)
Now go and smite Amalek(ites), and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass. Its in Sammie.

mnottertail -> RE: is religion a tool created to control knowledge (1/20/2014 9:38:16 AM)
2:34 And we took all his cities at that time, and utterly destroyed the men, and the women, and the little ones, of every city, we left none to remain: Deutie.

vincentML -> RE: is religion a tool created to control knowledge (1/20/2014 9:42:46 AM)
Just an irritable and vengeful old Dude [8\|]

Milesnmiles -> RE: is religion a tool created to control knowledge (1/20/2014 11:09:20 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail Uh, learn about dictionaries before you blather on about that shit, the nuances of the definitions contain no primary or secondary or tertiary definitions. the definition marked 2007 is as valid and useable as the one marked one. (there could be some quibble if it is marked (archaic) but no, one does not favor another. You're back, by the way did you ever find that word in a real dictionary? Till then stop trolling. ;-)

mnottertail -> RE: is religion a tool created to control knowledge (1/20/2014 11:10:53 AM)
I did cite it, and I am not the troll, I am just pointing out that you are saying some of the stupidest shit here that has ever been uttered in the world. That's all. BTW, check your OED, it is in there.

Milesnmiles -> RE: is religion a tool created to control knowledge (1/20/2014 11:33:48 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML Ah, no. People did not witness the resurrection. Only the empty tomb. All else may have been conjecture or hysteria with hallucinations added. So, not a fact until tested in this world. We know of no other world as fact. Perhaps you should actually read the Bible before you make ignorant statement like this. (Luke 7:12-17) quote: So, god was willing to stand by and watch the murder of 6 million in Europe to uphold a principle? What a bastard! And yet he condoned ethnic cleansing at Jericho. So, why did he abandon his chosen people in 1941? They were not his chosen people at the time, they had long ago forsaken their relationship with God many times over. As for "standing by" I already answered that, humans that have turned away from God can not expect help from someone they have turned their back on and have basically told they don't want his help. Also God was not condoning "ethnic cleansing" at Jericho, because it had nothing to do with what racial, national, tribal, religious, linguistic, or cultural origin or background they had, it had to do with the horrendous abominable lives they were living.

mnottertail -> RE: is religion a tool created to control knowledge (1/20/2014 11:41:23 AM)
So with all these humans turned away from god, how come he aint frying them up like the six million? In the desert, in Egypt, in Zionism, Adam and Eve, Noah, Peter, he didnt see all this back turning coming? What kind of ignoramus is this god fairytale anyway?

Milesnmiles -> RE: is religion a tool created to control knowledge (1/20/2014 11:44:59 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: EdBowie You can make up as many imaginary attributes for a deity as you wish, you don't get to make up imaginary rules as to which definition in the dictionary is 'allowed'. quote: ORIGINAL: Milesnmiles quote: ORIGINAL: GotSteel Let's talk about some of the more contextually appropriate definitions for murder. Okay. quote: Ponder for a moment that we've been talking about the killing of a good child, innocent of the "crime" for which punishment is being carried out. This good child is killed specifically to sadistically torture someone else. We are talking about the death of a child and not about a child that was killed. There is no mention of torture, that is you again "ignore/bend/invent everything else to fit" what you want it to say. quote: Ergo it would be reasonable to conclude that my use of the word is to convey my sense of abhorrence at the cruel and unreasonable nature of the act stemming solely from Yahweh's own anger management problems as opposed to anything the child deserved. As I have already answered your "evidence", your conclusion thus does not follow. quote: So you should be looking at definitions more like these instead of disregarding my point on account of a technical loophole which you added to my statement. As I have already pointed out; I went to bing, I typed in "murder", the first thing top of the list was Wikipedia. Since you cited Wikipedia I thought you might accept it but no, you choose to accuse me of choosing to ""misattribute" one of the definitions that didn't fit instead of using a appropriate definition", of "bending thing to fit". quote: ORIGINAL: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/murder 5. to kill or slaughter inhumanly or barbarously. How far did you have to search to come up with this definition, that that is not even a primary definition, so it would fit your presuppositions? quote: ORIGINAL: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/murder 2. To kill brutally or inhumanly. How far did you have to search to come up with this definition, that that is not even a primary definition, so it would fit your presuppositions? People, people, doesn't anyone know how a dictionary works? When you look up a word in a dictionary, the first or #1 definition is the primary or most often used definition of the word in question. Which is what I said. I did not say that the other definitions were wrong or could not be used, just that are not what is considered by that dictionary to be the primary definition or the way the word is used most often. ;-)

Page: << < prev 19 20 [21] 22 23 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.078125