Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,810 Year: 3,067/9,624 Month: 912/1,588 Week: 95/223 Day: 6/17 Hour: 2/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Prophecy vs Free will
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 61 of 168 (630005)
08-21-2011 11:48 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by fearandloathing
08-21-2011 7:54 PM


Re: Prediction Doesn't Interfere With Free Will
The term "false witness' could be construed to mean many things depending on your point of view. I feel it means telling any lie for any reason.
Let's consider the actual ninth commandment as presented in Deuteronomy 5:20 (KJV)
"Neither shalt thou bear false witness against thy neighbour"
How would telling your wife you liked her dress be any kind of witness against your wife? I think it is pretty clear that the literal meaning of the commandment is not about general lying.
False witnessing might include non-judicial settings, but I don't see the commandment applying to general lying if taken literally. Not that lying is a good thing just because there is not a commandment against it. None of the 10 commandments address aggravated assault, spewing ethnic slurs, or not paying child support.
Here are a few other translations, some of which I think make my point.
New International Version
"You shall not give false testimony against your neighbor.
New Living Translation
"You must not testify falsely against your neighbor.
English Standard Version
And you shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.
New American Standard Bible
'You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.
GOD'S WORD Translation (1995)
"Never avoid the truth when you testify about your neighbor.
American King James Version
Neither shall you bear false witness against your neighbor.
American Standard Version
Neither shalt thou bear false witness against thy neighbor.
Bible in Basic English
Do not give false witness against your neighbour;
Douay-Rheims Bible
Neither shalt thou bear false witness against thy neighbour.
Darby Bible Translation
Neither shalt thou bear false witness against thy neighbour.
English Revised Version
Neither shalt thou bear false witness against thy neighbour.
Webster's Bible Translation
Neither shalt thou bear false witness against thy neighbor.
World English Bible
"Neither shall you give false testimony against your neighbor.
Young's Literal Translation
'Thou dost not answer against thy neighbour -- a false testimony.
Geneva Study Bible
Neither shalt thou bear false witness against thy neighbor.
I think the key thing is that the lie must hurt your neighbor. The commandment surely did not require telling the German's that the Frank family is hiding in your house even if they asked.
OFF TOPIC - Please Do Not Respond to this message by continuing in this vein.
AdminPD
Edited by AdminPD, : Warning

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by fearandloathing, posted 08-21-2011 7:54 PM fearandloathing has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by IamJoseph, posted 08-22-2011 12:48 AM NoNukes has seen this message but not replied

Butterflytyrant
Member (Idle past 4421 days)
Posts: 415
From: Australia
Joined: 06-28-2011


Message 62 of 168 (630006)
08-21-2011 11:56 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by IamJoseph
08-21-2011 9:36 PM


Re: Prediction Doesn't Interfere With Free Will
IamJoseph,
I will try again to improve your arguement by means of education.
Getting frustrated with you is pointless. I will continue trying to point out problems with your arguements and try to help you help yourself.
I dont know if you are having trouble with the actual definitions of words or if you are being ignorant on purpose. Whatever the reason, I will try to help with definitions of a few words. It will help you argue more effectively and will help others understand what you are saying.
my comment - Commandments are different to laws.
your reply - No sir. Rituals are different to laws. A law happens with the world's substantial institutions accept and enshrine a Commandment as LAW.
Rituals are different to laws. Potplants are also different to laws. This does not change the fact that Commandments are different to laws.
Commandments can become laws. You have shown this in your own post. However, there are no laws that are direct copies of commandments. They need to be altered in order for them to be effective in todays society. For example, take though shalt not kill. If the law was a simple as that, every soldier would be in jail. very person who killed someone in self defence would be in jail. Every doctor who attempted a surgery that had a high chance of killing the patient would be in jail. Commandments can be used as a base for some laws. But the commansment is changed to become a law. It is one thing, then it is changed to be another thing. Commandments do not automatically become laws. Take the first commandment, I am the Lord your God, you shal have no other Gods but me. Imagine trying to create a law that states that every citizen must worship a God and that God alone. It would never happen in any western nation. As far as I am aware, it is only law in some Islamic nations.
my somment - I can work as much as I like on the Sabbath,
your reply - No sir. One day per seven rest with pay is obligatory as a law. An employer as well as an employee has this right and it can be legally enforced. If you can't do it in six you won't do it better in 7; you shall not live by bread alone.
You need to research your claims before you make them. And think about it a bit before you make it. There are laws in some nations that say that an employer can only have an employee work a certain number of days. However, there is no law to say that a worker cannot have 2 or 3 jobs, working all 7 days of the week. So, the comment stands, I can work as much as I want on the sabbath, thus breaking one of the commandments and also NOT breaking any laws. Also, it is not illegal to work 7 days a week in many industries. Oil platform workers, miners, commercial fishermen and most people who work in seasonal harvesting commonly work for up to 3 months straight. I have done this personally. I have worked on fishing boats for between 28 ans 31 days at a time with a 3 day rollover in port between trips. I have worked fly in, fly out at mine sites, 14 days on 5 days off. I have worked on farming sites where the harvest needs to in as quickly as possible. I have worked a harvest on one farm for about 20 days, then travelled straight to another farm for another week or so, then to another farm and so on. It is called working the harvest trail. It breaks one of the commandments but no laws.
There is also a big difference in enforcement between commandments and laws. One is governed by God, the other by members of law enforcement in the mortal world.
The statement that if you cant do it in 6 you wont do it better in 7 only needs a brief, brief moment of actual thought to dispute. Come on IamJoseph, think about it before you say it. Refer to any of my previous examples.
my comment - I can covet my neighbors wife, she is about 80 so I dont, but I could if i were so inclined,
your reply - Agreed you can. The point is you can also be convicted with a criminal record and end up behind bars. Its the law.
Can you provide me with the law that states I cannot desire my neighbors wife? There is no such law. I can think whatever I like. There is no law that I am aware of in any nation that prevents this or even discusses it. I could covet my neighnours wife, work to create situations where I could spend more time with her, seduce her, have an affair with her, get her to divorce her husband and them move in with me. I could do all of this without breaking any laws. It would be morally wrong because I like my neighbor (he gives me fresh rosemary and basil from his garden and always waves), and his wife is 80 and this does not really do it for me. If you can produce an actual law that states that I cannot covet my neighbours wife or even seduce her and take her for my own, I will retract and concede. But I dont think you will be able to do this. Saying 'its the law' does not actually make it the law.
my comment - I make wrongful use of the lords name on a regular basis and I reject God.
your reply - Agreed you can. But if done loudly it can land you in prison for incitement and hateful speech.
This depends on your interpretation of the commandment. Some believe that taking the lords name in vain is anything from using 'jesus christ' of 'for Gods sake' as a curse up to breaking an oath sworn in the name of God. I was refering to using the lords name in a blasphemous manner. Something I do regularly. It is not illegal. It is not hate speech. I can do this as load as I want. It is much more acceptable to yell 'jesus christ' if i hit my hand with a hammer than if I yelled 'fucking cunt'. Using the lords name in vain is not hate speech and it is not illegal. If you believe that it is, please produce the law.
As for breaking an oath after swearing in the lords name. Because of the multucultural nature of many western nations, swearing in front of the lord is not always used. In all of my court appearances I have made a swearing in statement because swearing in the eyes of a deity I do not wrship is worthless. It would be the same as me swearing in the eyes of Zeus. This swearing in statement is common in Western nations. Less common in the USA but in Europe and Australia and NZ and also I believe in Canada it is quite common.
,y comment - Also, as an athiest, I have no fear of your god punishing me for breaking his rules. That is another reason I do not recognise your commandments.
your reply - Ignorance of the law or your non-recognition of the law or being an atheist are not means of escape from the law.
I have already shown you the differnce between Gods commandments and the law. I do not recognise the commandments as rules I need to follow. i do not recognise the God who gave them. i do not recognise the books they were written in as influenced by God. There is no reason at all for me to follow any of the commandments. I do follow the laws of my nation. Some of them may be similar in some way to the commandments, but that makes no difference. I follow the law, not the commandments. I am not ignorant of the law. i am more well versed than most through personal experience and through my work. Can you produce the laws that you believe I am violating by working on the sabbath, by coveting my neighbors wife or by taking the lords name in vain.
I am eager to know what they are because it would mean that I have been breaking the law and avoiding punishment (jail time according to your replies) without even knowing it for decades.
OFF TOPIC - Please Do Not Respond to this message by continuing in this vein.
AdminPD
Edited by AdminPD, : Warning

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by IamJoseph, posted 08-21-2011 9:36 PM IamJoseph has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by IamJoseph, posted 08-22-2011 12:45 AM Butterflytyrant has replied

Butterflytyrant
Member (Idle past 4421 days)
Posts: 415
From: Australia
Joined: 06-28-2011


Message 63 of 168 (630007)
08-22-2011 12:01 AM
Reply to: Message 58 by IamJoseph
08-21-2011 10:15 PM


Re: Prediction Doesn't Interfere With Free Will
Iamjoseph,
Two things -
you are bound to moral/ethical/judiciary commandments which have been accepted as LAW. All such Hebrew laws [non-ritual] are accepted as the LAW - comprehensively and exclusively seen in the Hebrew bible.
This is an unsubstantiated. No evidence supplied, no sources.
It has also been proven to be wrong on a number of occasions.
The most recent is here -
Message 47
2nd -
if 20% of the human pop goes gay, humanity will not survive after a few generations.
How the hell did you work this out? Can you provide the maths? Telling me to work it out for myself or to prove you wrong does not constitute an answer. You need to provide your working as to how you came to the conclusion that if 20% of all humans are homosexual then the human speacies will beccome extinct in 3 generations. This may be the dumbest thing you have ever said by the way.
OFF TOPIC - Please Do Not Respond to this message by continuing in this vein.
AdminPD
Edited by Butterflytyrant, : No reason given.
Edited by AdminPD, : Warnng

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by IamJoseph, posted 08-21-2011 10:15 PM IamJoseph has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by IamJoseph, posted 08-22-2011 12:50 AM Butterflytyrant has replied
 Message 67 by IamJoseph, posted 08-22-2011 1:10 AM Butterflytyrant has not replied

IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3668 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 64 of 168 (630012)
08-22-2011 12:45 AM
Reply to: Message 62 by Butterflytyrant
08-21-2011 11:56 PM


Re: Prediction Doesn't Interfere With Free Will
quote:
Rituals are different to laws. Potplants are also different to laws. This does not change the fact that Commandments are different to laws.
No, your distinction, still bent on ridicule, is itself ridiculous. Rituals are applicable only to specifically directed people for specifically directed reasons and prefixed 'unto you'; mostly these serve as funny uniforms for postmen and reminder ceremonies. Thus it is not a violation if a Christian consumes pork, for example, this ritual was not given them.
quote:
Commandments can become laws. You have shown this in your own post. However, there are no laws that are direct copies of commandments. They need to be altered in order for them to be effective in todays society. For example, take though shalt not kill. If the law was a simple as that, every soldier would be in jail. very person who killed someone in self defence would be in jail. Every doctor who attempted a surgery that had a high chance of killing the patient would be in jail. Commandments can be used as a base for some laws. But the commansment is changed to become a law. It is one thing, then it is changed to be another thing. Commandments do not automatically become laws. Take the first commandment, I am the Lord your God, you shal have no other Gods but me. Imagine trying to create a law that states that every citizen must worship a God and that God alone. It would never happen in any western nation. As far as I am aware, it is only law in some Islamic nations.
NOT TO MURDER is the correct translation. Obviously, you have not read and considered all the laws: a soldier is condoned by other laws of national defense and not inter-related as in your portrayal.
quote:
my somment - I can work as much as I like on the Sabbath,
your reply - No sir. One day per seven rest with pay is obligatory as a law. An employer as well as an employee has this right and it can be legally enforced. If you can't do it in six you won't do it better in 7; you shall not live by bread alone.
You need to research your claims before you make them. And think about it a bit before you make it. There are laws in some nations that say that an employer can only have an employee work a certain number of days. However, there is no law to say that a worker cannot have 2 or 3 jobs, working all 7 days of the week. So, the comment stands, I can work as much as I want on the sabbath, thus breaking one of the commandments and also NOT breaking any laws. Also, it is not illegal to work 7 days a week in many industries. Oil platform workers, miners, commercial fishermen and most people who work in seasonal harvesting commonly work for up to 3 months straight. I have done this personally. I have worked on fishing boats for between 28 ans 31 days at a time with a 3 day rollover in port between trips. I have worked fly in, fly out at mine sites, 14 days on 5 days off. I have worked on farming sites where the harvest needs to in as quickly as possible. I have worked a harvest on one farm for about 20 days, then travelled straight to another farm for another week or so, then to another farm and so on. It is called working the harvest trail. It breaks one of the commandments but no laws.
You can work yourself ever second of your life. But the law of 1 day of rest with pay stands, whether it is maintained on a sunday or a friday does not matter here. Why are you argueing what is blatant?
quote:
Can you provide me with the law that states I cannot desire my neighbors wife? There is no such law. I can think whatever I like. There is no law that I am aware of in any nation that prevents this or even discusses it. I could covet my neighnours wife, work to create situations where I could spend more time with her, seduce her, have an affair with her, get her to divorce her husband and them move in with me. I could do all of this without breaking any laws. It would be morally wrong because I like my neighbor (he gives me fresh rosemary and basil from his garden and always waves), and his wife is 80 and this does not really do it for me. If you can produce an actual law that states that I cannot covet my neighbours wife or even seduce her and take her for my own, I will retract and concede. But I dont think you will be able to do this. Saying 'its the law' does not actually make it the law.
You can - which is different from being good to do. A cost factor can apply even in hidden thoughts: if left unchecked, it will graduate to and constitute coveting [stalking] which is a crime; or even worse. Would you be upset if another coveted your loved one, you remained indifferent, then it becomes more serious? This is like the command to wash the hands before meals - it can save lives, and has been accepted as a law in the medical world some 250 years ago. How amazing this was made a mandated law 3,500 years ago!
quote:
Some believe that taking the lords name in vain is anything from using 'jesus christ' of 'for Gods sake' as a curse up to breaking an oath sworn in the name of God. I was refering to using the lords name in a blasphemous manner. Something I do regularly. It is not illegal. It is not hate speech. I can do this as load as I want. It is much more acceptable to yell 'jesus christ' if i hit my hand with a hammer than if I yelled 'fucking cunt'. Using the lords name in vain is not hate speech and it is not illegal. If you believe that it is, please produce the law.
This 3rd C from Sinai refers to honesty and not to violate one's word or contract, which all laws depend upon. It is correctly placed at the top of all moral, ethical laws.
quote:
,y comment - Also, as an athiest, I have no fear of your god punishing me for breaking his rules. That is another reason I do not recognise your commandments.
your reply - Ignorance of the law or your non-recognition of the law or being an atheist are not means of escape from the law.
Just as the term species was adapted from the word 'kinds' in Genesis, you should replace the term commandment with law today. Atheists are subject to the law of the land.
quote:
Can you produce the laws that you believe I am violating by working on the sabbath, by coveting my neighbors wife or by taking the lords name in vain.
4th; 10th; 3rd of the 10Cs; respectively. Is this a test?
quote:
I am eager to know what they are because it would mean that I have been breaking the law and avoiding punishment (jail time according to your replies) without even knowing it for decades.
Yes you would be breaking the law. Check with your local sherriff if in doubt. Ask him if atheists are immune.
OFF TOPIC - Please Do Not Respond to this message by continuing in this vein.
AdminPD
Edited by AdminPD, : Warning

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by Butterflytyrant, posted 08-21-2011 11:56 PM Butterflytyrant has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by Butterflytyrant, posted 08-22-2011 1:53 AM IamJoseph has replied

IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3668 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 65 of 168 (630013)
08-22-2011 12:48 AM
Reply to: Message 61 by NoNukes
08-21-2011 11:48 PM


Re: Prediction Doesn't Interfere With Free Will
Correct. The term WITNESS is a legal term relating to legal representation, and aligned with other laws in the same source.
OFF TOPIC - Please Do Not Respond to this message by continuing in this vein.
AdminPD
Edited by AdminPD, : Warning

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by NoNukes, posted 08-21-2011 11:48 PM NoNukes has seen this message but not replied

IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3668 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 66 of 168 (630015)
08-22-2011 12:50 AM
Reply to: Message 63 by Butterflytyrant
08-22-2011 12:01 AM


Re: Prediction Doesn't Interfere With Free Will
State your premise boldly: does it mean if the math is credible you favor it as a correct law? I don't like cyclical debates.
OFF TOPIC - Please Do Not Respond to this message by continuing in this vein.
AdminPD
Edited by AdminPD, : Warning

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by Butterflytyrant, posted 08-22-2011 12:01 AM Butterflytyrant has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by Butterflytyrant, posted 08-22-2011 1:58 AM IamJoseph has replied

IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3668 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 67 of 168 (630019)
08-22-2011 1:10 AM
Reply to: Message 63 by Butterflytyrant
08-22-2011 12:01 AM


Re: Prediction Doesn't Interfere With Free Will
quote:
you are bound to moral/ethical/judiciary commandments which have been accepted as LAW. All such Hebrew laws [non-ritual] are accepted as the LAW - comprehensively and exclusively seen in the Hebrew bible.
This is an unsubstantiated. No evidence supplied, no sources.
Will it impress you any more if a prominent and esteemed Christian says it better them me how commandments are laws:
quote:
"You have brought this to a people who have given the world the Ten Commandments and most laws we live by today," Voight said, and signed the letter, "With heartfelt and deep concern for America and Israel."
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/138241
Do you even understand what the Greeks, Romans, early Christianity and Islam referred to by the term 'The People of the book [of laws]? Or why Moses, and no other human, is given the title as The Law Giver? These slogans have kernels of truth which have defied time and counters. It is also a vindicated slogan that Christianity will be the educators of humanity - which they have fullfilled, not w/o errors, but substantially performed excellently. Christianity was the first nation which recognized the light of the Hebrew bible and made it the world's most known and accepted book of laws - even while trying to supress it. Mysterious, no!?
OFF TOPIC - Please Do Not Respond to this message by continuing in this vein.
AdminPD
Edited by AdminPD, : Warning

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by Butterflytyrant, posted 08-22-2011 12:01 AM Butterflytyrant has not replied

IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3668 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 68 of 168 (630020)
08-22-2011 1:22 AM


Getting back to the topic:
I say yes, if a true prophesy it transcends free will.
True prophesy: That Israel shall return.
It is a true prophesy because it was made 1000's of years before the fact, and we have this in hard copy documentation uncovered as relics. This was a most implausible prophesy and was set against every super power and religion's wills: almost 99% of the world disdains and rebels against it today. It never occured before in history, yet this one occured when it was least posssible, via a ragtag remnant and accompanied by another implausible event: the Hebrew lagnuage, dead for 2000 years, became resurrected as an active, living language again - this too has never occured before or since.

IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3668 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 69 of 168 (630021)
08-22-2011 1:24 AM


BREAKING NEWS.
Gaddafi's regime has been toppled.
OFF TOPIC - Please Do Not Respond to this message by continuing in this vein.
AdminPD
Edited by AdminPD, : warning

Butterflytyrant
Member (Idle past 4421 days)
Posts: 415
From: Australia
Joined: 06-28-2011


(1)
Message 70 of 168 (630023)
08-22-2011 1:53 AM
Reply to: Message 64 by IamJoseph
08-22-2011 12:45 AM


Re: Prediction Doesn't Interfere With Free Will
IamJospeh,
I am going to assume you have serious comprehensions issues.
first of all -
No, your distinction, still bent on ridicule, is itself ridiculous. Rituals are applicable only to specifically directed people for specifically directed reasons and prefixed 'unto you'; mostly these serve as funny uniforms for postmen and reminder ceremonies. Thus it is not a violation if a Christian consumes pork, for example, this ritual was not given them.
What the fuck is that? Do you actually believe that this paragraph makes sense or relates to anything in my post? The only thing i can dredge out of it is that you thought the potplant bit was ridiculous. It was. it was meant to be. Its called sarcasm.
NOT TO MURDER is the correct translation.
Fair enough... I concede this point that the correct translation is though shall not murder. See, it can happen. You can actually say things that are correct. I wish it would happen more often. My point still stands though. Commandments can become laws. That does not mean that the ten commandments are laws. For one, there is no god in relation to laws. They are enforced, judged and punished by normal people.
You can work yourself ever second of your life. But the law of 1 day of rest with pay stands, whether it is maintained on a sunday or a friday does not matter here. Why are you argueing what is blatant?
remember what I said about providing evidence. where is the law of 1 day of rest with pay. This law does not exist. I provided multiple examples refuting your claim. Produce the law with a reference stating that it is illegal to work on the sabbath. Produce the law that states that people get 1 day with pay off every week. Keep in mind that you have said that this law is blatant and common to everyone. Why are you argueing when you could simply provide the law. I can tell you with 100% certainty that no such law exists in Australia, NZ, The USA and England. If you disagree, provide the law.
my comment - Can you provide me with the law that states I cannot desire my neighbors wife? There is no such law. I can think whatever I like. There is no law that I am aware of in any nation that prevents this or even discusses it. I could covet my neighnours wife, work to create situations where I could spend more time with her, seduce her, have an affair with her, get her to divorce her husband and them move in with me. I could do all of this without breaking any laws. It would be morally wrong because I like my neighbor (he gives me fresh rosemary and basil from his garden and always waves), and his wife is 80 and this does not really do it for me. If you can produce an actual law that states that I cannot covet my neighbours wife or even seduce her and take her for my own, I will retract and concede. But I dont think you will be able to do this. Saying 'its the law' does not actually make it the law.
your reply - You can - which is different from being good to do. A cost factor can apply even in hidden thoughts: if left unchecked, it will graduate to and constitute coveting [stalking] which is a crime; or even worse. Would you be upset if another coveted your loved one, you remained indifferent, then it becomes more serious? This is like the command to wash the hands before meals - it can save lives, and has been accepted as a law in the medical world some 250 years ago. How amazing this was made a mandated law 3,500 years ago!
Are you familiar with what moveing the goal posts means? If not, let me know and I will explain this fallcy to you.
Let me make this clear. You said that the commandments are laws. I said they were not and provided an example of how I could perfecly legally break the commandment regarding coveting thy neighbors wife without breaking the law. You agreed witgh me that I could do this. Then you go on to say that stalking is against the law. What the fuck does that have to do with it. Coveting is not stalking. Coveting occurs inside your head. Then you go on to discuss if it is morally right or wrong to do it. This makes no fucking difference. You were saying that the commandments were laws. They are not. It does not matter if they are morally right or wrong. It is not illegal to covet they neighbors wife. Your point is effectively refuted. The commandment you then discuss about washing your hands before meals. I can ssure you that there is no law stating that a doctor must wash his hands before a meal. You can refute this easily by producing the law that states that a doctor must wash his hands before a meal. Also, do doctors of philosophy count? Are the required, by law to wash their hands before they eat? What is the punishment for a Doctor of literature who does not wash his hands before a meal?
This 3rd C from Sinai refers to honesty and not to violate one's word or contract, which all laws depend upon. It is correctly placed at the top of all moral, ethical laws.
This is your interpretation. This is something that I think that you do not understand. Are you aware that there are people who interpret the scripture differently to you? Do you believe that you have correctly interpreted the scripture and that any otheer interpretation is wrong? You mention moral and ethical laws. Can you provide the acts that list the moral and ethical laws? This is you moving the goal posts again. We are discussing laws as in the judicial system crime and punishment. Morals and ethics do not have a code of laws. This would be the third time I have refuted your original points.
Just as the term species was adapted from the word 'kinds' in Genesis, you should replace the term commandment with law today. Atheists are subject to the law of the land.
The term species was not adapted from the word kinds. That does not make any sense in any way. There is no linguistic or etymological way that the term kinds could be adapted to the word species. It also makes no scientific sense as animals grouped into kinds are most often in multiple different groups of species. For example. Take a mosquito, a butterfly, a pteradactyl and a sparrow. All of thee would be in the one kind but are all in different species.
It makes no sense to replace the word commandment with law as they are two different things. I have provided many several examples of why this is true. Athiests are subject to the law of the land. We are not subject to the commandments.
I will provide another example. I swear to almight god that I will never post another reply on the EvC forum. I swear in the Jewish gods name. i swear this in the Christian Gods name and the Islamic gods name. I swear this to be true in the eyes of God.
Now, this will easily refute your claims that the commandments are law. When I next post, call the authorities. i am not sure where you are calling from but I am in Brisbane in Australia so just google a brisbane CBD police station, and tell them that I have broken one of the commandments. See what they do.
my comment - Can you produce the laws that you believe I am violating by working on the sabbath, by coveting my neighbors wife or by taking the lords name in vain.
your reply - 4th; 10th; 3rd of the 10Cs; respectively. Is this a test?
Yes, it ws a test. and you have failed. What you have provided are commanments. They are not laws. Can you tell me if you need me to define what laws are again. They have acts associated with them. Like the Environmental protection act. It includes the laws related to environmental protection. A policeman can come and arrest you fro breaking the law. A judge can hold a trial where your breach of the law is duscussed and you can be punished. This is what law is. Do you understand this? What you have provided are commandments. Not laws. These are not laws. Mitzvah is hebrew for commandment. Commandments are not laws. laws are not commanments. is there any other way i can say this so it will sink in?
my comment - I am eager to know what they are because it would mean that I have been breaking the law and avoiding punishment (jail time according to your replies) without even knowing it for decades.
your reply - Yes you would be breaking the law. Check with your local sherriff if in doubt. Ask him if atheists are immune.
What law am i breaking. What the fuck is wrong with you that you cannot understand those words. What law am I breaking. Show the law i am breaking. Hello, are you paying attention!. what law am i breaking. Go to a site that shows the law, cut and paste it into a post, add the link and then press submit. You have provided command,ents that I am breaking. The sheriff (of police officer in Australia) has no auhtority with regards to commandments. Commandments are not laws. I am breaking NO LAWS. are you understanding this.
I am breaking no laws. I am breaking commandments. This does not matter as commandments are not laws.
Even you, whose comprehension is as poor as anyone I have debated against should be able to understand this.
OFF TOPIC - Please Do Not Respond to this message by continuing in this vein.
AdminPD
Edited by AdminPD, : Warning

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by IamJoseph, posted 08-22-2011 12:45 AM IamJoseph has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by IamJoseph, posted 08-22-2011 2:31 AM Butterflytyrant has replied

Butterflytyrant
Member (Idle past 4421 days)
Posts: 415
From: Australia
Joined: 06-28-2011


Message 71 of 168 (630024)
08-22-2011 1:58 AM
Reply to: Message 66 by IamJoseph
08-22-2011 12:50 AM


Re: Prediction Doesn't Interfere With Free Will
IamJoseph,
You ask me to state my premise boldly...
your statement - if 20% of the human pop goes gay, humanity will not survive after a few generations.
my reply - How the hell did you work this out? Can you provide the maths? Telling me to work it out for myself or to prove you wrong does not constitute an answer. You need to provide your working as to how you came to the conclusion that if 20% of all humans are homosexual then the human speacies will beccome extinct in 3 generations. This may be the dumbest thing you have ever said by the way.
How much clearer can I make this.
how about this. I will use small words and put them in capitals just in case it is a vision issue.
here goes, are you ready...
HOW DID YOU WORK THIS OUT?
HOW DID YOU WORK OUT THAT IF 20% OF THE WORLDS POPULATION WAS HOMOSEXUAL, THE HUMAN SPECIES WILL BE EXTINCT IN 3 GENERATIONS?
SHOW YOUR MATHS.
Is that clear enough?
OFF TOPIC - Please Do Not Respond to this message by continuing in this vein.
AdminPD
Edited by AdminPD, : Warning

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by IamJoseph, posted 08-22-2011 12:50 AM IamJoseph has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by IamJoseph, posted 08-22-2011 2:38 AM Butterflytyrant has replied

IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3668 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 72 of 168 (630027)
08-22-2011 2:31 AM
Reply to: Message 70 by Butterflytyrant
08-22-2011 1:53 AM


Re: Prediction Doesn't Interfere With Free Will
quote:
No, your distinction, still bent on ridicule, is itself ridiculous. Rituals are applicable only to specifically directed people for specifically directed reasons and prefixed 'unto you'; mostly these serve as funny uniforms for postmen and reminder ceremonies. Thus it is not a violation if a Christian consumes pork, for example, this ritual was not given them.
What the fuck is that? Do you actually believe that this paragraph makes sense or relates to anything in my post? The only thing i can dredge out of it is that you thought the potplant bit was ridiculous. It was. it was meant to be. Its called sarcasm.
You keep confusing rituals with non-ritual laws. I gave you a defining interpretation on several occassions.
quote:
remember what I said about providing evidence. where is the law of 1 day of rest with pay. This law does not exist. I provided multiple examples refuting your claim. Produce the law with a reference stating that it is illegal to work on the sabbath. Produce the law that states that people get 1 day with pay off every week. Keep in mind that you have said that this law is blatant and common to everyone. Why are you argueing when you could simply provide the law. I can tell you with 100% certainty that no such law exists in Australia, NZ, The USA and England. If you disagree, provide the law.
One has the free will to reject any law. Even one that says a worker shall have one day per week without work. This includes any animals owned by the person. Did you know the DAY & WEEK were introduced to humanity in Genesis - you should better use your free will to show more respect of humanity's most impacting document?
quote:
Let me make this clear. You said that the commandments are laws. I said they were not and provided an example of how I could perfecly legally break the commandment regarding coveting thy neighbors wife without breaking the law. You agreed witgh me that I could do this. Then you go on to say that stalking is against the law. What the fuck does that have to do with it. Coveting is not stalking.
Yes, it is. Coveting is stalking when exposed and noticed by others. There is no law against what one thinks - the infringement only occurs when it is actioned. The law against coveting is unique and the only one which impinges on private hidden thoughts - it is related to an obsession and planning, not mere day or night dreaming, and is usually impacting on everything one does in actions. Violations like adultry, rape, stealing and murder are preceded with obsessive plannings of the coveting person.
quote:
This 3rd C from Sinai refers to honesty and not to violate one's word or contract, which all laws depend upon. It is correctly placed at the top of all moral, ethical laws.
This is your interpretation. This is something that I think that you do not understand. Are you aware that there are people who interpret the scripture differently to you? Do you believe that you have correctly interpreted the scripture and that any otheer interpretation is wrong? You mention moral and ethical laws. Can you provide the acts that list the moral and ethical laws? This is you moving the goal posts again. We are discussing laws as in the judicial system crime and punishment. Morals and ethics do not have a code of laws. This would be the third time I have refuted your original points.
Read carefully and understand:
quote:
Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain; for the LORD will not hold him guiltless that taketh His name in vain. {P}
"Not to take the name in vain" - applies to swearing, vows, oaths and contracts and as seen today in applying the hand on a bible to speak the whole truth [this is where this comes from]; 'not hold him guiltless' applies to a legal term in a court action which finds the false swearer in default. It is correctly placed before all moral/ethical laws. # Real life example: This law makes the corruption ofthe Balfour Declaration the greatest post-W.W.II crime by Brtain; it also renders all Christians guilty for turning the cheek; atheists are also liable here. Guess why Britainistan is happening!
quote:
Just as the term species was adapted from the word 'kinds' in Genesis, you should replace the term commandment with law today. Atheists are subject to the law of the land.
The term species was not adapted from the word kinds. That does not make any sense in any way.
Then consider that the first listing of life form groups is in Genesis; species refer to life form groups.
quote:
I will provide another example. I swear to almight god that I will never post another reply on the EvC forum. I swear in the Jewish gods name. i swear this in the Christian Gods name and the Islamic gods name. I swear this to be true in the eyes of God.
Now, this will easily refute your claims that the commandments are law. When I next post, call the authorities. i am not sure where you are calling from but I am in Brisbane in Australia so just google a brisbane CBD police station, and tell them that I have broken one of the commandments. See what they do.
You are only exposing a failed attempt to turn a magestic law into corny. Swearing by yourself is your own affair, but put that in a document form and invest some loss factor should you violate it, between two parties who acept your oath - with consequences attached. That will cost you dearly.
quote:
What you have provided are commandments. Not laws. These are not laws. Mitzvah is hebrew for commandment. Commandments are not laws. laws are not commanments. is there any other way i can say this so it will sink in?
Commandments = laws. Thou shall not steal. Check with your local sherrif!
OFF TOPIC - Please Do Not Respond to this message by continuing in this vein.
AdminPD
Edited by AdminPD, : Warning

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by Butterflytyrant, posted 08-22-2011 1:53 AM Butterflytyrant has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by Butterflytyrant, posted 08-22-2011 3:09 AM IamJoseph has not replied

IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3668 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 73 of 168 (630029)
08-22-2011 2:38 AM
Reply to: Message 71 by Butterflytyrant
08-22-2011 1:58 AM


Re: Prediction Doesn't Interfere With Free Will
quote:
HOW DID YOU WORK OUT THAT IF 20% OF THE WORLDS POPULATION WAS HOMOSEXUAL, THE HUMAN SPECIES WILL BE EXTINCT IN 3 GENERATIONS?
I agreed with a thesis which showed how an accumulative impact on the population growth would result in a negative outcome with compounding factors.
There is no alternative to this mathematical fact. I never said '3rd' generation; it is ratio based.
OFF TOPIC - Please Do Not Respond to this message by continuing in this vein.
AdminPD
Edited by AdminPD, : Warning

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by Butterflytyrant, posted 08-22-2011 1:58 AM Butterflytyrant has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by Butterflytyrant, posted 08-22-2011 3:46 AM IamJoseph has not replied

Butterflytyrant
Member (Idle past 4421 days)
Posts: 415
From: Australia
Joined: 06-28-2011


Message 74 of 168 (630031)
08-22-2011 3:09 AM
Reply to: Message 72 by IamJoseph
08-22-2011 2:31 AM


Re: Prediction Doesn't Interfere With Free Will
You have not provided any laws. You have not refuted any of my points.
One has the free will to reject any law. Even one that says a worker shall have one day per week without work.
One does not have to use their free will to break a law that does not exist. There is no law stating a person cannot work on every day of the week. There is a commandment that many choose to ignore. Not a law. provide the law that you believe exists. it is a simple request that you have so far been unable to fulfill.
Coveting is stalking when exposed and noticed by others. There is no law against what one thinks - the infringement only occurs when it is actioned. The law against coveting is unique and the only one which impinges on private hidden thoughts - it is related to an obsession and planning, not mere day or night dreaming, and is usually impacting on everything one does in actions. Violations like adultry, rape, stealing and murder are preceded with obsessive plannings of the coveting person.
The Jewish interpretation of the commandment -
"Do not covet your neighbor's wife"
One is forbidden to desire and plan how one may obtain that which God has given to another. Maimonides makes a distinction in codifying the laws between the instruction given here in Exodus (You shall not covet) and that given in Deuteronomy (You shall not desire), according to which one does not violate the Exodus commandment unless there is a physical action associated with the desire, even if this is legally purchasing an envied object.
coveting is not stalking.
Covet - Yearn to possess or have (something).
Stalking - Stalking is a term commonly used to refer unwanted, obsessive attention by an individual or group to another human being. Stalking behaviors are related to harassment and intimidation, and may include following the victim in person and/or monitoring them via the internet.
Do you see the differnece. i can covet without the knowledge of the target. Even if I told me neighbour that I want his wife and that I was planning on trying to seduce her, I am not breaking any actual laws. Until i actually do begin to stalk her, then I am breaking a law.
I could obsesse over my neighbours car. i could plan to steal it. I could covet it for months and years. This breaks a commandment. However, until I actually steal it, I have broken no laws.
The whole market economy depends on people coveting.
Provide the law that you believe exists that makes it illegal for me to covet. it is a simple request that you have so far been unable to fulfill.
my comments - I will provide another example. I swear to almight god that I will never post another reply on the EvC forum. I swear in the Jewish gods name. i swear this in the Christian Gods name and the Islamic gods name. I swear this to be true in the eyes of God. Now, this will easily refute your claims that the commandments are law. When I next post, call the authorities. i am not sure where you are calling from but I am in Brisbane in Australia so just google a brisbane CBD police station, and tell them that I have broken one of the commandments. See what they do.
your reply - You are only exposing a failed attempt to turn a magestic law into corny. Swearing by yourself is your own affair, but put that in a document form and invest some loss factor should you violate it, between two parties who acept your oath - with consequences attached. That will cost you dearly.
You have it in writing. it is in document form. It is not illegal. there is no law against me taking the lords name in vain in this manner. Call the police and tell them that I have broken one of the commandments and see how you go. i ill make it more clear. i curse using the following words. I use them in vain - Jesus Christ, goddamit, holy jesus pissing christ. I swear by all that is holy that I will never post again on EvC forum. I swear this that I should be charged to the full extent of the law and will plead guilty and accept any and all punishments should any law be broken by my breaking of this oath to God. Is that clear enough? By breaking this out, there will be no cost. Because it is a commandment that i do not recognise, it is not a law.
According to Jewish interpretation - "Do not swear falsely by the name of the LORD..." - This is a prohibition against making false oaths in the name of the God of Israel, specifically those which are pointless, insincere or never carried out.
I freely admit I have broken this commandment on all three counts. My oath is pointless, it in insincere and it will never be carried out. So call the police and see how you go.
you go on to mention the fact that people swear on the bible and it is illegal if they are found to have lied. this is true. However, many nations courts accept that swearing on the bible for people of other faiths or people of no faith swearing on a bible is worthless. That is why we have non denominational swearing in statements. Because many people do not recognise the authority of the bible. I myslef have performed this task. i have rejected swearing on the bible because it in no way gives any meaning to the oath.
our comments regarding kinds being species have been refuted on multiple occasions. there is a thread regarding this on thie forum. argue your bullshit there and see how you go.
Commandments = laws. Thou shall not steal. Check with your local sherrif!
You are correct that stealing is against the law. Providing one commandment that has an equavilent law does not make all commandments laws. I have provided multiple examples of this that you seem to be ignoring because they thoroughly refute your position.
How about these examples, they are all Juewish interpretations of the commandments, link to the source is at the bottom -
"I am the LORD your God who brought you out of the land of Egypt, from the house of slavery. You shall have no other gods in My presence..."
This commandment is to be aware that the God of Israel exists absolutely and influences all events in the world[23] and that the goal of the redemption from Egypt was to become His servants (Rashi). It requires the acknowledgment of the single God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, and the denial of the existence of false gods
I am not only unaware of the existence of the God of Israel. i reject the idea that he exists. I reject that he is absolute. I reject the idea that he influences all events in the world. I refuse to become his servent. I refuse to acknowledge the single God.
Looks like i have broken that commandment. However, I have broken no laws.
"Do not commit adultery."
Adultery is defined as sexual intercourse between a man and a married woman who is not his wife.
source : http://www.mechon-mamre.org/index.htm
My partner and I are not married. We have a child and one on the way. We have sex all the time. I am not breaking the law. i quite frequently and with great gusto and enthusiasm break this commandment. Good luck trying to make fucking while not married illegal.
that would be 4 of the ten commandments that I break on a regular basis. Lucky for me that commandments do not equal laws. I break commandments all the time. They are not laws so I am not doing anything illegal. Is any of this sinking in yet?
OFF TOPIC - Please Do Not Respond to this message by continuing in this vein.
AdminPD
Edited by Butterflytyrant, : No reason given.
Edited by AdminPD, : No reason given.
Edited by AdminPD, : Warning

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by IamJoseph, posted 08-22-2011 2:31 AM IamJoseph has not replied

Butterflytyrant
Member (Idle past 4421 days)
Posts: 415
From: Australia
Joined: 06-28-2011


Message 75 of 168 (630034)
08-22-2011 3:46 AM
Reply to: Message 73 by IamJoseph
08-22-2011 2:38 AM


Re: Prediction Doesn't Interfere With Free Will
yet more evasion with no substance
my request - HOW DID YOU WORK OUT THAT IF 20% OF THE WORLDS POPULATION WAS HOMOSEXUAL, THE HUMAN SPECIES WILL BE EXTINCT IN 3 GENERATIONS?
your reply - I agreed with a thesis which showed how an accumulative impact on the population growth would result in a negative outcome with compounding factors.
There is no alternative to this mathematical fact. I never said '3rd' generation; it is ratio based.
Your answer does not support your statement. You have put forward something as fact and backed it up with 'i read is somewhere'.
Provide the link to this thesis. If there is no alternative to this mathematical fact, what do you suggest we do? Should we force the homosexuals to breed, or should we kill them off so that the ratio remains in the favour of heterosexuals?
If you would actually provide your source, it should not be too hard to point out the error.
Without supplying your source, it is quite easy and acceptable to say your point is bullshit.
as to the definition of few - You said a few generations.
Few is an arbitrary term but the following are the genral rules of use (at least in British English, American English may differ).
couple = two
few = three
some = four
several = five
many = >six
By few, how many generations do you belive will pass before humanity becomes extinct?
OFF TOPIC - Please Do Not Respond to this message by continuing in this vein.
AdminPD
Edited by AdminPD, : Warning

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by IamJoseph, posted 08-22-2011 2:38 AM IamJoseph has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024