- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Quote (betweenchristendomandjws @ Dec. 07 2010,22:48) Quote (terraricca @ Dec. 06 2010,20:25) Quote (betweenchristendomandjws @ Dec. 06 2010,18:26) I would honestly like to know where in the bible Jesus fights satan if he isn't the archangel Michael. I bet my life not one christian will find one scripture to support their answer. 
hithis a stupid question,so there only could be a stupid answer.
and you did bothPierre
Oh, Genesis 3:15 reads And I shall put enmity between you and the woman and between your seed and her seed. He will bruise you in the head and you will bruise him in the heel.”Every bible student knows this is a prophecy about Jesus and Satan. Where in the bible does Jesus “bruise satan in the head” so to speak if he isn't michael?
Betand wen is this thing have to take place,??? and how??
Pierre
Quote (betweenchristendomandjws @ Dec. 07 2010,15:48) Quote (terraricca @ Dec. 06 2010,20:25) Quote (betweenchristendomandjws @ Dec. 06 2010,18:26) I would honestly like to know where in the bible Jesus fights satan if he isn't the archangel Michael. I bet my life not one christian will find one scripture to support their answer.
hithis a stupid question,so there only could be a stupid answer.
and you did bothPierre
Oh, Genesis 3:15 reads And I shall put enmity between you and the woman and between your seed and her seed. He will bruise you in the head and you will bruise him in the heel.”Every bible student knows this is a prophecy about Jesus and Satan. Where in the bible does Jesus “bruise satan in the head” so to speak if he isn't michael?
Satan was behind the people that crucified Jesus, “bruised his heel”; Jesus in the end will throw Satan in the lake of fire, “bruise his head”.
Jesus after dying on the cross, lived again; Satan after he is thrown in the lake of fire, will stay dead.1Cr 15:26 The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death.
Hbr 2:14 Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil;
Georg
Quote (Baker @ Dec. 08 2010,12:38) Quote (betweenchristendomandjws @ Dec. 07 2010,15:48) Quote (terraricca @ Dec. 06 2010,20:25) Quote (betweenchristendomandjws @ Dec. 06 2010,18:26) I would honestly like to know where in the bible Jesus fights satan if he isn't the archangel Michael. I bet my life not one christian will find one scripture to support their answer.
hithis a stupid question,so there only could be a stupid answer.
and you did bothPierre
Oh, Genesis 3:15 reads And I shall put enmity between you and the woman and between your seed and her seed. He will bruise you in the head and you will bruise him in the heel.”Every bible student knows this is a prophecy about Jesus and Satan. Where in the bible does Jesus “bruise satan in the head” so to speak if he isn't michael?
Satan was behind the people that crucified Jesus, “bruised his heel”; Jesus in the end will throw Satan in the lake of fire, “bruise his head”.
Jesus after dying on the cross, lived again; Satan after he is thrown in the lake of fire, will stay dead.1Cr 15:26 The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death.
Hbr 2:14 Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil;
Georg
hi georgthanks,I was trying that BET answer that question ,
still love you cousin
Pierre
Quote (Baker @ Dec. 08 2010,05:38) Quote (betweenchristendomandjws @ Dec. 07 2010,15:48) Quote (terraricca @ Dec. 06 2010,20:25) Quote (betweenchristendomandjws @ Dec. 06 2010,18:26) I would honestly like to know where in the bible Jesus fights satan if he isn't the archangel Michael. I bet my life not one christian will find one scripture to support their answer.
hithis a stupid question,so there only could be a stupid answer.
and you did bothPierre
Oh, Genesis 3:15 reads And I shall put enmity between you and the woman and between your seed and her seed. He will bruise you in the head and you will bruise him in the heel.”Every bible student knows this is a prophecy about Jesus and Satan. Where in the bible does Jesus “bruise satan in the head” so to speak if he isn't michael?
Satan was behind the people that crucified Jesus, “bruised his heel”; Jesus in the end will throw Satan in the lake of fire, “bruise his head”.
Jesus after dying on the cross, lived again; Satan after he is thrown in the lake of fire, will stay dead.1Cr 15:26 The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death.
Hbr 2:14 Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil;
Georg
Your making some assumptions here.1. You use hebrews 2:14 and 1 corinthians 15:26 and then tie it to revelation 20:9-10 to make it seem that Jesus made fire come out of heaven to destroy satan's minions and throw satan into the “lake of fire” Your quote below proves this…
“Jesus in the end will throw Satan in the lake of fire”
However revelation 20:9-10 reads 9 And they advanced over the breadth of the earth and encircled the camp of the holy ones and the beloved city. But fire came down out of heaven and devoured them. 10 And the Devil who was misleading them was hurled into the lake of fire and sulphur, where both the wild beast and the false prophet [already were]; and they will be tormented day and night forever and ever.
Where is Jesus in this passage? Or are you just going to assume “bruise him in the head” meant rain fire on his head even though HE'S NOT MENTIONED IN THE PASSAGE!!!!!!
Flick over to Rev 22:20 and there's something else Jesus was going to do but seems not to have done.
…Unless we missed the second coming altogether. Or maybe Jesus is with us now, living with the Amish.
Stuart
Quote (Stu @ Dec. 14 2010,05:26) Flick over to Rev 22:20 and there's something else Jesus was going to do but seems not to have done. …Unless we missed the second coming altogether. Or maybe Jesus is with us now, living with the Amish.
Stuart
Hi Stuart,God's Signature
יהוה=26 (God's Name: YHVH pronounced YÄ-hä-vā)
YHVH=63 (God's Name יהוה translated into English)
Jesus=74 (God's Son's name in English is: “Joshua”)
HolySpirit=151 (“FATHER: The Word”: in all believers)
God The Father=117 (Representing “GOD”: יהוה האלהים)Jesus second coming was on “Pentecost”(117)! (Click Here)
God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgQuote (Stu @ Dec. 14 2010,05:26) Flick over to Rev 22:20 and there's something else Jesus was going to do but seems not to have done. …Unless we missed the second coming altogether. Or maybe Jesus is with us now, living with the Amish.
Stuart
STU,This is funny to me because on the one hand when speaking about evolution you talk about DEEP TIME and the earth being 4.5 billion years then when speaking of Jesus you consider a couple of thousand years to be “DEEP TIME”
You are a hypocrite I've already exposed you but I am willing and able to expose you more so keep it coming.
You are Amoral and in the words of the Quran
Or do you think that most of them hear or understand? They are only like cattle – nay, they are even farther astray from the Path (i.e. even worse than cattle).
( سورة الفرقان , Al-Furqan, Chapter #25, Verse #44)Quote (bodhitharta @ Dec. 14 2010,11:58) Quote (Stu @ Dec. 14 2010,05:26) Flick over to Rev 22:20 and there's something else Jesus was going to do but seems not to have done. …Unless we missed the second coming altogether. Or maybe Jesus is with us now, living with the Amish.
Stuart
STU,This is funny to me because on the one hand when speaking about evolution you talk about DEEP TIME and the earth being 4.5 billion years then when speaking of Jesus you consider a couple of thousand years to be “DEEP TIME”
You are a hypocrite I've already exposed you but I am willing and able to expose you more so keep it coming.
You are Amoral and in the words of the Quran
Or do you think that most of them hear or understand? They are only like cattle – nay, they are even farther astray from the Path (i.e. even worse than cattle).
( سورة الفرقان , Al-Furqan, Chapter #25, Verse #44)
Don't put the words “deep time” into my mouth, I have never used those words. It is you who is hypocritical.You are just like the gospel writers who wrote a prophecy-fulfilling script for Jesus, or the scribes who wrote down whatever they liked, given Mo's inability to proofread it for them.
You have never “exposed” me on anything. You are fundamentally ignorant about most topics we discuss, and you are the low-achieving student on each of them. You are poor at defending that one thing you might be expected to know something about, islamic mythology. Of course your version of islam is not representative, in fact it is a tiny minority opinion of what islamic mythology says, and most muslims appear to disagree with you quite fundamentally. They expect to conform to the repulsive anti-human concept of submission, and there you are doing the opposite, trying to start an islamic cult. Is it still just you and two of your relatives that constitute the membership, O Asana, Asana, Asana?
I do not recognise the koran as a moral document, and I am obviously neither amoral nor immoral.
Did you actually get a single point correct in that last post? I must have missed it if you did.
Stuart
“You are just like the gospel writers who wrote a prophecy-fulfilling script for Jesus, or the scribes who wrote down whatever they liked, given Mo's inability to proofread it for them.”
Please explain how the ruins of babylon is still inhabitated if it is just made up. I mean this was told 1,000's of years ago. Surely this is more then just mere self fulfilling.
Quote (betweenchristendomandjws @ Dec. 16 2010,15:33) “You are just like the gospel writers who wrote a prophecy-fulfilling script for Jesus, or the scribes who wrote down whatever they liked, given Mo's inability to proofread it for them.” Please explain how the ruins of babylon is still inhabitated if it is just made up. I mean this was told 1,000's of years ago. Surely this is more then just mere self fulfilling.
What has that got to do with the mythology of Jesus invented by the anonymous gospel writers, or the witterings of a Dark Age illiterate Meccan?Stuart
Quote (Stu @ Dec. 14 2010,15:40) Quote (bodhitharta @ Dec. 14 2010,11:58) Quote (Stu @ Dec. 14 2010,05:26) Flick over to Rev 22:20 and there's something else Jesus was going to do but seems not to have done. …Unless we missed the second coming altogether. Or maybe Jesus is with us now, living with the Amish.
Stuart
STU,This is funny to me because on the one hand when speaking about evolution you talk about DEEP TIME and the earth being 4.5 billion years then when speaking of Jesus you consider a couple of thousand years to be “DEEP TIME”
You are a hypocrite I've already exposed you but I am willing and able to expose you more so keep it coming.
You are Amoral and in the words of the Quran
Or do you think that most of them hear or understand? They are only like cattle – nay, they are even farther astray from the Path (i.e. even worse than cattle).
( سورة الفرقان , Al-Furqan, Chapter #25, Verse #44)
Don't put the words “deep time” into my mouth, I have never used those words. It is you who is hypocritical.You are just like the gospel writers who wrote a prophecy-fulfilling script for Jesus, or the scribes who wrote down whatever they liked, given Mo's inability to proofread it for them.
You have never “exposed” me on anything. You are fundamentally ignorant about most topics we discuss, and you are the low-achieving student on each of them. You are poor at defending that one thing you might be expected to know something about, islamic mythology. Of course your version of islam is not representative, in fact it is a tiny minority opinion of what islamic mythology says, and most muslims appear to disagree with you quite fundamentally. They expect to conform to the repulsive anti-human concept of submission, and there you are doing the opposite, trying to start an islamic cult. Is it still just you and two of your relatives that constitute the membership, O Asana, Asana, Asana?
I do not recognise the koran as a moral document, and I am obviously neither amoral nor immoral.
Did you actually get a single point correct in that last post? I must have missed it if you did.
Stuart
So your not Amoral?So you consider incest moral then? Because clearly you said if consentual it would be okay for a Mother and son to have sex you have even made it clear that it is perfectly okay for a Father and son to have sex so homosexual incest is Moral?
You would have made more sense to simply call yourself Amoral.
Quote (bodhitharta @ Dec. 17 2010,03:17) Quote (Stu @ Dec. 14 2010,15:40) Quote (bodhitharta @ Dec. 14 2010,11:58) Quote (Stu @ Dec. 14 2010,05:26) Flick over to Rev 22:20 and there's something else Jesus was going to do but seems not to have done. …Unless we missed the second coming altogether. Or maybe Jesus is with us now, living with the Amish.
Stuart
STU,This is funny to me because on the one hand when speaking about evolution you talk about DEEP TIME and the earth being 4.5 billion years then when speaking of Jesus you consider a couple of thousand years to be “DEEP TIME”
You are a hypocrite I've already exposed you but I am willing and able to expose you more so keep it coming.
You are Amoral and in the words of the Quran
Or do you think that most of them hear or understand? They are only like cattle – nay, they are even farther astray from the Path (i.e. even worse than cattle).
( سورة الفرقان , Al-Furqan, Chapter #25, Verse #44)
Don't put the words “deep time” into my mouth, I have never used those words. It is you who is hypocritical.You are just like the gospel writers who wrote a prophecy-fulfilling script for Jesus, or the scribes who wrote down whatever they liked, given Mo's inability to proofread it for them.
You have never “exposed” me on anything. You are fundamentally ignorant about most topics we discuss, and you are the low-achieving student on each of them. You are poor at defending that one thing you might be expected to know something about, islamic mythology. Of course your version of islam is not representative, in fact it is a tiny minority opinion of what islamic mythology says, and most muslims appear to disagree with you quite fundamentally. They expect to conform to the repulsive anti-human concept of submission, and there you are doing the opposite, trying to start an islamic cult. Is it still just you and two of your relatives that constitute the membership, O Asana, Asana, Asana?
I do not recognise the koran as a moral document, and I am obviously neither amoral nor immoral.
Did you actually get a single point correct in that last post? I must have missed it if you did.
Stuart
So your not Amoral?So you consider incest moral then? Because clearly you said if consentual it would be okay for a Mother and son to have sex you have even made it clear that it is perfectly okay for a Father and son to have sex so homosexual incest is Moral?
You would have made more sense to simply call yourself Amoral.
I did ask you if you think consentual sex between fathers and sons is common, and you have not answered that, or explained why you would consider it immoral. If it is rare or non-existent as I suspect, then what would be the point of the question?You could more relevantly argue about whether it was moral for a man to have sexual relations with a tree. There is a clear difference between father-son sexual relations and heterosexual incest where a pregnancy could result, although in your characteristically limited way you conflate different issues indiscriminately. Were you expecting some kind of moral outrage from others here by trying to suggest that I advocate homosexual incest? You haven't achieved that, have you, actually no one else has mentioned it if I recall correctly. Do you know why that is? It's because you don't need a sense of moral outrage or laws when the act you are considering is not something humans are particularly motivated to do, and you don't need to legislate if this act which no one commits has no victims anyway. Dismal failure on your part by the looks of it.
If I read you right you are opposed to homosexuality. I consider that to be an immoral position to take. Therefore I am taking a moral stance which means I am obviously not amoral.
Stuart
Quote (Stu @ Dec. 17 2010,03:33) Quote (bodhitharta @ Dec. 17 2010,03:17) Quote (Stu @ Dec. 14 2010,15:40) Quote (bodhitharta @ Dec. 14 2010,11:58) Quote (Stu @ Dec. 14 2010,05:26) Flick over to Rev 22:20 and there's something else Jesus was going to do but seems not to have done. …Unless we missed the second coming altogether. Or maybe Jesus is with us now, living with the Amish.
Stuart
STU,This is funny to me because on the one hand when speaking about evolution you talk about DEEP TIME and the earth being 4.5 billion years then when speaking of Jesus you consider a couple of thousand years to be “DEEP TIME”
You are a hypocrite I've already exposed you but I am willing and able to expose you more so keep it coming.
You are Amoral and in the words of the Quran
Or do you think that most of them hear or understand? They are only like cattle – nay, they are even farther astray from the Path (i.e. even worse than cattle).
( سورة الفرقان , Al-Furqan, Chapter #25, Verse #44)
Don't put the words “deep time” into my mouth, I have never used those words. It is you who is hypocritical.You are just like the gospel writers who wrote a prophecy-fulfilling script for Jesus, or the scribes who wrote down whatever they liked, given Mo's inability to proofread it for them.
You have never “exposed” me on anything. You are fundamentally ignorant about most topics we discuss, and you are the low-achieving student on each of them. You are poor at defending that one thing you might be expected to know something about, islamic mythology. Of course your version of islam is not representative, in fact it is a tiny minority opinion of what islamic mythology says, and most muslims appear to disagree with you quite fundamentally. They expect to conform to the repulsive anti-human concept of submission, and there you are doing the opposite, trying to start an islamic cult. Is it still just you and two of your relatives that constitute the membership, O Asana, Asana, Asana?
I do not recognise the koran as a moral document, and I am obviously neither amoral nor immoral.
Did you actually get a single point correct in that last post? I must have missed it if you did.
Stuart
So your not Amoral?So you consider incest moral then? Because clearly you said if consentual it would be okay for a Mother and son to have sex you have even made it clear that it is perfectly okay for a Father and son to have sex so homosexual incest is Moral?
You would have made more sense to simply call yourself Amoral.
I did ask you if you think consentual sex between fathers and sons is common, and you have not answered that, or explained why you would consider it immoral. If it is rare or non-existent as I suspect, then what would be the point of the question?You could more relevantly argue about whether it was moral for a man to have sexual relations with a tree. There is a clear difference between father-son sexual relations and heterosexual incest where a pregnancy could result, although in your characteristically limited way you conflate different issues indiscriminately. Were you expecting some kind of moral outrage from others here by trying to suggest that I advocate homosexual incest? You haven't achieved that, have you, actually no one else has mentioned it if I recall correctly. Do you know why that is? It's because you don't need a sense of moral outrage or laws when the act you are considering is not something humans are particularly motivated to do, and you don't need to legislate if this act which no one commits has no victims anyway. Dismal failure on your part by the looks of it.
If I read you right you are opposed to homosexuality. I consider that to be an immoral position to take. Therefore I am taking a moral stance which means I am obviously not amoral.
Stuart
STU,I told you I would expose you again and again and that is exactly what's happening here. You are actually trying to justify an immoral position by stating it commonality or lack thereof. What you didn't do was declare that it was actually immoral whether is happens once or one million times so that fraud of yours is exposed.
Second, you spoke of consentual sex, so tell me what would a pregnancy have to do with whether it is right or wrong unless you believe that consent would not be the deciding factor but the act and the possibility of pregnancy itself, therefore you are exposed as a fraud on that count as well.
Third, homosexuality should never be commited as the person commiting such an act is comparable to a delusional person commiting an act and therefor no consent can exist.
It's the same difference as slaughtering an animal for food versus slaughtering a human for food. Would you argue that a person should have the right to eat other persons? In this way homosexuality is equal to canibalism in its scope of ethics.
You don't understand that do you? It's consumption of the same “Kind” of flesh. We don't call eating other meat canabilism just the same “Kind” also we know that it is also canabilistic to society at large because it is a life diminishing act that defeats the very Idea of reproduction.
Any habitual practice that if practiced at large, that would diminish the reproduction of life is by its very nature immoral.
Bisexuality is very similar and still immoral because it would be partaking in the canabilistic act through approval of it.
BD
Quote I told you I would expose you again and again and that is exactly what's happening here.
You have failed to refute the point that no one else thinks you have exposed me, which rather defeats the nature of “being exposed”. No one takes your nonsense seriously. I think that really started when I exposed your cult. They really don’t like that kind of thing here, no matter whether or not they think your mythology is the wrong one.Quote You are actually trying to justify an immoral position by stating it commonality or lack thereof. What you didn't do was declare that it was actually immoral whether is happens once or one million times so that fraud of yours is exposed. Second, you spoke of consentual sex, so tell me what would a pregnancy have to do with whether it is right or wrong unless you believe that consent would not be the deciding factor but the act and the possibility of pregnancy itself, therefore you are exposed as a fraud on that count as well.
No, it is the potentially dire consequences of a pregnancy going to term that is the main rationale. You might also include society’s desire to encourage families to maintain their familial relationships, which could become difficult in the event that a sexual relationship breaks up. I guess that is why natural selection has given the vast majority a natural repugnance to incest, which is my point. Should it be considered immoral when it is so rarely practiced? You have not given any justification for calling incest immoral yourself. You have just asserted it.Quote Third, homosexuality should never be commited as the person commiting such an act is comparable to a delusional person commiting an act and therefor no consent can exist.
I don’t think that bears out in practice. It would make more sense to stop people praying in mosques, as belief in the thing they are worshipping should certainly be considered delusional.You still have not sustained how two men or two women expressing love for one another is immoral. How is it?
Quote It's the same difference as slaughtering an animal for food versus slaughtering a human for food. Would you argue that a person should have the right to eat other persons? In this way homosexuality is equal to canibalism in its scope of ethics.
Sorry, that strikes me as infantile nonsense.Quote You don't understand that do you? It's consumption of the same “Kind” of flesh. We don't call eating other meat canabilism just the same “Kind” also we know that it is also canabilistic to society at large because it is a life diminishing act that defeats the very Idea of reproduction. Any habitual practice that if practiced at large, that would diminish the reproduction of life is by its very nature immoral. Bisexuality is very similar and still immoral because it would be partaking in the canabilistic act through approval of it.
Do you talk as much bollocks as you write?Stuart
Quote You still have not sustained how two men or two women expressing love for one another is immoral. How is it? When did you become a man of love?
Quote (Stu @ Dec. 17 2010,13:34) Quote You have failed to refute the point that no one else thinks you have exposed me, which rather defeats the nature of “being exposed”. No one takes your nonsense seriously. In a way you have a point here because you didn't need to be exposed as Amoral that was already a given, I was exposing you as someone who is immoral and that is what's being shown.
Quote No, it is the potentially dire consequences of a pregnancy going to term that is the main rationale. No it's not it happens all the time
Quote You might also include society’s desire to encourage families to maintain their familial relationships, which could become difficult in the event that a sexual relationship breaks up. No, It happens all the time
Quote I guess that is why natural selection has given the vast majority a natural repugnance to incest, which is my point. No, this is anti-intellectual. Natural Selection is not a guiding force, you do not believe in a guiding force. There is no Natural Selection in nature that has intent so are you saying that people are designed that way?
Quote Should it be considered immoral when it is so rarely practiced? Should Hitler be considered Moral because he was rare?
Quote You have not given any justification for calling incest immoral yourself. You have just asserted it. So are you saying it is moral or immoral?
Quote I don’t think that bears out in practice. It would make more sense to stop people praying in mosques, as belief in the thing they are worshipping should certainly be considered delusional. “You have not given any justification for calling people” praying in mosques “immoral yourself. You have just asserted it.”
Quote You still have not sustained how two men or two women expressing love for one another is immoral. How is it? moral (adj.) mid-14c., “pertaining to character or temperament” (good or bad), from O.Fr. moral, from L. moralis “proper behavior of a person in society,” lit. “pertaining to manners,” coined by Cicero (“De Fato,” II.i) to translate Gk. ethikos (see ethics) from L. mos (gen. moris) “one's disposition,” in plural, “mores, customs, manners, morals,” of uncertain origin. Meaning “morally good, conforming to moral rules,” is first recorded late 14c. of stories, 1630s of persons. Original value-neutral sense preserved in moral support, moral victory, with sense of “pertaining to character as opposed to physical action.” The noun meaning “moral exposition of a story” is attested from c.1500. Related: Morally.
So let's just say it is not Customary that a man should be with a man or a woman should be with a woman. This would also be very unmannerly for a lovely young woman to be attarcted to a man just to find out that he has rudely broken the customary route of relations. from this perspective you should no doubt understand what is or isn't immoral and Homosexuality is immoral, now if you accept it you should just say you can tolerate or enjoy what is not proper and moral in society
It's like I said before in most civil societies canabalism is immoral, however there are certain minor tribes in pockets of the world that find canabalism acceptable but as we know that life hinges on the attraction of male and female then there is no doubt that the customary route by default is always Heterosexuality and any thing else is IMMORAL i.e. NOT THE CUSTOM
BD
Quote In a way you have a point here because you didn't need to be exposed as Amoral that was already a given, I was exposing you as someone who is immoral and that is what's being shown.
You cannot be both immoral and amoral.Stu: No, it is the potentially dire consequences of a pregnancy going to term that is the main rationale.
Quote No it's not it happens all the time
Huh?Quote No, this is anti-intellectual. Natural Selection is not a guiding force, you do not believe in a guiding force. There is no Natural Selection in nature that has intent so are you saying that people are designed that way?
Is that what I wrote? No, you are a liar and a hypocrite, as is condemned in your own book of mythology. And you call me immoral.Quote Should Hitler be considered Moral because he was rare?
Have we already reached the limits of Godwin’s Law?Quote So are you saying it is moral or immoral?
You are saying it is immoral, and yet you have not explained why, another example of your hypocrisy.Quote “You have not given any justification for calling people” praying in mosques “immoral yourself. You have just asserted it.”
Where did I say it was immoral?? Another logical fallacy. You really aren’t very bright, are you.Quote moral (adj.) mid-14c., “pertaining to character or temperament” (good or bad), from O.Fr. moral, from L. moralis “proper behavior of a person in society,” lit. “pertaining to manners,” coined by Cicero (“De Fato,” II.i) to translate Gk. ethikos (see ethics) from L. mos (gen. moris) “one's disposition,” in plural, “mores, customs, manners, morals,” of uncertain origin. Meaning “morally good, conforming to moral rules,” is first recorded late 14c. of stories, 1630s of persons. Original value-neutral sense preserved in moral support, moral victory, with sense of “pertaining to character as opposed to physical action.” The noun meaning “moral exposition of a story” is attested from c.1500. Related: Morally. So let's just say it is not Customary that a man should be with a man or a woman should be with a woman. This would also be very unmannerly for a lovely young woman to be attarcted to a man just to find out that he has rudely broken the customary route of relations. from this perspective you should no doubt understand what is or isn't immoral and Homosexuality is immoral, now if you accept it you should just say you can tolerate or enjoy what is not proper and moral in society
“Customary”, and “unmannerly” do not appear in the definition of moral you just posted. You don’t have a clue, do you.Quote It's like I said before in most civil societies canabalism is immoral, however there are certain minor tribes in pockets of the world that find canabalism acceptable but as we know that life hinges on the attraction of male and f
You haven’t answered my question about whether you talk as much bollocks as you write.Stuart
Quote (Stu @ Dec. 17 2010,17:13) BD Quote In a way you have a point here because you didn't need to be exposed as Amoral that was already a given, I was exposing you as someone who is immoral and that is what's being shown.
You cannot be both immoral and amoral.Stu: No, it is the potentially dire consequences of a pregnancy going to term that is the main rationale.
Quote No it's not it happens all the time
Huh?Quote No, this is anti-intellectual. Natural Selection is not a guiding force, you do not believe in a guiding force. There is no Natural Selection in nature that has intent so are you saying that people are designed that way?
Is that what I wrote? No, you are a liar and a hypocrite, as is condemned in your own book of mythology. And you call me immoral.Quote Should Hitler be considered Moral because he was rare?
Have we already reached the limits of Godwin’s Law?Quote So are you saying it is moral or immoral?
You are saying it is immoral, and yet you have not explained why, another example of your hypocrisy.Quote “You have not given any justification for calling people” praying in mosques “immoral yourself. You have just asserted it.”
Where did I say it was immoral?? Another logical fallacy. You really aren’t very bright, are you.Quote moral (adj.) mid-14c., “pertaining to character or temperament” (good or bad), from O.Fr. moral, from L. moralis “proper behavior of a person in society,” lit. “pertaining to manners,” coined by Cicero (“De Fato,” II.i) to translate Gk. ethikos (see ethics) from L. mos (gen. moris) “one's disposition,” in plural, “mores, customs, manners, morals,” of uncertain origin. Meaning “morally good, conforming to moral rules,” is first recorded late 14c. of stories, 1630s of persons. Original value-neutral sense preserved in moral support, moral victory, with sense of “pertaining to character as opposed to physical action.” The noun meaning “moral exposition of a story” is attested from c.1500. Related: Morally. So let's just say it is not Customary that a man should be with a man or a woman should be with a woman. This would also be very unmannerly for a lovely young woman to be attarcted to a man just to find out that he has rudely broken the customary route of relations. from this perspective you should no doubt understand what is or isn't immoral and Homosexuality is immoral, now if you accept it you should just say you can tolerate or enjoy what is not proper and moral in society
“Customary”, and “unmannerly” do not appear in the definition of moral you just posted. You don’t have a clue, do you.Quote It's like I said before in most civil societies canabalism is immoral, however there are certain minor tribes in pockets of the world that find canabalism acceptable but as we know that life hinges on the attraction of male and f
You haven’t answered my question about whether you talk as much bollocks as you write.Stuart
Stu,You are Amoral i.e. without morality which causes you to think and behave immoral. Yes, a person can be both and you are.
still you certainly stand for incest, homosexuality and the combination of both, you still find pornography and prostitution superior to modesty and covering up you should never ever have a debate about morality as it is an automatic loss for you
I have complained about your libel to the mods. You should prepare yourself to defend your accusation that I “certainly stand for incest, homosexuality and the combination of both, still find pornography and prostitution superior to modesty and covering up”.
Do you have any liability insurance? Are you worth suing?
Stuart
Quote (Stu @ Dec. 18 2010,15:06) I have complained about your libel to the mods. You should prepare yourself to defend your accusation that I “certainly stand for incest, homosexuality and the combination of both, still find pornography and prostitution superior to modesty and covering up”. Do you have any liability insurance? Are you worth suing?
Stuart
Did you or did you not say that any consentual relationship to you is Moral?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
