Megalomaniacally Replaying the Errors

[DreamTone7]

bitwhys - "...you have done absolutely nothing to establish that society needs to agree to the "moral framework" of the Bible in order to establish any degree of civility within any given society."



Never was trying to do that to begin with. That was your anti-Biblical assumption.



All I said was that we need to agree to a moral framework that stands outside of man's ability to alter according to his whims, and pointed out the Bible as an example that would work along these lines.





ans - "But among others, the translators in King J's Court re-wrote the Bible to suit King J's political and social agenda."



According to who? Sources and evidence, please.





ans - "I maintain that Christians like Jefferson, if it's true he didn't believe in Hell, may find it easier to hold enslaved human beings across the sea from their home, until they die. Hence I'd be suspicious of his ramblings on the subject of morality. Same with Washington"



That's a big "IF" that you're basing your suspicion on. But even "if" it were as you say, I'd still disagree with you. I don't think belief or not in hell is going to change a persons morality to the point that it would bring about the attitude you suppose. Chance of a snowball in hell, maybe?

Melody and Instruments for the soul...

[DreamTone7]

ans - "Heh. I guess you snuck in the 'a' after THIS post."



LOL...there'd be an edit note at the bottom of the post if I did.

Melody and Instruments for the soul...

[RonOnGuitar]

Quote:

---

That's why the King James version is markedly different from, say, the Jerusalem Bible.

---

Can you elaborate on that to cite what you mean by "different"?



The only difference I can think of is that The Jerusaeum Bible contains the deuterocanonical books. (The original (1611) KJV Bible also contained the Apocrypha). However, that's moot since their addition or absence doesn't effect the major, small "o" orthodox biblical concepts, themes or overall message.



You can say "Hi!", "Hello!" or "Greetings!" - the words may be different but the intent and meaning is the same.

[bitwhys]

Quote:

---

Never was trying to do that to begin with. That was your anti-Biblical assumption.

---

look who's making assumptions. I'm speaking out in disgreement of this...

Quote:

---

But(sic) without the ethics derived from these Biblical morals to support the laws, the laws would be meaningless and unenforceable.

---

Ever see "Finding Nemo"? you remind me of Dory.

[DreamTone7]

"Biblical" as opposed to "social"...not that it could be the only source. (Though I happen to think it's by far the best one.)



Nope...never saw "Finding Nemo"

[bitwhys]

Quote:

---

Though I happen to think it's by far the best one

---

well if your Bible is where you're getting the nerve to defend CIA torture in the thread next door you can shove it up your @#%$. and if your God doesn't like it he can kiss mine while I'm on my way to hell.

[HKRockChick]

of course the Bible is not where he's getting it. As with all religious fanatics, bigots and zealots, he's reinterpreting and making up stuff to suit his agenda, picking up things all out of context etc etc. Exactly what the terrorists do with the Koran.

[DreamTone7]

bitwhys - "well if your Bible is where you're getting the nerve to defend CIA torture..."



I don't know exactly what's going on with that, and neither do you. You only suppose, and base that supposition on what you find in the media. The media (with its agenda quite apparent) has a tendency at this point in time to blow things way out of proportion and paint as ugly a picture as possible towards the government...and especially the current administration. I take what they say with a relatively large grain of salt. But it's great stuff for getting folks wriled up, isn't it. Funny how that works.





HKRC - "As with all religious fanatics, bigots and zealots, he's reinterpreting and making up stuff to suit his agenda, picking up things all out of context etc etc."



Pot calling the kettle black again, I see. You know, you'd make a wonderful zealot, Deb.

[HKRockChick]

The day I start justifying violence, war, loss of life and the trampling of human rights in the name of my cause you can call me that.



You seem to be able to do it quite well though, all the while quoting the bible with it. Thats what the terrorists do too, you know, only they quote the Koran.

[ans]

DT: "You're wrong. Period. I suppose, though, it depends on how you look at things."



So your period is really a comma. Either way, it's a contradiction.



Now here is some wriggling:



DT: "Having desire (the noun) is one thing...desiring (the verb) is another."



DT: 'there is a difference between desiring, and having a desire.



DT: "Nursing and feeding "a desire" is the process of "desiring"







ANS: "Nursing and feeding a desire is exactly and precisely the definition of 'having desire'.



. . .



DT: "There's a difference betwing having desire and having A desire"





lmao



I wasn't accusing you of editing your post. I meant that initially you were arguing about "desiring" being different from "having desire" but by page 8 your argument had morphed into "desiring" being different from "having A desire".



I point this out only because by page nine you're reduced to arguing that "desire" is different from "desiring" which is different from "having desire" which is different from "having A desire". And we both know none of that has ANYTHING do do with nursing and feeding A desire being identical to having A desire (you can imagine the tongue protruding from the smiley right now)





HKR: "he's reinterpreting and making up stuff to suit his agenda"



I can't dispute this, but I'm still calling it banter Let's not forget the wiggle room:







* * *





About the King James Version



A friend of mine who earned his MA in Philosophy of Religion learned of the difference while studying both:



"If you do wade into the morass of codified Christianity, avoid the King James...they re-wrote that sucker seven ways to Sunday to bolster the political and social agendas of King J's court. The most accurate, true-to-the-original-sources-from-whence-they-wuz-culled translation currently readily available is 'The Jerusalem Bible', which also includes most of the Apocryphal stuff"



I take his word for it. If you don't, Google's only a click away. Let me know what you turn up and we'll bant about it lol





HKR: " The day I start justifying violence, war, loss of life and the trampling of human rights . . . "



And the day I greet the concept of slavery with "freedom is an illusion" . . .

[HKRockChick]

HKR: "he's reinterpreting and making up stuff to suit his agenda"



Ans: "I can't dispute this, but I'm still calling it banter Let's not forget the wiggle room:"



Yeah, but I couldn't resist. I was simply DYING for that opening...

[bitwhys]

Quote:

---

I don't know exactly what's going on with that, and neither do you. You only suppose, and base that supposition on what you find in the media.

---

I said DEFENDING, not DENYING. I'll tell you what I do know. I know the CIA is above the law in a lot of locations because I read the law that makes them so from the Library of Congress' own records. I know that the USA has a recent record of torture and abuse. I know the CIA is going to great lengths to transport prisoners to locations where their operatives will never have to answer to anyone but the President and that they are operating under authorization and that means that whatever they're doing is beyond the reach of Justice.



I know the Administration lied through their teeth about why Iraq needed to be invaded, sacrificed people of inconvenience along the way and ignore treaty obligations when its suits them. And you defend them.



so go ahead and read that bible of your's and ignore reality. no skin off my back. Its the prisoners you have to worry about, although I'm sure you won't.



HKR: you're right. you'll never make any progress with a moral relativist like DT7.

[DreamTone7]

HKRC - "The day I start justifying violence, war, loss of life and the trampling of human rights in the name of my cause you can call me that.



You seem to be able to do it quite well though, all the while quoting the bible with it. Thats what the terrorists do too, you know, only they quote the Koran."





You exagerate a great deal in the name of your "cause"...whatever that may be. But you don't necessarily have to be justifying anything from your particular list to be a zealot...there are other things a person may be "zealous" about.





ans - There are many people with degrees in certain fields who have a very strong bias in one direction or another...and a degree is only a means of fueling that bias. I know of a history major that wants to become a history teacher who has the most biased and twisted view of history...and this person wants to teach! He totally ignores certain facts because they fly in the face of his personal agenda...like so many people these days have a habit of doing. One term used for this is denial. I'm still waiting for you to ANSwer my question as to evidence. This would be in the form of "what was changed", and "how it is different from the original documents". Seems to me that you've taken your friends word on face value without asking too many questions. This is what happens for some when they find faulty info that seems to fit their own ideas...they never question it. If your friends words/reaction to your mentioning the KJV was just as you quoted, I seriously doubt his view on things is impartial. Make him show you what was changed, and where. Question him! (Just as I'm questioning you.) As for googling, you can just as easily do it and find the great lengths they went to to ensure the KJV was accurate, and tons of websites that claim the opposite of what your friend suggests. So what. I want to know where the changes are! If you can't tell me that, I'll consider the matter a dead issue.



As for my wiggling, you've been the one doing all the wiggling. You jump from concept to concept as if looking for a chink in the armor. If you honestly think I've wiggled, then it's because you want to think that...it fits your agenda, whatever that may be. I maintain what I've said concerning the word "desire" and the variations to it use as I've discussed. If you can't agree, that's fine. If you can't leave it alone...hmmm. I know there's gotta be a word for that somewhere





bitwhys - "HKR: you're right. you'll never make any progress with a moral relativist like DT7. "



Oh-ho...now I see what this is all about. Just what kind of progress is this? (Steals himself for all the ensuing denial.)



There is more prisoner abuse going on in your local prison, bitwhys, than in any alleged secret CIA interrogation center...where is your concern for them? It's not being fueled by the media...that's where it is. We get taught what to eat, what music to listen to, and what to think. It's a shame, really.

[bitwhys]

Quote:

---

I don't know exactly what's going on with that, and neither do you.

---

Quote:

---

There is more prisoner abuse going on in your local prison, bitwhys, than in any alleged secret CIA interrogation center...where is your concern for them?

---

again with the Dory effect. if we don't know what's going on, as you already asserted, we can't say which situation is worse.



besides



two wrongs don't make a right. to think otherwise is moral relativism in action.



Q.E.D.

[DreamTone7]

bitwhys - "again with the Dory effect. if we don't know what's going on, as you already asserted, we can't say which situation is worse."



You're correct...we don't know for sure. But I'd say that a reasonable person would assume that local prisons in Canada contain more prisoners than hidden, secretive, CIA prisons do. A REASONABLE person would, anyway.

Melody and Instruments for the soul...