[jlisenbe]

Hilarious, the guy with his head shoulder deep up the dufus arse is lecturing people on morality! Only in America, is crap in your ears a status symbol.

Oh good grief. Try coming up with something intelligent to say.

[talaniman]

You first! Let me know when that happens. I thought I was use to your inane circular arguments but man you really found a new place to bury your head today.

[jlisenbe]

inane circular arguments

Name one. I know you can't. You know you can't. Now everyone knows you can't. That's why you get offensive. You can't think of anything meaningful to say.

Enough of this. This is too close to being hateful. I'm out.

[talaniman]

Good, go get some sunshine and fresh air and learn some manners.

[jlisenbe]

learn some manners.

Like this?

Don't forget to clean the crap from your ears from being shoulder deep up the dufus arse.

[talaniman]

Insulting people for their views often elicits an equal if not more potent reaction.

[Athos]

Insulting people for their views often elicits an equal if not more potent reaction.

I just noticed an insult to me by JL and I haven't even been here. He projects onto others what he himself is guilty of. Trump does that all the time.

[jlisenbe]

Anytime you're ready. Remember these? It's like I said several days ago, your problem is that there are people on this board who remember what you have said, and who also remember what you have refused to do.

1. How is it that nearly every translation does not accept your definition of aionios?
2. Would you agree that, even based upon your rendering of the Mt. 25 passage, that there is a hell and people will be sent there at least for some period of time?
3. What was your view of these scriptures? Matt. 13:50; 10:28; 18:8,9; Luke 3:17; 12:5; 13:27,28; 17:19ff. You can also refer to Rev. 20:11ff; 21:8, 2 Thes. 1:9, Mark 9:43, Jude 1:7, and 2 Peter 3ff.
4. Based upon what Strong's concordance had to say about "kolasis", do you think you missed it with your interpretation of the word?

[jlisenbe]

Honestly guys, I like discussions. However, trying to have a serious discussion with people who won't answer honest questions simply because they know it will take them to an uncomfortable place, who treat serious serious issues as though they are merely trivial, "gotcha" questions, or who become so angry as to suggest someone has their head up someone else's rear end has become really tiresome. I have little patience with it, and then I allow myself to make unkind comments I'm not accustomed to making, and I feel convicted of God for doing so. Now that's on me, but continuing to pursue this is on me as well, and I'm really not ready to continue that for the reasons mentioned earlier. If anyone (other than Tom who makes good posts) becomes ready to get serious, I might take another stab at it. For now, not so much.

[Wondergirl]

Honestly guys, I like discussions. However, trying to have a serious discussion with people who won't answer honest questions simply because they know it will take them to an uncomfortable place, who treat serious serious issues as though they are merely trivial, "gotcha" questions, or who become so angry as to suggest someone has their head up someone else's rear end has become really tiresome. I have little patience with it, and then I allow myself to make unkind comments I'm not accustomed to making, and I feel convicted of God for doing so. Now that's on me, but continuing to pursue this is on me as well, and I'm really not ready to continue that for the reasons mentioned earlier. If anyone (other than Tom who makes good posts) becomes ready to get serious, I might take another stab at it. For now, not so much.

1. You don't answer honest questions (or stay on topic -- deflect, deflect, deflect!!!);
2. You treat serious questions as trivial;
3. You blame and refuse to take any responsibility.
Yet I've found you to be an interesting person with a multiplicity of interests and at times worthy of engagement.

[talaniman]

I have never posted to you out of anger, maybe it seems that way, but rather matching your rudeness with my own since the semblence of serious discussion was gone, and you became a insulting dictator of thought. I tried through several posts to point that out NICELY, but you ignored or dismissed it continuously. Why assume anyone is afraid of answering because they are not comfortable with their answers? I find that they are more wary of getting blasted as being wrong, which has been your pattern when faced with honest disagreement. Does a serious discussion have to be THAT serious? Or maybe your venting your cabin fever?

[jlisenbe]

Anytime you're ready. About the fifth time I've posted these, and I'm quite certain it will be the fifth time you have refused to answer.

Perhaps you can explain to us how to separate human rights from morality, and how there is no "rightness" or "wrongness" when it comes to human rights.

While you're at it, I'd still love for you to explain how it is that if killing a child is morally wrong, that killing an unborn child could be less morally wrong.

[Wondergirl]

Anytime you're ready. About the fifth time I've posted these, and I'm quite certain it will be the fifth time you have refused to answer.

1. Perhaps you can explain to us how to separate human rights from morality, and how there is no "rightness" or "wrongness" when it comes to human rights.

2. While you're at it, I'd still love for you to explain how it is that if killing a child is morally wrong, that killing an unborn child could be less morally wrong.

1. You have yet to define each (morality and human rights). They are not the same.
2. First, please tell me why it's okay to kill children after they're born, especially brown and black children.

[jlisenbe]

OK. I'll take one more stab at it. I will answer your two questions first if you will PROMISE to immediately answer mine. Deal?

[talaniman]

It says nothing about a higher standard of morality? Well, it certainly speaks of a higher standard which is Jefferson's point. Those certain rights are inalienable because they did not come from man but from God, and what higher standard do you want?

And you want to suggest that human rights bear no relationship to moral values? You really believe that the rights of humans have nothing to do with morality? It IS morality. Your liberal political persuasions have driven you away from the most obvious thing in world.

Funny you bring that up about Jefferson a slave owner who preached inalienable rights and practiced slavery. So much for a higher standard, individual rights, and all that so called morality. Where they LIARS? Or were they hypocrites? Or were they disobeying the God they claimed so great?

Or were they just doing what humans do and still do, practicing a double standard to justify their high moral standards that only applied to some and not others. Yes that double standard that allows for the high and mighty to discriminate and treat other humans unequally. So I guess morality and human rights is in the eye of the beholder ultimately, the strong subjugating the weak. How else to you put Jefferson on such a pedestal, when his words, and actions didn't match?

Such humans that talk God and do the devil are prevalent throughout history which makes your question more of who can make and enforce the law is who decides morality and human rights. Just ask Adolph Hitler.

[paraclete]

a sense of destiny and what ought to be, nothing more, much mia culpa and hand wringing, but yet one man is powerless to overturn the establishment. That persists to the present day

[talaniman]

Sometimes the best you get is a compromise between two opposing groups. Somebody still gets the short stick when self interest is involved. Especially when one justifies ones superiority by pointing to another's inferiority.

[paraclete]

Sometimes the best you get is a compromise between two opposing groups. Somebody still gets the short stick when self interest is involved. Especially when one justifies ones superiority by pointing to another's inferiority.

Yes compromise, sometimes also known as consensus. I would have thought that in times of crisis all things become possible

[talaniman]

Even in times of crisis, agendas make compromise difficult, but that's the price you pay for diverse populations. The balance of power has been tilted, and when things are unequal it gives slight advantages in those compromises to those it tilts toward. The virus though in this current crisis have certainly motivated states to act in unison though, and that's not a bad thing in absence of an fed response. The communications and consensus formed by those frontline governors is refreshing and they seem to have gotten a regional unified front to deal with the crisis.

There is no quick fix or miracle cure apparent, but a lot of hard work on the ground being done.

[paraclete]

So perhaps your union is acting as it should, with states taking the lead according to their need, and the federal government becomes lender of the last resort