not sure why you thought my rephrasing of a point the video made was directly talking to you.

i disregarded most of your first post and expansions on it because i was under the impression that we were on the same subject (objective morality) which i keep saying over and over.

after such a huge post and people congratulating you, i thought you thoroughly debunked what that video was saying and made a really strong case for what Alph was previously saying.

so naturally i was like... well... you didn't really respond to the video at all. rather, you thoroughly explained why his scripture quotes lacked proper context and interpretation... despite the video going on to say the very fact that you can mince scripture depending on your interpretation works against it being an objective or universal standard.

i'm not saying you're okay with stoning, but you did acknowledge this:

Quote from Vorpal

Of course, it sounds terrible.
But it's also been taken out of extreme context here as there's plenty of examples where the man gets stoned to death too.

if a Christian is going to object to stoning as a practice, then they must be using morality outside of the Bible, no?

also, how can you act like you didn't know what my point was when i literally said

Quote from Index

the point is that if there are atrocious acts that become okay in certain contexts or when ordered by God rather than Man, then how can that be a good standard for objective morality?

like, no strings attached, i said the point right there. my only post before that was the video with no commentary.

Quote from Index

not sure why you thought my rephrasing of a point the video made was directly talking to you.

i disregarded most of your first post and expansions on it because i was under the impression that we were on the same subject (objective morality) which i keep saying over and over.

after such a huge post and people congratulating you, i thought you thoroughly debunked what that video was saying and made a really strong case for what Alph was previously saying.

so naturally i was like... well... you didn't really respond to the video at all. rather, you thoroughly explained why his scripture quotes lacked proper context and interpretation... despite the video going on to say the very fact that you can mince scripture depending on your interpretation works against it being an objective or universal standard.

i'm not saying you're okay with stoning, but you did acknowledge this:


if a Christian is going to object to stoning as a practice, then they must be using morality outside of the Bible, no?

Wow you admit you didn't even read the post, you are a top level hypocrite right now.
You just full on disregarded it and interpreted it to mean what you wanted it to, the irony is staggering.

I'm not sure how much more I can debunk a video than expressing that the whole "look at this bad thing in the bible" was predicated on foolish presumptions or even bold faced misnomers.

Why would a follower of Christ adhere strictly to Deuteronomy laws allegedly written by Moses for his people in obedience to god prior to Jesus life and dying for our sins? What exactly do you think Christ supposedly saved people from? He just lived and died and everything was the same?
You certainly don't see many modern Christians refusing to eat meat from oxen and saving the fats to pay tribute to god in accordance with Levitical law either.
Moreover, why am I discussing this shit with you when I know it's in one ear and out the other?

You could attack any of these other insane examples of alleged laws in the bible that we don't follow. But somehow, you, like the religious people you seek to alienate. Don't seem to acknowledge a grey area between "this is the word of god" and "this is written in the bible."
It's actually disappointing, I honestly expected much more from you.

What I'm saying is that there really isn't much merit in your Deuteronomy 22:21 argument and you would know this if you read when I analyze it in depth in my first response. Honestly it's a little bit insulting that you keep going on and on about it.

It's a rigged question, a goal post you've set up. But it's predicated on non-sense, Index.
You're so transparent right now.

But the truth is pretty obvious now and you know what's funny?
No one would have thought less of you if you had at least admitted you don't know.

Quote from Index

like, no strings attached, i said the point right there. my only post before that was the video with no commentary.

You mean that post you edited nearly an hour after you first posted it.

I don't see how I could've possibly missed that.

That moment you're so high you think you gonna die but you can't get upset about it cuz you so high right now and now I'm laughing to my phone

Quote from Kodoku

That moment you're so high you think you gonna die but you can't get upset about it cuz you so high right now and now I'm laughing to my phone

I don't get so high that I think I'm gonna die, but I do get so high that I have to sleep it off.
Like my eyelids get all extra heavy and shit.

Quote from Vorpal

Wow you admit you didn't even read the post, you are a top level hypocrite right now.
You just full on disregarded it and interpreted it to mean what you wanted it to, the irony is staggering.

uhh, no, "disregard" as in "choose not to respond to." i read your post, i just decided that it was mostly irrelevant to the subject.

Quote from Vorpal

I'm not sure how much more I can debunk a video than expressing that the whole "look at this bad thing in the bible" was predicated on foolish presumptions or even bold faced misnomers.

if you think his argument was "look at this bad thing in the Bible, therefore the Bible is wrong" then i don't think you understood the video.

Quote from Vorpal

Why would a follower of Christ adhere strictly to Deuteronomy laws allegedly written by Moses for his people in obedience to god prior to Jesus life and dying for our sins? You certainly don't see many modern Christians refusing to eat meat from oxen and saving the fats to pay tribute to god in accordance with Levitical law either.

i don't know, maybe because it's part of the Bible? are you saying Deuteronomy is obsolete? what does "strictly" mean? clearly choosing the severity of how you follow something is the opposite of objective.

Quote from Vorpal

Moreover, why am I discussing this shit with you when I know it's in one ear and out the other?

a better question is: why am i responding to you when you seem to love insulting me in pretty much every post?

Quote from Vorpal

You could attack any of these other insane examples of alleged laws in the bible that we don't follow. But somehow, you, like the religious people you seek to alienate. Don't seem to acknowledge a grey area between "this is the word of god" and "this is written in the bible."

the existence of a "grey area" is exactly what the point is. objective morality should not have a grey area.

Quote from Vorpal

What I'm saying is that there really isn't much merit in your Deuteronomy 22:21 argument and you would know this if you read when I analyze it in depth in my first response. Honestly it's a little bit insulting that you keep going on and on about it.

you're the one who's obsessed with that verse, but if you'd like to make a more pertinent point, you can try to make a case for an interpretation of the Bible that contains zero orders to stone human beings to death.

Quote from Vorpal

It's a rigged question, a goal post you've set up. But it's predicated on non-sense, Index.
You're so transparent right now.

But the truth is pretty obvious now and you know what's funny?
No one would have thought less of you if you had at least admitted you don't know.

i really hate these jutsu-isms where you launch into some sort of thumb-twiddling character after reaching a certain level of smugness.

Quote from Vorpal

You mean that post you edited nearly an hour after you first posted it.

I don't see how I could've possibly missed that.

i don't either, because you literally quoted that part of my post.



bottom right corner, for reference.

Quote from Index

uhh, no, "disregard" as in "choose not to respond to." i read your post, i just decided that it was mostly irrelevant to the subject.


if you think his argument was "look at this bad thing in the Bible, therefore the Bible is wrong" then i don't think you understood the video.

i don't know, maybe because it's part of the Bible? are you saying Deuteronomy is obsolete? what does "strictly" mean? clearly choosing the severity of how you follow something is the opposite of objective.

a better question is: why am i responding to you when you seem to love insulting me in pretty much every post?

the existence of a "grey area" is exactly what the point is. objective morality should not have a grey area.

you're the one who's obsessed with that verse, but if you'd like to make a more pertinent point, you can try to make a case for an interpretation of the Bible that contains zero orders to stone human beings to death.

i really hate these jutsu-isms where you launch into some sort of thumb-twiddling character after reaching a certain level of smugness.


i don't either, because you literally quoted that part of my post.

bottom right corner, for reference.

So in the video, when he boldly claims "So we flipped through a few pages and it turns out this object moral law giver, consistent with his holy and loving nature. Desires that some women and girls be burned to death as punishment for sexual immorality and that other women should be stoned to death for having sex before marriage."
Which he does do and then proceeds to use quotes like this as the basis for the rest of the video. You somehow think me actually looking up the scripture he's allegedly referring to and attempting to understand it in its context is irrelevant? Deuteronomy 22:21 was the only one I could find in the bible about it and it turned out the dude was pretty much flat out wrong about it.

How can you criticize me for being obsessed with the verse when I only looked it up because of the video in the first place?

Quote from Index

i would rather discuss whether or not stoning people to death is morally repugnant or not, and how we are supposed to justify our answer.

Especially when it's a corner post to your own deficient perspective? When I'm sitting here just trying to tell you that the verse may not actually mean what you think it means. No, I'm the one obsessed with it?

I've been much more patient with you than I normally am, but since I'm going to sleep allow me to make the following things crystal clear for you.
Your questions on this subject are actual childs play, like, even a little kid could come to the conclusion of "Hey some of the things in this book don't seem that good!" You shouldn't talk so seriously about a subject you've been revealed to know little to nothing about, unless you want to look like an idiot. You sure as heck don't want to get into a discussion about objective morals as they relate to the bible, based on inaccurate passages and presumptions. Especially don't act like the same passages don't apply to the topic, because that'd be extremely dumb.
You've bored and disappointed me, sincerely.

Quote from Index

i really hate these jutsu-isms where you launch into some sort of thumb-twiddling character after reaching a certain level of smugness.

haha, c'mon man. Like you haven't come across as a total jack wagon in this conversation.

You can't blame me for becoming a little flippant after this.

Quote from Vorpal

So in the video, when he boldly claims "So we flipped through a few pages and it turns out this object moral law giver, consistent with his holy and loving nature. Desires that some women and girls be burned to death as punishment for sexual immorality and that other women should be stoned to death for having sex before marriage."
Which he does do and then proceeds to use quotes like this as the basis for the rest of the video. You somehow think me actually looking up the scripture he's allegedly referring to and attempting to understand it in its context is irrelevant? Deuteronomy 22:21 was the only one I could find in the bible about it and it turned out the dude was pretty much flat out wrong about it.

How can you criticize me for being obsessed with the verse when I only looked it up because of the video in the first place?

Especially when it's a corner post to your own deficient perspective? When I'm sitting here just trying to tell you that the verse may not actually mean what you think it means. No, I'm the one obsessed with it?

your analyses of the scripture he brought up were concerned not with God's order for a violent and cruel act to occur, but the justification for it.

"The bible more expressly forbids adultery than pre marital sex. Which are two different things."

okay, but the result is still death by torture. but since the offense is agreeably bad enough it's okay? what's the actual point here?

again, i'll point out that you used men AND women being stoned to death as an example of why it's NOT terrible. the insanity of that claim speaks for itself. i mean, we AGREE that God orders stoning, and that's only one thing, so we can extrapolate that onto points nonstampcollector continues to make. changing pre-marital sex to adultery or vice versa does nothing to combat the main point, which i've taken the time to write out:

You're talking about throwing rocks at living people until they're dead as a result being in line with the requirements of an objective moral lawgiver who is inherently merciful. But that sort of punishment was objectively right in another context, but objectively wrong in a contemporary context. Meaning that if anyone did that now it would be immoral. Objectively immoral. Well, objective or contextual? Don't you see that the instant you invoke context, your claim that there is an objective moral standard is destroyed? Because if killing people by throwing rocks at them is morally permissible in some contexts, then what on earth isn't? The most hideous and cruel acts, you are clearly telling us, can be morally good, depending on the context. So there is no OBJECTIVE standard of objective morality. There's nothing so evil or cruel or barbaric or disgusting that this god of yours COULDN'T be okay with in certain circumstances, because your understanding of morality implies that if God did it, it would simply BE moral. Nothing is absolutely, objectively immoral, because morality under this model is subject to the opinion of God at that time. It's ALL circumstantial.

Quote from Vorpal

I've been much more patient with you than I normally am, but since I'm going to sleep allow me to make the following things crystal clear for you.
Your questions on this subject are actual childs play, like, even a little kid could come to the conclusion of "Hey some of the things in this book don't seem that good!" You shouldn't talk so seriously about a subject you've been revealed to know little to nothing about, unless you want to look like an idiot.

it's actually pathetic how absolutely obsessed you get with image whenever you get into an argument. as i've said before, i'm very surprised you think someone would actually want to respond to this kind of shit-flinging.

Quote from Vorpal

You sure as heck don't want to get into a discussion about objective morals as they relate to the bible, based on inaccurate passages and presumptions. Especially don't act like the same passages don't apply to the topic, because that'd be extremely dumb.

let's get a few things straight: does the Bible condone ever stoning, yes or no?

if your answer is YES, it is irrelevant to get into the specific details about "when" or "why," because then you cannot argue that the practice of stoning someone to death, or more broadly execution by torture, is objectively immoral using the Bible.

Quote from Raptor

If I could, as a third party, weigh in, I felt that there was definitely a tone of passive-aggressiveness coming from both sides since the beginning whether it was intentional or not.

Regardless, pages 15593-4 were interesting reads from both sides of the argument. I really liked Jutsu's original response to the video too regardless of whether or not it adequately responded to the video since it provided proper contextual evidence, which is usually way more than what people usually present around here when debating.

Its annoying because my original post was genuine and unbiased but as this conversations gone on *something I clearly wanted to avoid in my very first post* he's forced it into a pissing contest more than an actual intelligent discussion. I'm not surprised, Index has always been more entertaining for the spectacle than the substance of his brain matter.

I think we've found the point of admitted hypocrisy, lack of consideration and full on not even reading my argument until he's already blown it out of proportion into some sort of debate I never signed up for.

This is the point where it's okay for me to call just an idiot an idiot. Because he quite clearly has no fucking clue what he's talking about lol. It's not like he doesn't have a few valid points or anything, just that its so burried by trite horseshit and ignorance that it isn't even worth the effort.

and there we have it. about time, right? we've officially hit the level where he's not even going to pretend to post any sort of response, but that somehow justifies petty ad hominem attacks. classic...

it's funny how my word choice (using the word "disregard" to denote irrelevance with respect to a particular topic) somehow makes me guilty of not reading your original post (i did, as i've said before) even though you're the one who tried to pretend you didn't read content from my original post when it was right there in your quote (quotes don't retroactively change, if i need to clear that up). so maybe you're the one who didn't read my post? irony xD

Quote from Index

and there we have it. about time, right? we've officially hit the level where he's not even going to pretend to post any sort of response, but that somehow justifies petty ad hominem attacks. classic...

it's funny how my word choice (using the word "disregard" to denote irrelevance with respect to a particular topic) somehow makes me guilty of not reading your original post (i did, as i've said before) even though you're the one who tried to pretend you didn't read content from my original post when it was right there in your quote (quotes don't retroactively change, if i need to clear that up). so maybe you're the one who didn't read my post? irony xD

Maybe you're just so retarded that I don't think you deserve to be talked to intelligently anymore, that's all.

You've done gone externus on us.

Classic Jutsu.


What's up, Index.

Quote from Arch-Angel

Classic Jutsu.


What's up, Index.

Speaking of people I regard with zero respect.

How's it going, fuck face?

Quote from Vorpal

Maybe you're just so retarded that I don't think you deserve to be talked to intelligently anymore, that's all.

You've done gone externus on us.

"i have to come out on top of this somehow.... EVERYONE NEEDS TO KNOW I'M SOOPER SMART... but i can't figure out a good reply to his post...... uhhh uh uhhh--wait!!! i'll just call him an idiot!!! TWICE!!! THREE TIMES, KEEP DOING IT--!!!"

genius ;)

Quote from Arch-Angel

Classic Jutsu.


What's up, Index.

hay



im fucken chillin brehs

Quote from Index

"i have to come out on top of this somehow.... EVERYONE NEEDS TO KNOW I'M SOOPER SMART... but i can't figure out a good reply to his post...... uhhh uh uhhh--wait!!! i'll just call him an idiot!!! TWICE!!! THREE TIMES, KEEP DOING IT--!!!"

genius ;)

I only called you an idiot twice, the third time I called you a retard...today that is

Need me to lean in closer to the microphone for you?