"YHWH" =/= Conservative Politics

Author: 3RU7AL

Posts

Total: 129
#31
Snoopy
Snoopy's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,320
2
2
4
Snoopy's avatar
Snoopy
2
2
4
-->
@secularmerlin
The name of this thread. "YHWH" =/= Conservative Politics.
Exactly!!
Yes exactly. The thread is specifically about a religious figure.
Thanks for the thought.  What do you mean by "a religious figure"



Assuming such a being even exists what method have you used to determin what this hypothetical figure would or would not find disrespectful. Also in what way is referring to said being as a being, a creator and a ruler not referring to it as thpugh it were a creature?
God is God, and I personally don't find YHWH offensive from non believers.  I don't mean disrespectful in a strictly empathetic manner.  If you have a suggestion for me, I would be open to it.

#32
Snoopy
Snoopy's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,320
2
2
4
Snoopy's avatar
Snoopy
2
2
4
-->
@3RU7AL
Please explain how defending the human rights of minorities forfeits "OUR RIGHTS"?
It doesn't.  


Calling someone an "ass" is an ad hominem.  Asking someone to "please speak clearly" is a polite request.
Sometimes, when someone calls you an ass, its just because you are being an ass.
And don't forget, you were going to explain your claim that "human rights" are (somehow) a secular version of "YHWH'S" commandments.
What makes you say that?

Your logical fallacy is "dime-store psychoanalysis" also known as "the mind reader" also known as "a rush to disqualify".

Apparently not
#33
Deb-8-a-bull
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,205
3
2
3
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Deb-8-a-bull
3
2
3
-->
@Snoopy
Hi pal.

Hey I can't help but feel YHWH  has a problem with my foreskin.  
Does he?

The other Christian Groups with exactly the same God but only different are not that fussed about it. They used to be but. 

Can you be a jew if you've a foreskin? 
Good day.

#34
Snoopy
Snoopy's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,320
2
2
4
Snoopy's avatar
Snoopy
2
2
4
"human rights" are (somehow) a secular version of "YHWH'S" commandments."

-3RU7AL
I did not claim this.
Topic's author
#35
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Snoopy
I did not claim this.
And I quote,

The declaration of human rights is a secular approach with respect to what Christians and Jews call God.  [POST#22]
#36
Snoopy
Snoopy's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,320
2
2
4
Snoopy's avatar
Snoopy
2
2
4
-->
@Deb-8-a-bull


Can you be a jew if you've a foreskin? 
Good day.
I think so.  Good day to you as well

#37
Snoopy
Snoopy's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,320
2
2
4
Snoopy's avatar
Snoopy
2
2
4
-->
@3RU7AL
I did not claim this.
And I quote,

The declaration of human rights is a secular approach with respect to what Christians and Jews call God.  [POST#22]
-Snoopy
"human rights" are (somehow) a secular version of "YHWH'S" commandments."
  -3RU7AL
Your logical fallacy is "dime-store psychoanalysis" also known as "the mind reader" also known as "a rush to disqualify".

What do you mean by commandments?  
Topic's author
#38
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Snoopy
What do you mean by commandments? 
A teaching or command attributed to the "YHWH".
#39
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Snoopy
Thanks for the thought.  What do you mean by "a religious figure"
I mean a figure who is popularized to the general public by a perpetuation of a religion.
God is God, and I personally don't find YHWH offensive from non believers.
I appreciate that especially in light of the facy that it was once considered a capital offense but this in no way tells me how you have determined what is offensive to any given deity.
  I don't mean disrespectful in a strictly empathetic manner. 
Then in what manner did you mean it?
 If you have a suggestion for me, I would be open to it.
In regards to what exactly?
#40
Snoopy
Snoopy's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,320
2
2
4
Snoopy's avatar
Snoopy
2
2
4
-->
@3RU7AL
I did not claim this.
And I quote,

The declaration of human rights is a secular approach with respect to what Christians and Jews call God.  [POST#22]
-Snoopy
"human rights" are (somehow) a secular version of "YHWH'S" commandments."  [POST#25]
  -3RU7AL
Your logical fallacy is "dime-store psychoanalysis" also known as "the mind reader" also known as "a rush to disqualify".

What do you mean by commandments?  
A teaching or command attributed to the "YHWH".
You may be equating God, with attributed commandments or teachings that draw from biblical context.  I can't conceive a thought process leading to the quoted statement in post 25 from post 22.
#41
disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
-->
@Snoopy
Your backpedaling is impressive, claiming that you don't understand what you are saying is more honest than you know.
#42
Snoopy
Snoopy's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,320
2
2
4
Snoopy's avatar
Snoopy
2
2
4
-->
@disgusted
Sorry, but what is backpedalling? Are there supposed to be two sentences?
#43
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Snoopy
Sometimes, when someone calls you an ass, its just because you are being an ass.
In a debate setting such as this one an insult is generally an ad hominem and even if an ad hom can be substantiated it is generally irrelevant to the subject under discussion. Ad hominem isn't frowned upon in debate just because it is impolite but also and more importantly because it is a common logical fallacy to offer an insult even though only relevant arguments will establish your position.

#44
Snoopy
Snoopy's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,320
2
2
4
Snoopy's avatar
Snoopy
2
2
4
-->
@secularmerlin
Thanks. I don't consider this a debate setting, so there I suppose lies the confusion in this instance
#45
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Snoopy
The name of the site is your first clue that this may be a debate setting
#46
Snoopy
Snoopy's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,320
2
2
4
Snoopy's avatar
Snoopy
2
2
4
-->
@secularmerlin
There is a section dedicated to debates that I intend to use for debates. I generally consider forums for the thought. I suppose it is safe to say that debate is your primary initiative in forum communications.  I will continue to consider that unreasonable to assume for others.
#47
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Snoopy
I think it is safe to say that the primary purpose of this site is debate. It is true that the forums are not structured formal debates but ones arguments still stand or fall on their own merits and there is little merit in an ad hom.

#48
Snoopy
Snoopy's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,320
2
2
4
Snoopy's avatar
Snoopy
2
2
4
-->
@secularmerlin
While my primary interest in this website is in the debate section, I simply do not have the time to involve myself in the commitment, although I still enjoy reading it.  The forums can certainly prove useful to that end through thoughtful contribution, and that coincides with my general mentality in this setting.

#49
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Snoopy
And do you consider an ad hominem a thoughtful contribution?
#50
Snoopy
Snoopy's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,320
2
2
4
Snoopy's avatar
Snoopy
2
2
4
-->
@secularmerlin
What is an ad hominem?  Would you like to take this into private messages, a debate, or another thread? 
#51
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Snoopy
Calling some one an ass is an ad hominem and as I said ad hominems do not add to an argument.
#52
Snoopy
Snoopy's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,320
2
2
4
Snoopy's avatar
Snoopy
2
2
4
-->
@secularmerlin
In a formal debate setting, I can see how that could be poor conduct, and as I understand an ad hominem is fallacious and entirely counter productive.  What is an ad hominem in your view?  I welcome input from the relevant user, and by no means contend an insult in an unalterable sense towards them as a person.

#53
disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
-->
@Snoopy
English is not a language you understand so why are you on an English language forum?
Topic's author
#54
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Snoopy
You may be equating God, with attributed commandments or teachings that draw from biblical context.  I can't conceive a thought process leading to the quoted statement in post 25 from post 22.
I am willing to accept that I misunderstood your intended meaning.

If that is indeed the case, please explain or expand upon or provide supporting evidence for the following quote.

The declaration of human rights is a secular approach with respect to what Christians and Jews call God.  [POST#22]
Topic's author
#55
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Snoopy
What is an ad hominem in your view?
It isn't the slightest bit complicated.

Ad hominem (Latin for "to the person"[1]), short for argumentum ad hominem, is a fallacious argumentative strategy whereby genuine discussion of the topic at hand is avoided by instead attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself.[2] [LINK]
Topic's author
#56
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Snoopy
While my primary interest in this website is in the debate section, I simply do not have the time to involve myself in the commitment, although I still enjoy reading it.  The forums can certainly prove useful to that end through thoughtful contribution, and that coincides with my general mentality in this setting.
#57
Snoopy
Snoopy's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,320
2
2
4
Snoopy's avatar
Snoopy
2
2
4
-->
@3RU7AL
Red Herring
Okay, this is unintuitive to me. Are you saying this is a debate-thread and I'm going on a tangent from your subject of debate? 
Topic's author
#58
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Snoopy
Please explain or expand upon or provide supporting evidence for the following quote.

The declaration of human rights is a secular approach with respect to what Christians and Jews call God.  [POST#22] 
#59
Snoopy
Snoopy's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,320
2
2
4
Snoopy's avatar
Snoopy
2
2
4
-->
@3RU7AL
On it boss
#60
Snoopy
Snoopy's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,320
2
2
4
Snoopy's avatar
Snoopy
2
2
4
-->
@3RU7AL
You may be equating God, with attributed commandments or teachings that draw from biblical context.  I can't conceive a thought process leading to the quoted statement in post 25 from post 22.
I am willing to accept that I misunderstood your intended meaning.

If that is indeed the case, please explain or expand upon or provide supporting evidence for the following quote.

The declaration of human rights is a secular approach with respect to what Christians and Jews call God.  [POST#22]
Secular was intended to connotate detachment from religion, or compatible between different religions.  There isn't much here for you to misunderstand. 

Put another way, maybe one could call it a backwards way of going about things, assuming that we may ascertain our relationship in the world we live in accordance with natural law.  Its important to note that these rights as observed by the United States government are not considered absolute, not in legal theory nor in actuality.  Some rights may be considered differently than others as fundamental by the Supreme Court, with a wide scope of protection for the theoretical right.  As a brief reality check, obviously just because we can do something as an American citizen without fear of recourse, that wouldn't necessarily make it right.  Rights do not come from the United States government.  We conform our institutions in respect as best we can.