Total posts: 968
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
Wylted was before my time, so I am not too sure what he is like as a person, whether he was a joker or flat out eager to hurt people. As such, it would be rash for me to rush into his defence, as I do not actually (specifically) know what he is being accused of or how he is to interact with.
Created:
"that's an awfully hot coffee pot"
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
Thank you for FINALLY addressing my argument, instead of committing ad hominem after ad hominem.
Your P2 is false, once again, because your claim, now, violates Article VI of the Constitution, and, obviously has since the Constitution was ratified just a few years ago. You may not realize that making such a claim, yu arer, on fact, claiming sovereign citizenship, which is also illegal.
This response essentially dodges the question by appealing to an authority. It is like saying "slavery is wrong because article blah blah blah of the constitution says so". No, slavery is not wrong because of a court ruling, it is wrong because it is fundamentally immoral.
The same can be said for the situation in hand. I believe that it would be wrong for me to go to America, kill everyone who disobeys me and enslave the rest not because Article VI of the Constitution says so, but because it is the wrong thing to do. Your reference to said article only delays the question, for then I can ask, why is it wrong for me to disobey Article VI, what rule or moral right does it uphold? What is is the purpose of Article VI.
Murder is not wrong because the law says it is, murder is wrong because it is morally wrong.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
Again with this ignorance! I really do hate repeating myself, by
For all practical purposes it was Columbus, on behalf of the Spanish kingdom of Castille, on October 12th, 1492 who discovered America. All other interpretations are not valid from the point of view of what changed for good the history of America and the world .Moreover, by discovery it is not mean just to arrive to some point in the planet but to make it known to the rest of the world and to stablish permanent settlements there. No one but Columbus and Spain did this before. I am aware that there were Anglo-Saxon societies or English speaking countries which resent this fact and write about theories about who was the first to discover America: the answer is simple: Spain and Columbus. Full Stop. Moreover, sourcesMoreover, I clearly stated in my post that "I use Columbus as a symbol of those who landed on Indigenous America and announced it as there's". Even if you do not have the ability to wrap your head around who discovered America, I have clearly compensated for this deficiency and stated that Columbus is simply a variable. This historical accuracy of who discovered does not impact my syllogism. Why? Consider the following dumbed down version of my initial deductive argument.p1. Some dude/party claimed some land which was inhabited.p2. I claim party to a land which is inhabitedp3. When I do it, it's wrongc1. When the dude/party does it, they are wrong.
Address the syllogism.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Barney
@fauxlaw
Is your 'social life' dedicated to internet scoping?
I have done nothing which violates the code of conduct. Merely relaying information which is on your public profile does not (or at least should not) be a breach in any reasonable rule. If you do not want people to tell you that you are 71 years, 8 months, 3 weeks and 2 days old, maybe keep your profile clean.
Seems you know more of me than is revealed on my DArt profile, and that is dangerous ground, my friend.
Yes, through my expert use of doxing and trojan attacking your private email address, I was able to obtain information FROM YOUR PUBLIC PROFILE.
not personal investigation
If all a personal investigator needs to do is look at someone's profile, then I suppose my career is set.
==
You, however, are not as clean as I am.
Clearly
I wonder if you even own the property you occupy. Do you own your car, or does the bank?
treat others as you wish to be treated
Your speculation about me surely is not something you would like to go through. For all you know, I could be the son of a billionaire, typing this from the luxury of my castle waiting for my helicopter to pick my up. On the other hand, I could be a homeless boy on a pre-paid phone sitting outside the library to access free internet, visiting this website to fuel my dreams of one day becoming a respected debater, who because of your taunt of my financial state, am contemplating suicide. Who knows?
To recall, this exchange began with you stating
I will add that, since you claim no country in your profile, I conclude you have none
to which I turned a blind eye stating
There seems to be some miscommunication.
Ungracefully, you replied
The miscommunication, my friend, is between you and your advising sock puppet......your logic, Bones, is utterly flawed. I wonder if you even own the property you occupy. Do you own your car, or does the bank?
As you can see, I in no way initiated this taunting exchange, I in fact ignored your first little jab at me to which you replied with the following. In fact I am so nice that I do not exercise my right as documented by the Dart code of conduct, subsection "harassment" point 2, which states that
criticising statements within an ongoing discussion, is fair game.
Technically, I could have a little jab at you but I am above petty insults over the internet, something you cannot say. However, if you continue this pattern of taunting, I will retaliate with vicious force.
Ragnar, make note, please.
Created:
Posted in:
I don't think debate websites should restrict what we debate. The purpose of a debate cite is that we should be debating controversial topics which we otherwise would otherwise discuss.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
You have a talent for ignoring what people say, so I am left with no choice but to repeat myself.
For all practical purposes it was Columbus, on behalf of the Spanish kingdom of Castille, on October 12th, 1492 who discovered America. All other interpretations are not valid from the point of view of what changed for good the history of America and the world .Moreover, by discovery it is not mean just to arrive to some point in the planet but to make it known to the rest of the world and to stablish permanent settlements there. No one but Columbus and Spain did this before. I am aware that there were Anglo-Saxon societies or English speaking countries which resent this fact and write about theories about who was the first to discover America: the answer is simple: Spain and Columbus. Full Stop. Moreover, sourcesMoreover, I clearly stated in my post that "I use Columbus as a symbol of those who landed on Indigenous America and announced it as there's". Even if you do not have the ability to wrap your head around who discovered America, I have clearly compensated for this deficiency and stated that Columbus is simply a variable. This historical accuracy of who discovered does not impact my syllogism. Why? Consider the following dumbed down version of my initial deductive argument.p1. Some dude/party claimed some land which was inhabited.p2. I claim party to a land which is inhabitedp3. When I do it, it's wrongc1. When the dude/party does it, they are wrong.
Face it bud, you set the topic on the United States, specifically, not the Americas.
You may be to old to understand, but there's something called shortening words. Anyone who can decipher simple social ques are able to understand that the US refers to America. Moreover, I initially used the term US in hopes of fitting the title so that it is people scanning the forums can see it and perhaps be interested. Nevertheless, it seems that I need to do a little bit more simplifying for you. Again, I stress
p1. Some dude/party claimed some land which was inhabited.
p2. I claim party to a land which is inhabited
p3. When I do it, it's wrong
c1. When the dude/party does it, they are wrong.
AS for my age, it demonstrates that you skim poorly. and that is apparently how you read, or I would not need to correct your research.
Sorry, you are 71 years, 8 months, 3 weeks and 2 days happy? I, unlike you, have a social life to attend to, and treat debateart as a hobby, not a job. Personally, I am not inclined to furiously fact check every single claim that I make.
I am clearly not the second-most active forum member. More skimming.
Sorry, THE most active forum member. In case you didn't know, scroll to the bottom of the forums tab and you'll find your name proudly displayed on the bottom of the page.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
Your P1 is false. Columbus never set foot in America, i.e. The United States of America, your original proposal and still your stated topic: "I actually own the U.S."Your P2 is false. Since Columbus never set foot in what is now the sovereign U.S., he has no claim on it.You P3, coincidentally, is true, but its singular truth is not sufficient to yield the logic you seek.Your Ci, also coincidentally, is true, but not because of any basis in your propositions. In fact, it combats your P1.
Again with this! "Columbus never set foot in America". Your understanding in history is astoundingly inaccurate.
Clearly, Columbus did set foot on America. For all practical purposes it was Columbus, on behalf of the Spanish kingdom of Castille, on October 12th, 1492 who discovered America. All other interpretations are not valid from the point of view of what changed for good the history of America and the world .Moreover, by discovery it is not mean just to arrive to some point in the planet but to make it known to the rest of the world and to stablish permanent settlements there. No one but Columbus and Spain did this before. I am aware that there were Anglo-Saxon societies or English speaking countries which resent this fact and write about theories about who was the first to discover America: the answer is simple: Spain and Columbus. Full Stop. Moreover, sources
In the US Supreme Court in the 1823 case Johnson v. McIntosh, Chief Justice John Marshall’s opinion in the unanimous decision held "that the principle of discovery gave European nations an absolute right to New World lands." In essence, American Indians had only a right of occupancy, which could be abolished.
The Doctrine of Discovery was the international law that gave license to explorers to claim vacant land (terra nullius) in the name of their sovereign. Vacant land was that which was not populated by Christians. If the lands were not occupied by Christians they were vacant therefore could be defined as “discovered” and sovereignty, dominion, title and jurisdiction claimed.
published American courts hold that Columbus's landing was legally justified as the land being seized was not inhabited by Christians. Obviously the doctrine of Discovery was used to defend the actions of Columbus, not whatever Vikings where there beforehand.
Moreover, I clearly stated in my post that "I use Columbus as a symbol of those who landed on Indigenous America and announced it as there's". Even if you do not have the ability to wrap your head around who discovered America, I have clearly compensated for this deficiency and stated that Columbus is simply a variable. This historical accuracy of who discovered does not impact my syllogism. Why? Consider the following dumbed down version of my initial deductive argument.
p1. Some dude/party claimed some land which was inhabited.
p2. I claim party to a land which is inhabited
p3. When I do it, it's wrong
c1. When the dude/party does it, they are wrong.
I wonder if you even own the property you occupy. Do you own your car, or does the bank?
There there, calm down Richy. You're a 78 year old man who writes childrens books and am the second most active member on an online forum where you insult people 4 times younger than you. No need for the aggression, please, let's keep this civil!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
Conquest (n) - The subjugation and assumption of control of a place or people by use of military force.My question: If settlers did not use military force to subdue the population, would they have ended up in control of the land?A) YesB) NoYour answer: ______
ANSWER: Yes.
However, you miss the point. I am aware that America was taken over via military force, but the fact is that America "claimed" by "discovery", hence the doctrine, the Doctrine of Discovery.
I hardly see how this is relevant. If you are willing to admit that America was taken by force, then you are admitting that what occurred is wrong. After all, if I invaded your house "by right of conquest", that would hardly stand up in court.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
There seems to be some miscommunication. How/when and by who do you think America was seized by?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
If only that were the case.
In the US Supreme Court in the 1823 case Johnson v. McIntosh, Chief Justice John Marshall’s opinion in the unanimous decision held "that the principle of discovery gave European nations an absolute right to New World lands." In essence, American Indians had only a right of occupancy, which could be abolished.
The Doctrine of Discovery was the international law that gave license to explorers to claim vacant land (terra nullius) in the name of their sovereign. Vacant land was that which was not populated by Christians. If the lands were not occupied by Christians they were vacant therefore could be defined as “discovered” and sovereignty, dominion, title and jurisdiction claimed.
I'm not too sure what you are talking about, truth be told.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
@MisterChris
@Intelligence_06
@Theweakeredge
Take a crack.
Created:
Posted in:
I blundered last time and posted a forum which conjured up in about 5 minutes. Nevertheless, I still own the US. Consider the following.
An interesting switch was pulled in Rome yesterday by Adam Nordwell, an American Chippewa chief. As he descended his plane from California dressed in full tribal regalia, Nordwell announced in the name of the American Indian people that he was taking possession of Italy "by right of discovery" in the same way that Christopher Columbus did in America. "I proclaim this day the day of the discovery of Italy" said Nordwell. "What right did Columbus have to discover America when it had already been inhabited for thousands of years? The same right I now have to come to Italy and proclaim the discovery of your country".
Nordwell suggests that his "discovery" of Italy is like Columbus's "discovery" of America in one important way: both Nordwell and Columbus claimed a country that alrelady had been inhabited by its own people for centuries. Thus, Nordwell insists that he has as much right to claim Italy as Columbus had to claim America. Of course, Nordwell has no right to claim Italy as his discovery. Therefore, it must follow that Columbus had no right to claim America either. Consider the following syllogism, but with myself.
P1. I claim America "by right of discovery" similar (in the most important aspect) to Columbus's claim to America.
P2. Columbus's claim to America "by right of discovery" is similar (in the most important aspect) to Norwell's claim to Italy.
P3. I have has no right to America.
C1. Columbus has no right to America.
P1 and P2 are objectively factual statements, nothing controversial. The last time I posted this, I had some people nit pick and say "well technically Columbus didn't actually touch down to America yadayada". This is no issue to what I am asserting. I use Columbus as a symbol of those who landed on Indigenous America and announced it as there's. It matters not if there are technical disputes with who exactly took over America, the fact is that Indigenous America was taken over by X party and the current society see's no issue in such an act. Let X be whoever you think took over America, whether that be Columbus or whoever.
P3 is also obviously true, therefore the conclusion must also be true.
REPLYING TO OBJECTIONS:
Polytheist-Witch STATED: They had no papers to fight for ownership in court, had no guns, and Columbus was ruthless. Today people could fight you in court or just call the police. Not really the same. Not to mention we are a sovereign nation now.
Not having a mean of proving your existence does not mean that you do not exist. Just because you do not have guns to defend yourself, doesn't mean the taking of your land is right. That would be like me planning a home invasion and taking care to find someone who doesn't own a gun, as this would somehow make it "just". Just because I have more firepower and am able to overtake your land, doesn't mean the overtaking is actually right.
MisterChris STATED: It wasn't organized territory and the populations were sparse and similarly unorganized.
So as long as a civilisation is unorganised, it becomes alright to invade it? What if I dropped a bomb on Vatican City, thereby disorganizing it and then decided to invade it and claim it as mine? Would this be moral, on the basis that they were "sparse and unorganised".
Intelligence_06 STATED: When Columbus arrived, nobody "owned" the land.
==
You'll be surprised to learn that I am generally conservative on the issue of the Columbus landing, I just also happen to be open minded. I dislike people who hate on Columbus (get out of America if you don't like it) but came across this comparison which was too good not to share to a debating community. I believe Mr.Chris makes a good point in stating "all land expansion in history was done through CONQUERING land, which is exactly what Spain did." That would also be my response. My answer to this Columbus issue would be "I don't care, they were weak and during the era of the invasion, they couldn't hold there grounds". However, I initially made this forum in hopes of funding a more substantial answer than "I don't care". Though the conservative part of myself is telling me this, there's just something about invading and taking over a helpless and wholesome community which was otherwise enjoying themselves.
Created:
Posted in:
I am aware that you need to "contribute" to the cite in order to collect the coins which you see on people's accounts. What exactly counts as a contribution?
Created:
Posted in:
Is it possible that perhaps the present doesn't exist at all, in that all our experiences include remembering things from the past. If the present does exist, how long does it actually last?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SkepticalOne
I am as certain that there is no God, as I am certain that there aren't invisible/inaudible/intangible/undetectable naked men dancing in my front porch. Not 100%, not getting there.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
Everyone knows what they did to get there, nobody truly 'respects' the approach they take
What is the "approach" that they take. I would think that a 99 win streak would be a sign of a competent debater. From what I've seen, Ora's beaten you 3 times. Would you consider yourself a good debater?
Created:
-->
@Undefeatable
What about WeakerEdge's statistic about a large proportion of people using abortions actually using contraceptive, meaning that it was a forced event?Not to mention whether the baby's life is certain (miscarriages, etc.)? In poor countries where adoption isn't an option
Using contraception by no means alleviates the moral responsibility one has for the child they created. Consider the following.
If I put my 5 year old child into a forest and equiped them with the necessary tools to survive, and surprise surprise, they die, could I reasonably say "oh well, I did my best to lower the chances of their death"? The following is the scenario next to what you are asserting.
p1 Using contraceptions means that I have lowered the chances of having a child, which means that in the unlikelier situation that I have a child, I hold no moral responsibility.
c1 IF I use contraception THEN abortion isn't wrong
p1 Giving my child necessary tools to survive in a jungle means that I have lowered the chances of them dying, which means that in the unlikelier situation that my child dies, I hold no moral responsibility.
c1 IF I give my child necessary tools to survive THEN leaving my child stranded is not wrong
Moreover, I think that introducing women's rights into the picture of abortion is completely unnecessary, especially at the stage where abortion has not been defined. IF abortion is murder then we can conclude that women's rights do not extend to murder, which means that we can conclude that abortion. It seems, the core of the debate shouldn't be what the rights of women are, but what abortion actually is.
Created:
Posted in:
I have found the debateart word processer to be superior to other processers I have used and like it for it's simplicity and quoting feature. It would great to be able to use this feature outside of debates, in that I believe it would be beneficial to create a section on this cite where I can access the word processing system and save documents, even if I am not in an active debate. This would be personally be good for me, as I switch from computer to PC quite often and have to copy and paste my arguments and email them to myself, which often messes with debateart's quoting and spacing.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@MisterChris
Ah, a typo. 1492, not 1942. Nevertheless, this typography does not effect the syllogism.
Created:
Posted in:
Consider the following syllogism about how Italian explorer Christopher Columbus came into possession of America.
p1. Columbus landed on American soil for the first time in 1942, which was already inhabited by indigenous people.
p2. Columbus took possession of America, regardless of the inhabitants.
c1. Thus the presence of inhabitants do not prohibit one from possessing land.
Using this conclusion.
p1. I travel to America right now.
p2. The presence of inhabitants do not prohibit one from possessing land
c1. I possess America
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
Um... because while entertainment is important, the entire point of jobs is to benefit society
A job is
a: a regular remunerative position
b: a specific duty, role, or function
c(1): something that has to be done
(2): an undertaking requiring unusual exertion
while pay is
a: to make due return to for services rendered or property delivered
I do not have to benefit society as part of my job description. A job is simply a position of which I fulfil a duty for a payment. I'm not bothering you with my job. You are not involved. My work is simply a matter of myself and my employee. They pay me, I provide service. Done. You don't take my money, I don't take yours.
and if the overpaying of an individual is actually hurting society
The act of me paying Lebron because I want to watch him play does not hurt society. What hurt's society, are the people who don't work when they are physically able to. Remember, Lebron didn't get lucky and win his money. Behind closed doors, he goes to the gym, lives under a strict diet and trains like mad. He is rich because he is talented because he worked. I refuse to accept the idea that, in the example I provided, there is a situation in which taking Lebrons money is just. Also, refer to my example and feel free to author an extended situation which would depict what you think is moral.
say by giving a basketball player so much money they can have dozens of cars, instead of giving people who work out in fields to produce goods that you actually need to survive are working on barely above minimum wage
Lebron has donated over 42 million dollars to charities. He's made a huge contribution to society. 43 million dollars is, I hazard a guess, more money than you have donated to charity.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
Because Lebron's labour (playing sports) is not actually worth that much money - and people with poorer circumstances need that money more. That's why.
Who are you to determine what he is worth? He is worth as much as consenting people will pay him. Lebron has acquired his money through a legitimate mean, one of which involves consenting parties putting money in his box for a service.
If I hosted basketball game at my park and two people came, do you believe I get to collect in whole the money that they give to watch the game.
The case of Lebron is very simple, so I am surprised that you disagree with it. It literally person 1 giving person 2 money, and this process repeating with person 3, 4, 5 etc. How is this immoral? Remember, the people who payed to watch Lebron play, payed to watch Lebron pay, they didn't pay to give some bum living expenses.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
eh, unless your unproportionately rich it won't affect you,
It isn't about what effects you, it is about what is just. Consider the following scenario.
- It is the beginning of a basketball season, and the tickets are being sold. Those who want to watch Lebron James play will deposit five dollars in a box each time they buy a ticket. At the end of the game, the proceeds in the box go to Lebron (remember that this is a simplified example which aims to magnify the philosophical point of voluntary exchange). Since there are many people who wish to watch Lebron play, at the end of each match, he collects 300 000 dollars from the box. The money he obtained has been through legitimate means. Who has the ground to complain? Not those who paid to watch; they freely chose to buy tickets. Not those who dislike Lebron; they stayed at home and didn’t pay a dollar. Surely not Lebron; who chose to play basketball in exchange for an income. It just happens that there is a large number of people who like him and are willing to pay to watch him play. Who do you propose has the right to take his money?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
And the money comes from taxes? What if I don't want my hard earned money stolen and given to some lazy guy who is able to work and choses not to?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
Ok, if there was a completely healthy middle aged man who had no significant life commitments who choses not to work and have no income, do you believe they should have assess to social security or some sort of government funding?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
Equality of outcome vs equality of opportunity. Which do you prefer.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
if a lawyer can't show up because they can't adequately argue for their client
Then they lose. Automatically.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
you are forgetting the numerous examples of times when one of the debaters simply does not have access, or the mental fortitude to show up to a debate at a time, but are winning the actual argument.
If I dodged court by saying that I didn't have the mental fortitude to attend, I don't think that would go very well. Though I believe that a blanket of rule of forfeit = auto loss is too harsh (what if I broke both my arms and couldn't type, or I was admitted to hospital for cancer), but saying"I don't have the mental fortitude to continue", that would not be valid.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sum1hugme
It was bitter sweet when Marsvidal dropped his hands to taunt, just to get KO'ed in the next 10 seconds. At least he didn't have it as tough as Weidman...
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sum1hugme
Exactly, though I will say, at the press conference, Marsvidal was for sure the crowd favourite. I'm not sure what fan in the right mind can possibly think Usman is going to lose.
Created:
Posted in:
I don't know whether people who enjoy debating also like watching people beat each other up. What do we think of the fight?
Created:
Posted in:
How do you do the double dotted point's thing in your argument (where you have one set of dots and another one further into the page)? It looks very intimidating and I would like to try it. Oromagi absolutely pops of here with it.
- I cant
do it
- for some reason
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
Why would an all loving being allow for 6 million Jews to die?Because that all-loving being does not consider death to be an ultimate, unredeemable condition. Why do you?
Because mortal life contains value and to kill me removes me of that value, regardless of how I am repaid.With your flawed logic, I could easily go into a church and kill everyone by saying "well they are all praying to God, so they will have a good next life. Who cares that I've just killed them, death is, after all, not the ultimate unredeemable condition"
But what have the Jews done for it to be justified for them to be gassed to deathNot a thing.
And yet it is still right?
Great, you meet your wife, but this is not a trade off over cover up for the initial crime. Killing 6 million innocent Jews is wrong regardless of how you compensate them.As said above, the consequences to us of the atonement are, 1] not ours to decide, and 2] there are qualifications necessary to meet to have redemption by the atonement. As also said above, not my place to judge. Nor yours. Don't, not even in Hitler's case, who is likely not the worst in history, anyway.
Not our to decide, but surely an omnipotent can have a say?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
You only can assume your p1 as is because you assume that if God is omnipotent, he must always act with omnipotence. He does not.
No, I am assuming that he is omnibenevolence (Psalm 100:5; Psalm 145:17; John 3:16). Why would an all loving being allow for 6 million Jews to die?
Otherwise, we would have no free agency, and it is clear that we do because God allows us to sin. He expects that we repent of all sins, even minor ones like stealing candy from a store [because that harms the store owner by loss of a commodity which he'/she bought], and so also major sins, such as causing serious harm to others; the root of the Holocaust. We have a concept called "tough-love," wherein although we love our children who are not law-abiding, we can love the sinning child while deploring the sin itself. Cannot God do the same?
You once again misunderstand. I understand that actions come with consequences. But what have the Jews done for it to be justified for them to be gassed to death with their family.
That is Godly love; allowing us the opportunity to repent, and he does so because he also allowed the atonement of Christ in Gethsemane and on the cross, paying for the sins of all the world, and not just sins, but all our suffering, disappointment, grief and pain, including the pain of death at the hands of others, such as occurred with the Holocaust.
Again this is extraordinarily flawed. Revisiting my pre-school example, you are essentially saying "yes I will allow this small child to shoot every down because he wants to". And what part of Christ's atonement allows Hitler to do what he did? Does this give a free pass to all to act immorally?
Therefore, all who suffered by that horror are compensated by the atonement, eventually.
We are going around in circles. I have already made drawn a distinction between being graciously compensated and ignoring the initial act. This would be like saying "I've just embezzled 10 million dollars from your bank account but don't worry, your horoscopes say you will meet your wife in the near future?" Great, you meet your wife, but this is not a trade off over cover up for the initial crime. Killing 6 million innocent Jews is wrong regardless of how you compensate them.
Moreover, you are making the assumption that all of the victims will go to heaven. It is statistically unlikely that all of them were Christians, thus meaning some of the atheists will 1) be gassed and 2) enter Hell.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ebuc
The bottom 99 percent do not work as hard as the top 1 percent
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
but surely omnibenevolence, one of Gods four omni's, is not a mistranslation.Was/is God omni-b to Satan, who was cast out of heaven, never to return? Not just Satan, but the minions who agreed with him?
I advice you not to draw a parallel between Satan and the victims of the holocaust.
it would be a contradiction to my characteristics if I do not do anything.Hmm, so you bounce completely to the other end since you, once again, play the omni card. You, therefore, deny free agency.
What exactly is the omni card? You are the one who claims your God is all loving, and you are also the one who claims you'e God is all loving. Consider the following.
p1. An all loving being will not allow an act of unjust and hate to occur
p2. An act of unjust and hate occurred.
c1. Such a being does not exist.
- God, being all powerful knew why Hitler did what he did, and refused to help or enlighten him.
- God knew that Hitler would kill 6 million Jews and he refused to a)defend the Jews, b)at least inform them to be ready c)stop Hitler d)make Hitler understand why his philosophy is incorrect.
By your numbers:1. Have you children? Having a completely barren profile, that says something. Having had the experience of childhood myself, I could foresee the thoughts and actions of my children. All of them? No, but enough to help guide them. I begin with the premise that we are all born with an innate ability, which must be developed in each of us in childhood to recognize the distinction of good and evil.
I a completely confused as to what this is supposed to prove. Do you dispute the fact that God knew what Hitler was going to do?
2... It is not that Hitler may have never had any advice from God. The question is, did Hitler ever take the personal responsibility to seek him earnestly, wanting to know.
The point is that whatever God did or didn't good, he was prior aware that Hitler would commit a crime against humanity because he did not get enough advice or teaching from God. God knows why Hitler did what he did, and he also knows what lesson He can teach which can act as an antidote to Hitler's wicked mind. Why did He let Hitler do what he did, why didn't He put the necessary life lessons in his way to prevent it?
Personal responsibility is one of the great lessons God expects us to learn.
Sure, if God taught Hitler a lesson, that would not be an issue, but what about the 6 million Jews? In what way is allowing Hitler to do what he did a lesson? What do the Jews learn?
I will tell you since they already know it, now, and you have yet failed to grasp that death in any consequence is just a portal to what's beyond.
Seriously? So as an exchange of being gassed with your family, God, who let me remind you, does not provide sufficient evidence for all to know with certainty that he is real, will let you go to heaven? I This is not about an exchange, you cannot exchange mortal life for anything. That is like saying "I stole 10 million dollars from your bank account but don't worry I can introduce you to your future wife". Sure meeting your wife is cool, but it is not to be conflated with the 10 million dollars lost.And let me remind you, this is not 10 million dollars we are talking about, this is 6 million human lives.
Since you are a believer of heaven, consider the following question.
Can consciously imposed evil and suffering exist in heaven?
Option 1 is yes, however this makes no sense because if a being can impose suffering on others in heaven then it wouldn't really be heaven, for heaven is a place of goodness.
Option two is no because God removed this part of free will thus disallowing people from acting evil. However, if this is true, then that would mean that upon entering heaven, your free will would instantly be restricted, thus you are no longer a free thinking agent. Moreover, would you really consider this "heaven" if all you are is just a robot programmed to be good.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@rosends
But unlike a shot administered to a child, the Holocaust has no future value to the dead Jew.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
The answer is"wow, this exposes the contradiction within Christianity, guess God is a hoax".Since you already seem to know the answer [you don't] why ask?
I am interested to see what (incorrect) responses I will receive.
One might ask if God is the author of the Bible, by his own hand. No, he is not. Men wrote the sundry books of the Bible. Men then transliterated and translated, sometimes accurately, sometimes not, men being fallible as they are. Should you expect a perfect book out of that kind of treatment? No, you should not. Can you yet determine the will of God? Yes. Ask him.
Sure, small details may be changed here and their (even this is quite a significant issue with the bible), but surely omnibenevolence, one of Gods four omni's, is not a mistranslation.
Why does a an all powerful God who apparently loves us all not defend the 6 million victims of the holocaust?Why assume omnipotence is the only choice of mode for God to act? Do you use all the power you possess all the time?
We are discussing not only Gods ability to do anything, but his (unlimited goodness) omnibenevolence.Sure, I do not use all my powers all the time, but if I was infinitely good and all powerful, it would be a contradiction to my characteristics if I do not do anything.
Was God responsible for the events of the Holocaust, or were men?
Yes. “ God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.” Genesis 1:27. IF there is a God who created man THEN Hitler is not responsible for what he did. Consider the following.
- Everything which led to Hitler doing what he did was foreseen by God.
- God, being all powerful knew why Hitler did what he did, and refused to help or enlighten him.
- God knew that Hitler would kill 6 million Jews and he refused to a)defend the Jews, b)at least inform them to be ready c)stop Hitler d)make Hitler understand why his philosophy is incorrect.
Must God always meddle in the affairs of men,
Well he certainly expects you bend your knees and pray to you. Consider the many Jews who died who were true Christians. Many of them were likely praying, begging for forgiveness, begging for God to save them and their children, not knowing that "God doesn't meddle in the affairs of men.
Moreover, if God doesn't meddle with men's affair in even the Holocaust, then what is the point of prayer? If he won't even stop 6 million Jews from dying, why would he listen to a Christians prayers for happiness and generous Christmas gift.
or does he expect us to work out our issues ourselves, using the gift of free agency God gave us?
Our own issues? Hitler was the Jews issue?
Does a child grow and learn lessons for him or herself if a parent always steps in and acts for the child rather than letting the child make mistakes and make their own corrections, with his help if needed and asked for?
Are you seriously saying that the Holocaust was a lesson? This analogy is seriously faulty. If you had a child who was armed with an assault riffle at their pre-school class who made it clear that they had intentions to kill everyone in sight, you, as the teacher, would never say "damn I gotta let him learn for himself and correct his mistake, guess these kids are dying now". With this example, the flaw in this answer becomes clear. Why do the students need to bare the consequence of a single student have a warped vision of morality? If anything, it is the kid who needs teaching, not his victims. The same can be applied to Hitler. He is the one who needs to learn, not the Jews. Why didn't God put something in his path, whether it be a guardian or friend who would help him see the errors in his ways?
Mostly, he expects us to fix them ourselves because, mostly, virtually always, our troubles are caused by us, not him.
Well tell that to the dead Jews who are fertilising in the soil right now. Tell them to fix themselves.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@rosends
I have not presupposed anything, God being supposedly "all loving" is one of his well known characteristic, praised by the Christians.
Why does a an all powerful God who apparently loves us all not defend the 6 million victims of the holocaust?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Trouble is, tall and short isn't quite so lucrative.
Exactly. People want their to be race disparities. Why else would they highlight race to this degree? We have travelled to a stage where saying White soldier charged with assault for shoving, berating Black man in viral video is not odd, but if I change the two adjectives to Tall soldier charged with assault for shoving, berating a little man in viral video, would immediately make the article extremely odd. If people really believe that race isn't that big of an issue, they shouldn't point out who's white and who's black when race isn't even a factor regarding the issue of the video.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Nevets
The question is why God allowed this to happen. The answer is"wow, this exposes the contradiction within Christianity, guess God is a hoax".
Created: