Making Peace With Tambora

[glorydaz]

I'm pretty sure you believe 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 KJV -

because Romans 10:17 KJV and then you have done this at some point in your life, (don't deny it) Romans 10:9-10 KJV - Romans 10:13 KJV -

so that means you are saved by the blood of Christ and sealed by the Holy Spirit: Ephesians 1:7 KJV - Ephesians 1:13 KJV -

so, you're saved Art, just lettin' ya know.

:shocked:

You shouldn't try to parrot Heir and claim it means Artie is saved.

It may be how you got "saved", but you need to examine yourself and stop giving Artie false hope. :nono:

 

[Rusha]

Yes, similar to how the Muslims do it.

An apt comparison ...

 

[elohiym]

I think that your assessment of the condition of post-lapsarian humanity is too optimistic. There's a reason that Moses had to lay down the Law.

Yes, and that's all covered in the Bible narrative. We are moving from swords to plowshares, progressively over many generations. Don't imagine it's implausibly going to happen overnight.

And for what it's worth, I'm not relying solely on religious texts. I could give natural law arguments to the same effect.

How will your argument overcome the premise that the wife could be pregnant?

 

[Traditio]

Depending on the meaning of the word "a," then I am guilty as charged. :idunno:

I felt as though this needed additional commentary:

What really irks me about the liberal crowd is that what I am saying is being painted as something other than what I am saying. Yes, it is true that I asserted that a husband should have beaten his wife until she was dead, with the following qualifications:

1. That the word "a" signifies a particular case, not a general rule.
2. That he would have done so only assuming that the law would have permitted it. My assertion could take the form of a counterfactual: "Granted that the laws were different, so and so is the case."
3. That the beating in question would have been in punishment for what, under my hypothesis, would have been considered a criminal and gravely unjust act or set of acts.

And frankly, it wouldn't irk me so much if it weren't so common, especially on this site, and especially among liberals. It's not just what I said. It's not just the so called "apology for rape."

It's broader than that. There's virtually no attempt to understand what it is that's being said by the other party. Misrepresentation is running rampant. And frankly, I think that it's this sheer misrepresentation and refusal even to try to understand what people are saying that's driving the animosity and division here on TOL (and, to an extent, probably in American politics at large).

How many times does Arthur Brain, Rusha, etc. expect to repeat the falsehood that Ok_Dozer categorically thinks that rape is categorically/universally justified, that women deserve to be raped (in the precise sense that it is just for the assailant to commit the rape(s) in question) and that women are, in effect, fully and solely to blame for being raped...how many times do you expect to repeat this before Ok_Dozer just starts calling you retards and trolling you?

I wouldn't do it, of course. I don't even necessarily agree with it. But I can understand why he does it. What you are doing is just positively infuriating.

If you want to disagree with me, that's fine. I don't expect people simply to mindlessly accept every word that I say, with or without arguments on my part.

But the least that I expect is that, if you disagree with me, you are disagreeing with what I actually expressed, not what I didn't say.

 

[elohiym]

An apt comparison ...

Hence, I call them the TOLiban.

 

[BBTimeless]

What really irks me about the liberal crowd is that what I am saying is being painted as something other than what I am saying. Yes, it is true that I asserted that a husband should have beaten his wife until she was dead, with the following qualifications:

1. That the word "a" signifies a particular case, not a general rule.
2. That he would have done so only assuming that the law would have permitted it. My assertion could take the form of a counterfactual: "Granted that the laws were different, so and so is the case."
3. That the beating in question would have been in punishment for what, under my hypothesis, would have been considered a criminal and gravely unjust act or set of acts.

You know really irks me about the conservative crowd? That they are okay with fatal beatings of their wives.

 

[annabenedetti]

like when Tam and Rusha piously pronounce they will pray from Doser's troubled soul? :chuckle:

Uh, they're doing unto sod as he has done unto them - praying for their troubled souls. Where have you been? Or did it just slip your mind?

pray for her lost soul

pray for his troubled soul

pray for his troubled soul

Even whole threads of insincere fakery:

Town Heretic: Pray For His Troubled Soul

Prayers For anna

He also made a fake prayer thread for zoo, but it was deleted.

Oh wait... I guess you did know about his fake prayer habits:

I think, glory, we have discovered something revealing about town here:

pity him

pray for his obviously troubled soul

 

[glorydaz]

I felt as though this needed additional commentary:

What really irks me about the liberal crowd is that what I am saying is being painted as something other than what I am saying. Yes, it is true that I asserted that a husband should have beaten his wife until she was dead, with the following qualifications:

1. That the word "a" signifies a particular case, not a general rule.
2. That he would have done so only assuming that the law would have permitted it. My assertion could take the form of a counterfactual: "Granted that the laws were different, so and so is the case."
3. That the beating in question would have been in punishment for what, under my hypothesis, would have been considered a criminal and gravely unjust act or set of acts.

And frankly, it wouldn't irk me so much if it weren't so common, especially on this site, and especially among liberals. It's not just what I said. It's not just the so called "apology for rape."

It's broader than that. There's virtually no attempt to understand what it is that's being said by the other party. Misrepresentation is running rampant. And frankly, I think that it's this sheer misrepresentation and refusal even to try to understand what people are saying that's driving the animosity and division here on TOL (and, to an extent, probably in American politics at large).

How many times does Arthur Brain, Rusha, etc. expect to repeat the falsehood that Ok_Dozer categorically thinks that rape is categorically/universally justified, that women deserve to be raped (in the precise sense that it is just for the assailant to commit the rape(s) in question) and that women are, in effect, fully and solely to blame for being raped...how many times do you expect to repeat this before Ok_Dozer just starts calling you retards and trolling you?

I wouldn't do it, of course. I don't even necessarily agree with it. But I can understand why he does it. What you are doing is just positively infuriating.

If you want to disagree with me, that's fine. I don't expect people simply to mindlessly accept every word that I say, with or without arguments on my part.

But the least that I expect is that, if you disagree with me, you are disagreeing with what I actually expressed, not what I didn't say.

:first:

Exactly right, and it's how they manage to shut down all dialogue. One simply can't reason with a mob, and that's all they are.

 

[glorydaz]

Uh, they're doing unto sod as he has done unto them - praying for their troubled souls. Where have you been? Or did it just slip your mind?

Even whole threads of insincere fakery:

Town Heretic: Pray For His Troubled Soul

Prayers For anna

He also made a fake prayer thread for zoo, but it was deleted.

Oh wait... I guess you did know about his fake prayer habits:

I've been right here, Anna, and you won't fool me with your selective remembering.


So, did he borrow it from her or did she borrow it from him, like she did the "Suck it up" comment? Why don't you research that for us, and give us some relief from your grasping at straws?

 

[Traditio]

You know really irks me about the conservative crowd? That they are okay with fatal beatings of their wives.

QED!

What further evidence do I need? lain:

 

[glorydaz]

You know really irks me about the conservative crowd? That they are okay with fatal beatings of their wives.

:rotfl:

 

[ClimateSanity]

Dup

 

[glorydaz]

I see the problem as these males of whom we are speaking wishing to change the meaning of the Bible in order to conform it with their own views.

Not like those who wish to change the meaning of the Bible to claim immoral behavior is not deserving of consequences, of course. :chuckle:

 

[ClimateSanity]

:first:

Exactly right, and it's how they manage to shut down all dialogue. One simply can't reason with a mob, and that's all they are.

Or animals. That really draws outrage.

 

[glorydaz]

Yes, and that's all covered in the Bible narrative. We are moving from swords to plowshares, progressively over many generations. Don't imagine it's implausibly going to happen overnight.

Oh, are those nuclear weapons plowshares? I didn't know that. :rotfl:

 

[Rusha]

Uh, they're doing unto sod as he has done unto them - praying for their troubled souls. Where have you been? Or did it just slip your mind?

Indeed ... I am deeply concerned over his troubled soul, hence my prayers for him.

 

[glorydaz]

Indeed ... I am deeply concerned over his troubled soul, hence my prayers for him.

Rusha has got to be praying to the Goddess, so we don't need to worry about her fake prayers. :chuckle:

 

[Traditio]

Rusha has got to be praying to the Goddess, so we don't need to worry about her fake prayers. :chuckle:

Rusha prays to a pagan deity?

 

[ClimateSanity]

Rusha has got to be praying to the Goddess, so we don't need to worry about her fake prayers. :chuckle:

Could be Venus? Or Gaia?

 

[bybee]

Rusha prays to a pagan deity?

No. That was a very wicked thing for Gorydazed to say.