- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Does Satanism exist without Christianity?
Posted on 12/20/23 at 8:40 am to Squirrelmeister
Posted on 12/20/23 at 8:40 am to Squirrelmeister
quote:
You are using an inferior translation of the Masoretic text. The LXX renders this part “angels of Theos”, or angels of God. Even that is not accurate nor original. The Dead Sea scrolls Deuteronomy renders this part “bene El” meaning “sons of El (Elyon)” aka “sons of God”.
Inferior translation? That’s a subjective claim- your opinion. Even if we had the original text, the autographs, there would still be subjectivity to interpretation and translations. This is because God confused the languages at the tower of Babel. Languages do not translate with the same level of accuracy that you can convert fractions to decimals with. After all, Proverbs 25:2 (NASB95): ?It is the glory of God to conceal a matter,
But the glory of kings is to search out a matter.
I’ll skip over the rest of what you have said. Because, it simply boils down to one thing- desire. I won’t argue that you can’t logically come to the conclusions that you have come to by your interpretation of what scripture says. To the contrary I will argue that the way scripture is laid out facilitates the prerequisite for a faith-based decision… either for or against God (as we are either saved by grace, through faith, or condemned by the willful and intentional lack thereof). It seems clear to me, from what you have repeatedly stated, that you don’t just believe that there is no God- you desire there not to be. You use terms like “100% certain” when you know deep down that is not even a possibility in the truest sense of the term. I’ll ask you again, as you seem to constantly dodge the question- what if you’re wrong?
1
Posted on 12/20/23 at 9:38 am to Azkiger
quote:While you probably thought this was a clever way to show that subjectivity reigns supreme, it doesn't translate well to morality and only shows how ridiculous your view of morality actually is.
I can just imagine you at a dinner party, offering up your 2 cents that Mary can't logically say that the soup was actually tasty because God didn't give us an objective standard by which to judge the tastiness of a meal. Her own subjective taste of the meal must be soured by her not having access to a God-given objective taste standard by which to judge her meals. We're hopelessly awash in a sea of subjectivity, you say, unable to know what's actually tasty. Maybe it's a shite sandwich? Maybe, maybe not... The only thing we can know is that we don't know, and therefore should not use objective language to describe tastes, sights, sounds, etc. "Music can't be good", "Movies can't be bad", you tell them. They, of course, roll their eyes.
Unsurprisingly you weren't invited back to social gatherings because you're a turd in a punch bowl, which, I guess thankfully for you, is just another subjective claim people would make about you if you really lived by the bullshite you peddle here.
Very few are consistent enough with their godless worldviews to treat morality as a food preference, though that's exactly what it would be if they were true. We don't judge people's choice of cuisine in a moral context precisely because there would be no way to do that consistently, because there is no singular right "taste" to compare others to.
That's been my point all along: judgement requires a standard to compare things to in order to know if someone measures up or has missed the mark. There is no objective standard like that for subjective things because they are by definition subjective. If the majority of people in America supported making ketchup the lawful condiment to use and mustard unlawful because it doesn't taste good, that would be an example of creating an arbitrary standard like we currently do with morality in our culture. Morality in law is based on the personal preferences of the people/culture because our nation has rejected the only objective source for morality in God. That's why I typically make a comment about morality for the atheist being logically nothing more than a favorite flavor of ice cream.
If that were true, then morality would be utterly void of real meaning, and it would be truly whatever those in power in a society say it is at any given time. The logical conclusion of that would be that Hitler was acting morally by enacting genocide, because those in power in Germany at that time decided it was the right thing to do. Another logical conclusion would be that to defy the majority (or those in power to dictate moral laws) would be an immoral act, since by definition they would be fighting against what is morally good as defined by that society. That would mean that those who defied Hitler were being immoral. Those who fought against slavery were being immoral. Those who fought for abortion prior to Roe were being immoral (and those who fight against it now in states that allow it are being immoral).
I hope you see the ridiculous inconsistency that is inherent in moral subjectivity. You have to embrace absurdity to adhere to your godless worldview, as you cannot live your life consistently this way. You know some things are truly immoral regardless of what 51% of the population says about it. You know that some things are immoral regardless of public opinion, and yet you would be absolutely wrong about that if you were consistent with what you are claiming is true about morality.
Posted on 12/20/23 at 1:54 pm to Prodigal Son
quote:
Inferior translation? That’s a subjective claim- your opinion. Even if we had the original text, the autographs, there would still be subjectivity to interpretation and translations.
The Masoretic text is a medieval copy in Hebrew that the NASB95 is based on. The Masoretic text says something different than the Septuagint and the DSS, which themselves are more original and ancient.
What makes more sense? That when El Elyon divided the nations, he gave those nations his sons as an inheritance? Which is exactly what the Canaanites and Babylonians believed too? Or do you think he divided the nations and gave each one to the sons of Israel, a nation that did not yet exist in the timeline? Do you think DSS and LXX which agree with each other dating from around 300-200BCE is the original? Or do you think the MT dating from around 1000CE during the Middle Ages, though differing from the more ancient versions of the DSS and LXX, is the correct reading? A reading mind you that makes no sense in context because Israel didn’t exist when god separated the sons of Adam.
Why is the MT (that the NASB is based on) corrupted? It had an extra 1300 years as the copies were made to become influenced by their changing theology. Other English bibles like the ESV use the Septuagint and the DSS to arrive at the most accurate translation.
quote:
tower of Babel
A myth created by exiled Jews living in Babylon to explain the giant unfinished tower of Marduk, that they themselves would be out to work as slaves doing the rebuilding and finishing of the tower. In their area of Israel, all the languages basically sounded the same and many were mutually intelligible (save for Egyptian which they were familiar with). Being exiled in Babylon they were now exposed to many languages they had never heard. The wrote a make believe story to explain it.
quote:
what if you’re wrong?
Pascal, what if you are wrong? What is Islam is right and you are going to burn in hell? What if it is Mormonism that is correct? Or Zoroastrianism? You’d be screwed.
Posted on 12/20/23 at 2:19 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
That's been my point all along: judgement requires a standard to compare things to in order to know if someone measures up or has missed the mark.
Keep following your objective standard of eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth, beating your slaves, treating women as property, killing people who believe differently than you, and offering your firstborn as a Molech sacrifice burnt on an altar. Don’t eat pork or shellfish. Cut off your foreskin, and don’t sit on a chair previously sat on by a menstruating women. And for God’s sake, don’t make any graven images or statues of anything in the heavens above, because your god is a jealous god who will make your children’s children’s children’s children pay for your mistake.
Posted on 12/20/23 at 4:54 pm to Squirrelmeister
quote:
quote: what if you’re wrong? Pascal, what if you are wrong? What is Islam is right and you are going to burn in hell? What if it is Mormonism that is correct? Or Zoroastrianism? You’d be screwed.
Lol at you dodging the question- again. At least you are consistent, if nothing else.
Posted on 12/20/23 at 10:50 pm to Squirrelmeister
quote:Ever heard of the three-fold distinction of the law of God? Can you name them and their purposes?
Keep following your objective standard of eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth, beating your slaves, treating women as property, killing people who believe differently than you, and offering your firstborn as a Molech sacrifice burnt on an altar. Don’t eat pork or shellfish. Cut off your foreskin, and don’t sit on a chair previously sat on by a menstruating women. And for God’s sake, don’t make any graven images or statues of anything in the heavens above, because your god is a jealous god who will make your children’s children’s children’s children pay for your mistake
Page 17 of 17
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News