- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- 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: Why can’t we separate Conservative values from religion?
Posted on 9/1/26 at 7:40 pm to Boom33
Posted on 9/1/26 at 7:40 pm to Boom33
Alright guys and gals, wrap the thread up. As I'm sure everyone here was waiting for, Boom33 has arrived and dropped like 10 or so baseless assertions. You want the answers without an explanation? Boom33 has got you covered.
Thanks for showing up man, we really appreciate it.
Thanks for showing up man, we really appreciate it.
This post was edited on 9/1/26 at 7:41 pm
1
Posted on 9/1/26 at 8:29 pm to Azkiger
quote:
Alright guys and gals, wrap the thread up. As I'm sure everyone here was waiting for, Boom33 has arrived and dropped like 10 or so baseless assertions. You want the answers without an explanation? Boom33 has got you covered.
Thanks for showing up man, we really appreciate it.
Which part would you like a deeper explanation for? You can ask questions or you can stay mad - it's your choice.
Posted on 9/1/26 at 8:30 pm to DCtiger1
quote:
And there's a theological explanation for that. Again, neither of them is correct according to who?
Aside from each other?
Why does God need someone to explain such a basic thing for him?
What God really meant was
This post was edited on 9/1/26 at 8:31 pm
Posted on 9/1/26 at 8:45 pm to Boom33
quote:That was deep, thank you. But can you please elaborate on basic?
Aside from each other? Why does God need someone to explain such a basic thing for him? What God really meant was
This post was edited on 9/1/26 at 8:46 pm
Posted on 9/1/26 at 9:46 pm to VooDude
quote:
That was deep, thank you. But can you please elaborate on basic?
It claims the earth came before light and stars. This is obviously false.
Plants appear on day 3, but the sun is created on day 4. Plants need the sun to grow.
Flying creatures and sea life on Day 5, but land animals on Day 6. Flying have to come after land creatures.
The Firmament was wrong; there are no waters above or any solid barrier.
Age of the earth is wrong.
For the people of the time, I find these generally pretty good considering. The Firmament in the literally sense is wrong and there is no water, but we do have an atmosphere that ends before going into space.
And while the book completely misses evolution, DNA is a kind of code, and your DNA was going to produce you. (there are environmental factors as well, but let's ignore that). The math existed the entire time. But then when you put an order in, we know that the process of evolution means you need land animals before flying animals.
It's not a bad overall guess/understanding for people of the time.
But when you start claiming it's from God, the standards are much higher.
Posted on 9/1/26 at 9:51 pm to Boom33
quote:
Which part would you like a deeper explanation for?
There was no explanation to begin with. So don't frame it as me wanting a "deeper" explanation when you didn't provide any explanation at all.
Posted on 9/1/26 at 10:03 pm to Champagne
quote:
The Roman Catholic interpretation of the protagonist might be that because we are created in God's Image, the protagonist's own Soul tells him to live his life in the Christ-like manner. The protagonist, of course, doesn't believe that he is Predestined to act Christ-like, because he doesn't believe in the Doctrine of Predestination or any Christian doctrine. He acts in a Christ like manner because he feels a deep and innate psychological urge to act in a selfless Christ like manner as he builds the world around him and helps the world progress from chaos to order and from bad to good. The protagonist undertakes the absurd task of never quitting the task of pushing the boulder up the mountain day after day, just like Sisyphus.
I agree with that.
Posted on 9/1/26 at 10:39 pm to Azkiger
quote:
So your argument is the clay deeply understands the potter?
More like “My sheep know my voice.”
quote:
A uncaused, immortal, timeless, immaterial, all powerful, all knowing, omnipresent, infallible, perfectly just and loving, etc., etc., etc. being is all of a sudden highly understandable and perfectly intuitable.
Think less scientific and more Father/child.
quote:
Just don't ask why he knits children together in their mothers wombs with terminal cancer, because then, all of a sudden, we're back God being so mysterious and beyond our comprehension.
Perspective is everything. Mine, regarding God, is that of a child. I just trust Him. Where we disagree- I’m the problem. Regarding life- this is not the only one. That’s the oversimplified version. That perspective allows me to see things that someone who doesn’t understand that perspective couldn’t understand. For instance, I see all of the things you mentioned (and much worse) as terribly upsetting as you do. But I have hope. I have comfort. I have peace. Those things are real. It works.
quote:
Christian apologetics is one hell of a drug.
I get it. Hey, maybe you should check out some Muslim apologetics? Might give you a different perspective.
Posted on 9/1/26 at 10:53 pm to Azkiger
quote:
Nothing about matter being created.
I'm sorry, I thought you were the one who typed this:
quote:
Using that same logic I can say "Science also says matter can't be created, so matter has to have always existed (no creation event)".
That wasn't you linking matter directly to a creation event (or not)?
quote:
Is that videos definition of nothing the same as mine?
If not, why are you even bringing it up?
I can explain it, but I can't help you understand it. It's pretty clear how it's relevant, but you seem to have issues with keeping track of what you've said and therefore recognizing when something is relevant to what you've said. Sorry, that's a YP, not a MP.
quote:
Nothing about matter being created...I'm not an idiot.
I beg to differ given the sentence I just quoted from. If you really don't know how how that is a direct refutation of what you've been saying, I truly don't know how to help you.
Are you under the impression that some matter of this universe can exist apart from the universe? If not, then...
quote:
Odd. The most influential man on Earth was only written about decades after his death
You can keep saying that, but there's nothing about it that is odd at all. Again, he was only a public figure for three years and he died suddenly and unexpectedly. He was a poor itinerant preacher. 80% of the public back then in that region of the world was illiterate. Who exactly would have been writing about him while he was alive, and for what audience? And who would have had the resources to make copies of the writings to distribute, before the Christian church was established? What other similar individual do we have records of that were written while they were alive? Jesus must be an outlier the way you think it's so "odd" that people didn't write about him until after he was dead. So give me a small handful of examples of similar individuals from that approximate time and place that make him an outlier.
quote:
All those words and no "here is something Jesus said and here is the law it inspired".
You're making me laugh with your reaching now.
quote:
I don't know what these quotes are suppose to mean
Then you really are an idiot.
About that, though:
quote:
That doesn't prove the draws still aren't unconscious
Those quotes certainly do, but let's pretend they don't. So what? You didn't answer that question. Why does it matter whether the resistance to the truth is conscious or subconscious?
quote:
No... It was about Pascal's wager.
That may be what started the conversation between you and someone else, but that's not what our conversation has been about.
Posted on 9/1/26 at 10:55 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Does the BGV Theorem specifically discuss matter?
In the sense that you have to have a universe in order to have matter, yes.
Posted on 9/1/26 at 11:10 pm to Azkiger
quote:
There was no explanation to begin with. So don't frame it as me wanting a "deeper" explanation when you didn't provide any explanation at all.
Posted on 9/1/26 at 11:15 pm to 4cubbies
quote:
His response was that he’s ok with not having an answer and believing nothing caused it.
Sure. Just like the two guys I quoted.
Many—if not most people in the western world in 2026—would rather sign on to backing complete logical absurdities than admit that the evidence is really good for there being some sort of Creator.
They'll deny science to do it, they'll pretend to not understand easy to understand things in order to do it, they'll invoke Science Of The Gaps (which you mentioned upthread), they'll stand on their heads and eat 10 bananas upside down if they have to in order to avoid it.
I would rather they just told the truth like the two guys I quoted. "Yeah, that's where the evidence points but I don't want that to be the case, so I choose to ignore it."
Paul wrote about all of that in Romans. Human nature hasn't changed since well before then.
Posted on 9/1/26 at 11:35 pm to Azkiger
quote:
So your argument is the clay deeply understands the potter?
A uncaused, immortal, timeless, immaterial, all powerful, all knowing, omnipresent, infallible, perfectly just and loving, etc., etc., etc. being is all of a sudden highly understandable and perfectly intuitable.
Can you define yourself without naming a possession? There is consciousness and there is the physical world. The physical world belongs to the consciousness.
quote:
Just don't ask why he knits children together in their mothers wombs with terminal cancer, because then, all of a sudden, we're back God being so mysterious and beyond our comprehension.
Choice.
Do you think an all-powerful being can create an object they cannot move? The answer is yes, if you are all powerful it's a choice. If you choose to limit yourself, then you can do that and gain the experience of that limitation.
If you go play a game like call of duty, what are you doing? You are choosing to have your consciousness enter into a limited world with its own rules and physics. If you had no other knowledge outside that game and those rules, you might think the only point of life is to fight and die. But you go by the rules of the game for the experience.
The difference is you know it's a game, you don't know anything outside the reality that is presented to you. But that is not the same experience. That is you playing a game. Having no other memory or experience other than when you spawn into that game would be the solders experience.
But hey soldier, surely anything that hasn't crossed your understanding doesn't exist.
Posted on 9/2/26 at 12:27 am to Azkiger
quote:It does have a definition, and yet how it applies is different in America and Europe 150+ years ago, and the Middle East today, compared to Israel.
You used the phrase "chattel slavery". That's not just a vibe phrase, it actually has a definition and it does apply to what the Hebrews allowed for foreigners.
While you focus on the word, you should be focusing on the actions the words describe, because the word is not moral or immoral.
quote:It doesn't miss the point. While you're busy trying to score moral points and distract from your irritational worldview, I'm focusing on the meat of the issue.
Muddying the water with "Yeah, but look, it's not exactly the same as American chattel slavery" misses the point.
quote:The principle at play is human dignity is upheld by the Bible. The reason limits are placed upon violence towards slaves is not to allow lesser violence, but to dissuade it at all. It's not hard to hit someone as to knock out a tooth or damage their eye (which are representations of permanent damage, BTW). The principle is to treat your servants with dignity and not animals.
Can I purchase/own someone as property and beat them so long as I don't knock out a tooth, an eye, or kill them? The Bible says yes.
quote:Sure I can. The objective standard is do not murder (the 6th commandment), and that applies to unrestrained violence, even against slaves. The objective standard is do not steal (the 8th commandment), and that applies to kidnapping innocent people to make them your slaves.
You can't run defense with "at least it's not as bad as..." when your whole stance is "this is objective moral truth".
Slavery, itself, is not a violation of any commandment of God, because there are many types of relationships that fall under the term slavery that are not necessarily immoral, such as voluntary slavery. You want to say all forms are wrong, but you cannot justify that claim.
Posted on 9/2/26 at 12:37 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:It's not hard at all. Perhaps it is hard for you, since you seem to struggle with logic as well as morality. You keep talking about slavery as if there is just one kind, but you ignore the nuance of it by taking that approach. Not all slavery is the immoral kind we find in the Americas 150+ years ago.
It's going to be hard to argue slavery is "morally neutral"
quote:Really? First, by what standard? And second, even voluntary service? You realize that the Bible mentions temporary slavery for paying off debts or for temporary support, right? You have a moral problem with such a voluntary arrangement?
I understand slavery has taken many forms. Every form is immoral.
quote:Nope, I am not. You are. You are talking about "slavery" universally for emotional impact, because you have no moral ground to stand on. Your moral standard is irrational, and you cannot actually defend it, so you are looking to win points through emotional appeals. It's the sort of thing a leftist would do. Does that describe you?
Only you are doing this.
You're creating a strawman to establish this conflation and then arguing against your own rhetorical monster.
quote:"Developed" and "lesser"? By what standard? You aren't just talking about technologically advanced here, right? You're talking about moral development, yes?
OK, developed society. And developed society looks at these lesser cultures in kind, declaring the immoral parts of that culture immoral (without the equivocations or strawmen).
If so, what is the standard you are using to make such a judgement? I guarantee you that it's nothing more than personal opinion.
Your irrational worldview boils down to pure subjectivism, and in such a moral paradigm, you have no basis to condemn other cultures or societies that have created their moral frameworks. There can be no objectively "better" or "worse" actions across differing societies by your own worldview, because each individual or each society has the ability to define morality for themselves. Therefore, you have no right to say a Muslim in Iran is immoral in marrying a 9 year-old girl, for example. You can say you don't like it and you don't prefer it, but that's someone else's society, and it has no bearing on your own.
Posted on 9/2/26 at 12:44 am to Boom33
quote:Keep up. I've talked about the various kinds of slavery in the Bible, including foreigners purchased. I've also discussed how they should be treated, which is with dignity as human beings made in the image of God.
You're only talking about when a Hebrew enslaved another Hebrew and trying to apply them paying off debt or doing it out of survival.
Foreigners were treated as lifelong property.
quote:You are saying all slavery is immoral, and yet there is slavery that is willingly entered into by many. How can you call such an arrangement immoral? On what basis? We'll start with that bit of nuance and move on from there.
And it all ignores the fault with slavery, which has nothing to do with treatment.
Posted on 9/2/26 at 12:53 am to GamecockUltimate
quote:What makes Sharia law evil is not the particular set of laws or requirements, necessarily, but the reasoning behind them: the advancement of Islam and subjugation of all people's under such a satanic system.
But even Christianity does this....I mean the OT is littered with events and laws that would be considered awful now. It's littered with ideals that we see in Sharia law.
What you seem to have missed in what you quoted from me, is that we can have disagreements on certain applications of the moral law of God while acknowledging the source of the moral law of God is objective and good, while the absence of God creates a vacuum of moral objectivity that makes all moral standards arbitrary and irrational.
quote:I agree that many people do arbitrarily pick and choose what they want from the Bible, but that's also why many Christians have understood certain distinctions with the law, such as those applications that applied to the civil law of Israel vs. the ceremonial law of the temple, vs. the moral law that reflects God's very nature. Taking the Bible as a whole can lead Christians to consistently interpret the Bible to know which laws should apply today vs. those which were for a people anticipating the coming Messiah.
Christians do have a tendencies to pick through the old testament and pick and choose which of these laws they think still apply, and which dont. (ex. gay marriage vs stoning your wife). We can look at some many periods throughout christianity when christians did some awful things under the name of religion, and to them it was justified (ex. crusades). You could argue that the catholic church was an early terrorist org with the way they punished people/leaders/countries while twisting the word of God.
With that said, you can't throw the baby out with the bath water by saying since some people have abused God's word, that we can't utilize principles derived from the Bible for civil governance (that is, if you are saying that).
If God's law is perfect and holy--and it is--then it should be good to apply to all aspets of our lives.
Posted on 9/2/26 at 6:15 am to FooManChoo
quote:
You are saying all slavery is immoral, and yet there is slavery that is willingly entered into by many. How can you call such an arrangement immoral? On what basis?
Oh good lord.
You’ve done a number in this thread. Posted on 9/2/26 at 6:41 am to Prodigal Son
You're conflating theroretical astrophysics with parental relationships. How does having a relationship with your father help you understand an uncaused, immortal, timeless, immaterial, all powerful, all knowing, omnipresent, infallible, perfectly just and loving, etc., etc., etc?
Posted on 9/2/26 at 6:44 am to wackatimesthree
quote:
I'm sorry, I thought you were the one who typed this:
I did.
Reread my response and see where your reading comprehension failed you...
"The Borde–Guth–Vilenkin (BGV) theorem states...
Nothing about matter being created."
No use conversing with you any further if your reading comprehension is worse than AI. What's your context window, 30 tokens?
Page 26 of 30
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News