The Atlas Deluge of Absurdity, Ignorance, and Bad Posts

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Yeah:  Many Christians understand Islam is the enemy of individual freedom and that the US is the champion of individual freedom.

It's more the second part of that statement (after the "and") that makes it so ridiculous.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

People who think that only slightly unconventional uses of language are 'distortions' have only their own simplistic view of language to blame. I never said that sin is 'justifiable' (I used words like 'understandable', 'tragic', 'forgivable', and even 'necessary' in response to an absurdly extreme hypothetical that nobody asked you about, always conditioning this by trying to point out the fallenness of the world only to realise that you think that this excuses your own love of crudeness and cruelty, but at no point 'justifiable', a word that you insisted on using after I tried repeatedly to clarify this point) and if you keep saying that I did I'm seriously considering reporting you.

1) saying sin is necessary and understandable and justifiable is NOT "unconventional uses of language", rather it is a clear and direct statement
2) and I havent been using absurd extreme hypotheticals, the examples I used are every day occurances in the world of law enforcement

if you want to defend your view that sin is justifiable, then go on the religion board and start a thread and give us some examples where scripture justifies sin...otherwise shut up, because until you can show me some examples, I'm not going to listen to it for it is contrary to everything I have read in my bible

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

if you want to defend your view that sin is justifiable, then go on the religion board and start a thread and give us some examples where scripture justifies sin...otherwise shut up, because until you can show me some examples, I'm not going to listen to it for it is contrary to everything I have read in my bible

Why would I want to start a thread to defend a view that I don't hold and never said I held, you blithering idiot?

It's amazing to me that somebody who's apparently intelligent enough to run an IT company and teach kids about astronomy is simultaneously mouth-breathingly moronic enough to be somehow completely unaware of 'necessary evils', a concept which is so ubiquitous as for the phrase to be a cliche, morally craven enough to deal with his unfamiliarity with this basic concept by gleefully embracing the way a world that he himself believes is fallen, ruined, and dishonored operates, uncurious enough to completely ignore repeated exhortations to actually read up on an idea that he doesn't understand, and intellectually dishonest enough to continue to misrepresent and demonize a debating opponent's position after it's been made clear to him over and over again that that's what he is doing. Have you even heard of the principle of double effect, or do you just not care about any form of theory or reason other than your own sophomoric, defanged interpretation of the Bible?

[Kaine for Senate '18]

Yes, because deals are never made in politics, especially at the highest levels where only the strongest survive.

You may now go back to drinking your Howard Dean-style naïveté kool-aid.

[Paul Kemp]

Yes, because deals are never made in politics, especially at the highest levels where only the strongest survive.

You may now go back to drinking your Howard Dean-style naïveté kool-aid.

Lets provide context:

Obama has promised him Secretary of State in term two if he can help prevent Romney from getting the GOP nomination...

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

if you want to defend your view that sin is justifiable, then go on the religion board and start a thread and give us some examples where scripture justifies sin...otherwise shut up, because until you can show me some examples, I'm not going to listen to it for it is contrary to everything I have read in my bible

Why would I want to start a thread to defend a view that I don't hold and never said I held, you blithering idiot?

It's amazing to me that somebody who's apparently intelligent enough to run an IT company and teach kids about astronomy is simultaneously mouth-breathingly moronic enough to be somehow completely unaware of 'necessary evils', a concept which is so ubiquitous as for the phrase to be a cliche, morally craven enough to deal with his unfamiliarity with this basic concept by gleefully embracing the way a world that he himself believes is fallen, ruined, and dishonored operates, uncurious enough to completely ignore repeated exhortations to actually read up on an idea that he doesn't understand, and intellectually dishonest enough to continue to misrepresent and demonize a debating opponent's position after it's been made clear to him over and over again that that's what he is doing. Have you even heard of the principle of double effect, or do you just not care about any form of theory or reason other than your own sophomoric, defanged interpretation of the Bible?

Where is all of this coming from?  Weren’t you the one who said “killing in self-defense is a sin, but sometimes sin is justifiable”?

I’m simply stating four clear facts:
1)   Sin is clearly defined in the bible:  “sin is lawlessness”…meaning sin is acting in a way that is contrary to God’s laws
2)   No where in the bible is sin ever justified
3)   No where in the bible is killing in self defense remotely considered sin
4)   No where in the bible is repentance remotely necessary for soldiers who kill others during war (and there are a lot of examples of killing during war in the bible)

Killing in self-defense is NOT contrary to God’s laws…therefore it is NOT a sin…therefore repentance isn’t remotely necessary.  If you don’t like people disagreeing with your twisted definitions, then use proper definitions.

[King]

There's not a single kill in the history of the world that wasn't in "self-defense." Even an insane man like Manson and the gang had to frame justification before they did what they did.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

There's not a single kill in the history of the world that wasn't in "self-defense." Even an insane man like Manson and the gang had to frame justification before they did what they did.

I wasn't using the Manson definition of self-defense...rather I used the example of an every day SWAT mission, and he still believed SWAT members sin and needed to repent after killing someone.  It would seem to me that if your occupation included activity you know ahead of time is defined as sin, then repentance would mean finding another occupation.

But there is no resolution to this argument because his definition are contradictory.

[Paul Kemp]

Stop.

[Paul Kemp]

One of my favorite contributors and a surefire first ballot Atlas Deluge Hall of Famer:

That he's not obsessed with mass-murdering brown people automatically makes him less bigoted than Obama or the vast majority of US politicians.

[King]

If you know you are about to commit an act that is sinful, the correct response is to not act, not prepare a canned, disingenious "I'm sorry" speech to God for when after you're done.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

If you know you are about to commit an act that is sinful, the correct response is to not act, not prepare a canned, disingenious "I'm sorry" speech to God for when after you're done.

Please stop.  You're making too much sense.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

If you know you are about to commit an act that is sinful, the correct response is to not act, not prepare a canned, disingenious "I'm sorry" speech to God for when after you're done.

Oh, don't worry, I know that. He was throwing extreme situations at me to see what would stick and my point, which didn't change even after he moved the goalposts repeatedly and started selectively misinterpreting what I was saying, was that the only situation in which killing is remotely acceptable by any stretch of the imagination was when it's an unintended consequence of trying to accomplish something else, because as you said if you're using 'self-defense' however defined as your lodestar for when ending a human life suddenly is magically not wrong any more you have to deal with the twisted definitions of 'self-defense' that everybody has used to rationalize their pointlessly cruel actions.

Only when it's an unintended consequence is it understandable (a word which has a different meaning to 'justifiable', which is a word that he, not I, is insisting on using), and even then if it's a foreseen consequence it's still a venal thing to do. Sin isn't solely limited to planned-out, malicious acts. It's much more insidious than that. This is a completely normal and received interpretation and I'm frankly amazed that jmfcst seems entirely and willfully unaware of it.

Also there is more to any religion than the plaintext of a scripture, particularly if it's being interpreted by a buffoonish idiot.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

ok, this is moving to the Religion Board

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

ok, this is moving to the Religion Board

Probably a good idea, though I've created a separate thread for the part of the discussion that I'm more interested in if that's okay with you.

[Paul Kemp]

I haven't read a single word of what you guys are talking about but I'm sure it doesn't belong here.

[Teddy (IDS Legislator)]

I haven't read a single word of what you guys are talking about but I'm sure it doesn't belong here.

Ditto.
Then again I've not read any other posts in this entire thread either.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

I haven't read a single word of what you guys are talking about but I'm sure it doesn't belong here.

my posts NEVER belong here 

[King]

All of jmfcst's posts obviously belong in here.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

All of jmfcst's posts obviously belong in here.

sorry, didn't catch that, you're breaking up....can you call back using a land line? 

[minionofmidas]

Out, both of you.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Context (of course opebo is a context)

So are Gustaf and Kalwejt going to argue that Eliot Spitzer isn't a progressive or socially liberal?

[Antonio the Sixth]

Just when you thought wormyguy couldn't get dumber.

Even in your flea market example if someone sold a fully automatic heavy machine gun to a muslim illegal alien at a flea market and the feds found out about it they would regulate in a big way.  And frankly I really don't see a lot of right wingers including Wormy complaining about it.  I bet they would want even more "regulation" (ie water boarding).

Oh Ziggy.  I would very much like for everyone to have a fully-automatic heavy machine gun, except the Feds.

Somalia?

A perfect example of what only allowing the Feds such wonderful equipment inevitably leads to.

[Хahar 🤔]

I love this new guy.

Congratulations. Your citing Martin Luther King in defense of this guy litterally made my head explode.

"Litterally" is not a word. Further, if it "litterally" made your head explode, you would be dead. Thus, you are lying.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

North Korea as Liberia is one of the only three countries in the world (along with the US and Burma) that doesn't use metric. I would enjoy overthrowing the corrupt government and reuniting with South Korea.

PEW PEW PEW