quote: Do you realize that if Johniam had not started piping in with his opinions, we wouldn't have had so much to talk about during these last days of GSC?
That's the beauty of this place: I get to reaffirm my position and you all get to reaffirm yours. There are more of you than there is of me...HERE, but outside of here, who can say?
There's a difference, John. Most of what you are seeing other posters bring to this discussion, whether right or wrong, has been filtered through a critical thinking process using logic and reason. Most of what I have seen in your posts, in contrast, has been filtered through the "Yo Mamma" thought process.
Some versions do use the word harbor instead of haven.
Psalm 107 was written to inspire praise in the children of Israel by remembering God's good deeds. Praise for God not TWI or VP.
God didn't prepare a place of wanton pleasures and debauchery as a haven. He didn't prepare a place where women were objectified and abused. Jesus treated women with tenderness, love and most of all with honor.
The blessing of the Lord makes rich, and he adds no sorrow with it.
If you turn a blind eye and a deaf ear to the sorrow of others hurt by your "haven".... You really didn't escape as unscathed as you think.
quote: There's a difference, John. Most of what you are seeing other posters bring to this discussion, whether right or wrong, has been filtered through a critical thinking process using logic and reason. Most of what I have seen in your posts, in contrast, has been filtered through the "Yo Mamma" thought process.
"Yo mamma" thought process? I notice you spell mamma with 3 m's but Wordwolf with only 2. Did you get that from different texts or is that like Noah's son being rendered either Sem or Shem? Just kidding. You're saying that my posts are all an emotional reaction, right? I could say the same of you all, but really all human communication is a mix of reason and emotion.
You say that your arguments are "filtered through a critical thinking process using logic and reason", but it's still all based on credibility. You assign credibility to some people; I assign it to others. You assign relevance to some facts/opinions, I, to others. Not much common ground, at least not on this topic, but you're not doing anything different than I am. You just THINK you're morally superior. Moral superiority is a myth.
quote: You just THINK you're morally superior. Moral superiority is a myth.
I think I'm morally superior?
How on earth did you come to that conclusion? This isn't about my morals or yours. This is about a guy who lived a life of excess and deceit, a guy who abused his position of authority to deliberately conduct himself in a manner that was destructive to other people's lives. Stop trying to make this about something other than what it is. Try to stay on point here, John.
Now that's convenient!! (suited to personal comfort or to easy performance)
So, the guy who kidnaps children to molest and murder them is morally on par with the one who dedicates his life to feeding hungry children and delights in good?
I don't think so...one of those two is far superior in good than the other.
If you are TRYING to say there is none good but God....then you have to actually make the comparison TO God.
Even a child knows the difference between good and bad....right and wrong...moral and immoral!
There's a difference, John. Most of what you are seeing other posters bring to this discussion, whether right or wrong, has been filtered through a critical thinking process using logic and reason. Most of what I have seen in your posts, in contrast, has been filtered through the "Yo Mamma" thought process.
You have to admire his can do spirit.
In the face of all that's opposing him--reality, evidence, the laws of logic--he insists on:
Yes, I will teach this donkey to fly;
Yes, I will kiss the ministry's backside and convince myself its vanilla ice cream;
Yes, I will put lipstick on this pig
At this point I usually stand and wait. A few toe taps later, they reach the Wile E. Coyote moment--when they realize all their machinations have failed them and their going to go
quote: There's a difference, John. Most of what you are seeing other posters bring to this discussion, whether right or wrong, has been filtered through a critical thinking process using logic and reason. Most of what I have seen in your posts, in contrast, has been filtered through the "Yo Mamma" thought process.
"Yo mamma" thought process? I notice you spell mamma with 3 m's but Wordwolf with only 2. Did you get that from different texts or is that like Noah's son being rendered either Sem or Shem? Just kidding.
WordWolf often uses alternate spellings, like the British "colour" and "flavour". :)
You're saying that my posts are all an emotional reaction, right? I could say the same of you all, but really all human communication is a mix of reason and emotion.
You say that your arguments are "filtered through a critical thinking process using logic and reason", but it's still all based on credibility. You assign credibility to some people; I assign it to others. You assign relevance to some facts/opinions, I, to others. Not much common ground, at least not on this topic, but you're not doing anything different than I am. You just THINK you're morally superior. Moral superiority is a myth.
[What he's saying is that, for the most part, we SUPPORT our statements with something-
generally documentation, evidence, even logic where appropriate.
Variations of "it's related because I say it's related" or insulting someone rather than REFUTING
them are inferior in intelligent discussion-
which means that they're ALLOWED on a DISCUSSION board, but it's plainly obvious the the average
reader and the average poster that the one attempting to use STYLE INSTEAD of SUBSTANCE really
brings little to the table. If you HAVE something to bring to the discussion, either bring it
or be resigned to bringing placeholders and having everybody else know it.
Mind you, some people know others know they're full of hot air, and they're fine with it,
so it's up to you if that's what you're happy with.]
That's the beauty of this place: I get to reaffirm my position and you all get to reaffirm yours. There are more of you than there is of me...HERE, but outside of here, who can say?
What position? That is what is YOUR position here? What are you really trying to say?
What is the "save haven" in da way you describe? For whom? What TANGIBLE amount of "safety" what was it? And who was it afforded to, under what conditions, why?
You define your terms with a vague verse of scripture?
"the Lord heard my cry.. and brought to a safe haven.."
Can you describe what measure of safety you really enjoyed?
what was it?
I can state my position clearly here..
the vicster was nothing more than a second rate con-man, who posed as a "manogawd", leaching off of, and selling other men's works and such to support his claim,
The vicster had lower morals than a Guinea Pig. Guinea Pigs generally don't use date rape drugs. He kept a STABLE full of females.. he passed women among his top "men" like
The vicster was a very, very bad man.
I'd go on.. but those are just a couple starters here..
is that clear?
so what is your "position" here? That all the above DOESN'T MAKE ANY DIFFERENCE? That the blood of Jesus covers it all up?
that.. despite EVERYTHING.. all that counts, is that da vicster "saved" you from the Trinity? Or a belief in life after death?
I'm really trying to understand what you are saying.
It's kinda like another dialogue I can remember.
"come back to pfal."
why?
"you will be surprised with the RESULTS."
what results?
"You wouldn't understand. Come back to pfal.."
I TOOK the god forsaken thing over fifty times. What difference is it going to make if I "come back"? I've already SEEN the "results" (little, or none).
"you must have not gotten it 'right'. something you missed.. come back to pfal. It's there.."
what is *it*?
If this is the kind of "dialogue" we are having here.. I'll go my way, you go yours..
but true, that is what is *neat* about this place.. God and the whole world can see what kind of mentality that was being forced upon us..
In logic, that's what's known as a circular argument. It's designed to confuse more than illuminate. It's giving an answer without really giving an answer. Like Nancy Pelosi's response to what's in the Obamacare bill: "You'll have to pass the bill to find out what's in the bill."
You just THINK you're morally superior. Moral superiority is a myth.
[i think I'm morally superior to any man (or woman) who would claim to represent God Almighty
in any way, and then seeks to molest men, women or minors, whether or not he uses his "godly"
credentials to facilitate that.
I think I'm morally superior to any man (or woman) who would claim it is all right to claim to
represent God Almighty in any way, and then seek to molest men, women or minors.
I don't go around talking about that, and in fact, I didn't think of it this way until you brought
up the subject of "moral superiority." When it comes to standing for God's judgement, I'll be a lot
more secure of my standing than that of evil men who did such.
As for the idea that "moral superiority is a myth", I'll accept that a Bible-REJECTER could claim
such a thing, saying there is NO God, there is NO divine authority to the Bible, that the Bible's
testimony is not God's Word, that there is NO good and evil. I'll also note that some people who
say that have no problem with thinking there's something wrong about trying to molest men, women
or minors, whether or not they can explain WHY it's wrong.
Romans 2:14-15 (NASB)
14For when Gentiles who do not have the Law do instinctively the things of the Law, these, not having the Law, are a law to themselves,
15in that they show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them,
=================
As for the Bible and the subject of there being NO "moral superiority",
it DOES address the subject. The Greek word in question is "anomias" or "anomos".
It's a state when one says there is no moral superiority, no good, no evil, thus no morals.
It's translated things like "wicked" in the KJV, and it's a word associated with the
Man of Sins to come in the end-times. That man is often referred to as "the anti-Christ."
So, whose gospel do you follow? Jesus told people things like "GO AND SIN NO MORE"
and obeying God. The Epistles often give directions to right action, saying what should be
done, what shouldn't be done, and what should be avoided for the sake of others in order to
avoid being a stumblingblock to them.
On the other hand, vpw made up doctrines to excuse himself from the sinfulness of his sinful
thoughts, his sinful plans, and sinful actions. Everyone has sinful thoughts now and again-
but the rest of us elect not to act on them, and are honest about when we DO act on them that
we sin and displease God. Of course, the greatest moral relativists in all of history and time
make vpw look like an amateur- that old serpent decided that it was acceptable to oppose God,
to attempt to overthrow Him and attempt to be like The Most High. When "anti-Christ" comes,
he will be a FAR bigger sinner and religious hypocrite than vpw on his worst days.
When speaking on morals, whose company do you WANT to keep?
Jesus Christ, God Almighty, Paul
vpw, satan, anti-Christ.
Can you even SEE what makes the difference between the two?]
In logic, that's what's known as a circular argument. It's designed to confuse more than illuminate. It's giving an answer without really giving an answer.
True.. but it doesn't confuse me any more..
sometimes all it does is to drive me to laugh..
its almost like watching a dog chase its tail.. why does he (or she) do it?
maybe the answer is obvious.. maybe there is no *reason*. It is because it (the tail) is there..
I dunno.. maybe the animal needs that kind of "security"..
Dismissing moral superiority, I think is a very convenient way to explain a lack of and to dismiss the necessity of living as a person of character and integrity. Why bother or try if it is just a a myth??
Seems like a good bit of the doctrine in twi was designed to do this...justify and excuse any damned behavior one wishes to embrace regardless of the consequences or destruction.
Just plain creepy
I guess it deeply offends me to be considered on the same moral level as a damned alcoholic thieving serial rapist who claimed it as his due in the name of God....
dismissing moral superiority in a debate.. doesn't that indicate the person with the argument is complaining that the other party has an "unfair advantage"?
From trouble, distresses, and the storm, just like it says in the verses I quoted. That's what twi was for me. You can read the post, but you can't see the word of God.
that was what twi was for you and i don't what to say except it was not that for me
i needed a save haven FROM twi or i should maybe say wierwille mostly and some others
quote (from the prophet is a difficult man to live with thread):
While I believe that VP did bad things, I don't buy the whole hype. There is an infinity of things he's been accused of and you and others seem to blindly accept all of it as a truth package. I do not. Some (perhaps most) of that stuff is either fabricated or exaggerated.
Compare with...
quote:
So, the guy who kidnaps children to molest and murder them is morally on par with the one who dedicates his life to feeding hungry children and delights in good?
Now THIS is exactly what I'm talking about. Kidnaps children??? Molests???? Murder???? That's pure fabrication. That's slander. That's liable. Are you trying to bait the Wierwille family or TWI into suing you so you can air your issues in court? Is that what this is all about?
Did the Packers win the superbowl because they were "morally superior" to the Steelers? Do judges rule on cases because of how "morally superior" the attorneys are? There's a word for people who think things SHOULD turn out a certain way because of moral superiority. Loser. Talk about doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result!
White supremists thought they were morally superior when they abused black people in the south. Same for supporters of Apartheid. Same for Nazis. Same for those who actually murdered the Christ. Don't you get it?
God is the only moral judge. I did not say that there is no good or evil, I just said that you all aren't the judges of such. Not man versus man you're not. You have your opinions. You have criminal and civil law. You have this forum, but you do not have the copyright on what is moral. Isn't that what got us in the soup in twi? Thinking that we had the copyright on truth?
(((((((Rascal))))))) Good to hear your voice! How's the husband and kids? How's the animals? I know your secret fantasy is to hogtie me and brand an 'R' on my butt. Maybe God will let you do that after the return, huh? Hmm. Maybe I better not give you any ideas.
Excathedra: I think every time you post you demonstrate that twi did not destroy you, rather, you overcame THEM! Some rewards are for what we overcome (Rev.2:26). And we are more than overcomers, right? Kit says you're getting a throne. I'm sure it'll be a good one!
For the benefit of the few people who (like Johniam) may have difficulty following what people mean
in a discussion when he brings something up and people discuss it, I've grouped part of the discussion
here for easy reference. Most people had no trouble without it, but I am able to help along those
unable or unwilling to proceed logically when I wish.
So, a few posts, with "help files enabled".
(snip)
Moral superiority is a myth.
{Here's where we pick up this part of the discussion. In order to try to excuse an evil man
(as SCRIPTURE puts it) and an IMmoral man from the IMmorality he performed, John attempted to
dismiss the entire subject of MORALITY and IMMORALITY. This is bizarre for a Christian who claims
to believe the Bible, but people trying to excuse vpw for his evil actions have eagerly contradicted
the Bible at will for decades, so this is hardly a new conversational gambit.
So, after such a claim was made (to the Christian, a RIDICULOUS claim), responses to that claim-
that morality is a "MYTH", that morals between all people REGARDLESS OF THEIR DEEDS NO MATTER HOW
GOOD OR HOW EVIL- were posted. Few people would NEED the responses- children have little difficulty
learning some things are right to do and wrong to do- but discussion fora tend to have responses to
such claims because that's what happens when someone makes an outlandish claim in a discussion forum.]
Now that's convenient!! (suited to personal comfort or to easy performance)
So, the guy who kidnaps children to molest and murder them is morally on par with the one who dedicates his life to feeding hungry children and delights in good?
I don't think so...one of those two is far superior in good than the other.
If you are TRYING to say there is none good but God....then you have to actually make the comparison TO God.
Even a child knows the difference between good and bad....right and wrong...moral and immoral!
Your above statement indicates a LACK of reason.
[What was the previous poster saying, and what was she not saying?
Was she saying "Oh, there was a man in twi who kidnapped children, molested them and murdered them?"
No.
Was she saying "Oh, there was a man in twi who dedicated his life to feeding hungry children?"
No.
She was responding to the rather SPECIFIC claim- and quoted it to make it obvious
"this is what I'm responding to"- that "moral superiority is a myth", which is the ridiculous claim
Johniam made.
She gave obvious examples of a very IMMORAL man and a very MORAL man. Can we all see the difference
between the two men? Apparently, nearly everyone CAN see the difference.
Sadly, John didn't. It's like he either didn't read the post at all, or there's something lacking
in his understanding, where the entire subject of morals has been crippled, possibly due to
exposure to horribly twisted morals. Or, he chose to ignore the obvious meaning in order to
attempt to twist the reply into addressing something it didn't approach, and ignored that it said
something specific in the first place.
No matter which possibility it is, that's certainly SAD. Adults are normally capable of much better,
and even posters with mental disabilities all over cyberspace can tell the difference.
(I've communicated with a number, they've never made such monumentous mistakes in fora.)
So, she refuted John's claim that "moral superiority is a myth" by giving examples anyone SHOULD
find easy to understand.]
[i think I'm morally superior to any man (or woman) who would claim to represent God Almighty
in any way, and then seeks to molest men, women or minors, whether or not he uses his "godly"
credentials to facilitate that.
I think I'm morally superior to any man (or woman) who would claim it is all right to claim to
represent God Almighty in any way, and then seek to molest men, women or minors.
I don't go around talking about that, and in fact, I didn't think of it this way until you brought
up the subject of "moral superiority." When it comes to standing for God's judgement, I'll be a lot
more secure of my standing than that of evil men who did such.
As for the idea that "moral superiority is a myth", I'll accept that a Bible-REJECTER could claim
such a thing, saying there is NO God, there is NO divine authority to the Bible, that the Bible's
testimony is not God's Word, that there is NO good and evil. I'll also note that some people who
say that have no problem with thinking there's something wrong about trying to molest men, women
or minors, whether or not they can explain WHY it's wrong.
Romans 2:14-15 (NASB)
14For when Gentiles who do not have the Law do instinctively the things of the Law, these, not having the Law, are a law to themselves,
15in that they show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them,
=================
As for the Bible and the subject of there being NO "moral superiority",
it DOES address the subject. The Greek word in question is "anomias" or "anomos".
It's a state when one says there is no moral superiority, no good, no evil, thus no morals.
It's translated things like "wicked" in the KJV, and it's a word associated with the
Man of Sins to come in the end-times. That man is often referred to as "the anti-Christ."
So, whose gospel do you follow? Jesus told people things like "GO AND SIN NO MORE"
and obeying God. The Epistles often give directions to right action, saying what should be
done, what shouldn't be done, and what should be avoided for the sake of others in order to
avoid being a stumblingblock to them.
On the other hand, vpw made up doctrines to excuse himself from the sinfulness of his sinful
thoughts, his sinful plans, and sinful actions. Everyone has sinful thoughts now and again-
but the rest of us elect not to act on them, and are honest about when we DO act on them that
we sin and displease God. Of course, the greatest moral relativists in all of history and time
make vpw look like an amateur- that old serpent decided that it was acceptable to oppose God,
to attempt to overthrow Him and attempt to be like The Most High. When "anti-Christ" comes,
he will be a FAR bigger sinner and religious hypocrite than vpw on his worst days.
When speaking on morals, whose company do you WANT to keep?
Jesus Christ, God Almighty, Paul
vpw, satan, anti-Christ.
Can you even SEE what makes the difference between the two?]
[This poster (me) even attempted to show John from Scripture how completely wrong Johniam's
idea that "moral superiority is a myth" is. Despite us seeing about a week ago that the Bible
explains how to tell "good men" and "evil men" apart, John's missed it again and is still saying
there's no "moral superiority", thus, no "good", no "evil" among humans. So, from Scripture
again to show him how obviously false this is. If John really cared about the Bible, you'd think
he'd have learned such basics in the past decades, or at least be thankful to be shown a few of
the verses he seems to have missed. So, the Bible says there are morals, good and evil, and
that calling morals a "myth" is the activity of those who are immoral and evil.
Again, should be "Foundational" level- and for almost all Christians, indeed it IS.
There's only a minority, generally clustered among people who learned from vpw and twi,
who seem to be unable or unwilling to understand the concept- or eager to dismiss part of the
Bible.]
Dismissing moral superiority, I think is a very convenient way to explain a lack of and to dismiss the necessity of living as a person of character and integrity. Why bother or try if it is just a a myth??
Seems like a good bit of the doctrine in twi was designed to do this...justify and excuse any damned behavior one wishes to embrace regardless of the consequences or destruction.
Just plain creepy
I guess it deeply offends me to be considered on the same moral level as a damned alcoholic thieving serial rapist who claimed it as his due in the name of God....
Just sick.
[Was the entire claim that morals don't really exist sincere? It seems made to excuse one from even
BOTHERING to try to live as God said to live, in order that one may "do as you fool well please", as vpw
said you could do in the pfal Foundational class.
Is it offensive to have those attempting to perform right actions lumped together with those who made
doctrines out of sinful practices? Most people, Christians and non-Christians, would probably find it so.
Is this hard to understand? Not for nearly every teenager and adult who hears or reads such a thing...]
Excathedra: I think every time you post you demonstrate that twi did not destroy you, rather, you overcame THEM! Some rewards are for what we overcome (Rev.2:26). And we are more than overcomers, right? Kit says you're getting a throne. I'm sure it'll be a good one!
Unless you, yourself, have been a victim of rape, John, I must say, you have no idea what you're talking about.
God is the only moral judge. I did not say that there is no good or evil, I just said that you all aren't the judges of such. Not man versus man you're not. You have your opinions. You have criminal and civil law. You have this forum, but you do not have the copyright on what is moral. Isn't that what got us in the soup in twi? Thinking that we had the copyright on truth?
So, Johniam, in this whole discussion about moral superiority, don't you think we're missing the 500 pound gorilla in the room?
Who in all of us thinks he's more moral superior than any of us? Who claimed he was a MOG and acted like God's laws didn't apply to him? Who took a ministry he was entrusted with by God and turned it into his own little swingers club?
You want to talk moral superiority? You don't get much more moral superior than that. Seriously, if you peruse this sight you'll get a better picture of vp as a person who felt he was so much smarter than the average bear he didn't have to obey anybody's laws--God's or man's.
Instead of focusing on how we should be building a statue to the shovel ready man of God, why don't you talk to some of his victims. Tell them how righteous a man he was. Explain to them their ruined lives were the price for moving the Word and how grateful we should be for vp and his moral superiority.
Vp avoided prison for his deeds, but, no matter how they appear to overcome, they're in a mental prison for the rest of their life.
Oh, feel free to ignore this post, it's safer. Talk about moral superiority: I have this belief and I'll ignore all evidence to the contrary because I believe its the right thing to do. Next time you pull the moral superiority card, maybe you should check the mirror.
quote (from the prophet is a difficult man to live with thread):
While I believe that VP did bad things, I don't buy the whole hype. There is an infinity of things he's been accused of and you and others seem to blindly accept all of it as a truth package. I do not. Some (perhaps most) of that stuff is either fabricated or exaggerated.
Compare with...
quote:
So, the guy who kidnaps children to molest and murder them is morally on par with the one who dedicates his life to feeding hungry children and delights in good?
[No, John. let's compare them with what they were actually discussing. I noticed you left off the links to the original posts,
which might suggest to people that YOU DELIBERATELY WANTED TO ROB THEM OF THEIR CONTEXTS TO CHANGE THEIR MEANING.
Hey, robbed of its context, someone can claim the Bible says "There is no God".
When you made a claim of "an infinity of things" vpw was accused of, I responded to your SPECIFIC CLAIM:
[More of this silly black-white, absolute thinking. We've heard claims we were skeptical on,
and some we rejected, and some we held out for more information before coming to any conclusions.
vpw was not accused of "an infinity of things." If he was, it would be easy to dismiss some claims.
Nobody's gone around accusing vpw of eating the flesh of other humans.
Nobody's gone around accusing vpw of dismembering babies.
Nobody's gone around accusing vpw of fecophilia.
And so on, and so on.
The post you quoted out of context was in response to your own claim here:
(snip)
Moral superiority is a myth.
So she QUOTED YOU and replied to that very claim, showing how it's obvious there's no moral equivalency
between those who do horribly and those who do good. In other words, your unsupported claim was REFUTED.
There is acting accorting to good morals, and that's better than acting according to poor morals.
Here's her response.
Now that's convenient!! (suited to personal comfort or to easy performance)
So, the guy who kidnaps children to molest and murder them is morally on par with the one who dedicates his life to feeding hungry children and delights in good?
I don't think so...one of those two is far superior in good than the other.
If you are TRYING to say there is none good but God....then you have to actually make the comparison TO God.
Even a child knows the difference between good and bad....right and wrong...moral and immoral!
Your above statement indicates a LACK of reason.
[As anyone can see, when not robbed of its context, this had nothing to do with what you claimed it meant.
This is easy to see for even the lightly-educated, so all I can conclude is that you saw what she said,
and DELIBERATELY CHOSE to distort the meaning and LIE in order to accomplish some goal.
That's immral.]
Now THIS is exactly what I'm talking about. Kidnaps children??? Molests???? Murder???? That's pure fabrication. That's slander. That's liable. Are you trying to bait the Wierwille family or TWI into suing you so you can air your issues in court? Is that what this is all about?
It is neither slander nor liabel. Nobody connected such claims to twi, vpw or anyone else until YOU judt changed the clearly posted
meaning to do so. Why are you shamelessly lying about the posts others post here?
Are you willing to do ANY AND EVERY immoral thing, just to derail threads,
thus concealing the evil deeds we discussed of vpw before your diversion into "moral superiority is a myth",
as you falsely asserted?
Are you willing to do evil to keep people from discussing vpw's evil and immoral deeds?
Is that what this is all about?]
Did the Packers win the superbowl because they were "morally superior" to the Steelers? Do judges rule on cases because of how "morally superior" the attorneys are? There's a word for people who think things SHOULD turn out a certain way because of moral superiority. Loser. Talk about doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result!
White supremists thought they were morally superior when they abused black people in the south. Same for supporters of Apartheid. Same for Nazis. Same for those who actually murdered the Christ. Don't you get it?
Nobody made such a ridiculous claim.
All of this is a smokescreen.
We didn't say that morals affected anything but conduct.
You're the only one who seems unclear about what morals should affect.]
God is the only moral judge. I did not say that there is no good or evil,
You said "moral superiority is a myth." That's it. No qualifiers as to "by this I mean..."
Just that superiority of morals- AND THUS, GOOD AND EVIL DEEDS- are a "MYTH."
Ridiculous claim, but it was yours and people responded accordingly.
I just said that you all aren't the judges of such. Not man versus man you're not. You have your opinions. You have criminal and civil law. You have this forum, but you do not have the copyright on what is moral. Isn't that what got us in the soup in twi? Thinking that we had the copyright on truth?
I noticed you seem to claim you SAID this, yet provide neither a LINK to where you supposedly said this,
nor a QUOTE where you supposedly said this. Is that because you never said anything along those lines?
Is it because you're posting one thing, and yet these threads proceed differently in your mind,
and mentally you're rewriting these threads so you're making sense and we aren't?
I think the continuing absence of anything to support your assertions says something about that,
even when you are silent. Silence can indeed tell us some things.]
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
61
148
118
61
Popular Days
Feb 23
32
Feb 20
32
Feb 2
31
Feb 27
29
Top Posters In This Topic
johniam 61 posts
Ham 148 posts
waysider 118 posts
So_crates 61 posts
Popular Days
Feb 23 2011
32 posts
Feb 20 2011
32 posts
Feb 2 2011
31 posts
Feb 27 2011
29 posts
Popular Posts
Broken Arrow
I
WordWolf
Have I mentioned lately that I'm actually getting quite a bit out of this thread? I don't just mean in a sense of psychology/sociology/criminology, but in a sense of Christian learning. The whole p
T-Bone
morals are man-made? Really?!?! please provide some documentation to back up that philosophical assertion. personally i lean toward the christian idea [that does have a biblical basis] that man is m
waysider
There's a difference, John. Most of what you are seeing other posters bring to this discussion, whether right or wrong, has been filtered through a critical thinking process using logic and reason. Most of what I have seen in your posts, in contrast, has been filtered through the "Yo Mamma" thought process.
Edited by waysiderLink to comment
Share on other sites
geisha779
Some versions do use the word harbor instead of haven.
Psalm 107 was written to inspire praise in the children of Israel by remembering God's good deeds. Praise for God not TWI or VP.
God didn't prepare a place of wanton pleasures and debauchery as a haven. He didn't prepare a place where women were objectified and abused. Jesus treated women with tenderness, love and most of all with honor.
The blessing of the Lord makes rich, and he adds no sorrow with it.
If you turn a blind eye and a deaf ear to the sorrow of others hurt by your "haven".... You really didn't escape as unscathed as you think.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4hv6sQXI1WY
Link to comment
Share on other sites
johniam
quote: There's a difference, John. Most of what you are seeing other posters bring to this discussion, whether right or wrong, has been filtered through a critical thinking process using logic and reason. Most of what I have seen in your posts, in contrast, has been filtered through the "Yo Mamma" thought process.
"Yo mamma" thought process? I notice you spell mamma with 3 m's but Wordwolf with only 2. Did you get that from different texts or is that like Noah's son being rendered either Sem or Shem? Just kidding. You're saying that my posts are all an emotional reaction, right? I could say the same of you all, but really all human communication is a mix of reason and emotion.
You say that your arguments are "filtered through a critical thinking process using logic and reason", but it's still all based on credibility. You assign credibility to some people; I assign it to others. You assign relevance to some facts/opinions, I, to others. Not much common ground, at least not on this topic, but you're not doing anything different than I am. You just THINK you're morally superior. Moral superiority is a myth.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
I think I'm morally superior?
How on earth did you come to that conclusion? This isn't about my morals or yours. This is about a guy who lived a life of excess and deceit, a guy who abused his position of authority to deliberately conduct himself in a manner that was destructive to other people's lives. Stop trying to make this about something other than what it is. Try to stay on point here, John.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
geisha779
Now that's convenient!! (suited to personal comfort or to easy performance)
So, the guy who kidnaps children to molest and murder them is morally on par with the one who dedicates his life to feeding hungry children and delights in good?
I don't think so...one of those two is far superior in good than the other.
If you are TRYING to say there is none good but God....then you have to actually make the comparison TO God.
Even a child knows the difference between good and bad....right and wrong...moral and immoral!
Your above statement indicates a LACK of reason.
Edited by geisha779Link to comment
Share on other sites
So_crates
You have to admire his can do spirit.
In the face of all that's opposing him--reality, evidence, the laws of logic--he insists on:
Yes, I will teach this donkey to fly;
Yes, I will kiss the ministry's backside and convince myself its vanilla ice cream;
Yes, I will put lipstick on this pig
At this point I usually stand and wait. A few toe taps later, they reach the Wile E. Coyote moment--when they realize all their machinations have failed them and their going to go
SoCrates
Edited by So_cratesLink to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
WordWolf often uses alternate spellings, like the British "colour" and "flavour". :)
[What he's saying is that, for the most part, we SUPPORT our statements with something-
generally documentation, evidence, even logic where appropriate.
Variations of "it's related because I say it's related" or insulting someone rather than REFUTING
them are inferior in intelligent discussion-
which means that they're ALLOWED on a DISCUSSION board, but it's plainly obvious the the average
reader and the average poster that the one attempting to use STYLE INSTEAD of SUBSTANCE really
brings little to the table. If you HAVE something to bring to the discussion, either bring it
or be resigned to bringing placeholders and having everybody else know it.
Mind you, some people know others know they're full of hot air, and they're fine with it,
so it's up to you if that's what you're happy with.]
Edited by WordWolfLink to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
What position? That is what is YOUR position here? What are you really trying to say?
What is the "save haven" in da way you describe? For whom? What TANGIBLE amount of "safety" what was it? And who was it afforded to, under what conditions, why?
You define your terms with a vague verse of scripture?
"the Lord heard my cry.. and brought to a safe haven.."
Can you describe what measure of safety you really enjoyed?
what was it?
I can state my position clearly here..
the vicster was nothing more than a second rate con-man, who posed as a "manogawd", leaching off of, and selling other men's works and such to support his claim,
The vicster had lower morals than a Guinea Pig. Guinea Pigs generally don't use date rape drugs. He kept a STABLE full of females.. he passed women among his top "men" like
The vicster was a very, very bad man.
I'd go on.. but those are just a couple starters here..
is that clear?
so what is your "position" here? That all the above DOESN'T MAKE ANY DIFFERENCE? That the blood of Jesus covers it all up?
that.. despite EVERYTHING.. all that counts, is that da vicster "saved" you from the Trinity? Or a belief in life after death?
I'm really trying to understand what you are saying.
It's kinda like another dialogue I can remember.
"come back to pfal."
why?
"you will be surprised with the RESULTS."
what results?
"You wouldn't understand. Come back to pfal.."
I TOOK the god forsaken thing over fifty times. What difference is it going to make if I "come back"? I've already SEEN the "results" (little, or none).
"you must have not gotten it 'right'. something you missed.. come back to pfal. It's there.."
what is *it*?
If this is the kind of "dialogue" we are having here.. I'll go my way, you go yours..
but true, that is what is *neat* about this place.. God and the whole world can see what kind of mentality that was being forced upon us..
Edited by HamLink to comment
Share on other sites
So_crates
In logic, that's what's known as a circular argument. It's designed to confuse more than illuminate. It's giving an answer without really giving an answer. Like Nancy Pelosi's response to what's in the Obamacare bill: "You'll have to pass the bill to find out what's in the bill."
SoCrates
Edited by So_cratesLink to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
[i think I'm morally superior to any man (or woman) who would claim to represent God Almighty
in any way, and then seeks to molest men, women or minors, whether or not he uses his "godly"
credentials to facilitate that.
I think I'm morally superior to any man (or woman) who would claim it is all right to claim to
represent God Almighty in any way, and then seek to molest men, women or minors.
I don't go around talking about that, and in fact, I didn't think of it this way until you brought
up the subject of "moral superiority." When it comes to standing for God's judgement, I'll be a lot
more secure of my standing than that of evil men who did such.
As for the idea that "moral superiority is a myth", I'll accept that a Bible-REJECTER could claim
such a thing, saying there is NO God, there is NO divine authority to the Bible, that the Bible's
testimony is not God's Word, that there is NO good and evil. I'll also note that some people who
say that have no problem with thinking there's something wrong about trying to molest men, women
or minors, whether or not they can explain WHY it's wrong.
Romans 2:14-15 (NASB)
14For when Gentiles who do not have the Law do instinctively the things of the Law, these, not having the Law, are a law to themselves,
15in that they show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them,
=================
As for the Bible and the subject of there being NO "moral superiority",
it DOES address the subject. The Greek word in question is "anomias" or "anomos".
It's a state when one says there is no moral superiority, no good, no evil, thus no morals.
It's translated things like "wicked" in the KJV, and it's a word associated with the
Man of Sins to come in the end-times. That man is often referred to as "the anti-Christ."
So, whose gospel do you follow? Jesus told people things like "GO AND SIN NO MORE"
and obeying God. The Epistles often give directions to right action, saying what should be
done, what shouldn't be done, and what should be avoided for the sake of others in order to
avoid being a stumblingblock to them.
On the other hand, vpw made up doctrines to excuse himself from the sinfulness of his sinful
thoughts, his sinful plans, and sinful actions. Everyone has sinful thoughts now and again-
but the rest of us elect not to act on them, and are honest about when we DO act on them that
we sin and displease God. Of course, the greatest moral relativists in all of history and time
make vpw look like an amateur- that old serpent decided that it was acceptable to oppose God,
to attempt to overthrow Him and attempt to be like The Most High. When "anti-Christ" comes,
he will be a FAR bigger sinner and religious hypocrite than vpw on his worst days.
When speaking on morals, whose company do you WANT to keep?
Jesus Christ, God Almighty, Paul
vpw, satan, anti-Christ.
Can you even SEE what makes the difference between the two?]
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
True.. but it doesn't confuse me any more..
sometimes all it does is to drive me to laugh..
its almost like watching a dog chase its tail.. why does he (or she) do it?
maybe the answer is obvious.. maybe there is no *reason*. It is because it (the tail) is there..
I dunno.. maybe the animal needs that kind of "security"..
Edited by HamLink to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
forever stuck on a vicious cycle.. maybe that's what "conscience seared with a hot iron" is all about..
can't break free even if they wanted to..
Link to comment
Share on other sites
So_crates
That's Einstein"s definition of insanity: Doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.
SoCrates
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Actually, that was Rita Mae Brown. https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikiquote/en/wiki/Rita_Mae_Brown
Einstein is said to have said it, but that's misattributed. https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikiquote/en/wiki/Albert_Einstein#Misattributed
Link to comment
Share on other sites
So_crates
Thanks. I'd always heard it was Einstein. I appreciate the factual attribution.
SoCrates
Link to comment
Share on other sites
rascal
Dismissing moral superiority, I think is a very convenient way to explain a lack of and to dismiss the necessity of living as a person of character and integrity. Why bother or try if it is just a a myth??
Seems like a good bit of the doctrine in twi was designed to do this...justify and excuse any damned behavior one wishes to embrace regardless of the consequences or destruction.
Just plain creepy
I guess it deeply offends me to be considered on the same moral level as a damned alcoholic thieving serial rapist who claimed it as his due in the name of God....
Just sick.
Edited by rascalLink to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
dismissing moral superiority in a debate.. doesn't that indicate the person with the argument is complaining that the other party has an "unfair advantage"?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
excathedra
that was what twi was for you and i don't what to say except it was not that for me
i needed a save haven FROM twi or i should maybe say wierwille mostly and some others
Link to comment
Share on other sites
johniam
quote (from the prophet is a difficult man to live with thread):
While I believe that VP did bad things, I don't buy the whole hype. There is an infinity of things he's been accused of and you and others seem to blindly accept all of it as a truth package. I do not. Some (perhaps most) of that stuff is either fabricated or exaggerated.
Compare with...
quote:
So, the guy who kidnaps children to molest and murder them is morally on par with the one who dedicates his life to feeding hungry children and delights in good?
Now THIS is exactly what I'm talking about. Kidnaps children??? Molests???? Murder???? That's pure fabrication. That's slander. That's liable. Are you trying to bait the Wierwille family or TWI into suing you so you can air your issues in court? Is that what this is all about?
Did the Packers win the superbowl because they were "morally superior" to the Steelers? Do judges rule on cases because of how "morally superior" the attorneys are? There's a word for people who think things SHOULD turn out a certain way because of moral superiority. Loser. Talk about doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result!
White supremists thought they were morally superior when they abused black people in the south. Same for supporters of Apartheid. Same for Nazis. Same for those who actually murdered the Christ. Don't you get it?
God is the only moral judge. I did not say that there is no good or evil, I just said that you all aren't the judges of such. Not man versus man you're not. You have your opinions. You have criminal and civil law. You have this forum, but you do not have the copyright on what is moral. Isn't that what got us in the soup in twi? Thinking that we had the copyright on truth?
(((((((Rascal))))))) Good to hear your voice! How's the husband and kids? How's the animals? I know your secret fantasy is to hogtie me and brand an 'R' on my butt. Maybe God will let you do that after the return, huh? Hmm. Maybe I better not give you any ideas.
Excathedra: I think every time you post you demonstrate that twi did not destroy you, rather, you overcame THEM! Some rewards are for what we overcome (Rev.2:26). And we are more than overcomers, right? Kit says you're getting a throne. I'm sure it'll be a good one!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
For the benefit of the few people who (like Johniam) may have difficulty following what people mean
in a discussion when he brings something up and people discuss it, I've grouped part of the discussion
here for easy reference. Most people had no trouble without it, but I am able to help along those
unable or unwilling to proceed logically when I wish.
So, a few posts, with "help files enabled".
{Here's where we pick up this part of the discussion. In order to try to excuse an evil man
(as SCRIPTURE puts it) and an IMmoral man from the IMmorality he performed, John attempted to
dismiss the entire subject of MORALITY and IMMORALITY. This is bizarre for a Christian who claims
to believe the Bible, but people trying to excuse vpw for his evil actions have eagerly contradicted
the Bible at will for decades, so this is hardly a new conversational gambit.
So, after such a claim was made (to the Christian, a RIDICULOUS claim), responses to that claim-
that morality is a "MYTH", that morals between all people REGARDLESS OF THEIR DEEDS NO MATTER HOW
GOOD OR HOW EVIL- were posted. Few people would NEED the responses- children have little difficulty
learning some things are right to do and wrong to do- but discussion fora tend to have responses to
such claims because that's what happens when someone makes an outlandish claim in a discussion forum.]
[What was the previous poster saying, and what was she not saying?
Was she saying "Oh, there was a man in twi who kidnapped children, molested them and murdered them?"
No.
Was she saying "Oh, there was a man in twi who dedicated his life to feeding hungry children?"
No.
She was responding to the rather SPECIFIC claim- and quoted it to make it obvious
"this is what I'm responding to"- that "moral superiority is a myth", which is the ridiculous claim
Johniam made.
She gave obvious examples of a very IMMORAL man and a very MORAL man. Can we all see the difference
between the two men? Apparently, nearly everyone CAN see the difference.
Sadly, John didn't. It's like he either didn't read the post at all, or there's something lacking
in his understanding, where the entire subject of morals has been crippled, possibly due to
exposure to horribly twisted morals. Or, he chose to ignore the obvious meaning in order to
attempt to twist the reply into addressing something it didn't approach, and ignored that it said
something specific in the first place.
No matter which possibility it is, that's certainly SAD. Adults are normally capable of much better,
and even posters with mental disabilities all over cyberspace can tell the difference.
(I've communicated with a number, they've never made such monumentous mistakes in fora.)
So, she refuted John's claim that "moral superiority is a myth" by giving examples anyone SHOULD
find easy to understand.]
[This poster (me) even attempted to show John from Scripture how completely wrong Johniam's
idea that "moral superiority is a myth" is. Despite us seeing about a week ago that the Bible
explains how to tell "good men" and "evil men" apart, John's missed it again and is still saying
there's no "moral superiority", thus, no "good", no "evil" among humans. So, from Scripture
again to show him how obviously false this is. If John really cared about the Bible, you'd think
he'd have learned such basics in the past decades, or at least be thankful to be shown a few of
the verses he seems to have missed. So, the Bible says there are morals, good and evil, and
that calling morals a "myth" is the activity of those who are immoral and evil.
Again, should be "Foundational" level- and for almost all Christians, indeed it IS.
There's only a minority, generally clustered among people who learned from vpw and twi,
who seem to be unable or unwilling to understand the concept- or eager to dismiss part of the
Bible.]
[Was the entire claim that morals don't really exist sincere? It seems made to excuse one from even
BOTHERING to try to live as God said to live, in order that one may "do as you fool well please", as vpw
said you could do in the pfal Foundational class.
Is it offensive to have those attempting to perform right actions lumped together with those who made
doctrines out of sinful practices? Most people, Christians and non-Christians, would probably find it so.
Is this hard to understand? Not for nearly every teenager and adult who hears or reads such a thing...]
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Unless you, yourself, have been a victim of rape, John, I must say, you have no idea what you're talking about.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
So_crates
So, Johniam, in this whole discussion about moral superiority, don't you think we're missing the 500 pound gorilla in the room?
Who in all of us thinks he's more moral superior than any of us? Who claimed he was a MOG and acted like God's laws didn't apply to him? Who took a ministry he was entrusted with by God and turned it into his own little swingers club?
You want to talk moral superiority? You don't get much more moral superior than that. Seriously, if you peruse this sight you'll get a better picture of vp as a person who felt he was so much smarter than the average bear he didn't have to obey anybody's laws--God's or man's.
Instead of focusing on how we should be building a statue to the shovel ready man of God, why don't you talk to some of his victims. Tell them how righteous a man he was. Explain to them their ruined lives were the price for moving the Word and how grateful we should be for vp and his moral superiority.
Vp avoided prison for his deeds, but, no matter how they appear to overcome, they're in a mental prison for the rest of their life.
Oh, feel free to ignore this post, it's safer. Talk about moral superiority: I have this belief and I'll ignore all evidence to the contrary because I believe its the right thing to do. Next time you pull the moral superiority card, maybe you should check the mirror.
SoCrates
Edited by So_cratesLink to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
[No, John. let's compare them with what they were actually discussing. I noticed you left off the links to the original posts,
which might suggest to people that YOU DELIBERATELY WANTED TO ROB THEM OF THEIR CONTEXTS TO CHANGE THEIR MEANING.
Hey, robbed of its context, someone can claim the Bible says "There is no God".
When you made a claim of "an infinity of things" vpw was accused of, I responded to your SPECIFIC CLAIM:
The post you quoted out of context was in response to your own claim here:
So she QUOTED YOU and replied to that very claim, showing how it's obvious there's no moral equivalency
between those who do horribly and those who do good. In other words, your unsupported claim was REFUTED.
There is acting accorting to good morals, and that's better than acting according to poor morals.
Here's her response.
[As anyone can see, when not robbed of its context, this had nothing to do with what you claimed it meant.
This is easy to see for even the lightly-educated, so all I can conclude is that you saw what she said,
and DELIBERATELY CHOSE to distort the meaning and LIE in order to accomplish some goal.
That's immral.]
It is neither slander nor liabel. Nobody connected such claims to twi, vpw or anyone else until YOU judt changed the clearly posted
meaning to do so. Why are you shamelessly lying about the posts others post here?
Are you willing to do ANY AND EVERY immoral thing, just to derail threads,
thus concealing the evil deeds we discussed of vpw before your diversion into "moral superiority is a myth",
as you falsely asserted?
Are you willing to do evil to keep people from discussing vpw's evil and immoral deeds?
Is that what this is all about?]
Nobody made such a ridiculous claim.
All of this is a smokescreen.
We didn't say that morals affected anything but conduct.
You're the only one who seems unclear about what morals should affect.]
You said "moral superiority is a myth." That's it. No qualifiers as to "by this I mean..."
Just that superiority of morals- AND THUS, GOOD AND EVIL DEEDS- are a "MYTH."
Ridiculous claim, but it was yours and people responded accordingly.
I noticed you seem to claim you SAID this, yet provide neither a LINK to where you supposedly said this,
nor a QUOTE where you supposedly said this. Is that because you never said anything along those lines?
Is it because you're posting one thing, and yet these threads proceed differently in your mind,
and mentally you're rewriting these threads so you're making sense and we aren't?
I think the continuing absence of anything to support your assertions says something about that,
even when you are silent. Silence can indeed tell us some things.]
Edited by WordWolfLink to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.