post 1375.
But vatnigger is relying on a word/concept fallacy. He's not telling anons to not use the filter feature against malicious spammers.
I beg to differ. I yearn for the time I can own all kinds of people.
Freedom from the usurpation of bad government is the only freedom I care about. Freedom of the heart and mind is literally satanic. There's something wrong with people. There's nothing inherently wrong with the institution of slavery.
Being slave to God IS liberation from sin. Doing whatever you want and thinking whatever you want is satanic. You can't serve two masters. This implies you still have to serve a master.
I guess in your mind, all of the illiterate people (most of the world's population) throughout the history of Christianity went to hell because they didn't read the Bible. For someone who claims to worship Jesus (the truth), you're prone to assumptions. You're moralfagging and concern trolling over a slavery joke. Maybe you should get over yourself.
Sola scriptura ultimately relies on the concept of self-evidence which is impossible. All things are evidenced by other things. It is not evident in the Bible that the books that comprise the Bible should be the books that comprise the Bible, for example. The text in the Bible isn't the word of God, either, Jesus Christ is.
I never claimed to be an expert on the bible, but you have no justifiable basis to claim that I haven't read the Bible.
Your criteria for why you assume I don't know anything about the Bible also applies to your analysis of my character, you presuppose this fact. You purposefully abrogate it. I'll just assume from this point on that you are projecting.
Irrelevant. You have no justifiable basis given the information that is available to you to have already made the accusation that I haven't. You are an intellectual child. Grow the fuck up.
What compels you to lie so easily?
You're talking about yourself. You're not even misrepresenting my position, but openly lying and saying that I claimed to be an expert on the Bible. Here's a newsflash for you:
If you're too mentally ill and delusional to follow a simple conversation on the internet and keep track of what you can and can't know about the people you're supposed to be cooperating with, then maybe gathering intelligence is a bit too much of a big boy activity for you.
You don't even know basic fallacies. Go fuck yourself, cumstain.
I can tell you have impostor syndrome you narcissistic dweeb.
Quote what expertise I claimed on the unknown. Justify your claims.
Nevermind the fact that my joke about wanting to own slaves was a joke.
Make a single argument about why slavery is morally wrong that isn't:
A.) a parts/whole fallacy
B.) a naturalistic fallacy
C.) an is/ought fallacy
D.) cherry picking scripture
E.) argument from personal incredulity
Keep in mind that regardless of whether or not your argument is philosophically sound, that by calling the ownership of people immoral, you are calling God immoral.
You're an uneducated coward and every non-bot ITT can read your obvious lies. You are full of yourself and will never realize that you are an evil, disingenuous person.
part/whole fallacy, and that's generously granting you your assumption that Roman Catholicism is legitimate.
You are accusing people of not having read the bible with no proof. You got your ass handed to you on a silver platter in an argument and are now arguing with your own alt in order to make it appear like you are winning something.
Matthew 10:34
You literally just contradicted yourself.
The statement "Dogma is bad" is, itself, dogmatic. Have fun with that.
You just said the bible doesn't divide. Moving the goalposts doesn't change the fact that you contradicted yourself. Get a real education.
It depends on what principles are held as dogmatic.
The q post about dogma established criteria for the sense in which the word dogma is considered in that sense, and that is faux-authoritative maxims which are not actually justified, which is not all/any dogma.
It's actually believers vs unbelievers. Not necessarily evil vs good. Only the Lord knows a man's heart, so people will struggle in vain to extricate evil from amoungst themselves.
You deny God entirely. You can't even justify why you believe in morality or logic.
According to you, it is immoral to leave an abusive relationship, because your abusers should be precious to you.
No. Dogmas are merely axioms. It's not against the rules to question an axiom. It doesn't mean you will succeed. Axioms can be falsely proposed, as well. Every person utilizes dogma because perception and time and resources are finite, and nobody can know everything about everything, or have the training to learn enough to question the dogma. Not everyone knows how a combustion engine works, but they assume that they do work and will continue to work if certain conditions are met, and they have to do this to drive a car.
Religious freedom is allowing satanists into the public school system. Protestantism is collapsing and Roman Catholics are LGBTQ.
You say that satan is not God, who cares?
Even if a legal standard is passed that outlaws explicit Satanism, they will just go back to some freemasonic deism as cover.
Even if that were passed, it would violate the constitution, which would leave the rest of the constitution up for debate. Several religions fled here, all of their religions heretical and false. There is no mediation. It based on a false compromise and the cultural situation we have today is it's inevitable result.
I didn't read your mind. You presupposed that. The criteria of your statement implies the criteria of mine.
No truth is self-evident. Therefore, rights are not self evident. It's good-sounding rhetoric for it's time, but it's philosophically bankrupt.
The pilgrims do not a have a direct line of apostolic succession tracing back to peter. They do not a tradition which informs their interpretation of scripture, they do not have an actual liturgy. They have a book which they do not understand and cannot understand.
This country was founded to be a stable compromise between many people with fundamental disagreements. Do not mistake me for saying that we don't have rights or that I don't believe in the constitution. The underlying philosophical problems are vectors of exploitation that can take hundreds of years to manifest.
Rome split from othodoxy. Orthodoxy is the original church and still is. Every other "denomination" changed it's teachings from a prior teaching, yet claims its teaching to be true and perfect. That is literally impossible. Assuming Christianity is true, and perfect, which if it is a true religion, it's teachings have to be 100% true, and it's administrative structure has to be impervious to any fallibility. Rome put one guy in charge of the whole church and merely claims him to be infallible. It is exceedingly rare to find a single protestant to who can explain the cosmological argument, the idea of a first cause. They are barely educated in philosophical or literary matters and use secondhand ideology to interpret scripture.
Religion informs culture informs law. Religions that don't hold up to philosophical scrutiny lose moral authority over people and then areligious people inform the culture, and thus the law.
Quakers and Puritans. That's multiple religions. The doctrine of Quakers and Puritans are not the same, and to claim that they are the same religion is to claim that their doctrine is co-equally true. That is false.
Natural rights are liberal.
This is the fault of many things and people. It is a cultural and spiritual problem far before it is even the fault of the elite who are trying to take over the world. We the People allowed this to happen.
They are both groups who claim to be Christian. Where are the Puritans now? Where are the Quakers? Why have so many people left the protestant religions over the past several decades, was it all the fault of the people who found it lacking or did the ideas and their proponents fail in the face of modern challenges? One is a hill that many will die on, and the other is an obstacle that can be overcome.
Heretics are not Christians.
There are passages in the New Testament about Heresy. I suggest you read them. Arians aren't Christians. Gnostics aren't Christians. Luciferians aren't Christians. Sola Scriptura is a false doctrine. False doctrine = not Christian. This isn't hard. From a secular perspective, anyone who self-identifies as christian is christian, but, like Pilate, secularism is not concerned with truth, but political advantage.