ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2018 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Saturday, November 04, 2017

Name the sophistry

This was an exchange on Twitter following my tweet of a link to the post below about the theologically nonsensical idea that racism is a sin. Those who have read SJWs Always Double Down should be able to identify it correctly.
Supreme Dark Lord‏ @voxday
Racism is an invented sin. Every so-called pastor who preaches against racism should be expelled from the pulpit.

Fishcake‏ @toonaphish
To be fair, James 2 specifically talk about the sin of partiality, of which prejudice is just am offshoot.

Supreme Dark Lord‏ @voxday
That is false. The sin of partiality refers to treating rich people better than poor people in the Church. Anti-racism is partiality.

Fishcake‏ @toonaphish
James 2 specifically starts off saying, "how can you claim to have faith in Jesus Christ if you favor some over others."

Supreme Dark Lord‏ @voxday
That's true. But what is favoring some over others? Affirmative action policies? Or a belief in a genetic explanation for human variations?

Fishcake‏ @toonaphish
Favoritism is stripping humanity of their soul while making preferred decisions based on the purely physical.

Supreme Dark Lord‏ @voxday
You are a liar.
Notice in particular the way in which the anti-racist is completely unable to defend his Scriptural position, and is therefore forced to retreat almost immediately into shameless sophistry.

Labels: ,

267 Comments:

1 – 200 of 267 Newer› Newest»
Anonymous Faceless November 04, 2017 12:09 PM  

Look at that - he's got his own special definitions! He'll even let you know some of them, eventually, maybe.

Blogger ZhukovG November 04, 2017 12:19 PM  

"making preferred decisions based on the purely physical"

Sounds like Fishcake agrees that Affirmative Action is Racist.

Anonymous Longtime Lurker November 04, 2017 12:19 PM  

Walked him right into the wall, rhetorically speaking.

Blogger S1AL November 04, 2017 12:30 PM  

You could also point out that, by his own definition, affirmative action is favoritism and therefore sinful.

Blogger dc.sunsets November 04, 2017 12:31 PM  

We cannot share the same polity with people who insist on using the fist of the state to force "what is" into whatever "what ought" happens to be fashionable.

Since the Left's "what ought" sailed right off sanity's map decades ago, the gulf between them and the rest of us cannot be bridged, and because their goals lead to oblivion, ours is a war for our very existence.

The sooner people experience their own epiphany WRT this contest, the better off will be the majority of Americans.

Anonymous Eduardo the Magnificent November 04, 2017 12:32 PM  

He was also not able to defend Affirmative Action. "Stripping humanity of its soul...based on the purely physical" is perfectly fine if you're white or male.

Blogger VD November 04, 2017 12:33 PM  

You could also point out that, by his own definition, affirmative action is favoritism and therefore sinful.

That was implied. Why do you think he retreated to sophistry there?

Blogger S1AL November 04, 2017 12:39 PM  

I generally assume that anyone who says something that inane is making it up on the spot because he hasn't ever thought it through. That would make it stupidity rather than sophistry, I suppose...

I may be incorrect in that assumption, and it's just base dishonesty. Or rote repetition of someone else's dishonesty. People are confusing.

Blogger dc.sunsets November 04, 2017 12:42 PM  

Sock-puppet People define any self-improving action taken on the basis of noticing race-based probabilities as "sin."

Would they hold the same opinion about actions taken on any other probability-based system, for example a woman discriminating against a man whose ancestors' penchant for inbreeding makes him a likely carrier of deleterious mutations, in her desire for courtship?

Is discrimination on any basis "sin" to such fools, or is it just the fads to which they adhere?

I have nothing but contempt for those who cannot see the connection.

Anonymous vfm November 04, 2017 12:50 PM  

Walked him right into the wall, rhetorically speaking.

Or into a circle.

Anonymous Pitcrew November 04, 2017 12:51 PM  

This is why I read VD. He cuts through the libtard BS like a razor.

Ironic that if AA ended in its entirety white people would actually respect minorities in certain positions, since those minorities would have earned their place. It wouldn't matter that those fields would become 90-95% white.

Blogger S1AL November 04, 2017 12:52 PM  

Tangential note:

The word translated as 'partiality' elsewhere used almost exclusively of God's judgment, with reference to wealth and social status - or, more generally, irrelevant characteristics.

So the sin described would be judgment on the basis of irrelevant characteristics. The trick, of course, is determining which characteristics are relevant when.

Blogger Noah B The Savage Gardener November 04, 2017 12:55 PM  

@dc.sunsets

At least the leftists who argue in favor of using affirmative action to attack white privilege from a totally non-Christian perspective are somewhat consistent. Fishcake is lying to such an extent that he ought to be considered mentally ill. Until such people can overcome their mental illnesses they shouldn't be in positions of responsibility in any organization.

Anonymous TS November 04, 2017 12:58 PM  

"So the sin described would be judgment on the basis of irrelevant characteristics. The trick, of course, is determining which characteristics are relevant when."

That's where they err alot by not determining the context. Even Jesus had to correct the same "mistake." Luke 4:9-12

Anonymous CPEG November 04, 2017 1:01 PM  

"Stripping humanity of their soul while making preferred decisions based on the purely physical" sounds like it is supposed to be some vague general moral principle, which does not apply when the physical distinctions are relevant to the decision. I'm going with Accident.

Part of the problem, also, is the standard Cuckchurchian idea of spiritual equality. The one Spirit grants us all different gifts, some of those gifts are greater than others, and most aren't cut out to be teachers. The idea that these gifts can't at least loosely correlate with physical characteristics is really quite absurd.

Anonymous CrystalBlue November 04, 2017 1:04 PM  

A belief in a genetic explanation for human differences isn’t racism — at least according to Merriam-Webster. Their definition states: “a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race.”

Racism, then, holds that genetics is the primary determinant and a value judgment that some differences are better than others. I would be interested in seeing the evidence that nature is more determining than nature. I would also be interested in knowing the end goals that support the value judgement that some differences are inherently better than others.

Anonymous Causal Lurker November 04, 2017 1:05 PM  

Let's invoke the zebras:

"There are multiple fouls.

Amphiboly and (Division), 5 IQ penalty for Amphiboly.

Logic foul, Destroying the Rule, 10 IQ points from spot of foul (total is 30 points).

Both fouls apply to the exchange.

SDL is now first and goal from the SJW 2. Time out."

It was too long to wait for tomorrow's NFL thread, and I'll be busy with winterizing the camper. Gotta have some fun here. :)

Blogger Noah B The Savage Gardener November 04, 2017 1:14 PM  

@16 Racism, then, holds that genetics is the primary determinant...

Your own definition says RACE - not genetics - must be considered a primary determinant of human traits in order for a person to be engaging in "racism."

Race and genetics are closely linked but they are not synonymous. And it's counterproductive to make such a concession to the left.

Blogger Unknown November 04, 2017 1:20 PM  

genetic explanation for human variations

This is the benign truth from which you begin. Parachuting into Sheol from this neutral height is your full view of the matter, which starts roasting your victims in hellish flames after a few moments of camouflaged freefall. You're not lying to this trapped and snared little flyby, but you're not telling him the whole truth either. Like a camouflaged salamander shooting off its tongue for gnats. A predator is a predator. Unwary gnats will get eaten. What's the lesson if you're not a predator and don't eat gnats?

Blogger Daniel Paul Grech Pereira November 04, 2017 1:30 PM  

To answer VD's post title:

"The Custom Dictionary" when SJW attempts to define partiality as racial prejudice.

Forgive my amateurish analysis, but I believe there is something else in there as well... an obvious atheist using a Bible quote incorrectly. Can someone finish this thought for me?

Anonymous Flavius November 04, 2017 1:33 PM  

Some sinful words from the hymns of the Eastern Church about the Hagarenes/Saracens (Mohammadans):

"Scatter the bones of the impious and unbelieving Hagarenes in hell, O Christ."

"Set at naught the fury of the Hagarenes that oft descend upon Thy flock."

"Break the savagery of the godless Hagarenes."

Thou didst "preseve thyself in true religion in the face of the iniquitous Hagarenes."

"Sunk deep in the abyss of their false understandings."

"The Saracens, who blaspheme the all-holy Trinity... drown in the turgid waters of their false religion."

"The vain belief of the foolish Moslems."

"The blasphemous mouths of the Moslems."

Anonymous Bible scholar November 04, 2017 1:40 PM  

An obvious atheist using a Bible quote incorrectly. Can someone finish this thought for me?

The devil quotes scripture ALOT, is very familiar with it, started twisting the meaning of God's words in the Garden of Eden (Genesis 3) and who knows probably used it on the angels that fell? Tried using scripture to get Jesus to commit suicide(Luke 4:9-12) and is using it to get churches to do the same?

Blogger ((( bob kek mando ))) - ( Fine Purveyor of Quality Artisanal Gorm ) November 04, 2017 1:41 PM  

Islam isn't a race.

thus, Eastern Orthodox hymns conflating tribes / races with the Muslim religion are in error.

Blogger Doc Rampage November 04, 2017 1:45 PM  

By your standards of Biblical interpretation, Vox, you could not prove that abortion or pedophilia is wrong. Neither is specifically forbidden.

Anonymous Fran November 04, 2017 1:49 PM  

@23 Thou shalt not kill is pretty specific

Anonymous b3k November 04, 2017 1:49 PM  

"But if anyone does not provide for his relatives, and especially for members of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever. (1 Tim 5:8)" Is that also 'partiality'?

Blogger Noah B The Savage Gardener November 04, 2017 1:50 PM  

@23 That's incredibly stupid. Matthew 18:6

Blogger Timmy3 November 04, 2017 1:50 PM  

The flesh is always in sin. Race is irrelevant. I don’t get favoring one race over another with the exception of Jews as God’s chosen people that was discarded by Jews.

Blogger JohnofAustria November 04, 2017 1:50 PM  

By this guy's argument showing any kind of preference for my children is also a sin.

The only thing that binds them to me once they are of adult age is that they share my genetic material. Said genetic material is only the "purely physical" accident of birth, and unrelated to their salvation. Their soul is entirely a creation of God and has no specific tie to mine by his logic. Therefore once I have completed the duty of raising them to self sufficiency any care or preference shown to them is a sin (weightines not considered).

If you apply his logic to an ethnicity it will also apply just as equally to a father and son.

Blogger Doc Rampage November 04, 2017 2:02 PM  

Fran wrote:@23 Thou shalt not kill is pretty specific

Does that mean you shall not kill in self defense? Shall not kill in war? Shall not be the executioner of a condemned man? Shall not kill animals? Shall not cause abortions? You need more than a simple sentence like that to prove your point.

Anonymous CPEG November 04, 2017 2:04 PM  

"The flesh is always in sin. Race is irrelevant. I don’t get favoring one race over another"

Do you "get" favoring your own family over other peoples' families?

Do you "get" the self-evident and Biblically mandated distinction between male and female that is rooted in the flesh?

It is no more racist for people to primarily association within their ethnic group than it is sexist for men and women to broadly have separate social circles.

It is no more "racist" for ethnicities to have their own countries than it is "sexist" for men and women to have separate bathrooms.

Blogger Doc Rampage November 04, 2017 2:07 PM  

Noah B The Savage Gardener wrote:That's incredibly stupid. Matthew 18:6

Sorry, there is no discussion of sex there. That passage is as on-point for molesting children as "there is no longer Jew and Greek" is for racism. I didn't say that there was no way to prove it from the Bible; I said there is no way to prove it using Vox's rules.

Blogger ((( bob kek mando ))) - ( Fine Purveyor of Quality Artisanal Gorm ) November 04, 2017 2:12 PM  

VD
Or a belief in a genetic explanation for human variations?


a belief is a personnel opinion which may be highly idiosyncratic and not be shared with anyone else. worse, it can be trivially disputed.

i would rephrase:
"Or observing the genetic explanation for human variation."

after all, to deny genetic variation is to ... deny the differentiation between male and female. or to deny the difference between a flatworm and a Blue Whale.

which they also do quite a lot of.

Blogger Noah B The Savage Gardener November 04, 2017 2:15 PM  

@31 Absolutely moronic. Sin in the context of Matthew 18:6 refers to all forms of sin mentioned elsewhere in the Bible, which includes any form of extramarital sex. Virtually all pedophilia would fall into that category.

Unlike "racism," which isn't forbidden or noted as being sinful anywhere.

Blogger Wanderer November 04, 2017 2:16 PM  

Doc Rampage wrote:By your standards of Biblical interpretation, Vox, you could not prove that abortion or pedophilia is wrong. Neither is specifically forbidden.

'Thou shalt not murder' expressly forbids abortion. As for pedophilia, it is condemned based on what is condoned. God says one man and one woman, and these two shall become one flesh. It doesn't say one man and one woman-child. And one man and one woman-child cannot become one flesh anyway. Furthermore, Ezekial 16 describes the "time of love" as a woman being physically mature with grown breasts, etc.

Anonymous Fran November 04, 2017 2:18 PM  

@29 Well I guess you're right. God is perfectly fine with killing babies and raping children.
Afterall, it's the same thing as self defense and eating.

Blogger Longtime Lurker November 04, 2017 2:18 PM  

@10: vfm said, "Walked him right into the wall, rhetorically speaking.

Or into a circle."

The decisive point in the exchange was Vox's second-to-last statement, the coup de grace that provoked fishcake's final bit of sophistry, which started, " Favoritism is stripping humanity of their soul . . . "

To my ears, the part about "stripping humanity of their soul" sounded more like an admission of sincere intent via projection.

Blogger DonReynolds November 04, 2017 2:24 PM  

Given the human tendency to segregate....by family, by tribe, by race, by culture....
since WHEN is your Neighbor someone very different from yourself????

The anti-social and artificial integration, which is a recent invention, is the ONLY reason why the subversives in the church NOW want to call them Neighbors. They were never our neighbors before. WE did not want them to be our neighbors and they did not want to be our neighbors. But it was DEMANDED by the Leftist Liberals and through them, by the COURTS and the Law.

Yes, Christ Jesus expects us to love our Neighbor, but he did not say that the entire world was your Neighbor! nor was it the case in the time of Christ or at any other time, until my own lifespan.

Blogger VD November 04, 2017 2:29 PM  

By your standards of Biblical interpretation, Vox, you could not prove that abortion or pedophilia is wrong. Neither is specifically forbidden.

You are incorrect. If you are not a Christian, do not attempt to join in the theological discourse. You are simply not equipped to do so.

Blogger VD November 04, 2017 2:32 PM  

By the way, Doc Rampage is now engaged in the same form of sophistry as Fishcake, although his is not as egregious and therefore not as easy to detect.

See if you can spot the tell that would give it away even if you didn't know the Bible better than he does.

Blogger S1AL November 04, 2017 2:35 PM  

"Yes, Christ Jesus expects us to love our Neighbor, but he did not say that the entire world was your Neighbor! nor was it the case in the time of Christ or at any other time, until my own lifespan."

Galatians 6:10.

Anonymous JAG November 04, 2017 2:40 PM  

Doc Rampage wrote:By your standards of Biblical interpretation, Vox, you could not prove that abortion or pedophilia is wrong. Neither is specifically forbidden.

But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea.

King James Bible

Blogger Wanderer November 04, 2017 2:43 PM  

When the Bible talks about 'love' it is most often referring to what we today know as 'tough-love'. I'm not sure about the Hebrew, but I know the Greek had multiple different words and concepts that ended up being translated all as merely the single word 'love'. So, even if the entire world is your neighbor, it doesn't change the fact that what the Churchian left advocates for is not at all Biblical love. What the Churchian left advocates for is the equivalent to always feeding a spoiled fat kid candy because that's what it wants, whereas the Biblical tough-love is to never give candy and instead force the fat kid onto a diet and exercise regiment.

Anonymous DissidentRight November 04, 2017 2:50 PM  

That was beautiful.

Blogger Longtime Lurker November 04, 2017 2:50 PM  

@39: Vox said, "By the way, Doc Rampage is now engaged in the same form of sophistry as Fishcake, although his is not as egregious and therefore not as easy to detect.

See if you can spot the tell that would give it away even if you didn't know the Bible better than he does."

I probably don't know the Bible better than he does, but to me, he's hoist by his own petard: To say that "neither is specifically forbidden" is to imply that those activities that are not specifically prohibited in the bible are therefore permitted.

I don't think Doc Rampage intended to argue in the affirmative for abortion of pedophilia.

I don't know what the technical term is for that error, but I do see how narrowly argued points can trip one up by implication.

Anonymous God Hates Cucks November 04, 2017 2:51 PM  

While its true that foreigners should not be mistreated or denied justice, churchians fail to recognize changing demographics as the curse they are:

"The foreigners who reside among you will rise above you higher and higher, but you will sink lower and lower." - Deuteronomy 28:43

Just as God hardened pharaoh's heart, and caused him to refuse to release the Israelites, and so bring upon himself destruction, and how God hardened the canaanites' hearts so they would try to fight Joshua and be destroyed, so God has caused apostate nations to embrace multiculturalism and so destroy themselves. The saying "Whom the gods destroy, they first make mad" is true.

"Not for thy righteousness, or for the uprightness of thine heart, dost thou go to possess their land: but for the wickedness of these nations the LORD thy God doth drive them out from before thee, and that he may perform the word which the LORD sware unto thy fathers, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob." - Deuteronomy 9:5

Blogger WynnLloyd November 04, 2017 2:55 PM  

Most definitely. This stuff is polemical gold.

We're blamed for not supporting affirmative action, but then also because some feel insecure that they only have what they have because of it. Raising one's own performance plays no role in their minds. That's not to say there's some meritocracy out there where hard work is always rewarded or something, but the egregious things some minorities do at least in my environment would be very easy to stop and make their careers skyrocket.

Blogger Patrick Charles November 04, 2017 2:57 PM  

Is it ambiguity, since Fishcake substituted his own definition of "favoritism, and Doc Rampage is attempting to make the definition of "kill" ambiguous?

Blogger Doc Rampage November 04, 2017 2:58 PM  

Noah B The Savage Gardener wrote:Absolutely moronic. Sin in the context of Matthew 18:6 refers to all forms of sin mentioned elsewhere in the Bible, which includes any form of extramarital sex. Virtually all pedophilia would fall into that category.



Your repeated evaluations of my intelligence might be more interesting if you could demonstrate that you are intelligent enough to grasp my point.

You still don't get it. You are offering the same kind of arguments that the anti-racists offer. The point isn't that you can't argue from the Bible that pedophilia is a sin; the point is that the arguments are indirect and require making a lot of arguable inferences.

Blogger rumpole5 November 04, 2017 2:58 PM  

Well, seems like God himself is a racist: HAB 1:6a -- "...the Chaldeans, a bitter and hasty nation ..." And the Apostle Paul was also a racist: Tit 1:12-13a --"One of them, a prophet of their own, said "" Cretans are always liars, evil beasts, lazy gluttons."" This testimony is true." and, let us not leave out our founder, Jesus, who, when a Cannanite woman begged him to heal her daughter, said (Mat 15:22-22) "I was not sent except to the lost sheep of Israel" and "It is not good to take the children's bread and throw it to the dogs". It does seem to me that Christianity apprehends a certain distinction between the various peoples, nations, tribes and the like. It is hard for me to see how Christians who follow suit now are engaging in sinful behavior.

Blogger S1AL November 04, 2017 3:03 PM  

"The point isn't that you can't argue from the Bible that pedophilia is a sin; the point is that the arguments are indirect and require making a lot of arguable inferences."

No, it doesn't. You can demonstrate that it's sinful in about a dozen different ways. As pointed out above, it is a direct violation of Matthew 18:6 at bare minimum.

Anonymous CrystalBlue November 04, 2017 3:04 PM  

Noah B The Savage Gardener wrote:Race and genetics are closely linked but they are not synonymous
Can you have race without genetics? If so, how?

Blogger James November 04, 2017 3:07 PM  

"James 2 specifically starts off saying, "how can you claim to have faith in Jesus Christ if you favor some over others.""
James 2:1 "My brethren, have not the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory, with respect of persons."
The problem is not favoring some people over others based on reasonable and relevant criteria. The idea that James was trying to express was that the Lord Jesus Christ and His Father were not respecters of persons and that meant all could come to Him and not be cast out. Let him who is thirsty come and drink of the Water of Life freely. I need a better explanation for why this should be interpreted to mean that people from all over the world who are not citizens of my country should be allowed to swarm in and vote Democrat and collect welfare checks and subsidies that I don't qualify for my self as a citizen? WTF is up with that, for crying out loud? How stupid do these liberals think I am? Sheesh.

Blogger Wanderer November 04, 2017 3:08 PM  

Doc Rampage wrote:Your repeated evaluations of my intelligence might be more interesting if you could demonstrate that you are intelligent enough to grasp my point.

You still don't get it. You are offering the same kind of arguments that the anti-racists offer. The point isn't that you can't argue from the Bible that pedophilia is a sin; the point is that the arguments are indirect and require making a lot of arguable inferences.


The Bible doesn't contain a list of every possible sin a person can make. If it did then the Bible would never end. Just because I have to point to some indirect thing to prove a point is not the problem. The problem with anti-racists is that the indirect things that they point to still don't prove their point, and furthermore they are also in contradiction with other scripture that are far clearer in *their* point.

Blogger Doc Rampage November 04, 2017 3:10 PM  

Just to clarify:
1. I am a Christian.
2. I have spent hundreds, or possibly thousands, of hours in Bible study and I've read the whole thing through at least twice (maybe skimming over some of the genealogies and lists of building materials).
3. I believe that abortion and sex with children are both sins.
4. I don't believe that simply preferring to be with people of your own race is a sin, but I do believe that God loves all people of all races equally, and expects us to do the same.
5. No one has yet been able to point to a difference between Biblical arguments against racism and Biblical arguments against abortion or child sex.

Anonymous Flavius November 04, 2017 3:11 PM  

@22 Islam isn't a race. thus, Eastern Orthodox hymns conflating tribes / races with the Muslim religion are in error.

The ancients did not draw such a deep distinction as we do today.

"Hagarenes" refers to the children of Hagar, that is, Abraham's concubine, the mother of the Arabs. That is certainly an ethnic distinction, as well as a religious one.

Many Eastern Orthodox hymns also speak of "the Christian Race," which refers to all baptized Christians who are reborn in Christ.

Anonymous Magna Carta November 04, 2017 3:15 PM  

Black Christian Pastor, YouTuber, and author, Jesse Lee Peterson, has a video, "Does Racism Exist?" Jesse says "No", and confronts those who think it does. This video link is a segment of a much longer video which can be found in his description page: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RK8d6B0-FG0

"Jesse asks people if they believe that racism exists. One woman says yes. She grew up in the South at the time when they were transitioning from Segregation to Integration. Her white school became integrated, so her black friends' school closed down. They lost their black teachers and crowded into the white schools. No one was happy. Yet she saw them march in Tuscaloosa, Alabama, with Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., and others for Civil Rights and Desegregation. But Jesse asserts that black people were doing quite well independently of whites, graduating from black universities, competing in sports amongst each other, having jobs and holding office. No one was complaining that they couldn't get into a white school. Only those who were influenced were protesting or unhappy. Only white people as a group are called "racist" en masse. Blacks and Hispanics hate one another, yet people don't call either group on the whole "racist." Around the world, white people are crazy enough to let other races, other people into their country, use their stuff, and those people turn around and call the whites "racist"."

Blogger Nate November 04, 2017 3:19 PM  

affirmative-action is nothing more than a DNC sponsored state bribe.

Blogger Cecil Henry November 04, 2017 3:24 PM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Blogger S1AL November 04, 2017 3:25 PM  

"No one has yet been able to point to a difference between Biblical arguments against racism and Biblical arguments against abortion or child sex."

That's largely because 'racism' has no fixed definition, and may or may not be sinful depending on the specific context.

Whereas pedophilia is wholely condemned under at least three other categories (homosexuality, porneia, harming children). You are failing to grasp the distinction between 'explicit' and 'specific'. The Bible also doesn't specifically forbid sodomizing your neighbor with a tire iron, but I'm fairly certain you can grasp why it's wrong.

Anonymous CPEG November 04, 2017 3:26 PM  

@VD
"See if you can spot the tell that would give it away even if you didn't know the Bible better than he does."

The tell is "By your standards."

Anonymous Flavius November 04, 2017 3:26 PM  

@23 Doc Rampage

And the second commandment of the Teaching; You shall not commit murder, you shall not commit adultery, you shall not commit pederasty, you shall not commit fornication, you shall not steal, you shall not practice magic, you shall not practice witchcraft, you shall not murder a child by abortion nor kill that which is born. (Didache 2:1-2, ca. 50 AD)

Blogger Cecil Henry November 04, 2017 3:27 PM  


I think this interview below is an instructive example of how diversity is invariably destructive. Here Paglia is blind to her own double standard about pre 1965 'Americans'.

Paglia is a socialist writ large, and she tries to have it both ways in this interview, and I don't think Peterson notices the hypocrisy.

From 2:00 - 5:00 she talks about declining standards like the late Roman expire, and then delivers the crux of the issue without seeing the cognitive dissonance about 'diversity' and identity politics (its good for me, but not for thee now!!)

Is The West Going to Fall apart like Ancient Rome -

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=83hyZq1p-f4

Blogger Doc Rampage November 04, 2017 3:29 PM  

Wanderer wrote:The problem with anti-racists is that the indirect things that they point to still don't prove their point, and furthermore they are also in contradiction with other scripture that are far clearer in *their* point.
As I said above they prove their point as well as that anti-abortionists do. And I don't know all the scriptures that you claim that they are in conflict with, but the ones I've seen listed in this discussion are entirely unconvincing. A couple of instances of national stereotypes--not the same as racism, and an instance which refers to the covenanted children of Abraham and their special place in God's plan--also not the same as racism.

Blogger Out of Nod November 04, 2017 3:32 PM  

1. James 2 was taken out of context.
2. James 2 was added to. This man is not just a liar but he is risking the judgment found in Revelation.
3. Favoritism was redefined to fit the tweeters belief, which has no biblical basis.

Blogger YIH November 04, 2017 3:40 PM  

CrystalBlue wrote:A belief in a genetic explanation for human differences isn’t racism — at least according to Merriam-Webster. Their definition states: “a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities
Well yes, it is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities
and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race.”
Well, when it comes to things that have substantially improved the human condition like electrification, railroads, air travel, improved farming, automobiles, computers and much much more what races comes to mind as developing those things? Africans? Those from the moslim world? Australian Abbos? No, primarily Whites. Secondarily, East Asians and Jews. What has the ''turd world'' contributed? Turds.
Racism, then, holds that genetics is the primary determinant and a value judgment that some differences are better than others. I would be interested in seeing the evidence that nature is more determining than nature. I would also be interested in knowing the end goals that support the value judgement that some differences are inherently better than others.

Anonymous Magna Carta November 04, 2017 3:40 PM  

@ Cecil Henry -- I saw that video in it's entirety a couple weeks ago. I like Jordan and have watched hours of his talks. I like the fact that he advocates for Western civilization, but his love affair with Darwin and Freud seem to undermine his cause for traditional values which have been intertwined with Christianity. He teaches that spirituality is rooted in biology and that God is a product of human evolution. Paglia is an advocate of pornography and that the 60s radicals were noble.

Blogger Noah B The Savage Gardener November 04, 2017 3:44 PM  

@51 No, you can't have race without genetics. Race is rooted in genetics, but genetics is a more fundamental descriptor than race.

Here's why I think the distinction matters for rhetorical purposes. Inherent in the accusation of racism is the implication that the racist is behaving illogically and cruelly by believing that different races also have significant differences beyond those that are readily observable. And strictly speaking, race isn't the root cause of those differences. Genetics are. To confuse race and genetics is a case of confusing cause and effect.

Thanks to our increased understanding of genetics we're in a strong position to rebut the accusation that one who believes the races to be unequal is behaving irrationally. We cannot yet in most cases provide detailed biochemical mechanisms by which genes control human traits, but on this issue the anti-racist physicalists have backed themselves into a corner. No other plausible alternative to the theory that genes control human traits to a very large extent exists within the realm of physicalism. And races are nothing but groups of indiviuduals who are genetically similar.

Believing that genetics are the primary determinant of human traits doesn't make us racists, it just indicates that we're capable of logical thought.

Anonymous BBGKB November 04, 2017 3:46 PM  

That's nothing compared to:
Obama official says you are racist if you don't accept terror attacks
Cesare Frank Figliuzzi, who served as the former Assistant Director for Counterintelligence at the FBI

http://www.thedailysheeple.com/sacrificed-at-the-altar-of-liberal-diversity-obama-era-fbi-assistant-director-claims-that-americans-must-accept-terror-attacks-or-we-might-be-racist_112017

Anonymous Gen. Kong November 04, 2017 3:46 PM  

In the meantime, looks like more exemplets of Judeo-Christian virtue and righteousness have come to light for one of the greatest of all saints in Judeo-Christianity. He even has his own Chinese-marble colossus on the mall in the swamp.

Blogger Tatooine Sharpshooters' Club November 04, 2017 3:47 PM  

stripping humanity of their soul

Anybody know how this is done? Are there online courses, or do you need personal instruction? Becoming a Soul Eater sounds like it could be fun.

Blogger tublecane November 04, 2017 3:53 PM  

@12-You don't get to decide which characteristics are relevant when. That's for your betters to decide for you.

That's the difference between having discriminating taste (good) and being discriminatory (bad).

Blogger ((( bob kek mando ))) - ( Fine Purveyor of Quality Artisanal Gorm ) November 04, 2017 3:53 PM  

52. James November 04, 2017 3:07 PM
"James 2 specifically starts off saying, "how can you claim to have faith in Jesus Christ if you favor some over others.""


don't ignore context.

if you ACTUALLY applied that verse in the unbounded manner that Fishcakes is trying to, it means that you can't can't differentiate between Satanist and Christian.

because you're favoring the Christian over the Satanist.

Blogger SirHamster November 04, 2017 3:57 PM  

VD wrote:By the way, Doc Rampage is now engaged in the same form of sophistry as Fishcake, although his is not as egregious and therefore not as easy to detect.

See if you can spot the tell that would give it away even if you didn't know the Bible better than he does.


"By your standards" is first flag for me.

Next is misrepresenting your position when he lists sins under the category of "Neither is specifically forbidden."

Anonymous DissidentRight November 04, 2017 3:57 PM  

Doc Rampage wrote:As I said above they prove their point as well as that anti-abortionists do. And I don't know all the scriptures that you claim that they are in conflict with, but the ones I've seen listed in this discussion are entirely unconvincing. A couple of instances of national stereotypes--not the same as racism, and an instance which refers to the covenanted children of Abraham and their special place in God's plan--also not the same as racism.

Abortion is a sin because it is murder.
Pedophilia is a sin and an abomination because it violates the sexual order.

What does racism violate? Nothing. The most anyone can say is that racism may be used to justify sin, which you can say of literally anything.

Anonymous krymneth November 04, 2017 3:57 PM  

Doc Rampage wrote:And I don't know all the scriptures that you claim that they are in conflict with, but the ones I've seen listed in this discussion are entirely unconvincing.

The Golden Rule.

For you to deny this, please clearly claim that you would not mind having been molested as a child.

If you are half as Christian as you claim, I hope this is not how you generally approach the Bible; you've got a serious case of missing the forest for the leaves. As near as I can tell, the only logical reason remaining to claim that there is no possible way to condemn these sins by Vox's standard is simply that you'd otherwise have to admit you were wrong.

You should also be aware that the idea that the Bible is a big list of dos and don'ts, and that it has an exhaustive list of either, is generally a marker for someone either being non-Christian, or very new as a Christian. I find it hard to square your claimed experience with the way you are arguing here.

Blogger tublecane November 04, 2017 3:57 PM  

@15-"when the physical distinctions are relevant to the decision"

Yes, for instance if you complained about "Must be this tall to ride" signs at county fairs on the grounds that the distinction is purely physical, people would think you're an idiot.

Problem is, people have been brainwashed to think race isn't ever relevant, because our civilization is now idiotic.

Blogger ((( bob kek mando ))) - ( Fine Purveyor of Quality Artisanal Gorm ) November 04, 2017 4:03 PM  

75. krymneth November 04, 2017 3:57 PM
You should also be aware that the idea that the Bible is a big list of dos and don'ts, and that it has an exhaustive list of either,


but that's his argument *against Vox*.

that Vox is saying that because the Bible doesn't specifically forbid racism that it is permitted.

Blogger tublecane November 04, 2017 4:07 PM  

@77-"that Vox is saying that because the Bible doesn't specifically forbid racism that it is permitted"

Does he have a decoder ring, because I can't find that argument on this page.

Blogger Doc Rampage November 04, 2017 4:08 PM  

S1AL wrote:"No one has yet been able to point to a difference between Biblical arguments against racism and Biblical arguments against abortion or child sex."

That's largely because 'racism' has no fixed definition, and may or may not be sinful depending on the specific context.


I'll grant that. Vox was not clear about what he meant by racism, and people tend to immediately think of white supremacism or even Nazi-style race hatred.

The Bible also doesn't specifically forbid sodomizing your neighbor with a tire iron, but I'm fairly certain you can grasp why it's wrong.
Well, now you are getting into situational ethics. Suppose, for example that the neighbor in question has just put said tire iron through the door of your fully-restored 1963 Corvette while fooling around? In such a case, the ethics of sodomizing your neighbor with the tire iron becomes murkier.

Blogger S1AL November 04, 2017 4:10 PM  

"In such a case, the ethics of sodomizing your neighbor with the tire iron becomes murkier."

Very good. Now what action justifies the sexual molestation of a child?

QED

Blogger YIH November 04, 2017 4:12 PM  

Doc Rampage wrote:Fran wrote:@23 Thou shalt not kill is pretty specific

Does that mean you shall not kill in self defense? Shall not kill in war? Shall not be the executioner of a condemned man? Shall not kill animals? Shall not cause abortions? You need more than a simple sentence like that to prove your point.

The problem with that is primarily translation error, IIRC the passage in ancient Hebrew is more properly specifically reads ''Thou shalt not murder'' which exempts a lot of ''killing'' from that prohibition - such as animals (you did notice that both Testaments devote substantial time to that subject, right?) and self-defense (and war can be seen as a super-set of that).

Blogger tublecane November 04, 2017 4:17 PM  

@79-"people tend to immediately think of white supremacism or even Nazi-style race hatred"

Maybe you think that way, but others--for instance Harvard Law School Deans--think of notes saying: "It's okay to be white."

Blogger Al November 04, 2017 4:18 PM  

Also see:

-In Praise of Prejudice, by Theodore Dalrymple

-Who Shall Ascend?, Ch. 10, "The Myth of Equality," by Fr. James Wathen

And:

"Any inequality today is a horror. For the Catholic Church [the actual Catholic Church, not the post Second Vatican Council abomination represented by the perfidious likes of Pope Francis], it's not at all a horror. God has designed everything unequal, practically everything: the flowers, the animals, the plants, the mountains, the nations, the peoples, the races, the sexes, the individuals, everything in God's creation is unequal. What God plans is a great variety, and an order in the variety, with some things higher and some things lower. And St. Paul says in the Epistle to the Romans, 'Don't start questioning God on why he put this lower and put that higher.' It's like a building, that stone is lower than that stone and that stone is higher.... Compare blacks with whites, broadly speaking, blacks will be superior in some things and whites will be superior in others. But generally speaking, the blacks are lower down on the wall and the whites are meant to be higher up on the wall. That's just the way it is. That's the reality. When the whites stopped doing what they should be doing, which is leading the blacks, then...."

-Bp. Richard Williamson (2008 lecture on The Sillon, No. 3 in the Stockholm Conferences 2008 audio series at the St. Marcel Initiative website)

Also see the following excerpt from Bp. Williamson's letter entitled "Thoughts," from the November 2005 edition of his Eleison Comments, also available on the St. Marcel Initiative website:

"In chronological order, before Christ, nobody in their senses would have dreamt of denying the inequality of different races, classes and sexes. When Christ came, nobody in their senses imagined that men's equality in Christ wiped out these differences, it transcended or rose above them. However post-Christian modern man, by refusing anything transcendent or anyone above him, has lost all grip on reality."

Bp. Williamson enunciates the actual Catholic position (actual Catholics are now called "traditional" Catholics since the catastrophe of the Judas Council Revolution, aka the Second Vatican Council of 1962-65. Bp. Williamson is thus not in good standing with the revolutionaries occupying the Vatican since then).

Also see many Bp. Williamson videos on Youtube, such as this one uploaded by user J.E.:

The Fundamental Opposition


Blogger Daniel Paul Grech Pereira November 04, 2017 4:19 PM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Blogger Daniel Paul Grech Pereira November 04, 2017 4:21 PM  

@39

"By your standards of Biblical interpretation, Vox..."

Blogger Wanderer November 04, 2017 4:24 PM  

Doc Rampage wrote:As I said above they prove their point as well as that anti-abortionists do. And I don't know all the scriptures that you claim that they are in conflict with, but the ones I've seen listed in this discussion are entirely unconvincing. A couple of instances of national stereotypes--not the same as racism, and an instance which refers to the covenanted children of Abraham and their special place in God's plan--also not the same as racism.

Jesus referred to non-Israelites as dogs. Sure, it was just an analogy and not said out of malice, but you go try using that defense after making a comparison between foreigners and animals. According to current year definitions the mere act of acknowledging a concept of "foreigner" is itself now deemed hostile and racist.

Blogger VD November 04, 2017 4:36 PM  

4. I don't believe that simply preferring to be with people of your own race is a sin, but I do believe that God loves all people of all races equally, and expects us to do the same.

Your belief is false. God even HATES people of certain tribes and nations. You are flat-out wrong and your claim to have read through the Bible and studied it is called into question by the extent of your wrongness here.

5. No one has yet been able to point to a difference between Biblical arguments against racism and Biblical arguments against abortion or child sex.

You are also wrong here. And you're either not very intelligent if you cannot grasp the difference or you are guilty of sophistry, specifically, amphiboly. You are also falsely characterizing my standards of Biblical interpretation, perhaps in error, perhaps not.

Just give it up. You're not only failing to make your case, you are making yourself look increasingly dishonest and deceptive, which is not wise for a Christian.

Blogger YIH November 04, 2017 4:39 PM  

Gen. Kong wrote:In the meantime, looks like more exemplets of Judeo-Christian virtue and righteousness have come to light for one of the greatest of all saints in Judeo-Christianity. He even has his own Chinese-marble colossus on the mall in the swamp.
Old news, it was rather well known for 50 years that he wasn't exactly any paragon of virtue.
Bring that up to libs and cucks (but I repeat myself) and they either flat deny it or hem, haw, shuffle and ''but he was a great man anyway!'',

Blogger VD November 04, 2017 4:39 PM  

but that's his argument *against Vox*.

that Vox is saying that because the Bible doesn't specifically forbid racism that it is permitted.


Exactly. And that is not what I am saying nor is my argument dependent upon that. The Bible simply doesn't forbid anything that can be extended into any dictionary definition of racism, and more importantly, both Jesus and God exhibit behavior that is consistent with some definitions of racism. Doc Rampage has to rely upon sophistry and definitional relativism to even BEGIN to make his erroneous case.

Anonymous a deplorable rubberducky November 04, 2017 4:45 PM  

One has to wonder about the cuckite exegesis of stuff like this, Deut 20:16-17:

"However, in the cities of the nations the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance, do not leave alive anything that breathes. Completely destroy them — the Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites—as the Lord your God has commanded you."

Blogger rcocean November 04, 2017 4:46 PM  

Why do people care so little about Christian History or Tradition. The Nicene Creed was established almost 1800 years ago. If Christianity is about "anti-racism" why didn't we hear about it for 1750 years?

Blogger Doc Rampage November 04, 2017 4:52 PM  

krymneth wrote:As near as I can tell, the only logical reason remaining to claim that there is no possible way to condemn these sins by Vox's standard is simply that you'd otherwise have to admit you were wrong.

You're on my side and don't even know it. Vox refuses to accept even the rational basis of an argument from general principles found in scripture. Because a verse is not explicitly about race, Vox finds it sacrilege to use the general principle it teaches and extend it to race. By THAT standard, it is not a sin to abort or molest a baby. But I don't accept that standard, which was the entire point of my comment. I extend the 6th commandment to not killing an unborn baby even though in the time when it was written, the word used in that context did not really apply to abortion. I think that when Jesus warned us against offending children, we can extend the principle to not molesting them even if they aren't literally offended.

Now, Vox might claim that he also accepts such arguments, but if so, then he has no business calling for pastors to be expelled from the pulpit just because they used that form of argument in a way that he happens to disagree with. They are using sound methods of Biblical interpretation, just coming to a different conclusion than he does.

Blogger YIH November 04, 2017 4:53 PM  

tublecane wrote:@15-"when the physical distinctions are relevant to the decision"

Yes, for instance if you complained about "Must be this tall to ride" signs at county fairs on the grounds that the distinction is purely physical, people would think you're an idiot.

Problem is, people have been brainwashed to think race isn't ever relevant, because our civilization is now idiotic.

Actually the ''too short for this ride'' rulers are out of date, now it's ''are you too fat or small to fit the seat''. Now with whining adults too!

Anonymous Knight of Gondor November 04, 2017 5:05 PM  

Looks like the alt-retards #FakeRight are up to no good again:

http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2017/11/3/okay-white-stickers-law/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2017/11/03/its-okay-to-be-white-signs-and-stickers-appear-on-campuses-and-streets-across-the-country/?utm_term=.292ca4022897

This is turning out to be another Charlottesville. I wouldn’t be surprised that Spencer is behind this.

The sooner we can condemn this latest fiasco from the alt-reichtards, the better.

Blogger VD November 04, 2017 5:06 PM  

Vox refuses to accept even the rational basis of an argument from general principles found in scripture.

No. I refuse to accept false and invalid arguments from general principles found in Scripture.

Because a verse is not explicitly about race, Vox finds it sacrilege to use the general principle it teaches and extend it to race.

No. Because a verse is not explicitly or implicitly about race, AND because the extension violates other general principles and specific examples that are implicitly about race, I find those usages to be incorrect, invalid, and in many cases, observably dishonest.

They are using sound methods of Biblical interpretation, just coming to a different conclusion than he does.

They are using them incorrectly at best, deceptively at worst.

Blogger Markku November 04, 2017 5:07 PM  

By THAT standard, it is not a sin to abort or molest a baby.

Yes it is, because those things are subsets of murder and rape. "Extending" something that the Bible says about the value that individuals hold as members of the Body of Christ into a duty to pretend to not see what we quite plainly see regarding the common characteristics of different ethnicities, is just plain dishonesty. It doesn't follow even if you try to squint your eyes just the right way.

Blogger Warren Yurmind November 04, 2017 5:13 PM  

Joshua 23:12 For if you ever go back and cling to the rest of these nations, these which remain among you, and intermarry with them, so that you associate with them and they with you, know with certainty that Yahweh your God will not continue to drive these nations out from before you; but they will be a snare and a trap to you, and a whip on your sides and thorns in your eyes, until you perish from off this good land which the Lord your God has given you.

Numbers 33:55 But if you do not drive out the inhabitants of the land from before you, then it shall come about that those whom you let remain of them will become as pricks in your eyes and as thorns in your sides, and they will trouble you in the land in which you live.

Deuteronomy 7:3
"Do not intermarry with them. Do not give your daughters to their sons or take their daughters for your sons, 4 for they will turn your children away from following me to serve other gods, and the Lord’s anger will burn against you and will quickly destroy you. "

Ezra 10:10,11.... Now therefore, make confession to the Lord God of your fathers and do His will; and separate yourselves from the peoples of the land and from the foreign wives

OpenID markstoval November 04, 2017 5:19 PM  

There is this Roman Catholic Priest in Florida who is a proud SJW. He defines "love" as "to will the good of the other, and then act on it".

He never defines what exactly is "the good" he is talking about --- but it always seems to be taking from producers and giving to the non-producers. He even says that is how "we" get into heaven --- by giving to the needy.

I am reminded that Dr. Thomas Sowell once said that he was damn glad he got his PhD before Affirmative Action because everyone knew he deserved his degree and we had to wonder about every black after A.A.

Did A.A. and the "Great Society" programs really help anyone?

Blogger The Reactionary November 04, 2017 5:26 PM  

Doc Savage doesn't want to have to go back.

Blogger Warren Yurmind November 04, 2017 5:27 PM  

Pedos? drown 'em.
Matthew 18 6 But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea.

Blogger Azure Amaranthine November 04, 2017 5:31 PM  

His unscriptural position.

Haven't read SJWADD yet, but I'm aware of two definitions of sophistry.

#1: Selling knowledge for personal profit.

#2: Intentional deception by attempting to complicate simple matters in order to obfuscate your true intentions.

Assuming you're using the second definition, one part of the sophistry is "stripping the soul", where in reality the soul is, in ways, manifest through the physical body as well as in the actions of it. Even the purely physical reflects the soul -- in fact, using the metric of "good trees produce good fruit", the purely physical is the most simple means of gauging the soul. The only possible inaccuracies of that method can only arise from shorter term analyses vice longer analyses, because random error is harder to weed out in a smaller sample sizes.

The other, more obvious part of the sophistry is that his definition of "favouritism" is flagrantly false. Favoritism is selection based on external and irrelevant personal considerations rather than skill, capacity, diligence, and morality -- or alternatively, rather than the applicable law/order/rules.

He also says that humanity has a single soul, obviously untrue, though that may have just been a failure of communication on his part.

Blogger Markku November 04, 2017 5:35 PM  

Jas 2:3 and you pay attention to the one who wears the fine clothing and say, "Have a seat here, please," while you say to the poor man, "Stand there," or, "Sit at my feet,"
4 have you not made distinctions among yourselves, and become judges with evil thoughts?
(...)
6 But you have dishonored the poor man. Is it not the rich who oppress you, is it not they who drag you into court?

James' argument is, why do you show partiality in favor of THOSE guys? THEY'RE the ones who treat you badly!

Now, about that affirmative action...

Anonymous CrystalBlue November 04, 2017 5:35 PM  

Noah B The Savage Gardener wrote:Believing that genetics are the primary determinant of human traits doesn't make us racists, it just indicates that we're capable of logical thought.
On the one hand, yes, genetics is the primary determinant of human traits -- when you compare then against other animals. And, yes, genetics has determined that I will never be an NFL quarterback, opera singer, or porn start.

But genetics has also determined that our brains are universal computing devices -- and we know that all computers are theoretically equal. There can be differences in speed and capacity, etc..., but is this a basis for declaring inequality? Is what YIH wrote in @65 due, for example, to differences in processing capability between white and non-white brains, or did whites simply have an ecological advantage -- cold climates necessitating longer-term time preferences when making decisions? If the latter, then long term time preferences can be taught. And, if it's the brain that is what gives an individual an advantage, technology will soon render that moot, since we'll all have a wearable AI that will make up for anything we might personally lack.

Anonymous zebedee November 04, 2017 5:43 PM  

While it is commonly translated as you shall not kill, the meaning is more specific in the original Hebrew with a meaning approximating "slay" or "murder" rather than simply "kill".

Anonymous Jack Amok November 04, 2017 5:50 PM  

CBS has a story on their website with the headline "Hate Rising: White Supremacy's Rise in the US".

It's illustrated by a screaming black man wearing a shirt with a circle-slash over a swastika and a jewish looking woman holding a "No KKK" sign. Someone is holding a Mexican flag in front of a US flag.

Blogger Markku November 04, 2017 5:54 PM  

No, most of the time when an English Bible says "slay", it means the kind of killing that is not wrong. It is either neutral, or mandatory. In this case the word is harag. Unfortunately at least KJV muddies the waters and also translates nakah as "slay" occasionally. But the word in "thou shalt not kill" is neither of these - it's ratsach which is NEVER ok. Literally it means "hack in pieces". Murder is probably the best translation that we have available, but the idea is to kill someone the same way that an animal kills: With mindless brutality. It uses this same word for a lion killing a man.

Blogger Warren Yurmind November 04, 2017 5:59 PM  

as the song goes: church is fakin' and Satan is getting celebrated

People waking up in droves
But the media been trying to hide that
Playing tricks with Karl Rove
Trying to get you sidetracked
But you can only fool some of the people some of the time
Commit war crimes until the people uprise
And he ain't lying we just trying to get you elevated
That church is fakin' and Satan is getting celebrated
They're bombarding your brain with thoughts from the idiot box
A race to the bottom. On your mark. but we're too smart
And we won't fall once the movement starts to snowball
Nuremberg 2 who be on the roll call?
Payze tell 'em.
The last nine administrations
Using them nazi strategies camps of concetration
the population and illegal wars on nations
now that's treason
To bring global government in due season
That's why they argue that a carbon tax is needed
But they're doomed to fail, the Revolution can't be defeated

Revolution by Payday Monsanto with ampkilla

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tIloaOaimPs

Blogger rcocean November 04, 2017 6:12 PM  

Yep, everyone is his own Pope. Even those who know zero about Christian thought for the last 2000 years and don't read Greek or Hebrew. So Joe Blow who picks up the KJV and doesn't even know the 17th Century English language of a *Translation* can divine that Jesus wanted illegal immigration. Incredible.

Anonymous chimp out November 04, 2017 6:17 PM  

I'm relieved wearable ai will stop all chimping out.

Blogger OneWingedShark November 04, 2017 7:02 PM  

James wrote:"James 2 specifically starts off saying, "how can you claim to have faith in Jesus Christ if you favor some over others.""

James 2:1 "My brethren, have not the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory, with respect of persons."

The problem is not favoring some people over others based on reasonable and relevant criteria. The idea that James was trying to express was that the Lord Jesus Christ and His Father were not respecters of persons and that meant all could come to Him and not be cast out. Let him who is thirsty come and drink of the Water of Life freely. I need a better explanation for why this should be interpreted to mean that people from all over the world who are not citizens of my country should be allowed to swarm in and vote Democrat and collect welfare checks and subsidies that I don't qualify for my self as a citizen? WTF is up with that, for crying out loud? How stupid do these liberals think I am? Sheesh.


You're right in that this is sorely being misused; the issue of being "a respecter of persons" swings the other way too: to favor the alien over the citizen is not just. And, in terms of justice, you would expect that the lawbreaking alien would be subject to the law just as the citizen would be -- if reports I've heard are true, then this is really, really twisted right now where illegal aliens are being let go because, essentially, it's more profitable to come down on citizens.

Doc Rampage wrote:5. No one has yet been able to point to a difference between Biblical arguments against racism and Biblical arguments against abortion or child sex.

Am argument against racism could be made from the fact that God made Adam and Eve and all humanity descends from both of them; and also that Jesus said: “‘You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.’ This is the greatest and first commandment. And a second* is like it: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.”

* If you really love God with all your Heart, all your Soul, and all your Mind then how could you fail to love your fellowman who is made in the Image of that God?

Blogger VD November 04, 2017 7:06 PM  

If you really love God with all your Heart, all your Soul, and all your Mind then how could you fail to love your fellowman who is made in the Image of that God?

If he is wicked. Because God hates the wicked and we are to follow His example.

Blogger VD November 04, 2017 7:06 PM  

There can be differences in speed and capacity, etc..., but is this a basis for declaring inequality?

Yes. Obviously.

Blogger Markku November 04, 2017 7:13 PM  

You're right in that this is sorely being misused; the issue of being "a respecter of persons" swings the other way too: to favor the alien over the citizen is not just

It's not even talking about politics.

Jas 2:2 For if a man with gold rings and in fine clothing comes into your assembly, and a poor man in shabby clothing also comes in,
(...)
4 have you not made distinctions among yourselves, and become judges with evil thoughts?
-----
It's talking about CHURCH. Not how to run your nation.

Blogger Lazarus November 04, 2017 7:28 PM  

Knight of Gondor wrote:The sooner we can condemn this latest fiasco from the alt-reichtards, the better.

Are you nuts?

Not only is it OK to be white, its OK to be Str8, its OK to be Male, its OK to be Christian.

I am

Somebody


Ask Jesse Jackson about it.

Blogger Markku November 04, 2017 7:29 PM  

I suspect that's an Alt-Retard concern troll here to sow dissension. It's a great campaign.

Blogger Lazarus November 04, 2017 7:30 PM  

Markku wrote:It's talking about CHURCH. Not how to run your nation.

Exactly. Churchians don't understand separation of church and state.

Blogger S1AL November 04, 2017 7:33 PM  

Mmmmm. Isn't there a distinction to be made between hating and not loving?

Blogger James November 04, 2017 7:42 PM  

VD: "If you really love God with all your Heart, all your Soul, and all your Mind then how could you fail to love your fellowman who is made in the Image of that God?
If he is wicked. Because God hates the wicked and we are to follow His example. "

I think some people are looking for an absolute where God does not impose an absolute, as such. Romans 12:18 says "If it be possible, as much as lieth in you, live peaceably with all men." Ideally, God would have us all get along swimmingly, as it were, so to speak, but God also knows that there are limits to what people can handle. Also, living peaceably does not mean all living together in one Babylonious World Government situation. A Modus Vivendi needs to be worked out, not imposed by psychotic social justice megalomaniacs. Don't you think?

Blogger Al November 04, 2017 7:47 PM  

"Since one cannot help everyone, one has to be concerned with those who by reason of place, time, or circumstances, are by some chance more tightly bound to you."

St. Augustine, On Christian Doctrine

Blogger Markku November 04, 2017 7:48 PM  

Let's say we invite someone from an African church to ours. Clearly, then, we have been persuaded that this is a brother or sister in Christ, or we wouldn't invite him at all. But now we make him sit on the floor, when everybody else sits on a bench. THIS would be an actual violation of James chapter 2.

Blogger Azure Amaranthine November 04, 2017 7:49 PM  

"arguable inferences."

Just because you can argue about something you don't know squat about doesn't mean that that same thing is arguable if you have even a shred of knowledge about the subject, Doc Rampage.

Basically what I'm saying is that your lack of knowledge on the subject is clear, and that you're either too stupid or too foolish to realize it. You do not appear to be too stupid.

"Can you have race without genetics? If so, how?"

By the strictest possible interpretation of your question, situationally yes (your question is, in my mind, not quite specific enough if you want to get technical). As one instance, it is possible (though astronomically improbable) for a grandchild to have precisely zero genes from her grandfather. This is possible even so far as both grandparents and both parents of the child are 100% the same race. A race can (and usually does) have multiple genetic sets and/or traits contained within it. Thus, the granddaughter may have the same race as the grandfather with none of the same genetics.

However, as both you and Noah have noted (and as the spirit of your question intends), race is inextricably linked with the sums of genetics. Even though you may have race without one precise set of genetics, race is still determined by specific sets of genetics.

"I do believe that God loves all people of all races equally, and expects us to do the same."

No, straight lie Doc Rampage. "and the second is like it, 'Love thy neighbor as thyself.'" To go even further down that path, "Greater love hath no man than this, that he lay down his life for a friend."

"stripping humanity of their soul"

"Anybody know how this is done?"


It's an automatic process in the original sense of the word "auto". By this I mean you can only 100% for sure do it to yourself. I'd say that if you manage to get yourself overtly possessed by a demon, you've arguably succeeded. Having yourself express delivered to Hell would be an inarguable success.

"The Golden Rule."

D'oH! Careful Krymneth, check where you're walking!

"that Vox is saying that because the Bible doesn't specifically forbid racism that it is permitted."

Correct, which is Doc Rampage assuming Vox's entire set of Biblical interpretation standards ex-nihilo, as well as conveniently ignoring that the Bible does not only to implicitly condemn abortion and pedophilia, but explicitly as well. His only way around this, even with regards to the single-point warning about not "offending" children (as one translation holds), would be to claim that pedophilia does not harm a child at all, as well as having no effect in leading them into sin.

"Well, now you are getting into situational ethics. Suppose, for example that the neighbor in question has just put said tire iron through the door of your fully-restored 1963 Corvette while fooling around? In such a case, the ethics of sodomizing your neighbor with the tire iron becomes murkier."

All jokes aside, you've provided precisely zero valid argument here Doc Rampage, for several reasons.

"Because a verse is not explicitly about race, Vox finds it sacrilege to use the general principle it teaches and extend it to race."

You're a perverse moron. That's analogous to saying that Vox finds it sacrilege to use the general principle of "Thou shalt not steal." and extend it to stealing from an animal. It's actually sacrilege in both cases. Thus Vox would be correct even if he HAD said that.

Actually, no, I apologize, I've been inaccurate. "Sacrilege" is only "technical and not necessarily intrinsic". Those things may actually be more egregious than sacrilege.

Anonymous A Deplorable Paradigm Is More Than Twenty Cents November 04, 2017 7:55 PM  

But genetics has also determined that our brains are universal computing devices --

Human brains are Turing machines? Are you sure?

and we know that all computers are theoretically equal.

We know the exact opposite. A finite state automata is not the equal of an infinite state automata.

Give me what you wrote this comment on in exchange for a museum quality 386. Then tell me about equality.

Anonymous A Deplorable Paradigm Is More Than Twenty Cents November 04, 2017 8:06 PM  

@120 Markku
Let's say we invite someone from an African church to ours. Clearly, then, we have been persuaded that this is a brother or sister in Christ, or we wouldn't invite him at all. But now we make him sit on the floor, when everybody else sits on a bench. THIS would be an actual violation of James chapter 2.

Let's invite an African to church because he is a brother in Christ. We all sit on the floor while he gets a nice chair.

Then we can call ourselves "woke" and be proud of how we are living up to James 2 in true Churchianity.

Anonymous CPEG November 04, 2017 8:06 PM  

"But genetics has also determined that our brains are universal computing devices -- and we know that all computers are theoretically equal. There can be differences in speed and capacity, etc..., but is this a basis for declaring inequality?"

Please tell me what modifications I would have to make to run AAA games on an Apple 2e.

Anonymous CrystalBlue November 04, 2017 8:07 PM  

A Deplorable Paradigm Is More Than Twenty Cents wrote:Human brains are Turing machines?
I typically use little-t "turing" machines, since a Turing machine has an infinite tape and infinite time and the universe is finite. We can make a tape long enough for all practical purposes.
Are you sure?
Very. It's demonstrable from the construction of the brain.
We know the exact opposite.
Really? "Computer theory has been developed to a point where it realizes that it doesn't make any difference; when you get to a universal computer, it doesn't matter how it's manufactured, how it's actually made." -- Richard Feynman
Give me what you wrote this comment on in exchange for a museum quality 386. Then tell me about equality.
I've used a "museum quality" 386. Had a yellow wire running along the motherboard because it was an early Compaq Deskpro 386 running at 25Mhz. I've also used 8088's, 16-bit minis, and 60-bit Cray supercomputers. The only true difference between them was speed and storage. And, unlike those machines, humans can extend their storage. That's why we have paper and pencils. Humans can extend their "lifetime" by passing on knowledge. Humans can also increase their speed by using computers to do their computations for them. So, am I better than you because I can harness more compute power to help me with my thinking?

Blogger S1AL November 04, 2017 8:10 PM  

'Let's invite an African to church because he is a brother in Christ. We all sit on the floor while he gets a nice chair.

Then we can call ourselves "woke" and be proud of how we are living up to James 2 in true Churchianity.'

The really funny part is that the African Christians I've known would be rather appalled by this notion.

Blogger VD November 04, 2017 8:13 PM  

I've used a "museum quality" 386. Had a yellow wire running along the motherboard because it was an early Compaq Deskpro 386 running at 25Mhz. I've also used 8088's, 16-bit minis, and 60-bit Cray supercomputers. The only true difference between them was speed and storage.

You literally don't understand what you're babbling about. There are many and profound differences between those machines besides the speed and storage issues, involving both hardware and software. You are not anywhere nearly tall enough for this ride.

Blogger Azure Amaranthine November 04, 2017 8:22 PM  

"we know that all computers are theoretically equal"

That's an interesting theory, in that it's obviously batshit insane and I'd have great interest in finding the originator in order to fire him if such were within my purview.

"There can be differences in speed and capacity, etc..., but is this a basis for declaring inequality?"

Yes. It's the definition of equality. What the f*** is wrong with you.

"I'm relieved wearable ai will stop all chimping out."

You should be flipping terrified of wearable "A.I." with the capacity to influence anything whatsoever. You should be terrified if you didn't program it yourself, and possibly even then. "Chimping out". The ambiguity of this description may highlight the possibility of varying "definitions". Extrapolate.

"Am argument against racism could be made from the fact that God made Adam and Eve and all humanity descends from both of them;"

"Jacob have I loved, and Esau have I Hated." -God.

"Churchians don't understand separation of church and state."

They think it's to protect the state from the Church, rather than the Church from the Church acting via the state. Nobody actually cared about what happened to the state. :)

"Isn't there a distinction to be made between hating and not loving?"

If you mean there's a grey area in between them, sure, in some cases. Otherwise, hating would logically tend to exclude loving. The more powerful the hate the less possible any sort of love.

"If it be possible, as much as lieth in you, live peaceably with all men."

Hypothetically, I can live peaceably with a neighbor that I'll otherwise joyfully kill if I catch him batting an eyelash at me. Peace does precisely nothing to exclude hate.

"Ideally, God would have us all get along swimmingly"

You might want to avoid trying to put words in God's mouth. I hear he doesn't like that. I might add something about your addition being particularly stupid, but I have a feeling that any additions are particularly stupid from the Ultimate perspective. Or, you know, from the human perspective as well should you consider the Biblically promised consequences.

@120. Markku, that seems like an unnecessarily muddy analogue to me. Pun NOT intended.

Blogger Azure Amaranthine November 04, 2017 8:25 PM  

"It's the definition of *In*equality."

Anonymous A Deplorable Paradigm Is More Than Twenty Cents November 04, 2017 8:44 PM  

@125 Crystal Blue
A Deplorable Paradigm Is More Than Twenty Cents wrote:
Human brains are Turing machines?

I typically use little-t "turing" machines, since a Turing machine has an infinite tape and infinite time and the universe is finite. We can make a tape long enough for all practical purposes.


This contradicts your previous statement, and demonstrates you don't understand computability.

Are you sure?

Very. It's demonstrable from the construction of the brain.


LOL!

Dude, describe the computability function of the Anterior Cingular Cortex and the Amygdala. Just for a start.

Blogger Markku November 04, 2017 8:46 PM  

Azure Amaranthine wrote:
@120. Markku, that seems like an unnecessarily muddy analogue to me. Pun NOT intended.


I'm just saying how much it would take for this passage to become relevant to race. And this scenario would NEVER actually play out in any church in the West.

Blogger Doc Rampage November 04, 2017 9:08 PM  

VD wrote:The Bible simply doesn't forbid anything that can be extended into any dictionary definition of racism,
From the online Mirriam-Webster: "a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race".
There is plenty of scriptural support for the idea that no race is superior to another in any metaphysical sense.

and more importantly, both Jesus and God exhibit behavior that is consistent with some definitions of racism.

God also killed a baby to punish the father, David. That doesn't mean it's OK for us to do that. God has the knowledge and the wisdom to judge nations. We don't.

Doc Rampage has to rely upon sophistry and definitional relativism to even BEGIN to make his erroneous case.
I had to rely on rhetorical jabs instead of arguments to try to parse out your position. If you want to clarify how your rules of Biblical interpretation allow the generalizations you like and not the ones you don't like and how these rules are so obviously the only correct ones that any pastor who disagrees should be driven from his job, I'd like to hear it.

Blogger Lazarus November 04, 2017 9:15 PM  

Doc Rampage wrote:There is plenty of scriptural support for the idea that no race is superior to another in any metaphysical sense.

Like what? This?

23'Moreover, you shall not follow the customs of the nation which I will drive out before you, for they did all these things, and therefore I have abhorred them. 24Hence I have said to you, "You are to possess their land, and I Myself will give it to you to possess it, a land flowing with milk and honey." I am the LORD your God, who has separated you from the peoples.

Blogger ((( bob kek mando ))) - ( Fine Purveyor of Quality Artisanal Gorm ) November 04, 2017 9:16 PM  

132. Doc Rampage November 04, 2017 9:08 PM
There is plenty of scriptural support for the idea that no race is superior to another in any metaphysical sense.



agreed.

query:
since when does Racism have anything to do with metaphysics?

i mean, apart from Gingers not having a soul.

Anonymous Looking Glass November 04, 2017 9:17 PM  

There's kind of a funny second layer to this. Churchians hate the Book of James. They loathe it incredibly because it destroys all of their positions. There's also subtext to the book, as it is written to converted Jews who were acting, well, far too much like the Pharisees.

It's the book to use against someone trying to use Sophistry in the context of the Bible. I'm still chuckling about the interaction in the post itself.

Blogger Lazarus November 04, 2017 9:20 PM  

…8"How shall I curse whom God has not cursed? And how can I denounce whom the LORD has not denounced? 9"As I see him from the top of the rocks, And I look at him from the hills; Behold, a people who dwells apart, And will not be reckoned among the nations.

Now if you believe spiritual israelites, have replaced the historical israelites, then the same rules apply.

Blogger S1AL November 04, 2017 9:20 PM  

"since when does Racism have anything to do with metaphysics?"

Since we wound up with idiots like the ones who claim we don't need to witness to blacks because they aren't actually people.

Yes, yes, corner case kooks, but they do crop up from time to time.

Anonymous Looking Glass November 04, 2017 9:27 PM  

@132 Doc Rampage

So they've shifted the definition of "Racism" into "Racial Supremacy" + Gaslighting the entire study of Genetics. I don't think that's firm ground to build a position on. Seems a bit... sandy.

Blogger VD November 04, 2017 9:31 PM  

There is plenty of scriptural support for the idea that no race is superior to another in any metaphysical sense.

There is none whatsoever. You are a liar.

I had to rely on rhetorical jabs instead of arguments to try to parse out your position.

That's ridiculous. You're wrong and you're full of shit. As usual. Seriously do you genuinely think you are fooling ANYONE here? You're not anywhere close to being smart enough to do so. Give it up, for crying out loud.

Blogger JohnofAustria November 04, 2017 9:33 PM  

If I build one VM with 2Gb of mem, and one with 8GB, the first will run our windows image poorly, security programs hardly at all, and any actual user functions just won't happen. The second can do all these things.

Which one do you want to spend your tax dollars on, and depend upon?

Blogger ((( bob kek mando ))) - ( Fine Purveyor of Quality Artisanal Gorm ) November 04, 2017 9:37 PM  

137. S1AL November 04, 2017 9:20 PM
Yes, yes, corner case kooks, but they do crop up from time to time.



we're talking about the general case. that was an argument made on occasion back under slavery, not currently. not with any frequency.

in today's secular society, i can't remember the last time anyone made a comment one way or the other about whether or not another race had souls.

apart from, you know Black Hebrew Israelites talking to 'So Called White People':
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iA1g9kmjiW8

Blogger JohnofAustria November 04, 2017 9:37 PM  

And for a bonus for the Churchians, describe to me how choosing the latter is unbiblical.

Blogger JohnofAustria November 04, 2017 9:39 PM  

@ Bob kek mando, the only ones I know of are orthodox Jews ;^)

Anonymous CrystalBlue November 04, 2017 9:54 PM  

VD wrote:You literally don't understand what you're babbling about.
If I don't, then neither did Church, or Turing, or Von Neumann, or Feynman, or McCarthy, or ...
There are many and profound differences between those machines besides the speed and storage issues, involving both hardware and software.
What difference do these things make with respect to computability theory?

Blogger S1AL November 04, 2017 9:55 PM  

"in today's secular society, i can't remember the last time anyone made a comment one way or the other about whether or not another race had souls."

I've known more than one person who invoked the 'Curse of Ham' fallacy. They're always out there, in whatever color or Creed, ready to explain why the group they don't like isn't actually composed of people-people.

And yes, obviously there are those who will make the same argument about straight white males. In fact, I'd even suggest that the underlying premise of saying "white people have no culture" or "white people are all racist" is the subconscious belief that we're not really people.

There's nothing new under the sun.

Anonymous Looking Glass November 04, 2017 10:07 PM  

@111 VD

VD wrote:If you really love God with all your Heart, all your Soul, and all your Mind then how could you fail to love your fellowman who is made in the Image of that God?

If he is wicked. Because God hates the wicked and we are to follow His example.


Modern "Christians" don't get the fact the Lord is coming back to unleash destruction on the Earth, then erase it with fire. They really have trouble understanding the the Second Coming of Christ will be the worst day in history for everyone that isn't "of Christ".

Then again, not being god-forsakingly foolish about Scripture is beyond most these days.

Blogger ((( bob kek mando ))) - ( Fine Purveyor of Quality Artisanal Gorm ) November 04, 2017 10:16 PM  

do you know why i made that flippant comment about Gingers?

because i was dismissing the edge cases of crackpots and loons.

and all of you still insist on citing the stances of crackpots and loons.

why is that?

any realization or acknowledgment of HBD / genetics / racial variation is termed "Racism".

thus you are all termed "Racists".

that's what's under discussion. there's nothing "metaphysical" ( an Abstract ) about it. it's purely mechanistic, CONCRETE genetic code.

Metaphysics is, by definition, the science of the immaterial.

that you keep trying to muddy the waters serves only to aid those who slander us.

why do you do that?

Blogger Lovekraft November 04, 2017 10:31 PM  

OT, but a link referring to our Supreme Dark Lord. Seems his tendrils are reaching far and wide:

https://anepigone.blogspot.ca/2017/11/how-do-we-know-mexicans-arent-too-keen.html

Anonymous Looking Glass November 04, 2017 10:47 PM  

@145 S1AL

Considering how often "White Devil" pops up, it's not subconscious. The covetness makes people think others aren't human, so they can pillage them as they see fit.

Anonymous Anonymous November 04, 2017 11:12 PM  

@ 146

Anonymous the bandit November 04, 2017 11:47 PM  

@ Doc Rampage

You show a sense of humor, so I think you're sincere, but you've blinded yourself to what is being said here with false assumptions which come from places other than the Bible (and also other than what Vox Day is arguing).

The next time you read through the Bible, don't just skim the genealogies. Instead, ask yourself why God bothered to put them in there in the first place, taking up such a large percentage of his Word, if they don't play into his ultimate plan.

When you quickly dismiss it as changed in the Light of Christ, question your assumption that all nations being blessed through the Son of David should be treated primarily as a new order rather than as an exceptionable circumstance of the original order: Romans 11:17-28.

The next time you read through the Bible, also notice how much God speaks of "the nations," and what his meaning is. The Apostle Paul summarizes this concept, in his sermon to the Athenians in Acts 17, "From one man he created all the nations throughout the whole earth. He decided beforehand when they should rise and fall, and he determined their boundaries" (verse 26). Therefore, the argument someone else above puts forward that we all come from Adam as a Biblical argument for no separate nations (races) is false, because from one man God created the nations. He's also the one who has set boundaries between them.

Now, God has sent us to preach the gospel to all nations (Matthew 28:19), but he doesn't leave off referring to separate nations from there. Not even to the end of days (Revelation 14:6-8). Consider what that means in terms of the intersection of the universal church and the nations of the world, and how this parallels the intersection of the separate sexes in the world and the lack of sexes in heaven.

Then study up on what Babylon represents, Biblically, and study Revelation 18 (vs. 3-4 especially).

Note that I could hammer this all home even further with Old Testament passages, but that I demonstrated everything here easily with New Testament passages.

Final tip: Never brag about how many times you've read through the Bible. It only sets you up for the embarrassing admission that despite the number of times you've read it, you still missed some glaringly obvious teachings.

Blogger S1AL November 04, 2017 11:52 PM  

"that you keep trying to muddy the waters serves only to aid those who slander us.

why do you do that?"

Probably for the same reason that you ask dumb questions with obvious answers.

Blogger tublecane November 05, 2017 12:48 AM  

@115-I agree, "It's okay to be white" is a great slogan. The Other Guys can't help but react to it as if it's speech violence, though it's an innocuous sentiment. That's the sort of thing that turns off normies.

We haven't got to the point as a society where whiteness as such isn't okay, the authorities can't come out and say being white isn't okay. So they pretend the signs are hateful. But they're not.

Treating unhateful signs as if they're hateful reveals their hate. It's quite a sophisticated troll.

A little bird told me the plan might be to gradually shorten the message, word by word, until they can get progs to freak out over a blank white sheet of paper. Which would be brilliant.

Blogger Azure Amaranthine November 05, 2017 1:05 AM  

"I'm just saying how much it would take for this passage to become relevant to race."

I actually meant that it didn't seem harsh or extreme enough to be a proper analogue. Sitting on the floor? Not a big deal in the grand scheme of things, unless you had seats to spare. Then again, I'm currently attending a Russian Orthodox, so I might have a biased view of sitting on the floor...

"There is plenty of scriptural support for the idea that no race is superior to another in any metaphysical sense."

No there isn't. Put up or shut up.

"That doesn't mean it's OK for us to do that. God has the knowledge and the wisdom to judge nations. We don't."

God also often chooses to impart portions of that knowledge and wisdom, or are you going to try to say that the Bible doesn't exist? People can't meaningfully pray, or they receive no answers?

"I had to rely on rhetorical jabs instead of arguments to try to parse out your position. If you want to clarify how your rules of Biblical interpretation allow the generalizations you like and not the ones you don't like and how these rules are so obviously the only correct ones that any pastor who disagrees should be driven from his job, I'd like to hear it."

See, before you were very clearly implying that you both magically knew what those rules are, and that they were poor. Now you're moving the goalposts to try to make other people prove you wrong instead of you proving you're not either mentally or morally deficient. You're still either mentally or morally deficient because you straight up lied on multiple points, which is it?

"If I don't, then neither did Church, or Turing, or Von Neumann, or Feynman, or McCarthy, or ..."

Nice try, but no, the difference between someone that thinks that two plus two equals negative forty and you is that the other guy person understands what the word "equals" means. You don't even understand basic concepts, let alone the individuals you're trying to imply you represent the final and sacred words of.

"What difference do these things make with respect to computability theory?"

Different types of computers can do fundamentally different types of calculations, like, for example, the difference between a calculator from a dollar store and a 200$ scientific calculator model from TI. Other than that, well, differences in transmission speed, quantity of parallel calculations, integer cap, working memory, clock speed, conduction efficiency, threshold current? Ringing any bells? You're trying to say that literal differences aren't differences.

Blogger Azure Amaranthine November 05, 2017 1:06 AM  

"A little bird told me"

To stop talking. Cheep.

Blogger Doc Rampage November 05, 2017 1:11 AM  

CrystalBlue wrote:I typically use little-t "turing" machines, since a Turing machine has an infinite tape and infinite time and the universe is finite. We can make a tape long enough for all practical purposes.

A Turing machine with a finite tape is a finite-state automaton--the simplest sort of machine in the Chomsky hierarchy. And we most definitely cannot make a tape long enough for all practical purposes.

Blogger Doc Rampage November 05, 2017 1:25 AM  

CrystalBlue wrote:If I don't, then neither did Church, or Turing, or Von Neumann, or Feynman, or McCarthy, or
You don't understand what any of those people were talking about. They were talking about mathematical models of computability, not real machines. All real machines can be modeled by FSAs--finite-state automata. There is no theory that all FSAs are equivalent. In fact it is trivial to show two FSAs that are not equivalent.

I used to teach this stuff at a university. Give it up. You are wrong.

Blogger Doc Rampage November 05, 2017 1:50 AM  

VD wrote:There is plenty of scriptural support for the idea that no race is superior to another in any metaphysical sense.

There is none whatsoever. You are a liar.

Just off the top of my head:
John 3:16, The Great Commission, "There is neither Jew nor Greek". None of these are conclusive, but there are more, and there is enough to generalize from, just like you have to generalize for a lot of other moral principles that are not directly stated in the Bible. Nationalism in the Old Testament is not relevant for a couple of reasons. First, the nations of the Old Testament were close-knit groups of people with common culture and religion in addition to being closely related. Modern racism is about nothing but tenuous blood relationships. It is a stretch to draw comparisons. Second, God was dealing with the descendants of one man, a group of descendants who made up a nation. He did favor one nation at that point, and disfavored their enemies. But that nation rejected their King, and so God opened the door to all nations. There is no evidence that he favors any of the new nations over others, so long as they honor him (that's what the parable of the wedding feast is about).

Seriously do you genuinely think you are fooling ANYONE here? You're not anywhere close to being smart enough to do so. Give it up, for crying out loud.
I'm curious about what you think I am trying to fool people about.

Blogger Doc Rampage November 05, 2017 1:03 AM  

((( bob kek mando ))) - ( Fine Purveyor of Quality Artisanal Gorm ) wrote:132. Doc Rampage November 04, 2017 9:08 PM

There is plenty of scriptural support for the idea that no race is superior to another in any metaphysical sense.


agreed.

query:

since when does Racism have anything to do with metaphysics?

I was using "metaphysical" in the sense of relating to a reality beyond what is perceptible to the senses, not as involving the study of metaphysics. It's just that a lot of racists like to equivocate on the meaning of "superior", so I wanted to forestall that.


i mean, apart from Gingers not having a soul.
But that's not related to race, their coloring is a mark of the pacts that their ancestors made with the devil.

Blogger Doc Rampage November 05, 2017 1:20 AM  

the bandit wrote:You show a sense of humor, so I think you're sincere

Not only that; I'm damn funny.

But thanks for your polite disagreement; I don't expect that on this blog.

Just to clarify, I have not been arguing that racism is a sin (depending on the definition, I may or may not think it is). I was just pointing out the inconsistency of Vox's rhetoric. A verse does not have to be exactly on point to support a position, just like the verses used to support that abortion and child sex are sins are not exactly on point, yet I was pretty sure that Vox believes that they are sins and that this can be proven from scripture (as I believe). The point is that the same sort of indirect arguments are required for these positions as for the position that racism is a sin.

Blogger ((( bob kek mando ))) - ( Fine Purveyor of Quality Artisanal Gorm ) November 05, 2017 1:29 AM  

158. Doc Rampage November 05, 2017 1:03 AM
I was using "metaphysical" in the sense of relating to a reality beyond what is perceptible to the senses


that doesn't answer my question, at least not so i understand your meaning.

you intend there to still be Concrete differences even though they may be extra-sensory?

as i understand Metaphysics and the Metaphysical, those sets lie entirely within the Abstract.

or, if you're talking about Souls, while the Soul may exist we can neither 'prove' nor quantize it. making it functionally Abstract even if we hypothesize that it is a Concrete attribute.

because we cannot prove that it's not simply a hypothesis.


151. S1AL November 04, 2017 11:52 PM
Probably for the same reason that you ask dumb questions with obvious answers.


perhaps so.

yet Vox and Rampage and i seem to be conducting discourse on a level above many of the commenters here. and we all have a pretty good understanding of what the other is saying and are capable of requesting clarification on the salients where we are not.

you on the other hand, are just snarking.

at the same time that you aid your enemies.

strange, that.


anyways, it's always a good day when Bisping gets his ass kicked. and there's an extra frisson of humor that he got done in by a guy who's been retired for four years and should be fighting a weight class down.

Blogger Snidely Whiplash November 05, 2017 1:32 AM  

The identity of the human brain with a digital computer is a doctrine, no a DOGMA, of the singularity fetishists, the materialists, the Futurians, and other irrational cultists. There is precisely zero evidence for it, but their faith demands accepting the dogma in the same way that Christianity requires acceptance of original sin.

Blogger Shawn Hetherington November 05, 2017 1:44 AM  

Doc Rampage,

"John 3:16, The Great Commission, "There is neither Jew nor Greek". None of these are conclusive, but there are more, and there is enough to generalize from, just like you have to generalize for a lot of other moral principles that are not directly stated in the Bible."

I agree with you here. Fundamentally, if you believe that humans are *spiritual* beings, then, of course, race would not be important in *that* context. That does not mean that there may not be practical reasons to accept the existence of race (obviously humanity also exists biologically as well as spiritually).

Cheers,

Blogger Freddy November 05, 2017 3:40 AM  

BS. Scholar, agree. Just change the moniker. Peace

Blogger tublecane November 05, 2017 4:10 AM  

@158-"I was using 'metaphorical' in the sense of a reality beyond what is perceptible to the senses"

Why?

Blogger VD November 05, 2017 5:25 AM  

John 3:16, The Great Commission, "There is neither Jew nor Greek". None of these are conclusive, but there are more, and there is enough to generalize from, just like you have to generalize for a lot of other moral principles that are not directly stated in the Bible.

No. You are obviously wrong. Again. First, "in Christ" does not cover all metaphysics. Second, Men and women are metaphysically distinct, just as individual souls are metaphysically distinct, and the verse also says that there is neither male nor female in Christ.

You are just relentlessly stupid, doubling down again and again even though you are shown to be wrong at every step.


I was just pointing out the inconsistency of Vox's rhetoric.

No, you were not. You have been lying, equivocating, engaging in ineffective rhetoric in the guise of dialectic, and running through the butthurt gamma routine. You know you're getting spanked again, which is why you've now begun a) retreating to the jokes and b) trying to comment innocuously on other, unrelated topics.

I'm curious about what you think I am trying to fool people about.

Your purpose. There is a chapter devoted to you and your kind in SJWADD. Your behavior is not merely an open book to many of the readers here, it is eminently predictable. All this has been nothing more than the gamma lurking and waiting to take his shot in order to prove he was really right the LAST time. But you weren't. And you blew it this time too. Because you're simply not as smart as you want to think you are.

You don't actually give a damn about this subject which is why you're so hapless on it. What you're really upset about is having been previously schooled on science, a subject you consider yourself to be an expert, probably due to your academic credentials.

Anonymous SciVo de Plorable November 05, 2017 5:54 AM  

VD wrote:having been previously schooled on science, a subject you consider yourself to be an expert, probably due to your academic credentials

Now see, that's actually funny.

Anonymous CrystalBlue November 05, 2017 6:05 AM  

Doc Rampage wrote:CrystalBlue wrote:If I don't, then neither did Church, or Turing, or Von Neumann, or Feynman, or McCarthy, or

You don't understand what any of those people were talking about. They were talking about mathematical models of computability, not real machines.

If you'll read what I wrote closely, you'll perhaps begin to grasp that that's exactly what I'm talking about.
All real machines can be modeled by FSAs--finite-state automata. There is no theory that all FSAs are equivalent. In fact it is trivial to show two FSAs that are not equivalent.
Of course. That's not what I'm arguing. (Hint: obvioulsly they're different. What would it take to make them equivalent in terms of computability theory?)
I used to teach this stuff at a university. Give it up. You are wrong.
If I were arguing what you think I'm arguing, I would agree with you. Go back to my initial statement: "But genetics has also determined that our brains are universal computing devices."

Why is that statement wrong? You tried to rebut it in @155: "And we most definitely cannot make a tape long enough for all practical purposes."

Really? Why not? Just get another piece of paper. Buy another ream. Get a 4TB disk, or three. Start writing on atoms. The entire universe is our tape and the lifetime of the universe is our time.

If that's what we are in theory, then charges of racism have to be against instances of imperfect realizations of the ideal (because "universal" and "racism" are incoherent). Then you have to pick and choose which "imperfect realization" will be used to show the alleged superiority of one imperfect realization against another imperfect realization ("racism" and "total depravity" are also incoherent).

Blogger VD November 05, 2017 6:06 AM  

But thanks for your polite disagreement; I don't expect that on this blog.

That's because you're not one of us. You're not smart enough or honest enough to be.

Anonymous RabidRatel November 05, 2017 6:15 AM  

Wanderer wrote:So, even if the entire world is your neighbor, it doesn't change the fact that what the Churchian left advocates for is not at all Biblical love

I got a little curious about this whole argument about neighbor. The thing is, in Afrikaans, the word translated from Greek as neighbor, is translated as naaste, meaning nearest or closest, not bure / buurman, which means neighbor.
Using google translate, the greek word πλησίον which is translated as neighbor, has the following meanings:

adverb
near εγγύς, πλησίον, σχεδόν
close κοντά, πλησίον
nigh σχεδόν, πλησίον
nearby πλησίον
beside δίπλα, πλησίον, παραπλευρώς
nearly σχεδόν, πλησίον
about περίπου, γύρω, κοντά, κατά προσέγγιση, ολόγυρα, πλησίον
by δίπλα, πλησίον
preposition
towards προς, πλησίον, περί
toward προς, πλησίον, περί

It would seem as if the corruption in English translations run very deep. Neighbors could have been used as a reasonable translation, but it doesn't convey the truth of the passage "love thy neighbor" anymore. Scripture doesn't want you to invite the world, but rather that you live in good grace with those that you come into daily physical contact with.

My daily rant, propably not even worth 2c"

Anonymous 8859 ways to be adorable. November 05, 2017 6:42 AM  

I find the vast majority of inanities and stupidisms rolling from my lips have been mindlessly repeating stupidities I've heard from others and failing to think before blabbering.

Yep, some have been waaaaay stupid. I'd list examples, but they're best not repeated.

Anonymous View November 05, 2017 7:51 AM  

In my view its not so much racism that some white people feel. I think its more anti-globalism anti- media with the media constantly pushing black people and forcing you to see black people and hear black people hire black people and not respecting peoples free will and free choice.

Anonymous View November 05, 2017 8:21 AM  

I take that back .that wasnt nice. Black people are all right. Why shouldnt they be seen and heard and hired.

Blogger Azure Amaranthine November 05, 2017 8:29 AM  

To quote a verse that says that specific persons from two specific people groups are not meaningfully distinct in a single metaphysical metric when they are not meaningfully distinct in it, does nothing to prove that there is no metaphysical difference between people groups. Heck, even the book of Revelations draws metaphysical distinctions between the Churches, all members of which would fall under that same specific metric, let alone the non-Christians.

Blogger Azure Amaranthine November 05, 2017 8:41 AM  

"Really? Why not? Just get another piece of paper. Buy another ream. Get a 4TB disk, or three. Start writing on atoms. The entire universe is our tape and the lifetime of the universe is our time."

#1: It is not proven that the human brain is an exact analogue of a Turing machine, capitalized or not. It is assumed that such is the case by materialists, especially of the "transhumanism"-true believer variety. If you want me to put materialists on blast, I can do that.

#2: As I've already noted, even calculators -- relatively simple computing machines -- can be capable of fundamentally different types of calculations, ones which simple scaling of those same calculators cannot match. It takes entirely different physical/energetic structures to do certain types of computations.

#3: You're still conveniently ignoring the facts that "different" actually means different and "equals" actually means equals.

#4: Which may be the reason that you're attempting to use theoretically unlimited machines to ploy your fallacious argument. From arbitrarily high perspectives (or infinity) it becomes impossible for a finite human mind to perceive the differences between finite quantities. This does not mean that those differences do not exist, but rather that the human is not capable of comprehending infinity, or even sufficiently high arbitrary numbers.

Blogger Azure Amaranthine November 05, 2017 8:48 AM  

Revelation, derp.

Blogger S1AL November 05, 2017 9:38 AM  

"you on the other hand, are just snarking.

at the same time that you aid your enemies.

strange, that."

You don't properly understand what snark is or who my enemies are.

So show me to clarify: do you believe that some forms, perhaps even many forms, of actual, functional racism result from despising others as not-really-people?

Because I do, and I observe that it is unwise to dismiss it as simple racial prejudice (which can be altered or overcome) especially when it is possibly a vast part of our present situation. If I'm correct and the total assault on "whiteness" is actually a function of those who see us as not-people, then it completely alters how we approach the issue. It also explains certain phenomena that are otherwise incomprehensible.

Blogger Shawn Hetherington November 05, 2017 10:08 AM  

@165,

VD,

"No. You are obviously wrong. Again. First, "in Christ" does not cover all metaphysics. Second, Men and women are metaphysically distinct, just as individual souls are metaphysically distinct, and the verse also says that there is neither male nor female in Christ."

Frankly, you are completely talking past the point of the verse you refer to here. The fact that people can be "metaphysically different" does not mean that they cannot also have similarities under certain conditions (such as being in CHrist).

So, how about it? What in your opinion does it mean that people of different races can all be one in Christ? Until you can answer that question, you are avoiding the meat of the matter.

Cheers. :)

Anonymous CrystalBlue November 05, 2017 10:15 AM  

Azure Amaranthine wrote:#1: It is not proven that the human brain is an exact analogue of a Turing machine, capitalized or not.
It is proven that it cannot be. A Turing machine has infinite storage and infinite time. No physical device has infinite storage or infinite time. But humans are so constructed that, of all God's creatures, we can extend our storage (by writing things down) and extend our time (by passing information down among generations).
If you want me to put materialists on blast, I can do that.
Knock yourself out. Yell at clouds all you want to. I'm not a materialist.
It takes entirely different physical/energetic structures to do certain types of computations.
Which of these calculations can a Turing machine not do?
#3: You're still conveniently ignoring the facts that "different" actually means different and "equals" actually means equals.
To what, exactly, are you referring? My argument is that humans are imperfect copies of a particular ideal. We are all "made in the image of God" and "totally depraved". Now, if these are true, then racism is patently non-Christian. Repeating MW's definition: "“a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race.”"
Race is not the primary determinant of human traits. Being made in the image of God is. If all are totally depraved, then none are inherently superior.
Which may be the reason that you're attempting to use theoretically unlimited machines to ploy your fallacious argument.
I suspect you don't yet understand the argument. Putting infinity into a finite thing destroys any coherent basis for racism.

Blogger Doc Rampage November 05, 2017 10:18 AM  

VD wrote:No. You are obviously wrong. Again. First, "in Christ" does not cover all metaphysics. Second, Men and women are metaphysically distinct, just as individual souls are metaphysically distinct, and the verse also says that there is neither male nor female in Christ.
You only responded to one of my three points, and that response is inept. The point of the passage is that we are all equally heirs of Abraham. As I said, this does not, by itself, prove that all men are equal in the eyes of God, but it is strong evidence in that argument. The part about men and women just makes the case stronger. Does God love men more than women or women more than men? Are men not supposed to love women or women not supposed to love men? Are men and women not supposed to marry each other?

Yes, there are important physical and mental differences between men and women, but those sorts of differences are what I intended to exclude by the use of the word "metaphysical". Now, I acknowledge that there are metaphysical differences between men and women in that God has assigned them different roles in the family, society, and religion, which is part of the reason that I said this passage is not conclusive. But the difference is that the Bible spells out what those differences are. It doesn't tell us that blacks and whites have different roles.
You are just relentlessly stupid, doubling down again and again even though you are shown to be wrong at every step.
I should think you would realize by now that we gammas don't care if someone else calls us stupid because we don't care what strangers think of us. It's all about the concepts and the persistent illusion that if we can just make ourselves clear enough, the puzzling hostility will be replaced by mutual understanding.

Blogger Doc Rampage November 05, 2017 10:38 AM  

CrystalBlue wrote:If I were arguing what you think I'm arguing, I would agree with you. Go back to my initial statement: "But genetics has also determined that our brains are universal computing devices."

That statement is just so odd that I passed over it. Genetics has nothing to do with proving things about computing devices. It's like "Chemistry has proven the Pythagoras theorem." It makes no sense. But as a side issue, no one has proven that the brain is a computing device, and it is physically impossible for the brain to be a universal computing device. If the brain is a computing device, then it is a DFA. And finally, we do our reasoning in the mind (which is almost certainly not the same as the brain) and which is clearly not a computer of any sort. The mind can reason, hope, love, imagine and strive. A computer can do none of those things, although if it is programmed by a reasoning mind then it can simulate some highly restricted and stylized sorts of reasoning as long as its inputs and outputs are being interpreted by a reasoning mind.

Why is that statement wrong? You tried to rebut it in @155: "And we most definitely cannot make a tape long enough for all practical purposes."

Really? Why not? Just get another piece of paper. Buy another ream. Get a 4TB disk, or three. Start writing on atoms. The entire universe is our tape and the lifetime of the universe is our time.

No man is going to live forever, and even if he did, his brain has limitations that makes it impossible to use large amounts of external storage. If the "tape" in your brain were infinite for all practical purposes, you could solve this in your head: 7244+6333*99+(44/665443-34567). Can you?

Blogger Doc Rampage November 05, 2017 10:42 AM  

View wrote:I take that back .that wasnt nice. Black people are all right. Why shouldnt they be seen and heard and hired.
A BREAKTHROUGH!!! My gamma illusions about the essential rationality of all men are vindicated! I can die happy now.

Blogger Markku November 05, 2017 10:42 AM  

Doc Rampage, are children and parents metaphysically equal, in the exact same sense as you say individuals of different races are metaphysically equal?

Blogger Doc Rampage November 05, 2017 11:05 AM  

VD wrote:You know you're getting spanked again, which is why you've now begun a) retreating to the jokes and b) trying to comment innocuously on other, unrelated topics.



You know better than that, Vox. We gammas never believe we are losing an argument. Not unless you can come up with actual facts that we got wrong. When you do that, it can be really embarrassing, but you haven't done that. All you have done is wave your hands vigorously, call me stupid, and claim victory. I suppose that's one of those sigma things. But, first, I'm not retreating to jokes. You are probably picturing me hunched over a keyboard with an angry glare, imagine myself battling with evil racists for the fate of humanity. But that's not me. I'm laying back on a couch, switching back and forth between this and more serious work. I don't scowl, I roll my eyes when someone calls me stupid yet again. I sometimes think there is an inverse relationship between a man's IQ and how often he gets called stupid on the internet. So that's why I occasionally joke. I'm having a good time and I'd like the rest of you to be having a good time too.

And I replied to this brain/Turing machine stuff because is the premises of strong AI, which is a pet peeve of mine: http://docrampage.blogspot.com/2005/01/visit-to-ag-lab.html and http://docrampage.blogspot.com/2005/09/turing-test.html. For another example of my sense of humor that Alt-Righters will enjoy, see http://docrampage.blogspot.com/2017/03/the-alt-right-and-hot-asian-girls.html.

Blogger James November 05, 2017 11:12 AM  

VD: "You're wrong and you're full of shit."

I think he might qualify as so full of shit he's not even wrong. Gibberish is not wrong, it is just gibberish, is what I mean.

Blogger Doc Rampage November 05, 2017 11:20 AM  

Markku wrote:Doc Rampage, are children and parents metaphysically equal, in the exact same sense as you say individuals of different races are metaphysically equal?
Did I say that all individuals are metaphysically equal? I can't find it, and if I said it, it was inadvertent. What I meant to say was that there is a reasonable argument to be made from the Bible that the races are metaphysically equal (I don't think I even endorsed this argument, and would not without some significant qualifications). I don't believe that individuals are metaphysically equal nor that groups of people are metaphysically equal (Christians, for example, are children of God and Muslims are not). In the case of parents and children, they have different duties to each other, which is a metaphysical difference.

Blogger Markku November 05, 2017 11:26 AM  

Doc Rampage wrote:Markku wrote:Doc Rampage, are children and parents metaphysically equal, in the exact same sense as you say individuals of different races are metaphysically equal?

Did I say that all individuals are metaphysically equal? I can't find it, and if I said it, it was inadvertent. What I meant to say was that there is a reasonable argument to be made from the Bible that the races are metaphysically equal (I don't think I even endorsed this argument, and would not without some significant qualifications). I don't believe that individuals are metaphysically equal nor that groups of people are metaphysically equal (Christians, for example, are children of God and Muslims are not). In the case of parents and children, they have different duties to each other, which is a metaphysical difference.


Ok, great. So, not metaphysically equal under your definition of metaphysical equality. I also assume that you don't think God loves parents more than children, nor think that WE think so, since you rhetorically asked:

"Does God love men more than women or women more than men?"

Hence, you can easily see yourself that God's love, or how important someone is to God, has nothing to do with the question at hand. BOTH parties agree that God loves them as much. Hence, that cannot be part of the definition of metaphysical equality, not for you, and not for us.

Blogger Markku November 05, 2017 11:29 AM  

Equality is a very strong claim, inequality is a very weak claim. To be equal, you have to be equal by every possible measure. To be inequal, you need to not be equal in at least one measure. Equality is incredibly difficult to show. You'd have to go through every single measure and prove equality, to be able to state general equality. We only need to show the failure under one measure, and our work is done.

Blogger Markku November 05, 2017 11:39 AM  

What I'm not going to let anyone do with me, is play bait-and-switch with the definition, so that first my rejection of the claim to equality is supposedly a claim of God loving Christians of different ethnicity by different amounts. And then if I say, no, in that particular sense they are equal, then this is silently switched as me having made a UNIVERSAL claim to equality, under every measure. And then pressuring me to pretend to not see what I quite plainly see. Because I supposedly already admitted equality.

Blogger Azure Amaranthine November 05, 2017 11:44 AM  

"To what, exactly, are you referring? My argument is that humans are imperfect copies of a particular ideal. We are all "made in the image of God" and "totally depraved". Now, if these are true, then racism is patently non-Christian. Repeating MW's definition: "“a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race.”"
Race is not the primary determinant of human traits. Being made in the image of God is. If all are totally depraved, then none are inherently superior."


You don't see the obvious contradiction between "made in the image of God" and "totally depraved"? Something cannot be both at once. If you had said "we're all at least somewhat depraved, and any depravity whatsoever falls fatally short of the Ideal and Pure", that would be correct. "Totally depraved", simply is not true. If it were true no humans would ever become Christians to begin with.

You'll note, this is exactly the same as your error in comparing humans to infinite-capacity machines and declaring humans to be the same because they are all less-than-infinite, physically speaking.

TL;DR: Your conclusion is wrong because your axioms are retarded. "Totally depraved" is a nice piece of rhetoric on some occasions, but not entirely accurate.

"I suspect you don't yet understand the argument."

I know you don't understand the argument. Read it again.

" Putting infinity into a finite thing destroys any coherent basis for racism."

No, as I said before. It does not destroy them at all. Rather it makes a human attempting to take the infinite perspective incapable of seeing them, exactly as I already stated, because humans, being limited, are incapable of "infinite zoom" to look at literally incomparably smaller objects.

The basis still exist (plural), and you're still too short for this ride.

"I should think you would realize by now that we gammas don't care if someone else calls us stupid because we don't care what strangers think of us."

More lies from Doc Rampage. I'm certainly not going to bother with you anymore, you've no integrity at all. At least Crystal Blue might just be stupid or otherwise woefully ignorant. You, on the other hand...

"Not unless you can come up with actual facts that we got wrong."

Another lie, just like you lie about any other obvious facts you don't like.

Blogger Doc Rampage November 05, 2017 11:45 AM  

VD wrote:There is a chapter devoted to you and your kind in SJWADD.
You think I'm an SJW? I'm pretty deep under cover then, since I've been writing a conservative blog since around 2004 and I've been arguing as a conservative Protestant on JCWs blog for several years. I even kind of defended you on that blog in a recent post.

Your behavior is not merely an open book to many of the readers here, it is eminently predictable. All this has been nothing more than the gamma lurking and waiting to take his shot in order to prove he was really right the LAST time.
Yes, I read that in your recent book. You may be right in general, but at least in my specific case, to the best of my recollection, every single time you have given your opinion on my intelligence, knowledge, what I perceived, or my motives you have been wrong. I don't expect you to believe that because you have such supreme confidence in your powers of ISP (Internet sensory perception), but it's the case.

What you're really upset about is having been previously schooled on science, a subject you consider yourself to be an expert, probably due to your academic credentials.I don't have economic credentials in science (I distinguish science from mathematics and engineering), and I don't consider myself an expert in any scientific field, although I'm tolerably well informed on some. As to this previous schooling to which you refer, I don't know what you are talking about, but if someone caught me out stating wrong facts, it probably embarrassed me a little. Not enough to remember it, though.

Blogger S1AL November 05, 2017 11:52 AM  

@Markku -

Funny, isn't it, how damn near every "gotcha" devolves to the fallacy of the exclude middle?

Blogger Snidely Whiplash November 05, 2017 12:06 PM  

Dance monkey! Dance!

Blogger Azure Amaranthine November 05, 2017 12:18 PM  

"Equality is incredibly difficult to show."

It's actually impossible to show to the utmost standard for any objects that are not entirely abstract. The concepts of "significant" and "insignificant" (so far as the differences are concerned) come into play any time the term is used with regard to the physical world, because Heisenberg just couldn't help himself and had to stick his thumb in the pie.

Look at it this way. If you had two "entirely" identical people, from genetics to atoms even to upbringing and their spirits, souls and collected experiences, they still could not be entirely equal, because they cannot be equally located. If they were equally located, it would be impossible for a human to perceive them as distinct by any means (outside of perhaps mass, but it would simply be assumed that the individual was freakishly massive and strong. The concept of it actually being two identical individuals co-located would not even occur to a human because it's too bizarre), and thus the concept that they were "equal" would never even be able to occur to an observer.

TL;DR: If equality could even exist materially we'd be incapable of perceiving it, because to be precisely equal is to defy differentiation. Similarly, as the metaphysical aspects of human beings are interlinked with the physical, it is impossible for humans to perceive two people to be entirely metaphysically equal either, because they would only be able to perceive a single person by any means even if such were the case. Two souls equally yoked to equal bodies in the same physical location with no physical or metaphysical differences whatsoever, operating perfectly in unum.

Blogger James November 05, 2017 12:28 PM  

"So, how about it? What in your opinion does it mean that people of different races can all be one in Christ? Until you can answer that question, you are avoiding the meat of the matter."
Does being one in Christ require no more nations with ethnic identities? Jesus Christ rules with a rod of iron, and smashes the nations in pieces like a potter's vessel. The natural cleavage lines of such breakages would tend to be ethnic and racial, what else would they be? Satan and his Beast do the opposite, they meld all the nations of the earth together until they are no longer distinct but are one big fat giant Global Entity worshipping the Beast.

Blogger Snidely Whiplash November 05, 2017 12:35 PM  

Man and wife are one, physically.
We have this direct from the mouth of God himself. And yet, they are distinct, physically, and manifestly unequal physically.
Unity and equality are demonstrably different.

Blogger Shawn Hetherington November 05, 2017 12:35 PM  

@188. Markku,
"What I'm not going to let anyone do with me, is play bait-and-switch with the definition, so that first my rejection of the claim to equality is supposedly a claim of God loving Christians of different ethnicity by different amounts. And then if I say, no, in that particular sense they are equal, then this is silently switched as me having made a UNIVERSAL claim to equality, under every measure. And then pressuring me to pretend to not see what I quite plainly see. Because I supposedly already admitted equality."

This is a fair point but, it seems to me that where you want to put your focus is the important matter from a Christian perspective. To *focus* on how people are unequal is to miss the point of Christianity. To wit, as people become more spiritual (in a Christian sense), race becomes *less* important. By focussing on their similarity, the problem of race can be (mostly) transcended IMO.

Cheers,

Blogger James November 05, 2017 12:38 PM  

""Equality is incredibly difficult to show.""

Hey, wasn't the sort of equality proposed by the American Founding Fathers more of a definitional sort of equality? We are all defined as equal before the law, as opposed to being defined as some being royalty, some being aristocracy, and most being commoners and peasants. Proposing an abstraction like equality before the law says nothing about and leaves open the question of other kinds of equality and inequality. So, yeah, equality can only exist as an abstraction, but abstractions are real with real consequences in human life, isn't that so? Also, equality before the law doesn't mean equal standing in the law. Equality before the law allows for differences between citizens and aliens, or at least it always did before, why is it different now? Oh yeah, it's different now because we got taken over by communist Globalists.

Blogger Markku November 05, 2017 12:44 PM  

Shawn Hetherington wrote:@188.
This is a fair point but, it seems to me that where you want to put your focus is the important matter from a Christian perspective. To *focus* on how people are unequal is to miss the point of Christianity. To wit, as people become more spiritual (in a Christian sense), race becomes *less* important. By focussing on their similarity, the problem of race can be (mostly) transcended IMO.


One very common way it plays out is thus: "Hey, white people are overrepresented in the leadership of this congregation. Since all races are obviously equal, this can only be due to racism. Hence we must prefer minorities to leadership until the percentages say that we're not racist anymore.

1 – 200 of 267 Newer› Newest»

Post a Comment

Rules of the blog
Please do not comment as "Anonymous". Comments by "Anonymous" will be spammed.

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts