When you blow off someone as a "fundamentalist," silly, ignorant, not worth taking seriously, and assume your own superiority, that person is not going to thank you for it. Of course he's going to get "emotional"!>

<Abdel> is silenced on *his* home turf (the Rogoff page) for 5 days in a row.>

Home turf?
Is saffuna/Bartle subletting?>

Mort, why would you say that? Are you just trolling or are your really this uninformed?

Don't you know that even, "the most skeptical historian will hardly deny the broad outlines the books of the Old Testament give expression to the actual facts of Hebrew history, however prejudice the point of view and however lacking the sense of chronology"?

https://books.google.com/books?id=V...

(Willams, H.). 1903. "The Historians' History of the World." pp.34

Now you have to change your entire life's outlook because for the first time ever, you can know that the Old Testament is cited by historians, when it comes to broad outlines of Hebrew history, mainly the historical descriptions of the land area and boundaries of the nation of Israel and it's neighbors.

<mort>, what historians are hesitant to do is say that God raised Jesus from the dead, or that Moses parted the Red Sea, or the Jesus raised Lazarous from the dead. Historians will not confirm or deny miracles because most historians presuppose naturalism. That is, they feel they look at events that happen in nature, on earth, people and things moving around and happening, thus they confine their historical explanations to the natural.

However, historians have to account for the fact that Christianity exploded on the scene in the 1st century. As historians they have to explain how this happened because it's the biggest religion in the world at 2.2 billion in 2012 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_...

That must be a new record. Congrats>

He couldn't handle the shock that he ended up affirming the first premise in the Moral Argument, having to suffer <big sociopath> being right about this. It is an unbearable thought to be sure, for him.

Home turf?
Is saffuna/Bartle subletting?>

https://www.google.co.nz/webhp?sour...

Okay, but to what extent has God's spiritual order been attacked by radical feminism by comparison with how much it has been undermined by ungodly men?

<Ask yourself, have you ever acted against your own best judgment? Just think about that for a moment. Reflect. It's quite puzzling, isn't it?>

"With my mind I am a slave to the law of God, but with my flesh I am a slave to the law of sin."

- Romans 7:25

<playground player> I accept your constructive criticism in the spirit with which it is offered. I don't mean to blow off fundamentalists as silly nor do I purposely assume an 'air of superiority'. I'm pretty sure I've never claimed my church was 100% right about everything. Whatever impression my posts convey I most certainly do not despise fundamentalists.

However, please just take a quick review of some of <OCF>'s "responses" to my arguments...

<This is begging the question to an ironic degree>

<So what?>

<Tautology. Let me translate the last sentence...>

<Obvious word games>

<Deflection>

etc etc etc...

They are barely-concealed contempt. There is no argument being proposed by him. No respectful debate.

I'm here interested in a genuine exchange of ideas, and what do I get from <OCF>? Just disdain and scorn! Dismissive one-liners! Not a shred of intelligent reasoning!

Perhaps you might like to also offer constructive criticism to <OhioChessFan>?

Ungodly men are the ones that spread liberalism around in the universities and then out to the masses.

And I'm not talking about radical feminism. I'm talking about feminism and liberalism. I'm not talking about boys vs girls. I'm talking liberalism (feminism is a variant of liberalism) vs Christianity. When liberalism uses feminism to attack Christianity, it does so by attacking God's spiritual order.

<<Ask yourself, have you ever acted against your own best judgment? Just think about that for a moment. Reflect. It's quite puzzling, isn't it?>

"With my mind I am a slave to the law of God, but with my flesh I am a slave to the law of sin.">

Yes, of course. But that is only a comment about his own shortcoming. A lamentation of some kind. What that comment doesn't do is unpack itself and that's what I am trying to do. This is the kind of reflection I'm talking about when I talk about putting away pride so that God's wisdom can enlighten us.

<optimal>, did you see <mort> claiming that history books don't cite the old testament?

I gave him a nice link! I showed him a quote from the book that sasy that, basically, (quote is above) historians off all stripes recognize that the old testament provides basic facts about Hebrew history, including the boundaries and location of Israel.

Now he's flying around here in my forum like an angry hornet.

History book? Okay.

Doubling Down: <Colonel Mortimer: It's not about like or dislike. There's a reason why historians don't reference the Bible>

Okay. I'm up for the challenge.

Fact #2, history book citing veracity of Old Testament by historians of all stripes no matter <how prejudiced>:

<Big Pawn: Don't you know that even, "the most skeptical historian will hardly deny the broad outlines the books of the Old Testament give expression to the actual facts of Hebrew history, however prejudice the point of view and however lacking the sense of chronology"?

https://books.google.com/books?id=V...

(Willams, H.). 1903. "The Historians' History of the World." pp.34>

History book?

Check.

There is no argument being proposed by him. No respectful debate.>

How does one "debate" this?

I wouldn't expect that of him, but it doesn't stop us from having a productive and worthwhile debate. We're just a couple of ordinary blokes dicussing Christianity from each of our perspectives.

I would have hoped our discussion could have remained respectful and courteous with each of us gaining a new perspective on the others point of view. It's unfortunate that I seem to have inadvertently touched a raw nerve which upset <OCF> and caused him to become terse and abrupt with me.

Anyway, I'm a little surprised to see you weighing in on this!?

If the subject under discussion involved blacks in the ghettos then certainly everybody knows <diceman> is the "go-to guy" for that topic!

Or how liberal liars need victims to keep voting Democrat...

Or how Obama and the Clintons are coffin-fillers...

etc etc etc...

You're definitely the resident expert when it comes to playing that broken record over and over again!

Didn't know you bothered with anything unrelated to lying liberal coffin-filling Democrats keeping down black ghetto victims?

Good to see you're broadening your outlook!

<playground player: <optimal play> <Perhaps you might offer some constructive criticism to <OhioChessFan>> I'm afraid he might knock me down.> I can understand your apprehension. He certainly became very angry and emotional!

My, my, how the story changes.
Now we cant answer anything unless we answer all!

To quote OCF: "Got it."

<I would have hoped our discussion could have remained respectful and courteous with each of us gaining a new perspective on the others point of view.>

Then maybe you shouldn't have implied how little he knows of the Bible, without actually defeating or challenging his arguments.

<Anyway, I'm a little surprised to see you weighing in on this!?

If the subject under discussion involved blacks in the ghettos then certainly everybody knows <diceman> is the "go-to guy" for that topic!

Or how liberal liars need victims to keep voting Democrat...

Or how Obama and the Clintons are coffin-fillers...

etc etc etc...

You're definitely the resident expert when it comes to playing that broken record over and over again!>

If large quantities of destroyed black
families, incarcerated blacks, and dead blacks, don't bother you. Id have to assume "liberalism" is your religion vs. Christianity. (you wouldn't be the first)

<Good to see you're broadening your outlook!>

Your "contribution" amounted to a couple of cryptic one-liners which didn't make any sense.

You provided nothing substantive or thought-provoking in the least.

At least <OhioChessFan>, <playground player>, <Big Pawn> & myself actually got into the debate in a genuine and meaningful way.

Weren't you able to contribute anything worthwhile?

Were you waiting for someone to mention 'blacks' or 'ghettos'?

Your posts were of the "quality" of those made by <Colonel Mortimer> and as such were equally ignored.

How come you didn't join in the discussion?>

I did, you just didn't like what I said.

<Your "contribution" amounted to a couple of cryptic one-liners which didn't make any sense.>

Oh my goodness.
Jim is that you?
(did saffuna/Bartle hack optimal's account?)
Mr. Putin, are you behind this?

Liberals are always confused by what I say.
I must have an Abdel-esque vocabulary.

<Were you waiting for someone to mention 'blacks' or 'ghettos'?>

Never knew Democrats were in the Bible.
Do they get filed under, "evil?"

<Your posts were of the "quality" of those made by <Colonel Mortimer> and as such were equally ignored.>

To quote OCF: "Got it."

Best you just stick to your trademark incoherent disjointed ramblings about blacks in ghettos, liberal liars, coffin-fillers, etc etc etc

At least then you and lil jiff will always have something to talk about at the special lunch table.

I don't have all day, to be tracking down this or that claim, as to its accuracy.

<Atheist philosopher Michael Ruse https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Micha... also affirms the first premise. He writes,

"The position of the modern evolutionist...is that humans have an awareness of morality...because such an awareness is of biological worth. Morality is a biological adaptation no less than are hands and feet and teeth...

Considered as a rationally justifiable set of claims about an objective something, ethics is illusory. I appreciate that when somebody says, 'Love thy neighbor as neighbour as theyself,' they think they are referring above and behond themselves...Nevertheless,...such reference is truly without <foundation>. Morality is just an aid to survival and reproduction and any deeper meaning is illusory"

Ruse, Michael, "Evolutionary Theory and Christian Ethics," in The Darwinian Paradigm (London: Routledge, 1989), pp.262, 268-69.>

Kenneth S Rogoff (kibitz #241124)

Btw, this post was a response to <abdel>, who now agrees with both premises of the moral argument

1. If God does not exist then OMV do not exist
2. OMV exist

but, even though he thought I had strong arguments, he wondered if it was just because he is also a theist, and as such his critical thinking was suffering due to bias.

I assured him this was not the base because there are many atheist and agnostic philosophers that affirm either one premise or the other (but not both at the same time).

You may find the post interesting.

To quote OCF: "Got it.">

Yes, since you didn't respond, I cant read your mind. I don't have saffuna/Bartle, "in-between the ears" mental capabilities.

<Best you just stick to your trademark incoherent disjointed ramblings about blacks in ghettos, liberal liars, coffin-fillers, etc etc etc>

Nice to see a "man of God" view of the downtrodden.

<At least then you and lil jiff will always have something to talk about at the special lunch table.>

Will I be able to pry him away from your table? He kinda agrees with you on them black folk.

You may find the post interesting. >

Wow, <BP>! Yes, I did find that post interesting. As I write, I have that Rogoff kibitz of yours open on another tab.

You have done your homework and it is appreciated!

I like this excerpt the most:

<"The position of the modern evolutionist...is that humans have an awareness of morality...because such an awareness is of biological worth. Morality is a biological adaptation no less than are hands and feet and teeth...>

Why do I like it so much? It avoids premise 1. Or more specifically, shows that the atheist is <trying to avoid> premise 1 by substituting an alternative explanation to replace God, which fails to achieve the replacement.

The claim that humans have an awareness of morality because it is of biological worth <in no way> refutes the existence of God, as far as I see it.