stiggy wiggy
Well-known member
I am not lying.
And yet you are, as I have shown.
You are still posting your stupid failed analogies that are not actually analogous to what we are discussing.
You should not project your stupidity in failing to understand the analogies onto the analogies themselves.
If you are going to keep trotting them out, I will keep reminding you why they fail.
And I will keep reminding you of how they succeed and of your stupidity in not understanding that.
Would we expect him to explicitly say that a deeply immoral act is allowed? Definitely not.
Wrong. He allows divorce.
And yet that is what Christianity claims: A perfectly good God, who said chattel slavery is allowed.
Correct. Like divorce too. He allows the lesser of many immoral acts.
To you, the conclusion seems to be that I am a "self-righeous" "Pharisee" .....
Because you are. You make Jerry Falwell look like a libertine.
No, stiggy, the analogy fails, because God said chattel slavery is allowed. He did not say that of spitting in people's faces.
Nope. The analogy succeeds because there is no lesser of many evils involved with spitting.
Here is the list you keep forgetting.
FORGETTING? How the hell could I forget my having so thoroughly trounced your dumba** list so many times?
Spitting in faces fails on number (1), because God did said chattel slavery is allowed.. He never said that of spitting in faces.
YOU JUST SAID THAT!!! Are you repeating yourself due to autism, or forgetfulness, or is it just plain stupidity? Anyway, see my previous rebuttal directly above.
Again!
No, not again.
Divorce fails on number (2), because God did say he disapproves of divorce. He never said that of slavery.
See spitting in face analogy. It is perfectly analogous. And see math ratio analogy. You've never even attempted to deal with that one. It's the one in bold where you as the hypothetical little Pixie are just as obtuse as you are now as the real adult Pixie.
If your example does not have all three of them, it is not analogous. It is as simple as that.
Now that's just downright stupid. If all of the components in an analogy are the same, you have an equation, not an analogy.
None of your examples have all three points in common.
An analogy that does is a boss explicitly telling his employees they are allowed to commit rape during lunch break.
Nonsense. The analogy is this:
The ALLOWING of X, whether that X be smoking, rape, bobsledding or divorce is not tantamount to the APPROVAL of X.
So now you want to trivialise slavery down to "bitch-slapping".
So you prefer bitch slapping? You APPROVE of bitch slapping?
You want to ignore the moral aspect of this. I get that. If we consider the morality, you are sunk. You need for us to discuss the words.
You're the one who just implied (according top your twisted logic) that you APPROVE of bitch slapping and don't find it immoral.
I am not talking about that. I am talking about God being morally wrong when he said chattel slavery is allowed.
Yes, God allow divorce. But divorce fails on number (2), because God did say he disapproves of divorce. He never said that of slavery.
Nor of spitting in people's faces, so according to you He APPROVES of spitting in people's faces. And bitch slapping.
- God said chattel slavery is allowed
- God never said he disapproves of chattel slavery
- Slavery is morally wrong
Wapner at 8. I speculated earlier, autism. Alzheimer's or stupidity). I'm now leaning toward the latter.
YOU couldn't handle rebutting my OP, so YOU changed the issue to your self righteous condemnation of the God you don't believe exists for ALLOWING that of which He does not APPROVE, i.e. slavery.
Yep, let's see that again:
YOU couldn't handle rebutting my OP, so YOU changed the issue to your self righteous condemnation of the God you don't believe exists for ALLOWING that of which He does not APPROVE, i.e. slavery.
This thread is quite an eye-opener with regards to Christian morality.
Actually, it's quite an eye-opener with regards to atheistic stupidity.