Well more importantly really, I've always found that those willing to critisize without any faith are the ones searching for some sort of faith🙂
I just really fail to see what your real point is Bardock with your relativism in a discussion with religion. You've already said that you don't know if you exist, so really are you questioning and nitpicking to give meaning to something?
Originally posted by Soleran
Well more importantly really, I've always found that those willing to critisize without any faith are the ones searching for some sort of faith🙂I just really fail to see what your real point is Bardock with your relativism in a discussion with religion. You've already said that you don't know if you exist, so really are you questioning and nitpicking to give meaning to something?
Anyone who questions if he exists or not is impossible to reason with. Talk about deluded.
Originally posted by Ushgarak
See, what you have done there, Bardock, is take an utterly ludicrous exaggeration and tried to make out that it undermines the concept.It doesn't, and it is just childish. Use some brainpower and you can easily see what Shakya means.
Oh I see what Shakya means...at the same time I see he is wrong....
Originally posted by Janus Marius
You shouldn't try so hard at sarcasm. It just looks worse when you fail. Shaky is giving you a religious definition of "slander", not a legal or strictly Oxford dictionary version of one. In this case, it encompasses many wrong-doings in a single word, which is pretty damn efficient.Instead of bitching about the use of the word, why don't you argue something useful for a change? Or are you only here online to badger people who don't think exactly like you?
No, it's not...it's just a wrong usage of a word...and a pointless one as well. If you look at it legally Shakya uses the word slander as a synonym to crime...no need for that, we have a word like that...it's "crime".
Religious he uses "slander" as a synonym of "sin" which is pretty funny when saying slander is the only sin in my religion.....
But whatever you like that "new" word....I think it'S pointless...but when Shakya feels like introducing it to a thread I think I should have the right to question it.....is that acceptable?
Originally posted by Soleran
Well more importantly really, I've always found that those willing to critisize without any faith are the ones searching for some sort of faith🙂I just really fail to see what your real point is Bardock with your relativism in a discussion with religion. You've already said that you don't know if you exist, so really are you questioning and nitpicking to give meaning to something?
I have enough faith...for one I have faith in my existance (I am aware that I can't know that I do...but I believe I do...well if I exist...if I don't exist I obviously don't believe that I do.....)
Like all other participants in here I elaborate on my beliefs, which happen to be relativistic....so your question is rather pointless....
Originally posted by Janus Marius
Anyone who questions if he exists or not is impossible to reason with. Talk about deluded.
I believe I exist...I don't know if I do...big difference....honestly, I believe that the exact same thing is the case for all of you...you might not be happy to accept it....but well, nothing is certain (So I belief).
Bardock, I speak English as my mother tongue. I am fully aware of how slander is used in mainstream English. I am also fully aware that Shaky is NOT using the mainstream definition of it, and is instead applying a religious definition to it, using it as a generic term covering a whole slew of wrongs. He's not claiming that slander is always going to apply to this outside of his religion, so he's not wrong at all. If he made the argument that slander is ALWAYS what he says it is, he'd be contradicted by the Dictionary, Encyclopedia, and whatnot. But that's not the case. So stop arguing with your head up your ass and go troll somewhere else.
Originally posted by Janus Marius
Bardock, I speak English as my mother tongue. I am fully aware of how slander is used in mainstream English. I am also fully aware that Shaky is NOT using the mainstream definition of it, and is instead applying a religious definition to it, using it as a generic term covering a whole slew of wrongs. He's not claiming that slander is always going to apply to this outside of his religion, so he's not wrong at all. If he made the argument that slander is ALWAYS what he says it is, he'd be contradicted by the Dictionary, Encyclopedia, and whatnot. But that's not the case. So stop arguing with your head up your ass and go troll somewhere else.
I understand that it is his religious definition that slander is the only sin...and I also understand why he and his religion believe so...but this is the Religion Forum and I think I should be able to question any religion...including Shakya's. I understand that you only want to rip ion Christians...but well that's not my wish...so still the word slander just doesn't fit it..,
But please I am curious now...since the "sin" "slander" is not defined as the action "to slander"....what exactly is the definition of it? Also, what actions are part of the definition...how is Rape for example slander? Or is that no "sin"?
Originally posted by Bardock42
Like all other participants in here I elaborate on my beliefs, which happen to be relativistic....so your question is rather pointless....
Yes but your belief in relativism is in relation to what? Peach's on the moon? Relative to every statment someone else makes that you present a relatively anal interpretation of?
What is the base of your relativism?
Originally posted by Soleran
Yes but your belief in relativism is in relation to what? Peach's on the moon? Relative to every statment someone else makes that you present a relatively anal interpretation of?What is the base of your relativism?
If I think about it again, I wouldn't say I am a real relativist....I believe morals are relative, but that doesn't really have anything to do with the case here...I am just saying that we cannot knot things for fact...and that especially in spiritual topics we shouldn't claim to know something...and for some reason we went of on another topic that involves the usage of the word "slander" in Shakya's believe, which I find ridiculous.....
Originally posted by Bardock42
I understand that it is his religious definition that slander is the only sin...and I also understand why he and his religion believe so...but this is the Religion Forum and I think I should be able to question any religion...including Shakya's. I understand that you only want to rip ion Christians...but well that's not my wish...so still the word slander just doesn't fit it..,But please I am curious now...since the "sin" "slander" is not defined as the action "to slander"....what exactly is the definition of it? Also, what actions are part of the definition...how is Rape for example slander? Or is that no "sin"?
It's one thing if you question the tenets behind his religion (By all means, that's what we're here for- to question), but to nitpick over a simple definition that no one else seems to bat an eye over is ridiculous. In his case, slander means something other than the traditional definition. Instead of saying he's wrong (Which he isn't, he's arguing that his religion holds that definition. Unless you can prove that his religion -doesn't- consider slander as the only sin and that slander composes of certain things, you are just being foolish) why don't you question him to elaborate on it and then try and come up with your own definition of what slander is in THIS case?
Originally posted by Janus Marius
It's one thing if you question the tenets behind his religion (By all means, that's what we're here for- to question), but to nitpick over a simple definition that no one else seems to bat an eye over is ridiculous. In his case, slander means something other than the traditional definition. Instead of saying he's wrong (Which he isn't, he's arguing that his religion holds that definition. Unless you can prove that his religion -doesn't- consider slander as the only sin and that slander composes of certain things, you are just being foolish) why don't you question him to elaborate on it and then try and come up with your own definition of what slander is in THIS case?
Hey, I first heard of this definition today...and so far I find it pointless. I actually agree though...me saying he is wrong was, well wrong in this case. I didn't mean to say that he is wrong claiming that his religion considers it to be the only sin, what I actually meant was that I think that the definition is pointless as said before and also not including everthing without going to great length pretending that it can be broken down to "slander".
What I can't be sure of is obviously if Stealing, Killing, Raping, Molesting, or other forms of harm are even considered as wrong or "sinful" in his religion. Therefore I asked him to provide some more iunformation, he wasn't on yet, so why not wait till he can elaborate.
Originally posted by Soleran
...I am just saying that we cannot knot things for fact.Yes we can, the sun rises in the east, it sets in the west. This is the truth and its a fact. I wasn't asking about shaky's use of verbage, I was asking about the foundation for your relativism.
No we can't....we can't even say there is a sun.....only thing close to absolutes are defined things....math maybe....but they are also relative.
I thought that is a quite understood notion.....well, guess I am wrong there...
And what do you mean, what is the foundation of relativism? That doesn't make much sense....
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I will work on a thread for "Slander of the Law". I will give the historical meaning and the more modern interpretation. It maybe a few days because of time constraints.
Good I'm looking forward to it...then, in my opinion, we can go back to how great or not great God is after all.
[edit] have to add this...don't want to waste a post though:
Originally posted by debbiejo
Sounds good to me........I hate all this OT stuff.
Ironic.
Originally posted by Soleran
I said whats the foundation for YOUR relativism?There is a sun, there is a planet earth these can all be proven within reasonable levels of certainty to say otherwise is indeed the onset of delusion.
I didn't claim otherwise..did I...reasonable levels of certainty....but not total certainty...only thing I am saying.
Still, what do you mean with "foundation"?
No we can't....we can't even say there is a sun.....only thing close to absolutes are defined things....math maybe....but they are also relative.I thought that is a quite understood notion.....well, guess I am wrong there...
And what do you mean, what is the foundation of relativism? That doesn't make much sense....
He's asking where do you get the idea that -everything- is relative?