It's impossible to "tackle the topic being discussed" when you refuse to acknowledge what the topic is. It's as if we're not even discussing the same topic. You don't answer direct questions; for instance, what does the word "good" mean to you? What does "evil" mean to you? These seem to be pretty direct and simple questions. But no response from you! And it seems you're constantly trying to change the subject anyway.
I understand you to be saying that societies are completely free to establish their own criteria, out of whole cloth, as it were, and to make whatever changes to them that seem justified (justified by what? the coercive demand of a powerful ruler or ruling group?). But this sort of thing strikes me as necessarily a rule of men — which as you know, was something the Framers deeply deplored.
Why do you suppose the Framers deplored the idea of a rule of men? Why were they so committed to a rule of law instead?
Stop being such a cry-baby and THINK for a change.... Stop making these discussions "about me" — who is allegedly being so mean and abusive to kosta!!!
Otherwise, our conversations are a complete waste of time and energy.
Thank you so much for sharing your insights, dearest sister in Christ!
You have any examples to back this up?
You don't answer direct questions; for instance, what does the word "good" mean to you? What does "evil" mean to you?
#507 kosta to betty boop: "Without looking up a dictionary definition, I would say that to [me] it means something which is implicitly or explicitly beneficial. Evil, on the other hand, is that which is implicitly or explicitly injurious.
Only ten post ago and you don't remember? This is what you call not answering the questions directly? Reality check time, betty boop, big time.
These seem to be pretty direct and simple questions.
And they seem to be pretty simple and direct answers from me.
But no response from you!
Well, I can't help you there betty boop. Perhaps you need to read more. Or pray more, whatever helps. But it is clear that your accusations are baseless and these types of nonsenses you post is what detracts form the topic.
And it seems you're constantly trying to change the subject anyway.
No betty boop, what changes the subject is debunking your unsubstantiated allegations, like now. We are not talking about the topic but about your clearly unfounded claims.
I understand you to be saying that societies are completely free to establish their own criteria...to make whatever changes to them that seem justified
Yes they are, and that's self-evident and easily demonstrable.
(justified by what? the coercive demand of a powerful ruler or ruling group?)
No, I am talking about the society in general. Think of what was considered morally acceptable 50 years ago in this country and what is today. Then think what was morally acceptable in 1776 and what is today.
But this sort of thing strikes me as necessarily a rule of men — which as you know, was something the Framers deeply deplored.
On earth people rule. I don't know of any other rule on this planet. Do you? They decide what is right and what is wrong, individually or in groups. The Founding Fathers included. They felt that what King George was doing was wrong, but many Colonists disagreed. The Framers simply held to a different standard.
Why do you suppose the Framers deplored the idea of a rule of men? Why were they so committed to a rule of law instead?
Because they did not believe in the Bible-backed idea that all authority on earth is from God and must not be questioned. The main Framer, Thomas Jefferson, specifically referred to St. Paul—the chief protagonist of the all-authority-is-from-God idea—as the first corrupter of the doctrines of Jesus.
And is not the "rule of law" also the rule of men? All they did was substitute one ruler with many. We still end up with 0bamas.
Stop being such a cry-baby and THINK for a change.... Stop making these discussions "about me" — who is allegedly being so mean and abusive to kosta!!!
Unlike you, I can substantiate my posts. Unlike you, I am not in the habit of disparaging you for your opinions or associating you with imbecils as you do me (see your post #510). Comparing me to idiots who can't differentiate math from musical notes is not being "allegedly mean" or abusive. That is being mean and abusive.
And what prompted you to liken me to a Laputan was nothing more than my opinion (which you solicited) of what good and evil mean to me personally.
Otherwise, our conversations are a complete waste of time and energy.
I told you pretty much the same thing long time ago, but I wouldn't expect you to remember it given that you don't even seem to recall what happened only ten or so posts ago.