oldbadger
Skanky Old Mongrel!
Ummmm...... because Jesus changed that?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Multiculturalism Is Chaos
- Thread starter OtherSheep
- Start date
Ummmm...... because Jesus changed that?
oldbadger
Skanky Old Mongrel!
@OtherSheep .... Ah!
This all clicks together now.
Hitler wanted his lands to be racially (and idealistically) pure.
So he murdered over 13 million people in an ethnic cleansing attempt, Jews, Eastern Europeans, Jehovah's Witnesses, Gypsies, Blacks, Freemasons, Gays, Disabled and more.
I think I see where this is going now.
This all clicks together now.
Hitler wanted his lands to be racially (and idealistically) pure.
So he murdered over 13 million people in an ethnic cleansing attempt, Jews, Eastern Europeans, Jehovah's Witnesses, Gypsies, Blacks, Freemasons, Gays, Disabled and more.
I think I see where this is going now.
A Vestigial Mote
Well-Known Member
There is no "have to." I take part because I desire to. Is this not the same with you?
Deter me? Is that what you're getting at? Good luck with that. Hahahaha...
Money you mean? And who, exactly, do you think might do that? Not paid... no. But I do get some recompense for my time spent arguing with those of a religious mindset. The satisfaction of a job well done.
QuestioningMind
Well-Known Member
But of course it IS a good thing. How do you imagine that all people being from the same tribe is a 'bad thing'?
Logical Fallacy, Appeal to Mockery and Ad Hominem.
Unable to refute the points I made, you can only try to mock them and attack me in order to try to distract from that fact.
Logical fallacy, "Avoiding the Issue" and "Argument by Assertion".
Merely asserting that you "had to" discard my ideas doesn't make it true just because you assert it is.
You would have to give a single valid reason why you think any of my ideas could be "discarded" before you can do so.
Otherwise you are just committing the fallacy of "Avoiding the Issue", because you don't have a valid counter argument to my points.
You really should learn how to use the terms above correctly.
Logical fallacy, "Argument by Assertion".
Merely claiming that I misused any of those terms doesn't make your claim true just because you assert it is.
You cannot give any reasons or facts to demonstrate that any term you are quoting was used incorrectly.
Lacking a valid counter argument to my points, you can't do anything but simply assert my points are wrong without backing up your statements with reasons or facts.
That is not what a 'strawman' is!
Please learn how and when tio use this term.
Logical fallacy, "Argument by Assertion".
You cannot give any valid reasons or facts to prove your claim is true that I supposedly misused the term "strawman".
Your claim is not true just because you assert it is.
Logical fallacy, "Argument by Assertion".
Merely asserting my points were in contradiction doesn't make it true just because you assert it is.
You would need to provide valid argumentation to demonstrate why there is a supposed contradiction in anything I said.
You won't be able to do that because it's not actually true.
Logical fallacy, "Strawman". I never argued what you are trying to attack.
If you go back and read what I wrote more carefully, you will clearly see I said that the purpose of a division in languages is to divide.
I never said that the purpose of language itself is to divide. Because obviously a single unified language won't divide.
The Bible says God instituted a division of languages at Babel for the purpose of preventing the people from being united around their evil intentions.
Therefore, the creation of the division of language was done for the purpose of creating disunity and preventing unity.
morality - definition and meaning
Now that you should understand the term, you can go back and apply that definition to all the points I made which you ignored.
Your statement makes no sense.
When the legislator passes a law that applies to everyone equally, and everyone is beholden to obey it equally, then it's a law that is held in common amongst the people of that society.
It becomes a point of cultural unity that is shared amongst them.
If laws aren't applied equally then you get disunity and division.
Logical fallacy, "Appeal to Mockery".
Unable to counter any of the points I made with actual valid arguments or facts, you can only call my post names.
Logical fallacy, "Irrelevant Conclusion".
The truth or falseness of your statement is not relevant to any of the points I made.
That's why your statement doesn't try to dispute any specific point I made. You didn't even try quoting a specific statement to dispute.
You would have to be more specific about what point you think you're trying to dispute, and how you think that assertion disputes those points.
If you did try that, then you'd realize why your statement was an "irrelevant conclusion".
Logical fallacy, "Ad Hominem" and "Appeal to Mockery".
You don't have a valid counter argument to anything I posted, so the only thing you can do is turn to Ad Hominem fallacies.
oldbadger
Skanky Old Mongrel!
TLDR
Let's face the truth in two sentences, eh?
Multicultural societies are here to stay, and all the bigotry and prejudice cannot and will not put them in jeopardy.
Logical fallacy, "Argument by Assertion".
Merely claiming my points represent opinion rather than valid logic based arguments or facts, doesn't make your claim true just because you assert it is.
You would need to give specific valid reasons or facts to prove that anything I said cannot be called more than just an opinion before you could even try to accuse my points of being merely an opinion.
You can't demonstrate with valid reasoning or facts that your claims are true, because they aren't.
You're trying to use the fallacy of argument by assertion to sidestep the fact that you don't have a valid counter argument based in reason or fact.
Which then makes you the one guilty of merely expressing an opinion and trying to pass it off as a valid argument or truth.
Logical fallacy, "Argument by Assertion".
Merely claiming that any point I made is wrong because it is based on incomplete information doesn't make your claim true just because you assert it is.
You would have to prove your claim is true by demonstrating how or why any point I made becomes invalid or untrue if supposed "complete information" is introduced into the equation.
Logical fallacy, "Ad Hominem".
You have no basis for accusing me of having such motives for what I posted.
Such accusations serve only as a distraction from the fact that you don't have a valid counter argument to any of my points.
And the fact that you would baselessly accuse me of doing such a thing says more about you than it does about me. It's not
Logical fallacy, "strawman".
I never said you focused on clothing. I never even said you made an argument about clothes.
I talked about food because food was the thing you tried to use to prove multiculturalism.
Then I made a passing reference to clothing as an analogy of other types of things people mistakenly think define culture which is similar to people mistakenly thinking food is what defines culture. They both fall under the category of "art" more than anything else.
The problem with most people I've seen in the west today is that they've been deceived into thinking that the definition of culture is mostly "art" related - completely ignoring the fact that culture also includes by definition things like "morals, customs, and institutions". They might recognize that "customs" are a part of culture too. But customs by itself can often be a far less weighty and impactful issue than morals and institutions. It depends on what kinds of customs you're talking about. But a lot of customs don't have a tangible impact on how society interacts or operates (like the custom of observing a certain holiday once a year).
There's this propensity in the west to try to minimize and ignore anything that is a real significant point of difference between cultures in favor of focusing on things that don't matter much (or at all). Like pointless customs, food, or art.
You said:
I live in france in a village with a celtic name that translates as 'good valley'. Celtic, not Iberian. There are people who live here from every corner of the world. Several times a year we will get together and put on a meal for pensioners, the meal will be designed around one of the cultures represented by the villagers.
To which, I pointed out:
...
I have noticed a lot of people have an incomplete idea of what "culture" actually is. Culture is not just the kind of food you eat.
Culture is how you think about the world which influences how you think society should be structured and how human interactions should take place.
...
The fact that you think multiculturalism is defined by different food dishes is a demonstration of what I was just saying. Which is that people today have a very incomplete and warped idea of what multiculturalism really is. They completely ignore the issues of substance with regards to conflicting cultures, and only focus on irrelevant trappings like what kind of clothes do you wear or what kind of food do you eat.
That's not real multi-culturalism. Food is not culture. Culture is your view of how the world is and how it should be. Differences in food can be an expression of a difference in culture, but food by itself isn't culture.
Culture definition:
The arts, beliefs, customs, institutions, and other products of human work and thought considered as a unit, especially with regard to a particular time or social group.
Too many people stop at "art" and think that is all there is to culture. They don't talk about beliefs, customs, or institutions. Which is far more substantial and meaningful.
People don't usually fight over culturally differences in art the way they fight over differences in beliefs and institutions.
Furthermore, food differences can linger long after true cultural differences have been erased. The continued presence of differences in food don't necessarily mean there is a continued difference in culture (with regards to things of real importance and significance).
The opposite can also be true: The acceptance and integration of other culture's food into your own doesn't necessarily mean you've integrated any of their significant cultural differences into your own culture. It shows that there is a contact and communication point upon which ideas are successfully flowing from one culture to another, but that doesn't automatically mean they've adopted anything more than your love of a particular dish. In most cases, adopting a love for a particular type of food doesn't require changing any of your beliefs, customs, or institutions.
...
And I gave you many specific reasons why your example was invalid, not even being a genuine example of multi-culturalism.
You haven't tried to dispute any of the reasons I gave for that.
...
The fact that you think where you live represents "the real world" of multi-culturalism, and then cite your different foods as an example of multi-culturalism, again shows that you don't understand what defines true culture.
You haven't given any other example to prove your arguments about multiculturalism other than reference sharing your food with the elderly.
The fact that you haven't made other arguments in defense of your claims is not my fault. I can't offer counter arguments to different things if you've never made those other arguments to start with.
Last edited:
So many straw men and not a valid point among them.
May i suggest you read the forum TOC, particularly rule 3
Logical fallacy, "Non-Sequitur". "Affirming the Consequent".
Non-Sequitur because your conclusion doesn't follow logically from your premise.
Affirming the consequent - Wikipedia
Any argument that takes the following form is a non sequitur
- If A is true, then B is true.
- B is true.
- Therefore, A is true.
An example of affirming the consequent would be:
- If Jackson is a human (A), then Jackson is a mammal. (B)
- Jackson is a mammal. (B)
- Therefore, Jackson is a human. (A)
- Humans are mammals.
- Jackson is a mammal.
- Therefore, Jackson is a human.
Reason your statement is a non-sequitur:
You tried to claim the following things:
1. That no muslims want sharia law in Europe.
2. You accused me of being "anti-muslim" (whatever that means).
3. You claimed that my posts have secretly just been about muslims from the beginning.
I then respond to your assertions and accusations refuting them. To which you had no valid response.
But now you're trying to assert that me mentioning muslims in my response to you constitutes proof of your three original assertions being true.
Logically there is no connection whatsoever between what you are referring to and what you accused me of.
And you could not demonstrate a valid connection if you tried.
Whats even more illogical nonsense than that is your belief that you can assert and accuse things related to muslims but then I'm somehow not allowed to refute your assertions and accusations without mentioning muslims?
That doesn't make sense at all.
You accuse people of being bigots instead of having to counter their points and if they try to refute your claims then that's just proof they are a bigot?
That's such bad logic on it's face that I don't even know if there's a specific logical fallacy named after what you are trying to do; because I think most people would not be stupid enough to try arguing that and think they can get away with it. We can say at least it falls under the more general category of "affirming the consequent".
But it's not suppose to make sense. Because what you're doing is part of what I was describing earlier: Your tactics of accusing people of being bigoted are meant to shut down legitimate logical debate from taking place.
So your attempt to criminalize even the mention of muslims (claiming that is proof of bigotry) becomes just another attempt by you to prevent legitimate debate or discussion on a topic you don't want talked about because you can't win the debate on the merits of your position.
Logical fallacy, "Argument by Assertion".
You can't call it a "dodgy reference" without a valid reason to do so.
It's not dodgy just because you don't like the implications of it and therefore need to invent a reason to discount it.
Your claim is also logically insane, because you can't accuse a picture of being a "dodgy reference" unless you want to try to accuse it of being photoshopped. But you have no reason to believe it was. Other than you want to believe it was because it destroys your claims.
Also; logical fallacy, "Genetic Fallacy".
You have no valid reason or fact to dispute the information I posted.
Attacking the source doesn't disprove the truth of the information contained at said source.
Last edited:
exchemist
Veteran Member
Logical fallacy, "argument by assertion".
Merely accusing me of committing a strawman, or claiming my points are not valid, doesn't make your claims true just because you assert they are true.
You cannot provide a single valid argument or fact to support your assertions.
The reason you merely assert you are right or assert I am wrong, is because you are not capable of providing valid arguments in defense of your position.
Logical fallacy, "Ad Hominem", "Appeal to Mockery".
Unable to refute the truth of my arguments and conclusions, you can only turn to personal attacks.
Your Ad Hominem is also a type of "Argument by Assertion".
Merely calling my arguments "nonsense" doesn't make it true just because you assert it is.
You can not give a single legitimate reason or fact to prove any of my points are lacking in logical sense.
OtherSheep
<--@ Titangel
The tower of Babel is man replacing God as an object of worship. Because mankind cannot seem to come up with a way for all men to be brothers. There is always a pyramid structure. And the workers at the bottom support the freeloader at top. The tower is the altar of that one man who said it should be built. Now, the workers are told that it's all fraternity and equality and unity, because they seem to want someone telling them what to do, and they all pull together so the load is evenly dispersed and the work can go faster toward its completion. The weight of the tower has by this time crushed to death all of its lower level occupants, several times in the same decade, making the completion of the tower a thing of myth. But that doesn't stop the workers from working because they are invested in it by now, and they stubbornly persevere to persevere. They still think that the tower will be completed, and that at the end of the tower's completion they will have peace.
I like your idea of the Noah Covenant being farms and not cities. It matches what the Bible says over and over again. But many of today's people were driven into the cities because the banks hold the titles to the lands and also own the farm equipment. People don't want to live in shoeboxes stacked on top of each other. But that was where the jobs now were. Today, there are no jobs besides administration and ... I almost said the service industry ... welfare-check-cashing. So what do we have? Bosses to boss whom? Amazon runs the world. Mexico and China feed Amazon. Paper-pushers will be the next to go.
The tower of Babel was destroyed to make peace for Noah and those who chose to follow what He told them about God. The same reason that Heaven will not contain those who injure the people who love God and in turn are loved by God. The wrecking of the tower was done for God's children. Babylon will be that pyramid-shaped-mountain cast into the sea, by and for the children of God... render her double... and there will be no longer any Canaanite (merchant). The man at the top of the pyramid thinks he's pulled one over on God, because he doesn't earn his bread by the sweat of his brow.
The seed of the woman prophecy still stands.
Have you read what Custance said about the Seed of the Woman?
[... should have counted it from Eve to Mary, but still ...]
"Generation after generation, bodies die and return to the dust, but the seed continues in an unbroken line reaching, in fact, uncorrupted in the woman from Adam to Mary and of course it still continues to perpetuate itself."
Seed of the Woman - Pt.II, ch.18
Last edited:
And deliberately omitting relevant parts of my post.
Logical fallacy, "Ad Hominem" and "argument by assertion".
Merely claiming I have misrepresented your post doesn't make it true just because you assert it is.
You cannot give specific reasons for why you think your claim is true or point to quotations that you think prove your claim is true.
You furthermore have no basis for claiming I did anything like that intentionally. Which makes your accusation an Ad Hominem. You can't even first prove that a misrepresentation even took place, much less that it happened intentionally.
OtherSheep
<--@ Titangel
Lloegrwys still own what you call England... which is named for the Anglo part of Anglo-Saxon. The Anglo-Saxons invaded and stole that third of Britain from them, and drove them into Wales and Cornwall to live with their Cymry brothers.
Hmmm....... sadly I rather think that you have got Jesus wrong, but that's my opinion.
By the way, can you quote the verse that says the above? Just to save me from searching through the gospels. ? Thanks.
John 10
1 "Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that entereth not by the door into the sheepfold, but climbeth up some other way, the same is a thief and a robber.
2 But He that entereth in by the door is the shepherd of the sheep.
3 To him the porter openeth; and the sheep hear His voice: and He calleth His own sheep by name, and leadeth them out.
4 And when He putteth forth His own sheep, He goeth before them, and the sheep follow Him: for they know His voice.
5 And a stranger will they not follow, but will flee from him: for they know not the voice of strangers.
6 This parable spake Jesus unto them: but they understood not what things they were which he spake unto them.
7 Then said Jesus unto them again, Verily, verily, I say unto you, I am the door of the sheep.
8 All that ever came before Me are thieves and robbers: but the sheep did not hear them.
9 I am the door: by Me if any man enter in, he shall be saved, and shall go in and out, and find pasture.
10 The thief cometh not, but for to steal, and to kill, and to destroy: I am come that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly.
11 I am the good shepherd: the good shepherd giveth His life for the sheep.
12 But he that is an hireling, and not the shepherd, whose own the sheep are not, seeth the wolf coming, and leaveth the sheep, and fleeth: and the wolf catcheth them, and scattereth the sheep.
13 The hireling fleeth, because he is an hireling, and careth not for the sheep.
14 I am the good shepherd, and know My sheep, and am known of Mine.
15 As the Father knoweth Me, even so know I the Father: and I lay down My life for the sheep.
16 And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear My voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd."
________________________
Jesus says the good shepherd enters by the door. And then says He is the door. The door is both God the Father and God the Son.
No completely human being can make that claim.
OtherSheep
<--@ Titangel
Jesus didn't invalidate all of the Old Testament, for He even quotes part of it. In the Sermon on the Mount, He says Ye have heard it said by them of old... but I say unto you... in the places which do not match what Moses was taught by God. The nature of God must match what Jesus says to be valid. When John saw the Pharisees coming to be baptized, he asks who warned them to flee... meaning that the Pharisees had come from Babylon. Both Jesus and John called Pharisees vipers. And what Matthew calls Pharisees, the Apostle John calls Jews... who were apparently following the teachings of the Pharisees, because they screamed for Jesus' crucifixion which the chief priests and Pharisees had planned. Jesus says they kept the teachings of their father the devil as sons of the devil, and that the Pharisees were those upon whom the stumbling stone [whom the builders rejected] would fall and grind to powder, as Daniel says. What were the Pharisees building?
OtherSheep
<--@ Titangel
Does it matter? My people left because aliens took over our land and named themselves our kings.
OtherSheep
<--@ Titangel
QUOTE="OtherSheep, post: 6775494, member: 64612"]
Outbreeding is a sin for Israel, and they will all give you chapter and verse to support it.
As Christian proselytes, why should we think that the same rule is not applicable to us?
[/QUOTE
Jesus changed that did He?
Why are there still tribes of Israel and Magog in the Book of Revelation?
Outbreeding is a sin for Israel, and they will all give you chapter and verse to support it.
As Christian proselytes, why should we think that the same rule is not applicable to us?
[/QUOTE
Jesus changed that did He?
Why are there still tribes of Israel and Magog in the Book of Revelation?