John, this is the Lowest of the Lows.

Video I am addressing:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uk4TmCk4xvA

One more time, John:

1.You still failed to articulate moral ontology in Christian framework correctly, your big brother remains a strawman.
2. Acknowledging moral perfection as having reality and calling it God is not circular reasoning. You would have to argue for a very sloppy version idealism for this to be true.
3.Your god (as you have articulated him) is not the one necessary being. What is also odd is how you believe this contingent being is impersonal to us, yet gives us the gift of reason. Your views of divinity are implicitly contradictory on these two pivotal levels.
4. Numbers 31 speaks of Moses commands. Moses =/= God.
5. Deuteronomy 20 has very little if any connection to Numbers 31; you completely missed verses 11 and 12 which make clear that the nation being discussed is a nation that refuses peace and wages war— even if this is the case they were not to kill the women and children.
6. Deuteronomy 21 also has very little connection to the latter two passages, but even then word for word (v14) refutes your blind leaping assertions.
7. Skepticsannotatedbible is a terrible source.

Category:

Education

Tags:

• JohnLArmstrong
• DeistPaladin
• Morality
• Ethics
• Neccesarry
• Being
• Old
• Covenant
• Skepticsannotatedbible
• Christianity
• Christ
• Catholic
• Atheist
• ignorance.

[StephenDaniel]

But at any rate here's the reading from your book:

Deut. 21:14

"However if later, YOU (the slaveowner) loose liking for her, you shall grant her her freedom, if she wishes it."

What part of that verse translates in any way that the woman's thoughts or feelings matter at all? This is saying that if you don't like her or aren't interested anymore, let her go if she wants to. But if she wants to and you still like her, tough luck for her.

Great job trying to spin this verse though.

[ScientificMethodist]

"You've called me an idiot as well, does this mean I get to childishly complain too?"

Please re-read above post. You are hallucinating if you thought I called you an idiot.

[lohell13]

Wow boring...fundamentalists arguing with themselves...rather watch paint dry.

[Theology1O1]

Who cares whether this guy is capable of debunking TAG or not. It is still a terrible argument, and it is a waste of time. Anyone that debates TAG, is pretty much just feeding philosophical trolling.

[Theologica37]

Which video (specify beginning, middle, end) do you attempt to address these problems?

[DeistPaladin]

@Theologica37 No, I completely answered both questions. Apparently you need to rewatch my videos again. Perhaps if YouTube had a slow motion viewing feature, that might help. 

[Theologica37]

The former you completely ignored, the latter you tried to bolster with an appeal to two contradictory ethical positions-- both are untenable and don't resurrect your hypothesis. You gave lip service to these issues, you hardly answered them; your worldview remains in shambles if you believe that you have the framework to support the aforementioned assertions.

[DeistPaladin]

@Theologica37 Rewatch my videos. I've already answered these questions. 

[Theologica37]

Aside from the continued asinine circular reasoning here, are you ever going to answer the questions and issues with your worldview I pose in this video against your worldview?

You believe in an impersonal God, and yet believe that reason is a gift from God to us. Further you believe that there are real moral values (the presupposition of saying God is evil) and yet believe that morality is relative-- this makes your arguments utterly arbitrary and self refuting. Can you even begin to respond?

[DeistPaladin]

@Theologica37 No, quote mining is taking quotes out of context to misrepresent a book or speaker. That's what you did with the NAB.

And first you denied deleting my comments. Then you admit you did but only because I was being, in your view, "childish". So either you were lying then or you're lying now.

And stop calling me "John". I have no wish to be friends with a sleazy apologist like yourself.

[Theologica37]

I've only ever used to American Bible in my videos-- its not a lie, your argument is proven bunk. I obviously wouldn't quote protestant canons of scripture, for they are incomplete. Quote mining would be going out of your way to find a translation, I've only ever used the NAB and I've proven this stone cold for you.

On further idiocy: I said that I didn't delete your comments except*(this signifies a condition john) for when you cursed and/or were deliberately being coy and ridiculous.

[DeistPaladin]

@Neoscotist Additionally, he has been deleting my comments, then lied when he denied doing so, then admitted he'd been deleting my comments claiming that it was because they were "childish". The man is as shamelessly amoral as he is pompous. I'm ashamed I spent so much time debating him, offering him so much dignity and undeserved credibility.