A debate with an atheist
Over the last couple of days [24-26 July 2017], I have had a short debate with an Atheist. Such a thing is nothing new for me. I have had them before, and they always turn out the same: asinine assertions with reprobate language (or foolish claims with lots of name-calling and swearing). Every time I meet one of these people, my opinion of them becomes ever more non-existent. These are the same people who speak a bunch of bull about respecting people's views, yet go on a vitriolic attack with the most derogatory language, that hardly qualifies for a debate. Such is the accompaniment of a drunken brawl! If such is but a portion of what Atheism has to offer, I feel vindicated in saying that I cannot tolerate their opinions, and would like to see the end of their beliefs once and for all.
My communication with this person took place on YouTube. The video the debate took place under was a video made by the Resistance Chicks. They commented on how China was now enforcing Atheism on its Party members. Naturally, the Atheist didn't seem to mind that China was imposing Atheism on its people, yet if it was Christianity being enforced, he would certainly be accusing Christians of indoctrination and imposition of religion. But when an Atheist does it, it's okay. I mean, Richard Dawkins permits it! And it's also okay, apparently, to impose one's false interpretation of the Bible on others as well, as my Adversary seems to express.
I shall here repeat his comments in black, and mine in green, and my extra commentary in blue. I shall leave out the reply made by the Resistance Chicks. Please forgive his blasphemy and swearing.
My communication with this person took place on YouTube. The video the debate took place under was a video made by the Resistance Chicks. They commented on how China was now enforcing Atheism on its Party members. Naturally, the Atheist didn't seem to mind that China was imposing Atheism on its people, yet if it was Christianity being enforced, he would certainly be accusing Christians of indoctrination and imposition of religion. But when an Atheist does it, it's okay. I mean, Richard Dawkins permits it! And it's also okay, apparently, to impose one's false interpretation of the Bible on others as well, as my Adversary seems to express.
I shall here repeat his comments in black, and mine in green, and my extra commentary in blue. I shall leave out the reply made by the Resistance Chicks. Please forgive his blasphemy and swearing.
No 1 - His original comment:
Jesus Christ [He later claims that Christ is imaginary. Not only does that contradict even atheistic Scholarship who attest to the fact that Christ was a historical person, but why use a name belonging to an non-existent being?], why don't you wind whisperers [that's his crass nickname for Christians. Already he cannot refrain from petty name-calling.] read your damn book of fables? [So fabulous is the Bible, that he will reply to the Resistance Chicks (and to myself) with quotes from it, with his twisted interpretation. If the Bible is a book of fables, why would an Atheist care about whether a Christian follows it or not?]
1 Timothy 2 11...
…11A woman must learn in quietness and full submissiveness. 12I do not permit a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man; she is to remain quiet. 13For Adam was formed first, and then Eve.…
By the way, Jesus would have been a socialist. Free healthcare, free food, and he even stated “Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s."
Socialism and Christianity aren't mutually exclusive. [I will provide Church teachings expressing the contrary to this claim]
Also, you do realise there has never been a democratic society absence of socialism? [This is why I personally dislike the notion of national democracy - it always tends to a Socialist society. Democracies rarely tend to work out well in the long term.]
You right-wing wind whisperers are just as scary as the communist are. If you had it your way, you'd outlaw secularism and create a Christian theocracy. [Secularism always leads to Socialism, and then to Communism]
Jesus Christ [He later claims that Christ is imaginary. Not only does that contradict even atheistic Scholarship who attest to the fact that Christ was a historical person, but why use a name belonging to an non-existent being?], why don't you wind whisperers [that's his crass nickname for Christians. Already he cannot refrain from petty name-calling.] read your damn book of fables? [So fabulous is the Bible, that he will reply to the Resistance Chicks (and to myself) with quotes from it, with his twisted interpretation. If the Bible is a book of fables, why would an Atheist care about whether a Christian follows it or not?]
1 Timothy 2 11...
…11A woman must learn in quietness and full submissiveness. 12I do not permit a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man; she is to remain quiet. 13For Adam was formed first, and then Eve.…
By the way, Jesus would have been a socialist. Free healthcare, free food, and he even stated “Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s."
Socialism and Christianity aren't mutually exclusive. [I will provide Church teachings expressing the contrary to this claim]
Also, you do realise there has never been a democratic society absence of socialism? [This is why I personally dislike the notion of national democracy - it always tends to a Socialist society. Democracies rarely tend to work out well in the long term.]
You right-wing wind whisperers are just as scary as the communist are. If you had it your way, you'd outlaw secularism and create a Christian theocracy. [Secularism always leads to Socialism, and then to Communism]
No 2 - My first response:
"If you had it your way, you'd outlaw secularism and create a Christian theocracy."
Well, a Theocracy is a state ruled by priests. [This definition of Theocracy will be contested by my Adversary, yet proven by the Oxford Dictionary. For some reason, my Adversary will later charge me of being dishonest for quoting it, and a petty debate about the definition of Theocracy will ensue.] So the only way that would work in the US is if the Catholic Church (which has priests) took over Congress, which I doubt is going to happen anytime soon (not considering that the US bishops are some of most liberal you'll ever meet).
I suppose the closest we can get in today's world is Poland. In Nov. 2016, after their Parliament had a vote, the Country declared to make Jesus the King of Poland. The Catholic Bishops performed a ceremony in which they consecrated the Country to Jesus, and recognised Him as the true King of Poland. Now, has the Government enforced Catholicism on the people? I don't think so. As far as I am aware, atheists can still go about their business with sufficient ease.
Yet an atheistic country called China has just enforced its views on its people, and religious people cannot go about with the same ease afforded atheists in Poland. [My Adversary will reply by asserting that China isn't atheistic.]
Also, can you name a country where anything is free and doesn't have to be paid for by taxes or some such thing? I doubt it. [I shall ask him twice to name a country where anything is free, but he will fail to answer. Such a statement is clearly absurd, hence his silence. Yet he will later charge me with not providing evidence for my views!] And Jesus couldn't advocate Socialism, because He wouldn't be stupid enough to give everything over to the State! [Notwithstanding the fact that as God Jesus was Supreme over the State, thus how could He advocate the State being supreme over Himself?]
"Wind whisperers" - that's a good one. I'm going to use that!
"If you had it your way, you'd outlaw secularism and create a Christian theocracy."
Well, a Theocracy is a state ruled by priests. [This definition of Theocracy will be contested by my Adversary, yet proven by the Oxford Dictionary. For some reason, my Adversary will later charge me of being dishonest for quoting it, and a petty debate about the definition of Theocracy will ensue.] So the only way that would work in the US is if the Catholic Church (which has priests) took over Congress, which I doubt is going to happen anytime soon (not considering that the US bishops are some of most liberal you'll ever meet).
I suppose the closest we can get in today's world is Poland. In Nov. 2016, after their Parliament had a vote, the Country declared to make Jesus the King of Poland. The Catholic Bishops performed a ceremony in which they consecrated the Country to Jesus, and recognised Him as the true King of Poland. Now, has the Government enforced Catholicism on the people? I don't think so. As far as I am aware, atheists can still go about their business with sufficient ease.
Yet an atheistic country called China has just enforced its views on its people, and religious people cannot go about with the same ease afforded atheists in Poland. [My Adversary will reply by asserting that China isn't atheistic.]
Also, can you name a country where anything is free and doesn't have to be paid for by taxes or some such thing? I doubt it. [I shall ask him twice to name a country where anything is free, but he will fail to answer. Such a statement is clearly absurd, hence his silence. Yet he will later charge me with not providing evidence for my views!] And Jesus couldn't advocate Socialism, because He wouldn't be stupid enough to give everything over to the State! [Notwithstanding the fact that as God Jesus was Supreme over the State, thus how could He advocate the State being supreme over Himself?]
"Wind whisperers" - that's a good one. I'm going to use that!
No 3 - His first response to me:
St Mark the fictional Evangelist, [As one can see, his first port of call is to deride the name of the channel. More pettiness.] a "Theocracy is a form of government in which a deity is the source from which all authority derives.." [Note here that he doesn't link to or make any reference as to where this definition comes from. He simply quotes it from some unnamed source.]
Why do you wind whisperers always support your asinine assertions with logical fallacies? Oh, right, because you have nothing at all to defend your indefensible views with, no rational arguments and/or evidence for what you believe in. [He here charges me with not being able to defend my views, having no rational arguments or evidence for what I believe in. Yet I didn't state any of my views or beliefs in my first response to him above, so I don't know upon what foundation he is making these claims.]
The closest we can get to an actual theocracy is countries like Saudi Arabia. In which, when Christianity ruled Europe, it was no different than Saudi Arabia. [Christian Europe was completely different to Saudi Arabia, yet he wouldn't make any such distinction. He wants to attack Christianity, and facts won't stop him from doing just that] Thankfully, Christianity lost its power over western societies. Or you wind whisperers would still be "not suffering witches to live".
China is hardly an atheistic society. They are communist one, where they caused the state and its leaders to be "divine". Mimicking the exact same ideologies that theocracies delivered - "Believe my way, or else." Sounds like your imaginary friend, too, doesn't it? [I later respond to this statement, pointing out a clear logical fallacy. Naturally, he won't reply to that response because it embarrasses his position. He here claims Our Lord to be imaginary as I stated above.]
"And Jesus couldn't advocate Socialism because He wouldn't be stupid enough to give everything over to the State!"
Did I not produce a quote of Jesus demonstrating how you are wrong, already? Perhaps, you should read your book of unsubstantiated fables then get back to me? [I do get back to him - with a line of quotes. He quotes one verse out of context, imposes his interpretation on it, and that is put up as evidence? He is quoting Scripture at me? Doesn't he take into account that he has no idea who I am? Apparently not. As we shall see later, he doesn't reply to my quotes proving his position wrong, because it embarrasses him.]
""Wind whisperers" - that's a good one. I'm going to use that!"
Calling a spade a spade. I am honest like that. [As we shall see later, honesty is something wholly alien to his being.]
St Mark the fictional Evangelist, [As one can see, his first port of call is to deride the name of the channel. More pettiness.] a "Theocracy is a form of government in which a deity is the source from which all authority derives.." [Note here that he doesn't link to or make any reference as to where this definition comes from. He simply quotes it from some unnamed source.]
Why do you wind whisperers always support your asinine assertions with logical fallacies? Oh, right, because you have nothing at all to defend your indefensible views with, no rational arguments and/or evidence for what you believe in. [He here charges me with not being able to defend my views, having no rational arguments or evidence for what I believe in. Yet I didn't state any of my views or beliefs in my first response to him above, so I don't know upon what foundation he is making these claims.]
The closest we can get to an actual theocracy is countries like Saudi Arabia. In which, when Christianity ruled Europe, it was no different than Saudi Arabia. [Christian Europe was completely different to Saudi Arabia, yet he wouldn't make any such distinction. He wants to attack Christianity, and facts won't stop him from doing just that] Thankfully, Christianity lost its power over western societies. Or you wind whisperers would still be "not suffering witches to live".
China is hardly an atheistic society. They are communist one, where they caused the state and its leaders to be "divine". Mimicking the exact same ideologies that theocracies delivered - "Believe my way, or else." Sounds like your imaginary friend, too, doesn't it? [I later respond to this statement, pointing out a clear logical fallacy. Naturally, he won't reply to that response because it embarrasses his position. He here claims Our Lord to be imaginary as I stated above.]
"And Jesus couldn't advocate Socialism because He wouldn't be stupid enough to give everything over to the State!"
Did I not produce a quote of Jesus demonstrating how you are wrong, already? Perhaps, you should read your book of unsubstantiated fables then get back to me? [I do get back to him - with a line of quotes. He quotes one verse out of context, imposes his interpretation on it, and that is put up as evidence? He is quoting Scripture at me? Doesn't he take into account that he has no idea who I am? Apparently not. As we shall see later, he doesn't reply to my quotes proving his position wrong, because it embarrasses him.]
""Wind whisperers" - that's a good one. I'm going to use that!"
Calling a spade a spade. I am honest like that. [As we shall see later, honesty is something wholly alien to his being.]
No 4 - My second response: It should be here noted, that my response to him was broken into five parts, as the original reply was too long to be posted. The numbers correspond to the part posted on YouTube.
Number 1
--------------------------------------------------
"Why do you wind whisperers always support your asinine assertions with logical fallacies? Oh, right, because you have nothing at all to defend your indefensible views with, no rational arguments and/or evidence for what you believe in."
You produced this rant from my quoting a definition from the Oxford Dictionary (which I admit I forgot to link to but which nevertheless is contained in the article you quote from)? In what way was this quotation an asinine assertion? [He never answers this question.] Clearly, you have allowed your hand to type via emotion rather than via intellect. It is rather embarrassing that you charge me with not being able defend my views and beliefs, when I never stated in my first comment what my views and beliefs were! All I made were observations and opinions. Such rash judgment is never good. [Rash judgment seem to be his special vice. He never stops making judgmental statements as if he knows who I am, a trait I have found common amongst Atheists.]
For your information, I quoted from Wikipedia [Correction: I quote from the Oxford Dictionary, who's definition is repeated in a Wikipedia article on Theocracy]. In fact, your very quote begins the article on Theocracy. I believe this is what you quoted from yourself. It states:
"Theocracy is a form of government in which a deity is the source from which all authority derives." You quoted this, but you failed to quote all of it. The rest is as follows:
"The Oxford English Dictionary has this definition:
1. a system of government in which priests rule in the name of God or a god. [This is what I quoted from]
1.1. the commonwealth of Israel from the time of Moses until the election of Saul as King". [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theocracy]
So, either you didn't read the rest of that definition, which is rather hard to accept since the damn thing is right in one's face, and/or you are deliberately misquoting to suit your purposes. Either way, I wasn't being fallacious. I just quoted from the same source as you did.
[In short, my Adversary quotes from the first sentence of the Wikipedia article on Theocracy. Under that sentence is displayed the Oxford Dictionary's definition of Theocracy (as I display above). This is the same as what I quoted (as I state above). Yet, he claims my definition was foolish, even though one can clearly see the Oxford definition at the beginning of the article (click on the bold underlined link above) He would have seen the same definition, which he now claims as foolish. Talk about being dishonest.]
Number 1
--------------------------------------------------
"Why do you wind whisperers always support your asinine assertions with logical fallacies? Oh, right, because you have nothing at all to defend your indefensible views with, no rational arguments and/or evidence for what you believe in."
You produced this rant from my quoting a definition from the Oxford Dictionary (which I admit I forgot to link to but which nevertheless is contained in the article you quote from)? In what way was this quotation an asinine assertion? [He never answers this question.] Clearly, you have allowed your hand to type via emotion rather than via intellect. It is rather embarrassing that you charge me with not being able defend my views and beliefs, when I never stated in my first comment what my views and beliefs were! All I made were observations and opinions. Such rash judgment is never good. [Rash judgment seem to be his special vice. He never stops making judgmental statements as if he knows who I am, a trait I have found common amongst Atheists.]
For your information, I quoted from Wikipedia [Correction: I quote from the Oxford Dictionary, who's definition is repeated in a Wikipedia article on Theocracy]. In fact, your very quote begins the article on Theocracy. I believe this is what you quoted from yourself. It states:
"Theocracy is a form of government in which a deity is the source from which all authority derives." You quoted this, but you failed to quote all of it. The rest is as follows:
"The Oxford English Dictionary has this definition:
1. a system of government in which priests rule in the name of God or a god. [This is what I quoted from]
1.1. the commonwealth of Israel from the time of Moses until the election of Saul as King". [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theocracy]
So, either you didn't read the rest of that definition, which is rather hard to accept since the damn thing is right in one's face, and/or you are deliberately misquoting to suit your purposes. Either way, I wasn't being fallacious. I just quoted from the same source as you did.
[In short, my Adversary quotes from the first sentence of the Wikipedia article on Theocracy. Under that sentence is displayed the Oxford Dictionary's definition of Theocracy (as I display above). This is the same as what I quoted (as I state above). Yet, he claims my definition was foolish, even though one can clearly see the Oxford definition at the beginning of the article (click on the bold underlined link above) He would have seen the same definition, which he now claims as foolish. Talk about being dishonest.]
No 5 - Number 2
-----------------------------------------
"The closest we can get to an actual theocracy is countries like Saudi Arabia. In which, when Christianity ruled Europe, it was no different to Saudi Arabia. Thankfully, Christianity lost its power over western societies. Or you wind whisperers would still be "not suffering witches to live"."
In my previous comment I should have used the Vatican rather than Poland. The Vatican is the only Christian theocracy in the world today, and they are so small you can walk around it in 40 mins. The Vatican is also classed as an Eccesiocracy (rule by the Church).
Ancient Israel was a true theocracy since God was the real ruler, rather than any earthly authority. That changed, of course, when Saul was made King. [He will later deny Israel was a Theocracy, even though it is described as such by the Oxford Dictionary as above]
BTW, it was Christian Europe that founded universities, that preserved the writings of ancient literature like the Greek philosophers, who defended Europe against Muslim aggression, who patronised the arts. [He will assert that universities were not founded by Christian Europe, even though a quick search on the internet revealed that Catholic Italy was the home of the first university.] But, let's party that Christianity is going and is being replaced by Islam! Wooh! I always wanted to be a dhimmi!
But, of course, atheism is one of Islam's top enemies so you won't fare any better. In fact, I don't believe Islam allows atheists to live at all. Christians are allowed to live if they pay the jizyah tax. I am not sure if atheists are afforded such a thing. [He makes no reply to these statements.Since his beloved secular society in Europe is more tolerant of the most violent form of Islam than of peaceful Christianity, it rather shames him, and thus does not acknowledge these statements via a reply.]
And, if we talk about a secular society, look no further than Sweden, who's Liberal Party wants to legalise necrophilia, bestiality, paedophilia and incest. [He will charge me later with making these charges up, though I will provide him with evidence. Since I made this statement from memory, I correct myself in my last reply to him.]A natural end in a society where the rights of men are defined by the state rather than by God. For men, as one can see, wish the freedom to bugger every moving thing they can find. And why not?! Since God doesn't exist and morals are relative, whose to say what I can and can't do in my private life, right? Isn't that what you people always say to Christians? If the state says I can't, then I'll just change that law via my vote and sod the consequences. If I contract sexual diseases, I'll just make others pay for my treatment via taxes (as they do with the NHS in England). Oh, so it's not free healthcare, then? Someone has to pay for it?! Well, fancy that! [He does not reply to these statements. Again, it embarrasses his position, because if there is no moral law which we are bound to observe, and which is laid down by the Divine Lawgiver, then morals are the whims of men, and what may be considered evil today, will be deemed good tomorrow. With the aid of democracy, one can vote a vice into a virtue.]
As for witches, that really isn't a Catholic thing. The Church didn't really get that involved in witches. In fact, when the Malleus Mallificarum (The Hammer of Witches) was printed it was condemned by the Inquisition for being too ridiculous and absurd, and one of the authors was denounced by his own Bishop for being grossly fascinated by the sexual behaviour of the so-called witches. It was a Protestant thing for the most part, like the Puritans.
The word "witch" is actually "pharmacist" in Greek. So, it should actually say "thou shalt not suffer a pharmacist to live". Slight translation error there. Mind you, they probably didn't have a word for pharmacist in the 1600's when the King James Bible came out (which isn't a Catholic Bible, so we don't use it). That reminds me, I need to put some spikes in the garden tonight and see if I can catch me a witch! I bet she'll have green skin! [My Adversary does not reply to the above two paragraphs.]
-----------------------------------------
"The closest we can get to an actual theocracy is countries like Saudi Arabia. In which, when Christianity ruled Europe, it was no different to Saudi Arabia. Thankfully, Christianity lost its power over western societies. Or you wind whisperers would still be "not suffering witches to live"."
In my previous comment I should have used the Vatican rather than Poland. The Vatican is the only Christian theocracy in the world today, and they are so small you can walk around it in 40 mins. The Vatican is also classed as an Eccesiocracy (rule by the Church).
Ancient Israel was a true theocracy since God was the real ruler, rather than any earthly authority. That changed, of course, when Saul was made King. [He will later deny Israel was a Theocracy, even though it is described as such by the Oxford Dictionary as above]
BTW, it was Christian Europe that founded universities, that preserved the writings of ancient literature like the Greek philosophers, who defended Europe against Muslim aggression, who patronised the arts. [He will assert that universities were not founded by Christian Europe, even though a quick search on the internet revealed that Catholic Italy was the home of the first university.] But, let's party that Christianity is going and is being replaced by Islam! Wooh! I always wanted to be a dhimmi!
But, of course, atheism is one of Islam's top enemies so you won't fare any better. In fact, I don't believe Islam allows atheists to live at all. Christians are allowed to live if they pay the jizyah tax. I am not sure if atheists are afforded such a thing. [He makes no reply to these statements.Since his beloved secular society in Europe is more tolerant of the most violent form of Islam than of peaceful Christianity, it rather shames him, and thus does not acknowledge these statements via a reply.]
And, if we talk about a secular society, look no further than Sweden, who's Liberal Party wants to legalise necrophilia, bestiality, paedophilia and incest. [He will charge me later with making these charges up, though I will provide him with evidence. Since I made this statement from memory, I correct myself in my last reply to him.]A natural end in a society where the rights of men are defined by the state rather than by God. For men, as one can see, wish the freedom to bugger every moving thing they can find. And why not?! Since God doesn't exist and morals are relative, whose to say what I can and can't do in my private life, right? Isn't that what you people always say to Christians? If the state says I can't, then I'll just change that law via my vote and sod the consequences. If I contract sexual diseases, I'll just make others pay for my treatment via taxes (as they do with the NHS in England). Oh, so it's not free healthcare, then? Someone has to pay for it?! Well, fancy that! [He does not reply to these statements. Again, it embarrasses his position, because if there is no moral law which we are bound to observe, and which is laid down by the Divine Lawgiver, then morals are the whims of men, and what may be considered evil today, will be deemed good tomorrow. With the aid of democracy, one can vote a vice into a virtue.]
As for witches, that really isn't a Catholic thing. The Church didn't really get that involved in witches. In fact, when the Malleus Mallificarum (The Hammer of Witches) was printed it was condemned by the Inquisition for being too ridiculous and absurd, and one of the authors was denounced by his own Bishop for being grossly fascinated by the sexual behaviour of the so-called witches. It was a Protestant thing for the most part, like the Puritans.
The word "witch" is actually "pharmacist" in Greek. So, it should actually say "thou shalt not suffer a pharmacist to live". Slight translation error there. Mind you, they probably didn't have a word for pharmacist in the 1600's when the King James Bible came out (which isn't a Catholic Bible, so we don't use it). That reminds me, I need to put some spikes in the garden tonight and see if I can catch me a witch! I bet she'll have green skin! [My Adversary does not reply to the above two paragraphs.]
No 6 - Number 3
-----------------------------------------------------
"China is hardly an atheistic society. They are communist one, where they caused the state and its leaders to be "divine". Mimicking the exact same ideologies that theocracies delivered - "Believe my way, or else." Sounds like your imaginary friend, too, doesn't it?"
Right.
So, China wants the people to consider the state divine, yet enforces a philosophical position that denies the existence of the divine. That is rather contradictory. That's counter-productive to the principle which is the state wants to be divine. If the people become atheistic, how then are they to worship the state? Wouldn't that be against their atheistic views? Wouldn't it be more fitting to promote statism rather than atheism?
Why mimic theocracy when you can just have one? Why not do what the Romans did. Turn China into a goddess, create an idol of her and then worship her? Seems rather absurd for a state to enforce atheism on a people it wants to consider it divine.
Jesus did not say "believe my way or else". Instead, He warned the people to stop sinning, repent of their sins, do penance for them, and listen to what God wants them to do in order to get to Heaven. He said that some people will listen, and some won't. Both will receive their reward from God due to the actions THEY THEMSELVES made by their own free-will. God respects our free-will. So, if one is damned, it's one's fault for not listening. A bit like a child, really. They complain when they are punished because their parents won't let them do what they want. What you want is not always what is right.
And just because we have free-will, does not mean there aren't rules. In fact, these rules are there to guide our free-will. Thus, I could pick up a knife and stab someone. I could physically do it with my own free will. But would I? No. Why? Because I use my reason to control my free will. I know that murder is a mortal sin, it damns my soul, and it's a civil crime [a rule], it violates the dignity of human life and it violates the Commandments [a rule]. I neither want to go to prison nor to Hell, so I don't do it.
[My Adversary does not reply to any of the above. Naturally, if China was not a atheistic society, why impose atheism on the people? This is a clear logical fallacy which I made reference to in his first reply to me (No 3), the fourth paragraph. He does not respond to my latter comments on Christ and free-will because, once again, it embarrasses his position.]
-----------------------------------------------------
"China is hardly an atheistic society. They are communist one, where they caused the state and its leaders to be "divine". Mimicking the exact same ideologies that theocracies delivered - "Believe my way, or else." Sounds like your imaginary friend, too, doesn't it?"
Right.
So, China wants the people to consider the state divine, yet enforces a philosophical position that denies the existence of the divine. That is rather contradictory. That's counter-productive to the principle which is the state wants to be divine. If the people become atheistic, how then are they to worship the state? Wouldn't that be against their atheistic views? Wouldn't it be more fitting to promote statism rather than atheism?
Why mimic theocracy when you can just have one? Why not do what the Romans did. Turn China into a goddess, create an idol of her and then worship her? Seems rather absurd for a state to enforce atheism on a people it wants to consider it divine.
Jesus did not say "believe my way or else". Instead, He warned the people to stop sinning, repent of their sins, do penance for them, and listen to what God wants them to do in order to get to Heaven. He said that some people will listen, and some won't. Both will receive their reward from God due to the actions THEY THEMSELVES made by their own free-will. God respects our free-will. So, if one is damned, it's one's fault for not listening. A bit like a child, really. They complain when they are punished because their parents won't let them do what they want. What you want is not always what is right.
And just because we have free-will, does not mean there aren't rules. In fact, these rules are there to guide our free-will. Thus, I could pick up a knife and stab someone. I could physically do it with my own free will. But would I? No. Why? Because I use my reason to control my free will. I know that murder is a mortal sin, it damns my soul, and it's a civil crime [a rule], it violates the dignity of human life and it violates the Commandments [a rule]. I neither want to go to prison nor to Hell, so I don't do it.
[My Adversary does not reply to any of the above. Naturally, if China was not a atheistic society, why impose atheism on the people? This is a clear logical fallacy which I made reference to in his first reply to me (No 3), the fourth paragraph. He does not respond to my latter comments on Christ and free-will because, once again, it embarrasses his position.]
No 7 - Number 4
-----------------------------------------------
"Did I not produce a quote of Jesus demonstrating how you are wrong, already? Perhaps, you should read your book of unsubstantiated fables then get back to me?"
I shall do so, and even more than just read my "book of unsubstantiated fables". I shall even quote from the Church Herself.
Firstly, you produced one small quote without any commentary and somehow that's proof Jesus advocated Socialism. Talk about no rational arguments, evidence and asinine! Tsk, tsk! I would have expected better material from an atheist who can quite clearly quote Scripture.
I shall here quote the entire text from the Douay-Rheims, which is a Catholic Bible:
"And they send to Him their disciples with the Herodians, saying: Master, we know that Thou art a true speaker, and teachest the way of God in truth, neither carest Thou for any man: for Thou dost not regard the person of men. Tell us therefore what dost Thou think? is it lawful to give tribute to Cæsar, or not? But Jesus knowing their wickedness, said: Why do you tempt Me, ye hypocrites? Shew Me the coin of the tribute. And they offered Him a penny. And Jesus saith to them: Whose image and inscription is this?They say to him: Cæsar's. Then He saith to them: Render therefore to Cæsar the things that are Cæsar's: and to God, the things that are God's." (Matt 22: 16-21)
So, the context was that Jesus was asked whether to pay tribute (or tax) to Caesar, which He said to do, and to pay to God what is His. In what way does this translate to: give everything over to the state? Er, it doesn't really, does it? One can pay lawful tax without having to hand over one's property. And yet, that tax money, as Magna Carta shows, cannot be unjustly wrenched from its owners hands. The people must agree to the tax because the money they are to be taxed on is rightfully their property. In fact, interestingly, the Church was one of the groups that forced bad King John to sign Magna Carta (which was ratified by Pope Innocent III) because She recognises that the state cannot unlawfully abduct hard-earned money from the hands of its citizens. Such a thing is stealing. [Correction: Magna Carta of 1215, signed by King John, was annulled by Pope Innocent III at John's request, however the Pope agreed with most of it. Magna Carta was republished a couple of times after John's death, the last and definitive version being that of 1225, which is the one still part of English law.]
Christ was also refuting the hypocrisy of the Herodians who paid taxes to King Herod, but not to Caesar, the lawful ruler of the Empire (even if he was pagan), and the one who appointed Herod to rule in the first place.
Thankfully, we Catholics have the Church to guide us. Pope Leo XIII (amongst others) condemned Socialism.
[http://marktheevangelist.weebly.com/quod-apostolici-muneris.html].
He also condemned what we now call "crony-capitalism". He says about the "evil growth of socialism":
"[T]he Church, with much greater wisdom and good sense, recognizes the inequality among men, who are born with different powers of body and mind, inequality in actual possession, also, and holds that the right of property and of ownership, which springs from nature itself, must not be touched and stands inviolate. For She knows that stealing and robbery were forbidden in so special a manner by God, the Author and Defender of right, that He would not allow man even to desire what belonged to another, and that thieves and despoilers, no less than adulterers and idolaters, are shut out from the Kingdom of Heaven." (Para. 9)
Now, if Jesus advocated Socialism, why didn't the Church embrace it? Because Jesus didn't advocate Socialism. He, many times, spoke of men who owned property such as in His parables: Matthew 13:24-43 & 13:44-52. He also speaks about the owner of the vineyard in Matthew 20:1-16. Many times we are commanded not to steal, or to even covet someone else's property. But Socialism is just that - the coveting and the stealing of property. So, how could Jesus promote a system that does the very thing the Commandments forbid?! How could He preach against the very Decalogue He ordered to be kept (Matthew 19:18)?! He also spoke of Himself as a shepherd leading the sheep to pasture. Well, does He steal the sheep (His people) from someone else? No. He calls them and they follow Him of their own free will.
Your interpretation of what Jesus said is one of which blind obedience to the State is required, the very thing Communism and its little sister, Socialism, require for themselves. Just blindly accept because you owe allegiance to Caesar. What a foolish and dangerous notion, and the very thing that the Church prohibits as expressed by Leo XIII above. If one must respect the possession of property, one cannot be Socialist.
As St. Thomas More said upon being beheaded: "I die the King's good servant, but God's first". In his day, the King (Henry VIII) wanted a divorce and to be head of his own church. St. Thomas refused, because neither was permitted by God nor by His Church, and St. Thomas would never injure his faith or conscience by placing the State above God. He didn't hate the King nor the State, but rather corrected the abuse of the latter.
Let's take this to an extreme: If the state demanded your money to pay for a genocide, would you just blindly give it? Well, in your case the answer would have to be in the positive, since "render unto Caesar what is Caesar's" and Caesar wants money to commit genocide. So, you pay it. For a Christian the answer would be in the negative, since God commands "thou shalt not murder", and no human law can ever change that.
One's obedience to the state is subject to reason. Is it reasonable to give everything over to the state? No. Why? Because it violates the dignity of the human being, who has the God-given right to hold property. But of course, in an atheistic society, where God is not invoked, rights are but whims of the current trend, and if the trend is to give everything away, then that is the right of that age. Ultimately, the state must become God, for all intents and purposes, and say what is right or not (as our Western governments are now doing). If this is but a taste of what it means to be a secular, or even an atheistic, society, take me back to the Medieval days! At least even the serfs got every Sunday off, without question.
In 1537, Pope Paul III condemned the enslavement of Indians by Christians. He said:
"[The pagan Indians] are by no means to be deprived of their liberty or the possession of their property, even though they be outside the faith of Jesus Christ; and that they may and should, freely and legitimately, enjoy their liberty and the possession of their property; nor should they be in any way enslaved; should the contrary happen, it shall be null and have no effect." [http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Paul03/p3subli.htm]
Again, why doesn't the Pope tell them to take the property of the Indians from them? Err, because the ownership is a human right that even pagans are to enjoy.
In 1 Kings (or 1 Samuel) Chapter 8, the Israelites ask for a king to reign over them. God eventually permits a king, but with this warning:
"This will be the right of the king that shall reign over you: He will take your sons, and put them in his chariots, and will make them his horsemen, and his running footmen, to run before his chariots, And he will appoint of them to be his tribunes, and centurions, and to plough his fields, and to reap his corn, and to make him arms and chariots. Your daughters also he will take to make him ointments, and to be his cooks, and bakers. And he will take your fields, and your vineyards, and your best oliveyards, and give them to his servants. Moreover he will take the tenth of your corn, and of the revenues of your vineyards, to give to his eunuchs and servants. Your servants also, and handmaids, and your goodliest young men, and your asses, he will take away, and put them to his work. Your flocks also he will tithe, and you shall be his servants." (Douay-Rheims)
Notice how God warns the people that the King shall take their land from them, and take their money. Is this not what Communists do? Take property and money and give them to obedient servants or to strange causes? Notice, in order for the king to take such away, they must first be in the possession of the people. So, God is here warning them of state control of their property, ergo, God is opposed to such a control.
Now, one may be tempted to twist the words of the Acts of the Apostles to refer to Socialism where it says:
"And the multitude of the believers had but one heart and one soul: neither did any one say, that any of the things which he possessed was his own, but all things were common to them." (Acts 4:32; Douay-Rheims)
Yet, we understand here that the Christians still owned property, but willingly gave it over to those less fortunate than they. For St. Peter did not condemn Ananias and Saphira for possessing land, but that they lied about what they gave in charity to the Church (Acts 5:1-10).
Some of the Church Fathers understood the above verse to represent what we now call the monastic life, where the Religious take vows of poverty, and they own all things in common as brethren in their monastery.
I could go on even more, but I think this is enough. I pray it shall be sufficient to demonstrate that your position is completely erroneous and absurd, if not to you, then to those who read it.
As for your latter charge: "Perhaps, you should read your book of unsubstantiated fables then get back to me?", you should be careful about to whom you say such a thing. Your rash judgment may greatly embarrass you.
[My Adversary does not attempt to make any reply to the above statements/quotes. Naturally, it shows him to be very wrong on this topic, and makes him look rather foolish for daring to proceed to tell me what I should accept as regards to the interpretation of Scripture.]
-----------------------------------------------
"Did I not produce a quote of Jesus demonstrating how you are wrong, already? Perhaps, you should read your book of unsubstantiated fables then get back to me?"
I shall do so, and even more than just read my "book of unsubstantiated fables". I shall even quote from the Church Herself.
Firstly, you produced one small quote without any commentary and somehow that's proof Jesus advocated Socialism. Talk about no rational arguments, evidence and asinine! Tsk, tsk! I would have expected better material from an atheist who can quite clearly quote Scripture.
I shall here quote the entire text from the Douay-Rheims, which is a Catholic Bible:
"And they send to Him their disciples with the Herodians, saying: Master, we know that Thou art a true speaker, and teachest the way of God in truth, neither carest Thou for any man: for Thou dost not regard the person of men. Tell us therefore what dost Thou think? is it lawful to give tribute to Cæsar, or not? But Jesus knowing their wickedness, said: Why do you tempt Me, ye hypocrites? Shew Me the coin of the tribute. And they offered Him a penny. And Jesus saith to them: Whose image and inscription is this?They say to him: Cæsar's. Then He saith to them: Render therefore to Cæsar the things that are Cæsar's: and to God, the things that are God's." (Matt 22: 16-21)
So, the context was that Jesus was asked whether to pay tribute (or tax) to Caesar, which He said to do, and to pay to God what is His. In what way does this translate to: give everything over to the state? Er, it doesn't really, does it? One can pay lawful tax without having to hand over one's property. And yet, that tax money, as Magna Carta shows, cannot be unjustly wrenched from its owners hands. The people must agree to the tax because the money they are to be taxed on is rightfully their property. In fact, interestingly, the Church was one of the groups that forced bad King John to sign Magna Carta (which was ratified by Pope Innocent III) because She recognises that the state cannot unlawfully abduct hard-earned money from the hands of its citizens. Such a thing is stealing. [Correction: Magna Carta of 1215, signed by King John, was annulled by Pope Innocent III at John's request, however the Pope agreed with most of it. Magna Carta was republished a couple of times after John's death, the last and definitive version being that of 1225, which is the one still part of English law.]
Christ was also refuting the hypocrisy of the Herodians who paid taxes to King Herod, but not to Caesar, the lawful ruler of the Empire (even if he was pagan), and the one who appointed Herod to rule in the first place.
Thankfully, we Catholics have the Church to guide us. Pope Leo XIII (amongst others) condemned Socialism.
[http://marktheevangelist.weebly.com/quod-apostolici-muneris.html].
He also condemned what we now call "crony-capitalism". He says about the "evil growth of socialism":
"[T]he Church, with much greater wisdom and good sense, recognizes the inequality among men, who are born with different powers of body and mind, inequality in actual possession, also, and holds that the right of property and of ownership, which springs from nature itself, must not be touched and stands inviolate. For She knows that stealing and robbery were forbidden in so special a manner by God, the Author and Defender of right, that He would not allow man even to desire what belonged to another, and that thieves and despoilers, no less than adulterers and idolaters, are shut out from the Kingdom of Heaven." (Para. 9)
Now, if Jesus advocated Socialism, why didn't the Church embrace it? Because Jesus didn't advocate Socialism. He, many times, spoke of men who owned property such as in His parables: Matthew 13:24-43 & 13:44-52. He also speaks about the owner of the vineyard in Matthew 20:1-16. Many times we are commanded not to steal, or to even covet someone else's property. But Socialism is just that - the coveting and the stealing of property. So, how could Jesus promote a system that does the very thing the Commandments forbid?! How could He preach against the very Decalogue He ordered to be kept (Matthew 19:18)?! He also spoke of Himself as a shepherd leading the sheep to pasture. Well, does He steal the sheep (His people) from someone else? No. He calls them and they follow Him of their own free will.
Your interpretation of what Jesus said is one of which blind obedience to the State is required, the very thing Communism and its little sister, Socialism, require for themselves. Just blindly accept because you owe allegiance to Caesar. What a foolish and dangerous notion, and the very thing that the Church prohibits as expressed by Leo XIII above. If one must respect the possession of property, one cannot be Socialist.
As St. Thomas More said upon being beheaded: "I die the King's good servant, but God's first". In his day, the King (Henry VIII) wanted a divorce and to be head of his own church. St. Thomas refused, because neither was permitted by God nor by His Church, and St. Thomas would never injure his faith or conscience by placing the State above God. He didn't hate the King nor the State, but rather corrected the abuse of the latter.
Let's take this to an extreme: If the state demanded your money to pay for a genocide, would you just blindly give it? Well, in your case the answer would have to be in the positive, since "render unto Caesar what is Caesar's" and Caesar wants money to commit genocide. So, you pay it. For a Christian the answer would be in the negative, since God commands "thou shalt not murder", and no human law can ever change that.
One's obedience to the state is subject to reason. Is it reasonable to give everything over to the state? No. Why? Because it violates the dignity of the human being, who has the God-given right to hold property. But of course, in an atheistic society, where God is not invoked, rights are but whims of the current trend, and if the trend is to give everything away, then that is the right of that age. Ultimately, the state must become God, for all intents and purposes, and say what is right or not (as our Western governments are now doing). If this is but a taste of what it means to be a secular, or even an atheistic, society, take me back to the Medieval days! At least even the serfs got every Sunday off, without question.
In 1537, Pope Paul III condemned the enslavement of Indians by Christians. He said:
"[The pagan Indians] are by no means to be deprived of their liberty or the possession of their property, even though they be outside the faith of Jesus Christ; and that they may and should, freely and legitimately, enjoy their liberty and the possession of their property; nor should they be in any way enslaved; should the contrary happen, it shall be null and have no effect." [http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Paul03/p3subli.htm]
Again, why doesn't the Pope tell them to take the property of the Indians from them? Err, because the ownership is a human right that even pagans are to enjoy.
In 1 Kings (or 1 Samuel) Chapter 8, the Israelites ask for a king to reign over them. God eventually permits a king, but with this warning:
"This will be the right of the king that shall reign over you: He will take your sons, and put them in his chariots, and will make them his horsemen, and his running footmen, to run before his chariots, And he will appoint of them to be his tribunes, and centurions, and to plough his fields, and to reap his corn, and to make him arms and chariots. Your daughters also he will take to make him ointments, and to be his cooks, and bakers. And he will take your fields, and your vineyards, and your best oliveyards, and give them to his servants. Moreover he will take the tenth of your corn, and of the revenues of your vineyards, to give to his eunuchs and servants. Your servants also, and handmaids, and your goodliest young men, and your asses, he will take away, and put them to his work. Your flocks also he will tithe, and you shall be his servants." (Douay-Rheims)
Notice how God warns the people that the King shall take their land from them, and take their money. Is this not what Communists do? Take property and money and give them to obedient servants or to strange causes? Notice, in order for the king to take such away, they must first be in the possession of the people. So, God is here warning them of state control of their property, ergo, God is opposed to such a control.
Now, one may be tempted to twist the words of the Acts of the Apostles to refer to Socialism where it says:
"And the multitude of the believers had but one heart and one soul: neither did any one say, that any of the things which he possessed was his own, but all things were common to them." (Acts 4:32; Douay-Rheims)
Yet, we understand here that the Christians still owned property, but willingly gave it over to those less fortunate than they. For St. Peter did not condemn Ananias and Saphira for possessing land, but that they lied about what they gave in charity to the Church (Acts 5:1-10).
Some of the Church Fathers understood the above verse to represent what we now call the monastic life, where the Religious take vows of poverty, and they own all things in common as brethren in their monastery.
I could go on even more, but I think this is enough. I pray it shall be sufficient to demonstrate that your position is completely erroneous and absurd, if not to you, then to those who read it.
As for your latter charge: "Perhaps, you should read your book of unsubstantiated fables then get back to me?", you should be careful about to whom you say such a thing. Your rash judgment may greatly embarrass you.
[My Adversary does not attempt to make any reply to the above statements/quotes. Naturally, it shows him to be very wrong on this topic, and makes him look rather foolish for daring to proceed to tell me what I should accept as regards to the interpretation of Scripture.]
No 8 - Number 5
---------------------------------------
I noticed that you failed to answer my question in my first post. You stated that Jesus would have advocated free healthcare and free food, to which I asked: Can you name a country where anything is free and doesn't have to be paid for by taxes or some such thing?
But, even in a country like England where we have the NHS, it is tax funded. And only those who are not working, like the elderly, the sick, and those claiming job-seekers allowance, actually get free healthcare. For those in work, they still have to pay even on top of their taxes paid to the NHS. So the workers are paying not only for their own medication, but for others as well.
The NHS has recently announced its getting rid of more nurses in an already overworked system. Those taxes are obviously going to funding mangers and their pencil pushers amongst other things rather than the nurses. Well, I believe this is what we Brits call "champagne Socialism". Very much like the spoiled university students in the US and in the UK who have the money to go to university, yet complain about the evils of crony-capitalism. Rather hard to accept a person when they are privileged to go to university.
[My Adversary makes no reply to these comments. My question to him regarding free healthcare and food, as I have stated earlier, will go unanswered.]
---------------------------------------
I noticed that you failed to answer my question in my first post. You stated that Jesus would have advocated free healthcare and free food, to which I asked: Can you name a country where anything is free and doesn't have to be paid for by taxes or some such thing?
But, even in a country like England where we have the NHS, it is tax funded. And only those who are not working, like the elderly, the sick, and those claiming job-seekers allowance, actually get free healthcare. For those in work, they still have to pay even on top of their taxes paid to the NHS. So the workers are paying not only for their own medication, but for others as well.
The NHS has recently announced its getting rid of more nurses in an already overworked system. Those taxes are obviously going to funding mangers and their pencil pushers amongst other things rather than the nurses. Well, I believe this is what we Brits call "champagne Socialism". Very much like the spoiled university students in the US and in the UK who have the money to go to university, yet complain about the evils of crony-capitalism. Rather hard to accept a person when they are privileged to go to university.
[My Adversary makes no reply to these comments. My question to him regarding free healthcare and food, as I have stated earlier, will go unanswered.]
No 9 - His second response to me:
Mark, your unquoted definition also ignores the other contextual definitions, right? That means you were trying to dishonestly claim your definition is the only accurate one. When it clearly isn't as I presented the actual definition fitting the context. Learn how to use a dictionary, if you going to cite words for it.
Mark, your unquoted definition also ignores the other contextual definitions, right? That means you were trying to dishonestly claim your definition is the only accurate one. When it clearly isn't as I presented the actual definition fitting the context. Learn how to use a dictionary, if you going to cite words for it.
No 10 - His third response to me:
Mark, "Ancient Israel was a true theocracy since God was the real ruler, rather than any earthly authority. That changed, of course, when Saul was made King."
Umm, no, it wasn't even a theocracy, it was Protectorate. That is what we have evidence for. The history in the Bible isn't actual history, my willfully ignorant friend.
By the way, it was Christian Europe that smite any other individual's ideologies for centuries, too. Where they tortured and executed non-believers, couldn't suffer witches to live. And even discriminated and killed other members of Christian denominations. Does it surprise you that Christianity was the only game in town that could produce things like universities? Yet in reality, universities, hospitals, and other institutions predate Christianity altogether. As the ancient Greeks and even Romans had those as well. In which, the Greek Philosophers writings were only preserved if they weren't deemed heresy. Much of classical knowledge was also lost because of zealot preachers claimed much of classical knowledge was blasphemy.
"who's Liberal Party wants to legalise necrophilia, bestiality, paedophilia and incest."
So much for not "bearing false witness", where do you morons get this bullshit from? Straight out of your asses?
Alright, I read enough of your dishonesty, go run along and whisper to the wind or cannibalise your celestial zombie Jew... or whatever batshit crazy nonsense you wind whisperers like to do. Dishonesty at its finest.
Mark, "Ancient Israel was a true theocracy since God was the real ruler, rather than any earthly authority. That changed, of course, when Saul was made King."
Umm, no, it wasn't even a theocracy, it was Protectorate. That is what we have evidence for. The history in the Bible isn't actual history, my willfully ignorant friend.
By the way, it was Christian Europe that smite any other individual's ideologies for centuries, too. Where they tortured and executed non-believers, couldn't suffer witches to live. And even discriminated and killed other members of Christian denominations. Does it surprise you that Christianity was the only game in town that could produce things like universities? Yet in reality, universities, hospitals, and other institutions predate Christianity altogether. As the ancient Greeks and even Romans had those as well. In which, the Greek Philosophers writings were only preserved if they weren't deemed heresy. Much of classical knowledge was also lost because of zealot preachers claimed much of classical knowledge was blasphemy.
"who's Liberal Party wants to legalise necrophilia, bestiality, paedophilia and incest."
So much for not "bearing false witness", where do you morons get this bullshit from? Straight out of your asses?
Alright, I read enough of your dishonesty, go run along and whisper to the wind or cannibalise your celestial zombie Jew... or whatever batshit crazy nonsense you wind whisperers like to do. Dishonesty at its finest.
No 11 - My final comment
This shall be my last comment as neither of us wish to draw this out.
"Mark, your unquoted definition also ignores the other contextual definitions, right? That means you were trying to dishonestly claim your definition is the only accurate one. When it clearly isn't as I presented the actual definition fitting the context. Learn how to use a dictionary, if you going to cite words for it."
Where did I claim that my definition was the only accurate one? I don't remember having said such a thing. Plus, it wasn't MY definition. I quoted from the Oxford Dictionary.
What I did was I typed "theocracy" into Google, it came up with the definition I first gave, as you can see here:
[https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=theocracy&rlz=1C1GGRV_enGB751GB751&oq=theo&aqs=chrome.0.69i59j69i61l2j69i65l2j69i61.2205j0j4&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8].
As you can see, the part you quoted from is not there, because it is not part of the Oxford Dictionary, but only apart of the Wikipedia article you quote from.
What is the first definition according to the Oxford Dictionary?
"[A] system of government in which priests rule in the name of God or a god."
What did I say originally?
"[A] Theocracy is a state ruled by priests".
Can't see how I was being dishonest here, really! I just summarised their definition. And where in that did I say that my definition was the only accurate one? Did I say yours was false? Am I not allowed to summarise?
You claim I ignored other contextual definitions. But the only other definition Oxford gives is:
"[T]he commonwealth of Israel from the time of Moses until the election of Saul as king."
Ironically, you have just denied this definition by claiming that Israel was a Protectorate. So, the Oxford Dictionary is being dishonest, too, it seems.
If I was trying to be dishonest, why would I then quote the ENTIRE definition AND provide a link for it? Why would I expose myself? Why would I admit that I didn't link to it and then provide the entire quote to authenticate what I had provided if I was trying to be dishonest?
I said in Number 1 of my responses:
"(which I admit I forgot to link to but which nevertheless is contained in the article you quote from)"....
You are accusing me of being dishonest? Even though you failed to quote the Oxford definitions that Wikipedia provided?
-------------------------------
"Umm, no, it wasn't even a theocracy, it was Protectorate.That is what we have evidence for. The history in the Bible isn't actual history, my willfully ignorant friend."
Well, if that is the case, then why does the Oxford's definition of Theocracy put Israel under it? (See above). [He doesn't answer this question. For if Israel was not a Theocracy, the Dictionary would not have defined it as such.]
"That is what we have evidence for."
Come now. You can't make a statement like that without providing a link or the name of some books. I have kindly provided links for you (not that you read them, I imagine). So, I expect the same courtesy from you. [He does not reply with any supposed evidence, which I believe he doesn't have in the first place. He seems naive enough to think that I will just accept what he says as truth. If the reader reads back to his first reply to me, he states that one needs evidence to back a claim - yet he provides nothing. Clearly, he doesn't follow his own rules.]
----------------------------
"So much for not "bearing false witness", where do you morons get this bullshit from? Straight out of your asses?"
No, I don't have the ability to pull anything out of my arse. But I did read some stuff in the press! Close enough, right?
I muddled up my original statement as I was trying to remember off the top of my head (or in your case I was probably trying to be dishonest). But here are the actual articles:
Sweden's Liberal Party's youth have called for necrophilia and bestiality:
[http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/incest-and-necrophilia-should-be-legal-youth-swedish-liberal-peoples-party-a6891476.html].
Canada already has legalised bestiality:
[http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/bestiality-legal-canada-supreme-court-a7073196.html].
Denmark had legal bestiality or zoophilia:
[http://www.thedailybeast.com/denmarks-bestiality-problem-its-legal]
Germany's Green Party was discovered to have supported the legalisation of paedophilia:
[http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/investigation-launched-over-german-green-partys-support-for-paedophiles-in-the-1980s-8622029.html]
Still consider it "bullshit"?
[He does not reply. Again, I provide evidence to back up what I am saying, which makes him look foolish.]
----------------------------------------------------------
"Alright, I read enough of your dishonesty, go run along and whisper to the wind or cannibalise your celestial zombie Jew... or whatever batshit crazy nonsense you wind whisperers like to do. Dishonesty at its finest."
Finally! Have fun believing food and healthcare is free. Fantasy at its finest!
[Since he jests at me, I will jest at him. Since he made the statement that Jesus would have advocated free healthcare and food, and could not provide any evidence that such a thing exists in any country, I jest at him for believing a fantasy - that healthcare and food is free!]
This shall be my last comment as neither of us wish to draw this out.
"Mark, your unquoted definition also ignores the other contextual definitions, right? That means you were trying to dishonestly claim your definition is the only accurate one. When it clearly isn't as I presented the actual definition fitting the context. Learn how to use a dictionary, if you going to cite words for it."
Where did I claim that my definition was the only accurate one? I don't remember having said such a thing. Plus, it wasn't MY definition. I quoted from the Oxford Dictionary.
What I did was I typed "theocracy" into Google, it came up with the definition I first gave, as you can see here:
[https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=theocracy&rlz=1C1GGRV_enGB751GB751&oq=theo&aqs=chrome.0.69i59j69i61l2j69i65l2j69i61.2205j0j4&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8].
As you can see, the part you quoted from is not there, because it is not part of the Oxford Dictionary, but only apart of the Wikipedia article you quote from.
What is the first definition according to the Oxford Dictionary?
"[A] system of government in which priests rule in the name of God or a god."
What did I say originally?
"[A] Theocracy is a state ruled by priests".
Can't see how I was being dishonest here, really! I just summarised their definition. And where in that did I say that my definition was the only accurate one? Did I say yours was false? Am I not allowed to summarise?
You claim I ignored other contextual definitions. But the only other definition Oxford gives is:
"[T]he commonwealth of Israel from the time of Moses until the election of Saul as king."
Ironically, you have just denied this definition by claiming that Israel was a Protectorate. So, the Oxford Dictionary is being dishonest, too, it seems.
If I was trying to be dishonest, why would I then quote the ENTIRE definition AND provide a link for it? Why would I expose myself? Why would I admit that I didn't link to it and then provide the entire quote to authenticate what I had provided if I was trying to be dishonest?
I said in Number 1 of my responses:
"(which I admit I forgot to link to but which nevertheless is contained in the article you quote from)"....
You are accusing me of being dishonest? Even though you failed to quote the Oxford definitions that Wikipedia provided?
-------------------------------
"Umm, no, it wasn't even a theocracy, it was Protectorate.That is what we have evidence for. The history in the Bible isn't actual history, my willfully ignorant friend."
Well, if that is the case, then why does the Oxford's definition of Theocracy put Israel under it? (See above). [He doesn't answer this question. For if Israel was not a Theocracy, the Dictionary would not have defined it as such.]
"That is what we have evidence for."
Come now. You can't make a statement like that without providing a link or the name of some books. I have kindly provided links for you (not that you read them, I imagine). So, I expect the same courtesy from you. [He does not reply with any supposed evidence, which I believe he doesn't have in the first place. He seems naive enough to think that I will just accept what he says as truth. If the reader reads back to his first reply to me, he states that one needs evidence to back a claim - yet he provides nothing. Clearly, he doesn't follow his own rules.]
----------------------------
"So much for not "bearing false witness", where do you morons get this bullshit from? Straight out of your asses?"
No, I don't have the ability to pull anything out of my arse. But I did read some stuff in the press! Close enough, right?
I muddled up my original statement as I was trying to remember off the top of my head (or in your case I was probably trying to be dishonest). But here are the actual articles:
Sweden's Liberal Party's youth have called for necrophilia and bestiality:
[http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/incest-and-necrophilia-should-be-legal-youth-swedish-liberal-peoples-party-a6891476.html].
Canada already has legalised bestiality:
[http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/bestiality-legal-canada-supreme-court-a7073196.html].
Denmark had legal bestiality or zoophilia:
[http://www.thedailybeast.com/denmarks-bestiality-problem-its-legal]
Germany's Green Party was discovered to have supported the legalisation of paedophilia:
[http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/investigation-launched-over-german-green-partys-support-for-paedophiles-in-the-1980s-8622029.html]
Still consider it "bullshit"?
[He does not reply. Again, I provide evidence to back up what I am saying, which makes him look foolish.]
----------------------------------------------------------
"Alright, I read enough of your dishonesty, go run along and whisper to the wind or cannibalise your celestial zombie Jew... or whatever batshit crazy nonsense you wind whisperers like to do. Dishonesty at its finest."
Finally! Have fun believing food and healthcare is free. Fantasy at its finest!
[Since he jests at me, I will jest at him. Since he made the statement that Jesus would have advocated free healthcare and food, and could not provide any evidence that such a thing exists in any country, I jest at him for believing a fantasy - that healthcare and food is free!]
And that is the end. He does not reply again. Naturally, I didn't expect him to.
He said to me: Why do you wind whisperers always support your asinine assertions with logical fallacies? Oh, right, because you have nothing at all to defend your indefensible views with, no rational arguments and/or evidence for what you believe in.
Whilst lecturing to me about providing evidence to back up one's views, he does nothing to follow that. He makes claims without any evidence. He mocks and jests at me, only to be shown to be a fool when I provide evidence. He swears and curses, when I did no such thing, showing himself to be a rather arrogant person, which arrogance leads him to say things which turn out to be completely false. I try to be a gentleman, and do what Christ commanded: do to others that which you wish them to do unto you. So, I afforded him such courtesy, yet he negates the same courtesy to me. Clearly, by this attitude, he has no respect for people he disagrees with. His foul language and mockery show him to be bigoted. Perhaps he wishes to be treated like an animal; after all, he probably thinks he came from one!
I could ask who won this debate, but it isn't about winning anything. I think I have shown the Reader that this particular Adversary did not live up to his own standard, but rather enforced it upon me. But by doing so, and by my following his crooked rules, I believe I have shown him to be, well, a liar, amongst other things.
I pray that Our Lady, Refuge of Sinners, may intercede for this person, and grant him the grace to see the truth. May the Lord forgive him for his foulness, which is no doubt a mark of the Devil. And may God bless the Reader with faith, live and eternal beatitude. Amen
He said to me: Why do you wind whisperers always support your asinine assertions with logical fallacies? Oh, right, because you have nothing at all to defend your indefensible views with, no rational arguments and/or evidence for what you believe in.
Whilst lecturing to me about providing evidence to back up one's views, he does nothing to follow that. He makes claims without any evidence. He mocks and jests at me, only to be shown to be a fool when I provide evidence. He swears and curses, when I did no such thing, showing himself to be a rather arrogant person, which arrogance leads him to say things which turn out to be completely false. I try to be a gentleman, and do what Christ commanded: do to others that which you wish them to do unto you. So, I afforded him such courtesy, yet he negates the same courtesy to me. Clearly, by this attitude, he has no respect for people he disagrees with. His foul language and mockery show him to be bigoted. Perhaps he wishes to be treated like an animal; after all, he probably thinks he came from one!
I could ask who won this debate, but it isn't about winning anything. I think I have shown the Reader that this particular Adversary did not live up to his own standard, but rather enforced it upon me. But by doing so, and by my following his crooked rules, I believe I have shown him to be, well, a liar, amongst other things.
I pray that Our Lady, Refuge of Sinners, may intercede for this person, and grant him the grace to see the truth. May the Lord forgive him for his foulness, which is no doubt a mark of the Devil. And may God bless the Reader with faith, live and eternal beatitude. Amen