tintingz:
“Verily I say unto you, this generation shall not pass away, till all these things be accomplished” (Mt. 24:34).

Even Jesus himself was a failed prophecy, the Jews were expecting a Messiah that will fulfill the prophecies.

loool you are very funny. A comedian. This generation is a compound word. No one knows the particular generation and this particular generation shall be the final generation which will usher his coming. So do you know when he is coming of course not, do you know the generation in question of course not. Let me tell you my friend do you know that we haven't started seeing all that will happen in the last days. We are still enjoying we haven't seen anything yet. For saying Jesus is a failed prophecy is between you and God. Take care. No more response to you.

Gggg102:

is your definition of a what constitutes a prick objective?

I don't give a damn whether it's objective or not, and I've hardly defined it!

You just trust that if I start being a prick towards you, there is absolutely no way your subjective self would be unaware of it and mistake it for me being nice to you!

Gggg102:


first tell me with what authority am I to judge.

some fixed standpoint, or my personal opinion.

Laws are not fixed except you're still using some archaic laws to judge.

You can judge with whatever you want to, I'm not the one to tell you what to use, as long as your judgement is not supporting something harmful or dangerous then I've no problem with you.

jesmond3945:
loool you are very funny. A comedian. This generation is a compound word. No one knows the particular generation and this particular generation shall be the final generation which will usher his coming. So do you know when he is coming of course not, do you know the generation in question of course not. Let me tell you my friend do you know that we haven't started seeing all that will happen in the last days. We are still enjoying we haven't seen anything yet. For saying Jesus is a failed prophecy is between you and God. Take care. No more response to you.

That verse is a present tense, Jesus was talking about his generation not next generations.

jesmond3945:
IF thats all you can say then I win the argument. Have fun.

Hurray, you won.. congratulations. Go collect your accolade from Buhari.

budaatum:

I don't give a damn whether it's objective or not, and I've hardly defined it!

You just trust that if I start being a prick towards you, there is absolutely no way your subjective self would be unaware of it and mistake it for me being nice to you!

what if my subjective self is completely okay or indifferent with you being a 'prick' towards me?

what if my subjective self feels it is perfectly fine for you to be a 'prick?' towards me because being a 'prick' would make you feel good and I would have been a 'prick' towards you if I had the chance and I would consider it good?

what if what you consider prickish is what I consider as perfectly fine?

'do me I do you.'

tintingz:
Laws are not fixed except you're still using some archaic laws to judge.

You can judge with whatever you want to, I'm not the one to tell you what to use, as long as your judgement is not supporting something harmful or dangerous then I've no problem with you.

if I'm not judging from a fixed standpoint, then I have to judge subjectively.

if I judge subjectively, I judge based on my own personal opinion and bias.

everyone, including the person I judge, has his own personal opinion and bias.

why should such a person leave his own bias to follow my bias?

Gggg102:

A thinks his morality is better than B and B thinks his morality is better than A. there is no way one can be objectively better than the other since everyone is entitled to their own opinion on what is good.

You are the one claiming C's morality is better than A's morality. You even said As can't have morality, at one time; that A's morality is not underpinned by anything, that A's morality is subjective and can be changed at A's will and so on! So stop being immoral about it now. And everyone is not in anyway entitled to their opinion on what is good, in some particular circumstances!

If you steal from me, murder me or insult me, I'd very much have something to say about your immorality, and the law would if I'm dead! If you however decide to fornicate, abort or be gay (provided you are not in Nigeria), no one would give a damn here on earth except those who think those acts are immoral, but to be honest, not a lot of us care what 'unable to mind their own business people' like that think. They are not some god. And if gods don't like you doing those things, those people should mind their own business anyway since they won't be there when you are being judged by the gods!

Gggg102:



what if my subjective self is completely okay or indifferent with you being a 'prick' towards me?

what if my subjective self feels it is perfectly fine for you to be a 'prick?' towards me because being a 'prick' would make you feel good and I would have been a 'prick' towards you if I had the chance and I would consider it good?

what if what you consider prickish is what I consider as perfectly fine?

'do me I do you.'

Your subjective view is irrelevant, and your being perfectly fine with me being a prick to you doesn't mean I haven't been a prick to you.

But you know this, or you would not be suggesting to "do me as I do you", which is an admission of my being a prick to you not being "perfectly fine" to you!

Besides, to "prick me as I prick you", you got to know what a prick is!

Gggg102:


what if my subjective self is completely okay or indifferent with you being a 'prick' towards me?

what if my subjective self feels it is perfectly fine for you to be a 'prick?' towards me because being a 'prick' would make you feel good and I would have been a 'prick' towards you if I had the chance and I would consider it good?

what if what you consider prickish is what I consider as perfectly fine?

'do me I do you.'

Your subjective view is irrelevant, and your being perfectly fine with me being a prick to you doesn't mean I haven't been a prick to you.

But you know this, or you would not be suggesting to "do me as I do you", which is an admission of my being a prick to you not being "perfectly fine" to you!

Besides, to "prick me as I prick you", you got to know what a prick is!

Gggg102:


they don't do so publicly because the general subjective consensus is against them. the general consensus is nothing more than the opinion of the majority.
one's opinion is as equally valid as the other.

your empathy is your own personal opinion.
not everyone base their morality on empathy. there are those whose morality is based on what makes them feel good. their moral code does not care about others.
your personal opinion cannot rule over their's.

you base your morality on what is good or harmful to the society, others may not. to you, the other person would be immoral and, to the other person, you would be immoral.

that the people condemn it does not make it wrong. people condemn based on their personal opinion. if the people condemn mixed marriage today, it would suddenly become unacceptable.

what if they protest and majority actually agree with them?

you yourself agree that the law is not proof of morality.

A thinks his morality is better than B and B thinks his morality is better than A. there is no way one can be objectively better than the other since everyone is entitled to their own opinion on what is good.

Wether morality is objective or subjective as long as your actions are not dangerous to anyone, you're good.

Morality is still something complex.

budaatum:

You are the one claiming C's morality is better than A's morality. You even said As can't have morality, at one time; that A's morality is not underpinned by anything, that A's morality is subjective and can be changed at A's will and so on! So stop being immoral about it now. And everyone is not in anyway entitled to their opinion on what is good, in some particular circumstances!

If you steal from me, murder me or insult me, I'd very much have something to say about your immorality, and the law would if I'm dead! If you however decide to fornicate, abort or be gay (provided you are not in Nigeria), no one would give a damn here on earth except those who think those acts are immoral, but to be honest, not a lot of us care what 'unable to mind their own business people' like that think. They are not some god. And if gods don't like you doing those things, those people should mind their own business anyway since they won't be there when you are being judged by the gods!

I'm almost sure now that you are deliberately misinterpreting me.

I never claimed that one's morality is better than the other. my stance is the exact opposite.
no one's morality can be better than the other since morality is subjective and is subject to individual bias.
subjective morality is not universal. morality is not the same thing to different people. no one's morality is superior.


I never said anyone can't have morality.
I said one's morality is not underpinned to anything objective. whatever you base your morality on is subject to your individual bias. no one else has to follow your own moral code. they can follow their own bias.


let's take homosexuality as used in your example. you said provided the homosexuals are not in Nigeria, no one would give damn. this is because outside Nigeria, homosexuality is moral. in Nigeria, if you are homosexual, you are immoral.

homosexuality is not objectively moral or immoral. the people that determined it's morality did so according to their individual bias. their position on homosexuality is not universal nor is it set in stone. there is no real truth. in Nigeria, homosexuality being immoral is the truth. abroad, homosexuality being moral is the truth.
no one's truth is superior to the other as they are both based on individual bias.
individual bias is not proof of truth.

tintingz:


Wether morality is objective or subjective as long as your actions are not dangerous to anyone, you're good.

Morality is still something complex.

that's your personal opinion. it is not a universal truth.

another man might feel actions that are dangerous to other people can be good especially if they benefit him.
that's the man's personal opinion. it is not a universal truth.

your personal opinions differ, but neither is right or wrong. they are just subjective opinions. they are not truths.

budaatum:

Your subjective view is irrelevant, and your being perfectly fine with me being a prick to you doesn't mean I haven't been a prick to you.

But you know this, or you would not be suggesting to "do me as I do you", which is an admission of my being a prick to you not being "perfectly fine" to you!

Besides, to "prick me as I prick you", you got to know what a prick is!

your subjective view is also irrelevant.

in your subjective view, you've been a prick. in my subjective view, your action is fine.
neither view is a real truth.

and that's why I asked for the objectivity of what you consider prickish behaviour. truth is morality is subjective and as such, what you consider prickish might not be considered prickish by me.

subjective morality means there is no clear cut definition of what being a prick is.
everyone defines prickishness according to his bias.
no one's definition is truth as it is subject to bias.

Gggg102:


your subjective view is also irrelevant.

in your subjective view, you've been a prick. in my subjective view, your action is fine.
neither view is a real truth.

and that's why I asked for the objectivity of what you consider prickish behaviour. truth is morality is subjective and as such, what you consider prickish might not be considered prickish by me.

subjective morality means there is no clear cut definition of what being a prick is.
everyone defines prickishness according to his bias.
no one's definition is truth as it is subject to bias.

When I poke my finger in your eye, you'd know what 'being a prick' is!

Gggg102:



if I'm not judging from a fixed standpoint, then I have to judge subjectively.

if I judge subjectively, I judge based on my own personal opinion and bias.

everyone, including the person I judge, has his own personal opinion and bias.

why should such a person leave his own bias to follow my bias?

You're bound to the law of the land, any negetive actions or decision you express publicly is judged by the law and can be criticized and if you feel the law is being unjust to you, you can protest.

budaatum:
When I poke my finger in your eye, you'd know what 'being a prick' is!

what if I don't consider poking you in the eye as being prickish?

Gggg102:



what if I don't consider poking you in the eye as being prickish?

When I kick your ass, you'd reconsider.

tintingz:
This is fallacy, a false dichotomy and appeal to ignorance.

If Superman talk about Braniac, there's no need to prove Braniac? Or if A talk about B therefore B exist and does not need to be proven or if Sango talk about Obatala, there's no need proven Obatala?

The existence of Jesus is still a debate among scholars, but Jesus of the bible is definitely not the real Jesus.

My premise is show me archeological evidence Moses existed in Egypt.

JESUS EXISTS!..... true!
JESUS CAN'T LIE!.....true!
JESUS ACKNOWLEDGES MOSES EXISTENCE

what more do you need?
Not just Jesus even a whole nation know he exist!


The problem is that you people read the bible like a fantasy story book
and not things that happened in real life.

Gggg102:



that's your personal opinion. it is not a universal truth.

another man might feel actions that are dangerous to other people can be good especially if they benefit him.
that's the man's personal opinion. it is not a universal truth.

your personal opinions differ, but neither is right or wrong. they are just subjective opinions. they are not truths.

If that same person that think his dangerous actions is good faced same dangerous action from another person, how would he feel?

Your opinion is your opinion, be expecting criticism once you express it publicly.

tintingz:
You're bound to the law of the land, any negetive actions or decision you express publicly is judged by the law and can be criticized and if you feel the law is being unjust to you, you can protest.

we've gone through this.

the law does not prove morality. the law is a subjective consensus of a group.

in Nigeria for instance homosexuality is considered immoral legally while it is considered moral in USA.

you in Nigeria, does the law prove homosexuality is immoral?
does the American law prove homosexuality is moral?

man made the law based on his individual bias.
the law is also biased. the law is not the truth. it is subjective.

truth is free from bias, the law is not free from bias.

why should one leave his own bias to follow another person's bias?

budaatum:
When I kick your ass, you'd reconsider.

what if I don't consider kicking your ass as prickish?

Gggg102:


your subjective view is also irrelevant.

in your subjective view, you've been a prick. in my subjective view, your action is fine.
neither view is a real truth.

and that's why I asked for the objectivity of what you consider prickish behaviour. truth is morality is subjective and as such, what you consider prickish might not be considered prickish by me.

subjective morality means there is no clear cut definition of what being a prick is.
everyone defines prickishness according to his bias.
no one's definition is truth as it is subject to bias.

Have you not noticed how I'm not delving into what you call objective and subjective? Those words mean quite a lot more than what you seem to be implying they mean. But if you wish to define how you use them, or see mine, kindly post here. We have rather immorally derailed this thread.

Gggg102:


what if I don't consider kicking your ass as prickish?

You don't have to consider kicking my ass as prickish since I'd be the one kicking your ass!

Your consideration should be whether I kick your ass hard enough for you to subjectively notice.

tintingz:
If that same person that think his dangerous actions is good faced same dangerous action from another person, how would he feel?

Your opinion is your opinion, be expecting criticism once you express it publicly.

not everyone base their morality on empathy. that's the thing about subjective morality. there is no fixed base.

there are people whose morality revolves around how they feel if they perform an act. they don't think of how they feel if others do it to them. as long as an action benefits them, then it is moral. that is their own biased opinion.
there are others who could be indifferent to such actions so to them it's do me I do you.

my opinion is mine, and yours is yours. none is truer than the other.
same with subjective morality.
my morality is mine and yours is yours. none is truth and neither is false.

TOSIN116:

JESUS EXISTS!..... true!
JESUS CAN'T LIE!.....true!

How did you know this?

JESUS ACKNOWLEDGES MOSES EXISTENCE

Like I said this is fallacy, you're appealing to ignorance.

Because Leprechaun acknowledge Santa Claus mean Santa exist, won't you demand for evidence?

what more do you need?
Not just Jesus even a whole nation know he exist!

This is another Fallacy, argument ad populum.

So by your logic, because everyone believe Superman exist mean he actually exist without no archeological evidence?

FYI, the historians don't have any evidence to support Moses existence, Moses story is not historical, it's more like a legend, myths.

The problem is that you people read the bible like a fantasy story book
and not things that happened in real life.

Ofcos the Bible contain ancient fantasies, magic, legends, superstitions, myths.

budaatum:

You don't have to consider kicking my ass as prickish since I'd be the one kicking your ass!

Your consideration should be whether I kick your ass hard enough for you to subjectively notice.

I could be indifferent to you doing it to me so I wouldn't care. after all, do me I do you, man no go vex.
even if I feel bad if it is done to me, I might not consider it as immoral if I feel good doing it to others.

jesmond3945:
so when humans die then more humans are born then if they refuse to die then humans won't be born. So the planet has the way of balancing the population of human beings in the world. So if someone committed suicide he did so that the planet can allow some other being to be born to balance things. So the world is in chaos because of population. So the planet solves the problem by allowing people to die. You amaze me by your thinking. I won't argue with you again. So if science doesn't solve the immortality problem then because of that you won't believe in its existence. How do you even think science came to be if not from the unseen. Please don't quote me again.

are you vexing?
I'm only trying to state the obvious, even at this rate of popular growth, we will overwhelm the earth's resource reservoir someday

Gggg102:

in Nigeria for instance homosexuality is considered immoral legally while it is considered moral in USA.

you in Nigeria, does the law prove homosexuality is immoral?
does the American law prove homosexuality is moral?

why should one leave his own bias to follow another person's bias?

You are amusingly persistent, I give you that.

The above is a clear example of different countries making laws for themselves. America says "homosexuality is not immoral" (note my careful choice of words here, they are not saying ("homosexuality is moral" ), while Nigeria says "homosexuality is immoral". America decides they shall not persecute people for being homosexuals, while Nigeria says they shall throw homosexuals in jail. You then ask if either country has proven that homosexuality is immoral or moral? And I ask, 'to whom?'

Imagine buda is a homosexual. While she might rather live in America where she is not illegal, she lives in Nigeria. Do tell, does buda homosexual become immoral in buda's eyes just because a law was past against homosexuality? Does buda change her ways because of the law, or does buda not just say "they should come put policeman in my bedroom and arrest me when I homo the stupid idiots, who leave more serious crime unsolved but concern themselves with what I do in the privacy of my bedroom!"

So, I ask again. To whom does the morality or immorality of homosexuality have to be proven?

tintingz:
How did you know this?


Like I said this is fallacy, you're appealing to ignorance.

Because Leprechaun acknowledge Santa Claus mean Santa exist, won't you demand for evidence?

This is another Fallacy, argument ad populum.

If you believe Jesus can't lie that you must also believe the existence of Moses
if you question the existence of Moses then you also question of the person of Jesus

So by your logic, because everyone believe Superman exist mean he actually exist without no archeological evidence?

Who believes superman exists?

FYI, the historians don't have any evidence to support Moses existence, Moses story is not historical, it's more like a legend, myths.

if i told you my grandfather fought in the civil war
will you be asking me for archeological evidence that if i can't find it it means he never existed abi?

Ofcos the Bible contain ancient fantasies, magic, legends, superstitions, myths.

hmm

Gggg102:


I could be indifferent to you doing it to me so I wouldn't care. after all, do me I do you, man no go vex.
even if I feel bad if it is done to me, I might not consider it as immoral if I feel good doing it to others.

Those others not being I, who kicked your ass, right, who knows full well what I did and the motive and intention behind it - the sense I intended to have kicked into you when I kicked you ass?

Yep, it's okay that you are indifferent to me kicking your ass. In fact, since my kicking your ass had no effect in making you any more sensible, it is in fact best that I let you wonder off to inflict yourself on someone else. I'd pray that you meet a person with a bigger boot than I have. Hopefully, they might kick the sense I failed to kick into your ass, into you.

TOSIN116:
If you believe Jesus can't lie that you must also believe the existence of Moses
if you question the existence of Moses then you also question of the person of Jesus
Who believes superman exists?

I still don't understand you, how does saying of Jesus prove existence of Moses?

Kindly stop this your fallacy.

Millions of people believe in Superman.

if i told you my grandfather fought in the civil war
will you be asking me for archeological evidence that if i can't find it it means he never existed abi?

Ofcos i know your grandfather existed, your genetic linage is the prove, you have to prove your grandfather fought in a civil war.