Godbless everyone

[TheStrangest]

@sir-devil said in Godbless everyone:

@thestrangest left out a few things...

Maybe but there probably was.

Well, as far as I know, there's none but if you know of any, feel free to educate me.

I doubt people who lived at the south and north pole had slaves

fell in it

Using euphemism doesn't really change the meaning.
fell in it == took __ stance

The point is that i didn't decide to. And those are not synonymes. Fell in means i wasn't i control and took stance means that i consciously decided to.

Some of them were well orginised, educated and not savage by the modern deffinition.

Well, one can be well organized and educated and still, behave savagely. One good example in BCE would be The Roman Empire. They had one of the most savage armies in that time and the things that they did can easily be said to be savage.

Sure dude. I said 'some' as in soldures who mracticed martial arts and were very strategic and technical

In other words, No matter what, War turn one into a savage.

Not necissarely. I doubt ninjas in war time were savages for example

Still giving you the benefit of the doubt, tell me more about these soldiers who fought in the wars, yet remain unsavage.

Ninjas are a good example

Kinda off subject but k

It is not off topic. I used it to illustrate my point. So, let me ask you a question. Imagine, you are a king. An opposing country attacks one of your major portside city and takes over. How would you reclaim your city without resorting to violence?

God is omnipotent dude. We are talking about the hypothetical senerio here where this happens alongside the existence of a god.

Instead of god doing this:

“This is what the Lord Almighty says... ‘Now go and strike Amalek and devote to destruction all that they have. Do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.’” (1 Samuel 15:3)

He could have stopped the war and fighting with his omnipotence

In case if you still think that it's still off topic

I do

In my opinion in that time there would have no peaceful way to solve many issues without resorting to violence.

I doubt it, there were truces but i have to repeat that with god being omnipotent doesn't change that ordering people to kill each other to resolve a problem instead of using his omnipotence is evil and supporting violence

[Sir Devil]

@thestrangest

Sure dude. I said 'some' as in soldures who mracticed martial arts and were very strategic and technical

I thought I asked you for an example and you said "Ninjas". Fockin Ninjas. Let me get to that in a bit. The people you mentioned would be something like the Chinese monks. Not soldiers but monks. Then again, even they were savage. A Chinese historical document mentions them defending their countries' borders against enemies. It tells a story about a small group of monks defending an army against overwhelming odds using their superior combat skills and better weapons. Were they savage? Yes, of course, they were. Or do you have any better and precise examples?

Not necessarily. I doubt ninjas in wartime were savages for example
Ninjas are a good example

Let me get this straight. I asked an example of a soldier. You said, Ninja. Okay.
First things first, Ninjas were not soldiers. Ninja is a vague term used to describe peasants who took to arms after getting fed up with their shogun. Hence, they were more like an assassin. They were unorganized and they practiced guerilla warfare assassinating key officials on the cover of the night using household things. Later, the way the fought were recorded and were called as "Ninjutsu". Of course, that in itself is extremely vague too. Swift assassination requires one to be savage. Hence, of course, they were savage too.

I doubt people who lived at the south and north pole had slaves

Okay. I asked an example of a country. You gave a vague answer about the people of the north and south pole. Okay, let me set that straight. Antartica does not and has never had an indigenous population. Inuits of the high arctic, that is near the north pole were a nomadic tribe. Not a country but a nomadic tribe. They were virtually impossible to own a slave. That is because they do not have an economy because their society was "egalitarian". There were no rich or poor. The food they gather was distributed evenly among their tribe.
Some of the tribe migrated south to the arctic circle and settled down. They formed villages with a chieftain as their leader. The neighboring chieftain fought numerous wars with themselves and usually, I hope no one notices this, lol I wrote this on dec tweleth where's there is war, there's slavery and it is true in here too. They sold the captured villages' women and children as slaves. Few such tribe would be where the Vikings came from and we all know how they were.

God is an omnipotent dude.

We have already discussed it. We have already established that there is no solid evidence opposing and supporting the existence of god. The thing in the bible is that it never discussed the origin of god and even if it was mentioned, no one would have believed it, just like that. What if he is bound by rules like he can't directly interfere? What is he is just one of the god monitoring the vast multiverse? What if he can't directly control minds? What if he is not truly omnipotent? The point is we don't know. There's no evidence for that either way.
I thought that we have already established it and moved on to whether the people in time period Old testament takes place were "Uneducated desert savages"

genital mutilation

I don't know, why you are mentioning genital mutilation. As far as I searched there is no mention of it in the bible. Citation needed.

Last time I checked average people from back then were still at least performing weird rituals like killing babies and burying them under buildings to prevent earthquakes and shit like that

As far as I know, I do not find anything related to that in the bible. Citation needed.
Or are you mentioning something that some tribes did, that has nothing to do with what we were discussing.

some people back then already knew the earth was round

Yes, and the bible also does not comment on the shape of the shape of the earth. It sometimes says things like four corners of the earth but it's meant to be taken metaphorically. It does not mention anything directly related to the shape of the earth. During the early Church period, the spherical view was widely held, with just a few exceptions.

Refer this wiki page, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myth_of_the_flat_Earth

Because ignorance and technological unadvancements

That's exactly what I am saying. Peace was virtually impossible to attain due to their lack of knowledge and technological advancement. Today due to the advancement we attained over a period of several millenniums, we are able to attain said peace. Of course, there was truce back then but it was not possible to maintain it back then and hence, they were rarely held, especially with bigger nations. The reason why truces weren't effective, as I mentioned earlier would be the lack of any governing forces (like the UN) watching over those countries and maintain the peace.

12 as the age where you learn about exactly how life is born

Again, You were certain about an age. That means that you have proper evidence to back you up. Where is it? I would not have asked for it unless you were sure about it and asserts that it is indeed the truth.

And I wouldn't bet on every single prepubescent to know about their meaning of life. As far as the ones I was seen, they don't have a frickin clue or they don't care whatsoever.

No they don't. That's what defining something means

Yes, they do. Standard change with time. If you are too hung up on it, here's the definition of educational standard, "Learning //(also can be called educational)// standards are elements of declarative, procedural, schematic, and strategic knowledge that, as a body, define the specific content of an educational program."

and here's the definition of educational program, "An educational program is a program written by the institution or ministry of education which determines the learning progress of each subject in all the stages of formal education."

Notice that it says here "written by institution". With this two defenition, we can establish that the educational standard is something that depends on the current government. Hence, since with time both the government and the institution beneath it changes, the standards also change with time.

If you say that, that wasn't the defenition you had in mind of that my conclusion of the defenition was completely wrong, I do ask you provide us with an accurate defenotion of "Educational Standard"

[TheStrangest]

@sir-devil said in Godbless everyone:

@thestrangest

Sure dude. I said 'some' as in soldures who practiced martial arts and were very strategic and technical

I thought I asked you for an example and you said "Ninjas". Fockin Ninjas.

Yeh. Ninjas

Let me get to that in a bit. The people you mentioned would be something like the Chinese monks.

Close

Not soldiers but monks.

In old times monks used to protect temples like soldures or should i say AS soldures

Then again, even they were savage.

Don't think so

A Chinese historical document mentions them defending their countries' borders against enemies. It tells a story about a small group of monks defending an army against overwhelming odds using their superior combat skills and better weapons. Were they savage? Yes, of course, they were. Or do you have any better and precise examples?

No i don't but im still not convinced that all soldures are savage but i don't understand how this has to do with anything we were talking about

Not necessarily. I doubt ninjas in wartime were savages for example
Ninjas are a good example

See

Let me get this straight. I asked an example of a soldier.

Ninjas fought i war and traked down ennemies to protecc the emporor.

You said, Ninja. Okay.
First things first, Ninjas were not soldiers.

We can say they were. They worked under a leader and fought in war

Ninja is a vague term used to describe peasants who took to arms after getting fed up with their shogun.

True but they were also good enough to paid to protecc the emporor

Hence, they were more like an assassin.

Dude. True but you get my point

They were unorganized and they practiced guerilla warfare assassinating key officials on the cover of the night using household things.

True but wouldn't soldures do the same things to their ennemies in war time? Ninjas are soldures too man

Later, the way the fought were recorded and were called as "Ninjutsu".

I know

Of course, that in itself is extremely vague too. Swift assassination requires one to be savage. Hence, of course, they were savage too.

Nah. They were not, if your definition of savage is to be vague we are not using the same defenition. Ninjas were nothing but savage

I doubt people who lived at the south and north pole had slaves

Okay. I asked an example of a country.

NO. You said nation.

You gave a vague answer about the people of the north and south pole. Okay, let me set that straight. Antartica does not and has never had an indigenous population.

Sure but groups of people that can vaguemy be called nations live there from time to time.

Inuits of the high arctic, that is near the north pole were a nomadic tribe. Not a country but a nomadic tribe. They were virtually impossible to own a slave. That is because they do not have an economy because their society was "egalitarian". There were no rich or poor.

There you go. An exemple of a people that never used to own slaves.

The food they gather was distributed evenly among their tribe.
Some of the tribe migrated south to the arctic circle and settled down. They formed villages with a chieftain as their leader. The neighboring chieftain fought numerous wars with themselves and usually, where's there is war, there's slavery and it is true in here too.

Sure dude. I am bored of this convo. You might be right but as far as i know it's hard as fuck to disprove a negative like this one. How the fuck am i supposef to find a name of a nation that never owned slaves all i know is that there were too many for them all to have owned slaves at a point in their histories

They sold the captured villages' women and children as slaves. Few such tribe would be where the Vikings came from and we all know how they were.

God is an omnipotent dude.

We have already discussed it. We have already established that there is no solid evidence opposing and supporting the existence of god.

True. I never denied such things

The thing in the bible is that it never discussed the origin of god and even if it was mentioned, no one would have believed it, just like that. What if he is bound by rules like he can't directly interfere? What is he is just one of the god monitoring the vast multiverse?

No. In christian mythology god, yahweh is repeatidly described as all-wise, omnipotent...

What if he can't directly control minds?

In the bible he does with profets

What if he is not truly omnipotent?

Then why call him god?

The point is we don't know. There's no evidence for that either way.
I thought that we have already established it and moved on to whether the people in time period Old testament takes place were "Uneducated desert savages"

Yes they were

genital mutilation

I don't know, why you are mentioning genital mutilation. As far as I searched there is no mention of it in the bible. Citation needed.

JIGGA. CIRCOMSISION IS GENITAL MUTILATION

Last time I checked average people from back then were still at least performing weird rituals like killing babies and burying them under buildings to prevent earthquakes and shit like that

As far as I know, I do not find anything related to that in the bible.

I wasn't talking about the bible here

Or are you mentioning something that some tribes did, that has nothing to do with what we were discussing.

I am talking about the approximate period of time where the old testament takes place

some people back then already knew the earth was round

Yes, and the bible also does not comment on the shape of the shape of the earth.

It says the earth is flat

It sometimes says things like four corners of the earth but it's meant to be taken metaphorically.

No, who are you to decide that? As far as the bible explains, you are not in a place to say what can be metaphorical or not

It does not mention anything directly related to the shape of the earth. During the early Church period, the spherical view was widely held, with just a few exceptions.

Refer this wiki page, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myth_of_the_flat_Earth

I'm tited of this conversation. Ok man let's say the bible does not comment on the shape of the earth, we know that people and the apostels back then did not know where the sun went at night.

Because ignorance and technological unadvancements

That's exactly what I am saying. Peace was virtually impossible to attain due to their lack of knowledge and technological advancement. Today due to the advancement we attained over a period of several millenniums, we are able to attain said peace. Of course, there was truce back then but it was not possible to maintain it back then and hence, they were rarely held, especially with bigger nations.

You just admitted there were truces. I rest my case. The lenght of the truces do not matter for the argument

The reason why truces weren't effective, as I mentioned earlier would be the lack of any governing forces (like the UN) watching over those countries and maintain the peace.

12 as the age where you learn about exactly how life is born

Again, You were certain about an age. That means that you have proper evidence to back you up. Where is it?

First sex ed classes are normally at 12 y.o.

I would not have asked for it unless you were sure about it and asserts that it is indeed the truth.

K

And I wouldn't bet on every single prepubescent to know about their meaning of life. As far as the ones I was seen, they don't have a frickin clue or they don't care whatsoever.

Dude. Please im tired ok

No they don't. That's what defining something means

Yes, they do. Standard change with time. If you are too hung up on it, here's the definition of educational standard, "Learning //(also can be called educational)// standards are elements of declarative, procedural, schematic, and strategic knowledge that, as a body, define the specific content of an educational program."

and here's the definition of educational program, "An educational program is a program written by the institution or ministry of education which determines the learning progress of each subject in all the stages of formal education."

Notice that it says here "written by institution". With this two defenition, we can establish that the educational standard is something that depends on the current government. Hence, since with time both the government and the institution beneath it changes, the standards also change with time.

If you say that, that wasn't the defenition you had in mind of that my conclusion of the defenition was completely wrong, I do ask you provide us with an accurate defenotion of "Educational Standard"

Dude i am too tired of this convo. I don't have time to finnish reading what you said and i am not gonna, i am doing an internship this week and i'll be busy

[Sir Devil]

@thestrangest

First things, first. Congratulation on the Internship. Next, if you are indeed tired, you don't have to reply to this text. You could reply when you are capable of. Thirdly, You can't just argue against my arguments and also, say that I am not going to read any of it. It makes you look bad...

In old times monks used to protect temples like soldures or should i say AS soldures

Let me give you the definition of soldiers, "a person who serves in an army." Did they serve in an army? No, then they are not soldiers.

We can say they were. They worked under a leader and fought in war
No, we can't. Echo the definition.

Okay, for starters, before the Sengoku era (~15th century), Ninjas, as we call it now, were a group of peasants who took to the arms, usually after being fed up with their Shogun. Hence, they were nothing but an angry peasant who did not make much of the impact. This is evident due to lack of documents of them since they were consisted of low-class people and did not have much impact in the feudal Japan. Hence, the High-class Aristocrats and Historians did not even bother enough to write about them.
It is only during the Sengoku period that people started to record their fighting style. We vaguely and collectively call it "Ninjutsu". It is also during this period that Mercenaries who were taught in this started to emerge. Since the way they fought was covert but at the same time dishonorable, many Shogunates hired them to do their dirty work.
Since they were hired and not served, they could not be considered as a Soldier. They also did not give two shits about the emperor. Actually, when I think about it, nobody gave two shits about the emperor. He was just a figurehead for the most part of the history. Also, they were dishonorable. Hence, no shogun would have the guts to openly admit that they hired Ninjas.
Now coming back to the point, they didn't care about their emperor. They just killed for the money and since they did not have a code of honor, most just killed anybody, including women and Children. There are documents depicting the ninja's killing numerous innocents, just because they were paid for. Now if this is not savage. I don't what is.

You said nation.
Sure but groups of people that can vaguemy be called nations live there from time to time.

Okay, I used the term "Nation" at the start of the Chain. So, let's go with it. The defenition of Nation is, "Nations are culturally homogeneous groups of people, larger than a single tribe or community, which share a common language, institution, religion and historical experience." Notice that they says, "larger than a single tribe"

live there from time to time

I literally said that they were nomadic. Hence they didn't "live there from time to time"

know it's hard as fuck to disprove a negative like this one.

then why the fuck did you argue against it by saying "but then again, there probably were"? You brought this question upon yourself.

No. In christian mythology god, yahweh is repeatidly described as all-wise, omnipotent...

I was just throwing a bunch of What if questions.
This is exactly why I said that you are not able to read between the lines and understand the context. I had to even change up the order of the statements so that the reply would go like a flowchart and thus, making it easy for you. This also shows that you did not argue as a whole but against each breakdown of a statement, which is a bad way to argue.

The point is we don't know. There's no evidence for that either way.

I see that you have conveniently ignored this statement. I wrote this statement for an important reason. It just basically states the purpose of me writing those what if question. By ignoring this statement, you were able to argue against those individuals what if questions.

JIGGA. CIRCOMSISION IS GENITAL MUTILATION

Oh, okay. I was initially thinking something entirely different.
Now getting back to this, The Bible never said that Circumcision was an absolute necessity. What it did says it that God told Abraham to circumcise himself, his household and all his animals. But the tricky part, here is that it is said to come from Moses himself and there are records showing that his son was not circumcised. And every single Christian was freed from these laws in the Book of Acts and that is why, Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant churches never adopted circumcision.

Here's a site that compiles all of those, http://www.cirp.org/pages/cultural/glass2/.
Although it is bit religious, you would get the point in the first few paragraph.

I'm tited of this conversation. Ok man let's say the bible does not comment on the shape of the earth

sigh If you are going to say this, why oppose it twice before. It just seems unnecessary. Why are so predisposed to argue against each breakdown of my argument? And no, I didn't decide that they were meant to be taken metaphorically. Historians Did.

Btw, did you even go to that wiki page? It's a common wiki page available to edit by anyone. It says right there that medieval flat earth theory was nothing but a modern-day misconception with quite a few citations. If you did and still said that it said that Earth is flat, facepalm Sad...sad indeed.

we know that people and the apostels back then did not know where the sun went at night.

I don't know what you are talking about. Citation needed.

u just admitted there were truces. I rest my case. The lenght of the truces do not matter for the argument

I admit that there was a truce and the length of the truce do matter for the argument. If it does not last for a significant amount of time, it has no purpose. What is usually the ideal situation for a truce? Most of the time, truces were after significant losses on both sides in a war. That means that it was already a violent situation.

Of course, I would wholeheartedly support that truces were indeed extremely useful in BCE, if you a give a small list of times where truces held in BCE were indeed effective.

Nice try, ignoring the last sentence. (The reason why truces weren't effective, as I mentioned earlier would be the lack of any governing forces (like the UN) watching over those countries and maintain the peace.)

First sex ed classes are normally at 12 y.o.

No, no, no, no. You can't do that. I specifically said, "again". That means that I was repeating the previous request, where I asked you to provide some evidence, that 7-12 year children all around the world, knew about "The Meaning of Life". I repeat "The Meaning of Life" not how to create life. There's a difference.

You previously said that we have all figured about the meaning of life. But I see that there are philosophers discussing it in the modern era. I think, you were thinking about "What is Life?" and not about "The Meaning of Life". There's a subtle difference between them.

Dude. Please im tired ok

Why? Just Why? If you are indeed tired, why are you replying now? You could have taken rest and had more time to collect your thoughts. Why argue now and say that you are tired? It's not like I'm forcing you to reply within a time limit. You usually take about ~2 days to reply anyway.

[TheStrangest]

@sir-devil dude look. This convo has strained away from anything i was originally talking about. I want to end it. I wanna leave it alone. Wanna have the last word?

[Sir Devil]

@thestrangest I just wanted to ask you why to argue with my reply and also say a message like that. It could have been something just like this.

So...If you want to end it, let's end it. It's been fun.

[TheStrangest]

@sir-devil said in Godbless everyone:

@thestrangest I just wanted to ask you why to argue with my reply and also say a message like that. It could have been something just like this.

So...If you want to end it, let's end it. It's been fun.

I wanted to argue with your reply but got too tired half way through. Making a counter argument for one of your replies takes me a minimum of 20 min. I didn't even read your last text as a whole. Just the part where you congratulate me and tell me that i don't have tp reply to you

[GirlNextDoor]

@sir-devil amazing reply sir devil. Hats off to your research and knowledge

[TheStrangest]

@girlnextdoor said in Godbless everyone:

@sir-devil amazing reply sir devil. Hats off to your research and knowledge

I have to agree. Usually it's easy AF to counter peoples arguments but he's smart and argues stratigically

[Sir Devil]

@girlnextdoor Well, I can't argue with him without a proper strategy or research. Beleive me, I once had. I have to say that it was hard for me. I took my time to better myself with this.

[GirlNextDoor]

@thestrangest I like both your debates ... They help me discovers things I never thought about

[TheStrangest]

@sir-devil you were good man. It is just that it strained off topic. Now we were just arguing about if the people in the old testament are "uneducated desert savages" and i think you are very strongly defending the point of view that they are not but the only reason i said that they were is because you used "in their defence..." when talking about the justification of slavery in the old testament and i probable wrongly said "stop defending uneducated desert savages". I know you were not defending skavery but i wanted to say that no matter how normal it was that they supported (NOT ONLY DIPICTED) slavery in the bible an all moral god would have forbidden slavery in the bible therefore this poses a problem for the suggestion that god is all-moral but i guess you would agree with that so i want to end this because i said, countering one of your comments takes me a minimum of 20 min and i am busy more over this was not what i was originally trying to argue about. I'm sorry, i hope you understand. Thank you for this, it was very fun and informative

[Sir Devil]

@thestrangest Okay. I can understand. It's been taking a lot of my time too. It usually takes me 30-45 to write a reply but the last one took wayyy too long (almost twice the usual). I usually research something before I assert in the conversation so that I would be ready with a citation in case it is needed and so, that I would know what I'm talking about. So, I have to say that this was indeed informative. I learned a lot more about the bible, Feudal Japan, Inuits, etc.

[TheStrangest]

@sir-devil cool. Thanks and bye bye. Till next time