The fatal flaw of Republicanism

[Winehole23]

was just wondering if you were going to scold everyone equally. absolutely not. you're obviously content to be a jerk; but that's not universally true.

[Blake]

You're the arbiter of scolding? What..are you a Catholic School Marm?:lol

I've been on the receiving end of WH's scolding, notably during religious discussions.

I'm trying to determine if it's due to him simply trying to moderate or if it's holy butthurt before I mouth off.

[Blake]

absolutely not. you're obviously content to be a jerk; but that's not universally true.

for someone concerned about others personal appearances on this board, you show a remarkable lack of restraint from calling others names, poopoo head.

[RandomGuy]

(seriously, most children are innately self-centered and selfish... which is why we have to teach them that sharing is good, among other selfless virtues).

Bullshit.

0:16 to 0:19, although the whole thing is worth listening watching to.

WibmcsEGLKo

That small 2-3 second clip is from raft of experiments that contradict that statement. That child wanted to help, and did, and he was not alone.

I'm not going to say humans and children can't be selfish. They can be. Nor will I say that kids should not be taught and have these things reinforced.

What evidence we do have about the innate nature of children though, contradicts that statement.

The evidence contradicts your dogma, yet again.

Feel free to ignore it. I expect no less.

[Winehole23]

for someone concerned about others personal appearances on this board, you show a remarkable lack of restraint from calling others names, poopoo head.I pick and choose. Cry all you want about the unfairness of it; I couldn't care less.

[Blake]

I pick and choose. Cry all you want about the unfairness of it; I couldn't care less.

Not crying. Just making personal notes for the next time you call someone out for being mean, jerk.

[Phenomanul]

Q: Why would God murder children?



"They belong to him anyways".

Wow.

I missed that bit.

Restated:

"If God did it, it is moral". That is your working definition.

God ordering children hacked to death is ok.
Stalin ordering children hacked to death is not ok.

This is logically consistent to you, because you have placed God outside any reasonable standard of behavior that rational people could come up with.

I have been trying really hard to be respectful, but you have just rationalized murdering children in cold blood, be it drowning or put to the sword. That pisses me off at a very deep level. I can hang with you being dishonest with me, and yourself, but this...

Your beliefs do not make you intellectually inferior. They make you morally inferior.

Under no circumstances would I ever think that hacking children to death or drowning them for what their parents did is moral. Anyone ordering this is evil. The God you believe in, is by that simple understandable metric, evil. In time, out of time, omnipotent, infinite, finite, whatever. My moral system is superior to yours, and His, for that matter, on this basis.

Nothing makes butchering children acceptable. Nothing. Shame on you for even hinting at it.

I'll address only this point (because I have to go back to the office and don't have the time to go ad infinitum on these rehashed disagreements)...

This is another case of you not understanding the context of the nomenclature/parsings used in the bible. The statement "they [children] belong to Him" was made in reference to the doctrine that children are spared from hell when they pass on to the next life (despite their sins). You took it to mean something else, but that is all I was trying to convey... "Children belong to the LORD" i.e. children ALL end up in heaven, in GOD's embrace, because of GOD's grace and mercy (again, despite their sin). If GOD allowed the children of wicked societies to grow up, and acquire the knowledge of good and evil, then given the rampant evil in their societies, they would more than likely choose to be wicked themselves. Once at an age of accountability they would be held accountable for their actions and judged according to the Law (which would more than likely mean a life of eternal separation from GOD - i.e. hell). That being the case, the point I was ultimately making was that while you all have chosen to scorn GOD for exacting his perfect justice, He was actually saving lives by cutting off such perverse socities.

I think the problem here is that you all tend to view life (our mortal time here on earth) as "all there is and all there ever will be"... While yes, our physical bodies are frail and finite our spirits will live on for eternity. Death is only the passage to that other life and not "the end all of everything". I figure the majority of you all do not believe in an afterlife which is why that concept runs contrary to your very beliefs. Furthermore, Blake's snarky statement that mockingly asked "why GOD would not provide a path for salvation sooner" is rendered moot in that light, because ultimately what's a few thousand years in the context of eternity? Zilch. Nada. Nothing more than an asymtotic approach to zero... The fact of the matter is that most of those people were given ample opportunities to repent of their wickedness, and ultimately had to face the ramifications for their choice not to repent. Under the New Covenant, entire generations have been presented with the redeeming gift of eternal life that was paid for on the cross by Jesus atonement for our sins. Millions over the course of the last 2 millenia have chosen to reject this offer and will be "cut off" as well. Heck, the majority of those in this forum (who relentlessly go out of their way to mock Christianity) have brazenly opted to walk down that road...

[RandomGuy]

Not crying. Just making personal notes for the next time you call someone out for being mean, jerk.

To be fair to him, I have thanked him for pointing out things like that when I do them, and sort of asked him to help me out. WH and TB

It is good to have someone to call you on your shit, IMO. One should be so lucky to have people to do that. Hell, I would even go so far as to use the "f" word, if that can be said of disembodied strings of text on the internet.

FWIW, (good natured poke) you do get a bit angry sometimes. Be honest. :)

[RandomGuy]

the context of the nomenclature/parsings used in the bible.

There is no context that justifies murdering children. You keep saying there is, and that makes you less moral than I am, period.

[Blake]

Same ol phenomanul post:

”your camp is wrong. You misunderstand the bible and science. I gotta run.”

[RandomGuy]

Once at an age of accountability they would be held accountable for their actions and judged according to the Law (which would more than likely mean a life of eternal separation from GOD - i.e. hell). That being the case, the point I was ultimately making was that while you all have chosen to scorn GOD for exacting his perfect justice, He was actually saving lives by cutting off such perverse socities.

(bla bla bla, more rationalization of murder)

he majority of those in this forum (who relentlessly go out of their way to mock Christianity) have brazenly opted to walk down that road...

Your version of Christianity, if it rationalizes butchering children, deserves mockery.

If God told you to do it, would you would be the first in there swinging away? Would you be that soldier cleansing the world of wickedness? Men, women, and children?

Don't answer that. I am not sure I want the answer, as I might have to report you to the police, who tend to frown on such things.

Edit: God didn't drown them directly, he needed obedient soldiers to do it for him, FWIW.

"Then I heard the LORD say to the other men, "Follow him through the city and kill everyone whose forehead is not marked. Show no mercy; have no pity! Kill them all – old and young, girls and women and little children. But do not touch anyone with the mark. Begin your task right here at the Temple." So they began by killing the seventy leaders. "Defile the Temple!" the LORD commanded. "Fill its courtyards with the bodies of those you kill! Go!" So they went throughout the city and did as they were told." (Ezekiel 9:5-7 NLT)

Not sure what context would make that acceptable.

[Phenomanul]

Bullshit.

0:16 to 0:19, although the whole thing is worth listening watching to.

WibmcsEGLKo

That small 2-3 second clip is from raft of experiments that contradict that statement. That child wanted to help, and did, and he was not alone.

I'm not going to say humans and children can't be selfish. They can be. Nor will I say that kids should not be taught and have these things reinforced.

What evidence we do have about the innate nature of children though, contradicts that statement.

The evidence contradicts your dogma, yet again.

Feel free to ignore it. I expect no less.

Because youtube provides the perfect sample pool... and amply provides the entire picture of what is going on in a child's brain :rolleyes Also, again with the foul language?

Look, believe what you want... I'm not saying children are murderous, lying thieves, who will shank you at the first available opportunity... but take a step back to look at what I'm actually saying... Take toddlers for example... one of the very first words they learn in their vocabulary set is "mine"... they take what they see, they take what they want, simply because they don't know any better (not necesarily good or bad) simply stating the observation that they are naturally self-centered.

Also, being "good" is not enough or proof that there is no wickedness (such as egoism) in our hearts even as toddlers (so even if children were "good" 99% of the time - that 1% "bad" is enough to warrant eternal separation from GOD); GOD's Holiness demands perfection. And ultimately, since we are unable to attain it (no one was perfect, except for Jesus) we need Christ's righteousness to be grafted into GOD's kingdom. Again that's why children (who really don't understand what is going on) are spared from the consequences of their sin, because Christ's merciful atonement covers them as well.

[Blake]

To be fair to him, I have thanked him for pointing out things like that when I do them, and sort of asked him to help me out. WH and TB

It is good to have someone to call you on your shit, IMO. One should be so lucky to have people to do that. Hell, I would even go so far as to use the "f" word, if that can be said of disembodied strings of text on the internet.

FWIW, (good natured poke) you do get a bit angry sometimes. Be honest. :)

No problem with someone calling me out on facts.

Big problem with hypocrites.

I absolutely admit I get frustrated with idiocy. Especially when simple questions go unanswered or plain facts go ignored.

[Phenomanul]

There is no context that justifies murdering children. You keep saying there is, and that makes you less moral than I am, period.

Ha ha... that's laughable and idiodic considering I don't personally go around murdering children. You on the other hand have gone on record condoning the rampant murder of babies by supporting the practice of abortion [in situations where other options are present]? Go figure... :shootme

[Phenomanul]

No problem with someone calling me out on facts.

Big problem with hypocrites.

I absolutely admit I get frustrated with idiocy. Especially when simple questions go unanswered or plain facts go ignored.

I don't ever demand you answer any of my questions... what entitles you to DEMAND that I always have to answer yours? Especially when all you've ever demonstrated is derision at the fact that my world view is drastically different from yours. You never make it past three posts without resorting to some snarky insult. But no, I wouldn't say you were a hypocrite about it... you kind of relish and goad on the fact that you choose to insult others.

[clambake]

Ha ha... that's laughable and idiodic considering I don't personally go around murdering children. You on the other hand have gone on record condoning the rampant murder of babies by supporting the practice of abortion [in situations where other options are present]? Go figure... :shootme

well, thats true. but when god does it, there are no other options.

[Blake]

Ha ha... that's laughable and idiodic considering I don't personally go around murdering children. You on the other hand have gone on record condoning the rampant murder of babies by supporting the practice of abortion [in situations where other options are present]? Go figure... :shootme

Your god has murdered babies and required a sinless man be crucified.

Fact.

[Phenomanul]

well, thats true. but when god does it, there are no other options.

So saving them from an eternity in hell is not the best option, got it... :tu

[Phenomanul]

being born in heaven would have been the best option.

Fact.

GOD did not want robots... otherwise he would have made.... ummm.... robots without free will...

Fact.


Your god has murdered babies and required a sinless man be crucified.

Fact.

To redeem the world...

Fact.

[Blake]

I don't ever demand you answer any of my questions... what entitles you to DEMAND that I always have to answer yours? Especially when all you've ever demonstrated is derision at the fact that my world view is drastically different from yours. You never make it past three posts without resorting to some snarky insult. But no, I wouldn't say you were a hypocrite about it... you kind of relish and goad on the fact that you choose to insult others.

I don't demand you answer my questions. I said I get frustrated when idiots like you don't.

Especially when they are follow up questions on the claims you make.

[RandomGuy]

I don't personally go around murdering children.

So you are, so far, better than the God you worship.

Congratulations.

[clambake]

So saving them from an eternity in hell is not the best option, got it... :tu

oh. only the ones he kills are safe, the rest he cast to hell fire.

how sweet.

[Blake]

So saving them from an eternity in hell is not the best option, got it... :tu

being born in heaven would have been the best option.

Fact.

[Blake]

To redeem the world...

Fact.

There was no better option?

[Phenomanul]

Your version of Christianity, if it rationalizes butchering children, deserves mockery.

If God told you to do it, would you would be the first in there swinging away? Would you be that soldier cleansing the world of wickedness? Men, women, and children?Don't answer that. I am not sure I want the answer, as I might have to report you to the police, who tend to frown on such things.

Edit: God didn't drown them directly, he needed obedient soldiers to do it for him, FWIW.


Not sure what context would make that acceptable.

I'll answer it anyways...

The answer is GOD would not make that request under the grace provided by the New Covenant. His Word is clear about that. Judgement (the type that will determine the destiny of a man's life) will be exacted on Judgement Day, not a day sooner or a day later; ergo a hypothetical request to exact any sort of judgement by taking the life of another is not one which is congruent with the New Covenant. <-- Also why the Death Penalty (a favorite among Republicans) is not congruent with Biblical teachings since the practices and the requirements of the Old Covenant are no more and have been fulfilled in Christ.

[RandomGuy]

Because youtube provides the perfect sample pool... and amply provides the entire picture of what is going on in a child's brain :rolleyes Also, again with the foul language?.

I merely posted the video as a quick visual cue. As I noted in the rest of the post it is part of a raft of scientific studies of children showing an innate sense of sharing and empathy.

The point wasn't that the video was the end all of evidence.

That is your strawman.

Not being honest enough to answer questions is one thing, strawman logical fallacies is a whole other level of dishonesty. (although I suppose it is possible you didn't read my post carefully, to be fair)

[Phenomanul]

oh. only the ones he kills are safe, the rest he cast to hell fire.

how sweet.

Adults who knew what they were doing have to be held accountable for their actions... it's the sound of the "other shoe falling" for having been gifted free will.

[clambake]

I'll answer it anyways...

The answer is GOD would not make that request under the grace provided by the New Covenant. His Word is clear about that. Judgement (the type that will determine the destiny of a man's life) will be exacted on Judgement Day, not a day sooner or a day later; ergo a hypothetical request to exact any sort of judgement by taking the life of another is not one which is congruent with the New Covenant. <-- Also why the Death Penalty (a favorite among Republicans) is not congruent with Biblical teachings since the practices and the requirements of the Old Covenant are no more and have been fulfilled in Christ.
until he changes his mind.

[ChumpDumper]

Except that to do it at every turn, in every thread, with every issue, comes off as a deranged obsession - the schtick is annoying.

I get it that you all don't believe... FINE. I personally don't go knocking on your doors trying to get you to believe in GOD.You actually don't get what any of us believe or don't. You made a particularly poor assumption when you put me in that group.


I also get that you all "hate" that I believe what I do... that you think it's idiodic... the part that you all don't see, is that you all get more worked up over my reasons to believe than I do about the reasons why you all don't.Again, you are making a completely faulty assumption. It could be just natural defensiveness in these situations or maybe a desire to play the martyr -- i don't know -- but you need to know when you are wrong.


What does get me worked up is the insistence from those in your camp to suggest that belief in GOD makes believers intellectually inferior. That you all constantly proliferate a revisionist view of history to suggest that atheism or humanistic naturalism brought about the Scientific movement (when that was most definitely not the case).When in the hell did I ever say anything like that?

You need to retract that statement now. Outright lying will never help your case. Some of the most important developments in science and philosophy came from deeply spiritual people. That some of the things they discovered and developed ran afoul of church dogma is quite frankly the problem of the church and those who want to cling to dogma, leaving it unquestioned. It's a matter of faith, as I always say about matters of religion -- but yeah, the inconsistencies and hypocrisy resulting from adherence to dogma is quite worthy of my ridicule at times. I make no apologies for it.


But whatever... People like Blake and clambake are going to use foul, scornful, derisive language every chance they get... meh... whatever floats their boat.And people like you are going to be condescending jerks who make wild assumptions about the people they converse with. Whatever floats your boat.

[clambake]

Adults who knew what they were doing have to be held accountable for their actions... it's the sound of the "other shoe falling" for having been gifted free will.

i understand what you're saying. he will never be punished for doing it cuz he's the punisher.

[RandomGuy]

I'll answer it anyways...

The answer is GOD would not make that request under the grace provided by the New Covenant. His Word is clear about that. Judgement (the type that will determine the destiny of a man's life) will be exacted on Judgement Day, not a day sooner or a day later; ergo a hypothetical request to exact any sort of judgement by taking the life of another is not one which is congruent with the New Covenant. <-- Also why the Death Penalty (a favorite among Republicans) is not congruent with Biblical teachings since the practices and the requirements of the Old Covenant are no more and have been fulfilled in Christ.

You can't know what is in God's mind. What is "God's word" is no more clear to you than to a Mormon, or an Eastern Orthodox.

Inherent in that is that God made mistakes and was far less perfect before than after. Again, logically inconsistent with an "infinite" being outside "time".

Perfectly consistent with a made-up book, written by fallible people ignorant of what a global flood would actually entail.

All your flailing about new convenants is thin man-made rationalization.


“For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass the law until all is accomplished. Whoever then relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but he who does them and teaches them shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.” (Matthew 5:18-19 RSV


“He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death.” Matthew 15:4-7

Sorry, Jesus wants you to kill disobedient children, it seems, and was more than a little upset about the men who substituted their judgement for God's.

Meh. Gotta go.

[Phenomanul]

I merely posted the video as a quick visual cue. As I noted in the rest of the post it is part of a raft of scientific studies of children showing an innate sense of sharing and empathy.

The point wasn't that the video was the end all of evidence.

That is your strawman.

Not being honest enough to answer questions is one thing, strawman logical fallacies is a whole other level of dishonesty. (although I suppose it is possible you didn't read my post carefully, to be fair)

And YOUR strawman is choosing to weigh that portion of my response as my argument itself. You do it all the time. The sentence you chose to rebuke contained about 5% percent of the emphasis of my response... And being honest about it? What? You actually think I'm purposely lying or deflecting? I'm answering the questions as best they make sense based on the doctrines I have studied. As far as indirect or implied accusations of deflection, I've told you all before that I can't be expected to try and respond to all of your posts... Logistically, I don't have the time for it (the fact that you mock that is actually laughable). Most of the time I find myself having to address your posts (as lengthy as they sometimes are) and then have to deal with all the snide, crass side comments that are generated by Blake, ChumpDumper, clambake, boutons_deux, stretch, MannyIsGod, Drachen, El Nono, etc... and then you all go on some, indignant nuclear rant about how "I allegedly avoid your questions"... I'm a busy guy... that's all there is to that. And obviously, I couldn't keep up with all your comments even if I tried.

Back on topic... Look I'll simplify it for you. Even we chose to to ignore the concept of "original sin" (zosa mentioned it above), all it would take is one selfish action by a child to qualify him/her as sinful. Just one sin is enough to warrant eternal separtion from GOD. Just one. Now imagine how much sin is accrued as they age, no matter how empathetic, or good-natured, or 'selfless' a child is the fact of the matter is that according to GOD's Law they are sinful. Fortunately because of GOD's Grace and Mercy they are absolved of their sins by Christ's redemptive act on the cross. In essence any child that dies in their mortal bodies ultimately returns to the embrace of their Creator (GOD breathes the Spirit of Life into every human being).

[clambake]

cool. so we all made it in.

see you at the party.

[Blake]

I understand you're a busy guy.

How about responding to the actual questions in short responses instead of thesis paper tangents that are filled with more failure than even I care to respond to.

[Phenomanul]

You can't know what is in God's mind. What is "God's word" is no more clear to you than to a Mormon, or an Eastern Orthodox.

Inherent in that is that God made mistakes and was far less perfect before than after. Again, logically inconsistent with an "infinite" being outside "time".

Perfectly consistent with a made-up book, written by fallible people ignorant of what a global flood would actually entail.

All your flailing about new convenants is thin man-made rationalization.




Sorry, Jesus wants you to kill disobedient children, it seems, and was more than a little upset about the men who substituted their judgement for God's.

Meh. Gotta go.

So basically the answer is provided by the context of the Covenants themselves. Instead you reply with "I don't believe what the fallible bible says..." Even though the answer is there. If that's your position, then I really can't help you out.

BTW I answered that question several posts ago. The Law will not pass away until Judgement Day because anyone who rejected Christ's offer of grace will be held up against the Law. For those that have placed their faith in Jesus and because the Law has already been fulfilled by Him, in Him, and through Him, then they will be spared the consequences of being judged against the Law (because believers will be covered with Christ's righteousness)...

[Phenomanul]

I understand you're a busy guy.

How about responding to the actual questions in short responses instead of thesis paper tangents that are filled with more failure than even I care to respond to.

What would be the point with you on the other end...? More snide responses.

I don't call out all the "failure" in your posting style... (Like when was the last time you actually made a point which didn't contain a derisive insult?)

[clambake]

why even bother with judgement?

[Blake]

cool. so we all made it in.

see you at the party.

Might be partying in a mansion next door to Stalin.

[Blake]

What would be the point with you on the other end...? More snide responses.

I don't call out all the "failure" in your posting style... (Like when was the last time you actually made a point which didn't contain a derisive insult?)

Lord jesus, your reading comprehension sucks.

I couldn't give a rats ass about style. It's your substance that fails on a continual basis.

if you don't like insults, then why do you throw out insults so often?

[clambake]

hey, all you gotta do is say you believe him to be your lord and savior.

anybody got any figures on time limits?

[Phenomanul]

There was no better option?

I don't know... perhaps being gifted with "free will" made us eventually sucumb to wickedness in every iteration that unfolded. This is an unknowable question given our limited understanding of GOD's eternal nature...

On a side note: since, you've made it perfectly clear that you don't believe any of these doctrines anyways, or free will, why does this issue matter in the construct of your mind? I don't believe your question to be a genuine one, or one that is born out of a desire to understand GOD? That is why no answer I give you will ever satisfy your questions. In your mind you have decided to preemtively reject whatever answer I'll respond with... So again, what's the point of fancying your questions with responses?

[Phenomanul]

Lord jesus, your reading comprehension sucks.

I couldn't give a rats ass about style. It's your substance that fails on a continual basis.

if you don't like insults, then why do you throw out insults so often?

You take my beliefs themselves to be insulting... I don't control that this is how you've chosen to interpret my responses. Like your "condescending" accusation a few posts ago, I was merely stating the doctrines I believe... I wasn't even directly talking to you... nor did I blantantly attack someone in that response... Besides, when in comes down to it, I'm pretty sure you always throw the first punch.

[clambake]

you're supposed to turn the other cheek, i think.

[Phenomanul]

hey, all you gotta do is say you believe him to be your lord and savior.

anybody got any figures on time limits?

Aha... And there you have it. You rembember that word you mocked several pages ago...? About the sincerity of someones repentance...? One that weighs how genuine the intentions of the heart are? You wouldn't be able to fool GOD simply by calling Him LORD. You would have to be sincere about it.

[Phenomanul]

you're supposed to turn the other cheek, i think.

I do for the most part... but Blake is more than content to take advantage of it. It isn't my fault that he interprets simple statements NOT directed at him as insulting to him... That said, I won't deny that I have insulted him directly too on more than a few occasions... but those are generally the exception and not the rule.

[clambake]

Aha... And there you have it. You rembember that word you mocked several pages ago...? About the sincerity of someones repentance...? One that weighs how genuine the intentions of the heart are? You wouldn't be able to fool GOD simply by calling Him LORD. You would have to be sincere about it.

oh i get it. he makes the rules......makes them. you won't find him repenting.

[RandomGuy]

And YOUR strawman is choosing to weigh that portion of my response as my argument itself. You do it all the time. The sentence you chose to rebuke contained about 5% percent of the emphasis of my response... And being honest about it? What? You actually think I'm purposely lying or deflecting? I'm answering the questions as best they make sense based on the doctrines I have studied. As far as indirect or implied accusations of deflection, I've told you all before that I can't be expected to try and respond to all of your posts... Logistically, I don't have the time for it (the fact that you mock that is actually laughable). Most of the time I find myself having to address your posts (as lengthy as they sometimes are) and then have to deal with all the snide, crass side comments that are generated by Blake, ChumpDumper, clambake, boutons_deux, stretch, MannyIsGod, Drachen, El Nono, etc... and then you all go on some, indignant nuclear rant about how "I allegedly avoid your questions"... I'm a busy guy... that's all there is to that. And obviously, I couldn't keep up with all your comments even if I tried.

Back on topic... Look I'll simplify it for you. Even we chose to to ignore the concept of "original sin" (zosa mentioned it above), all it would take is one selfish action by a child to qualify him/her as sinful. Just one sin is enough to warrant eternal separtion from GOD. Just one. Now imagine how much sin is accrued as they age, no matter how empathetic, or good-natured, or 'selfless' a child is the fact of the matter is that according to GOD's Law they are sinful. Fortunately because of GOD's Grace and Mercy they are absolved of their sins by Christ's redemptive act on the cross. In essence any child that dies in their mortal bodies ultimately returns to the embrace of their Creator (GOD breathes the Spirit of Life into every human being).

1) Sorry. I drink too much coffee, and my mind works fairly fast. I am a fast typist to boot. My apology to make. Looking back over it, you did try, somewhat. That was a bit unfair on my part.

2) I fully understand the "they are God"s in then end. That is still a problem. That is STILL YOUR problem.

The last minutes of those children's lives were sheer terror and pain. Nothing you have said changes that.

Nothing you have said gets you over the moral problem of infinite punishment for finite crimes.

All you have is special pleading.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_pleading

Either ordering murder of children is inherently evil or it isn't. Tap dance around that with talk of weeding gardens and preventing those children from the infinite torture is stupid and immoral.

You don't want to admit that, because you want to believe yourself to be rational and moral. The feeling of cognitive dissonance won't go away. You will be angry with me, and convince yourself I am wrong.

Your own moral sense is superior to that of the God in the Bible. You know this on some level, which is why you rationalize it. God is wrong, and you are right. You don't have to admit it me or yourself, but deep down, you know this.

[clambake]

you guys always say "free will" when its not. why you do that?

[Blake]

I don't know...

I do. God is omnipotent, therefore there was a better option that killing an innocent man.

Unless God is not omnipotent.

Or maybe he is simply a murdering psychopath that loves the sight and smell of blood.



On a side note: since, you've made it perfectly clear that you don't believe any of these doctrines anyways, or free will, why does this issue matter in the construct of your mind? I don't believe your question to be a genuine one, or one that is born out of a desire to understand GOD? That is why no answer I give you will ever satisfy your questions. In your mind you have decided to preemtively reject whatever answer I'll respond with... So again, what's the point of fancying your questions with responses?

Why I want an answer should be irrelevant.

if you don't want to answer, that's fine. However, when you make a claim that you don't want to back up, don't whine when someone calls bullshit.

It's usually at that point when I get rude and call you a fucking idiot.

[Blake]

You take my beliefs themselves to be insulting... I don't control that this is how you've chosen to interpret my responses. Like your "condescending" accusation a few posts ago, I was merely stating the doctrines I believe... I wasn't even directly talking to you... nor did I blantantly attack someone in that response... Besides, when in comes down to it, I'm pretty sure you always throw the first punch.

Give me some time. I'll find some of your ”first punches”. :tu

[boutons_deux]

Arguing God with a True Believer text worshipper is fruitless. :)

Text is still Black Majic voodoo for some people, still, 1000s of years after invention.

[clambake]

to be fair, bou, phenom didn't have a choice.

[Phenomanul]

1) Sorry. I drink too much coffee, and my mind works fairly fast. I am a fast typist to boot. My apology to make. Looking back over it, you did try, somewhat. That was a bit unfair on my part.

2) I fully understand the "they are God"s in then end. That is still a problem. That is STILL YOUR problem.

The last minutes of those children's lives were sheer terror and pain. Nothing you have said changes that.

Nothing you have said gets you over the moral problem of infinite punishment for finite crimes.

All you have is special pleading.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_pleading

Either ordering murder of children is inherently evil or it isn't. Tap dance around that with talk of weeding gardens and preventing those children from the infinite torture is stupid and immoral.

You don't want to admit that, because you want to believe yourself to be rational and moral. The feeling of cognitive dissonance won't go away. You will be angry with me, and convince yourself I am wrong.

Your own moral sense is superior to that of the God in the Bible. You know this on some level, which is why you rationalize it. God is wrong, and you are right. You don't have to admit it me or yourself, but deep down, you know this.

No I don't... I don't lose sleep over alleged "dissonances" of events that transpired thousands of years ago (during the time of the Old Covenant). Anyone claiming to suggest that GOD wants people put to death under the umbrella covered by the era of the New Covenant is nothing more than a false prophet (The Crusades, The Inquisition, The Salem Witch Trials, The atrocities committed during Slavery, Hitler's regime). GOD is granting humanity more than an ample amount of time to repent of their wickedness (almost 2,000 years and counting). I don't know how else to qualify that extension of mercy and offer of grace. Even then, people choose to reject that message.

Also, who ever said that living in this frail body of ours would absolve us from ever having to endure pain or agony? Those are side-consequences from sin having entered our world (along with decay, illness, shorter lifespans, the introduction of weeds, and poisons, etc...). Part of our humanity is having to deal with such things so that our dependence is placed on something greater than ourselves (sounds harsh, but tends to ring true for most people). I certainly don't look forward to the process of my own death (be it by asphyxiation, drowning, burning, illness, vehicular accident, stroke, heart attack etc...), but I definitely don't fear what follows. Once in heaven our bodies will be made perfect and will not be subjected to pain or further sufferings. We will be transformed into perfect beings, and whatever sufferings we may have endured during our time on earth will be rendered unimportant in the context of eternity. Sounds like a great deal no matter how you slice it (particularly because we don't deserve any of it).

[Phenomanul]

Give me some time. I'll find some of your ”first punches”. :tu

Have at it... I'm pretty sure I stated that I have insulted you before (even likely somewhere in this thread)... I don't deny it. I'm imperfect. That still doesn't warrant a tendency to continually try to insult me with almost every other post of yours (for threads I decide to engage in)...

[clambake]

people believe in other gods.

the wait has been long over, phenom.

[Phenomanul]

I do. God is omnipotent, therefore there was a better option that killing an innocent man.

Unless God is not omnipotent.

Or maybe he is simply a murdering psychopath that loves the sight and smell of blood.




Why I want an answer should be irrelevant.

if you don't want to answer, that's fine. However, when you make a claim that you don't want to back up, don't whine when someone calls bullshit.

It's usually at that point when I get rude and call you a fucking idiot.

Well ultimately if you're the arbitrator/moderator of your own discourses then by all means this whole exchange is pointless... You calling BS will always be based on your own limited understanding of the issues/doctrines/concepts/ideology/world-view. So if you consider said understanding to be free of flaws, fully comprehensive and all encompassing... then carry on. We've got nothing else to discuss.

[Blake]

You calling BS will always be based on your own limited understanding of the issues/doctrines/concepts/ideology/world-view.

subtle condescending is subtle. :lol

Why do you wonder why anyone/everyone on your whine list calls you a fucking idiot?

[Phenomanul]

You actually don't get what any of us believe or don't. You made a particularly poor assumption when you put me in that group.

Again, you are making a completely faulty assumption. It could be just natural defensiveness in these situations or maybe a desire to play the martyr -- i don't know -- but you need to know when you are wrong.

When in the hell did I ever say anything like that?

You need to retract that statement now. Outright lying will never help your case. Some of the most important developments in science and philosophy came from deeply spiritual people. That some of the things they discovered and developed ran afoul of church dogma is quite frankly the problem of the church and those who want to cling to dogma, leaving it unquestioned. It's a matter of faith, as I always say about matters of religion -- but yeah, the inconsistencies and hypocrisy resulting from adherence to dogma is quite worthy of my ridicule at times. I make no apologies for it.

And people like you are going to be condescending jerks who make wild assumptions about the people they converse with. Whatever floats your boat.

I did not intend to quote you when I responded with that message.

That said, you do add fuel to the fire. Not once have you quoted a post of mine with the intention of supporting even a modicum of it. It's usually a snarky side comment.

[Blake]

Have at it... I'm pretty sure I stated that I have insulted you before (even likely somewhere in this thread)... I don't deny it. I'm imperfect. That still doesn't warrant a tendency to continually try to insult me with almost every other post of yours (for threads I decide to engage in)...

I'll bet you that every time I've insulted you, you've warranted it.

I'll even open a thread and ask for popular opinion on whether you deserved my scorn or not, if you like.

[Phenomanul]

subtle condescending is subtle. :lol

Why do you wonder why anyone/everyone on your whine list calls you a fucking idiot?

How is that even an insult? I was merely rephrasing what you had just posted; "that you call BS based on your own criteria"... so be it.

[Blake]

How is that even an insult? I was merely rephrasing what you had just posted; "that you call BS based on your own criteria"... so be it.

you really can't see the condescending?

Anyone else not see it?

[Phenomanul]

I'll bet you that every time I've insulted you, you've warranted it.

I'll even open a thread and ask for popular opinion on whether you deserved my scorn or not, if you like.

I don't post very often... but do frequent the boards enough to read several of the threads in this forum... Anyways, you've gone as far as insulting me in a thread I wasn't even participating in... how is that warranted?

[ChumpDumper]

I did not intend to quote you when I responded with that message.

That said, you do add fuel to the fire. Not once have you quoted a post of mine with the intention of supporting even a modicum of it. It's usually a snarky side comment.Do you need my support?

Do you deserve it?

[Phenomanul]

you really can't see the condescending?

Anyone else not see it?

The use of the word "limited" is not a comparison with my own understanding (it too is limited - as I have expressed on many occasions)... the implication is that your understanding is limited when compared against GOD's perfect, infinite understanding (whether you believe in Him or not).

[Blake]

I don't post very often... but do frequent the boards enough to read several of the threads in this forum... Anyways, you've gone as far as insulting me in a thread I wasn't even participating in... how is that warranted?

Link?

[Phenomanul]

Do you need my support?Do you deserve it?

No, I was just addressing your indignation (at gasp!) being lumped with those who constantly scorn my posts.

[Blake]

The use of the word "limited" is not a comparison with my own understanding (it too is limited - as I have expressed on many occasions)... the implication is that your understanding is limited when compared against GOD's perfect, infinite understanding (whether you believe in Him or not).

You've made it crystal clear that your limited understanding is still greater than mine because I lack faith.

I don't know why you wouldn't expect me to call you an idiot for making assertions about me when you have no idea who I am in real life.

[baseline bum]

Once in heaven our bodies will be made perfect and will not be subjected to pain or further sufferings. We will be transformed into perfect beings, and whatever sufferings we may have endured during our time on earth will be rendered unimportant in the context of eternity.

Does that mean ugly fat bitches become hot in heaven? Do they all get big country booty and titties to skeet down? Shit sounds tight tbh.

[Phenomanul]

You've made it crystal clear that your limited understanding is still greater than mine because I lack faith.

I don't know why you wouldn't expect me to call you an idiot for making assertions about me when you have no idea who I am in real life.

You're side-stepping your accusation that somehow my statement was made condescendingly... you interpretted it that way, but that's not how I delivered it. So your accusation and subsequent insult was unwarranted.

And no, I didn't state that my understanding was "greater" than yours because you lack faith. I was talking to RG when I told him that his understanding of GOD was limited because he didn't have a relationship with GOD (how does one go about understanding matters of faith that he or she doesn't even believe in? He then later willingly admitted that he cannot accept scriptural-based answers because the bible is a 'fallible book' that is the dichotomy I was trying to point out).

[LnGrrrR]

Also, who ever said that living in this frail body of ours would absolve us from ever having to endure pain or agony? Those are side-consequences from sin having entered our world (along with decay, illness, shorter lifespans, the introduction of weeds, and poisons, etc...). Part of our humanity is having to deal with such things so that our dependence is placed on something greater than ourselves (sounds harsh, but tends to ring true for most people).

Wait, so were Adam and Eve "less human" before they sinned?

Also, how exactly will we become "perfect beings"? Will we just lose the want to sin? And if sinning is part of what makes up humanity, wouldn't we also be "less human" without sin?

[LnGrrrR]

Does that mean ugly fat bitches become hot in heaven? Do they all get big country booty and titties to skeet down? Shit sounds tight tbh.

I think the common belief is that we all stop caring about sex, vice, looks... you know, pretty much everything that currently motivates a human being. :lol

[DarrinS]

That still doesn't warrant a tendency to continually try to insult me with almost every other post of yours (for threads I decide to engage in)...


For some members, this is their only contribution.

[clambake]

some members came into this forum and lied, day one.

[DarrinS]

some members came into this forum and lied, day one.

Exhibit A

[clambake]

Exhibit A

yes you are exhibit a

then birther lol

[Blake]

You're side-stepping your accusation that somehow my statement was made condescendingly... you interpretted it that way, but that's not how I delivered it. So your accusation and subsequent insult was unwarranted.

And no, I didn't state that my understanding was "greater" than yours because you lack faith. I was talking to RG when I told him that his understanding of GOD was limited because he didn't have a relationship with GOD (how does one go about understanding matters of faith that he or she doesn't even believe in? He then later willingly admitted that he cannot accept scriptural-based answers because the bible is a 'fallible book' that is the dichotomy I was trying to point out).

I don't believe in it either. Why wouldn't that same condescending tone you used towards RG be directed at anyone who lacks that belief?

[Blake]

For some members, this is their only contribution.

For others, it's a daily youtube.

Is what it is.

[Blake]

I think the common belief is that we all stop caring about sex, vice, looks... you know, pretty much everything that currently motivates a human being. :lol

You will have all your earthly desires removed......but you'll still have free will to...

....sing? I guess?

[Blake]

K everyone, I'm out of here!

Peace!

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I'll answer it anyways...

The answer is GOD would not make that request under the grace provided by the New Covenant. His Word is clear about that. Judgement (the type that will determine the destiny of a man's life) will be exacted on Judgement Day, not a day sooner or a day later; ergo a hypothetical request to exact any sort of judgement by taking the life of another is not one which is congruent with the New Covenant. <-- Also why the Death Penalty (a favorite among Republicans) is not congruent with Biblical teachings since the practices and the requirements of the Old Covenant are no more and have been fulfilled in Christ.

As an individual raised as a biblical literalist myself, how on Earth can you make a claim as to what God will or will not do? It's pretty damn explicit over and over in the Bible that you are not able to comprehend the mind of God. You need to go serve some penance for your prideful blasphemy.

Don't dodge the question. How would you respond if God came to you and told you to go kill some children?

[Blake]

K, I'm back!

[Blake]

Don't dodge the question. How would you respond if God came to you and told you to go kill some children?

New Covenant!

[baseline bum]

I think the common belief is that we all stop caring about sex, vice, looks... you know, pretty much everything that currently motivates a human being. :lol

What the fuck kind of place is that? All you do is sit around and kiss god's ass or something? Sounds like a boring existence if one can't go out and get some ghost pussy.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

New Covenant!

All I am saying is that if you are going to be a Biblical literalist then you need to be a Biblical literalist. The Bible is very explicit over and over again: submit to the Will of God; Do not question God's Will. They even capitalize it in most texts.

The entire notion of New Covenant is just an excuse to pick and choose. He spits that out.

[RandomGuy]

No I don't... I don't lose sleep over alleged "dissonances" of events that transpired thousands of years ago (during the time of the Old Covenant). Anyone claiming to suggest that GOD wants people put to death under the umbrella covered by the era of the New Covenant is nothing more than a false prophet (The Crusades, The Inquisition, The Salem Witch Trials, The atrocities committed during Slavery, Hitler's regime). GOD is granting humanity more than an ample amount of time to repent of their wickedness (almost 2,000 years and counting). I don't know how else to qualify that extension of mercy and offer of grace. Even then, people choose to reject that message.

Also, who ever said that living in this frail body of ours would absolve us from ever having to endure pain or agony? Those are side-consequences from sin having entered our world (along with decay, illness, shorter lifespans, the introduction of weeds, and poisons, etc...). Part of our humanity is having to deal with such things so that our dependence is placed on something greater than ourselves (sounds harsh, but tends to ring true for most people). I certainly don't look forward to the process of my own death (be it by asphyxiation, drowning, burning, illness, vehicular accident, stroke, heart attack etc...), but I definitely don't fear what follows. Once in heaven our bodies will be made perfect and will not be subjected to pain or further sufferings. We will be transformed into perfect beings, and whatever sufferings we may have endured during our time on earth will be rendered unimportant in the context of eternity. Sounds like a great deal no matter how you slice it (particularly because we don't deserve any of it).

If you didn't feel any cognitive dissonance, you would be able to answer a yes or no question with a yes or no answer, instead of tap dancing around it.

IS IT MORAL TO HACK CHILDREN TO DEATH OR DELIBERATELY DROWN THEM?

This is not a difficult question, if you are a moral person.

"Yes" or "no" will do.

[Blake]

Give me some time. I'll find some of your ”first punches”. :tu

All I did was copy/paste from another link and didn't say a word.

I think those in your camp would see this as a first punch:



Yet another logical fallacy in your bible's rebuttal (talkorigins.com).

.........Use your own thinking skills blake... sadly, I know you'll just continue to rebuttal with cut&paste jobs... I don't have the time to deal with that.

You'll just end up seeing everything with those Godless lenses of yours.

Been there... done that... x1000 here at SpursTalk.com

What's the point?

-Peace

Then you threw one at Mono:


mono's reaction is a cowardly act of frustration that shows us all what the spirit of discourse means to him.

It's like a little boy yelling "blah blah blah blah blah!!!!!!!" when being asked to behave in a civil manner.

At this point we shouldn't expect more from him...

"Since they oppose my viewpoint and don't believe as I do... I will simply wipeout any semblance of discourse on their part with my childish antics..."

LAME

:td


I haven't even posted my viewpoint in this thread you fucking dipshit.

lol det was funny

[Winehole23]

Not crying. Just making personal notes for the next time you call someone out for being mean, jerk.RG copped to it more or less. More than can be said for you. Do your notes reflect that?

[Winehole23]

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/333344/party-s-problem-ramesh-ponnuru

[RandomGuy]

No I don't... I don't lose sleep over alleged "dissonances" of events that transpired thousands of years ago (during the time of the Old Covenant). Anyone claiming to suggest that GOD wants people put to death under the umbrella covered by the era of the New Covenant is nothing more than a false prophet (The Crusades, The Inquisition, The Salem Witch Trials, The atrocities committed during Slavery, Hitler's regime). GOD is granting humanity more than an ample amount of time to repent of their wickedness (almost 2,000 years and counting). I don't know how else to qualify that extension of mercy and offer of grace. Even then, people choose to reject that message.

Also, who ever said that living in this frail body of ours would absolve us from ever having to endure pain or agony? Those are side-consequences from sin having entered our world (along with decay, illness, shorter lifespans, the introduction of weeds, and poisons, etc...). Part of our humanity is having to deal with such things so that our dependence is placed on something greater than ourselves (sounds harsh, but tends to ring true for most people). I certainly don't look forward to the process of my own death (be it by asphyxiation, drowning, burning, illness, vehicular accident, stroke, heart attack etc...), but I definitely don't fear what follows. Once in heaven our bodies will be made perfect and will not be subjected to pain or further sufferings. We will be transformed into perfect beings, and whatever sufferings we may have endured during our time on earth will be rendered unimportant in the context of eternity. Sounds like a great deal no matter how you slice it (particularly because we don't deserve any of it).

If you didn't feel any cognitive dissonance, you would be able to answer a yes or no question with a yes or no answer, instead of tap dancing around it.

IS IT MORAL TO HACK CHILDREN TO DEATH OR DELIBERATELY DROWN THEM?

This is not a difficult question, if you are a moral person.

"Yes" or "no" would do.

Your answer is: Yes it is moral, *if* God did it. It is not moral if people do it. You have to rationalize this story as presented to you. You have to say "yes" to that question. I don't.

You have an omnipotent, inifite, out of time God. This God cannot conceive of any better solution than to hack children to death or drown them to fix things.

This God would have the power to simply kill off the adults in any city he didn't like with a simple disruption of their hearts, send an angel, and lead the children of that city/country away. This would be far more moral than drowning the children. Lead them to Noah, and have him build barracks and buildings for them, over an ark.

This God would not have needed a world-wide flood, then for some inexplicable reason, hide the evidence of that world-wide flood from us, and make it look like it never happened. This God would structure DNA and genetic drift so that it would be really clear and consistent with every human being annihilated except one family a few thousand years ago. God didn't do this.

God would not need to hide the evidence of this, or fake it.

An infinite, omnipotent, out of time God would be able to simply make His word as a kind of hard-wired program that hooks into every human brain. Why have a book with text and language?
Simply have something akin to a computer program, with the concepts directly input into our brains, sorted by chapter, verse, and story. You could simply wire every human to be able to access this, and every seven days, have people spend a couple of hours in a lucid trance akin to dreaming thinking about it.

This access would be available to those without sight, who couldn't read or hear, and would be independent of the physical brain. If you get your brain injured, you still have God's word.

People would still have free will to reject it, but it would be there, and a lot clearer than a translation of a translation of a copy of a translation. If you really loved people, and cared for their souls, WHY LIMIT YOURSELF TO A BOOK?

Instead, this infinite, omnipotent God has chosen to use a method of communicating with us that is no different than that which we ourselves would have chosen, had we chosen to make up stories to explain things we didn't understand. This is what all mythology boils down to. Filling the gaps in our knowledge with supernatural, unfalsifiable fantasy.

The obvious answer is that the Bible isn't the word of God. It is a work of ancient peoples, who made up stories, and were completely ignorant of how the universe worked. This story was used by groups of priests for their own benefit at the expense of the people who believed it to be true.

This is far, far simpler an explanation than an infinite, unfalsifiable God. It fits the available evidence, and doesn't require rationalizing the mass murder children or slavery. That becomes the act of blood-thirsty tyrants and natural disasters.

Why is your God hiding all this evidence from you?
Why does he ask to you overlook His mass murder?
Why does an infinite God need a book to communicate with us?
Why is this God faking the physical universe to make it inconsistent with this book?

The mental gymnastics needed to answer these questions with "because", makes you vulnerable to all sorts of flawed thinking, and charlatans claiming to do/say things in the name of God.

I get to find out about God in the same way I find out about Harry Potter. Seems like a shabby vehicle to me, when other options are available.

[RandomGuy]

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/333344/party-s-problem-ramesh-ponnuru

Good article. He makes some good points.

Sometimes, big government is the answer and solution. We need big government to react to large problems that individual states can't, and fight wars.

Multi-billion dollar drug cartels, massive corporations with hundreds of billions of dollars in yearly revenue, natural disasters, all require something big enough to take them on.

If you consistently push the narrative that this is never the case, when it is obvious to enough people that is exactly the case, you start to lose credibility. That makes you weak as a national party. I think people sense this at some level, for all the flaws of the Democratic party, the Republicans can't offer a viable alternative.

[TeyshaBlue]

If you didn't feel any cognitive dissonance, you would be able to answer a yes or no question with a yes or no answer, instead of tap dancing around it.

IS IT MORAL TO HACK CHILDREN TO DEATH OR DELIBERATELY DROWN THEM?

This is not a difficult question, if you are a moral person.

"Yes" or "no" would do.

Your answer is: Yes it is moral, *if* God did it. It is not moral if people do it. You have to rationalize this story as presented to you. You have to say "yes" to that question. I don't.

You have an omnipotent, inifite, out of time God. This God cannot conceive of any better solution than to hack children to death or drown them to fix things.

This God would have the power to simply kill off the adults in any city he didn't like with a simple disruption of their hearts, send an angel, and lead the children of that city/country away. This would be far more moral than drowning the children. Lead them to Noah, and have him build barracks and buildings for them, over an ark.

This God would not have needed a world-wide flood, then for some inexplicable reason, hide the evidence of that world-wide flood from us, and make it look like it never happened. This God would structure DNA and genetic drift so that it would be really clear and consistent with every human being annihilated except one family a few thousand years ago. God didn't do this.

God would not need to hide the evidence of this, or fake it.

An infinite, omnipotent, out of time God would be able to simply make His word as a kind of hard-wired program that hooks into every human brain. Why have a book with text and language?
Simply have something akin to a computer program, with the concepts directly input into our brains, sorted by chapter, verse, and story. You could simply wire every human to be able to access this, and every seven days, have people spend a couple of hours in a lucid trance akin to dreaming thinking about it.

This access would be available to those without sight, who couldn't read or hear, and would be independent of the physical brain. If you get your brain injured, you still have God's word.

People would still have free will to reject it, but it would be there, and a lot clearer than a translation of a translation of a copy of a translation. If you really loved people, and cared for their souls, WHY LIMIT YOURSELF TO A BOOK?

Instead, this infinite, omnipotent God has chosen to use a method of communicating with us that is no different than that which we ourselves would have chosen, had we chosen to make up stories to explain things we didn't understand. This is what all mythology boils down to. Filling the gaps in our knowledge with supernatural, unfalsifiable fantasy.

The obvious answer is that the Bible isn't the word of God. It is a work of ancient peoples, who made up stories, and were completely ignorant of how the universe worked. This story was used by groups of priests for their own benefit at the expense of the people who believed it to be true.

This is far, far simpler an explanation than an infinite, unfalsifiable God. It fits the available evidence, and doesn't require rationalizing the mass murder children or slavery. That becomes the act of blood-thirsty tyrants and natural disasters.

Why is your God hiding all this evidence from you?
Why does he ask to you overlook His mass murder?
Why does an infinite God need a book to communicate with us?
Why is this God faking the physical universe to make it inconsistent with this book?

The mental gymnastics needed to answer these questions with "because", makes you vulnerable to all sorts of flawed thinking, and charlatans claiming to do/say things in the name of God.

I get to find out about God in the same way I find out about Harry Potter. Seems like a shabby vehicle to me, when other options are available.

You are going to propose a binary solution set in a discussion of morality and ethics?

Ooookkk then.

[Blake]

RG copped to it more or less. More than can be said for you. Do your notes reflect that?

Copped to what?

RG has never whined like you have about me being mean to the board's religious martyrs. No notes on him.

[RandomGuy]

You are going to propose a binary solution set in a discussion of morality and ethics?

Ooookkk then.

I considered that it might be an artificial dichotomy imposed by my own limited imagination.

One can expand the question a bit, if you like:

When *would* it be moral to drown millions of children, if you could easily avoid doing so?

A bit more open ended, but I was unable to really think of anything. Certainly not within the constraints of the story as it was presented.

I can only conclude that action is one of incalculable cruelty, and inherently immoral by any reasonable definition, if true.

If not, then I would guess it is as moot as whether Thor could morally drink the ocean if tricked into doing so. That would certainly be immoral for the harm it would cause others as well.

[TeyshaBlue]

I considered that it might be an artificial dichotomy imposed by my own limited imagination.

One can expand the question a bit, if you like:

When *would* it be moral to drown millions of children, if you could easily avoid doing so?

A bit more open ended, but I was unable to really think of anything. Certainly not within the constraints of the story as it was presented.

I can only conclude that action is one of incalculable cruelty, and inherently immoral by any reasonable definition, if true.

If not, then I would guess it is as moot as whether Thor could morally drink the ocean if tricked into doing so. That would certainly be immoral for the harm it would cause others as well.

Morality just sits in a chair against the wall and watches us talk about it.

[TeyshaBlue]

The Greater Good serves us coffee then excuses itself until called upon again.

[boutons_deux]

Here's Phenomenaul's kind of people, always doing God's work:

Bryan Fischer: Singing ‘God Bless America’ prevents terrorist attacks
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/afa_fischer_tax_atheists_120706a-615x345.jpg

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/11/16/bryan-fischer-singing-god-bless-america-prevents-terrorist-attacks/

And 10Ms of CBN-watching Americans belief Fischer's bullshit.

[TeyshaBlue]

STFU bot. The grownups are talking.

[boutons_deux]

TB :lol "mama, make Boutons stop!"

[TeyshaBlue]

:cry

[Th'Pusher]

It isn't a red herring.

The topic at hand is people believing things without real evidence to do so, i.e. insulating them from the real ascertainable truth.

Believing in something that provably did not by the evidence available, bears directly on that.

"Noah's flood happened as the Bible said it did" is a verifiable, falsifiable claim. If you believe it happened, and ignore the physical evidence it didn't, that would seem to be pretty important.

Don't you agree?

Related (http://www.cnn.com/2012/11/19/tech/web/cyber-attack-israel-anonymous/index.html?hpt=hp_t1) Krugman


November 19, 2012, 1:44 PM
Views Differ on Age of Planet
Quite a few bloggers are having fun with Marco Rubio’s bobbing and weaving in response to a question from GQ:


GQ: How old do you think the Earth is?
Marco Rubio: I’m not a scientist, man. I can tell you what recorded history says, I can tell you what the Bible says, but I think that’s a dispute amongst theologians and I think it has nothing to do with the gross domestic product or economic growth of the United States. I think the age of the universe has zero to do with how our economy is going to grow. I’m not a scientist. I don’t think I’m qualified to answer a question like that. At the end of the day, I think there are multiple theories out there on how the universe was created and I think this is a country where people should have the opportunity to teach them all. I think parents should be able to teach their kids what their faith says, what science says. Whether the Earth was created in 7 days, or 7 actual eras, I’m not sure we’ll ever be able to answer that. It’s one of the great mysteries.
As I like to say, the GOP doesn’t just want to roll back the New Deal; it wants to roll back the Enlightenment.


But here’s what you should realize: when Rubio says that the question of the Earth’s age “has zero to do with how our economy is going to grow”, he’s dead wrong. For one thing, science and technology education has a lot to do with our future productivity — and how are you going to have effective science education if schools have to give equal time to the views of fundamentalist Christians?


More broadly, the attitude that discounts any amount of evidence — and boy, do we have lots of evidence on the age of the planet! — if it conflicts with prejudices is not an attitude consistent with effective policy. If you’re going to ignore what geologists say if you don’t like its implications, what are the chances that you’ll take sensible advice on monetary and fiscal policy? After all, we’ve just seen how Republicans deal with research reports that undermine their faith in the magic of tax cuts: they try to suppress the reports.


I’m belatedly reading Chris Mooney’s The Republican Brain; if truth be told, I was afraid that the book would be too much red meat for my own predispositions, and wanted to keep my cool. But Mooney actually makes a very good point: the personality traits we associate with modern conservatism, above all a lack of openness, make the modern GOP fundamentally hostile to the very idea of objective inquiry. If they want your opinion, they’ll tell you what it is; doubters of orthodoxy need not apply, and will in fact be persecuted.


So don’t laugh over Rubio’s young-earth apologetics. If he, or anyone else from his party, wins in 2016, the joke will be on us.

[ploto]

If you consistently push the narrative that this is never the case, when it is obvious to enough people that is exactly the case, you start to lose credibility. That makes you weak as a national party. I think people sense this at some level, for all the flaws of the Democratic party, the Republicans can't offer a viable alternative.

It has been said that those who actually like government should probably be the ones who run it.

[Winehole23]

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/revenge-of-the-reality-based-community/

[boutons_deux]

"the permanent decline that now seems inevitable."

:clap :clap :clap :clap

Blind political ideology, like blind religious ideology, makes you stupid.

[TeyshaBlue]

Epistemic closure....exactly.

and thanks for the irony, bot.

[boutons_deux]

It has been said that those who actually like government should probably be the ones who run it.

I don't think "like" is best term. about "admit and respect govt's roles in a nation" and who commit making those roles operate as effectively and efficiently as possible.

in contrast, for Repugs, "govt IS the problem" so govt must be hobbled and/or destroyed, so when in power, Repugs are committed to misgovern thoroughly, self-fulfilling their philosophy that govt is the problem. In reality, REPUG govt is the problem

[boutons_deux]

Epistemic closure....exactly.

and thanks for the irony, bot.

TB! :lol GFY, bitch

[TeyshaBlue]

:cry

[Clipper Nation]

Boutons_douche with the bads per par...

Government in and of itself is not the problem... the problem is the corrupt people IN the government and that we're attempting to handle everything at once in Washington.... statists can try to deny it, but it's just a fact that different states have different needs and not every problem has a one-size-fits-all solution....

[boutons_deux]

"just a fact that different states have different needs"

bullshit

all states need their roads, bridges, dams, electrical grids, healthy water/lands maintained.

all states need reasonably priced, universal no-profit insurance and universal no-profit health care.

[Clipper Nation]

:cry "But, but, everybody needs my talking points because the TV said so!" :cry

[CuckingFunt]

Blind political ideology, like blind religious ideology, makes you stupid.

*giggle*

[RandomGuy]

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/revenge-of-the-reality-based-community/


The day after the article appeared, my boss called to chew me out, saying that Karl Rove had called him personally to complain about it. I promised to be more circumspect in the future.

Interestingly, a couple of days after the Suskind article appeared, I happened to be at a reception for some right-wing organization that many of my think tank friends were also attending. I assumed I would get a lot of grief for my comments in the Suskind article and was surprised when there was none at all.

Finally, I started asking people about it. Not one person had read it or cared in the slightest what the New York Times had to say about anything. They all viewed it as having as much credibility as Pravda and a similar political philosophy as well. Some were indignant that I would even suspect them of reading a left-wing rag such as the New York Times.

I was flabbergasted. Until that moment I had not realized how closed the right-wing mind had become. Even assuming that my friends’ view of the Times’ philosophy was correct, which it most certainly was not, why would they not want to know what their enemy was thinking? This was my first exposure to what has been called “epistemic closure” among conservatives—living in their own bubble where nonsensical ideas circulate with no contradiction.

Pretty long article, but highly damning.


After careful research ... I came to the annoying conclusion that Keynes had been 100 percent right in the 1930s. Previously, I had thought the opposite. But facts were facts and there was no denying my conclusion. It didn’t affect the argument in my book, which was only about the rise and fall of ideas. The fact that Keynesian ideas were correct as well as popular simply made my thesis stronger.

I finished the book just as the economy was collapsing in the fall of 2008. This created another intellectual crisis for me. Having just finished a careful study of the 1930s, it was immediately obvious to me that the economy was suffering from the very same problem, a lack of aggregate demand. We needed Keynesian policies again, which completely ruined my nice rise-and-fall thesis. Keynesian ideas had arisen from the intellectual grave.

The book needed to be rethought and rewritten from scratch in light of new developments. Unfortunately, my publisher insisted on publishing it on schedule. I tried to repair the damage as best I could, but in the end the book was a mishmash of competing ideas with no clear narrative. It sold poorly.


I am disinclined to think that Republicans are yet ready for a serious questioning of their philosophy or strategy. They comfort themselves with the fact that they held the House (due to gerrymandering) and think that just improving their get-out-the-vote system and throwing a few bones to the Latino community will fix their problem. There appears to be no recognition that their defects are far, far deeper and will require serious introspection and rethinking of how Republicans can win going forward. The alternative is permanent loss of the White House and probably the Senate as well, which means they can only temporarily block Democratic initiatives and never advance their own.

I’ve paid a heavy price, both personal and financial, for my evolution from comfortably within the Republican Party and conservative movement to a less than comfortable position somewhere on the center-left. Honest to God, I am not a liberal or a Democrat. But these days, they are the only people who will listen to me. When Republicans and conservatives once again start asking my opinion, I will know they are on the road to recovery.

Bruce Bartlett is the author of The Benefit and the Burden: Tax Reform—Why We Need It and What It Will Take.

[TeyshaBlue]

*giggle*

Vitamin I does that to you.

[RandomGuy]

I'll address only this point (because I have to go back to the office and don't have the time to go ad infinitum on these rehashed disagreements)...

This is another case of you not understanding the context of the nomenclature/parsings used in the bible. The statement "they [children] belong to Him" was made in reference to the doctrine that children are spared from hell when they pass on to the next life (despite their sins). You took it to mean something else, but that is all I was trying to convey... "Children belong to the LORD" i.e. children ALL end up in heaven, in GOD's embrace, because of GOD's grace and mercy (again, despite their sin). If GOD allowed the children of wicked societies to grow up, and acquire the knowledge of good and evil, then given the rampant evil in their societies, they would more than likely choose to be wicked themselves. Once at an age of accountability they would be held accountable for their actions and judged according to the Law (which would more than likely mean a life of eternal separation from GOD - i.e. hell). That being the case, the point I was ultimately making was that while you all have chosen to scorn GOD for exacting his perfect justice, He was actually saving lives by cutting off such perverse socities.

I think the problem here is that you all tend to view life (our mortal time here on earth) as "all there is and all there ever will be"... While yes, our physical bodies are frail and finite our spirits will live on for eternity. Death is only the passage to that other life and not "the end all of everything". I figure the majority of you all do not believe in an afterlife which is why that concept runs contrary to your very beliefs. Furthermore, Blake's snarky statement that mockingly asked "why GOD would not provide a path for salvation sooner" is rendered moot in that light, because ultimately what's a few thousand years in the context of eternity? Zilch. Nada. Nothing more than an asymtotic approach to zero... The fact of the matter is that most of those people were given ample opportunities to repent of their wickedness, and ultimately had to face the ramifications for their choice not to repent. Under the New Covenant, entire generations have been presented with the redeeming gift of eternal life that was paid for on the cross by Jesus atonement for our sins. Millions over the course of the last 2 millenia have chosen to reject this offer and will be "cut off" as well. Heck, the majority of those in this forum (who relentlessly go out of their way to mock Christianity) have brazenly opted to walk down that road...

Your kind of Christianity, especially apologists who are trying to paper over pure evil, and defend the indefensible deserves mocking.

Tell me, if your God decided that he wanted to you slaughter children what would be the best way to deliver this ultimate good to them?

xe-hGFMBpbI

Your God ordered people to kill children, and you defend that here. I find that more than a little morally replulsive.

[TeyshaBlue]

lol...where you been, RG?

[RandomGuy]

lol...were you been, RG?

Very busy. :^/

Just ducking in to check on things, in between spreadsheets.

How are things?

[TeyshaBlue]

We've solved most of today's problems. Unfortunately, that involves SA210 as our fair, but permanent ruler.

[TeyshaBlue]

So it's kind of a mixed bag. lol

[boutons_deux]

Boehner's Failure and the GOP's Disgrace


http://readersupportednews.org/images/stories/alphabet/rsn-R.jpgemarkably, John Boehner couldn't get enough House Republicans to vote in favor of his proposal to keep the Bush tax cuts in place on the first million dollars of everyone's income and apply the old Clinton rates only to dollars over and above a million.

What? Even Grover Norquist blessed Boehner's proposal, saying it wasn't really a tax increase. Even Paul Ryan supported it.

What does Boehner's failure tell us about the modern Republican party?

That it has become a party of hypocrisy masquerading as principled ideology. The GOP talks endlessly about the importance of reducing the budget deficit. But it isn't even willing to raise revenues from the richest three-tenths of one percent of Americans to help with the task. We're talking about 400,000 people, for crying out loud.

It has become a party that routinely shills for its super-wealthy patrons at a time in our nation's history when the middle class is shrinking, the median wage is dropping, and the share of Americans in poverty is rising.

It has become a party of spineless legislators more afraid of facing primary challenges from right-wing kooks than of standing up for what's right for America.

For all these reasons it has become irrelevant to the problems America faces.

The Republican Party in the process of marginalizing itself out of existence. I am tempted to say good riddance, but that would be premature.

http://readersupportednews.org/opinion2/277-75/15153-focus-boehners-failure-and-the-gops-disgrace

[ChumpDumper]

Your kind of Christianity, especially apologists who are trying to paper over pure evil, and defend the indefensible deserves mocking.

Tell me, if your God decided that he wanted to you slaughter children what would be the best way to deliver this ultimate good to them?

xe-hGFMBpbI

Your God ordered people to kill children, and you defend that here. I find that more than a little morally replulsive.As my hair gets thinner, I like the idea of a God who sics bears on kids who would make fun of my bald pate tbh.

[RandomGuy]

You're side-stepping your accusation that somehow my statement was made condescendingly... you interpretted it that way, but that's not how I delivered it. So your accusation and subsequent insult was unwarranted.

And no, I didn't state that my understanding was "greater" than yours because you lack faith. I was talking to RG when I told him that his understanding of GOD was limited because he didn't have a relationship with GOD (how does one go about understanding matters of faith that he or she doesn't even believe in? He then later willingly admitted that he cannot accept scriptural-based answers because the bible is a 'fallible book' that is the dichotomy I was trying to point out).

"if you only accepted all my bullshit on faith, contrary to all the morals and evidence we have, you it would all be so clear"

You could put the same words in the mouth of any cultist or conspiracy theorist, and it would be the same.

Once you go down the "faith" road, it makes getting conned by liars all the easier the next time, because you have taken something as true without evidence.

Lastly, I'm not sure I would want a relationship with such an insane, evil thing. If you are willing to look the other way, that is your business I suppose. Stalin got away with it because people were afraid of him and obeyed him without question as well. Going against Stalin got you horribly punished. Sound familiar?

[clambake]

thats why thou shalt worship no other god is in there.

[Wild Cobra]

Very busy. :^/

Just ducking in to check on things, in between spreadsheets.

How are things?
I had no idea spreadsheets were comfortable to sleep between...

[scott]

tl;dr

[Winehole23]

http://www.nationaljournal.com/columns/cook-report/for-republicans-just-doing-the-math-is-frightening-20130117

[boutons_deux]

http://www.nationaljournal.com/columns/cook-report/for-republicans-just-doing-the-math-is-frightening-20130117


serial felony tax evader Bishop Gecko won 75% of the white male vote, and LOST! :lol

Repugs KNOW WITHOUT A DOUBT, as do many political analysts, that they are demographically SCREWED. That's why several Repug states intend to switch from winner-take-all electoral votes to proportional electoral votes with special rules to take advantage of their gerrymandering. And of course they gerrymandered heavily after the 2010 census so that they lost the House Congressional voting but kept control of the House.

"We can't win, so we cheat. We scared, dickless white men, losing our power and privilege, BUY LOTS OF GUNS to kill the n!ggas and wetbacks."