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?

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).

Bull .

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



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 cir stances 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 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. ). 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 , IMO. One should be so lucky to have people to do that. , 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. ). 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]

Bull .

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



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 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 , IMO. One should be so lucky to have people to do that. , 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...

[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 en les 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...

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...

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 is not the best option, got it...

[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 en les 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 is not the best option, got it...

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

how sweet.

[Blake]

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

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.