African Children Denounced As "Witches" By Christian Pastors

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Sir, what's your issue?

You throw up a broad generalization about Christians, calling them all stupid, and you throw a hissy fit when I avoid entering a debate with you. I don't waste my precious time with people who hold such irrational views.

I'm more than ready to discuss this topic, whether I turn out to be right or wrong, with someone else.

I said most Christians seem stupid because they are unable to address points directly and instead try to give a counter narrative that is not mutually exclusive. I pointed out to you how I see it as a lack of respect and how I behaved in accord with taht.

Actions speak louder than words and we both know that if you had any answer to what I said directly you would make it. You see it and are afraid to adress it honestly. That'll have to be good enough I guess.

[RandomGuy]

TBH, what exactly do you have trouble understanding? I've explained myself here to the fullest extent that I seemingly can.

I called your ty analysis of what God meant toward Abraham & Isaac a simple one, based on the FACT that it didn't even mention nevermind address the counter-view to it, as if to say it's the only one that's worthy of consideration. So what am I missing exactly? Where am I wrong?

You wanted civility. I tried to give it to you. Since honesty is not important to you though, I think we're done. It is kind of hard to have a meaningful discussion with someone determined to be dishonest.

[RandomGuy]

What's the counter view, reverend?

That was the part I don't get. I didn't offer a "counter-view". I offered a more complete view.

The thing I am trying to point out is the double standard when it comes to morality.

If a human being ate one baby a year, but give tens of millions of dollars to save children from deadly diseases every year would wouldn't say "ignore the part where he eats babies, the only relevant part is the good he does where he saves tens of thousands of children".

If God asks his followers to sacrifice their children or hack babies to death, but gives those children "eternal heavenly comfort", why do worshippers say "ignore the sacrifice/murder, the only relevant part is the part about heaven and salvation".

I find it telling that worshippers call people dishonest, pompous, or disingenuous when they point out that murder is bad.

To a rational person who cares about what is true, the fact that you have to rationalize murder and torture should be a huge red flag.

(shrugs) I guess it is human nature. I don't discount the salvation part of that idea, but I don't accept that I have to ignore the evil.

A real universe creating diety could do a lot better than the thing written about by bronze age savages. Bronze age savages would write about a being with the same morals and within their own understanding of the universe, which is exactly what the bible shows.

The very concept that a universe-creating being that cares whether some hairless apes on a tiny speck of dirt in some random tiny section of the universe worship begs belief in and of itself.

Why flood the entire planet to kill wicked people? Why not simply simultaneously pinch off their carotid arteries? Send your angels down to scoop up the babies that you don’t want to die, and give the babies to the people you prefer?
Flood myths are very, very common ones, based on primitive understandings of the world. The bible stories fall into that pattern. The new testament didn’t even vary much from similar heroic myths of the area.
Why send the savior figure to just ONE tribe, before mass media?
Worshippers never really step back and look at the bigger picture. They spend their time, meditating on minutae, without ever asking why.

You can’t create an accurate picture of the universe by ignoring things. You just can’t. You have to do a whole lot of ignoring to live in that bubble.

[Phenomanul]

That was the part I don't get. I didn't offer a "counter-view". I offered a more complete view.

The thing I am trying to point out is the double standard when it comes to morality.

If a human being ate one baby a year, but give tens of millions of dollars to save children from deadly diseases every year would wouldn't say "ignore the part where he eats babies, the only relevant part is the good he does where he saves tens of thousands of children".

If God asks his followers to sacrifice their children or hack babies to death, but gives those children "eternal heavenly comfort", why do worshippers say "ignore the sacrifice/murder, the only relevant part is the part about heaven and salvation".

I find it telling that worshippers call people dishonest, pompous, or disingenuous when they point out that murder is bad.

To a rational person who cares about what is true, the fact that you have to rationalize murder and torture should be a huge red flag.

(shrugs) I guess it is human nature. I don't discount the salvation part of that idea, but I don't accept that I have to ignore the evil.

A real universe creating diety could do a lot better than the thing written about by bronze age savages. Bronze age savages would write about a being with the same morals and within their own understanding of the universe, which is exactly what the bible shows.

The very concept that a universe-creating being that cares whether some hairless apes on a tiny speck of dirt in some random tiny section of the universe worship begs belief in and of itself.

Why flood the entire planet to kill wicked people? Why not simply simultaneously pinch off their carotid arteries? Send your angels down to scoop up the babies that you don’t want to die, and give the babies to the people you prefer?
Flood myths are very, very common ones, based on primitive understandings of the world. The bible stories fall into that pattern. The new testament didn’t even vary much from similar heroic myths of the area.
Why send the savior figure to just ONE tribe, before mass media?
Worshippers never really step back and look at the bigger picture. They spend their time, meditating on minutae, without ever asking why.

You can’t create an accurate picture of the universe by ignoring things. You just can’t. You have to do a whole lot of ignoring to live in that bubble.

Because the concept of ETERNITY seems to elude you. Christians hold views that are diametrically opposed to your finite world view - hence you judge and mock based on the limitations of said view.

In the context of eternity, you think I'll remember any pain I've suffered in my time on Earth in 1,000 years? How about a million years? After a billion? ETERNITY is a LOOOOOOOONG time... Furthermore, you keep glossing over the importance of the belief that it was SIN that introduced death into our world, not GOD - fittingly enough, JESUS' sacrifice, HIS death and ultimately HIS defeat of SIN is what allows us to enter heaven - it is a gift. Because that's the catch, we ALL have an eternal timeline and those that reject the offer of grace will share the fate of satan and all of the other fallen demons that rejected GOD - away from GOD's presence in the "lake of fire". My belief is that we condemn ourselves by our own actions... lest people here think for a second that somehow I've cast judgment over them.

So if everyone ultimately dies, then the exact "when" or "how" isn't as important in the context of an Eternal timeline. Your erroneous assessment of GOD's morality based largely on the fact that HE doesn't rescue us from death, hence, is based on an incomplete view of the process of death itself. This is exemplified by your continued pointing to the redemption of children as an 'evil' act (where the alternative would have separated them from GOD eternally). More importantly, GOD didn't promise any of us a painless death. Yet according to your logic, being involved in a horrific death means that somehow GOD has wronged us??? That is such a myopic view of death.

JESUS suffered one of the most brutal deaths on record, and even though HE had the power to stop it (have thousands of angels 'swoop' in and rescue him from his captors) HE didn't out of LOVE for us all --> the mission was to defeat SIN and DEATH once, and for all Eternity. You asked earlier, in an attempt to build another strawman argument, whether or not I would stop the crucifixion if I had a time machine. Speculative as the question was, the answer is "no," because JESUS ultimately chose that path to redeem us all --> the part you keep missing is that if HE would have saved himself THEN HE wouldn't have been able to pave a road to save ANY of us. You mock that as irrational behavior because in your finite wisdom, you point to GOD as being 'sadistic' - but you do so without a fundamental understanding of WHO GOD is and WHAT SIN is... or that somehow SIN could have been defeated via an alternative method.

[All related] Why are the Moriat mountains even referenced by name in the story of Abraham and Isaac? GOD was making a prophetic point. JEHOVA-JIREH, GOD our Provider, supplied the ram that was offered up in sacrifice in Isaac's stead, Abraham's son. On that same mountain, thousands of years later, it was GOD's own SON, JESUS, that would be offered up in OUR place! Of course, none of these things matter to you - you brush them off in smug dismissiveness because you don't care for any of it - which is fine. But when you state, "You can’t create an accurate picture of the universe by ignoring things. You just can’t. You have to do a whole lot of ignoring to live in that bubble" do you realize that your own belief comes from a bubble of it's own??? Of course not, that type of introspection is never part of any of your assessments.

I'm talking to the guy that faithfully believes that life came from non-life (even though that LAW has never been broken and is provable time, after time, after time, after time, everytime, always). You even referenced it earlier in the thread, that a belief in GOD wasn't essential because "amino acids and lipids can rearrange themselves". BUT that dynamic has never been proven to create life. Nevertheless, you believe that 'some yet undiscovered' chemical pathway long ago broke the divide and made it possible for life to come from non-life - You've even cited some studies on this front (in previous threads) BUT none of those pathways can proceed on their own to the desired end product (without our intervention as a designer/creator). YOU believe that world view entirely on faith, creating the bubble from which you then throw barbs and daggers at other people's views. Mathematically, you've even clung to staggering odds on the whim that it could continue to justify your own disbelief - again, all your prerogative. Just understand that each man has their own faith - including yourself.

[boutons_deux]

bull religious-brain-dead cant, repeated ad nauseam

[Phenomanul]

bull religious-brain-dead cant, repeated ad nauseam

So says the guy that can never make a single coherent argument of his own.

[CosmicCowboy]

Because the concept of ETERNITY seems to elude you. Christians hold views that are diametrically opposed to your finite world view - hence you judge and mock based on the limitations of said view.

In the context of eternity, you think I'll remember any pain I've suffered in my time on Earth in 1,000 years? How about a million years? After a billion? ETERNITY is a LOOOOOOOONG time... Furthermore, you keep glossing over the importance of the belief that it was SIN that introduced death into our world, not GOD - fittingly enough, JESUS' sacrifice, HIS death and ultimately HIS defeat of SIN is what allows us to enter heaven - it is a gift. Because that's the catch, we ALL have an eternal timeline and those that reject the offer of grace will share the fate of satan and all of the other fallen demons that rejected GOD - away from GOD's presence in the "lake of fire". My belief is that we condemn ourselves by our own actions... lest people here think for a second that somehow I've cast judgment over them.

So if everyone ultimately dies, then the exact "when" or "how" isn't as important in the context of an Eternal timeline. Your erroneous assessment of GOD's morality based largely on the fact that HE doesn't rescue us from death, hence, is based on an incomplete view of the process of death itself. This is exemplified by your continued pointing to the redemption of children as an 'evil' act (where the alternative would have separated them from GOD eternally). More importantly, GOD didn't promise any of us a painless death. Yet according to your logic, being involved in a horrific death means that somehow GOD has wronged us??? That is such a myopic view of death.

JESUS suffered one of the most brutal deaths on record, and even though HE had the power to stop it (have thousands of angels 'swoop' in and rescue him from his captors) HE didn't out of LOVE for us all --> the mission was to defeat SIN and DEATH once, and for all Eternity. You asked earlier, in an attempt to build another strawman argument, whether or not I would stop the crucifixion if I had a time machine. Speculative as the question was, the answer is "no," because JESUS ultimately chose that path to redeem us all --> the part you keep missing is that if HE would have saved himself THEN HE wouldn't have been able to pave a road to save ANY of us. You mock that as irrational behavior because in your finite wisdom, you point to GOD as being 'sadistic' - but you do so without a fundamental understanding of WHO GOD is and WHAT SIN is... or that somehow SIN could have been defeated via an alternative method.

[All related] Why are the Moriat mountains even referenced by name in the story of Abraham and Isaac? GOD was making a prophetic point. JEHOVA-JIREH, GOD our Provider, supplied the ram that was offered up in sacrifice in Isaac's stead. On that same mountain, thousands of years ahead, JESUS would be offered up in OUR place. Of course, none of these things matter to you - you brush them off in smug dismissiveness because you don't care for any of it - which is fine. But when you state, "You can’t create an accurate picture of the universe by ignoring things. You just can’t. You have to do a whole lot of ignoring to live in that bubble" do you realize that your own belief comes from a bubble of it's own??? Of course not, that type of introspection is not part of any of your assessments.

I'm talking to the guy that faithfully believes that life came from non-life (even though that LAW has never been broken and is provable time, after time, after time, after time, everytime, always). You even referenced it earlier in the thread, that a belief in GOD wasn't essential because "amino acids and lipids can rearrange themselves". BUT that dynamic has never been proven to create life. Nevertheless, you believe that 'some yet undiscovered' chemical pathway long ago broke the divide and made it possible for life to come from non-life - You've even cited some studies on this front (in previous threads) BUT none of those pathways can proceed on their own to the desired end product (without our intervention as a designer/creator). YOU believe that world view entirely on faith, creating the bubble from which you then throw barbs and daggers at other people's views. Mathematically, you've even clung to staggering odds on the whim that it could continue to justify your own disbelief - again, all your prerogative. Just understand that each man has their own faith - including yourself.

Just curious...are you saying Adam and Eve would have lived forever in Eden if she hadn't taken a bite of the apple?

[I. Hustle]

Just curious...are you saying Adam and Eve would have lived forever in Eden if she hadn't taken a bite of the apple?

What apple?

[Blake]

Because the concept of ETERNITY seems to elude you. Christians hold views that are diametrically opposed to your finite world view - hence you judge and mock based on the limitations of said.....

Tldr

What's your opinion on why your God requires a blood sacrifice.

Don't want theological rambling. I want your opinion.

[Phenomanul]

Just curious...are you saying Adam and Eve would have lived forever in Eden if she hadn't taken a bite of the apple?

Yes (a fruit). In fact that's why scripture says GOD had Seraphim angels guard the entrance to the Garden of Eden to prevent them from eating of the Tree of Life, because doing so would have given Adam and Eve immortality all while locked into SIN. They needed to eventually die to free themselves from the bondages of SIN / AND JESUS would at some later date pave the road for redemption.

[DisAsTerBot]

indoctrination is a

[DisAsTerBot]

lol in fact

[Phenomanul]

indoctrination is a

The part everyone here keeps missing is that everybody's beliefs are "indoctrinated" in some shape, form, or fashion. You hold on to your beliefs with the same 'religious' fervor that believers hold on to theirs.

That you all don't want to accept that fact as reality is nothing more than denial.

At least I know why I believe what I believe. Most people, however, feel snug in the comfort of consensius gentium.

[Blake]

Yes (a fruit). In fact that's why scripture says GOD had Seraphim angels guard the entrance to the Garden of Eden to prevent them from eating of the Tree of Life, because doing so would have given Adam and Eve immortality all while locked into SIN. They needed to eventually die to free themselves from the bondages of SIN / AND JESUS would at some later date pave the road for redemption.

Thanks God for dangling Tree of knowledge fruit out there knowing full well they'd eat it

[DisAsTerBot]

The part everyone here keeps missing is that everybody's beliefs are "indoctrinated" in some shape, form, or fashion. You hold on to your beliefs with the same 'religious' fervor that believers hold on to theirs.

That you all don't want to accept that fact as reality is nothing more than denial.

At least I know why I believe what I believe. Most people, however, feel snug in the comfort of consensius gentium.

Following doctrine is what being indoctrinated is
I'd say most here that you are discussing with were indoctrinated at one time and are no longer.

[Phenomanul]

Thanks God for dangling Tree of knowledge fruit out there knowing full well they'd eat it

You have children Blake... How many times have you promised your children gifts for 'good behavior'? It was Satan's astuteness that corrupted man's heart... and ultimately sealed his own fate. Adam and Eve reached over and grabbed a "cookie from the cookie jar" before they were ready for it. The fruit of those trees was meant to be a good thing, but the fact that they ate it in disobedience to GOD's orders is what made it a sin. Such is the risk that comes from choice.

Your view that "GOD just dangled [the fruit] there and tempted them to sin" is an opinion I don't share. GOD made Adam, Eve and Satan accountable for their actions because it was THEIR choice to act in the manner in which they did. You know we have a philosophical impasse on the concept of 'free will'. Unfortunately, your heart has been filled with disdain against GOD and I cannot help you there.

Peace and farewell...

(I really don't want to get drawn in to discussions with you - you quickly turn contemptful).

[baseline bum]

Thanks God for dangling Tree of knowledge fruit out there knowing full well they'd eat it

God's not only a genocidal maniac, he's also a ing troll.

[boutons_deux]

So says the guy that can never make a single coherent argument of his own.

that's just like your bull opinion, man. I lay down so much butthurt that my victims stalk me with silly comments.

[baseline bum]

[Phenomanul]

that's just like your bull opinion, man. I lay down so much butthurt that my victims stalk me with silly comments.

I'm a stalker? Please.... YOU are always there (without fail) the few times I decide to chime in on anything...???? Hmmmmmmm.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I like ending with the creation story literally interpreted. There was a snake and the first two humans not born of naledi or similar member of our genus. I am guessing you can cut off the literal into figurative at will. It's good to be a christian sophist.

[Blake]

You have children Blake... How many times have you promised your children gifts for 'good behavior'? It was Satan's astuteness that corrupted man's heart... and ultimately sealed his own fate. Adam and Eve reached over and grabbed a "cookie from the cookie jar" before they were ready for it. The fruit of those trees was meant to be a good thing, but the fact that they ate it in disobedience to GOD's orders is what made it a sin. Such is the risk that comes from choice.

Your view that "GOD just dangled [the fruit] there and tempted them to sin" is an opinion I don't share. GOD made Adam, Eve and Satan accountable for their actions because it was THEIR choice to act in the manner in which they did. You know we have a philosophical impasse on the concept of 'free will'. Unfortunately, your heart has been filled with disdain against GOD and I cannot help you there.

Peace and farewell...

(I really don't want to get drawn in to discussions with you - you quickly turn contemptful).

You quickly turn butthurt.

He's supposed to be omniscient, ergo he knew they'd eat it but put it there any way.

Use some logic, man.

[Blake]

Lol

[Phenomanul]

He's supposed to be omniscient, ergo he knew they'd eat it but put it there any way.

Use some logic, man.

And THAT's our impasse.

I believe that GOD willingly gives up some of his omniscience in order to gift mankind 'free will' - honoring a gentleman's agreement with Himself. IN that context, man is still very much accountable for his/her actions and GOD ultimately has to deal with the consequences of gifting other beings the power of choice - it's a risk HE willingly chose to take...

GOD is all-knowing, but willingly relinquishes some of that power to allow us to come to HIM on grounds of faith (an extension of our choice). That many people can't reconcile GOD's omniscient nature with the ramifications of 'free-will' stem largely from the fact that they deal only in absolutist terms. --> which is very much what you've done by suggesting GOD is pulling ALL the puppet strings and essentially playing both sides...

So again, we'll have to agree to disagree.

[boutons_deux]

I believe that GOD willingly gives up some of his omniscience in order to gift mankind 'free will'