Reply With Quote
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 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.Because youtube provides the perfect sample pool... and amply provides the entire picture of what is going on in a child's brainAlso, again with the foul language?.
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)
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.
until he changes his mind.
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.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.
When in the did I ever say anything like that?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).
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.But whatever... People like Blake and clambake are going to use foul, scornful, derisive language every chance they get... meh... whatever floats their boat.
i understand what you're saying. he will never be punished for doing it cuz he's the punisher.
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 subs uted their judgement for God's.“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
Meh. Gotta go.
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).
Last edited by Phenomanul; 11-14-2012 at 04:39 PM.
cool. so we all made it in.
see you at the party.
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.
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)...
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?)
why even bother with judgement?
Might be partying in a mansion next door to Stalin.
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?
hey, all you gotta do is say you believe him to be your lord and savior.
anybody got any figures on time limits?
I don't know... perhaps being gifted with "free will" made us eventually su b 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?
Last edited by Phenomanul; 11-14-2012 at 05:18 PM.
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.
Last edited by Phenomanul; 11-14-2012 at 05:16 PM.
you're supposed to turn the other cheek, i think.
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.
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.
oh i get it. he makes the rules......makes them. you won't find him repenting.
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.
you guys always say "free will" when its not. why you do that?
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.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?
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 bull .
It's usually at that point when I get rude and call you a ing idiot.
Give me some time. I'll find some of your ”first punches”.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
