The fatal flaw of Republicanism

[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”.

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 bull .

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

Why do you wonder why anyone/everyone on your whine list calls you a ing 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 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 modi 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.

Why do you wonder why anyone/everyone on your whine list calls you a ing 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 modi 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 es become hot in heaven? Do they all get big country booty and ties to skeet down? 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 es become hot in heaven? Do they all get big country booty and ties to skeet down? 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.

[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