African Children Denounced As "Witches" By Christian Pastors

[RandomGuy]

14 pages of this ?

Not everybody has the attention span of a gnat. Isn't there a smiley you need to be posting somewhere?

[Phenomanul]

What you meant to do. . . For the argument 'the Phenobarbital account doesn't know what the it is talking about' I will hold onto this. It reminds me of another Russell quote:



Plank's length is basically the smallest quanta where light wavelength can propagate. It's infinitesimally small but it is not zero. Then of course there is the entire nature of a theory and how unlike dogma is able to change with different observable phenomenon. I just asked a physicist at Cambridge who happens to be one of my best friends to describe what a plank length means to him and he said its a theoretical point where quantum effects become the dominant paradigm.

Anyway that takes a big ole on your 'something from nothing' argument because said length is greater than zero. The Russell quotes apply there as well. Then of course there is the complex plane and topology of Euler which has proven real in telecom and atomics over and again implying a multidimensional reality that were only scratching the surface of.

You quote scripture. . . .

Wait... what?????

You built your entire rebuttal on a reading comprehension error...? Rather than gloat about it like you assuredly would go back and read that I said the 'origins' singularity was "infinitesimally smaller" THAN Planck's [length]"

And don't presume to lecture me on Physics... For all practical purposes, Planck's length is the smallest working unit of measure for finite sub-atomic particles at which point the quantum effects take over. My statement was that the universe and all therein came from a space infinitesimally smaller than that. I referenced it to show how even at that finite length you couldn't possibly squeeze the contents of the entire universe.

The whole point is that people that don't believe a supernatural Creator was required to kick-start the cosmos, require belief that our universe was created from an eternally pre-existing multi-verse - despite the fact that the premise of a multiverse cannot be physically tested.

Without that alternate theory on which to fall back on, the asymptotic nature of the origins singularity (mathematically expressed) suggests that progressing from t=0, everything came from nothing.

Those scientists would rather not validate the notion that our universe had a finite, discrete origin --> as is described by Scripture.

AND so on faith they believe their multiverse alternative.

But go ahead and keep deflecting.

[Phenomanul]

Which include the 10 commandments. He breaks those like they don't exist.

LOL WHAT???? The TEN commandments are for humans... How can GOD tell Himself, "Thou shalt have no other GOD before me?"

But keep doing your 'mental gymnastics'...

[Phenomanul]

Except natural laws didn't exist, if my understanding of the most current cosmology is correct. The equations that describe the nature of the universe breakdown when time=0

A couple of other things:
Plank's constant is not a "size". It is not a dimensional measurement.
6.62607004 × 10-34 m2 kg / s
It is units mass/time/distance.

The rest of it is a condescending strawman. I'll pass, other than to note you have distorted what others believe, and attributed motivations without evidence.

You have attempted to ascribe the kind of "theory in search of evidence" motivations in others, trying to drag the scientific method down to your level. Shame.

Science does far better than faith in any aspect of determining things about our universe. That may bug the out of you, but that is no reason to lie about others.

That is exactly what you all do to believers.

I use applied science day-in, day-out. No where in my application of scientific principles do I have to entertain the notion of 'origins'. IT IS IRRELEVANT.

AND YET,

bouton's, and other posters on this forum INCESSANTLY suggest believers are stupid, and intellectually inferior because they don't bow at the altar of Darwin or Hawking / Dawkins.

In other words, they claim that our refusal to believe your naturalistic origins premises reduces us to attackers of science. WHEN the use of applied science has NOTHING to do with origins beliefs or theories of origins.

I can't believe you cannot see the inherent hypocrisy of such a series of statements. That's usually why these debates start in the first place. It's a clash of world views.

Is the multi-verse premise an oversimplification of the tens of alternative theories out there...? Perhaps. My point was to suggest that atheistic scientists WANT to dispel the 'Big Bang' belief because it jives with Scripture - they search for alternatives that don't require a 'kick-start' process. You all conveniently harp on my word choices but never seem to read the actual phrases. For example, you attributed condescension to my statement - when I'm simply stating my position. Whatever.

[RandomGuy]

LOL WHAT???? The TEN commandments are for humans... How can GOD tell Himself, "Thou shalt have no other GOD before me?"

But keep doing your 'mental gymnastics'...

spe·cial plead·ing
noun
noun: special pleading
argument in which the speaker deliberately ignores aspects that are unfavorable to their point of view.

Fallacy: Special Pleading

Description of Special Pleading

Special Pleading is a fallacy in which a person applies standards, principles, rules, etc. to others while taking herself (or those she has a special interest in) to be exempt, without providing adequate justification for the exemption. This sort of "reasoning" has the following form:

Person A accepts standard(s) S and applies them to others in cir tance(s) C.
Person A is in cir stance(s) C.
Therefore A is exempt from S

Not an overly convincing form of persuasion. Harm is harm, demonstrably so. The only reason I see that you have for the "except part" is that you want to worship a perfect being.

The priests that ultimately described such a being as perfect had every motivation to reduce the amount of questioning of their own authority by making such claims about the beings they worshipped. Who would question a perfect being's proclamations?

[Phenomanul]

No one, actually.

Cause.... this isn't condescending?

[Phenomanul]

Not an overly convincing form of persuasion. Harm is harm, demonstrably so. The only reason I see that you have for the "except part" is that you want to worship a perfect being.

The priests that ultimately described such a being as perfect had every motivation to reduce the amount of questioning of their own authority by making such claims about the beings they worshipped. Who would question a perfect being's proclamations?

Your argument makes no sense.

I think by now you should know that I don't take Blake's posts seriously. He's so disrespectful and I cannot afford to give him more time than what I already do. He should technically be on my ignore list.

In other words your rebuttals to anything I tell Blake is a side-step in the conversation not worth pursuing.

[Blake]

LOL WHAT???? The TEN commandments are for humans... How can GOD tell Himself, "Thou shalt have no other GOD before me?"

But keep doing your 'mental gymnastics'...

How can he tell humans "though shalt not kill" but does it himself on a whim?

Now avoid this question by doing some mental cart wheels.

[Blake]

Cause.... this isn't condescending?

It's what you're doing

[Phenomanul]

How can he tell humans "though shalt not kill" but does it himself on a whim?

Now avoid this question by doing some mental cart wheels.

Technically it's "murder"

otherwise we couldn't "kill" our livestock for sustenance.

"murder" implies pre-emptive hate.

Your small mind has a problem understanding GOD's Nature as you keep wanting to anthropomorph Him to the feeble magnitude of humans.

Prior to the covenant established under JESUS' grace, GOD had to exact JUSTICE when He saw fit. They payment for sin is death. You don't seem to understand the system.

[Phenomanul]

It's what you're doing

So then enlighten me. Give me YOUR origins premise for the cosmos.

[Blake]

That is exactly what you all do to believers.

I use applied science day-in, day-out. No where in my application of scientific principles do I have to entertain the notion of 'origins'. IT IS IRRELEVANT.

AND YET,

bouton's, and other posters on this forum INCESSANTLY suggest believers are stupid, and intellectually inferior because they don't bow at the altar of Darwin or Hawking / Dawkins.

In other words, they claim that our refusal to believe your naturalistic origins premises reduces us to attackers of science. WHEN the use of applied science has NOTHING to do with origins beliefs or theories of origins.

I can't believe you cannot see the inherent hypocrisy of such a series of statements. That's usually why these debates start in the first place. It's a clash of world views.

Is the multi-verse premise an oversimplification of the tens of alternative theories out there...? Perhaps. My point was to suggest that atheistic scientists WANT to dispel the 'Big Bang' belief because it jives with Scripture - they search for alternatives that don't require a 'kick-start' process. You all conveniently harp on my word choices but never seem to read the actual phrases. For example, you attributed condescension to my statement - when I'm simply stating my position. Whatever.

Yeah but you want to attribute science and everything else to bible God.

Pretty stupid, tbh.

[Blake]

Technically it's "murder"

otherwise we couldn't "kill" our livestock for sustenance.

"murder" implies pre-emptive hate.

Your small mind has a problem understanding GOD's Nature as you keep wanting to anthropomorph Him to the feeble magnitude of humans.

yeah, God "murdered" people in the Old Testament over petty ridiculous things. He also laid down laws to execute people for things like being gay.

Just keep spinning tho. It's more entertaining to me than anything else on the message board at the moment.

[Blake]

So then enlighten me. Give me YOUR origins premise for the cosmos.

I'm not sure.

But I know it wasn't bible god.

Lol young earthers

[clambake]

how can someone who believes in a god deny the possibility of other gods?

is it cuz your god said so?

[RandomGuy]

Cause.... this isn't condescending?

It uses derision/satire to deal with the dishonest act of deliberately distorting the position of someone else, so that one can fool oneself into thinking one is winning a debate, when all one is really doing is dodging the real arguments.

I think dishonesty should be treated with derision.

Very often people who attack science do so using this method. Such proclamations tend to start with "scientists believe [insert distortion]" or something similar.

Your "something from nothing" statement falls into that category. Most likely because you have not fully understood the theory. More accurate would be "something [a universe] from something else [a singularity]".

I try very, very hard to not distort other's positions for the simple reason that I would like my consideration of an idea/assertion to be as solidly reasoned as possible.

[RandomGuy]

... and again, you fail to consider the choices that the God idea you worship had to have made. It isn't about my choices. It is about the decision tree required to construct your milieu.

You ignore all sorts of common sense, and what your reason tells you, so you can continue to believe yourself a good person, which I am confident you are.

Because you are a good person though, you have to kluge when it comes to the rationalizations, for the simple reason of reducing cognitive dissonance. You can't answer simple questions truthfully here. You choose to ignore them and dissemble. Good people don't worship evil things. Those two ideas (good person and worship something evil) are generally mutually exclusive. Is mental anguish harmful? Is it evil to hack children to death?

Your choice is to ignore the gun pointed at your head, so you can convince yourself that the thing pointing it at you is worth worshipping, without considering the choice it made to hold the gun.

The decision to hold the gun is still a choice. God's choice.

I think this is your biggest mischaracterization of my position - and ultimately where Christianity is different from all of the other religions (despite whatever brand of Catholicism you are familiar with that believes the opposite).

Namely that we're not "good," no matter how hard we try to be. I explained this earlier, "our good deeds are like garbage before GOD". We can't 'earn' heaven/eternal salvation by being 'good' because none of us are. That is why judgment of our brothers is futile, given that none of us are worthy - not one... Committing only one sin (however slight the infraction) is enough to separate us from GOD eternally. On those grounds, ultimately everyone falls short of heaven.

"ultimately where Christianity is different from all of the other religions"

Provably false. Christianity is not the only religion that teaches that human beings are innately flawed. Struggling against our base nature is a very common thread in MOST religions. If you want me to prove this, I will be happy to do so at great length. This idea is very easy for me to reject as false.

Moving on, in the interest of accuracy then replace "good" with "decent" or "moral" or "faithful" whatever you want to. Or try this: "you have convinced yourself you have made the right decisions, i.e. to worship something based on what you think are good reasons".

If your reasons are then shown to be ty, then your own thinking about yourself "made the right decision" would be called into question. Hence the cognitive dissonance.

[RandomGuy]

Only one human was perfect (never sinned), and because He didn't rely on His divinity to defeat sin, His triumph over sin ultimately allowed SIN to condemn us all. That same triumph however was enough for him to mediate on our behalf.

IF we accept JESUS' offer of atonement - a gift that none of us deserve (grace) to prevent sure death that we did deserve (mercy) THEN sin cannot condemn us.

All that to say, that Christ's perfect blood (payment of 'life' to defeat 'death') was enough to atone for the sins of all humanity. Except people still reject his gift. A choice. Their choice. So they must be held accountable for that choice --> which means that they will be judged according to their works (which we've established aren't good enough).

JESUS' grace on the cross also saves all children who weren't of age to make that choice.

Mental anguish...??? ¡Please..! None of that matters in the context of eternity. As I said before, I'm not guaranteed a peaceful death... none of us are. Death is only a process. Our eternal destination is the key. Look up the death of the martyr Steven. Or for that matter, any martyr of the early church - many of them died agonizing deaths at the hands of their persecutors (stonings / beatings / hangings / burnings / maulings by lions / crucifixions) - yet I can assure you that in the presence of GOD none of that matters to them (and they would do it all over again).

Again, the concept of "eternity" makes God's actions so much more abominable, as it removes something infinitely precious (our infinitesimal lifespan) from those children.

Further, your argument's form is:

"It is infinitely good that these children were saved from the potential of infinite torture". Is infinite torture evil? Yes. So God is saving those children from his infinite torture? really? that's what you are going with?

Your response is then, "it is the victims fault/choice", as if that removes God's choices from the table.

God choose a ty method (bad arguments and a flawed book) to convey it's message of "believe in me or ELSE". Then tortures people who don't find that convincing?

Why is your God choosing such a poor way to communicate its will? Surely a perfect being knows what it would take for me to believe in it.

[clambake]

to believe....you just need to be a newborn of a preacher. your indoctrination begins before you hit the fresh air.

[Phenomanul]

Yeah but you want to attribute science and everything else to bible God.

Pretty stupid, tbh.

Says the guy with the "I don't know" copout that fails to address the root of the question. Thanks for playing.

Now come back with "science is supposed to study those things to find the answer"... which of course I know. But then the fact that you've already decided that a Creator wasn't required, isn't science. It's just as speculative a statement as my own beliefs. Either way, I'm not in denial about what I believe of origins. You all keep giving the run-around to avoid answering the t=0 question.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Your argument makes no sense.

It makes sense to me. It not making sense to you is not the standard dip .

Your last post was so much more repe ive self assured drivel that I didn't respond to it and no one else will either.

Good job!

[RandomGuy]

So then enlighten me. Give me YOUR origins premise for the cosmos.

FWIW: "I don't know."

Science gives us some ideas, up to a point. I am willing to provisionally accept some explanations, since there are some good reasons (review of evidence, and attempt to find a theory that explains evidence) to accept it.

Your problem is that "I don't know" doesn't mean you get to fill in the blank with a favored explanation, and expect that to stick without evidence.

A thousand years ago, the explanation for the Sun would have been supernatural. "A blazing chariot being driven by an angel" or something similar to fill in the blank for "I don't know".

Today, we can safely hold that the explanation for the Sun is "a runaway fusion reaction". We did this by using evidence from billions of years ago, and current observations to put together a picture of our universe with a theory that fits the evidence, not the other way around.

The box of what "God" did keeps shrinking every year. It is impossible for us to say that we can't eventually discover where the universe came from, just as it was impossible for humans to say a thousand years ago that we would be able to pretty conclusively explain that big shiny thing that goes across the sky.

The earth moves around the sun. But it wasn't always that way. "the bible tells us the sun goes around the earth".

What changed?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

So then enlighten me. Give me YOUR origins premise for the cosmos.

This is stupid. Just because something is unknown doesn't make your interpretation right. We just don't know.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

FWIW: "I don't know."

Science gives us some ideas, up to a point. I am willing to provisionally accept some explanations, since there are some good reasons (review of evidence, and attempt to find a theory that explains evidence) to accept it.

Your problem is that "I don't know" doesn't mean you get to fill in the blank with a favored explanation, and expect that to stick without evidence.

A thousand years ago, the explanation for the Sun would have been supernatural. "A blazing chariot being driven by an angel" or something similar to fill in the blank for "I don't know".

Today, we can safely hold that the explanation for the Sun is "a runaway fusion reaction". We did this by using evidence from billions of years ago, and current observations to put together a picture of our universe with a theory that fits the evidence, not the other way around.

The box of what "God" did keeps shrinking every year. It is impossible for us to say that we can't eventually discover where the universe came from, just as it was impossible for humans to say a thousand years ago that we would be able to pretty conclusively explain that big shiny thing that goes across the sky.

The earth moves around the sun. But it wasn't always that way. "the bible tells us the sun goes around the earth".

What changed?

You're much nicer than I. I know you know he is completely disingenuous.

[Phenomanul]

Again, the concept of "eternity" makes God's actions so much more abominable, as it removes something infinitely precious (our infinitesimal lifespan) from those children.

What????

It ENSURES them 'infinitesimal lifespan' in GOD's presence as opposed to away from it.

Again, you keep saying you understand the context of eternity from a Christian standpoint, but you keep botching the basic premise.

Further, your argument's form is:

"It is infinitely good that these children were saved from the potential of infinite torture". Is infinite torture evil? Yes. So God is saving those children from his infinite torture? really? that's what you are going with?

Your response is then, "it is the victims fault/choice", as if that removes God's choices from the table.

God choose a ty method (bad arguments and a flawed book) to convey it's message of "believe in me or ELSE". Then tortures people who don't find that convincing?

The rest of your argument is moot, in light of the fact YOU STILL don't understand that children are being spared from judgment (because they weren't at a cognitive point to understand the ramifications of their actions/choices).

The bigger issue is why you keep wanting to throw away the whole concept of accountability...? If you did, then how can you claim moral authority over a being that does require accountability...?

Why is your God choosing such a poor way to communicate its will? Surely a perfect being knows what it would take for me to believe in it.

The angels in heaven knew GOD, saw Him even... some of them still chose to rebel against Him (an unredeemable act).

Humans, as a wholly separate creation, ultimately have to believe Him on grounds of faith.

If we saw or met GOD in our current form, we would surely die because of the presence of sin in our life. At least we wouldn't be able to see GOD in the fullness of His nature. Either way, believing only after you've seen is 'the opposite' of faith - it simply isn't good enough for Him.



Everyone else is held accountable for their choices.