African Children Denounced As "Witches" By Christian Pastors

[RandomGuy]

No one is suggesting you should not be able to vote according to your own world perspective. We simply require anybody elected to office to respect the separation of church and state.

Except of course if you are a Supreme Court justice...

[RandomGuy]

Given 55 million abortions have taken place since Roe vs. Wade. Your position has a much lower "high ground" position than you wish to have and hence any argument of your "superior morality" is moot.

More deflection. I noticed you deliberately didn't answer a simple question.

How many babies do you think God drowned in the great flood? Again, just a general number, within an order of magnitude.

All I am asking for is an honest answer. I will be happy to address the issue of abortion, but don't think the discussion should be one-sided. Quid pro quo.

[Blake]

I can't find an explanation for the instantaneous drop in temperature in the sanctuary (of at least over 60 °F over a wide space of about 1,000 sqft), nor explanation for the details of what transpired in the separate room where the boy was taken (which I didn't delve into).

It would be denial of the highest order to suggest that none of that took place (to gloss over it as if it didn't occur). I was there. It was real. There were 100s of witnesses that can attest to what transpired that day.

I honestly don't care that they laugh about that. It's their own damn volition to believe or not. What I was berating however, was their insensitivity towards the murder of my friends. They're jerks. They know it, they flaunt it even... they just don't care.

What did the temperature drop have to do with fixing a witchy kid?

[Blake]

Sin is all the things that GOD isn't.

Except murder is a sin

[mingus]

Does simplifying the parable of Abraham and Isaac distort my characterization somehow to the point where it was inaccurate?

What was Abraham asked to do? In your words.

What you left out of it was crucial to understanding the greater point of the parable. That's it.

[RandomGuy]

What you left out of it was crucial to understanding the greater point of the parable. That's it.

I think you left out what was crucial to understanding the greater point of the parable. I am willing to accept that a being that demands worship will ask to be worshipped. It also has a choice as to the method. That choice indicates what I view as evil.

So back to my question.

What was Abraham specifically asked to do? i.e. what action was he requested? In your own words. How was Abraham to express his choice?

[Phenomanul]

More deflection. I noticed you deliberately didn't answer a simple question.

How many babies do you think God drowned in the great flood? Again, just a general number, within an order of magnitude.

All I am asking for is an honest answer. I will be happy to address the issue of abortion, but don't think the discussion should be one-sided. Quid pro quo.

I've given you my honest answer many times over... You all disingenuously always try to twist it around into something that it is not... Any many posters grab my responses outside of the flow of the discussion I'm having with you... And twist it some more devoid of any context whatsoever... So here's your answer.

Any child who died before their acknowledgement/discernment of good and evil (different age depending on the child's development) automatically enters the kingdom of Heaven... Anyone else, ultimately pays the price of their own actions - knowing of course that they were doing wrong (theft, rape, etc...). The flood/reboot was ultimately an act of redemption for any child in the former group - because given enough time they would have entered the latter group and been unsalvageable (accountable for their actions)...

You villify GOD as evil, but you don't understand the extent of evil HE was eradicating (Nephalim)... HIS actions were both merciful and gracious with respect to babies and children in the first group. Everyone else cast their own lots and sealed their own fates... Not to mention Noah preached a message of repentance to them for 100 years! All they had to do was step into the ark... But they made their choices... Again, you wantonly ignore the fact that people always had a choice... You constantly wish to justify their bad choices (and absolve them of the repercussions from said choice)... In this case, their bad choice cost them their life... Literally all they had to do was step in the ark.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

What you left out of it was crucial to understanding the greater point of the parable. That's it.

I like how you use utilitarian ethic to justify bad behavior while God who is supposedly made us based on him gets the thought control of Peter and simple declarations that brook no utilitarian ethic like 'thou shalt not kill.'

I didn't leave out that is actually in the Bible. You don't speak for God.

parable. So lets be clear you think this didn't happen and it's just story time?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I am oppressing him no more than he claims by my volition to vote according to my own world perspective.

Thanks for finally catching up.

The facetious smugness on this board is so rampant it rubs off... I would normally not have discussions in this manner.

Read what I said and try again. Your claiming that boutox is oppressing you. If you're going to be smug then simple reading errors don't help. Smug and fear of boutox is amusing though. Victim card much?

[Phenomanul]

No one is suggesting you should not be able to vote according to your own world perspective. We simply require anybody elected to office to respect the separation of church and state.

Are not the laws of the land, also an extension of my vote? I vote with my conscience you vote with yours. That you all cry about the fact that I do so however, ALL WHILE retaining your own leanings is what I'm calling out... You all can't have it both ways... 2nd point... Are not the laws of the land also an extension of our moral code? The church doesn't preside over the government, its adherents however are the governed - as the governed they have a say so in how they wish to be governed... That is what a democracy protects - and you all don't seem to get that...

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Are not the laws of the land, also an extension of my vote? I vote with my conscience you vote with yours. That you all cry about the fact that I do so however, ALL WHILE retaining your own leanings is what I'm calling out... You all can't have it both ways... 2nd point... Are not the laws of the land also an extension of our moral code? The church doesn't preside over the government, its adherents however are the governed - as the governed they have a say so in how they wish to be governed... That is what a democracy protects - and you all don't seem to get that...

From boutox the oppressor to this?

You can vote however you want. Taht still doesn't make it anything other than illogical wishful thinking. Counting victims trying to justify OT god was amusing though.

[Phenomanul]

Read what I said and try again. Your claiming that boutox is oppressing you. If you're going to be smug then simple reading errors don't help. Smug and fear of boutox is amusing though. Victim card much?

Oh now you wish to ignore his Tourette's-like ranting...? My responses to him aren't entirely contained by the flow of this conversation since he wishes to always bring up politics into the fray... I'm just pointing out his stance is hypocritical. Oppression was not the operative verb. If he wished to impose his beliefs while restraining mine then THAT would be oppressive... That is distinction you are missing for the sake of wanting to call me out on "reading comprehension"... Convenient but misplaced your assertion is.

[Phenomanul]

From boutox the oppressor to this?

You can vote however you want. Taht still doesn't make it anything other than illogical wishful thinking. Counting victims trying to justify OT god was amusing though.

Someone doesn't get that there are like 24 different arguments and conversations going on in this thread... Cute.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Someone doesn't get that there are like 24 different arguments and conversations going on in this thread... Cute.

Some doesn't get that to really make the argument you need to make the distinction between the arguments.

Your too simple to do that.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Oh now you wish to ignore his Tourette's-like ranting...? My responses to him aren't entirely contained by the flow of this conversation since he wishes to always bring up politics into the fray... I'm just pointing out his stance is hypocritical. Oppression was not the operative verb. If he wished to impose his beliefs while restraining mine then THAT would be oppressive... That is distinction you are missing for the sake of wanting to call me out on "reading comprehension"... Convenient but misplaced your assertion is.

For someone who should buy the first cause argument you sure don't really understand notions of temporal order.

Christian proselytization needs be stopped. If you want to whine about oppression and claim utilitarian justification for the behavior fo your church then fine but it still doesn't mitigate the fact that Abrahamic religions are used to incite violence and all other manner of stupidity in and of themselves.

Continue trying to split hairs and separate yourself from people that read prose literally.

[RandomGuy]

I've given you my honest answer many times over... You all disingenuously always try to twist it around into something that it is not... Any many posters grab my responses outside of the flow of the discussion I'm having with you... And twist it some more devoid of any context whatsoever... So here's your answer.

Any child who died before their acknowledgement/discernment of good and evil (different age depending on the child's development) automatically enters the kingdom of Heaven... Anyone else, ultimately pays the price of their own actions - knowing of course that they were doing wrong (theft, rape, etc...). The flood/reboot was ultimately an act of redemption for any child in the former group - because given enough time they would have entered the latter group and been unsalvageable (accountable for their actions)...

You villify GOD as evil, but you don't understand the extent of evil HE was eradicating (Nephalim)... HIS actions were both merciful and gracious with respect to babies and children in the first group. Everyone else cast their own lots and sealed their own fates... Not to mention Noah preached a message of repentance to them for 100 years! All they had to do was step into the ark... But they made their choices... Again, you wantonly ignore the fact that people always had a choice... You constantly wish to justify their bad choices (and absolve them of the repercussions from said choice)... In this case, their bad choice cost them their life... Literally all they had to do was step in the ark.

Again, not an honest answer to my question. I know the excuse you give for the thing you worship.

I wasn't asking what your excuse is/was. I was wondering how many babies you think that the thing you worship drowned, just a ballpark figure. A much more limited question.

So, let's try a different tack then, since you seem to be unable to be honest about this topic.

Is mental anguish harmful?

[Phenomanul]

Some doesn't get that to really make the argument you need to make the distinction between the arguments.

Your too simple to do that.

Really? You jumped into an argument in which you weren't even being addressed. Temporal order? Please.

The drive by style suits you though. As you really never add any meaningful substance. Just derisive undertones.

[Phenomanul]

Again, not an honest answer to my question. I know the excuse you give for the thing you worship.

I wasn't asking what your excuse is/was. I was wondering how many babies you think that the thing you worship drowned, just a ballpark figure. A much more limited question.

So, let's try a different tack then, since you seem to be unable to be honest about this topic.

Is mental anguish harmful?

No but your at ude is...

I've already given you your answer. But you continue to pass off your intellect with dismissive derision.

That you insist on an actual number to keep building your strawman is moot. An actual figure "for the number of babies drowned" is 1) speculative 2) completely unprovable and 3) inconsequential in light of what I had explained previously. That is the reason why I rarely engage in your shenanigans of late. It's always the same futile discussion and frankly a complete waste of my time. These threads always devolve into this same butting of heads impasse.

The flow of the thread started off with you asking where the outrage was amongst Christians to denounce the actions of the Nigerian church.

When I answered that Christians weren't denouncing it is because in all likelihood they didn't know about it (it didn't satiate your lust for smearing Christianity)...

At that point I asked where your outcry was for the brutal atrocities against Christians in that same nation (you brushed it off with a coyish, "whatever, that wasn't the focal point of my argument [paraphrasing]")

Others chimed in and it devolved into what these threads always devolve to. Another bash Christianity thread. So unoriginally like the 1,000s of threads before it.

I'm tired of your methods. You incite "genuine disposition to learn" but your position is as entrenched as ever.

The whole "I have superior morality than your GOD" take was rich. WOW! And here you are trying to build a strawman in an attempt to validate that foolish claim.

[mingus]

I think you left out what was crucial to understanding the greater point of the parable. I am willing to accept that a being that demands worship will ask to be worshipped. It also has a choice as to the method. That choice indicates what I view as evil.

So back to my question.

What was Abraham specifically asked to do? i.e. what action was he requested? In your own words. How was Abraham to express his choice?

I respect you guys' right to an opinion on the parable. It's not the only way of interpreting it tho. Any fair analysis would take the other, less take-it-at-face value interpretations of it into consideration. I think we can factually say your analysis was one-sided.

My .02 was an effort to fill the ideas explicitly and intentionally left out of your analysis.

[Blake]

Really? You jumped into an argument in which you weren't even being addressed. Temporal order? Please.

The drive by style suits you though. As you really never add any meaningful substance. Just derisive undertones.

You do know that this is an open message board

[Th'Pusher]

No but your at ude is...

I've already given you your answer. But you continue to pass off your intellect with dismissive derision.

That you insist on an actual number to keep building your strawman is moot. An actual figure "for the number of babies drowned" is 1) speculative 2) completely unprovable and 3) inconsequential in light of what I had explained previously. That is the reason why I rarely engage in your shenanigans of late. It's always the same futile discussion and frankly a complete waste of my time. These threads always devolve into this same butting of heads impasse.

The flow of the thread started off with you asking where the outrage was amongst Christians to denounce the actions of the Nigerian church.

When I answered that Christians weren't denouncing it is because in all likelihood they didn't know about it (it didn't satiate your lust for smearing Christianity)...

At that point I asked where your outcry was for the brutal atrocities against Christians in that same nation (you brushed it off with a coyish, "whatever, that wasn't the focal point of my argument [paraphrasing]")

Others chimed in and it devolved into what these threads always devolve to. Another bash Christianity thread. So unoriginally like the 1,000s of threads before it.

I'm tired of your methods. You incite "genuine disposition to learn" but your position is as entrenched as ever.

The whole "I have superior morality than your GOD" take was rich. WOW! And here you are trying to build a strawman in an attempt to validate that foolish claim.

Wow. You really do consider yourself to be persecuted for your belief. Is this limited to your interactions on this message board, or is this how you generally live your life?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Really? You jumped into an argument in which you weren't even being addressed. Temporal order? Please.

The drive by style suits you though. As you really never add any meaningful substance. Just derisive undertones.

And he dodges again. I have other things to do during the day.

I'm pointing out how you are wrong and I agree with RG. I have laid out several examples and your response is that I interjected myself -no - and now trying to assassinate my character through some emotional narrative.

RG keeps on trying to get you to address a point and you want to go around in circles with this stupidity with me. You know by now I don't waste my time with that .

We both know you think you've lost the argument. Actions speak louder than words. Believe anyway, it just goes to show the power of delusion for everyone else.

[RandomGuy]

Again, who cares what bible God's intention was? Did Abraham know that God was going to change his mind? Yes or no will do, based on your reading. I would not ask anyone, at any time, for any reason, to sacrifice their child to prove how much they love me.

I think you're simplifying & demonizing the message behind God's dictation to Abraham. Whether this is due to ignorance or intentionally leaving out information, I don't know.

He basically gave him a choice: God, through which the Jewish people and humanity, or his son. It wasn't only a test of his loyalty to God. It was the ultimate test of selflessness. Abraham was chosen by God because he had the selflessness to give up what he loved most dearly, his child, for an even greater, and the only greater, cause: all of God's children (humanity).

Does simplifying the parable of Abraham and Isaac distort my characterization somehow to the point where it was inaccurate?

What was Abraham asked to do? In your words.

What you left out of it was crucial to understanding the greater point of the parable. That's it.

I think you left out what was crucial to understanding the greater point of the parable. I am willing to accept that a being that demands worship will ask to be worshipped. It also has a choice as to the method. That choice indicates what I view as evil.

So back to my question.

What was Abraham specifically asked to do? i.e. what action was he requested? In your own words. How was Abraham to express his choice?

I respect you guys' right to an opinion on the parable. It's not the only way of interpreting it tho. Any fair analysis would take the other, less take-it-at-face value interpretations of it into consideration. I think we can factually say your analysis was one-sided.

My .02 was an effort to fill the ideas explicitly and intentionally left out of your analysis.

Since you don't seem to be willing to answer the specific question about what your analysis left out, let me help you.

22 And it came to pass after these things, that God did tempt Abraham, and said unto him, Abraham: and he said, Behold, here I am.

2 And he said, Take now thy son, thine only son Isaac, whom thou lovest, and get thee into the land of Moriah; and offer him there for a burnt offering upon one of the mountains which I will tell thee of.

Why do you not want to talk about the part where this being asks a human to kill his son? You implied my take was inaccurate, and I asked you to correct my "simplification" if it was inaccurate.

If this being knows what is in the heart of the man, why not simply ask him how selfless he is?

Why bother with the human sacrifice element?

Would you ever ask anyone to do that? Why or why not?

We could go on to another human sacrifices in the bible, if you prefer.

29 Then the Spirit of the Lord came upon Jephthah, and he passed over Gilead, and Manasseh, and passed over Mizpeh of Gilead, and from Mizpeh of Gilead he passed over unto the children of Ammon.

30 And Jephthah vowed a vow unto the Lord, and said, If thou shalt without fail deliver the children of Ammon into mine hands,

31 Then it shall be, that whatsoever cometh forth of the doors of my house to meet me, when I return in peace from the children of Ammon, shall surely be the Lord's, and I will offer it up for a burnt offering.

...
34 And Jephthah came to Mizpeh unto his house, and, behold, his daughter came out to meet him with timbrels and with dances: and she was his only child; beside her he had neither son nor daughter.

...

39 And it came to pass at the end of two months, that she returned unto her father, who did with her according to his vow which he had vowed: and she knew no man. And it was a custom in Israel,

God didn't stop Jephthah. Does god like burnt daughters? Is there some part of that that I am missing?

[RandomGuy]

No but your at ude is...

I've already given you your answer. But you continue to pass off your intellect with dismissive derision.

That you insist on an actual number to keep building your strawman is moot. An actual figure "for the number of babies drowned" is 1) speculative 2) completely unprovable and 3) inconsequential in light of what I had explained previously. That is the reason why I rarely engage in your shenanigans of late. It's always the same futile discussion and frankly a complete waste of my time. These threads always devolve into this same butting of heads impasse.

The flow of the thread started off with you asking where the outrage was amongst Christians to denounce the actions of the Nigerian church.

When I answered that Christians weren't denouncing it is because in all likelihood they didn't know about it (it didn't satiate your lust for smearing Christianity)...

At that point I asked where your outcry was for the brutal atrocities against Christians in that same nation (you brushed it off with a coyish, "whatever, that wasn't the focal point of my argument [paraphrasing]")

Others chimed in and it devolved into what these threads always devolve to. Another bash Christianity thread. So unoriginally like the 1,000s of threads before it.

I'm tired of your methods. You incite "genuine disposition to learn" but your position is as entrenched as ever.

The whole "I have superior morality than your GOD" take was rich. WOW! And here you are trying to build a strawman in an attempt to validate that foolish claim.

Is mental anguish harmful?

Yes or no. 2nd time.

[RandomGuy]

If you like, I can post a string of dissembling from Cosmored, when I ask him fair questions about his pet "faked moon landing theory". It looks bad, once you string a bunch of dissembling together for fair questions.

Intellectual honesty is honesty in the acquisition, analysis, and transmission of ideas. A person is being intellectually honest when he or she, knowing the truth, states that truth.

When one is given the opportunity to state the truth, the honest way to approach it is to simply state it. If you can't, that should be a red flag that you may need to examine things a bit more closely.