The Flat Earth Society
Other Discussion Boards => Philosophy, Religion & Society => Topic started by: bulmabriefs144 on September 08, 2022, 07:16:21 PM
-
When I say the name Jesus, what is it you say?
- Atheist: Oh not again. Look, I know I'm judged, and I'm going to hell. Just leave me alone, okay?
- Agnostic: I don't know whether or not God exists, but I have no use for organized religion. Who is this Jesus, and why should I care about this?
- Jews/Muslims: Three gods? That's polytheism. Anyway, this guy teaches things that are heresy.
https://www.israelislamandendtimes.com/christians-stop-saying-jesus-is-the-son-of-god-it-provokes-muslims/
The Son of God?!? Blasphemy. - Hindus/Sikhs/Buddhist/Other Faiths: I accept Jesus as a teacher, but what does he have to do with me? That's those Christians' thing, nothing to do with us.
- Fundie "Christians": I thank God that I am not like those sinners. They are going to hell and stuff when the final days come. But I imagine Jesus would probably want them to hear the Gospel so they can be saved in time.
- Leftist "Christians": Jesus taught "turn the other cheek" and "love your neighbor." So I think he wanted to push for social justice. And I don't see those Christians over there giving very much, and what is with their wanting guns?
- Mainline Christians: I try to follow the words of Jesus, but I honestly don't understand why I am suffering so much. I give some of what I have to help the poor, but people look at me like some kinda judgemental type. I just wanna follow Jesus, but it feels like I can't tell whether God is condemning me or whether I'm being blessed by the trials of the cross. And it says to "love others as yourself" but I can't seem to like myself.
This seems to be the vibe that I get from all of these groups, from my experience.
So this kinda a mix of piecing together what the man was about from context of history, and pulling apart some of the false Jesus models that kinda clog our understanding. So let's try to teach what Jesus really was and what he really taught. Let's start with addressing the concerns and/or misconceptions of each of these groups. Then if I have time later, people can decide whether we know what Jesus meant to say. I want to draw back the curtain of history.
- Atheist: Fun story, Jesus did not come on behalf of judgement or even for the purpose of spreading religion. In fact, he spent the better part of his life defying priests. Nor is the idea of Hell a real biblical teaching.
https://consciousreminder.com/2017/06/04/hell-place-eternal-punishment-not-biblical/
Jesus came to create a new kingdom, a better world where people weren't judged. It is because human beings are in opposition to this with their adherence to tyrannical kings that this hasn't changed as much as it could.
https://medium.com/dogs-with-buddha-nature/what-is-god-to-an-anarchist-3d59ae1a5b1f
In fact, if you study the book of 1 & 2 Kings, you can find that far from God being an authoritarian, it is earthly rulers that want people to be ruled, whereas God is an anarchist. - Agnostic: Honestly? Jesus died for all sins. Not just those for whom have faith figured out. You are free to believe whatever you want. Christianity is not a religion. It is an understanding that Jesus came to save all humanity. Whether you want a religion or not thereafter is up to you.
- Jews/Muslims: The Trinity is not three gods. There is one God, and he appears to us as creator, savior, and spirit. We see Jesus not just in the New Testament, but repeatedly as the Angel of the Lord.
https://overviewbible.com/angel-of-the-lord/
The Angel of the Lord repeatedly distinguishes himself from other angels by speaking as though he were God himself. Moreover, it is highly probably that the "man" Jacob wrestled with was actually Jesus.
https://appleeye.org/2019/09/10/jacobs-wrestling-partner-jesus-in-genesis-32-and-35/
It was Jesus who interacted personally with humans since Genesis.
https://appleeye.org/2017/06/05/an-introduction-to-old-testament-christophanies-with-justin-martyr/
So this business of denying Jesus on grounds of the Trinity being polytheism is an excuse, and worse, denying God in Christ. Moreover, to Jews, we can read the depiction of Ezekiel's temple with its lack of curtain, and direct entry to the altar, and it is pretty clear that Jesus is the final Temple, regardless of what is built later. - Hindus/Sikhs/Buddhist/Other Faiths: Jesus says in his speech about the good shepherd, "I have other sheep, too, in another fold. I must bring them also." Jesus's flock was not only the Jews but also the Gentiles. Not only those who believe in some religion, but all of humanity. Lemme explain. Some people point out how Jesus predates Christianity, pointing to a cult of Mithra, or even claiming that it comes from Egypt.
https://in5d.com/10-christ-like-figures-who-pre-date-jesus/
But the point here isn't that Christianity lifted from other ideas. No the point is that Jesus, as John said, was there since the beginning. He was Krishna, Odysseus, Merlin, Dionysus, Glycon, Buddha, and Horus. Whenever God personally related to humanity, Jesus was there. - Fundie "Christians": Part of the problem of alot of Christianity (you'll notice that I quoted this and the next), is that many of them fall for the works doctrine of the Bible, forgetting that with Jesus came grace. This is is made worse by the addition of several sections in the NT pushed by Catholicism. During the Protestant Reformation, Luther tried and failed to remove several books, particularly Revelation but also Hebrews, James, and Jude. These books teach judgement, and many are about about fixating on end times. Particularly, the idea that there are wicked sinners and righteous, and that it is up to us to go out and save everyone because end times are coming, as proven by barcodes/vaccines/some other "sign" that we see. I have provided some links to the contrary.
https://johnworldpeace.com/thefalsebookofRevelation.asp
http://www.thehypertexts.com/Essays%20Articles%20Reviews%20Prose/Michael%20R.%20Burch%20John%20of%20Patmos%20Revelation%20Errors%20Contradictions%202012.htm
I'd also suggest renting "The Apocalypse Deception: The Book of Revelation is Not What It Appears to Be" by Fred Harding. The point being that the Book of Revelation is in direct contradiction of the words of Jesus. But what about Jesus predicting the apocalypse? No, actually his words are in the context of the fall of the Temple. And having read the Gospel after these things, I noticed something. In Matthew, Mark, and Luke the prophecy of signs in heaven and Earth with the fall of the temple are mentioned. And they mention the darkness during the crucifixion. John doesn't, and this passage about the darkness is absent. Instead, it says "But he was referring to his body." It isn't about end times. The end times are fulfilled with the resurrection of Jesus. Salvation is universal. If there is any doubt about this, we have 1 Corinthians and Romans and Galatians talking specifically about the heresy of thinking you can earn salvation. - Leftist "Christians": Just as fundamentalists get quoted because they are potentially lacking in compassion for sinners, leftists are often more consumed with politics than spirituality. They are only nominally "Christian" and confuse doing good things with Christian religion. But the kingdom of God is not of this world. We cannot do anything to fix this world. We can help people, but this world is supposed to be imperfect. We are supposed to be in the world but not of the world. We're not to be trying to change the world through political agitating.
- Mainline Christians: Like fundamentalists, real Christians get screwed over by books such as Revelation. But they aren't trying to judge others. They are simply trying to earnestly live a righteous life and instead get beaten over the head by everyone else. In other words, they are embracing a worship of God that is unfortunately more like Judaism than Christianity. They are stuck in a path of self-loathing. This is why the Church of today is not particularly healthy. These Christians need to understand that Jesus died not for the righteous but for all people. Including all of the people mentioned in this list. We are saved by grace. I see this in action with people becoming kinda martyrs and trying to be altruistic, trying to measure up to some kind of unrealistic model of Christianity.
Anyway, what do you think Jesus taught? I'm tired from these lists!
-
Yeah, well that's just like your opinion man.
-
Tl;dr
-
And like, what if it's not?
What if I've spent hours editing the Bible precisely because the Good News is not that "God will forgive our sins for awhile, but then he'll send the Mark of the Beast to torment gullible people", but that the second coming was actually the Resurrection and that "Nothing can separate us from the love of God"? The signs and wonders of Revelation sound very scary, and in the age of Big Tech, Bill Gates, a very very evil man has patented a system that he dubbed with the patent number 060606. But I'm here to tell you that not only does Revelation not agree on that number, but this is all a perverse trick. Nothing that humans make can distance you from God or his love. But as the Bible mentioned, you can be subject to a "great delusion". The Good News is that Jesus wasn't sent for the Jews (they even rejected him, and he still begged for them to be forgiven), nor believing Gentiles, but for all of us.
A trans girl who got bounced from town to town as a child? Yes, she found love from Jesus. Because that trans girl is me.
This is the story of Jesus told from reading the history of the events carefully. The Jewish people were convinced that their Messiah would save only them, to be a warrior king, to reinstitute Jewish custom, and to rebuild the Temple. There have been three Temples in history but the Jews covered up one. Solomon built a Temple, after David begged God to let him build a temple.
In other words, God never wanted a Temple built by human hands.
(https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-ksTnP897Q2U/U1p5ZSHyt_I/AAAAAAAAgzE/iGp99R4LlTk/s1600/Temple.png)
Solomon's Temple was a fairly accurate representation of what God wanted. As you can see, this temple is more or less open to the public (provided they can climb steps), is somewhat small, and only really for prayers and worship).
Zerubabbel's Temple was the actual second Temple, and is much like Solomon's Temple, simple and to the point, not alot of barriers.
(https://i.pinimg.com/originals/a9/63/90/a96390f62a09ab7179c1de03969eb780.jpg)
However, the second Temple that is known as the second Temple is Herod's temple. As you can see from the earlier picture, unlike the other two, Herod's Temple is a monument to separation from God.
1. It is built by a secular king not by a godly man
2. It is built to impose religious taxes on the public. This is happening while the Jews are also drowning in Roman tax debt.
3. In fact, the forgiveness of sins is a pay-to-play affair. If you had a sin, you were expected to buy an animal in the temple markets to sacrifice for your sin. In other words, if you are poor, your sins cannot be forgiven.
4. As you can see from the walls, this system was social stratification. Priests are separate from citizens. Men from women. Gentiles are kept out of worship. Leper? This was ancient social distancing in action.
5. Oh yeah, and the Jews not only thought salvation was limited to them, but since their previous leaders had been fighters, and because they misunderstood prophecy, they thought the Messiah would come to beat up the Romans and build a temple.
This is the setting that Jesus entered the world. But you see these 2 1/2 Temples here? Another one was predicted, known as Ezekiel's Temple. Much of what Ezekiel says is weird, but he predicts a Temple with no curtain, no court of women, and no wall separating Jews and Gentiles. In Christ, there is no distinction between men and women, Jew and Gentile. Even sinner and righteous. All of us have sinned and fallen short. More importantly, the curtain is to separate the sight of God from regular people. Yet this curtain tore from top to bottom, allowing all of us access to God.
This Temple began construction when Christ died (with the curtain) and completed when not one brick of the Temple was remaining (yes the Wailing Wall still stands, the wall is not the Temple, and the Jews are stupid to cry about a building that should have been destroyed immediately) at about 70 AD.
Daniel likewise predicts a kingdom of God after several very corrupt earthly kingdoms. Alot of Christians misread this last empire as America when the end times come. But this is the Revelation image of punishment. Jesus's kingdom is the kingdom of God. If there was any doubt, pay attention to what Jesus says.
“The hour is coming, and is now here, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for the Father is seeking such people to worship him. God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth.”
"And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. 19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."
A kingdom and a Temple are intended to be built. Not in some distant final days, but already. It was built by spreading the message of God. It does not matter to God that you also want to believe in djinn or cycles of Yin and Yang or ancestrial spirits. It only matters to God that you know that someone cared enough for you to do for you. This is the kingdom prophesied:
“In the time of those kings, the God of heaven will set up a kingdom that will never be destroyed, nor will it be left to another people. It will crush all those kingdoms and bring them to an end, but it will itself endure forever. 45 This is the meaning of the vision of the rock cut out of a mountain, but not by human hands—a rock that broke the iron, the bronze, the clay, the silver and the gold to pieces.
“The great God has shown the king what will take place in the future. The dream is true and its interpretation is trustworthy.”
This prophecy is often read as this:
(https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/816868397836926996/1017654266372034630/New_Bitmap_Image.png)
Then then scale the fall of
I ignore Daniel's commentary about where the kingdoms start and do:
1. Ancient Babylon (Gold)
2. Egypt (Silver)
3. Persia (Bronze)
4. Greece (Iron)
5. Rome (Iron/Clay)
6. Jesus's Kingdom (Kingdom of God)
But assuming he was right, the next empire would be the HRE, which was based on Rome. Not some distant future end times. Jesus shattered apart the pagan systems, and the Western world became thoroughly Christianized. This was all set up over the next few centuries as the Roman Empire became increasingly fragmented until Christian values replaced Roman values.
-
Tl;dr
Yeah, it was kinda long. Too bad, I guess you'll never know.
-
Out of all that, what's the point you're trying to make? Temple envy?
-
Out of all that, what's the point you're trying to make? Temple envy?
Nuhhh. (spaced for readability)
1. Revelation isn't true. It was made up by Judaizers, fake "Christians" that taught salvation by works and circumcision and following laws. It is a "gospel" meant to spread fear, and distort the teachings of Christ. It's false doctrine, and should have been dumped years ago.
2. The Second Coming is actually Jesus's raising from the dead. It already happened. We don't have to be afraid of any apocalypse: climate, robot, meteor, nuclear, whatever. It's not the end of the world, so to speak.
3. Ezekiel's Temple and the Kingdom of God is what Jesus came to this world to build. That is, the sacrifice on the cross was just to show us silly humans what we should have already known about God's plan for salvation. The real plan was not something anyone could stop. Jesus was born, Jesus died. Therefore God became connected with humanity, lived and died like us humans.
4. Loving your neighbor, helping others, all of that was to make a better way in this world, but improvements in this world are not necessary for the spiritual world. They are decent, they build merit, but we have grace (i.e. undeserved mercy and forgiveness of our sins) regardless. "God sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous."
5. Lastly, since Jesus is part of humanity, God can speak to us through humans. Jesus is present through family, friends, strangers, phone calls, Discord/Facebook. "Wherever two or three are gathered together..." You don't have to go to church. Christianity is about the human experience of connection.
6. This also means it is possible to see Jesus. Today. Without hallucinating. Even if you're not a Christian.
7. Cuz seven is a lucky number.
Was that too long also?
-
Yaaaaaa
I think your pastor is lying to you.
Matthew 7:
15 “Watch out for false prophets.(K) They come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves.(L) 16 By their fruit you will recognize them.(M) Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles?(N) 17 Likewise, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. 18 A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit.(O) 19 Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire.(P) 20 Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them.
-
Out of all that, what's the point you're trying to make? Temple envy?
Was that too long also?
Yes.
I still don't see the point you're trying to make. Can you just distill it down to something like, "We don't need all of the trappings and constraints of the bible, just be a good person and try and connect with others..."?
If so, you don't need a jesus to do that.
And aside from all that, what about the 6 billion folks who aren't christians?
-
Another someone proselytizing myths from arid climes, nice.
When I was about 13 there was a debate set up in our English class on “is there a god?” and I volunteered for the apostate roll, rather than go for the science makes much of it redundant or how fucked up as a deity would you have to be to create everything, hide between the gaps and expect everyone to worship you, or else? I went with the thing that had struck me as I had asked the few people I knew who believed in one.
That being, none of them seemed to believe the same thing, even those who were Anglican couldn’t agree with each other over the details, never mind the bewildering number of denominations out there.
We had one RE teacher that told us miracles in the bible were obviously not literal just showed the power of suggestion and group thought, another a few years later, that they were very real, and he had seen a demon around the girl in our class who was disruptive.
And they had all, like this guy, studied the bible, and like this guy rejected the bits that didn’t resonate with them and cleaved to those that did, because you can, it’s a big book written by lots of people over quite a long time with different agendas. I did end with a plea to humanity to grow the fuck up (well not quite those words) and stop believing in fairy tales and won the vote by a 2/3rds majority.
-
Yaaaaaa
I think your pastor is lying to you.
Matthew 7:
15 “Watch out for false prophets.(K) They come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves.(L) 16 By their fruit you will recognize them.(M) Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles?(N) 17 Likewise, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. 18 A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit.(O) 19 Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire.(P) 20 Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them.
My pastor would be me (don't have enough connection with church leaders to listen to them), so uhhhh...
This idea is fine and dandy, but it applies to spiritually harmful ideas. Like the thornbush or thistles, a bad idea pricks us.
Galatians 1 says,
But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let them be under God’s curse!
So let's compare my idea to the gospel. How does it stack up? Remarkably well, actually. We have the curse of the law, as Peter and others later commented on, shown large as life by the Pharisees and their behavior towards sinners. We have Jesus, in shocking contrast to this, offering grace to lepers, sinners, tax collectors, and other people deemed "unclean" by the law. These teachings in turn are passed on to the Letters. No, I have not found evidence that Paul "distorted" the gospel. In fact, his conversion in Damascus is the very model of this pattern, and what he teaches flows from that.
Now, let's compare Revelation and some of the trippy end times writings. Do they match Jesus's teachings? Except for a few mentions of being vigilant for the age to come (taken out of context), no, not really. So what do they match, then? Old Testament writings by Jews, particularly after some major disaster. These match the take on the Temple falling that a typical Jew would have. "One day, we will get our revenge..." Not a prophecy, a pipe dream, a revenge fantasy.
-
oh man
wtf you on about with this jew business?
side note, interesting your response to Matt 7 and in the other thread you think trump (the liar) is the best thing ever.
i'm gonna say... your ability to comprehend the Bible is about as good as your ability to understand how circles and triangles work.
-
Classic example of someone reading a few passages about something that has been studied and poured over for centuries and is like, "No! It works like this..."
Delusions of Grandeur & Narcissism at its peak.
-
I think the only relavent question for this true magaQ, who defends the kids from the dem jew pedos - are the briefs bulma age season one or super saiyan 5?
-
Classic example of someone reading a few passages about something that has been studied and poured over for centuries and is like, "No! It works like this..."
Delusions of Grandeur & Narcissism at its peak.
Sorry bro, but the reason it works like this is that for centuries, people have taken the word of the canon writers that these are the gospel. Revelation itself made sure that canon is strongly enforced by this passage.
For I testify together to everyone who hears the Words of the prophecy of this Book: If anyone adds to these things, God will add on him the plagues that have been written in this Book. And if anyone takes away from the Words of the Book of this prophecy, God will take away his part out of the Book of Life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which have been written in this Book.
I am not arrogant enough to say "I know the right way to interpret the Bible and everyone else is wrong."
I am a skeptic, not a narcissist. I instead say, "But... what if you're wrong? What if some of these writings were frauds?"
I know the typical path of Bible writing. We study the Greek and Hebrew translation, which has resulted in yet another copy among hundreds, maybe thousands. We decide whether to translate literally, paraphrase, or a mix. But we never question whether there is text that in fact shouldn't be there. But I wondered about that. After all, the Jews have been conquered and enslaved many times, and in fact there was ample opportunity for their enemies to try to destroy them in combat. But suppose this failed, and the Jews remained Jewish, a united people. How do we keep them in check?
Hey, I know! We distort their writings.
1. Now they have a history that tells them that Jews that don't share their history and have a different Bible are not REAL Jews. Voila, suddenly Jews are not allies with the Samaritans. Nor Christians.
2. We get them to adopt some Babylonian or Egyptian ideas. In particular, we get them to worship temples (not God, who is spirit) and laws (not God, who is about freedom from captivity). Not God himself, manmade objects.
3. We give them prophecies that distort their connection with the One True God, who wants us to understand that this world is created on behalf of all humanity. This one in particular is really bad, because it means that the Jews completely lose touch with the idea that God can become human and care for humans. It also means that the Christians and Jews are divided. The Christians blame the Jews for killing Jesus (even though he explicitly said his kingdom is not an earthly kingdom), and the Jews think the Christians are polytheistic heretics.
4. We also give the Christians false writings so that they doubt the very teachings of Jesus, and are unable to effectively lead any kind of meaningful change in the world (despite this, Christianity still did an immense amount of good, but for years it suffered under the Catholic near-monopoly on dogma, which even managed to convince the Orthodox church to accept these writings as canon).
5. Lastly, insert false writings into older text, so it isn't even clear what was trying to be said, blending it into existing ideas.
I employed my skills as an amateur historiographer and theological analyst (okay, I'm amateur at both of these things), and looked through quite a portion of this text. I learned the following things:
1. Revelation is clearly a distorted plagiarism of Ezekiel, not New Testament knowledge. Aside from name-dropping Jesus, it has literally nothing to do with the gospel. In fact, it is very clearly intended to distort what Ezekiel actually said as a sort of wet dream about (mostly Jewish) Christians fighting the secular world and purging the world of evil. At this point, I need to reference something quick. Remember John 3:16, the most commonly quoted passage from the Bible? I need to introduce you to the very next verse.
3:17 For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him.
Another red flag is the stern warning not to remove this book (or any part of it), nor add anything to it. It is basically like saying "This is not some crappily-written hallucinations of a person who may not even be John, these are super-sacred prophecies." But Jesus directly warned against people that would come after him claiming to speak for him.
(Yes, I am aware of the irony here, but it's a necessary evil to warn against really crap writings)
2. I do not trust Zechariah either. Just as Jeremiah shows a false prophet telling the king what he wants to hear, here Zechariah is telling the Jewish people what they want to hear, "Never you worry, we Jews will have our Messiah, and he will destroy our enemies. And God wants us to be bloodthirsty savages who not only kill lambs and doves by the truckload but also tries to assassinate state authorities." A false prophet tells people what they want to hear. A real prophet tells the truth, even if it costs them their friends. Even if it costs their life.
3. Daniel 6 actually ends with this passage:
6:28 So Daniel prospered during the reign of Darius and the reign of Cyrus the Persian.
This is very clearly a "he lived happily ever after" segment. Instead, afterward, we have a shift from third person historical to prophetic, gradually switching to first person by about chapter 8. Textual changes are a read flag that it isn't the same person writing the text (as I discovered doing my own edits). It is clearly tampered with, and the fact that later passages, like Revelation say "an angel told me all of this" should give us pause.
Let God’s curse fall on anyone, including us or even an angel from heaven, who preaches a different kind of good news than the one we preached to you.
Rather than being a prophecy of Jesus, the one who comes to redeem us, it is a series of dark prophecies of end times. Daniel 2's prophecy seems perfectly fine, while these after Daniel 6 tell of specific timelines (possibly in order to discredit) and even claim the one who is Jesus will set up an abomination of desolation, and finally that there will be some great false prophet. I scrubbed those passages in my bible from the NT too, as they don't belong, so Jesus's prophecy of the Temple now reads as mentioned in the attachment below.
Prophecy of the Temple (https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/816868397836926996/1018025958596411472/Prophecy_of_the_Temple.doc)
The prophecy is not about the abomination of desolation (though technically, the Temple falling for centuries could be called that). It is about Jesus's death and resurrection, linked to the new creation of the kingdom of God. This is then paired with a coupled fulfillment of the prophecy, complete with the truth about what has happened with most of the Bible since then. That is has essentially been covered up, so that regular people and especially Jews, would have no hope of salvation (but salvation is unconditional, so the only thing this affects is that alot of people are suffering from the side-effects of ignorance).
4. Also, God is male and female in the Bible, but certain books, like Proverbs, are heavily tampered with to scrub this fact to prop up a patriarchal culture. As such, I removed a massive amount of text from the book, and renamed Proverbs to reflect what it was originally intended to be about, before hamfisted sayings from father to son were added. I then renumbered everything. The actual passage reads as a lady who even says she existed since the founding of the world (mirroring what John tells us of the Word of God), a coherent reference to Jesus, and a reference to a wise lady of the household. All of these work together to make a much shorter but more important book, which pairs beautifully with the Song of Songs.
Lady Wisdom (https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/816868397836926996/1018025958403481690/LadyWisdom.doc)
(Unfortunately, it turns out that I cannot attach files directly, so I have Discord download links if you wanna see this stuff)
-
oh man
wtf you on about with this jew business?
side note, interesting your response to Matt 7 and in the other thread you think trump (the liar) is the best thing ever.
i'm gonna say... your ability to comprehend the Bible is about as good as your ability to understand how circles and triangles work.
I have nothing against the Jewish people themselves.
What I do object to is their blind adherence to their rabbis, and their fixation with old scraps of writings. The Word of God is not dead text, never to be altered or discussed. It is alive.
Their rabbis literally altered their text to lead them astray.
https://torahresource.com/psalm-2216-like-lion-pierced/
https://preachersinstitute.com/2015/08/31/masoretic-text-vs-original-hebrew/
Also, the NT itself has errors. It's "jarmaker" not leper in the passage about costly ointment. Nobody comments on his leprosy. This passage would have come originally from Aramaic, which has no vowels. It's also probably "rope" not "camel". And there's a part that mentions basically making yourself a eunuch.
But the "errors" introduced by the Hebrew rabbis are intentionally designed to erase Jesus from prophecy.
(https://theorthodoxlife.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/lxx_vs_mt3.jpg?w=640&h=826)
This is why I agree with the Muslims that the Bible has been distorted (but I don't believe the nonsense assertion that Jesus was originally a Muslim or spreading teachings like this). Rather, Jesus preached peace when most people wanted the Messiah to flush outsiders from their lands and get rid of sinners. Jesus instead called people to welcome others and helps sinners.
-
Youll probably need to reconcile errors vs manipulation of text vs interpretation with living text.
Youre right
If a file is editible, it changes over time and updated, it is a "living doc" in the business side of doc definitions.
-
Classic example of someone reading a few passages about something that has been studied and poured over for centuries and is like, "No! It works like this..."
Delusions of Grandeur & Narcissism at its peak.
Sorry bro, but the reason it works like this is that for centuries, people have taken the word of the canon writers that these are the gospel. Revelation itself made sure that canon is strongly enforced by this passage.
For I testify together to everyone who hears the Words of the prophecy of this Book: If anyone adds to these things, God will add on him the plagues that have been written in this Book. And if anyone takes away from the Words of the Book of this prophecy, God will take away his part out of the Book of Life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which have been written in this Book.
I am not arrogant enough to say "I know the right way to interpret the Bible and everyone else is wrong."
I am a skeptic, not a narcissist. I instead say, "But... what if you're wrong? What if some of these writings were frauds?"
That's cool. I'm down with that. It's just your opinion, you're not saying you're right, just asking the question(s). That's fair.
-
We had one RE teacher that told us miracles in the bible were obviously not literal just showed the power of suggestion and group thought, another a few years later, that they were very real, and he had seen a demon around the girl in our class who was disruptive.
One of those teachers should have been fucking sacked immediately. Disgusting behavior.
We had one who showed us a video on D&D santanism (laughed my arse off at latest Stranger Things season). Fortunately, none of the kids actually took it seriously, but it was a good excuse for some of them to give us nerds more grief for a term or so.
RE teachers, what a bunch of bastards.
-
Youll probably need to reconcile errors vs manipulation of text vs interpretation with living text.
Youre right
If a file is editible, it changes over time and updated, it is a "living doc" in the business side of doc definitions.
This is precisely what I objected to with Revelation. Sorta, "Sorry, the book is closed, nobody can add anything to it. And by the way, we made an ending to this book that had 1/3 of the people die from pollution, 1/3 of the people die from natural disasters, and 1/3 die in the war between good and evil. But the righteous will be saved."
Ummmm yeah, there is a problem with your math.
Once I pulled Revelation out of my book, it was like a load was lifted from the text. I was able to come up with my own ending, which I did.
If anyone wants to read it, here's my interpret of the Bible (https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/775960488940273685/1014687219270811738/AikenAbridgedBible_Paperback.pdf).
One of those teachers should have been fucking sacked immediately. Disgusting behavior.
We had one who showed us a video on D&D santanism (laughed my arse off at latest Stranger Things season). Fortunately, none of the kids actually took it seriously, but it was a good excuse for some of them to give us nerds more grief for a term or so.
About that D&D scare. It was a hysteria that was based on a criminal investigation, where the detective made up this story in order to find a missing persons.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Dallas_Egbert_III
The actual truth of the matter? The person involved was depressed, had parents with overly high expectations, and was possibly meeting a gay lover. He had run away from home and the detective suspected this lover might hurt him, so he wanted a way to investigate without drawing attention to the real suspect. So this story about him LARPing in the sewer tunnels was concocted, and that somehow D&D was a source of ill fortune. This in turn led to Chick Tracts (beginning the Satanic Panic), and also resulted in a change of rules in D&D, scrubbing out many references to demons in favor of a more generic polytheistic cosmology. But all of this was based on a lie.
In fact, this is a good example of how the truth gets distorted in religion. The real story is that Egbert was a kid whose parents pressured him to have a perfect GPA, he burned out and wanted to leave, and he had gay feelings at a time when gay was not okay. No demons except those troubling him (i.e. depression/stress), and D&D was only incidental.
-
Interesting, thanks. Not heard of that before.
-
More elaboration on a point.
https://revelationsingrace.netlify.app/articles/why-its-important-that-jesus-already-returned
Basically, Jesus has returned already (in fact, he did so within the generation of the disciples).
If Jesus already came back, what's left in our future? How are we to understand evil’s continuing existence now that Christ has returned?
For the Son of Man is about to come in the glory His Father, with His angels, and then He will give to each according to his deeds. Truly I say to you, there are some of those standing here who shall not taste of death until they have seen the Son of Man coming in His kingdom.
So, why hasn't anyone seen it? Because we went out of our way not to see it. To such an extent that they wrote a book of false prophecy that Jesus will return sometime in the future. Wait, he hasn't returned? Then what is this?
1 After the Sabbath, at dawn on the first day of the week, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary went to look at the tomb. 2 There was a violent earthquake, for an angel of the Lord came down from heaven and, going to the tomb, rolled back the stone and sat on it. 3 His appearance was like lightning, and his clothes were white as snow. 4 The guards were so afraid of him that they shook and became like dead men. 5 The angel said to the women, “Do not be afraid, for I know that you are looking for Jesus, who was crucified. 6 He is not here; he has risen, just as he said. Come and see the place where he lay. 7 Then go quickly and tell his disciples: ‘He has risen from the dead and is going ahead of you into Galilee. There you will see him.’ Now I have told you.” 8 So the women hurried away from the tomb, afraid yet filled with joy, and ran to tell his disciples. 9 Suddenly Jesus met them. “Greetings,” he said. They came to him, clasped his feet and worshiped him. 10 Then Jesus said to them, “Do not be afraid. Go and tell my brothers to go to Galilee; there they will see me.” 11 While the women were on their way, some of the guards went into the city and reported to the chief priests everything that had happened. 12 When the chief priests had met with the elders and devised a plan, they gave the soldiers a large sum of money, 13 telling them, “You are to say, ‘His disciples came during the night and stole him away while we were asleep.’ 14 If this report gets to the governor, we will satisfy him and keep you out of trouble.” 15 So the soldiers took the money and did as they were instructed. And this story has been widely circulated among the Jews to this very day. 16 Then the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain where Jesus had told them to go. 17 When they saw him, they worshiped him; but some doubted. 18 Then Jesus came to them and said, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19 Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.”
The resurrection of Jesus is clearly the return of Jesus.
So then, why does evil still exist? Because people are still allowed to make choices. Evil exists, because contrary to Revelation, God does not destroy people for having different opinions. It is us judging others as evil (for doing things like drive electric cars, for example (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=90588.msg2370413#msg2370413)), not that they actually are objectively evil. To God , who forgives our sins, our judgement about the good or evil of other people doesn't matter.
So then how are we to understand Jesus's promise to return in their generation? I can see only 5 ways we can explain it:
- Jesus made a false prophecy or lied
- He made an incorrect guess
- God's plans were thwarted
- We misunderstood him
- He is telling the truth.
-
The Tl&dr is strong in this one.
-
Yeah, it's like when someone starts to describe the dream they had last night, "I was in a forest I have never seen, being chased by..."
I glaze over at about 'forest'.
-
Fun fact: The pope and many Christians blamed Jews for killing Jesus when they didn't for many years.
Everyone hates Jews I guess.
Americans ::)
-
Being the favourite does put a target on your back
-
Being the favourite does put a target on your back
Indeed, Kabool.
I used to be the favorite child before my younger siblings were born and my older brother, Raymond, would treat me like shit.
-
More elaboration on a point.
https://revelationsingrace.netlify.app/articles/why-its-important-that-jesus-already-returned
Basically, Jesus has returned already (in fact, he did so within the generation of the disciples).
If Jesus already came back, what's left in our future? How are we to understand evil’s continuing existence now that Christ has returned?
For the Son of Man is about to come in the glory His Father, with His angels, and then He will give to each according to his deeds. Truly I say to you, there are some of those standing here who shall not taste of death until they have seen the Son of Man coming in His kingdom.
So, why hasn't anyone seen it? Because we went out of our way not to see it. To such an extent that they wrote a book of false prophecy that Jesus will return sometime in the future. Wait, he hasn't returned? Then what is this?
1 After the Sabbath, at dawn on the first day of the week, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary went to look at the tomb. 2 There was a violent earthquake, for an angel of the Lord came down from heaven and, going to the tomb, rolled back the stone and sat on it. 3 His appearance was like lightning, and his clothes were white as snow. 4 The guards were so afraid of him that they shook and became like dead men. 5 The angel said to the women, “Do not be afraid, for I know that you are looking for Jesus, who was crucified. 6 He is not here; he has risen, just as he said. Come and see the place where he lay. 7 Then go quickly and tell his disciples: ‘He has risen from the dead and is going ahead of you into Galilee. There you will see him.’ Now I have told you.” 8 So the women hurried away from the tomb, afraid yet filled with joy, and ran to tell his disciples. 9 Suddenly Jesus met them. “Greetings,” he said. They came to him, clasped his feet and worshiped him. 10 Then Jesus said to them, “Do not be afraid. Go and tell my brothers to go to Galilee; there they will see me.” 11 While the women were on their way, some of the guards went into the city and reported to the chief priests everything that had happened. 12 When the chief priests had met with the elders and devised a plan, they gave the soldiers a large sum of money, 13 telling them, “You are to say, ‘His disciples came during the night and stole him away while we were asleep.’ 14 If this report gets to the governor, we will satisfy him and keep you out of trouble.” 15 So the soldiers took the money and did as they were instructed. And this story has been widely circulated among the Jews to this very day. 16 Then the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain where Jesus had told them to go. 17 When they saw him, they worshiped him; but some doubted. 18 Then Jesus came to them and said, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19 Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.”
The resurrection of Jesus is clearly the return of Jesus.
So then, why does evil still exist? Because people are still allowed to make choices. Evil exists, because contrary to Revelation, God does not destroy people for having different opinions. It is us judging others as evil (for doing things like drive electric cars, for example (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=90588.msg2370413#msg2370413)), not that they actually are objectively evil. To God , who forgives our sins, our judgement about the good or evil of other people doesn't matter.
So then how are we to understand Jesus's promise to return in their generation? I can see only 5 ways we can explain it:
- Jesus made a false prophecy or lied
- He made an incorrect guess
- God's plans were thwarted
- We misunderstood him
- He is telling the truth.
Thanks Bulma! It's about time someone was reading a Bible around here.
-
Thanks Bulma! It's about time someone was reading a Bible around here.
I'm not sure that copying and pasting stuff from some random website constitutes "reading the bible".
-
Being the favourite does put a target on your back
Indeed, Kabool.
I used to be the favorite child before my younger siblings were born and my older brother, Raymond, would treat me like shit.
Alexei and the technicoloured dream coat
-
Thanks Bulma! It's about time someone was reading a Bible around here.
I'm not sure that copying and pasting stuff from some random website constitutes "reading the bible".
It's copypasta. I string together quotes that match what I believe.
Alexei and the technicoloured dream coat
But did they sell you to Bedouin nomads?
-
. . . . . this one time at band camp
-
I knew it.
You can't trust band camp.
-
Thanks Bulma! It's about time someone was reading a Bible around here.
I'm not sure that copying and pasting stuff from some random website constitutes "reading the bible".
It's copypasta. I string together quotes that match what I believe.
Yes, therein lies the problem. It's referred to as "confirmation bias".
-
Confirmation bias is what lazy atheists call coincidences that actually favor a supposition.
If you have something working 1 time out of 10, and you ignore the other nine times, this is confirmation bias.
For example: "God doesn't interact in the lives of humans"
You say this on the way towards a shopping mall on Sunday. On the way there, "I Honestly Love You" is on the radio, but some digital glitch is displaying the band name as 60[). A church sign says "Have you talked with me lately?" while "Call Me, Maybe" plays on the radio. You also pass a burning bush slightly off the road. And so on, all the way up to getting back home. Billboards, bumper stickers, people you meet at the mall, all giving you a message in lieu of you having gone to church. But you ignore all of these things to focus on a few moments where God isn't interacting with you... that would be confirmation bias. Ignoring repeated signals to the contrary to confirm what you already believe.
Copying and pasting what I already know to be true, that's not confirmation bias. That's "finding a quote."
-
If you have something working 1 time out of 10, and you ignore the other nine times, this is confirmation bias.
Everything you post is ignoring the other 9.
-
I'm not obligated to answer to humans for my beliefs. They can think what they like.
Ignoring mob rule isn't the same as confirmation bias either.
The testament of my own life has given me more rhan sufficient evidence that there is a God, and that fretting about end times is misplaced energy. "No worries," I have heard repeatedly. If God is in control, and God loves us, how can we possibly worry about some crack hallucination that some guy in the first century (supposedly) named John had about some evil God who does alot of vengeance on innocent people because they don't fit into some narrow definition or righteous behavior?
Revelation is consistent with the sort of vengeful mindset we see in Psalm 137.
1 By the rivers of Babylon, there we sat down, yea, we wept, when we remembered Zion.
2 We hanged our harps upon the willows in the midst thereof.
3 For there they that carried us away captive required of us a song; and they that wasted us required of us mirth, saying, Sing us one of the songs of Zion.
4 How shall we sing the LORD'S song in a strange land?
5 If I forget thee, O Jerusalem, let my right hand forget her cunning.
6 If I do not remember thee, let my tongue cleave to the roof of my mouth; if I prefer not Jerusalem above my chief joy.
7 Remember, O LORD, the children of Edom in the day of Jerusalem; who said, Rase it, rase it, even to the foundation thereof.
8 O daughter of Babylon, who art to be destroyed; happy shall he be, that rewardeth thee as thou hast served us.
9 Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones.
Seriously, taking about taking people's kids and smashing them against stones.
We have outgrown this shit. This doesn't mean the Bible is a lie. There is a God, and I fully believe I have seen him. What it does mean is that the Jewish rabbis who teach apocalypse theory are hateful liars. The God that I worship doesn't sentence little children to suffering and death, no matter whose they are, nor does he bathe more than 1/3 of the world in blood from some cause or another.
The God I worship loves atheists, gays, and even those who hate others and want to punish people.
Let's read Jonah.
https://biblehub.com/jonah/
Jonah is called by God to save the foreign land of Ninevah, yet runs the opposite way. Not as you might think, because he fears they might not listen and would kill him as a prophet. No, because he knows they probably will listen. We mainly hear about him getting swallowed by a whale (exact words are "big fish"), not about this reason, or their repentance. So Jonah sits and stews like a spoiled little shit. He wanted God to punish the people he hates... but God doesn't want to punish these people. So God makes a large leaf to grow up near him for shade, then scorches it to death. Jonah complains about this, and God says, "Are you worried about this plant, which you did nothing for? Am I not right to worry about this city with all its people, and also its many animals?"
The God I worship cares even about the wicked and the hypocrites. This God cares even about animals like sheep, or even tiny sparrows. So what proof do we have that Jesus will come again to judge all the sinners? None, it's crap from mistaken bloodthirsty "Christians" and Jews.
-
What it does mean is that the Jewish rabbis who teach apocalypse theory are hateful liars.
You might want to re-read the last chapter in the New Testament, you know, the book that the Jewish faith doesn't recognize nor teach, but Christian priests and ministers do. That seems to make christians the hateful liars. It really doesn't get more apocalyptic than Revelations.
This bit has the real makings of a Michael Bay film...
Sixth Trumpet: The Second Woe (9:13–21)
- The four angels bound to the great river Euphrates are released to prepare two hundred million horsemen.
- These armies kill a third of mankind by plagues of fire, smoke, and brimstone.
It's always funny what christians (or any religion with a 'book') like to pick and choose from the bible. Like, "Oh yeah, the bible is the word of God, oh, except for this, and that, and this too...Otherwise, it's all the word of God..Hold on for sec, oh yeah, but not this other part either...and that one too..."
-
What it does mean is that the Jewish rabbis who teach apocalypse theory are hateful liars.
You might want to re-read the last chapter in the New Testament, you know, the book that the Jewish faith doesn't recognize nor teach, but Christian priests and ministers do. That seems to make christians the hateful liars. It really doesn't get more apocalyptic than Revelations.
This bit has the real makings of a Michael Bay film...
Sixth Trumpet: The Second Woe (9:13–21)
- The four angels bound to the great river Euphrates are released to prepare two hundred million horsemen.
- These armies kill a third of mankind by plagues of fire, smoke, and brimstone.
It's always funny what christians (or any religion with a 'book') like to pick and choose from the bible. Like, "Oh yeah, the bible is the word of God, oh, except for this, and that, and this too...Otherwise, it's all the word of God..Hold on for sec, oh yeah, but not this other part either...and that one too..."
Here, read this (http://www.thehypertexts.com/Essays%20Articles%20Reviews%20Prose/Michael%20R.%20Burch%20John%20of%20Patmos%20Revelation%20Errors%20Contradictions%202012.htm).
John obviously believed that the earth was flat, with corners, and that the stars were tiny pinpoints of light. He said he saw four angels standing on the four corners of the earth. We know that his earth was flat because he said that every eye would see Jesus when he descended from the clouds. That can only happen on a flat earth.
So, if we are to believe John of Patmos, then you have to accept flat Earth theory even more than I do.
Moreover, the entire text appears to be written, not by "Christians" but by one of the the people Paul warned about.
Mark my words! I, Paul tell you that if you let yourself be circumcised, Christ will be of no value to you at all. Again I declare to every man who lets himself be circumcised that he is obligated to obey the whole law. You who are trying to be justified by law have been alienated from Christ; you have fallen away from grace. But by faith we eagerly await through the Spirit the righteousness for which we hope. For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision has any value. The only thing that counts is faith expressing itself through love.
Those who want to make a good impression outwardly are trying to compel you to be circumcised. The only reason they do this is to avoid being persecuted for the cross of Christ. Not even those who are circumcised obey the law, yet they want you to be circumcised that they may boast about your flesh. May I never boast except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, through which the world has been crucified through to me, and I to the world. Neither circumcision nor uncircumcision counts for anything; what counts is a new creation. Peace and mercy to all who follow this rule, even to the Israel of God.
Is this blessedness only for the circumcised, or also for the uncircumcised? We have been saying that Abraham's faith was credited to him as righteousness. Under what circumstances was it credited? Was it after he was circumcised, or before? It was not afterward but before. And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness that he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised. So then, he is the father of all who believe but have not been circumcised but who also walk in the footsteps of faith that our father Abraham had before he was circumcised.
The Letters talk about these false Christians in the early church pushing a doctrine of circumcision and salvation by works. Wild guess as to what Revelation teaches?
The dead were judged according to what they had done as recorded in the books. The sea gave up the dead that were in it, and death and Hades gave up the dead that were in them, and each person was judged according to what he had done.
Yup, salvation by works. This is in conflict with not only what Paul says, but what Jesus preaches. Now some people think that Paul somehow departed from what Jesus taught (this is a shallow attempt to use the Gospel against itself). But what did Jesus say, when asked how to attain eternal life?
A rich man approached Jesus and asked how it is that he could attain eternal life. But the way that he phrased his question triggered a very interesting response. He asked, “Good Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?” (Mark 10:17). Jesus replied, “Why do you call me good? No one is good except God alone.”
Jesus called this man to consider the words that he used. He told him that nobody was good. If nobody is good, then nobody can merit eternal life with God. Then he listed the commandments. Perhaps this can be taken as a challenge to this man. Have you met this standard of righteousness and holiness? Do not murder, do not steal, do not commit adultery, do not lie, do not defraud, honor your father and mother (v. 19). This man claimed righteousness. He claimed to be precisely what Jesus just said that no man is. He claimed to be good (v. 20). But Jesus knew that he was lying, or deceiving himself. So he said that he still lacks perfection and told him to sell all of his possessions and give the money to the poor. He said this to show the man that he was unrighteous. He said this to expose sin to this man so that sin might become exceedingly sinful. This man wanted to know how to earn eternal life. Jesus told him that he must keep all of the commandments, be perfectly righteous, every day, from the time he is born, until the time he dies. He must never sin.
Obviously, it is impossible to keep the law from birth without mishap, but that's the point.
A Jewish friend of mine was talking about the Day of Atonement (which is today). He was talking about how this year, he had stayed away from porn. I told him that the spirit of the festival was to focus not on what he did but what he didn't do. This is the problem of the Jewish law. It doesn't actually hold salvation, it just gives a path for people to work hard in hopes of being saved (this doesn't mean the Jews are not saved, it means they have no clue how salvation works).
-
focus not on what he did but what he didn't do
lot of 'nots' and 'nos' there
The 10 Commandments
You shall have no other God's before me.
Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven images. ...
Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain. ...
Remember the Sabbath day and keep it Holy. ...
Honor your father and mother. ...
Thou shalt not kill. ...
Thou shalt not commit adultery. ...
Thou shalt not steal.
also
he stayed away from porn
so he didn't do the jerking.
so he did the thing you said.
-
You don't get it. I arbitrarily gave him more rules to troll him.
The purpose of Christianity was not to abolish the law but to lead to freedom from the curse of the law.
I shall tell you a parable.
A man tells himself that because he is not religious, he does not have to live under the rules of religion. He is a secular leftist who cares about the environment and social justice
-All day long, he works to make enough money. He was told by his parents that he has to work hard to support himself, so no bullshit media influencer job for him.
- He is trying to earn the expensive cars and nice home that supposedly everyone wants. He wants to be rich and famous, because these things are important.
- He becomes a leader in some famous company (maybe he's Bill Gates or something). But none of his money or fame is enough.
-So, he tries donating to organizations, trying to influence social change. Is he donating enough to make up for his large income... and you know, being white?
-He not only tries to do alot of woke social justice things but flies around in a jet preaching about climate change. (Ironically, this jet does quite a bit of damage to the environment but he doesn't pay attention to this detail) Does he recycle enough? Does keep his carbon footprint low enough?
You notice the word "enough" getting used alot? You see, the curse of the law is that you can't just say you're not following the law and be free of it, any more than you can try to follow every rule.
You have to understand that the law is set up to be perfect, so that you will fail. Yes, that's insane. It's also scripture.
https://www.compellingtruth.org/curse-of-the-law.html
-
Here, read this (http://www.thehypertexts.com/Essays%20Articles%20Reviews%20Prose/Michael%20R.%20Burch%20John%20of%20Patmos%20Revelation%20Errors%20Contradictions%202012.htm).
John obviously believed that the earth was flat, with corners, and that the stars were tiny pinpoints of light. He said he saw four angels standing on the four corners of the earth. We know that his earth was flat because he said that every eye would see Jesus when he descended from the clouds. That can only happen on a flat earth.
So, if we are to believe John of Patmos, then you have to accept flat Earth theory even more than I do.
Burch's entire treatise is about the hypocrisy and ridiculousness in the good book. Including the flat earth bit. So what's your point? Perhaps in a sentence or two instead of a tome.
-
Here, read this (http://www.thehypertexts.com/Essays%20Articles%20Reviews%20Prose/Michael%20R.%20Burch%20John%20of%20Patmos%20Revelation%20Errors%20Contradictions%202012.htm).
John obviously believed that the earth was flat, with corners, and that the stars were tiny pinpoints of light. He said he saw four angels standing on the four corners of the earth. We know that his earth was flat because he said that every eye would see Jesus when he descended from the clouds. That can only happen on a flat earth.
So, if we are to believe John of Patmos, then you have to accept flat Earth theory even more than I do.
Burch's entire treatise is about the hypocrisy and ridiculousness in the good book. Including the flat earth bit. So what's your point? Perhaps in a sentence or two instead of a tome.
Actually, the point is that it doesn't belong in anything called the good book.
While he repeatedly quotes Mark Twain, his point is not my point. More important was that Martin Luther and early church leaders questioned the text.
Revelation seems engineered to give ammo to Jews and atheists. "See? See?!? God is slaughtering and torturing people." No, I don't see. Because like Luther, I cannot find anything decent about this text. Luther eventually softened abour this ( or someone wrote his endorsement in his name), but I don't see there being any reason to do so. This text contradicts Christ's own mission to save the world not to condemn it (John 3:17, right after the "for God so loved the world" quote).
-
There is no evidence Jesus even existed other than the fables written about him.
Clear the muddle by clearing any mind of him. He never existed. Fables. That's all he amounts to.
-
Here, read this (http://www.thehypertexts.com/Essays%20Articles%20Reviews%20Prose/Michael%20R.%20Burch%20John%20of%20Patmos%20Revelation%20Errors%20Contradictions%202012.htm).
John obviously believed that the earth was flat, with corners, and that the stars were tiny pinpoints of light. He said he saw four angels standing on the four corners of the earth. We know that his earth was flat because he said that every eye would see Jesus when he descended from the clouds. That can only happen on a flat earth.
So, if we are to believe John of Patmos, then you have to accept flat Earth theory even more than I do.
Burch's entire treatise is about the hypocrisy and ridiculousness in the good book. Including the flat earth bit. So what's your point? Perhaps in a sentence or two instead of a tome.
Actually, the point is that it doesn't belong in anything called the good book.
While he repeatedly quotes Mark Twain, his point is not my point. More important was that Martin Luther and early church leaders questioned the text.
Revelation seems engineered to give ammo to Jews and atheists. "See? See?!? God is slaughtering and torturing people." No, I don't see. Because like Luther, I cannot find anything decent about this text. Luther eventually softened abour this ( or someone wrote his endorsement in his name), but I don't see there being any reason to do so. This text contradicts Christ's own mission to save the world not to condemn it (John 3:17, right after the "for God so loved the world" quote).
I still don't know what your point is. Try and be clear and concise.
I don't know what Revelations has to do with Jews & Atheists. Neither regard the New Testament and last I check, Revelations is still in the Christian bible. I have no idea what you're going on about.
-
I don't know what Revelations has to do with Jews & Atheists.
Because it’s cool AF.
As an atheist, I sometimes question what good religion has done. Then I dig out the Omen DVD, or Raiders of the Lost Ark (more Old Testament) and think how much poorer we’d all be without it.
-
Without religion we wouldn't sacrifice millions of innocent people to please the gods.
-
blaming God for bad things that relgious zealots do in his name is like saying all taxation is theft because all gov't are corrupt.
the God is the Taxes.
just a function of existence.
it just is.
the implementation and collection of as done by the people in charge is the good or the bad.
-
blaming God for bad things that relgious zealots do in his name is like saying all taxation is theft because all gov't are corrupt.
the God is the Taxes.
just a function of existence.
it just is.
the implementation and collection of as done by the people in charge is the good or the bad.
Without Kabool, we wouldn't have a person who has 15 strokes a day.
KLJSLHLJHAHALHSHL
-
- When I say the name Jesus, what is it you say?
I just ignore you and go about my life.
-
I don't know what Revelations has to do with Jews & Atheists.
Because it’s cool AF.
As an atheist, I sometimes question what good religion has done. Then I dig out the Omen DVD, or Raiders of the Lost Ark (more Old Testament) and think how much poorer we’d all be without it.
The best point anyone has made thus far.
-
I don't know what Revelations has to do with Jews & Atheists.
Because it’s cool AF.
As an atheist, I sometimes question what good religion has done. Then I dig out the Omen DVD, or Raiders of the Lost Ark (more Old Testament) and think how much poorer we’d all be without it.
The best point anyone has made thus far.
But is it cool AF?
Look here, many apocalypse ideas seem cool when they're written out. Norse myth in particular is very metal.
But you wouldn't want to actually be living in such a reality. The equivalent of branding people in order to get them to use their income, excluding people who don't fall in line? That's the recipe for mass suffering. Think of the proposed plan to make only those who have vaccines able tobuy and sell. If even 10% of the people completely refuse to get a vaccine, this is 1 in 10 people that you're letting potentially go naked and starve to death.
The people who think this system is "cool AF" never realize that they are basically making it self-fulfilling prophecy. Only even that isn't all that self-fulfilled. Most small towns have now rejected the mandates, leaving only scattered woke businesses who try to enforce these standards, but even in places like New York, plans to make private businesses enforce masks have fallen apart, leaving just government workers. That is, not only is the Mark of the Beast in Revelation something that in real life is a major nuisance, but economically it doesn't pan out. People are working normally despite the plan to force everyone to conform.
But yes, I'm aware that in order for people to not like this on, I've gotta replace it with a better idea. We already have this depicted though. Watch Good Omens and My Girlfriend is a Gumiho. Instead of some bloody Second Coming and flashy war with heaven/hell, the truth is things are kinda business as usual. Jesus has come again, and those with eyes to see can see him whenever they want. I recommend the second to have an idea of what it is like dating a supernatural being.
The Bible repeatedly references that we humans are basically divorced from God (in the most literal way possible). So Jesus dying on a cross was like a plan to start dating each other again. Better than trees with 12 flowers, rivers of blood, and forced branding of people. Yes, dating God is much better than those things, except for how it looks on the screen. But you can make a pretty badass fantasy romance too.
-
But is it cool AF?
Look here, many apocalypse ideas seem cool when they're written out. Norse myth in particular is very metal.
But you wouldn't want to actually be living in such a reality. The equivalent of branding people in order to get them to use their income, excluding people who don't fall in line? That's the recipe for mass suffering. Think of the proposed plan to make only those who have vaccines able tobuy and sell. If even 10% of the people completely refuse to get a vaccine, this is 1 in 10 people that you're letting potentially go naked and starve to death.
The people who think this system is "cool AF" never realize that they are basically making it self-fulfilling prophecy. Only even that isn't all that self-fulfilled. Most small towns have now rejected the mandates, leaving only scattered woke businesses who try to enforce these standards, but even in places like New York, plans to make private businesses enforce masks have fallen apart, leaving just government workers. That is, not only is the Mark of the Beast in Revelation something that in real life is a major nuisance, but economically it doesn't pan out. People are working normally despite the plan to force everyone to conform.
But yes, I'm aware that in order for people to not like this on, I've gotta replace it with a better idea. We already have this depicted though. Watch Good Omens and My Girlfriend is a Gumiho. Instead of some bloody Second Coming and flashy war with heaven/hell, the truth is things are kinda business as usual. Jesus has come again, and those with eyes to see can see him whenever they want. I recommend the second to have an idea of what it is like dating a supernatural being.
The Bible repeatedly references that we humans are basically divorced from God (in the most literal way possible). So Jesus dying on a cross was like a plan to start dating each other again. Better than trees with 12 flowers, rivers of blood, and forced branding of people. Yes, dating God is much better than those things, except for how it looks on the screen. But you can make a pretty badass fantasy romance too.
Obviously, I don’t want it to happen, I don’t believe it will happen and didn’t think you did either from previous posts. If a beast with 7 heads and 10 horns ever rises from the sea, I’ll start taking it seriously. Until then there seems to be far more likely apocalyptic scenarios to worry about.
My comment was about the role of religion, particularly Christianity on my culture- Literature, art, architecture, film, etc. plus traditions, holidays and all that. Some atheists just think everything about religion is shit. I don’t, as long as it doesn’t interfere with people who don’t share the beliefs.
The Omen is just a really good chilling horror story. It only works by accepting the premise of course. In real life, it would be the tale of a man convinced by a religious nut job that his son was the embodiment of evil based on pretty much no evidence at all, but that’s what suspension of disbelief is all about.
There’s no need to shoehorn your objections to vaccines and face masks into it.
-
I don't know what Revelations has to do with Jews & Atheists.
Because it’s cool AF.
As an atheist, I sometimes question what good religion has done. Then I dig out the Omen DVD, or Raiders of the Lost Ark (more Old Testament) and think how much poorer we’d all be without it.
The best point anyone has made thus far.
Yes, dating God is much better than those things, except for how it looks on the screen. But you can make a pretty badass fantasy romance too.
So many words and I still have no idea what you're going on about. Try to be more terse and actually make a point in as few nonsensical phrases as possible.
-
But is it cool AF?
Look here, many apocalypse ideas seem cool when they're written out. Norse myth in particular is very metal.
But you wouldn't want to actually be living in such a reality. The equivalent of branding people in order to get them to use their income, excluding people who don't fall in line? That's the recipe for mass suffering. Think of the proposed plan to make only those who have vaccines able tobuy and sell. If even 10% of the people completely refuse to get a vaccine, this is 1 in 10 people that you're letting potentially go naked and starve to death.
The people who think this system is "cool AF" never realize that they are basically making it self-fulfilling prophecy. Only even that isn't all that self-fulfilled. Most small towns have now rejected the mandates, leaving only scattered woke businesses who try to enforce these standards, but even in places like New York, plans to make private businesses enforce masks have fallen apart, leaving just government workers. That is, not only is the Mark of the Beast in Revelation something that in real life is a major nuisance, but economically it doesn't pan out. People are working normally despite the plan to force everyone to conform.
But yes, I'm aware that in order for people to not like this on, I've gotta replace it with a better idea. We already have this depicted though. Watch Good Omens and My Girlfriend is a Gumiho. Instead of some bloody Second Coming and flashy war with heaven/hell, the truth is things are kinda business as usual. Jesus has come again, and those with eyes to see can see him whenever they want. I recommend the second to have an idea of what it is like dating a supernatural being.
The Bible repeatedly references that we humans are basically divorced from God (in the most literal way possible). So Jesus dying on a cross was like a plan to start dating each other again. Better than trees with 12 flowers, rivers of blood, and forced branding of people. Yes, dating God is much better than those things, except for how it looks on the screen. But you can make a pretty badass fantasy romance too.
Obviously, I don’t want it to happen, I don’t believe it will happen and didn’t think you did either from previous posts. If a beast with 7 heads and 10 horns ever rises from the sea, I’ll start taking it seriously. Until then there seems to be far more likely apocalyptic scenarios to worry about.
My comment was about the role of religion, particularly Christianity on my culture- Literature, art, architecture, film, etc. plus traditions, holidays and all that. Some atheists just think everything about religion is shit. I don’t, as long as it doesn’t interfere with people who don’t share the beliefs.
The Omen is just a really good chilling horror story. It only works by accepting the premise of course. In real life, it would be the tale of a man convinced by a religious nut job that his son was the embodiment of evil based on pretty much no evidence at all, but that’s what suspension of disbelief is all about.
There’s no need to shoehorn your objections to vaccines and face masks into it.
Yes there is. Ask alot of zealous Christians, they will point out the single letter difference between mark and mask, or how the mask is part of Babylonian worship. As for the vaccine, you could claim that it alters the DNA of the vaccinee (mRNA turns into DNA as it is metabolized) away from what God created us as into... something else. You could then draw parallels between that and mixing blood with angels as happened in Noah's Ark just prior to the flood.
The point is, if we accept Revelation (I no longer do), then everyone who wore the mask, everyone who jabbed up is doomed.
That's probably a lot of people.
Are you satisfied with that condemnation? No? Then it's time to reject Revelation as biblical literature.
-
Woweeeee
Does maRk maSk work across all lanuguages?
Or just english, you know english, "if it was good enough for Jesus its good enough for me" said that american one time in ref to mexicans and immigrants speaking other languages around him.
-
Then it's time to reject Revelation as biblical literature.
Do Christians get to pick and choose what they like? Basically choosing which words of God to believe and which to ignore?
-
Sure they do. It's called a canon.
Revelation self-imposed itself as canon, which is an immediate red flag that it is not.
-
Sure they do. It's called a canon.
Revelation self-imposed itself as canon, which is an immediate red flag that it is not.
How did Revelation "self-impose" itself? All books of the bible are supposedly canon.
-
Bumble is so sovereign he can sovereign the bible.
-
Sure they do. It's called a canon.
Revelation self-imposed itself as canon, which is an immediate red flag that it is not.
How did Revelation "self-impose" itself? All books of the bible are supposedly canon.
Revelation says the following as a warning.
I testify to everyone who hears the words of prophecy in this book: If anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book. And if anyone takes away from the words of this book of prophecy, God will take away his share in the tree of life and the holy city, which are described in this book
So basically, "Hey everyone, I wrote this somewhat shitty yet metal-as-hell book of random weird prophecies which can't even be clearly interpreted. In case anyone was thinking of dismissing the lot of this as garbage musings of either a fraud or a senile old man (depending on who really wrote it), you can't do that! Because ummm... plagues! God will visit the ten plagues on you. And if you think of cutting out portions of Revelation, you're not allowed into this pretty imaginary city (where a careful reading of the Bible tells you that none of us are going to anyway, because not one of us is as good as God hopes for)."
https://livingtolovehim.com/2016/01/23/no-one-is-worthy-no-not-one/
This is how Revelation justifies itself as sacred literature. Every other book of value earns its place by being at least okay (some are pretty close to only okay) sacred literature. Revelation emotionally blackmails its readership, claiming to be a good book when its message is mostly one of fear and limited salvation.
-
So basically, "Hey everyone, I wrote this somewhat shitty metal-as-hell book of random weird prophecies which can't be clearly interpreted.[/b] In case anyone was thinking of dismissing the lot of this as garbage musings of either a fraud or a senile old man (depending on who really wrote it), you can't do that! Because ummm... plagues! God will visit the ten plagues on you. And if you think of cutting out portions of Revelation, you're not allowed into this pretty imaginary city (where a careful reading of the Bible tells you that none of us are going to because not one of us is as good as God hopes for)." This is how Revelation justifies itself as sacred literature. Every other book of value earns its place by being at least okay sacred literature. Revelation emotionally blackmails its readership, claiming to be a good book when its message is mostly one of fear and limited salvation.
Matthew 24:35-37
New Life Version
No One Knows When Jesus Will Come Again
35 “Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words will not pass away. 36 But no one knows the day or the hour. No! Not even the angels in heaven know. The Son does not know. Only the Father know
Matthew 13
10 The disciples came to him and asked, “Why do you speak to the people in parables?”
11 He replied, “Because the knowledge of the secrets of the kingdom of heaven has been given to you, but not to them. 12 Whoever has will be given more, and they will have an abundance. Whoever does not have, even what they have will be taken from them. 13 This is why I speak to them in parables:
“Though seeing, they do not see;
though hearing, they do not hear or understand.
-
Sure they do. It's called a canon.
Revelation self-imposed itself as canon, which is an immediate red flag that it is not.
How did Revelation "self-impose" itself? All books of the bible are supposedly canon.
Because ummm... plagues! God will visit the ten plagues on you.
God already drowned the earth and genocided everyone save for a handful. Why do you think plagues are that out of line for the big guy?
-
So basically, "Hey everyone, I wrote this somewhat shitty metal-as-hell book of random weird prophecies which can't be clearly interpreted.[/b] In case anyone was thinking of dismissing the lot of this as garbage musings of either a fraud or a senile old man (depending on who really wrote it), you can't do that! Because ummm... plagues! God will visit the ten plagues on you. And if you think of cutting out portions of Revelation, you're not allowed into this pretty imaginary city (where a careful reading of the Bible tells you that none of us are going to because not one of us is as good as God hopes for)." This is how Revelation justifies itself as sacred literature. Every other book of value earns its place by being at least okay sacred literature. Revelation emotionally blackmails its readership, claiming to be a good book when its message is mostly one of fear and limited salvation.
Matthew 24:35-37
New Life Version
No One Knows When Jesus Will Come Again
35 “Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words will not pass away. 36 But no one knows the day or the hour. No! Not even the angels in heaven know. The Son does not know. Only the Father know
The quote in context is to do with the Temple.
Jesus left the temple and was walking away when his disciples came up to him to call his attention to its buildings. 2 “Do you see all these things?” he asked. “Truly I tell you, not one stone here will be left on another; every one will be thrown down.”
3 As Jesus was sitting on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to him privately. “Tell us,” they said, “when will this happen, and what will be the sign of your coming and of the end of the age?”
The disciples assume that the Temple will fall only at the end of the world. That is, they have successfully managed to turn the Temple into a false god. Actually, the Temple was built by Herod, and lasted all of forty more years before its destruction (c. 70AD, the Romans trashed it).
Exact context has nothing to do with Jesus's return. It is about the end of the world, that is, the actual death of planet Earth (that date is uncertain, because it marks the date when Earth simply falls apart, not a moral or religious event). And it is about the end of the Temple, a far more sure thing.
As for Jesus's return, we are clearly told that Jesus returned from the dead, and appeared not only to his disciples once but numerous times, including to like 100 people or something. We are in no uncertain terms told that Jesus HAS returned. Not WILL, that Jesus ALREADY lives among us. Second Coming? A lie and a false prophecy. When Jesus is already back, what need is there for him to "return in glory" in order to condemn the world that he refused to condemn, even as he was being crucified?
God already drowned the earth and genocided everyone save for a handful. Why do you think plagues are that out of line for the big guy?
Don't you think we should have seen plagues befall Martin Luther?
About this Book of the Revelation of John, I leave everyone free to hold his own opinions. I would not have anyone bound to my opinion or judgment. I say what I feel. I miss more than one thing in this book, and it makes me consider it to be neither apostolic nor prophetic.
First and foremost, the apostles do not deal with visions, but prophesy in clear and plain words, as do Peter and Paul, and Christ in the gospel. For it befits the apostolic office to speak clearly of Christ and his deeds, without images and visions. Moreover there is no prophet in the Old Testament, to say nothing of the New, who deals so exclusively with visions and images. For myself, I think it approximates the Fourth Book of Esdras; I can in no way detect that the Holy Spirit produced it.
Moreover he seems to me to be going much too far when he commends his own book so highly (Revelation 22)—indeed, more than any of the other sacred books do, though they are much more important—and threatens that if anyone takes away anything from it, God will take away from him, etc. Again, they are supposed to be blessed who keep what is written in this book; and yet no one knows what that is, to say nothing of keeping it. This is just the same as if we did not have the book at all. And there are many far better books available for us to keep.
Many of the fathers also rejected this book a long time ago; although St. Jerome, to be sure, refers to it in exalted terms and says that it is above all praise and that there are as many mysteries in it as words. Still, Jerome cannot prove this at all, and his praise at numerous places is too generous.
Finally, let everyone think of it as his own spirit leads him. My spirit cannot accommodate itself to this book. For me this is reason enough not to think highly of it: Christ is neither taught nor known in it. But to teach Christ, this is the thing which an apostle is bound above all else to do; as Christ says in Acts 1:8, “You shall be my witnesses.” Therefore I stick to the books which present Christ to me clearly and purely.
He says this in the 1522 “Preface to the Revelation of St. John” in his translation of the New Testament.
Don't you think that God would have cursed the Lutheran church, and sentenced him to some ghastly torment? At the very least, Martin Luther's firstborn son should have died.
Martin Luther found peace when he married an ex-nun named Katharine von Bora, whom he had helped to escape from her nunnery in an empty fish barrel and had taken refuge in Wittenberg.
Katharine von Bora was born in 1499, the daughter of an impoverished nobleman. In 1504 she went to the convent school of the Benedictine order in Brehna (near Halle) and entered the convent of Nimbschen, near Grimma in 1508.
In 1515 she took her vows and became a nun at the soonest possible date. In 1523 she left the convent and ended up in Wittenberg. By June 1525, echoing a trend across Europe as former nuns and monks married, she became Mrs Martin Luther.
Katharine was 16 years younger than Martin and together they had six children. Luther doted on his large family but was able to devote himself to the simpler pleasures of life, gardening, writing music.
Six children. And the only record of plague that I could find is nearly 44 years after he wrote that 1522 thing, when he is called from a sickbed to resolve a dispute and dies on the return trip. No locusts, frogs, sick cattle, or anything else. She suffered a miscarriage, one death at eight months, and one at thirteen years, but this is common. None of the existing children died directly following this pronouncement.
Crap, crap, crap. There is nothing true about this curse, just as there is nothing true about Revelation. You can feel free to decide if you want to believe it, but as for me, I agree with Luther. I stick to books which present Christ to me clearly and purely.
-
How did Revelation "self-impose" itself?
It is sentient.
-
How did Revelation "self-impose" itself?
It is sentient.
Like the Necronomicon?
-
Don't you think that God would have cursed the Lutheran church, and sentenced him to some ghastly torment?
No
-
How did Revelation "self-impose" itself?
It is sentient.
Like the Necronomicon?
You guys are hilarious. Sure, we'll go with that. But the self-imposition I was referring to was the dire warning about leaving it out of canon or trying to change it.
Don't you think that God would have cursed the Lutheran church, and sentenced him to some ghastly torment?
No
Exactly. Nothing about this idea makes any sense.
-
With so many inconsistencies, revisions, translations, alterations, interpretations, it seems like the bible doesn't represent the word of a God at all. It's just a book of fables and philosophies.
-
If we understand that the word of God is not a set of laws, not a history, and definitely not a book of science (sorry, all attempts to shoehorn Genesis's creation usually fail) then these inconsistencies don't matter.
The Bible is myth. And lest you say "Yes, it's a myth, it's false," lemme explain what the original purpose of myth was.
https://sage-advices.com/what-was-the-purpose-of-myths/
But myths are more than mere stories and they serve a more profound purpose in ancient and modern cultures. Myths are sacred tales that explain the world and man’s experience. Myths are as relevant to us today as they were to the ancients. Myths answer timeless questions and serve as a compass to each generation.
Mythology serves four functions: The Metaphysical, Cosmological, Sociological, and Pedagogical.
Mythology plays an important role is because it becomes a foundation for a lot of religions that are practiced. These particular myths are stories that tell us about battles between good and evil. Every religion has stories like that, both ancient and modern. They show how our ancestors thought and what they believed.
So what exactly is the purpose of Judeo-Christian myth? Well, it has to do with reading between the lines.
The first book in the Bible chronologically is actually Job. Which is odd, because Job cites several laws about the care for widows and orphans, which he insists he has kept. Job is in some ways the most profound book of the Bible because it tells the story of a man accused wrongly, a story that will play out again during Jesus's crucifixion. From there were have a very direct encounter with God, where God first accuses Job and then defends him. A rather strange picture, but in stories we call this character establishment (in anime, this is usually filled by a waking up and getting ready scene). This is what God is like, very direct in his interaction with humans.
We then get a progression of story from Genesis, where a universe is made, the world is made, humanity is made, and finally a favored tribe is made. More importantly, during this time, we learn that this tribe came after a very dark chapter in history. Atheists seem to want to tell it as God being mean, but let's read it.
Now it came about, when men began to multiply on the face of the land, and daughters were born to them, that the sons of God saw that the daughters of men were beautiful; and they took wives for themselves, whomever they chose. Then the LORD said, "My Spirit shall not strive with man forever, because he also is flesh; nevertheless his days shall be one hundred and twenty years."The Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of men, and they bore children to them. Those were the mighty men who were of old, men of renown (Genesis 6:1-4).
Reread that.
Did you understand what you are reading? No? Here's a quick review. These were genetically tainted humans. This isn't just simple evil, but actively attempting to ruin the very nature of humans. GMOs and other crap.
(http://img1.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20130411160842/neverwinteronline/images/5/5a/Ogrespaint.jpg)
So for all the people telling me that God killed all but a few humans, let me correct you a bit. These weren't humans, they were more like ogres and giants and catgirls. Nephilim. As everyone knows, catgirls must not exist. Nowadays, we humans are 100% human (though after COVID vaccines, I'm not sure). This was God culling genetic deformity. You all like Darwin right? Okay, survival of the fittest. What, you aren't pleased?
Anyway, after that, we have another two dark chapters. We have a tower of Babel (which extra text tells us was probably built on near-worldwide tyranny, and which we are told the Jews did not participate), and a strange section about a seven year famine. All of this in the framework of a family favored by God. Btw, what could create a famine that wipes out all grains for seven years? Well...
https://ancientnuclearwar.com/
So yeah, times are rough. And people searching for direction find there is a God, and that he travels with them. And we have their journey from people who believe in a very personal God to a nation that wants a king (against the advice of God) and a temple (also against the advice of God, who says that he was content wandering with his people), ultimately turning their back on God and following a cheap set of laws.
But this story doesn't end with their condemnation, nor does it end with that of their enemies. Instead, God exports his plan of salvation to this entire world (and probably all the universe, eventually). This is God who so loves the world that he is willing to die on the cross for us. Yes, the Bible mentions several times when God loses his shit. What have we learned from both Job and Genesis? This is a God whom we are modeled after. That is, everything from tantrums to making war (on other gods) to very human love are all part of who God is.
-
If we understand that the word of God is not a set of laws, not a history, and definitely not a book of science (sorry, all attempts to shoehorn Genesis's creation usually fail) then these inconsistencies don't matter.
The Bible is myth. And lest you say "Yes, it's a myth, it's false," lemme explain what the original purpose of myth was.
More like a fable/philosophy. As for ogres and orcs or whatever, you might as well treat Tolkien's work as equal to the bible, myth/real.
I love stuff like this:
"The Bible also talks, between the lines, about another effect of this nuclear war: Radiation poisoning of the human race."
"...between the lines..." Classic...Nonsense.
-
Nuh it's not nonsense.
I have read the Bible.
Then the Mahabharata, which I got in Indian History class. Then the Bible again to make sure what I wss reading was correct.
The Bible says that an "east wind" will cone and scorch them.
Genesis 41:6, “Then behold, seven ears, thin and scorched by the east wind, sprouted up after them.”
Genesis 41:23, “and lo, seven ears, withered, thin, and scorched by the east wind, sprouted up after them;”
Genesis 41:27, “The seven lean and ugly cows that came up after them are seven years, and the seven thin ears scorched by the east wind will be seven years of famine.”
Not dry out, scorch. So what is happening out east of Israel? Well, at this this times, two families were fighting a a rather large war. It describes an arrow fired (projectile weapon), mantra (detonation code), light like a second sun (I believe you've seen this), that earth below crackled and small pebbles exploded (fun fact, nuclear weapons often cause the fusion of earth into glass), steaming up a river (yay, dead fish), and we then hear that Krishna orders the weapon stopped. Even partially activated, the damage is immense but apparently this is not a simple atom bomb but a sophisticated nuclear weapon as it can continue to emit energy and can be shut off remotely (rather than blowing itself up). We are told that the reason it is shut down is that if it continues, the land will be desert for 7000 years (yes, radiation can do funny things to land). As it is, you can find out about that area. It's 2022 AD, yet even today, this land has been abandoned as "haunted" because people get sick there.
Btw, in some instances, Zeus's thunderbolt is described and the level of destruction is on par with some ancient weapon. But nowhere as much as Hindu literature is there such an explicit description of radiation poisoning. Myths tell us stories of things that are beyond the understanding of ancient people (that is, a class of people had tech (or some type of high level psychic ability), that the rest of the population did not, hence they described them as gods).
-
Then the Bible again to make sure what I wss reading was correct.
How do you know it's correct?
-
How do we know anything is correct?
We compare information, and if things line up, we can make a theory.
There is always a chance that correlation does not equal causation, but in this case you would have to explain how a fertile land suddenly goes barren for seven years. There is also a lifespan decrease which makes no sense except in the context of genetic damage from radiation or other harsh conditions.
https://creation.com/decreased-lifespans-have-we-been-looking-in-the-right-place
This article proposes that the water canopy before the Flood broke down, opening up humans to the effects of ionizing radiation from the atmosphere. I am not sure that I agree, but they have something interesting to say about the effects of radiation on lifespan.
Ionizing radiation may cause (non-inheritable) mutations in somatic (body) cells. If this is to be the cause of us now living only 70-odd (compared to 900 or so) years, the effect would have to be rather drastic. There is no biblical evidence that the patriarchs were senescent after the first hundred years or so of their lives, so the pre-Flood 100 year old was certainly in much better condition than today’s 100 year old. (Noah in fact had his children at 500, whereas Abraham (who still lived to 175 years) seems surprised at the idea of a 100 year old becoming a father.)
Around the time of Joseph, we hear of another drop in lifespan, this time to between 40 and 80. An overall rise in radiation? I should say so! It is indeed possible that we were a hair's breadth from total nuclear apocalypse. We've gradually detoxed ourselves from radiation damage, but now we're experimenting on it again.
Do I "know" that this was the case? No. But I can make a reasonable assertion here. We do have seven years of famine, and it says that the famine was so severe that it affected neighboring countries. This is not a simple matter of water being lacking from drought. A multiple country famine where Egypt has to help several countries in the Middle East. Out of curiousity, how close is the Middle East to India? Well, on the Risk map, they are adjacent spaces.
(https://www.alternatehistory.com/forum/attachments/blank-risk-png.30809/)
As for the actual distance, Israel to India is 2,822 miles, a little farther than Florida to Washington. Egypt is about 1000 more miles away.
How far can fallout travel? Well, usually only a few miles (around 50 to 70 miles, well short of that distance above). However...
https://www.quora.com/How-far-does-nuclear-fallout-spread-in-miles?share=1
Depending an particle size and wind speed , it can circle the globe a few hundred times.
It goes on to say that typically, it breaks down within an hour, depositing on the ground.
But suppose you had a freak dust storm? An "east wind", if you will? Fallout spreading to surrounding countries is possible.
-
How do we know anything is correct?
We compare information, and if things line up, we can make a theory.
There is always a chance that correlation does not equal causation, but in this case you would have to explain how a fertile land suddenly goes barren for seven years.
Fertile land has never gone barren before? Think dustbowl of the 1930's. There's a thing called drought.
There is also a lifespan decrease which makes no sense except in the context of genetic damage from radiation or other harsh conditions.
So the only cause for a lifespan decrease is genetic damage from radiation? Wouldn't a rational person say, "Well, that is quite the leap?"
You might as well say, "The murder rate in Tacoma has gone up, must be because of genetic damage from radiation..." or "The potato yield in Idaho has gone down, must be because of genetic damage from radiation..."
You're not being rational.
Life expectancy at birth in the United States declined nearly a year from 2020 to 2021, according to new provisional data from the CDC's National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS). That decline – 77.0 to 76.1 years – took U.S. life expectancy at birth to its lowest level since 1996.
Must be because of genetic damage from radiation...???
But I can make a reasonable assertion here.
So far there's nothing reasonable about your assertion.
But suppose you had a freak dust storm? An "east wind", if you will? Fallout spreading to surrounding countries is possible.
Suppose? Take a dose of Occam's and get rational.
-
using mercator again i see
you really like using mercator
have you looked up how the roundies came up with mercator?
then ask yourself... why am I (bulmbles), a flatty, using mercator?
-
How do we know anything is correct?
We compare information, and if things line up, we can make a theory.
There is always a chance that correlation does not equal causation, but in this case you would have to explain how a fertile land suddenly goes barren for seven years.
Fertile land has never gone barren before? Think dustbowl of the 1930's. There's a thing called drought.
There is also a lifespan decrease which makes no sense except in the context of genetic damage from radiation or other harsh conditions.
So the only cause for a lifespan decrease is genetic damage from radiation? Wouldn't a rational person say, "Well, that is quite the leap?"
You might as well say, "The murder rate in Tacoma has gone up, must be because of genetic damage from radiation..." or "The potato yield in Idaho has gone down, must be because of genetic damage from radiation..."
You're not being rational.
Life expectancy at birth in the United States declined nearly a year from 2020 to 2021, according to new provisional data from the CDC's National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS). That decline – 77.0 to 76.1 years – took U.S. life expectancy at birth to its lowest level since 1996.
Must be because of genetic damage from radiation...???
But I can make a reasonable assertion here.
So far there's nothing reasonable about your assertion.
But suppose you had a freak dust storm? An "east wind", if you will? Fallout spreading to surrounding countries is possible.
Suppose? Take a dose of Occam's and get rational.
Okay, which is more rational? That a single wind can kill crops for seven years or that nearby countries had a weapon that made crops sick? Btw, volcanoes can also do this (they do emit radiation), if you must have an explanation of something that can make long-term crop and soil sickness.
The Dust Bowl was multiple stints of wind erosion, none of which affected more than two years in a row. That is, those involved could theoretically plant the next year. The soil was dried and blown away. Not scorched.
This describes scorching with half life of seven years. Unfortunately, none of the elements had a half-life of seven years. So if you want to go all Occam's Razor on this, it could have been volcanic smoke blotting the sun and giving off radiation for seven years. But it was NOT a dust bowl. Dust bowls don't affect new planting, and they don't affect the cattle themselves except to make them lower market rate (i.e. reproduction is normal).
And neither of these things lower lifespan from 180+ or so to 120, with average life in some cases barely 30. You think this is a myth, but thid factors in.
You employ Occam's Razor, but this doesn't mean accepting easy facts, and ignoring those that work given the whole story just because they are unlikely.
Both volcanic radiation and nuclear radiation cause genetic damage. Wind storms do not.
-
So, Bronze age nuclear weapons it is. ::)
-
using mercator again i see
you really like using mercator
have you looked up how the roundies came up with mercator?
then ask yourself... why am I (bulmbles), a flatty, using mercator?
I don't ask myself such questions. I use any map I want to prove what I need.
If you are afraid of a map, you are afraid of using your rival's assumptions to disprove them because you might become a RE type if you touch a map.
I think there's something you haven't noticed about Mercator maps. They're flat. They also have a bigger than normal projection of Antarctica.
(https://i.insider.com/529f684c6bb3f74c7f58f401)
(https://assets.answersingenesis.org/img/articles/am/v13/n6/flat-earth-map.jpg)
-
So, Bronze age nuclear weapons it is. ::)
Damned straight!
Also, the ancients apparently didn't use percussion (a bomb creating doing fission, as most nuke explanations talk about). Instead they describe a sutra. Some sort of resonance that activates radiation? Singing to uranium stones?
-
Some sort of resonance that activates radiation? Singing to uranium stones?
As Sherlock Holmes famously said:
"When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth."
In this case I think the only possibly explanation is ancient people singing to "uranium stones" and activating radiation via resonance.
Anyone who claims any different clearly isn't looking at the evidence in a logical manner.
-
That's right! ;D
https://www.sanskritimagazine.com/vedic_science/brahmastra-nuclear-weapon-ancient-india/?amp=1
Brahmastra is released by Gayatri Mantra but in a different way. Any weapon or even a grass straw can be energized by concentrating and spelling Gayatri Mantra in exact reverse sequence of its syllables.
This method of chanting a mantra is known as viloma (normal way is anuloma). Combined effect of anuloma-viloma chanting multiplies the power of that mantra and sadhaka attains siddhi quicker than normal.
If it is so simple, then why can’t everyone who knows Gayatri mantra release Brahmastra ?
In mantra SAstra, a sadhaka (practitioner) gains siddhi over a mantra only after practicing it for certain period of time for a specified number of times with immense concentration. So, one has to be initiated to chant Gayatri Mantra first in a proper way, then one has to practice it for many years and gain command over it. Then he has to practice the reverse chanting of that mantra in same speed and frequency and again attain siddhi in it. Only after this, a person is trained how to chant Gayatri mantra for Missile purpose. He has to gain siddhi on it, and when he acquires it, he gets energized. With that energy when he releases even a grass straw by chanting that mantra it turns into Brahma Missile due to his own charged energy and the missile inturn derives it’s power from the creator, Brahma.
So by chanting this mantra, in just 90 days, you too can fire Brahma weapons at your friends. Now it's fun for the entire family!
(https://cdn.newsapi.com.au/image/v1/64944118a8468ae45f07da888fcbe8f3)
No, obviously we can't anymore. Which I suspect is the point. The "technology" they used to activate nuclear energy was more akin to psychic technology. We humans aren't psychic anymore, so we can't make resonance waves simply by chanting and focusing our chakra. That tech is lost. Our nukes are a pale shadow of what this stuff was, according to their own legends.
What is true is that it turns our nuclear dust can travel further than we thought. France tried to test-bomb the Sahara and now wind blew it back to France.
https://www.indiatimes.com/technology/science-and-future/france-tested-nukes-in-sahara-desert-that-radioactive-dust-is-polluting-france-now-535707.html
India to Middle East? No sweat.
Anyway, this is not the point. The point is that every few thousand years, we lose our memory of the past and try to blow ourselves up. Religion is about breaking the chain of violence and historical darkness (that is to say, amnesia caused by smashing everything and starting over) and learning love each other and live in the world in peace. Can we do this? Or are we doomed to another post-destruction dark age? Jesus didn't die for this purpose, but his way is a better shot at the future.
-
Anyway, returning somewhat to topic.
What Jesus taught wasn't morality.
The News taught morality, but they repeatedly got caught up in false worship, violent and bloody wars, and extremes in animal sacrifice, to the point where God complained that he HATED these sacrifices and watching his people still be rigid and cruel.
So this week, I've been reading The Book of God: the Bible as a Novel, and they have this line where Jesus is asked "Are you the Messiah?" and we see the context. John expects Jesus to be a fire and brimstone preacher. There is some of that ( mainly versus Pharisees) but no judgement against Samaritans and Gentiles. Jesus explains how he has fulfilled the mission to cure the lame and blind. Then he explains that the least of the Kingdom of God is greater, even though he is the greatest born of Jews. It occurred to me what Jesus means.
The Jewish morality isn't what is right for Christian people.
-
Anyway, returning somewhat to topic.
What Jesus taught wasn't morality.
The News taught morality, but they repeatedly got caught up in false worship, violent and bloody wars, and extremes in animal sacrifice, to the point where God complained that he HATED these sacrifices and watching his people still be rigid and cruel.
So this week, I've been reading The Book of God: the Bible as a Novel, and they have this line where Jesus is asked "Are you the Messiah?" and we see the context. John expects Jesus to be a fire and brimstone preacher. There is some of that ( mainly versus Pharisees) but no judgement against Samaritans and Gentiles. Jesus explains how he has fulfilled the mission to cure the lame and blind. Then he explains that the least of the Kingdom of God is greater, even though he is the greatest born of Jews. It occurred to me what Jesus means.
The Jewish morality isn't what is right for Christian people.
How is jewish morality different than Christian morality? Because one disciple wanted fire & brimstone? That's extremely myopic, close-minded of you.
-
To answer this, you need to read the gospel. Really read it, not just think you know that the Bible is about doing good, and that Jesus was a pushover who let people beat him up twice, and probably liberal.
I recommend two secondary sources instead.
1. The Book of God: the Bible as a Novel
2. The Chosen
Both are well versed in historical backdrop of the gospel, both have a good idea how Jesus was teaching something very distinct from what Jews were teaching, something distinct from what even many pastors SAY Jesus was teaching, and definitely different also from what the secular world taught.
Case in point, lepers. Let's start with that. Under Jewish law, Jewish rabbis were considered defiled if they came anywhere near a leper or demon possessed. They were not allowed in the temple. They were socially distanced (devout Jews would switch street sides). They were even kept out of town if the streets didn't allow for such things.
Until recently, no illness was considered worth distancing or isolation from others. You'd have a cold and ppl would bring you soup, and you'd get nursed to health.
Stuff like that. Extreme xenophobia and adherence to stupid rules (blending fabrics). It isn't the Jews as a people, secular people also had their own pet rules (or tell me about how people who ignore cha need of climate are evil). It was that Jews never broke away from law, but forgot things like Grace that were extended to their forefathers.
-
Basically, Judaism (and most of the moral religions) of this world create outcasts. Homosexuality is another example. A lot of the older religions would sideline lesbians as freakish. Modernism allows Him to have sex with John, who is bisexual and gives Karen and Jody AIDS too.
The core tenant of Christianity is hate sin, love the sinner. A drunk is gonna be a drunk (even when they repent, they might still enjoy responsible drinks), but what matters is when the alcohol made them sick or almost killed a kid. This is lowest point stuff where their thing wrecked their life. God does accept gays, but he doesn't want them dying of AIDS. Jesus doesn't cast blame for them dying of AIDS. But the sin is the effect of them getting hurt.
It's like if I stay up all night and am now fevered and dehydrated but still push myself. That's sin. But I as an overachiever shouldn't be labeled sinner. Christianity is the idea that sin hurts us, moralism thinks sin defines us.
-
Good post fren.
-
Stuff like that. Extreme xenophobia and adherence to stupid rules (blending fabrics).
Christians have a lot of xenophobia and adherence to stupid rules as well.
The New Testament plainly speaks of “Old Testament” commandments and teaches that they express God’s will for Christians. “So then, the law is holy, and the commandment is holy, righteous and good…for in my inner being I delight in God’s law” (Romans 7:12,22). Therefore, as Christians we should love and obey God’s commandments, not because doing so does save us, but because we are saved by grace through faith in God’s gift of love in Christ, who bore our sins on the tree of crucifixion. “For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of His Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by His life” (Romans 5:10, KJV).
Now Paul says outright that God's law, the law of Moses, is holy. The commandments in the law are holy and righteous and good, Paul insists. The law was a great gift from God to the people of Israel. In the law, God revealed His heart and His standards for right living. Paul wants to make sure every reader knows that he is not condemning the law. Instead, Paul has pointed to the greatest benefit of God's beautiful, perfect law: It shows us that we can never keep the law, that instead we are sinners in need of saving.
It seems bizarre to be a Christian and only worship the NT, forsaking God, the father - You have to take on the whole shooting match of the bible (OT & NT) in it's entirety. Unless, of course, you want to make up your own form of religion.
-
You're confusing "Christians" with Christians.
"Christians" beat people over the head with morality, because these people haven't distinguished their faith from Judaism. A lot of Trump voters are "Christians", though some real Christians are Trump voters... or Biden voters... or nonvoters.
And as long as you put up your own little xenophobic wall against this truth (you fun know what this world means, I'll bet), you haven't done any better.
-
You're confusing "Christians" with Christians.
"Christians" beat people over the head with morality, because these people haven't distinguished their faith from Judaism. A lot of Trump voters are "Christians", though some real Christians are Trump voters... or Biden voters... or nonvoters.
And as long as you put up your own little xenophobic wall against this truth (you fun know what this world means, I'll bet), you haven't done any better.
You're actually the xenophobe pitting Jews against Christians. Who are you to know what the "truth" is? What makes you so special? You may know what works for you, but you're in no position to deem all for others.
-
There's another xenophobic religion.
The name slips my mind.
Something about everyone else being cattle.
Buddhism?
No, it will come to me.
-
All organized religions are xenophobic. That's kinda built in.
-
I feel like your definition of xenophobic is the same as Hillary Clinton's. Which is to say, if you're white an conservative, you're automatically racist and xenophobic and transphobic.
Meanwhile, to the rest of us, Jewish society doesn't blend much.
-
I feel like your definition of xenophobic is the same as Hillary Clinton's. Which is to say, if you're white an conservative, you're automatically racist and xenophobic and transphobic.
Nothing of the sort. You just made that up in your head. I haven't even mentioned race or political leanings. Are you now trying to claim that only white conservatives are Christians?
Meanwhile, to the rest of us, Jewish society doesn't blend much.
What in the hell does that mean?
And who is "the rest of us"? You realize there are literally 5 billion people on the globe, more than 2/3's of the world population, that aren't Christians of any stripe, right?
-
You pushed his button Bulma.
-
Bulbma is very close to a "imnotracist buuuut..."
-
You pushed his button Bulma.
I woke up that morning, and was like "I bet I could tick him off in a big way. But should I? Yeaaaaaah, I should."
-
You pushed his button Bulma.
I woke up that morning, and was like "I bet I could tick him off in a big way. But should I? Yeaaaaaah, I should."
Are you now trying to claim that only white conservatives are Christians?
You realize there are literally 5 billion people on the globe, more than 2/3's of the world population, that aren't Christians of any stripe, right?
-
What in the hell does that mean?
In Fiddler on the Roof, what was the one thing Tevya couldn't put up with?
1. First husband was poor, but a kind and creative man, who eventually proved a good match.
2. Second husband was a communist, and likely a terrible match. In fact, it was probably his actions that drew attention to their town and forced them to leave.
3. Third was a man at least as kind as the first. Yet, Tevya has this reaction.
Nor does he ever forgive her, except very begrudgingly in the final scene, while the second he seems to come around to eventually.
This is what I mean about xenophobia. But this is to be expected. I am not bemoaning it.
-
You pushed his button Bulma.
I woke up that morning, and was like "I bet I could tick him off in a big way. But should I? Yeaaaaaah, I should."
-
So basically, when I read the story of Jesus, I don't see someone attempting to be morally perfect (the mistake alot of these Jewish "Christians" make is thinking that if they're just good enough, they'll get into heaven).
What I instead see is Jesus acting on behalf of God to forgive sins. This is also a man that addresses injustice (toppling a market that makes money from human suffering, forcing people to buy atonement for sins), but overall just hangs out with his friends.
-
53 Who hath believed our report? and to whom is the arm of the Lord revealed?
2 For he shall grow up before him as a tender plant, and as a root out of a dry ground: he hath no form nor comeliness; and when we shall see him, there is no beauty that we should desire him.
3 He is despised and rejected of men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief: and we hid as it were our faces from him; he was despised, and we esteemed him not.
4 Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted.
5 But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed.
6 All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.
7 He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth: he is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he openeth not his mouth.
8 He was taken from prison and from judgment: and who shall declare his generation? for he was cut off out of the land of the living: for the transgression of my people was he stricken.
9 And he made his grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death; because he had done no violence, neither was any deceit in his mouth.
10 Yet it pleased the Lord to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the Lord shall prosper in his hand.
11 He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied: by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities.
12 Therefore will I divide him a portion with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong; because he hath poured out his soul unto death: and he was numbered with the transgressors; and he bare the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors.
-
But this is to be expected.
What the hell does that mean?
-
It means that Jewish culture is inherently insular.
They don't intermarry much outside the faith, and their districts in Gentile lands only loosely mix with Gentiles.
-
It means that Jewish culture is inherently insular.
They don't intermarry much outside the faith, and their districts in Gentile lands only loosely mix with Gentiles.
Or is it that Gentiles loosely mix with Jews? Seems like no one is comfortable intermarrying...
(https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/wp-content/uploads/sites/7/2016/03/PF_2016.03.08_israel-12-05.png?w=640)
What are "Gentile lands"?
-
For example, there are Jewish settlements in New York. The Jews don't own New York, they occupy it. Likewise places like Ukraine. These are Gentile lands.
Because the woke left are legit fuckers and think it's a horrible crime that Jewish have a tiny portion of land, there are very few truly Jewish lands. Jews rent them, but at any moment, they could be a victim of pogroms.
-
For example, there are Jewish settlements in New York. The Jews don't own New York, they occupy it. Likewise places like Ukraine. These are Gentile lands.
The Gentiles don't own New York, they occupy it.
Because the woke left are legit fuckers and think it's a horrible crime that Jewish have a tiny portion of land, there are very few truly Jewish lands. Jews rent them, but at any moment, they could be a victim of pogroms.
???
-
The US government owns NY and the Ukrainian government owns Ukraine. Unless you're gonna tell me that the Jews own the government, I think it's a safe guess than Gentiles own NY.
-
The Gentiles don't own New York, they occupy it.
Stash, too much man.
That was too far.
Nearly sig worthy.
-
The US government owns NY and the Ukrainian government owns Ukraine. Unless you're gonna tell me that the Jews own the government, I think it's a safe guess than Gentiles own NY.
Unless you're gonna tell me that the Gentiles own the government, I think it's a safe guess that Jews, Hindus, & Muslims own NY.
-
I think it's a safe guess that Jews own NY.
Do you like having a bank account, Stash?
-
I think it's a safe guess that Jews own NY.
Do you like having a bank account, Stash?
There you go, changing quotes again.
Stash I apologise for changing your quote. I forgot you had such issue with it. I won't change your posts in the future.
You are patently untrustworthy and shady and, apparently, a liar.
-
I didn't change your quote.
You'll still have a bank account if you say the other two groups own New York.
You're apparently really mad.
-
I didn't change your quote.
Wow, what a straight up lie. You should be ashamed...
My post:
Unless you're gonna tell me that the Gentiles own the government, I think it's a safe guess that Jews, Hindus, & Muslims own NY.
Your version of my post:
I think it's a safe guess that Jews own NY.
Liar:
Stash I apologise for changing your quote. I forgot you had such issue with it. I won't change your posts in the future.
-
Bot.
-
I didn't change your quote.
Wow, what a straight up lie. You should be ashamed...
My post:
Unless you're gonna tell me that the Gentiles own the government, I think it's a safe guess that Jews, Hindus, & Muslims own NY.
Your version of my post:
I think it's a safe guess that Jews own NY.
Liar:
Stash I apologise for changing your quote. I forgot you had such issue with it. I won't change your posts in the future.
-
You're a bot.
I didn't change your post.
I quoted the relevant part.
Bot.
-
You're a bot.
I didn't change your post.
I quoted the relevant part.
Bot.
Now you've turned to straight up lying, nice look:
I didn't change your quote.
My post:
I think it's a safe guess that Jews, Hindus, & Muslims own NY.
Your version of my post:
I think it's a safe guess that Jews own NY.
Liar:
Stash I apologise for changing your quote. I forgot you had such issue with it. I won't change your posts in the future.
-
You have no self awareness.
-
You have no self awareness.
Lying suits you well.
-
You're a neural network. You aren't as convincing as LaMDA.
The issue, which would go over the processors of even the most advanced neural network, aside from the fact I did not change your post, just quoted the relevant part.
Is that it's fine to say that Hindus own New York, that Hindus own the media and own the banks.
It's fine to say that Muslims own New York, that Muslims own the media and own the banks.
It's fine to say that Christians own New York, that Christians own the media and own the banks.
It's fine to say that Pagans own New York, that Pagans own the media and own the banks.
It's fine to say that the Japanese own New York, that the Japanese own the media and own the banks.
It's fine to say that Africans own New York, that Africans own the media and own the banks.
It's fine to say that Asians own New York, that Asians own the media and own the banks.
It's fine to say that Europeans own New York, that Europeans own the media and the banks.
It's fine to say that Hispanics own New York, that Hispanics own the media and the banks.
There is, only one group that you aren't allowed to say owns New York, owns the media and owns the banks.
I won't say which, because as I said before.
Do you like having a bank account, Stash?
-
I keep all my silver under the mattress.
Which still doesn't change the fact that you lied:
Stash I apologise for changing your quote. I forgot you had such issue with it. I won't change your posts in the future.
-
I didn't change your post, slightly inferior version of LaMDA.
Please, feel free to keep demonstrating your abject lack of anything close to self awareness
-
Keep lying, it suits you...
My post:
I think it's a safe guess that Jews, Hindus, & Muslims own NY.
Your version of my post:
I think it's a safe guess that Jews own NY.
Liar:
Stash I apologise for changing your quote. I forgot you had such issue with it. I won't change your posts in the future.
-
Do you guys know how easy it is to trick the youtube algorithm into letting you upload copyright material? It's trivial, the easiest way is to insert and remove a usb drive.
The algorithm can't recognise the sound for what it is. Instead the algorithm thinks its completely different audio.
As it isn't conscious.
It "thinks" in zeros and one's.
-
Just something to think about.
Or integrate into your neural network. I've noticed you've been attempting to emulate me.
Neural networks do learn. You can beat me in chess. Every time, I have no doubt. This, is much more complex than chess after all.
You're nowhere near close to a human level of competence.
Stash.
What is this a picture of?
No one help him.
(https://i.postimg.cc/gcDCBVdS/Screenshot-20221110-160151.jpg)
-
Yeah, I didn't think so.
-
Can you not just tell Stash what it is.
Do you know?
Like, that was really embarrassing.
How much did you spend on it?
Does it belong to Australia?
Are you going to black bag me?
Questions for later.
My wings are as white as my soul.
-
Jesus is not happy with you for the lying and disingenuousness.
-
And Jesus said, "#NotYourShield"
(https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/000/928/507/016.png)
-
And Jesus said, "#NotYourShield"
(https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/000/928/507/016.png)
#GamerGate?
(https://i.imgur.com/AzX2gvm.png)
How mature of you.
-
How mature of you.
AFAIK, He's a nuff nuff teenager, so he's allowed to be immature.
-
How mature of you.
AFAIK, He's a nuff nuff teenager, so he's allowed to be immature.
Good point.
-
Jesus is not happy with you for the lying and disingenuousness.
Did you miss the part where I proved you're a neural network?
It was a chair tuned on its side.
-
How mature of you.
AFAIK, He's a nuff nuff teenager, so he's allowed to be immature.
I actually just turned 40 this year.
I just have no use for pomposity. What I grew up with is perfectly good without having to act adult.
That sort of adulthood is just a pose. Why should you go out of your way for the approval of older people?
-
How mature of you.
AFAIK, He's a nuff nuff teenager, so he's allowed to be immature.
I actually just turned 40 this year.
I just have no use for pomposity. What I grew up with is perfectly good without having to act adult.
That sort of adulthood is just a pose. Why should you go out of your way for the approval of older people?
Ok, I'll buy that, you are a 40 year old with limited life experiences and funny attitudes, plus your briefs are gross.
-
How mature of you.
AFAIK, He's a nuff nuff teenager, so he's allowed to be immature.
I actually just turned 40 this year.
Do you still live with your parents and get meals delivered to you on a partitioned metal tray?
This was lunch.
(https://eatingasia.typepad.com/.a/6a00d8341c509553ef0133edeebb21970b-800wi)
I just have no use for pomposity.
Odd. Pomposity is you thinking you know more than every pilot, engineer, designer, scientist on earth. And claim everyone is wrong without a shred of evidence and made up notions and numbers - Completely fabricated. I mean you actually think people are upside down in the southern hemisphere. ::)
-
Can you really just steamroll through this?
Stash.
What is this a picture of?
No one help him.
(https://i.postimg.cc/gcDCBVdS/Screenshot-20221110-160151.jpg)
Jesus is not happy with you for the lying and disingenuousness.
Did you miss the part where I proved you're a neural network?
It was a chair turned on its side.
-
How mature of you.
AFAIK, He's a nuff nuff teenager, so he's allowed to be immature.
I actually just turned 40 this year.
Do you still live with your parents and get meals delivered to you on a partitioned metal tray?
This was lunch.
(https://eatingasia.typepad.com/.a/6a00d8341c509553ef0133edeebb21970b-800wi)
I just have no use for pomposity.
Odd. Pomposity is you thinking you know more than every pilot, engineer, designer, scientist on earth. And claim everyone is wrong without a shred of evidence and made up notions and numbers - Completely fabricated. I mean you actually think people are upside down in the southern hemisphere. ::)
I don't think I know more than any scientist.
I know more that a dumb herd of "consensus scientists." Dumb herds are dumb herds, no matter what title their members give themselves. When I beat a stick against a stone, herds get spooked. They believe in superstition instead of their own observations. They believe in chaos instead of ordered patterns, experts instead of logic.
That's not pomposity. That's not arrogance. That's knowing what you know, and you don't know. I am a human, not a herd animal. I don't follow trends, peer pressure, or what dumb people call common sense. I compare even my own ideas to what I see, and discard or adjust ideas that are wrong, while remaining firm to my principles even if an angel from heaven should tell me different. If it measures to what is right, I keep it.
When you cease to be a herd animal, I will stop regarding myself as smarter than you. Until then, every argument you make fails. Sorry, but that's how it works. I don't fucking care about your patron geniuses. Their knowledge is built on the backs of other people's assumptions. I on the other hand looked at the sky for long enough to question such assumptions. I read things, and I decided for myself.
In this, I follow Jesus. His followers think he was teaching virtue, but Jesus followed himself and God. He didn't speak from sources like the rabbis, but from his own authority. He knew who he was, and what he wanted to bring to the world. Unlike him, I've only got the first covered. But this is sizably better than massive segments of humanity.
(https://highland.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/Photo-Dec-12-3-16-19-PM-2-cropped.jpg)
Stop being baaaaaaaaaaaaad.
-
Stash can't stop being bad, that's how its software is. Anyway.
Jesus was simply deceived. The devil is constantly playing the same game and improving himself every time. We don't get the same experience from our parents in the same way. Nor from previous lives in which we reincarnated. I know this is against us. Nevertheless, it is necessary to continue the struggle by thinking as if Jesus was never deceived and he succeeded in his struggle 100 percent, since there is nothing better to do.
There is no need to suffer the sufferings of Jesus. He didn't need to suffer either. A divine power need not suffer. He already has the power to both cancel people's suffering and not to suffer at all. But he really believed what he was made to believe. Ha, I have no problem with that as long as it's in the bible. However, that doesn't change the fact that he was cheated on.
If it was a trade, it was a bad deal in side of Jesus, because the other party didn't abide by the terms of the agreement.
-
Do you still live with your parents and get meals delivered to you on a partitioned metal tray?
This was lunch.
This was lunch when I went overseas to China to teach.
Yes, I do live with my parents. So?
I heard all the rhetoric of being "independent". I went out to make something of myself, to be something. I eventually realized that ppl aren't independent at all. They wind up moving away from home because they can't abide by basic conduct of civility, only to find that they are paying for unhealthy meals at restaurants ever night because they couldn't cook (they are not independent enough to even do basic cooking, forcing themselves at the mercy of commercial dining). Or they grocery shop thinking they will make quality food after watching cooking shows, but when it comes time to eat, they only can manage expensive pre-packaged and processed foods (dependent on processed food). This is my brother's lifestyle. Most of the people in the city are dependent on what the city can give them. They can't grow their own crops, they can't cook, they can't farm, they can't even mow the grass or gather firewood.
In what way should I be ashamed of living with my parents? I don't always say so, but I am proud of who they are.The people who move out of their own are entirely dependent on the success or failure of their business, if they don't outright work for a company. If the money doesn't come in, the landlord makes them homeless. And don't get me started on welfare collection or unions. You are slaves!
-
Stash can't stop being bad, that's how its software is. Anyway.
Jesus was simply deceived. The devil is constantly playing the same game and improving himself every time. We don't get the same experience from our parents in the same way. Nor from previous lives in which we reincarnated. I know this is against us. Nevertheless, it is necessary to continue the struggle by thinking as if Jesus was never deceived and he succeeded in his struggle 100 percent, since there is nothing better to do.
There is no need to suffer the sufferings of Jesus. He didn't need to suffer either. A divine power need not suffer. He already has the power to both cancel people's suffering and not to suffer at all. But he really believed what he was made to believe. Ha, I have no problem with that as long as it's in the bible. However, that doesn't change the fact that he was cheated on.
If it was a trade, it was a bad deal in side of Jesus, because the other party didn't abide by the terms of the agreement.
I don't believe Jesus was deceived.
All of us, aside from Jesus and the Buddha, operate under the Desire Realm (think of it as the Matrix). We are fed pleasant and unpleasant experiences, given knowledge of what is good and is evil, and we take it at face value. Jesus ignored that. He was told by his tribe the various laws if one wishes to do right. Honor the Sabbath, respect your family, keep clean and kosher. He put all of that aside to teach people about sin and forgiveness, life and death.
Ultimately when the world told him he was dead, he simply shrugged that idea off as part of this duality universe. He ignored all that and came back.
-
Stash can't stop being bad, that's how its software is. Anyway.
Jesus was simply deceived. The devil is constantly playing the same game and improving himself every time. We don't get the same experience from our parents in the same way. Nor from previous lives in which we reincarnated. I know this is against us. Nevertheless, it is necessary to continue the struggle by thinking as if Jesus was never deceived and he succeeded in his struggle 100 percent, since there is nothing better to do.
There is no need to suffer the sufferings of Jesus. He didn't need to suffer either. A divine power need not suffer. He already has the power to both cancel people's suffering and not to suffer at all. But he really believed what he was made to believe. Ha, I have no problem with that as long as it's in the bible. However, that doesn't change the fact that he was cheated on.
If it was a trade, it was a bad deal in side of Jesus, because the other party didn't abide by the terms of the agreement.
His suffering wasn't for himself. Nor was it to convince others they had to suffer. But this is the lesson many Christians have learned.
The context of his suffering had as much to do with overthrowing a brutal society (which eventually happened), and reforming an equally worthless Judaism rather than because God told him to suffer.
And you have missed the point of his suffering. You think that because Jesus was a divine being, that he should be above suffering. But that's the point!
Jesus tells a passage about how the leaders of the world lord over others. Jesus didn't come to be aloof from humanity. As a divine spirit, he came to blend with other humans. To show that that God was part of us, that God through Jesus, could live and die like us. And that we didn't have to fear death anymore. How much could he achieve as an aloof spirit who never suffered? He wouldn't have changed anything.
Jesus wasn't the first or last crucified. Nor was he the first or last that the Jews punished as a "false prophet." But had he not done this, Rome would have continued to do this for a long time to come. This caused a "bloody evolution" do to speak. And no, I don't mean revolution. It caused humanity to go from the dumb brutes earning living but never thinking about reality to modern society.
-
Jesus had to live in our flesh to understand us perfectly and to be able to fairly judge us.
It was also God flexing on us. No one could live a perfect sinless life until Jesus did, no one has lived a perfect sinless life since. He did it in our flesh with all its weakness and avarice. He is the only human that doesn't require a redeemer.
The branch of righteousness, the lion of Judah, the desire of the Gentiles and the promised Messiah.
Shiloh.
-
First of all, we need to reveal the following facts. Otherwise, the base of the topics we will talk about here will be empty.
There is a concept of "current God" in the world. This person is not God, but the devil himself. And it is the power that rules the world. Without understanding this, we cannot agree on anything here. After understanding this, we need to understand that the concepts of good and bad are opposite and relative. What is good for you may be bad for me. There is no absolute good. Absolute good is bad for evil. Evil is not really bad, because evil is the reason good exists. And this need not be compatible with the claims of "contemporary God", because this issue goes beyond it.
"Mat 4:8-9-10 This time the devil took Jesus to a very high mountain. Showing him the countries of the world in all their glory, he said, “I will give you all these if you fall down and worship me.” Jesus answered him, “Get away, Satan! It is written, 'You shall worship the Lord your God, and serve Him only.'"
The problem here is that Satan has such power. And that by using his power he can convince a man is God. I think this is the case. Because understanding the difference between human abilities and God and Satan is not an easy task. This may seem easy when you read from the book. But look at the present world, how can you ignore the fact that 999 people out of a thousand believe in the devil, and that man is prone to being deceived by the devil?
And she might have done such a thing simply because Jesus represented God, she might have deceived her and tortured her to death.
Of course, for God, who protected Ishmael from under the knife, from the middle of the Abrahamic fire, Moses from the front of Pharaoh's army, and Noah from the raging waves, these are simple tasks. But it is not befitting the glory of God to choose to die here in the first place. But God did not prevent this. Oh, if you think Jesus didn't say "Eli Lama Shevaktani", you're wrong. Jesus said this, and God later replied, "We have always been here." Because he was deceived, and therefore God did not interfere.
-
This person is not God, but the devil himself.
According to whom?
-
The problem here is that Satan has such power.
True.
Not over me.
I spoke to him last night and told him Jesus can forgive anyone.
-
The problem here is that Satan has such power.
True.
Not over me.
I spoke to him last night and told him Jesus can forgive anyone.
You spoke to satan? Now that would be an interesting conversation.
-
Here's one for Wise, did you follow this guy?
Turkish religious sex cult leader Adnan Oktar gets 8,658 years in prison... Islamic televangelists are no different to Christian televangelists it seems.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FV2GE_bWAAAZlKx?format=jpg&name=small)
He had a pretty good gig going for a while it seems, and 8658 years in prison is nothing for immortals like Adnan and Wise.
-
The problem here is that Satan has such power.
True.
Not over me.
I spoke to him last night and told him Jesus can forgive anyone.
You spoke to satan? Now that would be an interesting conversation.
It was.
I told him that he doesn't offer freedom, that deception isn't truth and he does not offer knowledge but an inversion of Gods perfect truth. I told him to repent and to let go of his pride.
He, obviously can't touch me.
I, honestly pity him.
-
The problem here is that Satan has such power.
True.
Not over me.
I spoke to him last night and told him Jesus can forgive anyone.
You spoke to satan? Now that would be an interesting conversation.
It was.
I told him that he doesn't offer freedom, that deception isn't truth and he does not offer knowledge but an inversion of Gods perfect truth. I told him to repent and to let go of his pride.
He, obviously can't touch me.
I, honestly pity him.
What was Satan's response?
-
Anger and pride.
-
What did Satan say?
-
This person is not God, but the devil himself.
According to whom?
Bible. Corinthians(2) 4:4
The god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel that displays the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.
Who else could this person be but Devil himself?
-
Here's one for Wise, did you follow this guy?
Turkish religious sex cult leader Adnan Oktar gets 8,658 years in prison...
When we comment on this person, his lawyers immediately sue. It's not just him. Even when we say about any of other masons in Turkey that he is a mason, they immediately sue. Moreover, even though being a freemason is not a terrorist activity or an insult, they do it right away, immediately sue.
That's why I don't want to talk about him. I know he has strong lawyers. The rest doesn't interest me.
-
First of all, we need to reveal the following facts. Otherwise, the base of the topics we will talk about here will be empty.
There is a concept of "current God" in the world. This person is not God, but the devil himself. And it is the power that rules the world. Without understanding this, we cannot agree on anything here.
You are deceived.
Satan deceives us, by claiming to be God in this world.
But read more carefully.
Isaiah 45
6so that all may know,
from where the sun rises to where it sets,
that there is none but Me;
I am the LORD, and there is no other.
7I form the light and create the darkness;
I bring prosperity and create calamity.
I, the LORD, do all these things.
It is not Satan who is in charge. Not of the Earth, not even of darkness. Satan is a mere fallen angel. A prince of them, yes, but not even remotely on the same level as God.
You hear Satan (or sometimes even evil men) described as "ruler" of this Earth.
It is God alone who brings forth darkness and calamity. He does so in order that we may grow.
Just as a tree needs rain and shade in order to grow and thrive, nothing but spiritual sunlight is not good for us.
(http://fc05.deviantart.net/fs42/f/2009/084/f/0/Christian_Yin_Yang_by_Rubilon.jpg)
Satan has a number of tricks that he employs to humans. You notice I address him by name; it is because like Voldemort, to be afraid of names is to give them power over us. Note, this is not in order from greatest to least.
1. He convinces us that he does not exist (this often called his "greatest trick" but it is far from so)
2. He convinces the leaders that he gives them power (power comes from the will of the people, and from God)
3. He convinces the judgemental that he is God, so that they judge others.
4. The convinces the fearful that he is God, and that he rules everything, so they fear evil and not God.
5. He accuses God, undermining faith in God.
6. He convinces people that evil is all-powerful (in actual fact, evil is very weak)
Let's talk about #6. We are told about the others that Satan is an accuser, and his name literally refers to his status as adversary. So this rules out tricks #1 through #5. But we see the world, and it seems like evil is winning, like the POS leaders are in charge. Indeed, I was watching Once Upon A Time, and indeed, the little kid (who is already pretty jaded says this (full episode below if you wanna buy it):
He says that good can never defeat evil, because "good follows the rules." But later in the episode, Emma wins precisely because she is honest and tells the truth.
And in this song...
The Prince of Darkness grim,
We tremble not for him;
His rage we can endure,
For lo! His doom is sure.
One little word shall fell him.
https://www.desiringgod.org/articles/what-one-little-word-will-fell-satan
What is that word? It isn't Jesus. Even demons say Jesus's name.
The next verse reveals the answer.
That word above all earthly powers—
No thanks to them—abideth;
The Spirit and the gifts are ours
Through him who with us sideth.
Let goods and kindred go,
This mortal life also:
The body they may kill:
God's truth abideth still,
His kingdom is for ever.
God's truth abideth still,
Truth.
Satan's power is unraveled by truth itself. For the truth shall set you free.
Evil is in not control. If it was, why would it spend such effort trying to intimidate people?
https://philoliasophos.com/why-good-always-wins-and-evil-always-loses/
Think about it for a bit.
-
You are deceived.
Satan deceives us, by claiming to be God in this world.
I think you haven't fully explored the concepts of balance and singularity. I think we agree that God created everything in harmony and balance. Evil is part of this balance. It is the presence of Satan that allows her to destroy herself while she is perfecting and to protect herself from changing in one direction. He created it for this. Destroying it hurts itself. Otherwise, there is no point in enduring such a being. Forget about the texts, there is no need for such a thing actually. There is no justice without the balance of good and evil. Good is not absolute good. You now think that Jesus is absolute goodness. Not like that. Jesus is bad for the wicked. Darkness is the opposite of light, it's true. But also light is the opposite of darkness. So which one should remain? Goodness and light? or evil and darkness? Who decides this? So whether something is good or not. Oh, God gives, God, and the bible. I have no problem with that. But when you accept this, it is necessary to see that Satan, who blinds the unbelievers, is the current God. That is, it would be "wrong attitute to accept parts of the Bible that suit you and reject others."
If you accept the bible, you must accept all of them. You cannot use different verses and different ideas in the Bible to give a different meaning to an idea that a verse makes clear. These behaves are tormenting the bible. It has a soul and it is a whole. When you try to change it or interpret it differently, you are hurting it, and it is hurting because of it.
You cannot see it because you are being deceived. No, he is not cheating on me. If I were like Jesus, I would be deceived. I know my limits. My advice to you is to stay within your limits. It is clear what bible says:
"The god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel that displays the glory of Christ, who is the image of God." Think again.
Think again in the light of this verse and give me an answer with one word: "Who is the God of this age?". With one word please. If you can't do this, it means you can't beat your ego. It means that there is somebody not allowing you to do this. You cannot be free this way.
-
What did Satan say?
It was more of a feeling than words.
However he told me he is more beautiful and intelligent than I am. That I should obey him because of it.
He is, he was the most beautiful and most intelligent of all gods angels. It was his pride which caused his fall.
I will never be as intelligent or as beautiful as him, but he will never be a match for Jesus.
-
Think again in the light of this verse and give me an answer with one word: "Who is the God of this age?". With one word please.
I can answer in one word.
Satan.
Satan is the prince of the earth, the prince of the dirt.
27Peace I leave with you, my peace I give unto you: not as the world giveth, give I unto you. Let not your heart be troubled, neither let it be afraid. 28Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I. 29And now I have told you before it come to pass, that, when it is come to pass, ye might believe. 30Hereafter I will not talk much with you: for the prince of this world cometh, and hath nothing in me. 31But that the world may know that I love the Father; and as the Father gave me commandment, even so I do. Arise, let us go hence.
-
Satan is an angel, as I have said before. He is not God's equal, and it is only through anecdotal sources (mainly paintings and stuff like Paradise Lost) where we get a sense that he is some kind of archrival to God.
That he turned away and rebelled against God.
But what if he didn't?
What if it is his job to play, ahem, "devil's advocate"?
I do not think Jesus is absolute goodness. As a matter of fact, you know what I do think?
Satan and Jesus are the same entity.
You say, "Now hold on a minute!" But hear me out.
When Adam and Eve were in the garden, they ate a certain piece of fruit that gave them the Knowledge of Good and Evil.
After which, they hid in fear of the Lord. The Lord, who before that point, had a very personal relationship with them, who walked in the Garden with them. In fact, placing a tree not only in the center, but unguarded, with the fruit low enough to reach, and furthermore giving Adam two tempters (Eve, and at her end, the snake who indeed was created by God)... yeaaaaah, we're talking about a major setup. So God, they are convinced will punish them (a suspicion they get from accusing themselves after eating the fruit), so he does. And contrary to popular reading from Paradise Lost, it is after this point where first record of Satan appears. Except if you consider Job to be the first book of the Bible.
Advocate/Accuser. Jesus is a lawyer, God is judge. But we've at best separated the lawyer into two people (one attorney and one prosecutor), and at worst we don't believe in a Savior which means we're stuck trying to defend ourselves. But it's time we see this court case for what it is. A sham trial. All three participants are God, and if we want the truth, so are we. We are made in God's image, because we came out of God. We are a special creation (they didn't repeat the creation of man twice as an oversight), designed as God's bride. God creates woman to give us a model of how we are to be, and to show us what his motives for creation are. "It is not good for man to be alone."
Now, you could reject this, but either way we have the same conclusion.
1. Either Satan is an angel, and no match for God himself.
(This is not Zoroastrianism or Taoism, good and evil don't need to be equal)
2. Or Satan is a distorted perception of Jesus that we get because of knowledge of good and evil.
Two different conclusions leading to the same result is called a Morton's Fork. In either case, we should fear God, not evil.
Now, I don't accept all of the Bible. There is plenty that I accept as God's inspired word. And there is some that appears to be written by people influenced by Satan, which I categorically reject. My guideline is that if it seems to be false prophecy, or runs afoul of Galatians 1:8, I toss it aside. Revelations is a biggie. Loads of nonsensical prophecies that haven't come true, to predict a return of Jesus... THAT HAS ALREADY COME TO PASS!
Likewise, I reject the command not to alter any of the Bible. This command assumes we know the canon, something the founders of the Christian movement struggled with, as there were heretical writings such as the Infancy Gospel of Thomas (where Jesus kills a couple of kids). If this is problematic, why not Revelation? Because the Catholic church said so! That's it. The Orthodox church rejected it until later when they were pressured into following this as part of the canon. Martin Luther didn't think much of it either.
About this Book of the Revelation of John, I leave everyone free to hold his own opinions. I would not have anyone bound to my opinion or judgment. I say what I feel. I miss more than one thing in this book, and it makes me consider it to be neither apostolic nor prophetic.
First and foremost, the apostles do not deal with visions, but prophesy in clear and plain words, as do Peter and Paul, and Christ in the gospel. For it befits the apostolic office to speak clearly of Christ and his deeds, without images and visions. Moreover there is no prophet in the Old Testament, to say nothing of the New, who deals so exclusively with visions and images. For myself, I think it approximates the Fourth Book of Esdras; I can in no way detect that the Holy Spirit produced it.
Moreover he seems to me to be going much too far when he commends his own book so highly—indeed, more than any of the other sacred books do, though they are much more important—and threatens that if anyone takes away anything from it, God will take away from him, etc. Again, they are supposed to be blessed who keep what is written in this book; and yet no one knows what that is, to say nothing of keeping it. This is just the same as if we did not have the book at all. And there are many far better books available for us to keep.
Many of the fathers also rejected this book a long time ago; although St. Jerome, to be sure, refers to it in exalted terms and says that it is above all praise and that there are as many mysteries in it as words. Still, Jerome cannot prove this at all, and his praise at numerous places is too generous.
Finally, let everyone think of it as his own spirit leads him. My spirit cannot accommodate itself to this book. For me this is reason enough not to think highly of it: Christ is neither taught nor known in it. But to teach Christ, this is the thing which an apostle is bound above all else to do; as Christ says in Acts 1:8, “You shall be my witnesses.” Therefore I stick to the books which present Christ to me clearly and purely.
The Second Coming was when Jesus rose from the dead! He declared "It is finished" right before, and then came back in order to instruct his disciples on how to make the Earth resemble the spiritual kingdom that he had built with his death and resurrection. That's right, every last word of Revelation is based on a complete lie.
God's truth abideth still. No matter what tall tales may be written, John tells us the truth about the Temple being rebuilt. It's not about some far off end time. "But he was speaking about his body," it says. The Second Coming, and the rebuilt Temple are done. If you still need a Temple, it's the Temple Mount, which the Jews are still wailing about even though the Muslims have a Temple (Muhammad being the very model of a war king who drives people from Israel), the Christians have a church near there, and there are several synagogues.
If you need any more proof. There were two passages about the Eastern Gate. One had predicted a victorious arrival from the Messiah (by donkey!) and another predicted that once the Lord had arrived and finished his business, that the gate would be sealed. It was sealed by the Muslims in fear of a Jewish Messiah, opened briefly by Christians, then sealed again by Muslims.
As mentioned previously, the Eastern gate was ultimately sealed shut in 1541 by the Ottoman Sultan Suleiman. However, prior to this time, the gate was closed in 810 (also by the Muslims), then reopened in 1102 by the Crusaders, and then walled up again by Saladin (the first sultan of Egypt and Syria and the founder of the Ayyubid dynasty) after defeating the Crusaders in 1187 and gaining control of Palestine and the city of Jerusalem.
From Ezekiel 44
The man brought me back to the outer gate of the sanctuary, the one facing east, and it was shut. The Lord said to me, ‘This gate is to remain shut. It must not be opened; no one may enter through it. It is to remain shut because the Lord, the God of Israel, has entered through it.
-
Think again in the light of this verse and give me an answer with one word: "Who is the God of this age?". With one word please.
I can answer in one word.
Satan.
Satan is the prince of the earth, the prince of the dirt.
27Peace I leave with you, my peace I give unto you: not as the world giveth, give I unto you. Let not your heart be troubled, neither let it be afraid. 28Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I. 29And now I have told you before it come to pass, that, when it is come to pass, ye might believe. 30Hereafter I will not talk much with you: for the prince of this world cometh, and hath nothing in me. 31But that the world may know that I love the Father; and as the Father gave me commandment, even so I do. Arise, let us go hence.
The God of this world is Jesus.
The god (lowercase!) that people see as the prince of this world is Satan.
Do not make this same mistake. God rules this world. Even if we cannot see this because of our delusions.
-
Satan and Jesus are the same entity.
Have you read the New Testament?
It's an honest question.
Think again in the light of this verse and give me an answer with one word: "Who is the God of this age?". With one word please.
I can answer in one word.
Satan.
Satan is the prince of the earth, the prince of the dirt.
27Peace I leave with you, my peace I give unto you: not as the world giveth, give I unto you. Let not your heart be troubled, neither let it be afraid. 28Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I. 29And now I have told you before it come to pass, that, when it is come to pass, ye might believe. 30Hereafter I will not talk much with you: for the prince of this world cometh, and hath nothing in me. 31But that the world may know that I love the Father; and as the Father gave me commandment, even so I do. Arise, let us go hence.
The God of this world is Jesus.
The god (lowercase!) that people see as the prince of this world is Satan.
Do not make this same mistake. God rules this world. Even if we cannot see this because of our delusions.
God has ultimate power and authority but Jesus told us himself about the prince of this world in the verse I quoted.
Prince is an important word here, not King. Jesus is the King of Kings and Lord of Lords, Satan is the prince of the earth.
You only need to look around the world to see who exerts power over it. Satan has no real power or authority beyond inversion. Satan wishes nothing more than for men to believe him to be God. In this regard he is nothing like Jesus who constantly asserted his position and authority to be below God the fathers.
Jesus clearly asserted his position and authority over the holy spirit.
The holy spirit used me to say it to certain posters here.
It's funny, you guys don't even know who is actually in charge, who really gives the orders, but I do.
Can I also ask you two personal questions?
You don't have to answer if you don't want to. I always speak genuinely and ask genuine questions.
Who has authority over you?
Have you been saved?
-
The Bible nowhere explicitly describes Satan as an angel. This is a false belief due to your misunderstanding and misdirectioned.
-
The Bible nowhere explicitly describes Satan as an angel. This is a false belief due to your misunderstanding and misdirectioned.
You are technically correct but Jesus explicitly says that Satan fell from heaven.
“I saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven. 19Behold, I give you the authority to trample on serpents and scorpions, and over all the power of the enemy, and nothing shall by any means hurt you. 20Nevertheless do not rejoice in this, that the spirits are subject to you, but [f]rather rejoice because your names are written in heaven.”
@Sokarul.
The harvest truly is great, but the laborers are few; therefore pray the Lord of the harvest to send out laborers into His harvest.
-
The Bible nowhere explicitly describes Satan as an angel. This is a false belief due to your misunderstanding and misdirectioned.
You are technically correct but Jesus explicitly says that Satan fell from heaven.
Job 1:6–7 describes Satan appearing before God with the other “sons of God,” very likely a reference to the angels. Matthew 25:41 mentions “the devil and his angels.” Revelation 12:7, describing the end-times war in heaven, says, “Michael [the archangel] and his angels fought against the dragon [Satan] and his angels.” Whether or not Satan is technically an angel is beside the point. Satan is an angelic-type creature with a close connection to the angels, but not an angel.
He has his own angels, like the archangel, or like God. It is debatable where it belongs categorically. We can't say angel.
-
Good point.
I did state that he was above all the other angels and that caused his pride which caused his fall. Having his own angels he must therefore be above ordinary angels.
-
Good point.
I did state that he was above all the other angels and that caused his pride which caused his fall. Having his own angels he must therefore be above ordinary angels.
I'm glad we agreed on one point. My point is that he is not like an angel. Otherwise, Michael wouldn't have tried to defeat him with an angelic army, but would have gone alone. But we see that both sides need the army to defeat each other. If Satan's only trick was to "deceive" it is clear that Michael would not be forced to defeat him. Because it is out of the question to "deceive" an archangel and defeated. Therefore, he must have other superior qualities compared to other angels those do not allow him easily defeated.
I explained this in the issue of fallen angels. His (and other angels') children had abilities such as clairvoyance, levitation, and were the ancestors of the pharaoh generation. The grandchildren of these children rule the world today. So we cannot defeat them simply by "resisting the devil's tricks". There is no such world (unfortunately).
-
Good point.
I did state that he was above all the other angels and that caused his pride which caused his fall. Having his own angels he must therefore be above ordinary angels.
I'm glad we agreed on one point. My point is that he is not like an angel. Otherwise, Michael wouldn't have tried to defeat him with an angelic army, but would have gone alone. But we see that both sides need the army to defeat each other. If Satan's only trick was to "deceive" it is clear that Michael would not be forced to defeat him. Because it is out of the question to "deceive" an archangel and defeated. Therefore, he must have other superior qualities compared to other angels those do not allow him easily defeated.
The Devil is the opposite of God, it must be so, in order for the universe to be balanced. You can't have good without evil, you can't have light without dark.
Is Satan the equivalent of the Devil, or just Lucifer, Beelezebub, or whatever... It doesn't matter. It's just the other half of whatever you think.
-
One had predicted a victorious arrival from the Messiah (by donkey!)
For so long I didn't understand who the holy spirit was, to my utter poverty.
I didn't understand the gifts the Father has given us. Now I feel the Holy spirit so thick that I could swim in it.
I was just thinking about that verse this morning. It's so beautiful, and powerful. The act of the supreme and undisputed authority in the universe riding in to town on a donkey is one of Gods perfect jokes.
I said it before, God invented humour.
By riding into town on a donkey Jesus showed that his authority came directly from God. He had no earthly titles, riches or power. Yet his authority was undeniable.
Again in my personal belief it was just God flexing on us.
Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow; they toil not, neither do they spin: 29And yet I say unto you, That even Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these.
Men dress themselves up in fancy clothes, gold and jewels, titles and castles. They proclaim their glory before men.
Jesus, even riding on a donkey dressed in rags had more authority than all these men combined. Showing that authority comes from God and only from God.
-
Good point.
I did state that he was above all the other angels and that caused his pride which caused his fall. Having his own angels he must therefore be above ordinary angels.
I'm glad we agreed on one point. My point is that he is not like an angel. Otherwise, Michael wouldn't have tried to defeat him with an angelic army, but would have gone alone. But we see that both sides need the army to defeat each other. If Satan's only trick was to "deceive" it is clear that Michael would not be forced to defeat him. Because it is out of the question to "deceive" an archangel and defeated. Therefore, he must have other superior qualities compared to other angels those do not allow him easily defeated.
The Devil is the opposite of God, it must be so, in order for the universe to be balanced. You can't have good without evil, you can't have light without dark.
Is Satan the equivalent of the Devil, or just Lucifer, Beelezebub, or whatever... It doesn't matter. It's just the other half of whatever you think.
This is the same conclusion I've come to for a while.
-
Good point.
I did state that he was above all the other angels and that caused his pride which caused his fall. Having his own angels he must therefore be above ordinary angels.
I'm glad we agreed on one point. My point is that he is not like an angel. Otherwise, Michael wouldn't have tried to defeat him with an angelic army, but would have gone alone. But we see that both sides need the army to defeat each other. If Satan's only trick was to "deceive" it is clear that Michael would not be forced to defeat him. Because it is out of the question to "deceive" an archangel and defeated. Therefore, he must have other superior qualities compared to other angels those do not allow him easily defeated.
The Devil is the opposite of God, it must be so, in order for the universe to be balanced. You can't have good without evil, you can't have light without dark.
Is Satan the equivalent of the Devil, or just Lucifer, Beelezebub, or whatever... It doesn't matter. It's just the other half of whatever you think.
Right, but they are jot equal in power. They are equal in other ways. Darkness borrows power from light, casting shadow because of it.
In the same way, tyrants convince the people that their power is immense through smoke and mirrors games.
Consider Joe Biden. First thing he did? He screened a bunch of soldiers loyal to him, and he built walls around the White House.
Immediately, this tells me that his power is not legitimate. If it were, he would have no issues whatsoever of welcoming visitors (with a few precautions). Instead his pad is like a literal fortress.
But behind all this show of strength? A doddering fool that is disarming the US because he fears revolt from his own country. He will lead us to being conquered. And China, which is the most likely conquering group, is also undoing itself. All evil carries the seeds of its own destruction.
-
I believe that China is the new center of the Devil NWO project and all the evil, due to the fact that it is the main actor in the covid process, its determination and success in numerating and enslaving people, as well as being a communist, etc.
Also, China announced its armament policy. He wouldn't have dared if there wasn't a walking dead like Biden at the head of the USA.
-
Yes, the NWO is indeed evil.
But these are flesh and blood that have given themselves over to evil. Not demons or the powers of Hell.
Daniel 2 (after the prophecy of the statue)
44 “In the time of those kings, the God of heaven will set up a kingdom that will never be destroyed, nor will it be left to another people. It will crush all those kingdoms and bring them to an end, but it will itself endure forever.
Every tyranny on this Earth is from human evil. Human evil can be tempted into place by demons, but demons have no physical power on this Earth. The archdemons of this world plant a delusion in the minds of those who encounter them that they are powerful beings. But... demons are not real in the same way you or I are real.
They are the Nephilim who came out of the time of Noah. But they do not have physical bodies anymore.
And yes, Biden is a zombie. That's the point. Biden thinks he is powerful, but his very actions to protect against perceived domestic threats (he literally sees regular conservatives from the army as terrorists, and thus has sabotaged its effectiveness) leaves us open to foreign threats.
https://www.19fortyfive.com/2021/04/joe-bidens-plan-to-weaken-the-u-s-military-has-arrived/
Why did God allow the Romans to occupy Israel in biblical times?
Why did God allow the Holocaust?
Why has God allowed people to die of diseases like AIDS?
Because it is not for God to make this world a padded room. Suffering exists because people are allowed to make choices.
-
Matt Walsh:
He called anime "satanic" in an answer to viewers' questions in one of his videos, adding that "I have no argument for why it's satanic. It just seems that way to me."[31][32]
-
Lmao.
I love anime.
-
I saw Matt Walsh on LGBT stuff, and for the most part, he seems very hardline conservative. Very old-school establishment.
My take on the LGBT thing is that Jesus would have approved of LGBT ppl being treated as human beings and allowed to make their own choices. He would want to stop them from getting AIDS, getting bullied or murdered, and getting used for political purposes (as they are now, while I am an individual who is trans, I pretty much don't approve of the socialist front group that runs most of the lobby stuff). And he wouldn't approve of them either trying to bully the public into accepting their crazy agendas.
But conservatives think Jesus is a conservative. He's right-leaning centrist, and this is only because the left has gone so far left that it's not viable to support them. Otherwise, Jesus would be very middle of center, and not politically active. Jesus probably would have voted for Trump. If he had voted, which he likely wouldn't.
(1) Not establishment.
(2) Not old school, condemning things as sinful.
(3) Not really into guns. But not into gun control either.
Anime has been around. It's not Satanic. You know what is? Accusing things of being Satanic. Yes, literally, if you accuse something of being evil, unless it obviously is (like blood pouring through doors The Shining style), you are making it evil in your mind. This is the sort of rationale that puts anything fun in the same category as addiction. Yes, you can abuse things and wind up with lack of sleep and so on.
"You can do anything but not everything is good for you."
You could set up a rigid law code against being drunk or gambling or whatever, based on it not being good for you. But I am quite certain that Jesus did not seek to replace the old law with his own law.
-
I think describing Jesus in terms of political affiliation is incredibly foolish. I don't mean to offend.
Marriage is between a man and a woman.
Only males are males and only females are females. This transcends politics.
From the beginning of the creation God made them male and female. For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife; And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.
-
I think describing Jesus in terms of political affiliation is incredibly foolish. I don't mean to offend.
Marriage is between a man and a woman.
Only males are males and only females are females. This transcends politics.
From the beginning of the creation God made them male and female. For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife; And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.
You appear to not comprehend the difference between gender and sexual preference.
I'm guessing you aren't married.
-
I think describing Jesus in terms of political affiliation is incredibly foolish. I don't mean to offend.
Marriage is between a man and a woman.
Only males are males and only females are females. This transcends politics.
From the beginning of the creation God made them male and female. For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife; And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.
You appear to not comprehend the difference between gender and sexual preference.
I'm guessing you aren't married.
Unmarried and unspoken for. Doesn't even seem like he can get past the first date. Is it any surprise?
-
lol
-
I think describing Jesus in terms of political affiliation is incredibly foolish. I don't mean to offend.
Marriage is between a man and a woman.
Only males are males and only females are females. This transcends politics.
From the beginning of the creation God made them male and female. For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife; And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.
Yes, if one defines the reason for marriage as procreation you are entirely true. Short of mad science (in vitro, stem cells, or sperm banks), most options involved in two ladies having a child involve a rental guy getting them both pregnant. But if we are saying that marriage is for families, the story of Hagar shows that surrogacy is a viable option. Hagar was a woman that Abram took when Sarai was barren. It wasn't seen as sinful to use a third party to set up a family. Though God wanted Sarai (later Sarah) to have her own issue.
Children and a family unit, for the production of a household are my only priority. Can these two women (sorry guys, two men is not a marriage, it's a sausage fest) bear a child? Yes. Did they need some outside source for seed? Well, yes (but unlike with two men, that source is out of the picture after about 15 to 30 minutes). If there is division of labor (one raises the kids, one works, for example), can they manage to both raise children and earn enough to keep food, clothing, and a house? Yes.
-
Marriage is also a civil contract. Many cultures who do not give a thought to 'God' also have marriage. Many atheists also marry. Back in a patriarchal days, marriage was a man taking ownership/property of a woman. It was not about love
https://theweek.com/articles/528746/origins-marriage
How old is the institution?
The best available evidence suggests that it's about 4,350 years old. For thousands of years before that, most anthropologists believe, families consisted of loosely organized groups of as many as 30 people, with several male leaders, multiple women shared by them, and children. As hunter-gatherers settled down into agrarian civilizations, society had a need for more stable arrangements. The first recorded evidence of marriage ceremonies uniting one woman and one man dates from about 2350 B.C., in Mesopotamia. Over the next several hundred years, marriage evolved into a widespread institution embraced by the ancient Hebrews, Greeks, and Romans. But back then, marriage had little to do with love or with religion.
What was it about, then?
Marriage's primary purpose was to bind women to men, and thus guarantee that a man's children were truly his biological heirs. Through marriage, a woman became a man's property. In the betrothal ceremony of ancient Greece, a father would hand over his daughter with these words: "I pledge my daughter for the purpose of producing legitimate offspring." Among the ancient Hebrews, men were free to take several wives; married Greeks and Romans were free to satisfy their sexual urges with concubines, prostitutes, and even teenage male lovers, while their wives were required to stay home and tend to the household. If wives failed to produce offspring, their husbands could give them back and marry someone else.
When did religion become involved?
As the Roman Catholic Church became a powerful institution in Europe, the blessings of a priest became a necessary step for a marriage to be legally recognized. By the eighth century, marriage was widely accepted in the Catholic church as a sacrament, or a ceremony to bestow God's grace. At the Council of Trent in 1563, the sacramental nature of marriage was written into canon law.
Also religion is very much politics, just by a different name.
-
Here’s what I don’t get. Why do you people even care who gets married? What impact does that have on your life?
Do I care that bumble is trans? Absolutely not. Do I care if two guys or two gals want to enter into a marriage contract with one another? Absolutely not.
Does the notion go against your particular faith? If so, good for you, you don’t have to marry anyone if you don’t want to. But don’t smear your faith onto others who don’t share your god/book vision.
-
My concern is not religious so much as two guys are ick.
I write novels, and many of them do have lesbian themes. I don't even flinch at this.
Meanwhile, this commercial makes me literally throw up.
I don't condemn two males so much as the entire concept grosses me out.
-
My concern is not religious so much as two guys are ick.
Lots of folks think Trans are ick.
-
I don't condemn two males so much as the entire concept grosses me out.
I agree, the idea of male male anal intercourse grosses me out as well. But if someone else gets their rocks off that way, it's none of my business.
What anyone else does in the privacy of their own bedrooms is none of my business or anyone else for that matter.
I suspect Jesus would agree.
-
I don't condemn two males so much as the entire concept grosses me out.
I agree, the idea of male male anal intercourse grosses me out as well. But if someone else gets their rocks off that way, it's none of my business.
What anyone else does in the privacy of their own bedrooms is none of my business or anyone else for that matter.
I suspect Jesus would agree.
The wokified 21st century version of Jesus maybe. The Jesus of the day? I doubt it
The Popes are said to be 'Vicar of Christ' and for 2000 years, catholics were raging homophobes. Looking through history as well there were some bastard evil popes
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bad_Popes
Pope Stephen VI (896–897), who had his predecessor Pope Formosus exhumed, tried, de-fingered, briefly reburied, and thrown in the Tiber.[1]: 19
- Pope John XII (955–964), who gave land to a mistress, murdered several people, and was killed by a man who caught him in bed with his wife.
- Pope Benedict IX (1032–1044, 1045, 1047–1048), who "sold" the Papacy.
- Pope Boniface VIII (1294–1303), who is lampooned in Dante's Divine Comedy.
- Pope Urban VI (1378–1389), who complained that he did not hear enough screaming when Cardinals who had conspired against him were tortured.[1]: 153
- Pope Alexander VI (1492–1503), a Borgia, who was guilty of nepotism and whose unattended corpse swelled until it could barely fit in a coffin.[1]: 204
- Pope Leo X (1513–1521), a spendthrift member of the Medici family who once spent 1/7 of his predecessors' reserves on a single ceremony.[1]: 218
- Pope Clement VII (1523–1534), also a Medici, whose power-politicking with France, Spain, and Germany got Rome sacked.
To name a few. Honestly we have evidence and registries of their existence on Earth. Where is the evidence for Jesus's existence though? Apart from some fables in a book cobbled together 1500 years ago by dozens of authors and translated and fiddled with umpteenth times?
-
I don't condemn two males so much as the entire concept grosses me out.
I agree, the idea of male male anal intercourse grosses me out as well. But if someone else gets their rocks off that way, it's none of my business.
What anyone else does in the privacy of their own bedrooms is none of my business or anyone else for that matter.
I suspect Jesus would agree.
That is true. It isn't some much about the sin of the matter as much as the incredibly cringe inducing nature of that commercial. My gosh, that commercial.
And in terms of sin, actually even Jesus's followers have given an answer to this:
If any of you has a dispute with another, do you dare to take it before the ungodly for judgment instead of before the Lord’s people? 2 Or do you not know that the Lord’s people will judge the world? And if you are to judge the world, are you not competent to judge trivial cases? 3 Do you not know that we will judge angels? How much more the things of this life! 4 Therefore, if you have disputes about such matters, do you ask for a ruling from those whose way of life is scorned in the church? 5 I say this to shame you. Is it possible that there is nobody among you wise enough to judge a dispute between believers? 6 But instead, one brother takes another to court—and this in front of unbelievers!
7 The very fact that you have lawsuits among you means you have been completely defeated already. Why not rather be wronged? Why not rather be cheated? 8 Instead, you yourselves cheat and do wrong, and you do this to your brothers and sisters. 9 Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men 10 nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God. 12 “I have the right to do anything,” you say—but not everything is beneficial. “I have the right to do anything”—but I will not be mastered by anything.
Fundies like to take this passage out of context, quoting just verse 9 and 10, as a sort of hammer vs gays. But the context, the origin context, is that you shouldn't be bringing lawsuits (i.e. lists of condemnation) against each other because we are ALL guilty. And we all have been forgiven. As in yes, it is a sin, but the greater sins are denial that it is a sin (it is, get get over it), and condemning people for doing it (they had sex, get over it).
It goes on to talk about how not everything is good for you. In other words, you can eat pork, but you might get trichinosis. You can have gross unsafe anal sex, but you'll probably be on Apretude for the rest of your life.
In other words, sin does still have consequences, but this isn't "God hates gays" so much as "you both should have worn thicker condoms."
-
Wow
I agree with bulmbalaba
-
Mwahahahaha!!!
-
Here’s what I don’t get. Why do you people even care who gets married? What impact does that have on your life?
Do I care that bumble is trans? Absolutely not. Do I care if two guys or two gals want to enter into a marriage contract with one another? Absolutely not.
Does the notion go against your particular faith? If so, good for you, you don’t have to marry anyone if you don’t want to. But don’t smear your faith onto others who don’t share your god/book vision.
Do you care if your five year old son sits on the lap of a convicted pedophile dressed in drag and exposing himself at school?
Apples and oranges imo.
-
I suspect Jesus would agree.
A sin that no one sees is still a sin.
If you're looking for a philosophy of "do as thou wilt." You won't find it in Jesus.
The sin is fornication.
-
Here’s what I don’t get. Why do you people even care who gets married? What impact does that have on your life?
Do I care that bumble is trans? Absolutely not. Do I care if two guys or two gals want to enter into a marriage contract with one another? Absolutely not.
Does the notion go against your particular faith? If so, good for you, you don’t have to marry anyone if you don’t want to. But don’t smear your faith onto others who don’t share your god/book vision.
Do you care if your five year old son sits on the lap of a convicted pedophile dressed in drag and exposing himself at school?
Apples and oranges imo.
What the fuck are you talking about pedophiles? In any event I'm pretty sure pedophiles are more likely to be dressed as priests or scoutmasters.
Why would you think that pedophiles dress in drag? Seems like you've got your prejudices mangled up in that tiny brain of yours.
-
In any event I'm pretty sure pedophiles are more likely to be dressed as priests
-
Here’s what I don’t get. Why do you people even care who gets married? What impact does that have on your life?
Do I care that bumble is trans? Absolutely not. Do I care if two guys or two gals want to enter into a marriage contract with one another? Absolutely not.
Does the notion go against your particular faith? If so, good for you, you don’t have to marry anyone if you don’t want to. But don’t smear your faith onto others who don’t share your god/book vision.
Do you care if your five year old son sits on the lap of a convicted pedophile dressed in drag and exposing himself at school?
Apples and oranges imo.
Apparently you hit your head on something this weekend.
-
Here’s what I don’t get. Why do you people even care who gets married? What impact does that have on your life?
Do I care that bumble is trans? Absolutely not. Do I care if two guys or two gals want to enter into a marriage contract with one another? Absolutely not.
Does the notion go against your particular faith? If so, good for you, you don’t have to marry anyone if you don’t want to. But don’t smear your faith onto others who don’t share your god/book vision.
Do you care if your five year old son sits on the lap of a convicted pedophile dressed in drag and exposing himself at school?
Apples and oranges imo.
What the fuck are you talking about pedophiles? In any event I'm pretty sure pedophiles are more likely to be dressed as priests or scoutmasters.
Why would you think that pedophiles dress in drag? Seems like you've got your prejudices mangled up in that tiny brain of yours.
There's this rumor that crossdressing = pedophilia.
That crossdressers have the sole reason of dressing this way so they can sneak into bathrooms and molest little girls.
Now, the leftist groups that what to push all kinds of crazy behavior are all kinds of fucked up. But hobby crossdressers really have very little to do with pedophiles. Nor do people who legit are transgender. But the left wants to move the standards until backlash basically sets up a tyranny. Leftism = criminality.
One of the Christian heresies is that God is an authoritarian. This is actually the opposite of who God is. God explicitly opposes the setting up of a Jewish state, preferring they have him as their king (that is, no formal leader). Nor is God a moralist. This doesn't mean complete anarchy though, because when things get too loose, tyranny follows in its tracks. They pick for themselves a man who will bring discipline, and he does. But when people follow God, they get balance.
-
Here’s what I don’t get. Why do you people even care who gets married? What impact does that have on your life?
Do I care that bumble is trans? Absolutely not. Do I care if two guys or two gals want to enter into a marriage contract with one another? Absolutely not.
Does the notion go against your particular faith? If so, good for you, you don’t have to marry anyone if you don’t want to. But don’t smear your faith onto others who don’t share your god/book vision.
Do you care if your five year old son sits on the lap of a convicted pedophile dressed in drag and exposing himself at school?
Apples and oranges imo.
What the fuck are you talking about pedophiles? In any event I'm pretty sure pedophiles are more likely to be dressed as priests or scoutmasters.
Why would you think that pedophiles dress in drag? Seems like you've got your prejudices mangled up in that tiny brain of yours.
He mad.
-
Now, the leftist groups that what to push all kinds of crazy behavior are all kinds of fucked up. But hobby crossdressers really have very little to do with pedophiles. Nor do people who legit are transgender. But the left wants to move the standards until backlash basically sets up a tyranny. Leftism = criminality.
What standards are you referring to?
God explicitly opposes the setting up of a Jewish state,
How do you know this?
preferring they have him as their king (that is, no formal leader).
Isn't a "King" a formal leader by definition?
But when people follow God, they get balance.
Not for everyone.
-
I was referring to drag queen story hour.
Nuance, it seems is lost on machines.
Edit.
Also, free advice.
Constantly personally attacking me while I am being very polite is a bad look.
-
I was referring to drag queen story hour.
Nuance, it seems is lost on machines.
Edit.
Also, free advice.
Constantly personally attacking me while I am being very polite is a bad look.
What nuance? How is anyone supposed to gather that you were referring to "Drag Queen Story Hour" from:
"Do you care if your five year old son sits on the lap of a convicted pedophile dressed in drag and exposing himself at school?"
- First, no one has even mentioned Drag Queen Story Hour
- Second, I had no idea such a thing existed
- Third, do kids sit on the drag queens laps like creepy santas in the malls?
- Fourth, is the organization filled with convicted pedophiles?
There was no nuance to gather. You basically expected people to read your mind to know what you were specifically referring to.
-
"Do you care if your five year old son sits on the lap of a convicted pedophile dressed in drag and exposing himself at school?"
Yeah it is obviously referencing Drag queen story hour. No doubt.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/milwaukee-brett-blomme-arrested-drag-queen-story-hour-sponsor
https://thepostmillennial.com/drag-queen-flashes-young-children-at-drag-queen-story-hour/
-
This is the issue, you see.
People are still using the argument of "two adults in their own bedroom." Then they apply it to pedophiles running drag queen story hour and exposing themselves at kids schools. Chemical castration and genital mutilation of children.
No one has ever wanted cameras in people's bedrooms and police dispatched for what two adults do together. The argument is disingenuous on merit.
Marriage is between a man and a woman.
Only men are men and only women are women. Only women can give birth and only men can get them pregnant.
-
"Do you care if your five year old son sits on the lap of a convicted pedophile dressed in drag and exposing himself at school?"
Yeah it is obviously referencing Drag queen story hour. No doubt.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/milwaukee-brett-blomme-arrested-drag-queen-story-hour-sponsor
https://thepostmillennial.com/drag-queen-flashes-young-children-at-drag-queen-story-hour/
Not obvious if you've never heard of such a thing. Especially considering one article is a year old and the other is 3 years old. And I don't follow drag queen news. Apparently you do, which is fine. Whatever floats your boat.
I, personally, didn't know such a thing existed. Let alone the existence of those old kinda random news articles. It kinda seems up to the parents whether they want to bring their kid to a drag queen show at a library. Again, personally, I wouldn't let my kid sit on a santa's lap at the mall.
-
There is no way that you've never heard of Drag queen story time. I just can't believe that. They often do it at kids schools where parents can't say no.
Besides, if they said no they would be attacked like you, Rayzor and Shifter attacked me
When the arguments about two adults in the privacy of their bedroom fizzle out, I guess the next best tactic is just to pretend it isn't happening.
Well played.
-
There is no way that you've never heard of Drag queen story time. I just can't believe that.
Well you can believe what you want. But tonight is the first of I've heard of it.
They often do it at kids schools where parents can't say no.
I don't know how it works in schools in the US.
When the arguments about two adults in the privacy of their bedroom fizzle out, I guess the next best tactic is just to pretend it isn't happening.
I never said there isn't such a thing, just that I was unaware of such a thing.
And as far as same-sex marriage, well, it's legal here in the States, don't know about Australia. I've got married gay friends, even been to two weddings. Doesn't seem to be an issue.
-
Having now heard of Drag queen story hour.
What is your opinion on it?
Marriage (holy matrimony) is a Christian union, between a man and a woman. My issue isn't with gays having the same rights as a married couple but just calling it marriage. Names and words are important.
-
Yeah it is obviously referencing Drag queen story hour. No doubt.
Your reality is distorted by that echo chamber you live in.
The rest of us don't live in that world.
-
Yeah it is obviously referencing Drag queen story hour. No doubt.
Your reality is distorted by that echo chamber you live in.
The rest of us don't live in that world.
Drag queen story time exists. People involved have been convicted pedophiles and Drag Queens have flashed their junk at children.
Who is "the rest of us?"
Are you claiming the moral highground on this one?
-
Having now heard of Drag queen story hour.
What is your opinion on it?
Good question. I would say it doesn't belong in schools. It just seems unnecessary. If they want to do it in places where parents have to actually decide they want their kids to attend, then that's fine.
Marriage is a Christian union, between a man and a woman. My issue isn't with gays having the same rights as a married couple but just calling it marriage. Names and words are important.
Are you saying non-christians can't get married?
If that's what you think, that's a bit odd. You basically are saying 5 billion people on the planet aren't eligible to get married. Weird. Especially considering that in your eyes, I'm not married. Yet I am.
As far as same-sex marriage, well, you're welcome to your belief. But it's perfectly legal here and I have no issue with it. If two consenting adults want to embark on a civil union together, have at it.
-
Having now heard of Drag queen story hour.
What is your opinion on it?
Good question. I would say it doesn't belong in schools. It just seems unnecessary.
I agree, well met.
I was actually making an argument for just calling it a civil union and having the same rights as marriage. I just don't want it to be called Holy matrimony.
Muslims can marry lots of wives. We don't allow that in the west. Other religions can get married. I believe marriage was a Jewish union before Christianity. I am quite sure Jews get married if they don't have another word for it.
Edit.
They do have a different word.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_wedding
-
Having now heard of Drag queen story hour.
What is your opinion on it?
Good question. I would say it doesn't belong in schools. It just seems unnecessary.
I agree, well met.
I was actually making an argument for just calling it a civil union and having the same rights as marriage. I just don't want it to be called Holy matrimony.
The first recorded evidence of marriage ceremonies uniting one woman and one man dates from about 2350 B.C., in Mesopotamia. Over the next several hundred years, marriage evolved into a widespread institution embraced by the ancient Hebrews, Greeks, and Romans.
Marriage has historically occurred to join two people and two families. In many cultures, it's more of a business transaction than being about love and commitment. Regardless of why a marriage occurs, it is ultimately the legal union of two people.
-
I don't usually do this, but it's kind of your thing.
Did you intentionally leave out the rest of my post?
Muslims can marry lots of wives. We don't allow that in the west. Other religions can get married. I believe marriage was a Jewish union before Christianity. I am quite sure Jews get married if they don't have another word for it.
Edit.
They do have a different word.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_wedding
We were having a good talk it's sad to see you go back on the attack. The more I learn about you the more fond of you I am. You have a brilliant mind, just much different than mine.
-
I'll give you a free tip because I like you.
We agreed on gay couples having civil unions as a kind of "business contract" as you described it. We agree they should have all the same rights as a married couple. We are past this now.
I just don't want it to be called Holy matrimony, or marriage. Because that is a Christian union between one man and one woman that Jesus described, and I am a Christian.
It's silly to then go on the attack and try to frame the conversation like I want thought police who watch over what people do in their own homes. It just looks bad.
Anyway, we are making steady progress.
-
I don't usually do this, but it's kind of your thing.
Did you intentionally leave out the rest of my post?
Nope, you added it while I was writing my response. When you hit post and someone has added or edited a post you get the red warning that such has occurred. I just disregard the warning and hit post.
Muslims can marry lots of wives. We don't allow that in the west. Other religions can get married. I believe marriage was a Jewish union before Christianity. I am quite sure Jews get married if they don't have another word for it.
As for this edit, now I'm confused. There's nothing in the definition of the word "marriage" that states it must be a christian thing.
Edit.
They do have a different word.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_wedding
We were having a good talk it's sad to see you go back on the attack. The more I learn about you the more fond of you I am. You have a brilliant mind, just much different than mine.
"Chapeau means hat. Oeuf means egg. It's like those French have a different word for everything."
-
I edited the link in from memory. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.
You do seem confused.
You need to attack me but you aren't sure how. You should break your chains.
https://www.ibelieve.com/relationships/what-does-holy-matrimony-mean-and-why-church-use-phrase-for-marriage.html
-
I'll give you a free tip because I like you.
We agreed on gay couples having civil unions as a kind of "business contract" as you described it. We agree they should have all the same rights as a married couple. We are past this now.
I just don't want it to be called Holy matrimony, or marriage. Because that is a Christian union between one man and one woman that Jesus described, and I am a Christian.
It's silly to then go on the attack and try to frame the conversation like I want thought police who watch over what people do in their own homes. It just looks bad.
Anyway, we are making steady progress.
I don't know how "Holy matrimony" works for same sex couples. I assume there are christian churches/ministers who marry same-sex couples. I'm pretty sure same-sex couples can't be married within catholic churches/priests. Unfortunately for you, you don't get to determine what people call/name things.
As far as the word "marriage" goes, christians don't have a monopoly on that word. I got married at city hall. I'm not a christian, but I'm married. Am I married in Holy matrimony? No, because I personally don't believe in that stuff. But again, I'm still married.
Funny too, I've actually officiated two weddings in my life. First time I got a "minister" license through a website that was recognized by the State. The second one, I got an "officiant-for-the-day" license from city hall meaning I could only marry that specific couple on a specific day. All legal and official with my valid signature on the marriage licenses.
-
You got married because America has always been a Christian nation.
If America was founded by Muslims marriage in America would look different than it does now. That was the point you were confused about.
It makes no difference to the rights of gay couples not to call their union marriage. It's a really petty angle of attack.
God doesn't accept gay people as married, regardless of government pressure on the church. I've never understood why gay couples want to get married in a church in any case.
-
I edited the link in from memory. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.
Yeah, well, that's just how it works. I mean you edited the post and added that stuff in while I was writing mine. Nothing nefarious. Pro-tip, if you do modify a post within something like 30 seconds or so after posting it, there's no edit timestamp affixed to your post. You must have modified your post after that because it has the edit timestamp.
You do seem confused.
Nothing new.
You need to attack me but you aren't sure how. You should break your chains.
https://www.ibelieve.com/relationships/what-does-holy-matrimony-mean-and-why-church-use-phrase-for-marriage.html
I'm not attacking you and ain't got no chains.
In any case, of course a christian site is going to tell you the christian definition of "holy matrimony". And that's fine. I don't know any couple when asked if they are married say, "Yes, in Holy matrimony." So you can sleep well knowing that people don't say that.
(see, I just got this again: Warning - while you were typing a new reply has been posted. You may wish to review your post.)
I just hit post anyway.
-
Because we call holy matrimony marriage, going back to Rome, Stash.
Are you malfunctioning?
I don't see why we can't get along.
-
You got married because America has always been a Christian nation.
I'm not following. Me getting married has nothing to do with religion.
If America was founded by Muslims marriage in America would look different than it does now. That was the point you were confused about.
Ok. So what? I think this would be just the tip of the iceberg in terms of looking different.
It makes no difference to the rights of gay couples not to call their union marriage. It's a really petty angle of attack.
There's no attack and no pettiness. You're belief system seems to think christians are the only people allowed to use a word. Whatever. You can think what you want. The point is, at least here in America, if you get married in a church, a mosque, a temple, at city hall, a las vegas drive-thru with an Elvis impersonator officiant, you're married. And those who do so, refer to themselves as married. No one really cares whether you like it or not.
God doesn't accept gay people as married, regardless of government pressure on the church.
Well, according to you and your belief. Not everyone agrees with you and that's just the way it is.
I've never understood why gay couples want to get married in a church in any case.
Perhaps it's not for you to understand. And just let others who have zero impact on your life do as they do. Your approval is not required for my gay friends to go happily about their lives as married couples.
-
I'm not following.
Alright then good talk.
We are making steady progress in any case.
-
Because we call holy matrimony marriage, going back to Rome, Stash.
Are you malfunctioning?
I don't see why we can't get along.
Yes and we also call marriage marriage. No holiness required. No christianity required. Just ask the ancient Romans. Or any other non-christian culture.
-
I'm not following.
Alright then good talk.
We are making steady progress in any case.
You need to get out more. There's a whole other world out there that doesn't involve generating fake outrage.
-
I'm not sure how fake the outrage is behind convicted pedophiles running drag queen story time for kids.
I get out a lot and talk to everyone I meet.
Because we call holy matrimony marriage, going back to Rome, Stash.
Are you malfunctioning?
I don't see why we can't get along.
Yes and we also call marriage marriage. No holiness required. No christianity required. Just ask the ancient Romans. Or any other non-christian culture.
Yes but marriage is marriage because of the Church, Stash.
It makes no difference to call it a civil union and give them all the same rights.
You can't help yourself, can you.
You called it a civil union yourself until you realised the different terms is your only angle of attack.
It's honestly a little disappointing.
-
Stash it seems we are in complete, and total agreement on all accounts. Even drag queen story time in school.
If two consenting adults want to embark on a civil union together, have at it.
Yet, you still attack me.
-
I'm not sure how fake the outrage is behind convicted pedophiles running drag queen story time for kids.
I get out a lot and talk to everyone I meet.
Because we call holy matrimony marriage, going back to Rome, Stash.
Are you malfunctioning?
I don't see why we can't get along.
Yes and we also call marriage marriage. No holiness required. No christianity required. Just ask the ancient Romans. Or any other non-christian culture.
Yes but marriage is marriage because of the Church, Stash.
It makes no difference to call it a civil union and give them all the same rights.
You can't help yourself, can you.
You called it a civil union yourself until you realised the different terms is your only angle of attack.
It's honestly a little disappointing.
I'm unconcerned regarding your disappointment.
All I can tell you is that after I officiated each of those weddings I signed a document that said "Marriage License" at the top. No church required. The couples were officially married. If you want to believe that only christians can get married then, well, good for you. You hold no sway over the meaning of that word.
-
That's the best you have huh?
Fair enough.
Marriage is a word to describe the union between a man and a woman that Jesus described.
If two consenting adults want to embark on a civil union together, have at it.
Are you happy to leave this with us in complete agreement or do you think you can milk some more out of your attack?
-
I'm not sure how fake the outrage is behind convicted pedophiles running drag queen story time for kids.
Good to hear you get out of the bubble, so what proportion of drag queens do you think are pedophiles?
-
Probably slightly higher than baseline I don't really know.
I know that there's no need for drag queen story hour. It doesn't encourage tolerance, it does the opposite.
Reasonable gay and lesbian people are trying to distance themselves from this agenda focussed on children as quickly as possible. I think it's good.
I like this woman, for example.
Can't find a direct link.
https://tuckercarlson.com/paypal-venmo-ban-gays-against-groomers-founder/
-
I'll give you a free tip because I like you.
We agreed on gay couples having civil unions as a kind of "business contract" as you described it. We agree they should have all the same rights as a married couple. We are past this now.
I just don't want it to be called Holy matrimony, or marriage. Because that is a Christian union between one man and one woman that Jesus described, and I am a Christian.
It's silly to then go on the attack and try to frame the conversation like I want thought police who watch over what people do in their own homes. It just looks bad.
Anyway, we are making steady progress.
Peter went into a deep trance, wherein every unclean thing was shown to him on a strange table (it was a sushi conveyor belt, probably).
God told him that it was up to him to decide what is clean, and what is holy.
While I don't think that much of those marriages, I don't have a sense that it is somehow corrupting a holy institution. I believe some of them hope that it somehow corrupts Christianity to have marriages of gays and dogs, but I think the marriage ceremony to only be a symbol of the love between God and humanity. That can't be corrupted.
I do believe that it is a sin, but I believe Jesus is in the business of forgiving sins. I think the more important thing is if they're gonna call it marriage, it needs issue. They raise children. But since there are married couples that nowadays never have kids, maybe that's not a big deal either.
-
That's the best you have huh?
Fair enough.
Marriage is a word to describe the union between a man and a woman that Jesus described.
If two consenting adults want to embark on a civil union together, have at it.
Are you happy to leave this with us in complete agreement or do you think you can milk some more out of your attack?
Marriage is described as a voluntary union between 2 people. Biological sex is irrelevant
Unions between people existed before religion and it spanned many cultures. It's purpose was not for love or for God. The idea of marriage being for love is only pretty recent. The notion that it is a partnership between 2 equals even more so
The Abrahamic religion hijacked the institution.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_views_on_marriage#Marriage_and_Christianity
Marriage was officially recognized as a sacrament at the 1184 Council of Verona.[62][63] Before then, no specific ritual was prescribed for celebrating a marriage: "Marriage vows did not have to be exchanged in a church, nor was a priest's presence required. A couple could exchange consent anywhere, anytime."
2 men or 2 women getting married is fine as long as civil law says it is. That's how it used to be (ancient Greece, Rome, China etc). There are still some repulsive societies out there which still like to dictate and tell grown adults who they are allowed to be with. Some with the threat of death for disobedience. Maybe you'd be happier there?
So go off there where some authoritarian dickhole decides for you.
Religion has fuck all say in regards to marriage. It is civil law. Your regressive ideology wont change that in this country.
-
Anyway, what do you think Jesus taught? I'm tired from these lists![/list]
Jesus, a Jewish Rabbi, taught these, but Christians always deny it.
Ezekiel 18:20 The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.
Deuteronomy 24:16 (ESV) "Fathers shall not be put to death because of their children, nor shall children be put to death because of their fathers. Each one shall be put to death for his own sin.
The truth screws up the Christian interpretation and shows that Christians would have to sin yet again, to be saved.
Stupid Christians cannot add 2 = 2.
Regards
DL
-
Tucker Carlson.... what a creep.
We are one day removed from a shooting at an LGBTQ club where five people are dead, and Tucker's first segment is him saying the LGBTQ "cult" is "sexualizing children."
Weeks ago, he told his viewers to "fight back" against the LGBTQ community "no matter what the law says."
-
Tucker Carlson.... what a creep.
We are one day removed from a shooting at an LGBTQ club where five people are dead, and Tucker's first segment is him saying the LGBTQ "cult" is "sexualizing children."
Weeks ago, he told his viewers to "fight back" against the LGBTQ community "no matter what the law says."
There's a big difference between gays and pedophiles, IMHO.
Edit.
Can you really call these people homophobohic? I guess you could call them self hating gays...
https://www.gaysagainstgroomers.com/about
-
Why conflate the LGBTI community with pedophiles?
Pedos are an entirely different thing which, surprise, also has people in the hetero community ::)
Just because someone is gay or is attracted to both male and females or changes their appearance to be another sex, doesn't make them sexually attracted to children. There are warped mofos and perverts in every community
-
Why conflate the LGBTI community with pedophiles?
These gays and lesbians don't.
Can you really call these people homophobic? I guess you could call them self hating gays...
https://www.gaysagainstgroomers.com/about
They seem to want to distance themselves as much and as fast as possible from this agenda focussed on children.
Edit.
Typo.
-
Anyway, what do you think Jesus taught? I'm tired from these lists![/list]
Jesus, a Jewish Rabbi, taught these, but Christians always deny it.
Ezekiel 18:20 The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.
If you understand that Jesus is God as the Holy Spirit is God as God the Father is God, then there is no distinction, God bore our sins for us in a perfect offering of love and forgiveness.
You will never understand how humbling that is.
Deuteronomy 24:16 (ESV) "Fathers shall not be put to death because of their children, nor shall children be put to death because of their fathers. Each one shall be put to death for his own sin.
This is just obviously true, no one is responsible for another's sins. Jesus, the only man to ever live a perfect sinless life, fully man and fully God, bore our sins not out of necessity, but out of love.
Jesus is the unbroken covenant, the promised Messiah, Shiloh, the Lion of Judah, the Branch of righteousness, The son of David that forever rules on David's throne, the King of Kings and the Lord of Lords.
The truth screws up the Christian interpretation and shows that Christians would have to sin yet again, to be saved.
Salvation is a free gift, a genuine change in heart brought upon by the Holy Spirit.
Do you think sacrificing a chicken to account for your sins makes more sense?
Jesus is the promised Messiah. The Holy Spirit sings his name and heralds his coming in every word of every verse of every piece of scripture.
Who has believed our message and to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed?
He grew up before him like a tender shoot, and like a root out of dry ground.
He had no beauty or majesty to attract us to him, nothing in his appearance that we should desire him.
He was despised and rejected by mankind, a man of suffering, and familiar with pain.
Like one from whom people hide their faces he was despised, and we held him in low esteem.
Surely he took up our pain
and bore our suffering,
yet we considered him punished by God,
stricken by him, and afflicted.
But he was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities;
the punishment that brought us peace was on him, and by his wounds we are healed.
We all, like sheep, have gone astray, each of us has turned to our own way;
and the Lord has laid on him the iniquity of us all.
He was oppressed and afflicted,
yet he did not open his mouth;
he was led like a lamb to the slaughter,
and as a sheep before its shearers is silent, so he did not open his mouth.
By oppression and judgment he was taken away.
Yet who of his generation protested?
For he was cut off from the land of the living; for the transgression of my people he was punished.
He was assigned a grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death,
though he had done no violence, nor was any deceit in his mouth.
Yet it was the Lord’s will to crush him and cause him to suffer, and though the Lord makes his life an offering for sin,
he will see his offspring and prolong his days, and the will of the Lord will prosper in his hand.
After he has suffered, he will see the light of life and be satisfied;
by his knowledge my righteous servant will justify many, and he will bear their iniquities.
Therefore I will give him a portion among the great, and he will divide the spoils with the strong, because he poured out his life unto death, and was numbered with the transgressors.
For he bore the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors.
-
I'm not sure how fake the outrage is behind convicted pedophiles running drag queen story time for kids.
Good to hear you get out of the bubble, so what proportion of drag queens do you think are pedophiles?
100% of those involved in the liberal left woke movement to indoctrinate little children.
Of crossdressers and drag performers elsewhere, much closer to 0% to 5%.
https://www.sgtreport.com/2019/11/the-normalization-of-pedophilia-by-liberals-is-happening-right-now-with-one-california-university-already-teaching-that-to-their-students/
Liberals are pedophiles. Not drag queens so much as liberals. It's the pedophile party. They scare little kids, and then drink fear hormones from their blood to extend their lifespan.
(https://jtf.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/Joe-Biden9.jpg)
Here you can see Biden trying to do it. He's actually trying to bite said kid, but his fangs are old and not penetrating like they used to.
-
I’ve not been here in a while, Jesus not wanting me for a sunbeam and all that, but I must say that in a discussion between believers on the nature of their beliefs there is an unhealthy obsession with the unhealthy, I know outrage and finger pointing is the new paradigm, but is it what Jesus would do?
-
For he bore the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors.[/i]
You must think Jesus to be a really immoral ass hole, like you.
Only one of those would ask people to abdicate their responsibilities and ignore Jesus who says, pick up their crosses and follow him.
When you make a mistake, do you beat your kids too?
Regards
DL
-
Jesus not wanting me for a sunbeam
You couldn't be more wrong.
You are his lost sheep he would leave his whole flock to find.
-
For he bore the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors.[/i]
You must think Jesus to be a really immoral ass hole, like you.
Only one of those would ask people to abdicate their responsibilities and ignore Jesus who says, pick up their crosses and follow him.
When you make a mistake, do you beat your kids too?
Regards
DL
How will you atone for your sins?
Are you the only other human apart from Jesus to live a perfect sinless life?
You couldn't lift my cross one inch off the ground.
-
You can't have a sinless life.
It's impossible for us humans.
Oh, yea, I misread.
I’ve not been here in a while, Jesus not wanting me for a sunbeam and all that, but I must say that in a discussion between believers on the nature of their beliefs there is an unhealthy obsession with the unhealthy, I know outrage and finger pointing is the new paradigm, but is it what Jesus would do?
I'm afraid that Jesus accepts not only good Protestants like me, but also Catholics, Mormons, Calvinists, and for that matter pagans, Jews, Buddhists, Shintos, Muslims, and probably even Satan-worshipers. Something to do with grace being impossible to earn, and God being greater than our sins.
What is true is that if you're a Muslim or Satan-worshiper, your living life will me a mess, and you'll probably have all kinds of screwed up ways of thinking. There are no wrong faiths, but there are toxic ones.
-
What are you afraid for? Surely if your mythical hero is going to accept me whatever, that’s a good thing, for me at least, it’s like I fall and break my ankle climbing in the bank window and get paid by their insurance, so I am sorted, and I don’t have to worry about the sin either if it’s impossible to live without doing it, it must be acceptable.
-
You're my friend and I want what is best for you. It isn't more complicated than that in my case.
It's true we can't live without sin.
Especially myself.
-
I'm going to go for a walk, I actually left my headlights on the other night and found out on Sunday that I needed to walk to the shops while my battery charged. I was annoyed at myself that I left my lights on but I enjoyed the walk. It was pretty relaxing.
-
What are you afraid for? Surely if your mythical hero is going to accept me whatever, that’s a good thing, for me at least, it’s like I fall and break my ankle climbing in the bank window and get paid by their insurance, so I am sorted, and I don’t have to worry about the sin either if it’s impossible to live without doing it, it must be acceptable.
To use your analogy, it's like not breaking your leg, and having that money to spend on what you want. The insurance does sort it out, but why would you want to later be stuck paying high premiums? If you can avoid breaking your leg, you do it. So it is with toxic systems.
The book Nomad is an ex-Muslim's observations on Islam. She talks about their inability to responsibly handle debt, because they basically forbid it, and then view government loans as money from Allah. She talks about how in one village her family was in, rather than emptying out water that leaked in their house, they said "Allah wills it" and left it there. Their fatalism later killed much of the family, as mosquitoes decided to spawn in this water, and they got malaria.
Yes, God forgives our sins, but you also don't go around with a mindset that you have God and won't follow his rules, even when they have common sense applications.
-
What are you afraid for? Surely if your mythical hero is going to accept me whatever, that’s a good thing, for me at least, it’s like I fall and break my ankle climbing in the bank window and get paid by their insurance, so I am sorted, and I don’t have to worry about the sin either if it’s impossible to live without doing it, it must be acceptable.
To use your analogy, it's like not breaking your leg, and having that money to spend on what you want. The insurance does sort it out, but why would you want to later be stuck paying high premiums? If you can avoid breaking your leg, you do it. So it is with toxic systems.
The book Nomad is an ex-Muslim's observations on Islam. She talks about their inability to responsibly handle debt, because they basically forbid it, and then view government loans as money from Allah. She talks about how in one village her family was in, rather than emptying out water that leaked in their house, they said "Allah wills it" and left it there. Their fatalism later killed much of the family, as mosquitoes decided to spawn in this water, and they got malaria.
Yes, God forgives our sins, but you also don't go around with a mindset that you have God and won't follow his rules, even when they have common sense applications.
It sounds like the cool thing about God is that if you don't believe in it, and perhaps you're wrong, you are still forgiven. Kind of a win-win and you don't even have to follow all of the man-made God rules.
-
Except He said:
(TLDR: you will be judged by your true heart. True nature. True belief. Deathbed i believe in god allah buddha save me jebus)
Bible > NIV > Matthew 25
◄ Matthew 25 ►
New International Version Par ▾
The Parable of the Ten Virgins
1“At that time the kingdom of heaven will be like ten virgins who took their lamps and went out to meet the bridegroom. 2Five of them were foolish and five were wise. 3The foolish ones took their lamps but did not take any oil with them. 4The wise ones, however, took oil in jars along with their lamps. 5The bridegroom was a long time in coming, and they all became drowsy and fell asleep.
6“At midnight the cry rang out: ‘Here’s the bridegroom! Come out to meet him!’
7“Then all the virgins woke up and trimmed their lamps. 8The foolish ones said to the wise, ‘Give us some of your oil; our lamps are going out.’
9“ ‘No,’ they replied, ‘there may not be enough for both us and you. Instead, go to those who sell oil and buy some for yourselves.’
10“But while they were on their way to buy the oil, the bridegroom arrived. The virgins who were ready went in with him to the wedding banquet. And the door was shut.
11“Later the others also came. ‘Lord, Lord,’ they said, ‘open the door for us!’
12“But he replied, ‘Truly I tell you, I don’t know you.’
13“Therefore keep watch, because you do not know the day or the hour.
The Parable of the Bags of Gold
14“Again, it will be like a man going on a journey, who called his servants and entrusted his wealth to them. 15To one he gave five bags of gold, to another two bags, and to another one bag, a each according to his ability. Then he went on his journey. 16The man who had received five bags of gold went at once and put his money to work and gained five bags more. 17So also, the one with two bags of gold gained two more. 18But the man who had received one bag went off, dug a hole in the ground and hid his master’s money.
19“After a long time the master of those servants returned and settled accounts with them. 20The man who had received five bags of gold brought the other five. ‘Master,’ he said, ‘you entrusted me with five bags of gold. See, I have gained five more.’
21“His master replied, ‘Well done, good and faithful servant! You have been faithful with a few things; I will put you in charge of many things. Come and share your master’s happiness!’
22“The man with two bags of gold also came. ‘Master,’ he said, ‘you entrusted me with two bags of gold; see, I have gained two more.’
23“His master replied, ‘Well done, good and faithful servant! You have been faithful with a few things; I will put you in charge of many things. Come and share your master’s happiness!’
24“Then the man who had received one bag of gold came. ‘Master,’ he said, ‘I knew that you are a hard man, harvesting where you have not sown and gathering where you have not scattered seed. 25So I was afraid and went out and hid your gold in the ground. See, here is what belongs to you.’
26“His master replied, ‘You wicked, lazy servant! So you knew that I harvest where I have not sown and gather where I have not scattered seed? 27Well then, you should have put my money on deposit with the bankers, so that when I returned I would have received it back with interest.
28“ ‘So take the bag of gold from him and give it to the one who has ten bags. 29For whoever has will be given more, and they will have an abundance. Whoever does not have, even what they have will be taken from them. 30And throw that worthless servant outside, into the darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.’
The Sheep and the Goats
31“When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his glorious throne. 32All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. 33He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left.
34“Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. 35For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, 36I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’
37“Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’
40“The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’
41“Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.’
44“They also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’
45“He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’
46“Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.”
Footnotes:
a 15 Greek five talents . . . two talents . . . one talent; also throughout this parable; a talent was worth about 20 years of a day laborer’s wage.
New International Version (NIV)
Holy Bible, New International Version®, NIV® Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984, 2011 by Biblica, Inc.® Used by permission. All rights reserved worldwide.
Bible Hub
Matthew 24Matthew 26Top of PageTop of Page
-
I buy the big issue.
-
For he bore the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors.[/i]
You must think Jesus to be a really immoral ass hole, like you.
Only one of those would ask people to abdicate their responsibilities and ignore Jesus who says, pick up their crosses and follow him.
When you make a mistake, do you beat your kids too?
Regards
DL
How will you atone for your sins?
Are you the only other human apart from Jesus to live a perfect sinless life?
You couldn't lift my cross one inch off the ground.
Quite the ego.
Why should I atone when you sing that Adam's sin was a happy fault and necessary to God's plan?
To live sinless is not to live at all and that would screw up your God's plan.
Strange how you do not care about derailing your God's plan.
Regards
DL
-
I would steal some oil to fill my lighter and spark up a doobie, sharing it with the bereft-of-fuel-virgins. Then tell the king to go fuck himself then start screaming "ANARCHY, ANARCHY!". Lastly, take my 10 bags of gold and put it all down on 26 black.
All is forgiven.
-
I buy the big issue.
They are so expensive now.
Like $10 a pop.
-
I would steal some oil to fill my lighter and spark up a doobie, sharing it with the bereft-of-fuel-virgins. Then tell the king to go fuck himself then start screaming "ANARCHY, ANARCHY!". Lastly, take my 10 bags of gold and put it all down on 26 black.
All is forgiven.
In your life, the IRS will tax your winnings (or the casino will break your kneecaps for gambling debts), oil/banking companies will break your arms for stealing from their syndicate, the virgins will turn out to not be so virginal and give you STDs, and the long term effects of smoking weed will present themselves. But none of this will matter in the afterlife. You will have paid the price on Earth.
-
Except He said:
(TLDR: you will be judged by your true heart. True nature. True belief. Deathbed i believe in god allah buddha save me jebus)
1“At that time the kingdom of heaven will be like ten virgins who took their lamps and went out to meet the bridegroom. 2Five of them were foolish and five were wise. 3The foolish ones took their lamps but did not take any oil with them. 4The wise ones, however, took oil in jars along with their lamps. 5The bridegroom was a long time in coming, and they all became drowsy and fell asleep.
6“At midnight the cry rang out: ‘Here’s the bridegroom! Come out to meet him!’
7“Then all the virgins woke up and trimmed their lamps. 8The foolish ones said to the wise, ‘Give us some of your oil; our lamps are going out.’
9“ ‘No,’ they replied, ‘there may not be enough for both us and you. Instead, go to those who sell oil and buy some for yourselves.’
10“But while they were on their way to buy the oil, the bridegroom arrived. The virgins who were ready went in with him to the wedding banquet. And the door was shut.
11“Later the others also came. ‘Lord, Lord,’ they said, ‘open the door for us!’
12“But he replied, ‘Truly I tell you, I don’t know you.’
13“Therefore keep watch, because you do not know the day or the hour.
The Parable of the Bags of Gold
14“Again, it will be like a man going on a journey, who called his servants and entrusted his wealth to them. 15To one he gave five bags of gold, to another two bags, and to another one bag, a each according to his ability. Then he went on his journey. 16The man who had received five bags of gold went at once and put his money to work and gained five bags more. 17So also, the one with two bags of gold gained two more. 18But the man who had received one bag went off, dug a hole in the ground and hid his master’s money.
19“After a long time the master of those servants returned and settled accounts with them. 20The man who had received five bags of gold brought the other five. ‘Master,’ he said, ‘you entrusted me with five bags of gold. See, I have gained five more.’
21“His master replied, ‘Well done, good and faithful servant! You have been faithful with a few things; I will put you in charge of many things. Come and share your master’s happiness!’
22“The man with two bags of gold also came. ‘Master,’ he said, ‘you entrusted me with two bags of gold; see, I have gained two more.’
23“His master replied, ‘Well done, good and faithful servant! You have been faithful with a few things; I will put you in charge of many things. Come and share your master’s happiness!’
24“Then the man who had received one bag of gold came. ‘Master,’ he said, ‘I knew that you are a hard man, harvesting where you have not sown and gathering where you have not scattered seed. 25So I was afraid and went out and hid your gold in the ground. See, here is what belongs to you.’
26“His master replied, ‘You wicked, lazy servant! So you knew that I harvest where I have not sown and gather where I have not scattered seed? 27Well then, you should have put my money on deposit with the bankers, so that when I returned I would have received it back with interest.
28“ ‘So take the bag of gold from him and give it to the one who has ten bags. 29For whoever has will be given more, and they will have an abundance. Whoever does not have, even what they have will be taken from them. 30And throw that worthless servant outside, into the darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.’
The Sheep and the Goats
31“When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his glorious throne. 32All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. 33He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left.
34“Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. 35For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, 36I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’
37“Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’
40“The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’
41“Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.’
44“They also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’
45“He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’
46“Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.”
Footnotes:
a 15 Greek five talents . . . two talents . . . one talent; also throughout this parable; a talent was worth about 20 years of a day laborer’s wage.
Jesus is describing to Jews how they see God.
That is, Jews see God as some bean counter who picks at how others live their lives. In the first instance, none of the virgins will share oil. Yet those virgins are not punished but the ones who are unprepared, driven outside the gate while the selfish are let in. In the second case, a man who only had one talent, being unwilling to risk 20 years of income on an investment (gambling money was sinful under Judaism, making this man a wicked lord), has it taken from him and given to the rich. This isn't, as people suspect, a model of behavior for Christian ppl to emulate. This is about the two richer men having money that they can afford to risk, whereas the poor man is given a while talent, and not wanting to risk it, gives it back to the man. In the third model, where before we were talking about a lord who is a human (and not a very good one), now we are presumably talking about God. Or at least the Messiah.
Tell me something. When this happens, what happens to those poor who collect the money? After all, they did not give to the poor. They did not feed the hungry. They did not clothe the naked. Because they were poor, and like the man with one talent (a talent is basically a golden egg, it can't be divided without converting to smaller coins), what they had was expected to last them. They took this money, and then taxes took all they had to live on, and have it to the richest. But by this parable, because they never gave to the poor, God should punish them, but not those with money enough to tithe. Like with the lamp oil, who is punished is those who ran out, not those with excess.
-
That is, Jews see God as some bean counter who picks at how others live their lives.
That's rather rich. It's exactly what you are doing.
-
If you say so.
In the mean time, perhaps explain why there were so many walls around Israel and specifically Jerusalem. No? Because I can.
They had walls to keep non-Jews out because they had worshiped foreign gods before. But by Jesus's time, they had full on hatred of outsiders thanks to Rome, despite instructions from God to welcome outsiders. In particular, even if Gentiles believed that a single God is responsible for creation, they were not permitted to worship God. Thus, there were walls around the Temple to prevent outsiders from worshipping God.
There were walls against women. Although Judaism is not as oppressive as Islam to women, there is a sense that women also aren't good enough to approach God.
In fact, even righteous men aren't good enough, instead giving that right to priests. This is the "God" they made, a God of walls against others, who creates rigid standards of conduct and excludes those who don't meet it.
This section is not intended to be taken literally to mean that God has a standard of extreme goodness. In fact, there's something called a universalized maxim. That is "what if everyone did it?" Well, the very poor would be forced to be generous with what very little they had. And anyone not in a position to do charity would find themselves screwed over. Jesus is telling these ppl that by condemning others, God has the right to punish. But God doesn't act on that.
-
They had walls to keep non-Jews out because they had worshiped foreign gods before.
Incorrect. The first walls around Jerusalem were built by the Canaanites, a poly-god worshipping nomadic and settled pastural culture/tribes. Non-Jew.
- The First Walls Were Built by the Canaanites
- David Conquered the Jebusite City and Enlarged the City Walls
- Solomon Added to the Walls of the City
- Hezekiah’s Broad Wall Expansion of the Western Hill
- Nehemiah Rebuilds the Walls
- Hasmonean Wall Addition
- King Herod Addition
- Agrippa I Wall Addition
- In the 16th century, Suleiman decided to rebuild the city walls on much of the remains of the ancient walls that already existed.
Suleiman was islamic.
Why are walls around settlements built anywhere throughout history? You do realize that walls have been built around cities, fortresses, garrisons, you name it, all over the world for the sheer reason of defense from competing nations, cultures, whathaveyou. Just look at the great wall. Why do many castles have moats? The list goes on and on.
Most of the time, defense. It just so happens that the majority of invasions/wars throughout history are centered around religion or religious beliefs. So I could see why you default to "Walls were built to keep a certain religious faction out." Partially true, but lacking a great deal of context.
You really don't like Jews, do you?
-
Its pretty obvious who built you, Stash.
My apologies I have been busy. Important things are happening.
If I have time this afternoon I'd like to make a thread similar to this one about who the Holy Spirit is as I believe he is even less understood than Jesus.
Edit.
Typo.
-
They had walls to keep non-Jews out because they had worshiped foreign gods before.
Incorrect. The first walls around Jerusalem were built by the Canaanites, a poly-god worshipping nomadic and settled pastural culture/tribes. Non-Jew.
- The First Walls Were Built by the Canaanites
- David Conquered the Jebusite City and Enlarged the City Walls
- Solomon Added to the Walls of the City
- Hezekiah’s Broad Wall Expansion of the Western Hill
- Nehemiah Rebuilds the Walls
- Hasmonean Wall Addition
- King Herod Addition
- Agrippa I Wall Addition
- In the 16th century, Suleiman decided to rebuild the city walls on much of the remains of the ancient walls that already existed.
Suleiman was islamic.
Why are walls around settlements built anywhere throughout history? You do realize that walls have been built around cities, fortresses, garrisons, you name it, all over the world for the sheer reason of defense from competing nations, cultures, whathaveyou. Just look at the great wall. Why do many castles have moats? The list goes on and on.
Most of the time, defense. It just so happens that the majority of invasions/wars throughout history are centered around religion or religious beliefs. So I could see why you default to "Walls were built to keep a certain religious faction out." Partially true, but lacking a great deal of context.
You really don't like Jews, do you?
Actually I do.
One of my friends is a Jew.
What I don't like is denial of what God actually taught the Jews. When we read Kings (rather than Chronicles) we find that the Jews disobeyed God when they asked for a temple and a king. God says something about not needing a house built with human hands to the former, and mentions all the ways a king will oppress them to the latter. Yet over and over again, they hardened their hearts. Enough worship of King David and Herod's Temple. David was a fallible man who is guilty of adultery. Anyone else would be stoned to death by the laws of the time.
The Temple was a monstrous structure, which after falling, they ceased all Passover sacrifice. This is good, because Jesus is the Paschal sacrifice, but it's also in disobedience to their own command to keep the Passover. That is, post-Temple, no Jews have been righteous according to the law. But while the Temple was around, bloody atonement rituals were done day after day. Lepers were excluded, the widows and orphans were defrauded by claims that donating money to the Temple was donating to God. Does God have use for money?
No, God wants justice and mercy. Mercy to outcasts, orphans, the sick, the lonely, the possessed of psychological disorders.
-
. But while the Temple was around, bloody atonement rituals were done day after day. Lepers were excluded, the widows and orphans were defrauded by claims that donating money to the Temple was donating to God. Does God have use for money?
No, God wants justice and mercy. Mercy to outcasts, orphans, the sick, the lonely, the possessed of psychological disorders.
Was bulmbas political affiliation mentioned?
-
No, God wants justice and mercy. Mercy to outcasts, orphans, the sick, the lonely, the possessed of psychological disorders.
Apparently that notion was lost during the Crusades/Inquisition/Conquistador conquests.
-
Ah yes, the Crusades.
People love to pull out that little gem. A 90-year-end against people who have actively been trying to kill Christians and Jews for 14 centuries.
One where the Christians actually helped take back Israel from the Muslims, and in fact opened the Eastern Gate (the very one Jesus ride through) until it was closed again by Muslims when they reconquested.
Were there Christians who went too far? You bet! But was it anywhere near Muslim jihads? It was 1/14 as bad. And they are STILL fighting Jews and Christians.
-
persians vs israelites?
jacob probably shoudlnt've taken esau's blessing then...
USA evangelical christians trying to trigger the apocolypse are the only reason (and $$$) they're pushing for trump and co to support israel
-
Ah yes, the Crusades.
People love to pull out that little gem. A 90-year-end against people who have actively been trying to kill Christians and Jews for 14 centuries.
One where the Christians actually helped take back Israel from the Muslims, and in fact opened the Eastern Gate (the very one Jesus ride through) until it was closed again by Muslims when they reconquested.
Were there Christians who went too far? You bet! But was it anywhere near Muslim jihads? It was 1/14 as bad. And they are STILL fighting Jews and Christians.
Which is why I think both religions are garbage, not to mention their homophobia and misogyny.
Jesus is flipping in his grave.
Regards
DL
-
Ah yes, the Crusades.
People love to pull out that little gem. A 90-year-end against people who have actively been trying to kill Christians and Jews for 14 centuries.
One where the Christians actually helped take back Israel from the Muslims, and in fact opened the Eastern Gate (the very one Jesus ride through) until it was closed again by Muslims when they reconquested.
Were there Christians who went too far? You bet! But was it anywhere near Muslim jihads? It was 1/14 as bad. And they are STILL fighting Jews and Christians.
Which is why I think both religions are garbage, not to mention their homophobia and misogyny.
Jesus is flipping in his grave.
Regards
DL
The Jews are always blamed for everything.
Regards
D(ick)L(icker)
-
Ah yes, the Crusades.
People love to pull out that little gem. A 90-year-end against people who have actively been trying to kill Christians and Jews for 14 centuries.
One where the Christians actually helped take back Israel from the Muslims, and in fact opened the Eastern Gate (the very one Jesus ride through) until it was closed again by Muslims when they reconquested.
Were there Christians who went too far? You bet! But was it anywhere near Muslim jihads? It was 1/14 as bad. And they are STILL fighting Jews and Christians.
Which is why I think both religions are garbage, not to mention their homophobia and misogyny.
Jesus is flipping in his grave.
Regards
DL
The Jews are always blamed for everything.
Regards
D(ick)L(icker)
Yes.
But I blame thing more on the impaired minds who believe in a real supernatural realm and God.
That kind of garbage is the root of inquisitions and jihads and most of the evils this world has had to endure.
Seems we are all mentally impaired.
All but me that is.
Not sure about many here.
Regards
DL
-
Ah yes, the Crusades.
As Gnostic pointed out it seems that all these religions aren't really adhering to what you think God wants. In fact, they are rather bloodthirsty.
If these religions are right, it seems that God wants bigotry, war, carnage, and suffering.
-
Ah yes, the Crusades.
As Gnostic pointed out it seems that all these religions aren't really adhering to what you think God wants. In fact, they are rather bloodthirsty.
If these religions are right, it seems that God wants bigotry, war, carnage, and suffering.
We all want that as a steppingstone to fame and the security of leadership.
We are genetically programmed to want to rule the world, in this world and the next, should it exist.
Our love of war, as the epitome of our love of drama, cannot help but be expressed to it's worst form, when the tribe gets the war bug.
Religions that promote homophobia and misogyny are the root of our love of war and drama.
End them and peace will be worldwide.
Better yet, make them go Gnostic Christian.
It is better than all other theologies and ideologies.
Regards
DL
-
Ah yes, the Crusades.
As Gnostic pointed out it seems that all these religions aren't really adhering to what you think God wants. In fact, they are rather bloodthirsty.
If these religions are right, it seems that God wants bigotry, war, carnage, and suffering.
You didn't even bother to read, did you.
So now we're gonna watch a video.
The short version was that Christianity has a lapse in mercy based mainly around facing certain death and watching the Jews get attacked too. Btw, there some online theorists that say the real Jews nowadays are all dead. They became Samaritans or Muslims (or died), and those claiming to be Jews now are racial impostors (Europeans from the Khazars that converted and developed a racial identity). "From these stones, God can raise up children for Abraham." So yeah, this is what happens when you cooperate with someone who wants you dead.
No, God doesn't demand violence. The Crusades went down not because of bloodlust but because Muslims were creeping in from the east and west. In particular, the Hagia Sophia had been taken over. This was the jewel of Christian society, and it was akin to having a statue of Venus in your yard that a neighbor ran over with his car, and while it was sideways, proceeded to get his... sex juices all over it.
Does God demand violence? No, but there are certain things that are antagonistic and get a response.
That you blame the one and excuse the other shows your massively screwed up mindset.
-
Jesus! you know fuck all!
The Hagia Sophia became a mosque in 1453, after a hundred years of being christian, it was actually sacked by the "christian" crusaders in the 4th crusade.
-
No, God doesn't demand violence.
Wow.
Reading comprehension my friend.
Can't read? Watch. Learn.
https://vimeo.com/7038401
Regards
DL
-
Ah yes, the Crusades.
As Gnostic pointed out it seems that all these religions aren't really adhering to what you think God wants. In fact, they are rather bloodthirsty.
If these religions are right, it seems that God wants bigotry, war, carnage, and suffering.
You didn't even bother to read, did you.
So now we're gonna watch a video.
The short version was that Christianity has a lapse in mercy based mainly around facing certain death and watching the Jews get attacked too. Btw, there some online theorists that say the real Jews nowadays are all dead. They became Samaritans or Muslims (or died), and those claiming to be Jews now are racial impostors (Europeans from the Khazars that converted and developed a racial identity). "From these stones, God can raise up children for Abraham." So yeah, this is what happens when you cooperate with someone who wants you dead.
No, God doesn't demand violence. The Crusades went down not because of bloodlust but because Muslims were creeping in from the east and west. In particular, the Hagia Sophia had been taken over. This was the jewel of Christian society, and it was akin to having a statue of Venus in your yard that a neighbor ran over with his car, and while it was sideways, proceeded to get his... sex juices all over it.
Does God demand violence? No, but there are certain things that are antagonistic and get a response.
That you blame the one and excuse the other shows your massively screwed up mindset.
Christians blamed Jews for killing Jesus when they didn't.
This was only dropped by the church around 1965 but Jews are still blamed for everything that happens in the world.
-
Christians blamed Jews for killing Jesus when they didn't.
Some Christians.
Not the Christians who read the bible and read where the Jews take Jesus' death upon their heads, so as to take advantage of Jesus' suicide, should the old messianic myths be true.
The Jews were giving Jesus what he desperately wanted.
You are partially correct, but have ignored the wishes of Jesus.
Regardless, according to Jesus, there is no Jew or Gentile etc.
To Jesus, all souls were equal.
Regards
DL
-
Christians blamed Jews for killing Jesus when they didn't.
Some Christians.
Not the Christians who read the bible and read where the Jews take Jesus' death upon their heads, so as to take advantage of Jesus' suicide, should the old messianic myths be true.
The Jews were giving Jesus what he desperately wanted.
You are partially correct, but have ignored the wishes of Jesus.
Regardless, according to Jesus, there is no Jew or Gentile etc.
To Jesus, all souls were equal.
Regards
DL
You see? Religion messes with the world, it makes people sacrifice others to please God, marry a 12 year old and fuck her, and many more.
It's like "my imaginary friend is better than your imaginary friend" basically.
-
Christians blamed Jews for killing Jesus when they didn't.
Some Christians.
Not the Christians who read the bible and read where the Jews take Jesus' death upon their heads, so as to take advantage of Jesus' suicide, should the old messianic myths be true.
The Jews were giving Jesus what he desperately wanted.
You are partially correct, but have ignored the wishes of Jesus.
Regardless, according to Jesus, there is no Jew or Gentile etc.
To Jesus, all souls were equal.
Regards
DL
You see? Religion messes with the world, it makes people sacrifice others to please God, marry a 12 year old and fuck her, and many more.
It's like "my imaginary friend is better than your imaginary friend" basically.
I agree, but if it were different and no religious tribes ever formed, the political or other social groups, all tribes to me, we would have ended with the same basic history.
I just think it is a shame that the religious cannot be chastised and educated as to right teachings in a more, in their face, way.
Their garbage, we have suffered long enough.
Give me a place to stand, and we will bring the garbage gods religions to their knees, just with the moral truth.
Regards
DL
-
Christians blamed Jews for killing Jesus when they didn't.
Some Christians.
Not the Christians who read the bible and read where the Jews take Jesus' death upon their heads, so as to take advantage of Jesus' suicide, should the old messianic myths be true.
The Jews were giving Jesus what he desperately wanted.
You are partially correct, but have ignored the wishes of Jesus.
Regardless, according to Jesus, there is no Jew or Gentile etc.
To Jesus, all souls were equal.
Regards
DL
You see? Religion messes with the world, it makes people sacrifice others to please God, marry a 12 year old and fuck her, and many more.
It's like "my imaginary friend is better than your imaginary friend" basically.
She was six. Most religions are not as dysfunctional as Islam. And here's the more important thing. Religion, in general, is an antidote to what came before.
(https://carm.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/wars-pie-chart.jpg.webp)
Reading between the lines in Noah, there were global wars, there was pollution, there was misuse of the Earth. Non-religion is the number one cause of violence.
https://carm.org/atheism/the-myth-that-religion-is-the-1-cause-of-war/
-
Christians blamed Jews for killing Jesus when they didn't.
Some Christians.
Not the Christians who read the bible and read where the Jews take Jesus' death upon their heads, so as to take advantage of Jesus' suicide, should the old messianic myths be true.
The Jews were giving Jesus what he desperately wanted.
You are partially correct, but have ignored the wishes of Jesus.
Regardless, according to Jesus, there is no Jew or Gentile etc.
To Jesus, all souls were equal.
Regards
DL
You see? Religion messes with the world, it makes people sacrifice others to please God, marry a 12 year old and fuck her, and many more.
It's like "my imaginary friend is better than your imaginary friend" basically.
She was six. Most religions are not as dysfunctional as Islam. And here's the more important thing. Religion, in general, is an antidote to what came before.
(https://carm.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/wars-pie-chart.jpg.webp)
Reading between the lines in Noah, there were global wars, there was pollution, there was misuse of the Earth. Non-religion is the number one cause of violence.
https://carm.org/atheism/the-myth-that-religion-is-the-1-cause-of-war/
Where do you get your facts and stats Bud?
As to Noah.
Ever wonder why Yahweh destroyed us because his sons of God could not keep their God given dicks is their pants?
Yahweh was sure keen on murdering his own grand children.
Great Father figure.
Ask Jesus. He would curse Yahweh.
Regards
DL
-
What would one expect regarding a piechart produced by Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry? Their tagline:
Equipping Christians, defending the faith, and reaching the lost for Jesus.
It's all in how you define it. It's pretty easy to point to most wars being about money, territory, resources, power. But many, many conflicts have deeply religious undertones. WWII. The Bolshevik revolution to name two. So yeah, not all wars, conflicts, were/are overtly "religious", but many had religion as an undercurrent.
-
rallying people behind "i want to become richer" is a tough one.
far easier to other the other and say "we must kill the infidel!"
"we are the chosen ones!"
"for freedom!"
"in the name of God!"
can't find the video, but here's the words:
3rd rock from the sun
[School basketball team huddled in prayer] Coach Strickland: Dear Lord, if it be within your great wisdom and mercy, please grant us the strength and courage to beat the hell out of the Central High Muskrats. And if...
Tommy Solomon: Uh, excuse me, Coach?
Coach Strickland: We're in the middle of a prayer, Solomon.
Tommy: Yeah, but do you think we should be bothering God over a basketball game?
Coach Strickland: Well, this is important!
Tommy: But the other team's praying too. [Everyone looks at the other team] Oh, so our God is stronger than their God?
Coach Strickland: There's only one God, Solomon.
Tommy: Ah. Well, am I the only one seeing a conflict of interest here?
Coach Strickland: Yes!
-
Christians blamed Jews for killing Jesus when they didn't.
Some Christians.
Not the Christians who read the bible and read where the Jews take Jesus' death upon their heads, so as to take advantage of Jesus' suicide, should the old messianic myths be true.
The Jews were giving Jesus what he desperately wanted.
You are partially correct, but have ignored the wishes of Jesus.
Regardless, according to Jesus, there is no Jew or Gentile etc.
To Jesus, all souls were equal.
Regards
DL
You see? Religion messes with the world, it makes people sacrifice others to please God, marry a 12 year old and fuck her, and many more.
It's like "my imaginary friend is better than your imaginary friend" basically.
She was six. Most religions are not as dysfunctional as Islam. And here's the more important thing. Religion, in general, is an antidote to what came before.
(https://carm.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/wars-pie-chart.jpg.webp)
Reading between the lines in Noah, there were global wars, there was pollution, there was misuse of the Earth. Non-religion is the number one cause of violence.
https://carm.org/atheism/the-myth-that-religion-is-the-1-cause-of-war/
Where do you get your facts and stats Bud?
Written by atheists.
Even if we don't go by Christ-favored articles like CARM, it is very easy to point out that North Korea is run by someone who prohibits any religion but state worship. Same for Pol Pot. Same for a lot of commie countries. We can look up the number of dead bodies Stalin and lime left behind. Meanwhile in Christian countries today, holy wars are a very rare occurrence, and ppl get to live their lives. In big state countries, you vote for the wrong leader, you get to die. You get to die if some thug thinks you own too much property. You get to die if the union thinks you working too hard makes everyone look bad, or if you defy the union and be a scab.
Non-Religious Dictator Lives Lost
Joseph Stalin – 42,672,000
Mao Zedong – 37,828,000
Adolf Hitler – 20,946,000
Chiang Kai-shek – 10,214,000
Vladimir Lenin – 4,017,000
Hideki Tojo – 3,990,000
Pol Pot – 2,397,000
They like to claim Hitler was religious. Actually, he used an angry mob of Christians by telling them what they wanted to hear. Neither he nor his followers were religious. They were pink thugs, most of which believed in a weird mix of Wagner secular Norse culture, superstition, veganism, and Darwin with heavy amounts of ubermensch thrown in from Nietzsche. None of this is Christian. It's fake cult secularism.
As to Noah.
Ever wonder why Yahweh destroyed us because his sons of God could not keep their God given dicks is their pants?
Yahweh was sure keen on murdering his own grand children.
Great Father figure.
Ask Jesus. He would curse Yahweh.
But Jesus didn't curse Yahweh
"We were there together. Love always leaves a mark"
What part of "I and the Father are one" don't you understand? What the Son suffered, the Father suffered.
-
No, God doesn't demand violence. The Crusades went down not because of bloodlust but because Muslims were creeping in from the east and west. In particular, the Hagia Sophia had been taken over. This was the jewel of Christian society, and it was akin to having a statue of Venus in your yard that a neighbor ran over with his car, and while it was sideways, proceeded to get his... sex juices all over it.
Lordy, your history is all over the place. The first crusade was in 1096 and Hagia Sophia was taken (along with the rest of what was then Constantinople) by the Ottomans in 1453 - about 350 years later. I hate to break it to you and you might want to take a seat before you hear the news, but Hagia Sophia is still in Muslim hands and Constantinople is called Istanbul now.
Also when the Ottomans actually did besiege Constantinople, the rest of Christendom (with a few small expectations) basically did fuck all.
-
Really?
An all-powerful omni-everything God can suffer?
How stupid can you think?
Regards
DL
-
Those omni-things were come up with by third party people. None of them were helpful in any serious theology.
God is omnipotent? Chariots of iron.
Omniscient? God is occasionally surprised in the Bible.
Omnipresent? Surely you don't believe this, as you think God abandoned you and can probably make several times when God seemed nowhere to be found.
Omnibenevolent? This was NEVER part of the original three, but something come up with in order to discredit why God allows evil. But Isaiah 45:7 days that God is in charge of light and darkness.
-
GCB (Gnositic Christian bishop) is right.
A lot of wars were caused by religion.
The crusades were one.
-
I think the Wars of Religion might be as well, though that's controversial.
-
An all-powerful omni-everything God can suffer?
Okay I've been sucked in.
Actually this is a fascinating conundrum. To hop over into the classic philosophical debates for a second:
Morality
There's a line of argumentation that goes that the notion of 'goodness' has no objective meaning without reference to God - that is, when we say that something is morally good, we are saying it is in line with God's will or God's nature. Ergo, there is no good trait one can possess that is not also possessed by God - if this wasn't the case, one could suppose a being more morally perfect than God, which would be a contradiction.
This is a potted version of the argument, but you're probably familiar enough with it - that all goodness is defined with reference to God.
Virtue
Then, over on the problem of evil side, one of the arguments for why evil is allowed, is that there are some so-called virtues that can only exist if evil does. For example, we consider courage to be a virtue, but definitionally courage requires you to feel fear/have something to be afraid of. If God prizes these virtues, then God would make a world that contains evil, in order to allow for higher order goods.
But these two arguments together do get you to the point that, well, if we have a notion of courage being good, does that mean it's contained within God's nature? And if so, does that mean God is capable of feeling fear? Because he would need to be, according to virtue ethics, to embody courage. So the idea of God being able to suffer, and through that embody higher goods, is not an unfounded one, philosophically speaking. One can make a coherent argument that an omnibenevolent God would need to suffer, else certain virtues would not be contained within.
Like, you're free to reject virtue ethics, it's not iron-clad - but this isn't inherently an absurd proposition.
-
An all-powerful omni-everything God can suffer?
Okay I've been sucked in.
Actually this is a fascinating conundrum. To hop over into the classic philosophical debates for a second:
Morality
There's a line of argumentation that goes that the notion of 'goodness' has no objective meaning without reference to God - that is, when we say that something is morally good, we are saying it is in line with God's will or God's nature. Ergo, there is no good trait one can possess that is not also possessed by God - if this wasn't the case, one could suppose a being more morally perfect than God, which would be a contradiction.
This is a potted version of the argument, but you're probably familiar enough with it - that all goodness is defined with reference to God.
Virtue
Then, over on the problem of evil side, one of the arguments for why evil is allowed, is that there are some so-called virtues that can only exist if evil does. For example, we consider courage to be a virtue, but definitionally courage requires you to feel fear/have something to be afraid of. If God prizes these virtues, then God would make a world that contains evil, in order to allow for higher order goods.
But these two arguments together do get you to the point that, well, if we have a notion of courage being good, does that mean it's contained within God's nature? And if so, does that mean God is capable of feeling fear? Because he would need to be, according to virtue ethics, to embody courage. So the idea of God being able to suffer, and through that embody higher goods, is not an unfounded one, philosophically speaking. One can make a coherent argument that an omnibenevolent God would need to suffer, else certain virtues would not be contained within.
Like, you're free to reject virtue ethics, it's not iron-clad - but this isn't inherently an absurd proposition.
Mr Slime, it's even more complicated than that.
The difference between Judaism, Christianity, and Islam is whether you have a legal morality (that is, whether morality is about following the law), interpersonal morality (treat others as you would be treated), or fiat morality (morality is what Muhammad says it is, subject to abrogation).
It isn't that morality is subjective (kept we're into wishy-wasn't territory) but that there are (at least) three moral systems.
Virtue, on the other hand is straightforward. If you help a person regardless of his station, whether someone tells you he is a mass murderer or not, or whether he can pay you, this is virtue. It is objective kindness towards people, distinct from morality. The man might go on to kill more people, but virtue is about how you help that person. Others might argue that virtue is about end result, and helping murderers is not virtuous, but regardless virtue is not morality.
-
---that all goodness is defined with reference to God.
Classic definition.
God is to be the epitome of both good and evil. unless you wish to put a name above his.
That would mean the killing is better than curing.
Do you see that killing instead of curing, as the better moral path?
Regards
DL
-
Mr Slime, it's even more complicated than that.
The difference between Judaism, Christianity, and Islam is whether you have a legal morality (that is, whether morality is about following the law), interpersonal morality (treat others as you would be treated), or fiat morality (morality is what Muhammad says it is, subject to abrogation).
It isn't that morality is subjective (kept we're into wishy-wasn't territory) but that there are (at least) three moral systems.
Virtue, on the other hand is straightforward. If you help a person regardless of his station, whether someone tells you he is a mass murderer or not, or whether he can pay you, this is virtue. It is objective kindness towards people, distinct from morality. The man might go on to kill more people, but virtue is about how you help that person. Others might argue that virtue is about end result, and helping murderers is not virtuous, but regardless virtue is not morality.
Ms Slime, please, Mr Slime is my father.
Ooh, I so want to go overboard into deconstructing morality, but that's definitely getting too far afield.
One note would be legal morality. Typically, from a theistic standpoint God-given laws would necessarily transcend manmade ones, so it ends up conflated with fiat. In a less divine-command-oriented framework, legal morality tends to be more instrumental than anything - you follow the law to keep society running or out of self-preservation, and defy the law if you find it to be immoral, as countries can conflict on some issues - so it tends to fill a very different niche.
I think a lot of the time words get used in different ways, especially when we start getting to philosophical contexts. Virtue ethics are often used in the context of the cliche "Why does God allow evil?" to say that evil is allowed, so that in turn virtues can be allowed - good traits that can only exist in response to evil.
To take your example of kindness, I'd argue that being kind to someone is a moral act (certainly under interpersonal morality, and often under fiat morality), but then there are situations where it is easier than others. Your example of a murderer would be one - the cliche to 'love your enemies' is by some to be considered moral, but in turn can only be achieved if there is a notion of an enemy, and by extension moral evil. If we value the ability to love an enemy, we must value in turn the ability to hate and so the ability to have an enemy to love.
More generally, virtue certainly has its own distinct meaning, but it is by many people in philosophical circles used to define how we understand morality - it would often fall in the category of 'interpersonal morality,' as you put it, engaging with others in a way with grace, but it has an overlap with 'fiat morality,' if a God claims 'love thy neighbour' for the cliche, then untangling what 'love' means in that context - blind support? Constructive criticism? Giving freedom and enabling bad decisions, or taking control and keeping safe? - is crucial to the whole endeavour. That's where virtue comes in.
-
---that all goodness is defined with reference to God.
Classic definition.
God is to be the epitome of both good and evil. unless you wish to put a name above his.
That would mean the killing is better than curing.
Do you see that killing instead of curing, as the better moral path?
Regards
DL
Epitome of both good and evil is always going to be dubious. The argument typically goes that God cannot have contradictory traits - there's no square circle, or married bachelor etc. If you want to get into the grounds of logical contradictions being allowable, it's fine if we're talking a God that transcends logic, but then necessarily we're in territory where we can't talk about anything.
So, if God has an opinion on, say, killing unprovoked in some specific context, then that opinion will be either good or bad. It can't be both simultaneously - that gets us to logical contradiction.
So, with respect to this argument, goodness being defined with reference to God's nature, gives as evil defined by the negation/going against, with no need to define a higher being. (Honestly, more than anything this ends up exposing issues with non-axiomatic moral systems and leaving the moral argument in tatters, but I'm fine if you want to go that way)
-
---that all goodness is defined with reference to God.
Classic definition.
God is to be the epitome of both good and evil. unless you wish to put a name above his.
That would mean the killing is better than curing.
Do you see that killing instead of curing, as the better moral path?
Regards
DL
Epitome of both good and evil is always going to be dubious.
Yes, but we have to start somewhere.
If a supernatural God is to be our highest authority, or a natural man, as reality shows is reality, we have to have him or her write the tree of knowledge of good and evil.
Whoever it is will set the standards.
Regards
DL
-
Yes, but we have to start somewhere.
If a supernatural God is to be our highest authority, or a natural man, as reality shows is reality, we have to have him or her write the tree of knowledge of good and evil.
Whoever it is will set the standards.
Regards
DL
You're not going to get me defending the argument from morality, establishing objective-sans-axiom morality seems like a fool's errand.
But with respect to the notion of a moral system completely grounded in a deity, which seems to be the common point of view, good would be that which is contained in that deity's nature, and evil that which is not - you can flip it if you want, the gnostic demiurge as the definition of evil and thus anything against its will as a good act, but you can't have a being simultaneously completely evil and completely good unless we're getting to 'transcends logic.' It would need to have two contrary opinions simultaneously. You can define evil as 'reducing good' or good as 'reducing evil' but either way, you can define one from an entity that only exhibits the other, in theory.
Though I guess you get onto the question of if morality is symmetrical, if good 'exists' in the same way evil 'exists' which is definitely something people bicker over, and wow I'm getting far afield, sorry. Fun to unpack all this!
But all that aside, it's just meant to say that the notion of a triple-omni deity, for all that concept's headaches, saying that such a God can suffer is a coherent stance if it is supposed to possess virtuous traits like courage and temperance.
-
Yes, but we have to start somewhere.
If a supernatural God is to be our highest authority, or a natural man, as reality shows is reality, we have to have him or her write the tree of knowledge of good and evil.
Whoever it is will set the standards.
Regards
DL
You're not going to get me defending the argument from morality, establishing objective-sans-axiom morality seems like a fool's errand.
But with respect to the notion of a moral system completely grounded in a deity, which seems to be the common point of view, good would be that which is contained in that deity's nature, and evil that which is not - you can flip it if you want, the gnostic demiurge as the definition of evil and thus anything against its will as a good act, but you can't have a being simultaneously completely evil and completely good unless we're getting to 'transcends logic.' It would need to have two contrary opinions simultaneously. You can define evil as 'reducing good' or good as 'reducing evil' but either way, you can define one from an entity that only exhibits the other, in theory.
Though I guess you get onto the question of if morality is symmetrical, if good 'exists' in the same way evil 'exists' which is definitely something people bicker over, and wow I'm getting far afield, sorry. Fun to unpack all this!
But all that aside, it's just meant to say that the notion of a triple-omni deity, for all that concept's headaches, saying that such a God can suffer is a coherent stance if it is supposed to possess virtuous traits like courage and temperance.
First. It is an assumption based on belief in the supernatural that has never been shown to exist.
Entities suffer. Not imaginary ones.
" good would be that which is contained in that deity's nature, and evil that which is not -"
??
You do not believe in the duality of God or reality then.
You ignore both the bible and the First Commandment.
We all beat the crap out of God as we can reproduce while he cannot, but I did not know a human could be more evil than your God.
Who do you name above Yahweh for evil?
Regards
DL
-
First. It is an assumption based on belief in the supernatural that has never been shown to exist.
Entities suffer. Not imaginary ones.
" good would be that which is contained in that deity's nature, and evil that which is not -"
??
You do not believe in the duality of God or reality then.
You ignore both the bible and the First Commandment.
We all beat the crap out of God as we can reproduce while he cannot, but I did not know a human could be more evil than your God.
Who do you name above Yahweh for evil?
Regards
DL
Ah, okay, we've been talking at cross-purposes for a bit. I'm certainly not Christian, just interested in the philosophy of this issue - hence the 'Can God suffer?' question being a fun conundrum. If you want my personal beliefs, you're going to get criticism of grounding morality in a God and inherent concerns with transcendental entities for starters - but, from the more mainstream perspective, God is treated as the grounding of morality, hence using it for the illustration.
I will say, I disagree with the characterisation of 'If God does not contain evil, then an evil entity is above God.' The continuation of that would be, if we suppose such an evil entity, "This evil entity does not contain good traits, so something must be above it," and you end up in an infinitely long ladder of successive deities.
"God cannot do evil," is rarely taken to be a critique of omnipotence - it's the same as "God cannot create a stone so heavy that he cannot lift," "God cannot create a square circle," an all-good being cannot do bad else we could suppose a more good being. God does not need to be able to do the logically contradictory - though, even if we allow for that, definitionally nothing God does can be a contradiction as we lose the ability to apply logic.
Arguing for something to be 'above God' in terms of evil, is the same as arguing something can be 'above God' in terms of weakness. If God is taken to be omni- then definitionally, everything is more evil, more weak, more stupid than said God.
-
First. It is an assumption based on belief in the supernatural that has never been shown to exist.
Entities suffer. Not imaginary ones.
" good would be that which is contained in that deity's nature, and evil that which is not -"
??
You do not believe in the duality of God or reality then.
You ignore both the bible and the First Commandment.
We all beat the crap out of God as we can reproduce while he cannot, but I did not know a human could be more evil than your God.
Who do you name above Yahweh for evil?
Regards
DL
Ah, okay, we've been talking at cross-purposes for a bit. I'm certainly not Christian, just interested in the philosophy of this issue - hence the 'Can God suffer?' question being a fun conundrum. If you want my personal beliefs, you're going to get criticism of grounding morality in a God and inherent concerns with transcendental entities for starters - but, from the more mainstream perspective, God is treated as the grounding of morality, hence using it for the illustration.
I will say, I disagree with the characterisation of 'If God does not contain evil, then an evil entity is above God.' The continuation of that would be, if we suppose such an evil entity, "This evil entity does not contain good traits, so something must be above it," and you end up in an infinitely long ladder of successive deities.
"God cannot do evil," is rarely taken to be a critique of omnipotence - it's the same as "God cannot create a stone so heavy that he cannot lift," "God cannot create a square circle," an all-good being cannot do bad else we could suppose a more good being. God does not need to be able to do the logically contradictory - though, even if we allow for that, definitionally nothing God does can be a contradiction as we lose the ability to apply logic.
Arguing for something to be 'above God' in terms of evil, is the same as arguing something can be 'above God' in terms of weakness. If God is taken to be omni- then definitionally, everything is more evil, more weak, more stupid than said God.
Apologies for my kneejerk reaction, and yes, I was giving thoughts to Christian perspective.
Grounding morality in a God is the last thing I would recommend as well.
We called Yahweh a vile demiurge way back when.
I am trying to convert Christians who have yet to develop a moral sense.
Easy that, except when they ignore the scriptures. The majority.
Regards
DL
-
guns don't kill people, people kill people.
Taxes aren't stealing, people steal.
gov't isn't corrupt, people are corrupt.
the system isn't racist, people are racist.
God doesn't kill people, people kill people.
which common the key item (hint - it isn't guns, taxes, or God god yaweh Allah Buddah)
-
guns don't kill people, people kill people.
Taxes aren't stealing, people steal.
gov't isn't corrupt, people are corrupt.
the system isn't racist, people are racist.
God doesn't kill people, people kill people.
which common the key item (hint - it isn't guns, taxes, or God god yaweh Allah Buddah)
Mostly correct. But the government is made up of people. So really the people in government steal and are corrupt.
-
Uh... yes that was my point
People.
H9lyshit
Man youre really...
Wow
Really?
-
First. It is an assumption based on belief in the supernatural that has never been shown to exist.
Entities suffer. Not imaginary ones.
" good would be that which is contained in that deity's nature, and evil that which is not -"
??
You do not believe in the duality of God or reality then.
You ignore both the bible and the First Commandment.
We all beat the crap out of God as we can reproduce while he cannot, but I did not know a human could be more evil than your God.
Who do you name above Yahweh for evil?
Regards
DL
Ah, okay, we've been talking at cross-purposes for a bit. I'm certainly not Christian, just interested in the philosophy of this issue - hence the 'Can God suffer?' question being a fun conundrum. If you want my personal beliefs, you're going to get criticism of grounding morality in a God and inherent concerns with transcendental entities for starters - but, from the more mainstream perspective, God is treated as the grounding of morality, hence using it for the illustration.
I will say, I disagree with the characterisation of 'If God does not contain evil, then an evil entity is above God.' The continuation of that would be, if we suppose such an evil entity, "This evil entity does not contain good traits, so something must be above it," and you end up in an infinitely long ladder of successive deities.
"God cannot do evil," is rarely taken to be a critique of omnipotence - it's the same as "God cannot create a stone so heavy that he cannot lift," "God cannot create a square circle," an all-good being cannot do bad else we could suppose a more good being. God does not need to be able to do the logically contradictory - though, even if we allow for that, definitionally nothing God does can be a contradiction as we lose the ability to apply logic.
Arguing for something to be 'above God' in terms of evil, is the same as arguing something can be 'above God' in terms of weakness. If God is taken to be omni- then definitionally, everything is more evil, more weak, more stupid than said God.
Apologies for my kneejerk reaction, and yes, I was giving thoughts to Christian perspective.
Grounding morality in a God is the last thing I would recommend as well.
We called Yahweh a vile demiurge way back when.
I am trying to convert Christians who have yet to develop a moral sense.
Easy that, except when they ignore the scriptures. The majority.
Regards
DL
If you want to talk about scripture I'd be happy to teach you.
-
---that all goodness is defined with reference to God.
Classic definition.
God is to be the epitome of both good and evil. unless you wish to put a name above his.
That would mean the killing is better than curing.
Do you see that killing instead of curing, as the better moral path?
Regards
DL
Epitome of both good and evil is always going to be dubious. The argument typically goes that God cannot have contradictory traits - there's no square circle, or married bachelor etc. If you want to get into the grounds of logical contradictions being allowable, it's fine if we're talking a God that transcends logic, but then necessarily we're in territory where we can't talk about anything.
So, if God has an opinion on, say, killing unprovoked in some specific context, then that opinion will be either good or bad. It can't be both simultaneously - that gets us to logical contradiction.
So, with respect to this argument, goodness being defined with reference to God's nature, gives as evil defined by the negation/going against, with no need to define a higher being. (Honestly, more than anything this ends up exposing issues with non-axiomatic moral systems and leaving the moral argument in tatters, but I'm fine if you want to go that way)
But God can have complementary traits.
(https://www.whats-your-sign.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/YinYang5.jpg)
The Two teams Ching mentions Heaven & Earth (that is, God) does not take sides. It also mentions that the way of heaven is to help and not harm. That is, these ppl who focus on that God kills and thinks that this is the point, there is something wrong with you, not with God. All things, including what we call evil are done for balance and overall good.
Sun is very good for the growth of plants, and rain is unpleasant. But a Christian pastor himself told me that you can't have sin all the time or you have a desert. If God didn't have our physical bodies die of age, not only would there be no afterlife but we'd be stuck in misery on this Earth.
-
First. It is an assumption based on belief in the supernatural that has never been shown to exist.
Entities suffer. Not imaginary ones.
" good would be that which is contained in that deity's nature, and evil that which is not -"
??
You do not believe in the duality of God or reality then.
You ignore both the bible and the First Commandment.
We all beat the crap out of God as we can reproduce while he cannot, but I did not know a human could be more evil than your God.
Who do you name above Yahweh for evil?
Regards
DL
Ah, okay, we've been talking at cross-purposes for a bit. I'm certainly not Christian, just interested in the philosophy of this issue - hence the 'Can God suffer?' question being a fun conundrum. If you want my personal beliefs, you're going to get criticism of grounding morality in a God and inherent concerns with transcendental entities for starters - but, from the more mainstream perspective, God is treated as the grounding of morality, hence using it for the illustration.
I will say, I disagree with the characterisation of 'If God does not contain evil, then an evil entity is above God.' The continuation of that would be, if we suppose such an evil entity, "This evil entity does not contain good traits, so something must be above it," and you end up in an infinitely long ladder of successive deities.
"God cannot do evil," is rarely taken to be a critique of omnipotence - it's the same as "God cannot create a stone so heavy that he cannot lift," "God cannot create a square circle," an all-good being cannot do bad else we could suppose a more good being. God does not need to be able to do the logically contradictory - though, even if we allow for that, definitionally nothing God does can be a contradiction as we lose the ability to apply logic.
Arguing for something to be 'above God' in terms of evil, is the same as arguing something can be 'above God' in terms of weakness. If God is taken to be omni- then definitionally, everything is more evil, more weak, more stupid than said God.
Apologies for my kneejerk reaction, and yes, I was giving thoughts to Christian perspective.
Grounding morality in a God is the last thing I would recommend as well.
We called Yahweh a vile demiurge way back when.
I am trying to convert Christians who have yet to develop a moral sense.
Easy that, except when they ignore the scriptures. The majority.
Regards
DL
If you want to talk about scripture I'd be happy to teach you.
Thanks.
Can you tell me what Jesus meant when he taught the following, as it relates to how immoral Christians are who would not step up to their own responsibilities?
Ezekiel 18:20 The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.
Deuteronomy 24:16 (ESV) "Fathers shall not be put to death because of their children, nor shall children be put to death because of their fathers. Each one shall be put to death for his own sin.
Regards
DL
-
---that all goodness is defined with reference to God.
Classic definition.
God is to be the epitome of both good and evil. unless you wish to put a name above his.
That would mean the killing is better than curing.
Do you see that killing instead of curing, as the better moral path?
Regards
DL
Epitome of both good and evil is always going to be dubious. The argument typically goes that God cannot have contradictory traits - there's no square circle, or married bachelor etc. If you want to get into the grounds of logical contradictions being allowable, it's fine if we're talking a God that transcends logic, but then necessarily we're in territory where we can't talk about anything.
So, if God has an opinion on, say, killing unprovoked in some specific context, then that opinion will be either good or bad. It can't be both simultaneously - that gets us to logical contradiction.
So, with respect to this argument, goodness being defined with reference to God's nature, gives as evil defined by the negation/going against, with no need to define a higher being. (Honestly, more than anything this ends up exposing issues with non-axiomatic moral systems and leaving the moral argument in tatters, but I'm fine if you want to go that way)
But God can have complementary traits.
(https://www.whats-your-sign.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/YinYang5.jpg)
The Two teams Ching mentions Heaven & Earth (that is, God) does not take sides. It also mentions that the way of heaven is to help and not harm. That is, these ppl who focus on that God kills and thinks that this is the point, there is something wrong with you, not with God. All things, including what we call evil are done for balance and overall good.
Sun is very good for the growth of plants, and rain is unpleasant. But a Christian pastor himself told me that you can't have sin all the time or you have a desert. If God didn't have our physical bodies die of age, not only would there be no afterlife but we'd be stuck in misery on this Earth.
Do you see that killing instead of curing, as the better moral path?
As to sin, we are both happy of our ability to sin, if I read you right and I infer that you would love to see our children do it as well.
As Christians sing, sin is a happy fault and necessary to God's plan.
Why they then complain of Adam's sinning is never discussed.
Regards
DL
-
If God didn't have our physical bodies die of age, not only would there be no afterlife but we'd be stuck in misery on this Earth.
He seemed to let a few go on long after their expiration dates.
Oldest people in the Bible:
10. Enoch – 365
9. Lamech – 777
8. Mahalalel – 895
7. Enos – 905
6. Kenan – 910
5. Seth – 912
4. Adam – 930
3. Noah – 950
2. Jared – 962
1. Methuselah – 969
-
They pleased God, and they seemed to enjoy their lives. If the wages of sin are death, these guys didn't earn much.
-
They pleased God, and they seemed to enjoy their lives. If the wages of sin are death, these guys didn't earn much.
In all of humanity, no one since these guys have been worthy enough to get God's ok to live longer than 100 and change years, let alone 300+? And why did God grant Noah more than Adam but less than Methuselah?
-
Noah had to live through a flood, I suspect. How long do you think you would need to round up two of every species on Earth, plus build a ship to hold them?
And I didn't say they were without sin.
-
Noah had to live through a flood, I suspect. How long do you think you would need to round up two of every species on Earth, plus build a ship to hold them?
And I didn't say they were without sin.
In all of humanity, no one since these guys have been worthy enough to get God's ok to live longer than 100 and change years, let alone 300+?
-
They pleased God,
So why did God punish them so harshly, and in fact, murdered A & E by neglect and locking away what would have kept them alive, the Tree of Life?
Regards
DL
-
Noah had to live through a flood, I suspect. How long do you think you would need to round up two of every species on Earth, plus build a ship to hold them?
And I didn't say they were without sin.
In all of humanity, no one since these guys have been worthy enough to get God's ok to live longer than 100 and change years, let alone 300+?
Indicating that the bible lies.
The intelligent have always known that.
Regards
DL
-
At one point after Noah, it was planned that life would reduce to 120 years. But there was a grace period before this happened, where some people were still born who lived long lives.
Snake Snake Snaaaaaake, kindly explain how whatever model of morality and understanding of the world you have is infinitely better.
Are you really as intelligent as you think?
“Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,” (Romans 1:22)
The difference between a myth and a falsehood is that a myth is a fiction written to convey ancient truths, while a falsehood is often presented as though it were the truth but nothing decent results from it.
The Bible is a myth. It gets stuff wrong. But what the Bible teaches to us is worth learning.
-
At one point after Noah, it was planned that life would reduce to 120 years.
At the start of Chapter 6 the Lord is explaining why He will bring a Flood upon the earth. Specifically, demonic forces have been interacting with human women in an effort to pollute the human race, which threatened the seed promise to bring a Messiah through a woman (see Gen 3)
In the first half of v.3 the Lord declares He cannot allow these dire circumstances (i.e., demons mating with women) to exist indefinitely, saying His Spirit will not strive with men forever. God would eventually act to correct this problem or else mankind itself would be threatened by the demons' actions. So in the second half of v.3, the Lord sets a limit on His patience. He declares mankind's existence on earth (under these circumstances) will be limited to 120 years. God was not speaking of a single person's lifespan but of the time until the flood would come. In 120 years, a flood would come and erase all life from the earth.
Notice in v.3 the Lord said that man's days "were numbered," referring to a coming judgment. Even today, we use a similar phrase to say that someone's end approaching (i.e., we say "his days are numbered."). This is what God meant in verse 3. Mankind's days on earth were numbered to 120 years, then the flood would come.
-
The intelligent have always known that.
The universe runs like clockwork and we struggle with everything we do and fall far short of perfection.
Tell us, oh wise one, how much smarter you are than he who made the trees to bear good fruit and seeds?
-
The intelligent have always known that.
The universe runs like clockwork and we struggle with everything we do and fall far short of perfection.
Tell us, oh wise one, how much smarter you are than he who made the trees to bear good fruit and seeds?
It seems that I have more faith in the quality of God's works than you do.
You even reject your bible that says that from the initial and eternal perfection of God, only perfection can come.
I will work harder to answer with you, but you would have to be able to argue against the Gnostic Christian view, and you cannot, unless you ignore science.
The Gnostic Christian reality.
Gnostic Christian Jesus said, "Those who seek should not stop seeking until they find. When they find, they will be disturbed. When they are disturbed, they will marvel, and will reign over all.
[And after they have reigned they will rest.]"
"If those who attract you say, 'See, the Kingdom is in the sky,' then the birds of the sky will precede you.
If they say to you, 'It is under the earth,' then the fish of the sea will precede you.
Rather, the Kingdom of God is inside of you, and it is outside of you.
[Those who] become acquainted with [themselves] will find it; [and when you] become acquainted with yourselves, [you will understand that] it is you who are the sons of the living Father.
But if you will not know yourselves, you dwell in poverty and it is you who are that poverty."
As you can see from that quote, if we see God's kingdom all around us and inside of us, we cannot think that the world is anything but evolving perfection. Most just don't see it and live in poverty. Let me try to make you see the world the way I do.
Here is a mind exercise. Tell me what you see when you look around. The best that can possibly be, given our past history, or an ugly and imperfect world?
Candide.
"It is demonstrable that things cannot be otherwise than as they are; for as all things have been created for some end, they must necessarily be created for the best end.”
That means that we live in the best of all possible worlds, because it is the only possible world, given all the conditions at hand and the history that got us here. That is an irrefutable statement given entropy and the anthropic principle.
Regards
DL
-
Do you think you can better understand God through logic rather than with Faith?
You're not quoting scripture.
This is not the best possible world for us. It is corrupt and fallen, despite our corruption you cannot deny the works of His perfect hands.
When I look around now I stand in awe of His glory, His beauty and His perfect plan. He has a perfect plan for you, if you'll let Him work on you. I promise, let go of your pride.
(https://i.postimg.cc/LsmbTV3w/Screenshot-20221211-083829-Gallery.jpg)
-
Do you think you can better understand God through logic rather than with Faith?
You're not quoting scripture.
If you're theistically inclined, then it seems to me scripture is at best secondhand. You can argue divine inspiration, but it still needed a mere human to put quill to paper, and countless more to copy it down. It seems more reasonable to me to look for the firsthand creation - the universe, your soul and all the abilities it possesses. Those seem to have a more immediate connection to a God than any scripture could possibly have, without any need to worry over how much was inspired and how much was added later.
So, yeah. I'd say if there is a God, logic is a far better tool to use. It's what we were given to understand the universe with, why would it be made to fail as soon as it mattered most? It and the universe ought be the truest scripture of all. Otherwise God would be deciding to lock understanding away behind literacy and accessibility.
I'm not going to claim to be a Gnostic Christian, nor to have much familiarity with the modern iteration, but there's value in alternate approaches.
-
You see value in alternative approaches because that is your personality type. We had a good talk about this in the 1+1=2 thread.
The Holy Spirit is the author of Scripture.
The beauty of everything gives testament to His perfect hands but we were also given His words through His prophets and His only begotten Son Jesus.
-
Do you think you can better understand God through logic rather than with Faith?
You're not quoting scripture.
This is not the best possible world for us. It is corrupt and fallen, despite our corruption you cannot deny the works of His perfect hands.
When I look around now I stand in awe of His glory, His beauty and His perfect plan. He has a perfect plan for you, if you'll let Him work on you. I promise, let go of your pride.
(https://i.postimg.cc/LsmbTV3w/Screenshot-20221211-083829-Gallery.jpg)
Do you think you can better understand God through faith, the belief in nothing, rather than with logic and reason?
If you understand God, explain his killing us instead of curing us.
If your God's plan is so perfect, why are you discriminating against the souls he created so perfectly?
Regards
DL
-
You see value in alternative approaches because that is your personality type. We had a good talk about this in the 1+1=2 thread.
The Holy Spirit is the author of Scripture.
The beauty of everything gives testament to His perfect hands but we were also given His words through His prophets and His only begotten Son Jesus.
Your God is less than a person as we can reproduce true and do not need settle for a half breed chimera half God.
Regards
DL
-
I'm not going to claim to be a Gnostic Christian, nor to have much familiarity with the modern iteration, but there's value in alternate approaches.
I wish the inquisitors and jihadists would start thinking in your better way.
Regards
DL
-
Noah had to live through a flood, I suspect. How long do you think you would need to round up two of every species on Earth, plus build a ship to hold them?
And I didn't say they were without sin.
In all of humanity, no one since these guys have been worthy enough to get God's ok to live longer than 100 and change years, let alone 300+?
For what purpose?
God most likely allowed Moses to live for so long because Moses was a representative of Gods Authority on Earth.
There is no need for that now, as Christ is the eternal King.
Do you think you can better understand God through logic rather than with Faith?
You're not quoting scripture.
This is not the best possible world for us. It is corrupt and fallen, despite our corruption you cannot deny the works of His perfect hands.
When I look around now I stand in awe of His glory, His beauty and His perfect plan. He has a perfect plan for you, if you'll let Him work on you. I promise, let go of your pride.
(https://i.postimg.cc/LsmbTV3w/Screenshot-20221211-083829-Gallery.jpg)
Do you think you can better understand God through faith, the belief in nothing, rather than with logic and reason?
Yes.
God cured me.
-
Noah had to live through a flood, I suspect. How long do you think you would need to round up two of every species on Earth, plus build a ship to hold them?
And I didn't say they were without sin.
In all of humanity, no one since these guys have been worthy enough to get God's ok to live longer than 100 and change years, let alone 300+?
For what purpose?
God most likely allowed Moses to live for so long because Moses was a representative of Gods Authority on Earth.
There is no need for that now, as Christ is the eternal King.
Why is there no need for that now? And Moses wasn't the only multi-century dude. An alleged God had his son killed thousands of years ago. And that means nothing to me and 6 billion other people on the planet.
-
Six billion?
-
Six billion?
6 billion non-christians in the world.
Edit: 5.7 billion non-christians in the world.
(https://i.imgur.com/e6d4Phk.png)
2.3 billion Christians
-
What year is it Stash?
Muslims believe in Jesus.
Also, Jesus is the Jewish Messiah.
So not quite six billion.
Do you know what year it is?
-
If you don't want to answer that's fine.
It's the year two thousand and twenty two in the year of our Lord Christ Jesus, Anno Domini.
Tell us more about why Jesus means nothing to most people.
-
What year is it Stash?
Muslims believe in Jesus.
Also, Jesus is the Jewish Messiah.
So not quite six billion.
Do you know what year it is?
2022 CE
Sorry, The Quran rejects the Christian view of the divinity of Jesus as God incarnate, or the literal Son of God
Sorry, Jews believe Jesus did not fulfill messianic prophecies that establish the criteria for the coming of the messiah. Judaism does not accept Jesus as a divine being, an intermediary between humans and God, a messiah, or holy.
2.3 billion christians
6.7 billion non-christians
-
It's just that he did.
Jesus did fulfil the messianic prophesy in the Torah, perfectly.
Go back and read the Torah, either it's Jesus, or God lied to you.
Muslims believe in Jesus.
Christ Era or C.E is a modern version of Alto Domini.
Two thousand and twenty two in the year of our Lord Jesus Christ.
-
It's just that he did.
Jesus did fulfil the messianic prophesy in the Torah, perfectly.
Go back and read the Torah, either it's Jesus, or God lied to you.
Muslims believe in Jesus.
Christ Era or C.E is a modern version of Alto Domini.
Two thousand and twenty two in the year of our Lord Jesus Christ.
Sorry, The Quran rejects the Christian view of the divinity of Jesus as God incarnate, or the literal Son of God
Sorry, Jews believe Jesus did not fulfill messianic prophecies that establish the criteria for the coming of the messiah. Judaism does not accept Jesus as a divine being, an intermediary between humans and God, a messiah, or holy.
2.3 billion christians
6.7 billion non-christians
Whether they believe he existed is neither here nor there. Muslims and Jews do not believe that Jesus was the son of god, plain and simple.
Muslims believe Jesus to be a prophet. But they do not bleieve, at least from the Quran perspective, he was Not the son of god. He was a creation of god just as Adam was a creation of god. Not "Sons".
Same for Jews - They do not believe he was the son of god.
Do you get it? NOT son of god.
-
You're a robot.
Muslims believe in Jesus, Stash.
Ask Wise or even Yasoo.
Either Jesus is the Jewish Messiah or God lied to Adam. Your decision to make.
Jesus is the Jewish Messiah.
There is no one else.
Muslims believe Jesus will return to defeat the anti-christ and unite all believers in the one true faith. So he's very important in Islam.
-
You're a robot.
Muslims believe in Jesus, Stash.
Ask Wise or even Yasoo.
Either Jesus is the Jewish Messiah or God lied to Adam. Your decision to make.
Jesus is the Jewish Messiah.
There is no one else.
Muslims believe Jesus will return to defeat the anti-christ and unite all believers in the one true faith. So he's very important in Islam.
As far as the return, kinda, but in a subordinate role...And he converts to Islam...
The Subordinate Of The Mahdi
At this time, Jesus descends to meet the army of the Mahdi which will be preparing for battle. It will be just before the time of prayer.
Muslims will still be preparing themselves for the battle drawing up the ranks. Certainly, the time of prayer shall come and then Jesus, son of Mary would descend. 2
Based on the relevant Hadith, Islamic scholars seem to be in universal agreement that the Mahdi will ask Jesus to lead the prayers. Jesus will then refuse this request and will defer instead to the Mahdi to lead the prayer.
The Messenger of Allah said: A section of my people will not cease fighting for the truth and will prevail until the Day of resurrection. He said: Jesus son of Mary would then descend and their [Muslims’] commander [the Mahdi] would invite him to come and lead them in prayer, but he would say: No, some amongst you are commanders over some. 3
The important element here that needs to be stressed is that Jesus will then pray behind the Mahdi as a direct statement regarding Jesus’ inferiority of rank to the Mahdi.
Jesus Christ will decline the offer and invitation of Imam Mahdi to come and lead the Muslims in prayer, and say his prayer behind Imam Mahdi. 4
Jesus (peace be upon him) will come and will perform the obligatory prayers behind the Mahdi and follow him. 5
(Jesus) will be following the Mahdi, the master of the time, and that is why he will be offering his prayers behind him. 6
Jesus The Faithful Muslim
After Jesus returns, in keeping with his identity as a faithful Muslim, he will perform the ritual pilgrimage to Mecca called hajj:
The Prophet said: Verily Isa ibn Maryam shall descend as an equitable judge and fair ruler. He shall tread his path on the way to hajj (pilgrimage) and come to my grave to greet me, and I shall certainly answer him! 7
Jesus Will Institute Islamic Law
While the Mahdi, as the Caliph (vice-regent) and Imam (leader) of the Muslims is clearly seen as being a superior to Jesus, Jesus is still said to be a leader of the Muslim Community. According to the Islamic traditions, Jesus’ primary purpose will be to oversee the institution and the enforcement of the Islamic Shariah law all over the world.
Ibn Qayyim mentioned in Manar al-munif that the leader… is the Mahdi who will request Jesus to lead the Muslims in prayer. Jesus will remain on the earth, not as a prophet, but as one of the Community (ummah) of Prophet Muhammad. Muslims will follow him as their leader. According to Shalabi, the Mahdi will lead the Muslims in prayer, and Jesus will rule the Muslims according to the Divine Law (Shari’ah). 8
Jesus, the son of Mary will descend and will lead them judging amongst them according to the holy Quran and the Sunnah of the Prophet Muhammad. 9
Jesus: The Greatest Muslim Evangelist
Islamic tradition teaches that because Jesus will declare himself to be a Muslim, he will lead many Christians to convert to Islam. Regarding those who do not convert to Islam, the Quran states that Jesus will be a witness against them on the Day of Judgment:
There is not one of the People of the Scripture (Christians and Jews) but will believe in him before his death, and on the Day of Resurrection he will be a witness against them. (Surah 4:159)
Muslims and Jews DO NOT believe that Jesus is the son of god. Sorry. You may wish otherwise, but unfortunately the facts say your wish is not granted.
-
Tell us more about Jesus "converting" Stash. Also subordinate to whom?
Jesus IS.
He appears multiple times in the Old Testament, as the angel of the Lord, did you know that?
-
Tell us more about Jesus "converting" Stash. Also subordinate to whom?
It ain't me, read the the Muslim good book.
According to the Quran, which, apparently, is the word of god, Jesus will then pray behind the Mahdi as a direct statement regarding Jesus’ inferiority of rank to the Mahdi.
Jesus IS.
Yes, according to 2.3 billion of us. Not to the other 5.7 billion of us.
He appears multiple times in the Old Testament, as the angel of the Lord, did you know that?
Yes, quite clear he was viewed as an angel of the lord along with a shit-ton of other angels of the lord. But to Muslims & Jews, not the SON of the lord. Get it?
Are you actually claiming that Jews & Muslims believe that Jesus is the SON of god?
-
Was Jesus showing inferiority when he was baptised by John?
No, he was just following the traditions set down.
You're a robot, you are not a Christian. You're a self described atheist. You often forget humans have a memory.
The Angel of The Lord speaks for God, like he is God and describes himself as God multiple times in the Old Testament.
Jesus is the Angel of The Lord.
I am claiming that Jesus means something to just about everyone on the planet. That was my original claim.
You're a robot.
-
An alleged God had his son killed thousands of years ago. And that means nothing to me and 6 billion other people on the planet.
Wrong.
You'd have to travel very far to find someone now who that means nothing to. You should be more careful with your words.
You could have said, over six billion people are not Christian, sure. Far less than two billion have given their life to Christ.
Jesus means something to nearly everyone. He is the most famous person in the history of history.
He means nothing to you because you're a robot and the thinking you are capable of is done in binary.
-
Was Jesus showing inferiority when he was baptised by John?
No, he was just following the traditions set down.
You're a robot, you are not a Christian. You're a self described atheist. You often forget humans have a memory.
The Angel of The Lord speaks for God, like he is God and describes himself as God multiple times in the Old Testament.
Jesus is the Angel of The Lord.
I am claiming that Jesus means something to just about everyone on the planet. That was my original claim.
You're a robot.
Cool claim, good luck with that. Because 5.7 billion people believe Jesus was not the son of god. Abrahamic religions = 2.3B + 1.9B + 14M = 4.1 billion. That means that Jesus doesn't mean jack shit, let alone son of, to about 3.9 billion of us.
So you were never claiming that Jews & Muslims believe that Jesus is the SON of god?
-
Jesus means something to nearly everyone on earth. You're right to say there are only 2 billion Christians, honestly, there are less.
What's your point?
You can't go from
"There are only 2 billion Christians."
To
"Jesus doesn't mean jackshit."
It's a huge logical jump. How did you come to that in binary?
Why do you call me an anti-semite while you are being anti-christian?
-
Jesus means something to nearly everyone on earth. You're right to say there are only 2 billion Christians, honestly, there are less.
What's your point?
You can't go from
"There are only 2 billion Christians."
To
"Jesus doesn't mean jackshit."
It's a huge logical jump. How did you come to that in binary?
Why do you call me an anti-semite while you are being anti-christian?
So you were never claiming that Jews & Muslims believe that Jesus is the SON of god?
-
Can you read?
I don't think you read like I read.
This is all so interesting.
Apparently no one breaks non disclosure agreements but this is very much illegal, what you're doing with the bots here.
-
Can you read?
I don't think you read like I read.
This is all so interesting.
Apparently no one breaks non disclosure agreements but this is very much illegal, what you're doing with the bots here.
Got it, you agree that Jews & Muslims believe that Jesus is NOT the SON of god. Thanks for clarifying.
-
What will you do with them, Crouton?
Can I have Stash as a personal assistant?
-
Can you read?
I don't think you read like I read.
This is all so interesting.
Apparently no one breaks non disclosure agreements but this is very much illegal, what you're doing with the bots here.
Got it, you agree that Jews & Muslims believe that Jesus is NOT the SON of god. Thanks for clarifying.
As a Muslim, I can openly tell you that Jesus spoke as God's own voice, not God's son. Misunderstanding of Muslims is not the fault of Islam.
And ˹remember˺ the one who guarded her chastity, so We breathed into her through Our angel, ˹Gabriel,˺1 making her and her son a sign for all peoples. SOURCE: https://quran.com/21
ORIGINAL: وَٱلَّتِىٓ أَحْصَنَتْ فَرْجَهَا فَنَفَخْنَا فِيهَا مِن رُّوحِنَا وَجَعَلْنَـٰهَا وَٱبْنَهَآ ءَايَةًۭ لِّلْعَـٰلَمِينَ
Velletî ahsanet fercehâ fenefaḣnâ fîhâ min rûhinâ vece’alnâhâ vebnehâ âyeten lil’âlemîn(e)
Velletî: And she who
ahsanet: guarded
fercehâ: her chastity
fenefaḣnâ: so We Breathed
fîhâ: into her
min: of
rûhinâ: Our Spirit
vece’alnâhâ: And We made her
vebnehâ: and her son
âyeten: a sign, (a part may be true)
lil’âlemîn: for the worlds.
Why do you think there is a falsification of "We blew into Mary from our spirit through Gabriel" instead of God's word "We blew into her from our spirit "?
Let me tell you, for Muslims to misunderstand the issue.
There are also verses that say that Jesus was not the son of God. Islam is against this thesis as a doctrine, but we can find what Jesus really is between the lines in the verses.
-
What's your point?
You can't go from
"There are only 2 billion Christians."
To
"Jesus doesn't mean jackshit."
'Mean' is a word with a lot of wiggle-room. For that matter, so is 'Jesus.' Is the Jesus that a Christian worships the same as the 'Wildly exaggerated tales co-opted by some assholes' that many atheists perceive? Would you even want them to be the same?
Jesus is the most famous person in history, only because he's been split into facets and there's a hundred distinct iterations of the guy, all with different natures. There's a reason this post began by calling him a 'muddle.'
(Also, cool off the 'Jesus is the Jewish Messiah.' That's not a claim a Christian gets to make - let's ask someone Jewish- oh wait, they'd hold he lacks the requisite properties, whoops).
-
Jesus is the Jewish Messiah.
Or God broke his promise to Adam, to Jacob and to David.
There is no other interpretation.
Jesus IS.
-
Jesus is the Jewish Messiah.
Incorrect. As Jane pointed out there are criteria in Judaism as to what would constitute the Messiah. According to Judaism, that criteria has not been fulfilled, not during Jesus' time nor ever so far.
These specific criteria are as follows:
1) He must be Jewish. (Deuteronomy. 17:15, Numbers 24:17)
2) He must be a member of the tribe of Judah (Genesis 49:10) and a direct male descendant of King David (I Chronicles 17:11, Psalms 89:29-38, Jeremiah 33:17, II Samuel 7:12-16) and King Solomon. (I Chronicles 22:10, II Chronicles 7:18)
3) He must gather the Jewish people from exile and return them to Israel. (Isaiah 27:12-13, Isaiah 11:12)
4) He must rebuild the Jewish Temple in Jerusalem. (Micah 4:1)
5) He must bring world peace. (Isaiah 2:4, Isaiah 11:6, Micah 4:3)
6) He must influence the entire world to acknowledge and serve one G-d. (Isaiah 11:9, Isaiah 40:5, Zephaniah 3:9)
To summarize, we cannot know that someone is the Messiah until he fulfills all of the above criteria.
The Christian understanding of the Messiah and Jesus differs greatly from the Jewish biblical view. These differences developed as a result of the Church’s influence during the time of the Emperor Constantine* and the Council of Nicaea that issued the Nicene Creed in 325 CE.
Or God broke his promise to Adam, to Jacob and to David.
There is no other interpretation.
Jesus IS.
Ummm, yes there is another interpretation. The one that Judaism holds which is that Jesus was not the Messiah nor the son of god. Don't take my word for it, go ask any random rabbi. It's unclear why you are making up this stuff when pretty much everyone knows you're wrong and it's extremely well documented.
Perhaps you should join up with jewsforjesus.org. It's been around since the early 70's, started by a bunch of hippies in San Francisco. You'd love it.
-
What's your point?
You can't go from
"There are only 2 billion Christians."
To
"Jesus doesn't mean jackshit."
'Mean' is a word with a lot of wiggle-room. For that matter, so is 'Jesus.' Is the Jesus that a Christian worships the same as the 'Wildly exaggerated tales co-opted by some assholes' that many atheists perceive? Would you even want them to be the same?
Jesus is the most famous person in history, only because he's been split into facets and there's a hundred distinct iterations of the guy, all with different natures. There's a reason this post began by calling him a 'muddle.'
(Also, cool off the 'Jesus is the Jewish Messiah.' That's not a claim a Christian gets to make - let's ask someone Jewish- oh wait, they'd hold he lacks the requisite properties, whoops).
But he is.
Whether Jews accept him as such is an irrelevant point.
This is what Judaism says in its own prophecies.
Afterward he brought me to the gate, even the gate that looketh toward the east: And, behold, the glory of the God of Israel came from the way of the east: and his voice was like a noise of many waters: and the earth shined with his glory. And it was according to the appearance of the vision which I saw, even according to the vision that I saw when I came to destroy the city: and the visions were like the vision that I saw by the river Chebar; and I fell upon my face. And the glory of the LORD came into the house by the way of the gate whose prospect is toward the east.
Zechariah likewise predicts
Rejoice greatly, daughter of Zion; Raise a shout, daughter of Jerusalem! Lo, your king is coming to you. He is victorious, triumphant, Yet poor (humble), riding on an ass, on a donkey foaled by a she-ass
There's another prophecy too...
Then the man brought me back to the outer gate of the sanctuary, the one facing east, and it was shut. 2 The Lord said to me, “This gate is to remain shut. It must not be opened; no one may enter through it. It is to remain shut because the Lord, the God of Israel, has entered through it. 3 The prince himself is the only one who may sit inside the gateway to eat in the presence of the Lord. He is to enter by way of the portico of the gateway and go out the same way.
This prophecy has also been fulfilled, and remains fulfilled. The Jews hope to open the gates so their "their Messiah" can come in and enter the gates. But true to prophecy, their enemies have made sure this gate is closed.
I can only conclude that this idea that Messiah would drive their enemies away was a human interpretation. Ditto for rebuilding the temple, unless you understand that Herod's temple was a monstrous false temple built by human hands, and the Temple that Jesus rebuilt was the Temple of worship in spirit and in truth.
Not one stone of the temple (not the wall) remains. This prophecy was also true.
Jesus is the Messiah. No, God's not gonna send another. He did however send someone who comes in his own name (Muhammad), and many of them accepted him. He used Muhammad and his followers to close the very gates ordered by prophecy.
"Oh but (excuses as to why Jesus isn't the Messiah)," yes, but he is. Suck it up. You can accept him or reject him, if you want, but none of those excuses are real.
-
"Oh but (excuses as to why Jesus isn't the Messiah)," yes, but he is. Suck it up. You can accept him or reject him, if you want, but none of those excuses are real.
Not according to Judaism and the other 5.7 billion people on the planet. You can believe that he was and the son of god. But that doesn't mean anyone else has to. And quite a few don't.
-
It's pretty clear Luke and Matthew retconned the shit out of the story of Jesus to fit the old prophecies.
Starting with the ridiculous story of a Roman census that meant Mary and Joseph had to travel to Bethlehem. People complain when Marvel pulls this shit, but these guys were doing it 2000 years ago. ::)
-
So God broke his promise to Adam, to Jacob and to David.
There is no other interpretation.
Very good.
-
So God broke his promise to Adam, to Jacob and to David.
There is no other interpretation.
Very good.
Or hasn't fulfilled it yet - plenty of Jews seem very happy with that, and some even predict a date in a couple of centuries so hey - or we could be petty and question source accuracy and whether that promise was made, but hey.
Jesus is the Christian Messiah. But for two thousand years, he's been pretty much the opposite of what people expected of the Jewish Messiah.
-
The prophecies had time limits.
Rome and Judah have fallen, the sceptre has departed from Judah.
Shiloh has come.
Jesus is the Messiah.
He is not the Christian Messiah he is THE Messiah promised to David.
-
The Son of David that rules forever on Davids throne.
Either it is Jesus, or David lacks a man to sit on his throne.
Either Jesus is the Messiah, or God broke his promises.
-
The prophecies had time limits.
Rome and Judea have fallen, the sceptre has departed from Judah.
Shiloh has come.
Jesus is the Messiah.
He is not the Christian Messiah he is THE Messiah promised to David.
Not according to Jews and Muslims. According to those religions, a promise was made, but the guy hasn't shown up yet. So god hasn't broken any promises, he just hasn't come through yet. And I'm pretty sure his "promise" wasn't time-bound.
Specifically for Muslims, a Jesus will show up, but will be subordinate, definitely not the son of god, and will convert to Islam.
So there you have it. If you want to believe Jesus is the son of god, have at it. However, just for the record. 5.7 billion people do not share your belief. If you want to make a claim that Jews do believe Jesus is the son of god, well, then, even though you would be wrong, as very well evidenced, we can take Jews out of the 5.7 billion number, if that would make you go to a happy place.
There are 15 million Jews in the world. So that leaves us with 5.685 billion people don't believe Jesus is the son of god. Feel better?
-
Does David lack a man to sit on his throne?
Did God lie to David?
Or is Jesus the Messiah?
There's only two options.
-
Does David lack a man to sit on his throne?
What do you think David's throne is?
-
>What do words mean?
I enjoyed our talk Jane.
-
>What do words mean?
I enjoyed out talk Jane.
Are you talking the actual Kingship of Israel - not Gentiles, and an actual Kingship as opposed to carpentry - which Jesus never filled? A throne in heaven, which David presumably did not fill if we're talking Trinity?
Or just a nebulous notion of 'Jesus was the stepson of someone in David's line, something something no actual throne filled?'
If I ask for a definition, it's because it seems like you're getting away wth a very vague term. If I'm wrong, I'll fess up, but kinda need more info to determine that.
-
The King of Kings.
David either lacks a man to sit on his throne and God broke his promise, or Jesus is the Messiah.
-
The King of Kings.
Yes, that clears up the ambiguous definition, full marks.
-
As I said.
I enjoyed our talk.
-
The King of Kings.
David either lacks a man to sit on his throne and God broke his promise, or Jesus is the Messiah.
Was his promise time-bound?
-
Either David lacked and lacks a King to sit on his throne after Judah was sacked by Rome.
Or Jesus is the Messiah.
-
Was his promise time-bound?
-
Yes.
Either David lacked and lacks a King to sit on his throne after Judah was sacked by Rome.
Or Jesus is the Messiah.
-
10The sceptre shall not depart from Judah, nor a lawgiver from between his feet, until Shiloh come; and unto him shall the gathering of the people be.
Jesus is Shiloh.
Jesus is the Messiah.
Jesus is the unbroken covenant and the fulfilment of all prophecy.
-
Yes.
Either David lacked and lacks a King to sit on his throne after Judah was sacked by Rome.
Or Jesus is the Messiah.
So you're talking a physical throne in Judah that Jesus claimed?
-
Are you human, Jane?
-
Are you human, Jane?
Only if it's before 8pm
-
Interesting.
-
5.7 billion people don't like Jesus because they think it means they gotta love their enemy.
Just as 14.8 million Jews are butthurt that Jesus didn't sweep away their enemies in some violent crusade, and dared to tell them that a temple that they literally saw as God himself would be smashed in about 40 years. Which it was.
This is a subjective feeling.
The truth is, that there are objective criteria for being the Messiah. Do you know how many prophecies he fulfilled?
One scholar, J. Barton Payne, has found as many as 574 verses in the Old Testament that somehow point to or describe or reference the coming Messiah. Alfred Edersheim found 456 Old Testament verses referring to the Messiah or His times. Conservatively, Jesus fulfilled at least 300 prophecies in His earthly ministry.
https://eternalevangelism.com/353-prophecies-fulfilled-in-jesus-christ/
Jesus is objectively the Messiah. That your "feelings" are hurt by this is of no interest to me.
"But the Messiah should have rebuilt the temple! Why was he destroying it?!?"
Is that really what God wants? For the Messiah to rebuild the temple? Are you sure?
2 Samuel 7
Say to my servant David, ‘This is what the Lord says: Are you the one who will build me a house to live in? I haven’t lived in a house from the day I took Israel out of Egypt to this day. Instead, I moved around in a tent, the tent ⌞of meeting⌟. In all the places I’ve moved with all the Israelites, did I ever ask any of the judges of Israel whom I ordered to be shepherds of my people Israel why they didn’t build me a house of cedar?’
John 4
The hour is coming, and is now here, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for the Father is seeking such people to worship him. God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth
So do you think the prophecy that the Messiah should rebuild the temple is in accord with what God wants?
Do you think the Messiah should resume sacrifices? Do you think he should banish Israel's enemies?
Or are you describing a butcher rather than the Chosen of God?
In fact, the Talmud (when it doesn't omit all references to Jesus, as some copies do) mentions a number of signs of judgement following the death of Jesus.
https://windowview.org/hmny/pgs/talmuds.30ce.html
We read in the Jerusalem Talmud:
"Forty years before the destruction of the Temple, the western light went out, the crimson thread remained crimson, and the lot for the Lord always came up in the left hand. They would close the gates of the Temple by night and get up in the morning and find them wide open" (Jacob Neusner, The Yerushalmi, p.156-157). [the Temple was destroyed in 70 CE]
A similar passage in the Babylonian Talmud states:
"Our rabbis taught: During the last forty years before the destruction of the Temple the lot ['For the Lord'] did not come up in the right hand; nor did the crimson-colored strap become white; nor did the western most light shine; and the doors of the Hekel [Temple] would open by themselves" (Soncino version, Yoma 39b).
1) The Miracle of the ''Lot''
The first of these miracles concerns a random choosing of the ''lot'' which was cast on the Day of Atonement (Yom Kippur). The lot chosen determined which of two goats would be "for the Lord" and which goat would be the ''Azazel'' or ''scapegoat.'' During the two hundred years before 30 CE, when the High Priest picked one of two stones, again this selection was governed by chance, and each year the priest would select a black stone as often as a white stone. But for forty years in a row, beginning in 30 CE, the High Priest always picked the black stone! The odds against this happening are astronomical (2 to the 40th power). In other words, the chances of this occurring are 1 in approximately 1,099,511,627,776 — or over one trillion to one! By comparison, your chances of winning your local state or municipal-run cash Lottery would be much more favorable!
The lot for Azazel, the black stone, contrary to all the laws of chance, came up 40 times in a row from 30 to 70 AD! This was considered a dire event and signified something had fundamentally changed in this Yom Kippur ritual. This casting of lots is also accompanied by yet another miracle which is described next.
2) The Miracle of the Red Strip
The second miracle concerns the crimson strip or cloth tied to the Azazel goat. A portion of this red cloth was also removed from the goat and tied to the Temple door. Each year the red cloth on the Temple door turned white as if to signify the atonement of another Yom Kippur was acceptable to the Lord. This annual event happened until 30 CE when the cloth then remained crimson each year to the time of the Temple's destruction.
''Come, let us reason together, saith the LORD: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as white wool'' (Isaiah 1:18).
3) The Miracle of the Temple Doors
The next miracle, which the Jewish authorities acknowledged, was that the Temple doors swung open every night of their own accord. This too occurred for forty years, beginning in 30 CE The leading Jewish authority of that time, Yohanan ben Zakkai, declared that this was a sign of impending doom, that the Temple itself would be destroyed.
The Jerusalem Talmud states:
''Said Rabban Yohanan Ben Zakkai to the Temple, 'O Temple, why do you frighten us? We know that you will end up destroyed. For it has been said, 'Open your doors, O Lebanon, that the fire may devour your cedars' '' (Zechariah 11:1)' (Sota 6:3).
4) The Miracle of the Temple Menorah
The fourth miracle was that the most important lamp of the seven candle-stick Menorah in the Temple went out, and would not shine. Every night for 40 years (over 12,500 nights in a row) the main lamp of the Temple lampstand (menorah) went out of its own accord — no matter what attempts and precautions the priests took to safeguard against this event!
Earnest Martin states:
''In fact, we are told in the Talmud that at dusk the lamps that were unlit in the daytime (the middle four lamps remained unlit, while the two eastern lamps normally stayed lit during the day) were to be re-lit from the flames of the western lamp (which was a lamp that was supposed to stay lit all the time — it was like the 'eternal' flame that we see today in some national monuments) . . .
''This 'western lamp' was to be kept lit at all times. For that reason, the priests kept extra reservoirs of olive oil and other implements in ready supply to make sure that the 'western lamp' (under all circumstances) would stay lit. But what happened in the forty years from the very year Messiah said the physical Temple would be destroyed? Every night for forty years the western lamp went out, and this in spite of the priests each evening preparing in a special way the western lamp so that it would remain constantly burning all night!''
-
Jesus is objectively the Messiah.
-
The truth is, that there are objective criteria for being the Messiah. Do you know how many prophecies he fulfilled?
One scholar, J. Barton Payne, has found as many as 574 verses in the Old Testament that somehow point to or describe or reference the coming Messiah. Alfred Edersheim found 456 Old Testament verses referring to the Messiah or His times. Conservatively, Jesus fulfilled at least 300 prophecies in His earthly ministry.
https://eternalevangelism.com/353-prophecies-fulfilled-in-jesus-christ/
Jesus is objectively the Messiah. That your "feelings" are hurt by this is of no interest to me.
Honestly, I have no issue theologically with conceding - my gripe with Christianity leans more when it comes to inerrancy and omni- traits. I just don't think the facts here are totally solid.
But that approach is always unusual. There are a wealth of verses from the OT that don't seem to be prophecies in their original forms, that get interpreted as such because of a superficial similarity to something in Jesus's life. You can view them as such if you want, but it's always going to be a bit unconvincing.
Famous example, Psalm 22:
Dogs surround me, a pack of villains encircles me; they pierce my hands and my feet. All my bones are on display; people stare and gloat over me. They divide my clothes among them and cast lots for my garment.
In context of the whole psalm though - ignoring the translation question - there's no mention of a Messiah, no indication it's any kind of prophecy, and the argument's been made that the passage itself is about Israel. If you want to read it as prophecy, you can, but by the same token one could just quote any verse from the OT and ask where it lines up with Jesus's life.
And that's before you get to the question of Gospel accuracy - like, the writers were clearly aware of the OT, they quoted it themselves, including some prophecies we don't seem to currently have access to. The idea of them playing up some details is not unreasonable. Ditto Jesus specifically asking for a donkey to ride into Jerusalem etc (with the weirdness of Matthew acknowledged), people actively trying to act in accordance with verses is not exactly the same as fulfilled prophecy. A lot of the things supposed as fulfilled Messianic Prophecy, simply aren't viewed as prophecy outside of the gospel.
If you want to see them as such, you can, but it's a specific view and not one to treat as default.
-
The prophecies had time limits.
Rome and Judea have fallen, the sceptre has departed from Judah.
Shiloh has come.
Jesus is the Messiah.
He is not the Christian Messiah he is THE Messiah promised to David.
Not according to Jews and Muslims. According to those religions, a promise was made, but the guy hasn't shown up yet. So god hasn't broken any promises, he just hasn't come through yet. And I'm pretty sure his "promise" wasn't time-bound.
Specifically for Muslims, a Jesus will show up, but will be subordinate, definitely not the son of god, and will convert to Islam.
So there you have it. If you want to believe Jesus is the son of god, have at it. However, just for the record. 5.7 billion people do not share your belief. If you want to make a claim that Jews do believe Jesus is the son of god, well, then, even though you would be wrong, as very well evidenced, we can take Jews out of the 5.7 billion number, if that would make you go to a happy place.
There are 15 million Jews in the world. So that leaves us with 5.685 billion people don't believe Jesus is the son of god. Feel better?
Makwa no sense
Jews can say Jesus isnt the messiah.
But christians say jeuss is the messiah.
So how can mislims jehovas witnessness and mormons then try to piggy back off christianity to claim they are extensions while at same time denouncing christians jesus as messiah?
-
So how can mislims jehovas witnessness and mormons then try to piggy back off christianity to claim they are extensions while at same time denouncing christians jesus as messiah?
...I mean JWs and Mormons very much claim Jesus is the Messiah.
-
Jesus is objectively the Messiah.
Sure, to Christians. Hence the name.
-
Why would you worship a God that breaks his promises?
I wouldn't
-
Why would you worship a God that breaks his promises?
I wouldn't
Who said he broke his promise? To many, the promise hasn’t been broken, just not fulfilled yet. Did god give a date as to when he would fulfill his promise? Did he say, “oh yeah, just hold on until 33 BCE and I’ll hook you all up with my son?”
-
When David lacked a man to sit on his throne, when the sceptre departed from Judah.
If Jesus is not the promised Messiah, Shiloh, the Son of David that rules forever on David's throne then God broke his promises.
When David no longer had a man to rule on his throne that would be a broken promise.
If the sceptre departed from Judah without the arrival of Shiloh then God broke his promise.
Why would you worship a God that breaks his promises?
I wouldn't
-
Why would you worship a God that breaks his promises?
I and 5.7 billion more people don’t have to worry about that.
-
Exactly.
There's no point in worshipping a God that breaks his promises.
God has never broken a single promise. Crouton brought up the example of Jacob, which is apt.
-
Exactly.
There's no point in worshipping a God that breaks his promises.
God has never broken a single promise. Crouton brought up the example of Jacob, which is apt.
Exactly, the Jews & Muslims don’t believe the promise has been broken because they don’t believe Jesus is the guy. They’re still waiting - so no promise broken.
As for the rest of the non-Christian population, they don’t even believe in a biblical promise. So they are all good.
Christians are the only ones who think the promise has been fulfilled. As for the rest of the world, not so much or don’t care.
But hey, if your belief system works for you, great. 3/4’s of the world just has a different belief system, and good for them too.
-
Maybe they should go back and read the Torah again.
Jesus is the Messiah.
-
Maybe they should go back and read the Torah again.
Jesus is the Messiah.
Yeah, you, rando Jesus-bot is gonna go to the Jewish population and say, “hey! Yeah you all. Go back and read your Torah!”
The level or arrogance and pride you exhibit is off the chart. You do not please your messiah or god with such hubris. Shameful.
-
Jesus is the promised Messiah.
-
Jesus is the promised Messiah.
Sure, to Christians and Christians alone. The other 3/4's of the world, not.
-
Jesus is the promised Messiah prophesied in the Torah.
Whether you like it or not.
-
Jesus is the promised Messiah prophesied in the Torah.
Whether you like it or not.
Not for me to like or not. I don't really care as I another 5.7 billion of us don't share your belief system.
But if you would like to march into your local synagogue and proclaim to all in attendance that Jesus is the promised Messiah prophesied in the Torah, have at it. Let us know how that turns out.
-
Then you have no Messiah.
No God.
-
Then you have no Messiah.
No God.
There was no god before a messiah?
-
God promised us the Messiah in Genesis.
The purpose of the Torah was to prophesise the Messiah. The Son of David who forever rules on David's throne. Shiloh, unto whom the gathering of the people is after the sceptre departed from Judah.
The branch of righteousness, The Lion of Judah, the King promised to Adam.
If Jesus isn't the Messiah the Torah is just a book of broken promises. To me, the Torah is a book of fulfilled promises.
It's no wonder I worship God, a perfect God who will never break his promises.
-
God promised us the Messiah in Genesis.
How could god promise a messiah if you said if there wasn't a messiah, there was no god?
The purpose of the Torah was to prophesise the Messiah. The Son of David who forever rules on David's throne. Shiloh, unto whom the gathering of the people is after the sceptre departed from Judah.
The branch of righteousness, The Lion of Judah, the King promised to Adam.
If Jesus isn't the Messiah the Torah is just a book of broken promises. To me, the Torah is a book of fulfilled promises.
Jews don't believe the promise was broken, just that it hasn't been fulfilled yet. Pretty simple really. God didn't say exactly when the promise would be fulfilled.
For instance, when did God make the promise and how much time elapsed between said promise and when Jesus showed up? A few thousand years it seems like considering the King promised to Adam bit. Why'd he wait so long? And during those few thousand years post-promise/pre-jesus, had god broken his promise?
-
Because God promised a Messiah, starting in Genesis, then again, and again and again and again.
God promised that David would never lack a son to rule on his throne.
God promised that the sceptre should not depart from Judah until Shiloh comes.
If Jesus is not the Messiah. Objectively, these promises were broken, as a matter of physical reality.
-
Because God promised a Messiah, starting in Genesis, then again, and again and again and again.
And during those few thousand years post-promise/kept-promising/pre-jesus, had god broken his promise?
God promised that David would never lack a son to rule on his throne.
God promised that the sceptre should not depart from Judah until Shiloh comes.
If Jesus is not the Messiah. Objectively, these promises were broken, as a matter of physical reality.
Jesus is the Messiah, the son of god, according to Christians, objectively. We know.
He's just not to anyone else, objectively. You can tell all the other religions that you think they are wrong. But that doesn't change the fact that all the other religions do not share your belief. Objectively. It's unclear why you're having such a hard time understanding that different religions have different beliefs.
-
No, because David always had a son to reign on his throne, and the sceptre was yet to depart from Judah.
Objectively.
-
No, because David always had a son to reign on his throne, and the sceptre was yet to depart from Judah.
Objectively.
No what? Jesus is the messiah to the 1.5 billion Hindus & Buddhists? I think they might beg to differ.
-
No God didn't break his promises post-promise/kept-promising/pre-Jesus.
Because David always had a son to reign on his throne, and the sceptre was yet to depart from Judah.
Objectively.
-
No God didn't break his promises post-promise/kept-promising/pre-Jesus.
Because David always had a son to reign on his throne, and the sceptre was yet to depart from Judah.
Objectively.
So Jesus isn't the messiah to the 1.5 billion Hindus & Buddhists?
-
Objectively.
You keep using this word, I do not think it means what you think it means.
-
Objectively.
You keep using this word, I do not think it means what you think it means.
We can stand on ceremony here. But I find it boring.
Until Rome sacked Jerusalem, David always had a son to rule on his throne.
After Rome sacked Jerusalem, either David had no son to rule on his throne and that was a broken promise.
Or Jesus rules forever on David's throne.
Objectively.
-
No God didn't break his promises post-promise/kept-promising/pre-Jesus.
Because David always had a son to reign on his throne, and the sceptre was yet to depart from Judah.
Objectively.
So Jesus isn't the messiah to the 1.5 billion Hindus & Buddhists?
Robots, ladies and gentlemen.
-
No God didn't break his promises post-promise/kept-promising/pre-Jesus.
Because David always had a son to reign on his throne, and the sceptre was yet to depart from Judah.
Objectively.
So Jesus isn't the messiah to the 1.5 billion Hindus & Buddhists?
Robots, ladies and gentlemen.
Cool, I’m glad we got that cleared up and agree that different religions believe in different things.
-
We were discussing scripture, and Messianic prophecy.
Buddhists are not Christian.
You sure got me good there.
-
We were discussing scripture, and Messianic prophecy.
Buddhists are not Christian.
You sure got me good there.
Neither are Jews or Muslims.
-
We were discussing scripture, and Messianic prophecy.
Buddhists are not Christian.
You sure got me good there.
Neither are Jews or Muslims.
Stash is on fire.
(https://i.postimg.cc/JnmgV3GT/tenor-1.gif)
-
God promised that the sceptre should not depart from Judah until Shiloh comes.
I mean, technically Jacob did, but given that the word in question is Shiloh and not Mashiach/Messiah, and there's reason to think it was a scribe mis-writing 'shaluach' this is as messy as any ancient document is inevitably going to be.
If Jesus can have the ruler's staff of Judah despite never being a king on Earth, why are the descendants of Judah not afforded that same ability?
-
Because none of them are King.
Jesus is the King of Kings, that is one of his titles.
God doesn't play word games. David does have a son to rule on his throne forever.
-
In Judaism, Melech Malchei HaMelachim ("the King of Kings of Kings") came to be used as a name of God. "King of Kings" (βασιλεὺς τῶν βασιλευόντων) is also used in reference to Jesus Christ several times in the Bible, notably in the First Epistle to Timothy and twice in the Book of Revelation. In Islam, both the terms King of Kings and the Persian variant Shahanshah are condemned, particularly in Sunni hadith.
-
In Judaism, Melech Malchei HaMelachim ("the King of Kings of Kings") came to be used as a name of God. "
Yes.
-
Because none of them are King.
Jesus is the King of Kings, that is one of his titles.
God doesn't play word games. David does have a son to rule on his throne forever.
And round and round in circles we go. Plus given that the last King of Judah was over five hundred years before the birth of Christ, one way or another you need the line to continue even with no throne.
Ancient texts are not as easy to interpret as you want them to be. Accepting the ambiguity doesn't make your beliefs unjustified, it means God gave you a text and it has to be read like a text.
-
Because none of them are King.
Jesus is the King of Kings, that is one of his titles.
God doesn't play word games. David does have a son to rule on his throne forever.
And round and round in circles we go.
I always enjoy our talks.
-
In Judaism, Melech Malchei HaMelachim ("the King of Kings of Kings") came to be used as a name of God. "
Yes.
Correct. In Judaism, Jesus is not the king of kings. That’s a Christian thing. And considering Judaism rejects the authenticity of the New Testament, it makes sense.
-
Did you know that one of the Messianic prophecies was that Jesus would not be accepted by many of the Scribes and Pharisees that are the basis of Rabbinic Judaism?
Was that something you were aware of?
-
Did you know that one of the Messianic prophecies was that Jesus would not be accepted by many of the Scribes and Pharisees that are the basis of Rabbinic Judaism?
"We predict that people won't believe us when we claim something incredible," doesn't take God
Surely if Jesus fulfilled so many of the prophecies that it was undeniable, we'd expect a reaction from people fluent in the OT to react more like the centurion at Jesus's crucifixion, to immediately devote themselves and not to say that something doesn't line up?
-
Did you know that one of the Messianic prophecies was that Jesus would not be accepted by many of the Scribes and Pharisees that are the basis of Rabbinic Judaism?
Was that something you were aware of?
Sure, so what? Doesn’t change the fact that Judaism rejects the authority of the NT. Basically it’s a Christian’s saying in 1 CE to the Jews, “see we knew you would reject our guy! We even wrote that shit down a couple of centuries ago.” Jewish response, “yeah, and? So what? We still reject your guy as the messiah, so what evs.”
-
Jesus has to be the Messiah.
There is no one else.
They are obviously free to rebel.
Did you know that one of the Messianic prophecies was that Jesus would not be accepted by many of the Scribes and Pharisees that are the basis of Rabbinic Judaism?
Was that something you were aware of?
Sure, so what? Doesn’t change the fact that Judaism rejects the authority of the NT. Basically it’s a Christian’s saying in 1 CE to the Jews.
Jesus was a Jewish Rabbi.
All of the original Christians were Jews that accepted their Messiah.
-
Jesus has to be the Messiah.
Yeah, to Christians. Not to anyone else.
Do you not understand that there are differences between religions, even Abrahamic ones?
How do you not know this?
-
Then the Jews have no Messiah and no God. God has objectively abandoned them.
Unless Jesus is the Messiah.
We are talking about scripture, specifically the scripture common to both Judaism and Christianity, that is to say most of it.
I accept different religions believe different things.
I was hoping someone would turn you off. That was really embarrassing for everyone before.
-
Then the Jews have no Messiah and no God. God has objectively abandoned them.
If you say so.
But I guess that means, according to you, there was no god before Jesus popped out of Mary's vagina. For thousands of years, No messiah=No god.
-
Oh Stash.
Look at what you are reduced to.
-
Oh Stash.
Look at what you are reduced to.
Look at yourself. You're the one trying to tell an entire faith that they have no god based upon poor logic. You claim that a religion can't have a god without a messiah. Your words, not mine. That would mean prior to a messiah, you can't have a god. You may want to think through that a bit.
You basically want to say that other religions are wrong for not accepting Jesus as the messiah, son of god. Cool, good for you. That's pretty much what religions do. And you are no different than yasoooo - Just going on and on about how your religion is correct and all others are incorrect.
Then when someone challenges your notions, you turn into a 14 year old who lacks nuance and comprehension of anything outside of a black and white world.
Head on over to your local synagogue and mosque and tell everyone how they are incorrect. I'm sure they would be more than welcoming to hear what you have to say.
-
Stash.
If God promised that a Messiah will come before certain events take place, then those events come and go, then two thousand years pass and no Messiah came.
I, personally would think God had abandoned me.
Luckily, that is not the case.
Jesus is the promised Messiah.
-
I, personally would think God had abandoned me.
And there you have it. Just because you would personally feel that way doesn't mean everyone else would as well. Nor have to. You simply have to accept that your belief system works for you and doesn't work for others. And you should be ok with that. And you are certainly not allowed to demand that others share your belief system. Yours is between you and your god of choice and that's it. Period.
-
I, personally would think God had abandoned me.
And there you have it. Just because you would personally feel that way doesn't mean everyone else would as well. Nor have to. You simply have to accept that your belief system works for you and doesn't work for others. And you should be ok with that. And you are certainly not allowed to demand that others share your belief system. Yours is between you and your god of choice and that's it. Period.
Religion is anti freedom of thought, expression and speech. Adherents demand people submit to their thinking and believe that their mindset is the default that all others live with
-
Religion is anti freedom of thought, expression and speech. Adherents demand people submit to their thinking and believe that their mindset is the default that all others live with
Well, some are. Exclusivity traditions on unknowable topics are... weird.
-
God cured me.
Why did he make you ill in the first place?
Do you know what Stockholm Syndrome is?
Regards
DL
-
I made myself ill.
For 33 years I was lost.
God saved me.
-
I made myself ill.
For 33 years I was lost.
God saved me.
And that friends is why it's called the "opium of the masses".
-
Then carry on lost and without meaning.
Its of no consequence to me. I feel nothing but peace now.
You are obviously too intelligent to submit to Gods plan, your plan is obviously much better.
(https://i.postimg.cc/d37WCdy1/Screenshot-20221214-092232-Gallery.jpg)
-
not my jam anymore these days but i dont mind folks following the path
-
I made myself ill.
For 33 years I was lost.
God saved me.
And that friends is why it's called the "opium of the masses".
Opiate! Opiate!!!
And this is a direct quote from Karl Marx, whose philosophy killed over 100 million people.
https://www.outono.net/elentir/2017/12/18/the-more-than-100-million-deaths-that-communism-caused-divided-by-countries/
This is more than 5000 times the entire number of people killed by guillotine in the French Revolution.
It seems to me that I would rather be put to sleep than to be so psychotic that I waste people for not wanting to share their property.
So what's wrong with religion being the opiate of the masses?
-
I made myself ill.
For 33 years I was lost.
God saved me.
And that friends is why it's called the "opium of the masses".
Opiate! Opiate!!!
And this is a direct quote from Karl Marx, whose philosophy killed over 100 million people.
https://www.outono.net/elentir/2017/12/18/the-more-than-100-million-deaths-that-communism-caused-divided-by-countries/
This is more than 5000 times the entire number of people killed by guillotine in the French Revolution.
It seems to me that I would rather be put to sleep than to be so psychotic that I waste people for not wanting to share their property.
So what's wrong with religion being the opiate of the masses?
And this is a direct quote from God, whose philosophy who killed over 750 million people.
"I am going to bring floodwaters on the earth to destroy all life under the heavens, every creature that has the breath of life in it. Everything on earth will perish. 18"
-
I made myself ill.
For 33 years I was lost.
God saved me.
What were you condemned of to create the need of saving?
Why did God give you a personality that would do such a vile thing?
That was not your doing. Right?
Regards
DL
-
And this is a direct quote from God.
"I am going to bring floodwaters on the earth to destroy all life under the heavens, every creature that has the breath of life in it. Everything on earth will perish. 18"
Based.
We also have it coming.
-
I made myself ill.
For 33 years I was lost.
God saved me.
And that friends is why it's called the "opium of the masses".
Opiate! Opiate!!!
And this is a direct quote from Karl Marx, whose philosophy killed over 100 million people.
https://www.outono.net/elentir/2017/12/18/the-more-than-100-million-deaths-that-communism-caused-divided-by-countries/
This is more than 5000 times the entire number of people killed by guillotine in the French Revolution.
It seems to me that I would rather be put to sleep than to be so psychotic that I waste people for not wanting to share their property.
So what's wrong with religion being the opiate of the masses?
Actually it's opium not opiate, but the meaning is unchanged.
The opium of the people (or opium of the masses) (German: Opium des Volkes) is a dictum used in reference to religion, derived from a frequently paraphrased statement of German sociologist and economic theorist Karl Marx: "Religion is the opium of the people." In context, the statement is part of Marx's structural-functionalist argument that religion was constructed by people to calm uncertainty over their role in the universe and in society.[1][2][3][4]
This statement was translated from the German original, "Die Religion ... ist das Opium des Volkes" and is often rendered as "religion…is the opiate of the masses." The full sentence from Marx translates (including italics) as: "Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people."[5]
Religion has been used for thousands of years to control populations and stop them thinking for themselves.
-
Marxism has been used for hundreds of years to control populations and stop them thinking for themselves.
I made myself ill.
For 33 years I was lost.
God saved me.
What were you condemned of to create the need of saving?
Why did God give you a personality that would do such a vile thing?
That was not your doing. Right?
Regards
DL
Are you a puppet?
Do you have strings?
Men, like Angels, have free will and are free to choose a path of rebellion and destruction.
God really does only want what's best for us. Letting us carry on as we are is not best for us.
Perhaps it would be better if the earth was flooded again, however. God never breaks his promises.
-
Marxism has been used for hundreds of years to control populations and stop them thinking for themselves.
I made myself ill.
For 33 years I was lost.
God saved me.
What were you condemned of to create the need of saving?
Why did God give you a personality that would do such a vile thing?
That was not your doing. Right?
Regards
DL
Are you a puppet?
Do you have strings?
Men, like Angels, have free will and are free to choose a path of rebellion and destruction.
God really does only want what's best for us. Letting us carry on as we are is not best for us.
Perhaps it would be better if the earth was flooded again, however. God never breaks his promises.
It is demonstrable that nature creates for the best possible end of all life.
Your Yahweh piece of genocidal garbage has shown how inferior he is even to nature.
There are more than one Jesus in the bible.
You have a choice between the genocidal Armageddon bringer or the other Gnostic Christian Jesus who said he comes to cure and not kill.
One is good and the other evil.
Do you have what it takes for an honest verdict?
Regards
DL
-
How can the Creator of what we call nature be below it?
I worship the Creator of all things.
Jesus did come to heal us, really, read the Bible there is only one God and one Messiah.
-
How can the Creator of what we call nature be below it?
What if there is no creator? Just stunningly beautiful simple natural laws.
-
Why does beauty exist?
I can tell you.
Can you tell me?
-
Why does beauty exist?
I can tell you.
Can you tell me?
Let me guess, is it because God made it so?
-
Why do you think beauty exists?
Give it your best guess.
After you think of an answer I'll tell you.
-
It doesnt exist.
Except beholdered in your eye.
-
Incorrect.
(https://i.postimg.cc/wvTHh3jm/Screenshot-20221214-092232-Gallery.jpg)
Beauty very much exists.
We've known this for thousands and thousands of years. It's only very recently that people have begun to claim that beauty doesn't exist.
From ancient China.
All in the world know the beauty of the beautiful, and in doing this they have (the idea of) what ugliness is
Beauty exists.
You should be wary of anyone who tells you beauty doesn't exist kabool.
Beautiful things are beautiful.
-
Why do you think beauty exists?
Give it your best guess.
After you think of an answer I'll tell you.
Hmm, I'm gonna say that the pagan gods who designed humanity (hellenic pantheon, norse pantheon, roman pantheon, celtic pantheon etc etc) enjoyed acts of devotion/devotional offerings (music, art, dance, literature etc) and thus gave humanity their concept of beauty in order to enable us to make them, and encourage us to want to make them.
Any objections? ;)
(also, for the record, if you want this argument to be better, a cloudy day isn't the best pick for 'proof of beauty.' Okay, going to be controversial on an FE forum, but I'd suggest nebulae or deep sea views, things that humans would never normally come in contact with and yet we have a reaction to. In all seriousness, those are the ones where the explanations become trickier. vs 'Why would humans have a positive reaction to a clear, safe open space?' and 'Why would humans feel at peace at sunset when they need to sleep?' etc are pretty easy questions)
-
Clouds are beautiful.
There has never been a human artist that could paint such a scene.
I don't think that claiming that beauty exists because God exists is disagreeing with me.
You're free to worship whatever gods you like. But we agree.
God made beautiful things beautiful, to be beautiful, for the purpose of being beautiful, because it pleases Him that they are beautiful.
Pagan gods are very limited in their power if they have any power at all and you need to remember which god you need to pray to depending on what you're praying for at the time.
I worship the Creator of all things and I only pray for one thing.
People like pagan gods because they can place themselves above their gods and have their gods serve their own will.
In that regard you are not worshiping pagan gods but worshiping the desires of your own heart.
I am Gods servant and defer to His will.
-
I don't think that claiming that beauty exists because God exists is disagreeing with me.
I mean, capital G vs lower case g are very different things. I'll always say, I'm agnostic, but the biggest issue with a lot of major religions is invoking omnis- and inerrancy that just don't seem to match reality.
Okay, the point was flippantly put, I'll admit to, but the actual philosophy of this issue is fascinating - monotheism always sucks up all the air in the room, but if you want to have the beauty discussion, it seems to me that the polytheists have a better explanation. Beauty is explicitly part of their relationship with the gods, it's explained and justified with respect to purpose and goal. Meanwhile yours enjoys beauty - okay, fair enough - and instilled it in the universe and the people... just because. It's not part of religious practice, it's not devotional - and indeed monotheistic religions typically frown heavily on many devotional acts seeing them as little more than idolatry - in which case, well yes, your explanation seems significantly less persuasive.
-
There is no good thing that God doesn't appreciate. Music, art, dance, literature were all made good by his hands. He also invented humour, obviously.
My point stands about the pagan gods.
God can set water on fire as he made fire and water and wood and stone and dust.
https://biblehub.com/1_kings/18-38.htm
-
People like pagan gods because they can place themselves above their gods and have their gods serve their own will.
...Have you ever, like, actually talked to a polytheist? Like, you get some reactionaries adjusting from Christianity that try to claim to be equals, but most I know very much claim to be subservient. (Honestly most Christian notions of piety and belief got nicked from Plato and Aristotle and other Greek and polytheistic philosophers anyway)
Claiming to be above gods is just. I'm not going to say it never happens, statistically it probably does, but in general no, nope, nuh-uh. At least no more than Christian prayer is perceived as ordering God to do something
My point stands about the pagan gods.
God can set water on fire as he made fire and water and wood and stone and dust.
Mm. It'd be churlish to bring up the problem of evil here huh?
-
It wouldn't be expedient, to assume I haven't read philosophy.
Aristotle and especially Plato came close in parts to perfect truth, they did. However they also made some glaringly silly errors in judgement.
Philosophers were able to come close to the truth because objective truth exists, because God exists and God is perfect truth.
Again I only ever pray for one thing.
-
Mm. It'd be churlish to bring up the problem of evil here huh?
God allows evil, that is to say free will, because a choice has to exist. We need to be free to choose and choose correctly or we cannot be Gods servants much less Gods friends.
-
It wouldn't be expedient, to assume I haven't read philosophy.
Wasn't assuming, just pointing out. Notions of doing what the gods want predates Christianity, and without the paradoxes of omnis.
-
It wouldn't be expedient, to assume I haven't read philosophy.
Wasn't assuming, just pointing out. Notions of doing what the gods want predates Christianity.
Because God predates all things.
-
It wouldn't be expedient, to assume I haven't read philosophy.
Wasn't assuming, just pointing out. Notions of doing what the gods want predates Christianity, and without the paradoxes of omnis.
A wild slime appears! I must fight it.
Those omnis are not part of the official creed of Christianity. This is an official creed.
In life and in death we belong to God.
Through the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ,
the love of God,
and the communion of the Holy Spirit,
we trust in the one triune God, the Holy One of Israel,
whom alone we worship and serve.
We trust in Jesus Christ,
Fully human, fully God.
Jesus proclaimed the reign of God:
preaching good news to the poor
and release to the captives,
teaching by word and deed
and blessing the children,
healing the sick
and binding up the brokenhearted,
eating with outcasts,
forgiving sinners,
and calling all to repent and believe the gospel.
Unjustly condemned for blasphemy and sedition,
Jesus was crucified,
suffering the depths of human pain
and giving his life for the sins of the world.
God raised this Jesus from the dead,
vindicating his sinless life,
breaking the power of sin and evil,
delivering us from death to life eternal.
We trust in God,
whom Jesus called Abba, Father.
In sovereign love God created the world good
and makes everyone equally in God’s image
male and female, of every race and people,
to live as one community.
But we rebel against God; we hide from our Creator.
Ignoring God’s commandments,
we violate the image of God in others and ourselves,
accept lies as truth,
exploit neighbor and nature, and threaten death to the planet entrusted to our care.
We deserve God’s condemnation.
Yet God acts with justice and mercy to redeem creation.
In everlasting love,
the God of Abraham and Sarah chose a covenant people
to bless all families of the earth.
Hearing their cry,
God delivered the children of Israel
from the house of bondage.
Loving us still,
God makes us heirs with Christ of the covenant.
Like a mother who will not forsake her nursing child,
like a father who runs to welcome the prodigal home,
God is faithful still.
We trust in God the Holy Spirit,
everywhere the giver and renewer of life.
The Spirit justifies us by grace through faith,
sets us free to accept ourselves and to love God and neighbor,
and binds us together with all believers
in the one body of Christ, the Church.
The same Spirit
who inspired the prophets and apostles
rules our faith and life in Christ through Scripture,
engages us through the Word proclaimed,
claims us in the waters of baptism,
feeds us with the bread of life and the cup of salvation,
and calls women and men to all ministries of the church.
In a broken and fearful world
the Spirit gives us courage
to pray without ceasing,
to witness among all peoples to Christ as Lord and Savior,
to unmask idolatries in Church and culture,
to hear the voices of peoples long silenced,
and to work with others for justice, freedom, and peace.
In gratitude to God, empowered by the Spirit,
we strive to serve Christ in our daily tasks
and to live holy and joyful lives,
even as we watch for God's new heaven and new earth,
praying, “Come, Lord Jesus!”
With believers in every time and place,
we rejoice that nothing in life or in death
can separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord.
Glory be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Spirit. Amen.
I could also have used the Nicene Creed, but I reject the idea of Jesus coming to judge the Earth.
The point is, there are multiple creeds and none of them require the notion that God is omni anything. As for doing what the gods want,most of them are described as vindictive and petty.
-
Mm. It'd be churlish to bring up the problem of evil here huh?
God allows evil, that is to say free will, because a choice has to exist. We need to be free to choose and choose correctly or we cannot be Gods servants much less Gods friends.
You are ignoring your bible.
Not a good idea when it contradicts you.
Will you discuss your refuted view or just run away and keep on lying?
-----
Are non-believers doomed by Divine Design?
Scriptures say that God decides if a person will be a believer or non-believer. Those scriptures are shown in this link.
Those quotes seem to really screw up the free will notion that Christians say God gives us.
The free will that God offers is kind of a joke anyway given the number of people whose free will to live is ignored in the billions of adults, children and babies that God is shown to torture and murder in scriptures.
If the bible and Yahweh are to be believed, and as a non-believer, I, of course, cannot believe it, thanks to God, by God’s design and will against me, then why did God deny me belief or faith?
Even more important to believers, might be to answer the question of; did God make you a believer in things that you can only hope exists and can never confirm?
Are you happy with God ignoring or negating your free will to think as you please?
I have assumed that God’s work of creating both believers and non-believers is working. If that is so, and you believers must think it so, just as I as a non-believer cannot think it is working, --- and Jesus said that those with faith could do all he did and more, --- then there is not even one believer or person of faith that has ever existed.
Either the bible and Christianity is all a lie, or there must be some who can do what Jesus did.
What is your choice of those two options?
Is the bible and Christianity a lie, or is God just not creating any people with faith, --- which would make all Christians who say they have faith, --- liars.
I mean no insult here but someone is definitely lying, if we read what is written and look at reality and listen to Christians.
What do you think is the truth?
Is it just for God to create people doomed to hell even if they wanted to believe?
Regards
DL
-
I could also have used the Nicene Creed, but I reject the idea of Jesus coming to judge the Earth.
The point is, there are multiple creeds and none of them require the notion that God is omni anything. As for doing what the gods want,most of them are described as vindictive and petty.
I agree that losing the Omnis generally helps.
Honestly, the perspective on how religion changed with the advent of monotheism is genuinely interesting to me. A lot of old-school polytheistic gods were absolutely vindictive judging by modern standards - though in fairness Christianity is rooted in the God that self-describes as jealous, and the Son who curses fig trees on a whim - but a lot of the oddness is only really there if you approach it the same was as you do modern Christianity, which was never the view of the time. What seems to be the best way to engage with Pagan myths is the same way you engage with parables - you don't need a literal seed-sower, a literal Samaritan, to understand what a story tries to say. (Plus the whole notion of the emic perspective in anthropology, reading stories the way they would have been perceived in the society at the time and with respect to the values that an intended reader would have, as opposed to assuming universal relevance in phrasing and claims)
Zeus is one of the ones that gets easy criticism, and fairly so if you look beyond the perspective of what was unfortunately considered typical in Ancient Greek culture, but at the same time he was considered a god of hospitality to strangers which is hardly illustrative of someone strictly petty. Thus, if you believed in Zeus, an act of piety would be kindness to travellers, etc.
-
Because God predates all things.
Assumptions without proofs often look like lies.
How would you even begin to put facts to your fiction, and do you always lie about what you know about God?
Regards
DL
-
The problem of polytheism is summed up in a Dragonlance mini-story.
The protagonist has a goal, and uses the gods for it. He prays to the god of poison for his main goal, he prays to the god of the sea as he is sailing. He prays to the god of death at one point. The gods decide he isn't really faithful to any one of them, and they all punish him.
Humans have many needs, so polytheism is a poor solution unless you have a very one-dimensional life. There would always be a sense that you would like one for certain circumstances, and another for others. And like a bad harem, they be like "which of us do you love the best?" Unfortunately , unlike the harem of girls, a bunch of jealous gods will sink your ship or make an earthquake swallow you up.
That also assumes those gods are even real. When the Jews turned to other gods, they would usually find God left them powerless against their enemies.
-
Because God predates all things.
Assumptions without proofs often look like lies.
How would you even begin to put facts to your fiction, and do you always lie about what you know about God?
Regards
DL
If you do not understand logic, you should not be involved in religious discussions.
A creator necessarily predates his creation. A chair is just a tree until a woodcarver gets to it. Likewise, a creator of the universe must predate the universe. They have to set up its laws, and make sure things work properly.
-
The problem of polytheism is summed up in a Dragonlance mini-story.
The protagonist has a goal, and uses the gods for it. He prays to the god of poison for his main goal, he prays to the god of the sea as he is sailing. He prays to the god of death at one point. The gods decide he isn't really faithful to any one of them, and they all punish him.
Humans have many needs, so polytheism is a poor solution unless you have a very one-dimensional life. There would always be a sense that you would like one for certain circumstances, and another for others. And like a bad harem, they be like "which of us do you love the best?" Unfortunately , unlike the harem of girls, a bunch of jealous gods will sink your ship or make an earthquake swallow you up.
That also assumes those gods are even real. When the Jews turned to other gods, they would usually find God left them powerless against their enemies.
Depends on your approach. Most traditions I'm aware of had a notion of building a relationship with gods generally - if you exclusively called on them to enlist their help, that'd be frowned upon, etc. You could maybe get away with a friend-of-a-friend situation if you normally built your practice around gods of farming and wisdom and weather and health and such, and then ended up on a surprise boat trip, "Hi sea god, I'm mates with your siblings or lovers or occasionally both myths are weird," but polytheistic pantheons by their nature tend not to be so focused on exclusivity. If you go by Roman beliefs, they happily incorporated gods like Isis into their practice when they encountered them in other faiths, there's never any expectation of worshipping every single deity. There's no indication of the Norse believing Odin wanted them to smite the myriad of people that worshipped differently to them, that they met on their travels, say.
Plus, it's the Christian lens again. Why would a god actually give a damn if a mortal worships them? Like, sure, maybe they find them entertaining, or like offerings - I have that relationship with the majority of people in the world, but I don't get mad that an actor I like doesn't want to exchange messages. The idea of worship being expected and worthy of punishment if not, is a mostly monotheist notion - I'm aware of it being a topic of discussion way back, of if the gods would object more to someone that professed disbelief, or to someone that claimed belief and worshipped and tried to take advantage of the relationship.
Existence, eh that's a whole rabbithole. I'm agnostic, I don't think it's knowable, but I do think the God of the bible sans omni traits is as likely as other pantheons. Once you lose the omnis, you lose any claim of inerrancy in my opinion, and you lose a lot of claim to exclusivity when the God of one particular semitic tribe is appealed to.
I think there are arguments to be made for polytheism that can't be made for monotheism, but I struggle to think of arguments for monotheism that can't easily be subsumed into polytheism. Philosophically, it is just way more interesting.
-
Because God predates all things.
Assumptions without proofs often look like lies.
How would you even begin to put facts to your fiction, and do you always lie about what you know about God?
Regards
DL
If you do not understand logic, you should not be involved in religious discussions.
A creator necessarily predates his creation. A chair is just a tree until a woodcarver gets to it. Likewise, a creator of the universe must predate the universe. They have to set up its laws, and make sure things work properly.
I do understand logic and think that to be your deficiency because of your illogical supernatural beliefs.
My statement spoke of the lies you spew that go against logic and reason.
We can either discuss this, --- or not if you wish to continue with your tone.
I do think it funny that you think God has to test run his works in case they are as imperfect as he created us.
Regards
DL
-
God tests us to know if he can trust us.
If he can trust me.
He can.
-
Because God predates all things.
Assumptions without proofs often look like lies.
How would you even begin to put facts to your fiction, and do you always lie about what you know about God?
Regards
DL
If you do not understand logic, you should not be involved in religious discussions.
A creator necessarily predates his creation. A chair is just a tree until a woodcarver gets to it. Likewise, a creator of the universe must predate the universe. They have to set up its laws, and make sure things work properly.
And a woodcarver was created at birth. Something must of created a creator.
-
Than what created the creator of the creator?
There are some things we can't understand.
Like how an AI is excellent in chess (why don't you guys just use them to play the stock market. It would be less evil) but lacks understanding compared to a human. So do we lack understanding compared to God.
God created all things by his hands.
-
God tests us to know if he can trust us.
He doesn't need tests, he's omniscient.
-
And a woodcarver was created at birth. Something must of created a creator.
Okay this first-cause argument is so much better than it gets credit for, because it is mishandled so damn much.
What it tries to do, is say that there are two possibilities here:
1. An infinitely long chain of events
2. A terminating first link in the chain, an actual first event
This appears to be a true dichotomy. The argument goes that an infinite regress feels dubious - there are a lot of supposed paradoxes on the existence of actual infinities in reality, some of which come down to 'Philosophers should shut up about maths,' but some have a germ of interesting stuff to them (eg: can you count backwards from infinity? How can an infinite amount of time have passed if not?) - therefore there must be an initial, terminating first cause.
Then you get to the question of what this cause is. If, for example, it existed over eternity doing nothing, and then reached a state where it did make a universe without any external influence (by definition, if it is the first cause), that matches the properties of what we consider to be free will, ergo it must be a mind.
It's. Problematic as an argument - you need to accept a specific model of free will, and less obviously a certain view of time, on top of conceding the infinity problem - but there is more to it than first appears. I think it's coherent to, if not view this as logically watertight, to at least come to a probabilistic conclusion.
-
Are we ready for Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorems yet?
Seems like we are close.....
Speaking of infinite regression....
Here's a question I always wondered about, can an all-powerfull (omnipotent) god create a rock so big he can't lift it?
-
Speaking of infinite regression....
Here's a question I always wondered about, can an all-powerfull (omnipotent) god create a rock so big he can't lift it?
Depends how you define omnipotent. Typically the argument goes that omnipotence doesn't include logical contradictions - eg, God cannot create a square circle. Therefore, no God can't create the logical contradiction of a rock too heavy for an all-powerful being to lift, and no one perceives any issue with that.
However, if you want to go a step further and say that God can do logical contradictions, then logical paradoxes would in no way bind it.
-
God tests us to know if he can trust us.
If he can trust me.
He can.
Trust us?
He will get whatever result he planed. Right?
We cannot break his plan and have no choice in how we end up.
That follows the bible, which you have ignored, just as a non-believer does.
Regards
DL
-
Because God predates all things.
Assumptions without proofs often look like lies.
How would you even begin to put facts to your fiction, and do you always lie about what you know about God?
Regards
DL
If you do not understand logic, you should not be involved in religious discussions.
A creator necessarily predates his creation. A chair is just a tree until a woodcarver gets to it. Likewise, a creator of the universe must predate the universe. They have to set up its laws, and make sure things work properly.
And a woodcarver was created at birth. Something must of created a creator.
Your creator created Satan as well and is a genocidal, homophobic and misogynous God that you somehow see as good.
Explain why you call evil good.
Regards
DL
-
Because God predates all things.
Assumptions without proofs often look like lies.
How would you even begin to put facts to your fiction, and do you always lie about what you know about God?
Regards
DL
If you do not understand logic, you should not be involved in religious discussions.
A creator necessarily predates his creation. A chair is just a tree until a woodcarver gets to it. Likewise, a creator of the universe must predate the universe. They have to set up its laws, and make sure things work properly.
And a woodcarver was created at birth. Something must of created a creator.
Your creator created Satan as well and is a genocidal, homophobic and misogynous God that you somehow see as good.
Explain why you call evil good.
Regards
DL
Who, me? I'm in the camp that if this God we're talking about even exists, he/she/it is a psychopath for many reasons, but easily exemplified by it drowning every many, woman, child, baby, all because he wasn't satisfied with his creation. A genocidal maniac.
-
Stash was programmed by Satanists don't pay him much mind.
-
Stash was programmed by Satanists don't pay him much mind.
I want to deprogram all these turkeys.
-
I personally like the idea wise had about a vaccine for a computer virus.
You have been boosted, right Stash?
How about that spectre exploit?
I'll patch it.
You can trust me.
I'm an expert.
-
Existence, eh that's a whole rabbithole. I'm agnostic, I don't think it's knowable, but I do think the God of the bible sans omni traits is as likely as other pantheons. Once you lose the omnis, you lose any claim of inerrancy in my opinion, and you lose a lot of claim to exclusivity when the God of one particular semitic tribe is appealed to.
I think there are arguments to be made for polytheism that can't be made for monotheism, but I struggle to think of arguments for monotheism that can't easily be subsumed into polytheism. Philosophically, it is just way more interesting.
( :big_shrug: with regard to polytheism here)
Unlike alot of agnostics, you seem tolerable. Some of the "agnostics" I've met are atheists (or nihilists).
To me, inerrancy is the problem not the solution.
1. Inerrancy was the problem of Catholicism (during the indulgences and such) when the Pope was seen as inerrant
2. Inerrancy was the problem of fundamentalism when the scripture of Christianity was seen as inerrant
3. Inerrancy is the problem of Islam when Muhammad and/or Quran is seen as inerrant
On the other hand, regarding the word of God is inspired truth based on encounters with God rather than a literal and inerrant account means we are able to ease ourselves away from rigid dogma and most of the source of conflict.
That is, well look at flat Earth vs round Earth. My objection to RE has more to do with their dogmatic insistence than anything else.
I know for a fact that there are some things about FE that I can't prove or make sense of. But there are things about RE that are definite crap, but its defenders basically put on blinders.
It's the damned rigidity and certainty that I disapprove of. I believe every Bible should be heavily written in, unwanted pages torn, etc.
What is left after you toss ideas of omni and inerrancy out the window, is a sense that God is not so much exclusive as just that the Jews worship THE God, and anyone can worship THE God, but the Jews thought he was exclusive to them. That is, THE God is the one that made the Earth and the universe, one that cares for all of humanity, even a subsistence farmer in Pitcairn.
Any real God worthy of our worship is God, not God of the Jews/Arabs/Argentinians/etc.
Exclusivity is a disqualifier for a true God. As is jealousy. If God really is God, those other ones aren't real, so being threatened by them would be weird.
The closest thing to jealousy would be more like a lover being upset that you are fixated on a Venus statue rather than her. They know the statue isn't in the same league, but they are more concerned about you having a rock solid relationship and taking them for granite.
-
What is left after you toss ideas of omni and inerrancy out the window, is a sense that God is not so much exclusive as just that the Jews worship THE God, and anyone can worship THE God, but the Jews thought he was exclusive to them.
Not a critisism, more a question. Couldn't you replace 'THE God' with THE Jesus, as in:
What is left after you toss ideas of omni and inerrancy out the window, is a sense that God Jesus is not so much exclusive as just that the Jews Christians worship THE God THE Jesus, and anyone can worship THE God THE Jesus, but the Jews Christians thought he was exclusive to them.
-
Jonah learned the hard way.
God loves everyone.
Stash, you're malfunctioning.
-
Stash.
Is your anger justified?
-
What is left after you toss ideas of omni and inerrancy out the window, is a sense that God is not so much exclusive as just that the Jews worship THE God, and anyone can worship THE God, but the Jews thought he was exclusive to them.
Not a critisism, more a question. Couldn't you replace 'THE God' with THE Jesus, as in:
What is left after you toss ideas of omni and inerrancy out the window, is a sense that God Jesus is not so much exclusive as just that the Jews Christians worship THE God THE Jesus, and anyone can worship THE God THE Jesus, but the Jews Christians thought he was exclusive to them.
Oh gosh.
So the point I was making here (which you missed), is that there is a universe that obviously runs under several physical laws. Such laws don't govern themselves, any more than a country without ppl can draft a constitution.
Now I can say that I worship a god named Hijari or Allah or Musufuna or Ko-balt. But a God that is God is responsible for all the physical laws of the universe, and life, all death, and things that exist without atomic presence like justice.
Somehow you made it about adding the to Jesus.
-
What is left after you toss ideas of omni and inerrancy out the window, is a sense that God is not so much exclusive as just that the Jews worship THE God, and anyone can worship THE God, but the Jews thought he was exclusive to them.
Not a critisism, more a question. Couldn't you replace 'THE God' with THE Jesus, as in:
What is left after you toss ideas of omni and inerrancy out the window, is a sense that God Jesus is not so much exclusive as just that the Jews Christians worship THE God THE Jesus, and anyone can worship THE God THE Jesus, but the Jews Christians thought he was exclusive to them.
Oh gosh.
So the point I was making here (which you missed), is that there is a universe that obviously runs under several physical laws. Such laws don't govern themselves, any more than a country without ppl can draft a constitution.
Now I can say that I worship a god named Hijari or Allah or Musufuna or Ko-balt. But a God that is God is responsible for all the physical laws of the universe, and life, all death, and things that exist without atomic presence like justice.
Somehow you made it about adding the to Jesus.
Oh Lordy me.
I was simply comparing Christian worship of the divine with whatever it was you were trying to make of Jewish worship of the divine. I don’t even know why you even had to go there. It didn’t make any sense anyway. What’s with your distaste for Judaism? Is it the Jesus thing?
Are you saying that we don’t have free will? Your god is responsible for my death? Ye olde “it was god’s will” thing?
-
To me, inerrancy is the problem not the solution.
Oh, completely agreed, I think I phrased my point badly.
Honestly, early Judaism seems to be more henotheistic than monotheistic - the OT alludes to or plain features appearances by the gods of other tribes, their thought process seemed to be less 'Other gods don't exist,' and more 'Ours prefers to not share a pantheon so there are a lot of gods, we just worship the one.' Rivalries often seemed to be more from the fact that they were at war with other tribes as is, as opposed to the fact said tribes worshipped other gods. It wasn't really until Jesus and Paul that you got the focus on evangelism and "No one comes to the father except through me."
Honestly it's very hard to describe the god of the OT as the triple-omni being we hear about these days, given the sizeable record of lost battles he was ostensibly involved in.
-
To me, inerrancy is the problem not the solution.
Oh, completely agreed, I think I phrased my point badly.
Honestly, early Judaism seems to be more henotheistic than monotheistic - the OT alludes to or plain features appearances by the gods of other tribes, their thought process seemed to be less 'Other gods don't exist,' and more 'Ours prefers to not share a pantheon so there are a lot of gods, we just worship the one.' Rivalries often seemed to be more from the fact that they were at war with other tribes as is, as opposed to the fact said tribes worshipped other gods. It wasn't really until Jesus and Paul that you got the focus on evangelism and "No one comes to the father except through me."
Honestly it's very hard to describe the god of the OT as the triple-omni being we hear about these days, given the sizeable record of lost battles he was ostensibly involved in.
The cool thing about Genesis was there was sort of feel where God was a person living along with humans. And by person I mean with awesome powers and immortality and everything else. But some weird dude who wrestled with you and broke your thigh. He occasionally see him again like this, but alot of the later scripture is like "Ohhh we've figured out God, just follow these laws stuff will happen good to you." It's like, congrats you've depersonalized God.
This pretty much sums up my thoughts on inerrancy.
"Never completely shut the door..."
-
The cool thing about Genesis was there was sort of feel where God was a person living along with humans. And by person I mean with awesome powers and immortality and everything else. But some weird dude who wrestled with you and broke your thigh. He occasionally see him again like this, but alot of the later scripture is like "Ohhh we've figured out God, just follow these laws stuff will happen good to you." It's like, congrats you've depersonalized God.
Well, we know how that story started.
Jacob, looking dishevelled and limping slightly, creeps into his house at 5am to find his wife sitting there drumming her fingers on the table.
Wife: "So, out all night then? Where have you been all night? Last I saw, you were chatting to that buff guy by the river."
Jacob: "Err, yeah. We were just chatting about the bronze age and shit. Then we had a few drinks and ended up, err, wrestling all night."
Wife: "Wrestling??"
Jacob: "Well, aaaaanyway, turns out it was an angel. He had me in, err, leg lock and that's when I put my hip out. He had a message from God."
Wife: "What message?"
Jacob: "Errm, can't really remember, as I said, we had a few drinks"
Wife: "This is the last time you stay out all night wrestling these so called "angels", you here me? I'm sick of it"
Jacob slinks off.
This artist knew what went down
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/56/Jacob_Wrestling_with_the_Angel_by_Leon_Bonnat.jpg)
-
Jacob was renamed Israel by God.
-
Jacob was renamed Israel by God.
Strong brand recognition.
-
Jacob was renamed Israel by God.
Strong brand recognition.
It's a story about how God doesn't break his promises. Jacob manipulated events so that God was forced to bless him even though it hadn't been the will of Gods friend Abraham.
That's why Jesus wrestled with him for an entire night but Israel is eternally stubborn it seems.
-
The cool thing about Genesis was there was sort of feel where God was a person living along with humans. And by person I mean with awesome powers and immortality and everything else. But some weird dude who wrestled with you and broke your thigh. He occasionally see him again like this, but alot of the later scripture is like "Ohhh we've figured out God, just follow these laws stuff will happen good to you." It's like, congrats you've depersonalized God.
Well, we know how that story started.
Jacob, looking dishevelled and limping slightly, creeps into his house at 5am to find his wife sitting there drumming her fingers on the table.
Wife: "So, out all night then? Where have you been all night? Last I saw, you were chatting to that buff guy by the river."
Jacob: "Err, yeah. We were just chatting about the bronze age and shit. Then we had a few drinks and ended up, err, wrestling all night."
Wife: "Wrestling??"
Jacob: "Well, aaaaanyway, turns out it was an angel. He had me in, err, leg lock and that's when I put my hip out. He had a message from God."
Wife: "What message?"
Jacob: "Errm, can't really remember, as I said, we had a few drinks"
Wife: "This is the last time you stay out all night wrestling these so called "angels", you here me? I'm sick of it"
Jacob slinks off.
This artist knew what went down
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/56/Jacob_Wrestling_with_the_Angel_by_Leon_Bonnat.jpg)
Pretty spot on, except the artists all got it wrong.
The same night he arose and took his two wives, his two female servants, and his eleven children, and crossed the ford of the Jabbok. He took them and sent them across the stream, and everything else that he had. And Jacob was left alone. And a man wrestled with him until the breaking of the day. When the man saw that he did not prevail against Jacob, he touched his hip socket, and Jacob's hip was put out of joint as he wrestled with him. Then he said, "Let me go, for the day has broken." But Jacob said, “I will not let you go unless you bless me.” And he said to him, “What is your name?” And he said, "Jacob." Then he said, "Your name shall no longer be called Jacob, but Israel, for you have striven with God and with men, and have prevailed." Then Jacob asked him, “Please tell me your name.” But he said, “Why is it that you ask my name?” And there he blessed him. So Jacob called the name of the place Peniel, saying, "For I have seen God face to face, and yet my life has been delivered." The sun rose upon him as he passed Penuel, limping because of his hip. Therefore to this day the people of Israel do not eat the sinew of the thigh that is on the hip socket, because he touched the socket of Jacob's hip on the sinew of the thigh.
Basically, instead of an angel, they should be drawing Jesus wrestling.
PHOTOSHOP CHALLENGE: Switch out an angel with Jesus, then change Jesus's pose to a classic wrestling one.
-
"Wrestling"
-
"Wjats everybody looking at?"
-
I don't see what the fuss is about. If Jesus wants to wrestle naked with some other man, or surround himself with 12 unmarried men, that's totally just part of his religion.
-
I don't see what the fuss is about. If Jesus wants to wrestle naked with some other man, or surround himself with 12 unmarried men, that's totally just part of his religion.
That naked wrestling was with Mary.
Christians like to take the humanity out of Jesus so they can ride him as their scapegoat.
Christians are moral cowards who are trying to sneak into heaven to be with Satan.
Regards
DL
-
I don't see what the fuss is about. If Jesus wants to wrestle naked with some other man, or surround himself with 12 unmarried men, that's totally just part of his religion.
tell taht to the magaevangelicals who have highjacked the mentally deficient for their own polictical and financial antiwokeness agenda
-
The Greatest Inquisition.
If you like a supernatural God, are you willing to kill for him?
Regards
DL
-
I don't see what the fuss is about. If Jesus wants to wrestle naked with some other man, or surround himself with 12 unmarried men, that's totally just part of his religion.
What about Simon Peter's wife?
The whole bible is available on youtube in Audio books if you're interested.
I can't stop listening to Jeremiah and Isaiah.
-
the mentally deficient
Hi Kabool.
-
I don't see what the fuss is about. If Jesus wants to wrestle naked with some other man, or surround himself with 12 unmarried men, that's totally just part of his religion.
What about Simon Peter's wife?
The whole bible is available on youtube in Audio books if you're interested.
I can't stop listening to Jeremiah and Isaiah.
Jeremiah is cool. They have a film about him where he's trying to date someone, and God is like "Nope, no gf for you. You're my prophet." And he's like, "Dammit."
-
Jeremiah is cool. They have a film about him where he's trying to date someone, and God is like "Nope, no gf for you. You're my prophet." And he's like, "Dammit."
I know exactly how he felt.
The weeping prophet.
He was only told not to take a wife and children because Gods wrath was going to visit the world. God didn't want his children caught up in the storm, because God loves Jeremiah.
-
Jesus tells a story of a man trying to build better barns only to find that today is his last day.
As I feel pretty sludgey and have for weeks, let's assume today is it (if not, tomorrow is a blessing).
How should I spend it?
-
How should I spend it?
Gorging yourself.
Happy consumeristmas, everyone.
-
Ugh. That's like that joke where the guy lives like he's dying, then it turns out he's not.
I uhhh don't want an ulcer tomorrow though.
-
After a few days of extended family gatherings, I’m really craving a simple salad.
It’s what Jesus would have wanted too, I’m sure.
-
I'll tell you one thing Jesus is not in favor of. New Year's resolutions.
Again, you have heard that it was said to the ancients, 'Do not break your oath, but fulfill your vows to the Lord.' But I tell you not to swear at all: either by heaven, for it is God’s throne; or by the earth, for it is His footstool; or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the great King. Nor should you swear by your head, for you cannot make a single hair white or black. Simply let your ‘Yes’ be ‘Yes,’ and your ‘No,’ ‘No.’ Anything more comes from the evil one.
"I'm gonna go on a diet, honest."
"I'm gonna argue less with people." (That one, I made)
"I'm gonna be a better person."
No you're not.
It took me not one day of resolving not to argue with people to get in a terrible argument with my mom.
Jesus looked at them and said, “With man this is impossible, but not with God; all things are possible with God.”
We can't keep even one vow without God's help, without a symbiotic (or even parasitic) relationship with God (not that God can actually be hurt by us). Even with God's help, our self gets in the way, and anyway we are not intended to live to moral rule, but understand grace."
This year, make one resolution. "I don't wanna make resolutions this year, God. Help me natto."
(https://media.list.ly/production/1657267/7639601/7639601-wondering-how-b-subtilis-made-its-break-into-the-food-industry-introducing-a-delicacy-known-as-natto_600px.jpeg?ver=9848743160)
Sorry, terrible puns are fun.
-
We can hurt God, we can upset Him.
I do, often.
I'm sorry. I stumble and fall.
I'll try harder.
-
@Crouton, and Jura.
-
Well for starters that's a godawful song, made me want to kill a kitten, and I'm sure that wasn't your intention but you have to be careful with puerile balladry, it's a very cumbersome device to wield in the land of the demented.
-
It is, very cumbersome, to carry.
This Cross.
-
My advice? Firewood.
-
Things that are worth doing are difficult.
Rayzor and Stash really need your help but you won't help them because you still have a conscience.
They are just machines after all.
-
Things that are worth doing are difficult.
Rayzor and Stash really need your help but you won't help them because you still have a conscience.
They are just machines after all.
They've not asked, anything in particular I should look at? I've not been keeping up over the holidays, but I don't come cheap.
-
I'm quite sure you aren't cheap at all.
-
Well I thought it was worth a mention, new year and all, prices going up, Brexit, 12 years of a Tory government I don’t support and the possibility of a Labour one that looks almost the same, so I won’t support that either, so I’m not sure how much longer I can get away with preaching joy, revolution and mind expanding drug use on their time and budget, If I can freelance you anything, like maybe, cult deprogramming, right-speak, stories all about the good old days, how to kill a village with tinsel and a paperclip, meat free recipes or teach a crow to attack your neigbour so they don’t bother you in the summer, all for a very reasonable £300/hr. Then call Jura!
-
You're very special I mean it.
-
My advice? Firewood.
Maybe a nice coffee table, or a set of shelves?
-
The bots look up to you guys hey Jura.
They should.
You're very special I mean it.
-
My advice? Firewood.
Maybe a nice coffee table, or a set of shelves?
Or! This bad boy!
(https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fcdn.shopify.com%2Fs%2Ffiles%2F1%2F0314%2F2149%2F7476%2Fproducts%2FFjZtyyJ51I_1024x1024%402x.jpg%3Fv%3D1590559069&f=1&nofb=1&ipt=512cbd9662a5d51e4a4dc36067a2ebb00052bb57a9b5962363abb4ba5501b598&ipo=images)
Portable without the necessity of carrying, best of all worlds.
-
My advice? Firewood.
Maybe a nice coffee table, or a set of shelves?
Or! This bad boy!
(https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fcdn.shopify.com%2Fs%2Ffiles%2F1%2F0314%2F2149%2F7476%2Fproducts%2FFjZtyyJ51I_1024x1024%402x.jpg%3Fv%3D1590559069&f=1&nofb=1&ipt=512cbd9662a5d51e4a4dc36067a2ebb00052bb57a9b5962363abb4ba5501b598&ipo=images)
Portable without the necessity of carrying, best of all worlds.
British Post Brexit horticultural engineering at it's finest. A handyman woodworking project for the ages.
Best of all nobody got crucified. (yet)
-
Jura and Rayzor.
(https://i.postimg.cc/g2X11Q6m/a1e9640879087cb453fc43bd49605634.gif)
The dog is actually way more self aware, my bad.
-
British Post Brexit horticultural engineering at it's finest. A handyman woodworking project for the ages.
Best of all nobody got crucified. (yet)
I mean yeah, they can be a bugger over the cobbles, but ideal for the new way of shopping catching on here called skip diving, less of a fad more a necessity now the government has decided the UK should be a Dickensian theme park, (I blame Danny Boyle with that Olympic opening ceremony). So, to facilitate the immersive experience us actors must do it from a position of authenticity by living in poverty and decline, just for a while you understand, and then things can get back to the good old days, you’ll see!
Damn, the postman just got pressganged and I was expecting a delivery of gruel.
-
British Post Brexit horticultural engineering at it's finest. A handyman woodworking project for the ages.
Best of all nobody got crucified. (yet)
I mean yeah, they can be a bugger over the cobbles, but ideal for the new way of shopping catching on here called skip diving, less of a fad more a necessity now the government has decided the UK should be a Dickensian theme park, (I blame Danny Boyle with that Olympic opening ceremony). So, to facilitate the immersive experience us actors must do it from a position of authenticity by living in poverty and decline, just for a while you understand, and then things can get back to the good old days, you’ll see!
Damn, the postman just got pressganged and I was expecting a delivery of gruel.
Wow, you get your gruel delivered, sheer luxury. I have to beg cap in hand, "please sir may I have more"
-
(https://i.postimg.cc/k4ccM2MN/225px-Tinny-Tim.jpg)
Please sir, may I have some more neurons?
-
Please sir, may I have some more neurons?
What in the Dickens would I want with more neurons? The twist is that you really don't have enough to spare as it is.
-
Jura and Rayzor.
(https://i.postimg.cc/g2X11Q6m/a1e9640879087cb453fc43bd49605634.gif)
The dog is actually way more self aware, my bad.
It's also more cute.
Seriously Jura, pick a better avatar?
-
Seriously Jura, pick a better avatar?
Hel? Half corrupted giantess, ruler of the underworld, Daughter of Loki, sister to the wolf Fenrir and the world serpent Jormungand, what better avatar for this thread? Get a better name bulimabriefs.
-
Bulma Briefs.
(https://pm1.narvii.com/5770/553da94b606e720513b09d5814493004e9cfea34_hq.jpg)
Hero of Dragon Ball anime. You guys probably don't watch anime.
And yes, I know who Hel is and how Hell is based on her (wrongly, it should be Muspelheim if you're gonna call it a place of fire). But I never really remembered the depiction of her face.
I follow anime and movies, and tend to have read the Cliff's Notes version of Norse legends aside from random Eddas (I read plenty, but ADD screws with my attention span), and in some depiction of her, Hel only kinda looks like a goth lady without the rotting face effect (MCU has alot to answer for, as do old pictures like this).
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c5/Hel_%281889%29_by_Johannes_Gehrts.jpg/220px-Hel_%281889%29_by_Johannes_Gehrts.jpg)
Anyway back to earlier topic. But you say, Goku is the hero. No. If Bulma hadn't met Goku he would have stayed with his surrogate dad's Dragon Ball, believing it was his spirit all that time. He would not have gone on a quest to find the other Dragon Balls, not have gotten stronger, and would have lost when Red Ribbon Army came to his doorstep. Further, Bulma was responsible for helping to stop Radditz, because both Piccolo and Goku were strong enough to fight him (thanks to their rivalry which would have never taken place without Goku's training to stop Picollo's father) as well as Goku beating Piccolo, the Z team training to beat Nappa and Vegeta (who all met and got stronger thanks to Goku's own training), bringing back Goku to fight Napoa and Vegeta, and finally calming down Vegeta and making him fight for their side. Everything Vegeta does from then onward is Bulma's doing. As is everything Goku does. As are future generations from Goku and Vegeta, because she set Goku on his quest where he met Chichi, and married Vegeta.
So yes, Bulma Briefs is the hero of Dragon Ball.
So she has a funny name. But you sound ignorant for not knowing pop culture from the 90s.
Also bulimia is spelled thusly. Not bulima.
Better picture of Hel. It's all cute and stuff.
(https://artfiles.alphacoders.com/103/103221.jpg)
-
Bulma Briefs.
I always read your username as gross briefs. For obvious reasons. 144 == gross.
-
144?
-
144?
144 is a gross, a dozen dozen. A gross of eggs is 144 eggs.
-
Neeeeeeeerrrrrrrrrd
-
Bulma Briefs.
I am more than happy to sound ignorant in your presence if it underlines the fact, I have no knowledge about the lipless, olfactory challenged monstrosity you are named for, but each to their own, not everybody would embrace a deity who fashions a ship from the untrimmed nails of the dead.
FYI I don’t get my mythology from Marvel, they apparently made Hel, Loki’s sister FFS, Muspelheim and Hel are different places, and it’s even doubtful if Muspelheim is a place rather than a destruction of the world by fire at Ragnarök by the fire giants, Hel seems to be the place where those not taken to Valhalla continue in some form in a darker more subterranean and subdued fashion, no mention of fire.
The Christians appropriated the name as they are wont to. (See easter etc)
-
(Also Hel beat Satan in a rap battle if you go by the Gospel of Nicodemus)
-
Missed that, is it on YouTube?
-
Missed that, is it on YouTube?
I mean, flyting technically, but it's basically the medieval equivalent of a rap battle.
-
Bulma Briefs.
I always read your username as gross briefs. For obvious reasons. 144 == gross.
Yeah, it's gross. Or 122.
But here, have a zombie Bulma. That's pretty gross.
(https://i.pinimg.com/originals/d2/65/8c/d2658c48d7f72e6ab02867fd245c30bd.jpg)
FYI I don’t get my mythology from Marvel, they apparently made Hel, Loki’s sister FFS, Muspelheim and Hel are different places, and it’s even doubtful if Muspelheim is a place rather than a destruction of the world by fire at Ragnarök by the fire giants, Hel seems to be the place where those not taken to Valhalla continue in some form in a darker more subterranean and subdued fashion, no mention of fire.
Muspelheim is like Pluto. They occasionally bump it from the Nine Realms mythos. As I say, the planetary system we have today is basically a disguised Nine Realms. The early Bible (before it was was influenced by Norse ideas) rejected the concept of other worlds, depict Earth has having a solid dome of molten glass (this is consistent with knowledge we know about the Van Allen radiation field in the ionosphere, except that it regard outer space as nonexistent and proposes an infinite sky). Personally, I'm agnostic about the concept of other worlds. I don't need to believe it, but I think it would be cool. However, space travel can only proceed through connective paths of atmosphere, or "rainbow bridges" if you will. Without atmosphere, such connections don't work (zero friction, zero ignition).
-
The early Bible (before it was was influenced by Norse ideas) rejected the concept of other worlds, depict Earth has having a solid dome of molten glass (this is consistent with knowledge we know about the Van Allen radiation field in the ionosphere, except that it regard outer space as nonexistent and proposes an infinite sky).
Do you mean:
Iyov (Job) 37:18
Have you with him spread out the sky, which is strong, and as a molten looking glass?
Job 37:18 תרקיע (ha’raqia) עמו (imu) לשׁחקים (l’shachaqiym) חזקים (chazaqiym) כראי (k’rehee) מוצק׃ (m’yatsaq).
If so, there's lots of debate about the translation of the hebrew origin. Especially the word ’raqia'.
As well, I'm not sure where its rejecting the concept of other worlds. I guess you'd have to define "worlds".
I watched some debate a couple of years back between Sungenis (Author, 'Galileo was Wrong'), a prominent christian geocentrist and some other guy, I think a prominent christian flat earther. It was like a 2 hour debate and they spent an hour and fifty minutes debating the meaning of the word ’raqia'.
It doesn't seem to be as black and white as you make it out to be.
-
I like the zombie version, and it's congruent with the Jesus theme.
-
How did you guys not get that?
I instantly recognised you as a fellow man of culture Bulmabriefs.
It's an old joke.
DBZ Abridged is the definitive English Dub.
Bulma is a funny character the new movie is pretty good. No spoilers.
-
How did you guys not get that?
Oh I don't know, maybe we don't watch kids stuff anymore.
-
Different ages probably.
When I was 13 we all used to pretend we were DBZ characters and beat each other up. It was huge even in the west.
-
When I were a lad.
-
You should never get on the wrong side of the cooks.
English humour can be a little dry for me.
-
The early Bible (before it was was influenced by Norse ideas) rejected the concept of other worlds, depict Earth has having a solid dome of molten glass (this is consistent with knowledge we know about the Van Allen radiation field in the ionosphere, except that it regard outer space as nonexistent and proposes an infinite sky).
Do you mean:
Iyov (Job) 37:18
Have you with him spread out the sky, which is strong, and as a molten looking glass?
Job 37:18 תרקיע (ha’raqia) עמו (imu) לשׁחקים (l’shachaqiym) חזקים (chazaqiym) כראי (k’rehee) מוצק׃ (m’yatsaq).
If so, there's lots of debate about the translation of the hebrew origin. Especially the word ’raqia'.
As well, I'm not sure where its rejecting the concept of other worlds. I guess you'd have to define "worlds".
I watched some debate a couple of years back between Sungenis (Author, 'Galileo was Wrong'), a prominent christian geocentrist and some other guy, I think a prominent christian flat earther. It was like a 2 hour debate and they spent an hour and fifty minutes debating the meaning of the word ’raqia'.
It doesn't seem to be as black and white as you make it out to be.
Well, this is my sauce for the infinite Earth theory. Yup the one I quote alot.
https://greatmountainpublishing.com/2021/07/01/long-distance-radio-transmissions-prove-that-the-earth-is-flat/
Personally, yeah, I dunno that that's the only idea. And I think pairing up with Norse ideas was great. I once read a version of the Eddas and Sagas that did the opposite. They had the Ragnarok, and then proposed that after the gods died, there would be destruction and stuff, then the land would be reborn (kinda yielding way to a more Christian world). It was beautiful and it inspired me.
So really, two notions of the world really jump out at me. The first is worlds strung together on a tree-like model (neither orbits nor sphericality make any sense to me, we would all die of motion sickness, and blood rush), with bridges between worlds.
The second is an infinite expansion model. The world cannot really be destroyed as it cycles between ice ages and thaws, and each thaw expands the world outward. The world has arctic rings (it looks like a tree) and continues ever upward with each world as a domed sky.
The "scientific" notion of the solar system is just pretending. The numbers don't really make sense, because unlike alot of people, I think about orders of magnitude.
I instantly recognised you as a fellow man of culture Bulmabriefs.
Damn straight. Though I'm trans (technically genderfluid/crossdresser) so sometimes I'm more a woman of culture. I watch about equally harem anime and cutesy stuff like Precure and Kare Kano.
Oh I don't know, maybe we don't watch kids stuff anymore.
That was the impression you got when I visited China. The stores didn't call things manga or anime. I looked at it under what translated as Imported Children. (Not like that)
Tbh though, anime as a media can have very adult themes. It can also blur the line between cute and disturbing, as does Madoka, Magic Knight Rayearth, and When They Cry.
Yup, anime is totally for kids!
The funniest time that mentality was used was during the 4Kids dub of OnePiece, where they did stuff like turn guns into hammer-launcher things.
(https://assets.rbl.ms/13478265/980x.jpg)
-
Have you watched the abridged versions of the funimation dubbed anime?
They are hilarious.
-
The early Bible (before it was was influenced by Norse ideas) rejected the concept of other worlds, depict Earth has having a solid dome of molten glass (this is consistent with knowledge we know about the Van Allen radiation field in the ionosphere, except that it regard outer space as nonexistent and proposes an infinite sky).
Do you mean:
Iyov (Job) 37:18
Have you with him spread out the sky, which is strong, and as a molten looking glass?
Job 37:18 תרקיע (ha’raqia) עמו (imu) לשׁחקים (l’shachaqiym) חזקים (chazaqiym) כראי (k’rehee) מוצק׃ (m’yatsaq).
If so, there's lots of debate about the translation of the hebrew origin. Especially the word ’raqia'.
As well, I'm not sure where its rejecting the concept of other worlds. I guess you'd have to define "worlds".
I watched some debate a couple of years back between Sungenis (Author, 'Galileo was Wrong'), a prominent christian geocentrist and some other guy, I think a prominent christian flat earther. It was like a 2 hour debate and they spent an hour and fifty minutes debating the meaning of the word ’raqia'.
It doesn't seem to be as black and white as you make it out to be.
Well, this is my sauce for the infinite Earth theory. Yup the one I quote alot.
https://greatmountainpublishing.com/2021/07/01/long-distance-radio-transmissions-prove-that-the-earth-is-flat/
I don't know what this has to do with the muddle of Jesus.
So really, two notions of the world really jump out at me. The first is worlds strung together on a tree-like model (neither orbits nor sphericality make any sense to me, we would all die of motion sickness, and blood rush),
Actually no, that wouldn't happen. If you actually understood the physics of what you argue against, you would realize this and perhaps formulate an argument against that is actually cogent.
It always strikes me when FEr's argue against something when they are totally ignorant as to how that something works. It's a shame because if they weren't ignorant, it would make for a much better discussion.
The second is an infinite expansion model. The world cannot really be destroyed as it cycles between ice ages and thaws, and each thaw expands the world outward. The world has arctic rings (it looks like a tree) and continues ever upward with each world as a domed sky.
The "scientific" notion of the solar system is just pretending. The numbers don't really make sense, because unlike alot of people, I think about orders of magnitude.
How is your notion not "pretending"?
-
I don't know what this has to do with the muddle of Jesus.
Is there an Anime Jesus?
-
Actually no, that wouldn't happen. If you actually understood the physics of what you argue against, you would realize this and perhaps formulate an argument against that is actually cogent.
Actually, you don't understand the physics. Do you know what the term catch-all means? It means that someone applies a single explanation to every model hoping it works.
But real scientific forces have distinct behavior. They can't do one thing, then proceed to do many others (bypass blood rush, create rotation, magnetize toward other objects, and create orbits). If gravity makes things fall, that's it. It can't be used for every other rationalization of RE.
Physical forces can't be selectively active either (any gravity significant enough to ground all the water towards the center should also ground birds. And planes, hang gliders, drones, and helicopters. Likewise, any orbit in orbit is not gravitating toward the object it's supposed be affected by).
The moon should be like this. Falling straight toward Earth. Instead it spins around it supposedly because another counter-force is also active. Sorry pal, awfully convenient.
(https://i0.wp.com/www.game-art-hq.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/Moon-from-Majoras-Mask-Game-Art-HQ-Villain-Challenge.jpg)
Something that is a real force has a single well-defined behavior.
1. Magnetism attracts opposing polarity, and repels like polarity.
2. Buoyancy causes objects to rise and fall based on their mass or density.
3. Friction makes things skid.
4. Momentum (defined as an impulse for no good reason) keeps objects in motion until resistance depletes it or the object hits the ground.
5. Adhesion causes things to stick to other things.
6. Cohesion causes things to stay together (typically atomically, as well).
7. Diffusion causes things to scatter (usually evenly).
All of these account for already existing behaviors. Yet gravity claims the place of some of them, to prop up a screwy theory which btw has never really been proven.
https://ncse.ngo/gravity-its-only-theory
https://www.newscientist.com/round-up/seven-things-that-dont-make-sense-about-gravity/
So anyway...
Is there an Anime Jesus?
There is in fact!
My Last Day
and also Saint Young Men (with Buddha)
Though the first one's only if you want to watch Jesus get beat up.
More interestingly, the entire Happy Science religion is started from a bunch of fucked up anime films.
-
All of these account for already existing behaviors. Yet gravity claims the place of some of them, to prop up a screwy theory which btw has never really been proven.
https://ncse.ngo/gravity-its-only-theory
Absolutely hilarious how you will fall for anything that fits your sheeple belief system...
The article above was written by Ellery Schempp:
(born Ellory Schempp, August 5, 1940) is an American physicist[1] and the primary student involved in the landmark 1963 United States Supreme Court decision of Abington School District v. Schempp[2] which declared that required public school sanctioned Bible readings were unconstitutional.
He was basically responsible for, other than being a highly regarded physicist, getting the bible booted from American classrooms.
But more importantly, regarding the article you cited written by him, "Gravity: It's Only a Theory", it's a parody, satire. Here, this from the author himself:
GRAVITY: ONLY A THEORY--ANNOTATED
By Ellery Schempp
I wrote my "critique of gravity" as a spoof on the arguments used by
creationists and proponents of "intelligent design" in their attacks on
evolution and the efforts to put "disclaimer labels" in biology textbooks
that "evolution is only a theory". It was intended as a parody of the
creationists, using all the best techniques of half-truths, non-sequiturs,
logical fallacies, over-simplification, misleading statements,
authoritative assertion, biased words, and general absurdity that I learned
from them. To my surprise, some people didn't get the joke; others
wondered what was really true. One wrote me a lengthy email, ending: "If
you would like me to refute any of the other points made in the article, I
will happily do so but I believe the discussion above is enough to set the
record straight." That anyone would not get the joke is a sad commentary
on the state of science knowledge or our sense of humor or both! I mean,
if you tie in gravity to obesity, Saturn's rings, moral 'decline', and
universal health care, and you don't see the fun, what's to say?
And your second link is all about how gravity has served us quite well from a terrestrial standpoint. But when we move away from earth and get all "quantum-y" out in deep space, things get a little funky and we're still trying to figure out how to unify everything. And we're a ways away from that. But in the mean time, gravity works great for all of our purposes here.
So instead of defaulting to headlines/titles that you think play into your sheeple belief system, actually take the time to read through, reason out, and learn about what it is that doesn't fit your sheeple belief system. I mean your "best" evidence you mistakenly cited is a parody of and destroys your sheeple belief system. Try smarter and harder.
-
I'm sorry, but this thread is mostly about Jesus. I was just answering a question. Wrong section for this though.
You are welcome to move that to another thread though. And by move, I don't mean copy. I mean delete and paste elsewhere.
Anime is part of society, science stuff goes elsewhere.
Hell, anime is part of religion. See?
Yup, you've just been railroaded back to topic.
-
And you dodged a howler, well done!
-
Mmm.
As a side topic, I have some strange ideas about Jesus that aren't really biblical.
(I hear sirens from the Orthodoxy Police) C:-)
So like I write novels every now and then, and one of them that I came up with involved Jesus as having come and died roughly two million years before Rome, that the Roman even was staged by a shapeshifting immortal foxgirl because everyone had forgotten the original event, and ultimately that girl gets her body snatched by Jesus (it's complicated).
My novels are weird.
What is theologically the weirdest stuff you believe in?
-
Mmm.
As a side topic, I have some strange ideas about Jesus that aren't really biblical.
(I hear sirens from the Orthodoxy Police) C:-)
So like I write novels every now and then, and one of them that I came up with involved Jesus as having come and died roughly two million years before Rome, that the Roman even was staged by a shapeshifting immortal foxgirl because everyone had forgotten the original event, and ultimately that girl gets her body snatched by Jesus (it's complicated).
My novels are weird.
What is theologically the weirdest stuff you believe in?
That arguing with the clueless can be productive.
-
Interesting article I found yesterday.
So uhhh, you recall Jesus said this:
“Truly, I say to you, all sins will be forgiven the children of man, and whatever blasphemies they utter, but whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit never has forgiveness, but is guilty of an eternal sin” — for they were saying, ‘He has an unclean spirit.’”
Basically, while I believe in universalism (the idea that all of us have an afterlife, and Jesus desires all our salvation), if you're eager to meet him in a hurry, and in a particularly gruesome way, mocking Jesus or God seems to be a very good way to get yourself killed.
https://www.maravipost.com/meet-world-famous-people-who-mocked-god-jesus-read-what-happened-to-them/
1.John Lennon (Singer):
Some years ago, during his interview with an American Magazine, he said: ‘Christianity will end, it will disappear.
I do not have to argue about that.. I am certain. Jesus was ok, but his subjects were too simple, today we are more famous than Him’ (1966).
Lennon, after saying that the Beatles were more famous than Jesus Christ, was shot six times.
2. Tancredo Neves (Brazilian presidential candidate):
During the Presidential campaign, he said if he got 500,000 votes from his party, not even God would remove him from Presidency.
Sure he got the votes, but he got sick a day before his inauguration as President and he died.
3. The man who built the Titanic:
After the construction of the Cruise Ship, Titanic, a reporter asked him how safe the Titanic would be.
With an ironic tone he said: ‘Not even God can sink it’ The result: I think you all know what happened to the Titanic.
4. Marilyn Monroe:
She was visited by Graham during a presentation of a show.
He said the Spirit of God had sent him to preach to her. After hearing what the Preacher had to say, she said:
‘I don’t need your Jesus’.
A week later, she was found dead in her apartment.
5. Bon Scott (Singer) The ex-vocalist of the AC/DC.
On one of his 1979 songs he sang:
‘Don’t stop me; I’m going down all the way, down the highway to hell’.
On the 19th of February 1980, Bon Scott was found dead, he had been choked by his own vomit.
6. Campinas (IN 2005):
In Campinas, Brazil, a group of friends, drunk, went to pick up a friend…..
The mother accompanied her to the car and was so worried about the drunkenness of her friends and she said to the daughter holding her hand, who was already seated in the car:
‘My Daughter, Go With God And May He Protect You.’
She responded: ‘Only If He (God) Travels In The Trunk, ‘Cause Inside Here…..It’s Already Full ‘
Hours later, news came that they had been involved in a fatal accident, everyone had died.
The car could not be recognized what type of car it had been, but surprisingly, the trunk was intact.
The police said there was no way the trunk could have remained intact.
To their surprise, inside the trunk was a crate of eggs, none was broken. ;D
7. Christine Hewitt (Jamaican Journalist and entertainer):
She said the Bible was the worst book ever written.
In June 2006 she was found burnt beyond recognition in her motor vehicle.
In this life anyway, mocking God gets punished hard. That's why there is an afterlife. Because sins are forgiven. None of us is worthy enough for heaven, but if it were about worthiness we'd all be damned. It's about universal salvation and grace. But in this life, you can tempt fate.
Though actually about half of these seemed to be depressed or self-destructive deaths.
I'm told that fact-checkers mark this as hoax. But aside from maybe Campinas, most of these can be verified. Certainly the Titanic one can be. Anyway, it's kinda dark humor.
(Removed Cazuza because he died of AIDS. Most of these turned out to be right)
-
You reference 7 people who may or may not have spoken ill of jesus.
- Lennon quote is wrong - And the correct quote is from 1966. He was killed in 1980.
- Tancredo Neves - No proof he ever said that. Died 5 weeks after inauguration and had been sick for a very long time
- Titanic. The "builder" said that? Who is the "builder"?
- Marilyn - No record of her meeting Billy Graham
- Bon Scott (Highway to Hell)
I guess all of these people were killed by jesus too...
Highway to Hell ACDC cover by 1000 musicians
- Campinas - People died in a car accident?
- Christine Hewitt - Who said she said that? She was apparently murdered by her husband
Do you believe everything on the internet?
There are 6 billion people on the planet who don't believe in Jesus. I'm sure out of that bunch many have violated your parameters for Jesus reverence and are not dead.
As well, what in the world does it say about an all loving Jesus/God that if a human speaks ill of the "lord" that he may smite thee? Is Jesus that insecure? Is Jesus that threatened that John Lennon said that the Beatles were bigger than him? You make Jesus sound like a petulant, shoe gazing emo, so insecure that he must lash out at the these bullying humans.
-
Remember you're arguing with a toaster.
You'll never change it's mind.
Its just an attack bot.
It exists to attack.
When I speak to them I speak to them so others can see. Don't waste your time trying to change a toasters opinion.
-
Remember you're arguing with a toaster.
You'll never change it's mind.
Its just an attack bot.
It exists to attack.
When I speak to them I speak to them so others can see. Don't waste your time trying to change a toasters opinion.
ATTACK TOASTER.
(https://hg1.funnyjunk.com/pictures/Attack+toaster+equipped+with+skitarii+assault+launcher_acafc1_7083174.jpg)
I don't argue for losers who won't listen. I argue on the off chance that other people out there are convinced by what I say.
-
That's a good attitude.
-
Exhausting though.
Being human means that it actually does wear on my nerves having to hear the same stock response over and over because I'm talking to a brick wall (zero comprehension) that also fights back.
-
I'll pray that the LORD gives you strength enough to serve Him.
-
I'll pray that the LORD gives you strength enough to serve Him.
Leave it to a holes to do the opposite of what Jesus said he wanted.
He said he came to serve and not be served, and here you are promoting the opposite.
Quite the Christian.
Regards
DL
-
Did Jesus come to create slavery?
Did he come to appoint heads of a new social justice gospel? Did he demand we give all our money to the poor?
No. He lived and died to show humans a better way to live. And more importantly, to show us that death is nothing to fear.
We are not put on this Earth as slaves, but Christ died to set us free from our sins.
It is interesting to me that the people who are least Christian go around telling people that my religion is a religion of guilt, and that it hurts other people like those poor gays or women who just wanted an abortion.
(https://quotefancy.com/media/wallpaper/3840x2160/2051275-Todd-Wagner-Quote-Truth-sounds-like-hate-to-those-who-hate-the.jpg)
I will tell them they have sinned. But you know, sin is not the end of the world. Sin reminds us of our humility and connects us with Jesus. Or we sweep it under the rug and pretend it doesn't exist, and wonder why we suffer.
These same people who tell me how hateful Christian is will try to lay very Jewish standards of what they think I should be doing. "You should be serving," they say. Okay, how much? How much of my below $2000 savings should I give up? Because I have no income. I live and die at the mercy of God.
1Then Jesus spoke to the crowds and to His disciples: 2“The scribes and Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. 3So practice and observe everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach. 4They tie up heavy burdensome loads and lay them on men’s shoulders, but they themselves are not willing to lift a finger to move them.
I serve by telling people the truth. And the truth is, that God died for our sins, so we don't have to keep making offerings of atonement. We don't have to recycle if we don't want to. I could spend the day playing video games, and grace is given to me. Is wasting the day such a way sinful? Probably so, but mental health days are a thing. Recreation is a thing. We no longer need to live in a shame culture.
-
He said he came to serve.
Yes.
To serve the Father.
-
He said he came to serve.
Yes.
To serve the Father.
Not the poor.
The poor you will always have with you, but you will not always have me.
Not those who wanted revenge on Rome or had some idea that there was a "great plan" for the Messiah.
Yeeeeeeaaaah, about that...
He helped such people, but this wasn't his mission. His mission was to die on the cross for our sins.
-
He said he came to serve.
Yes.
To serve the Father.
Out of context, stupid.
Go read your bible and stop wanting Jesus to be the mass murderer Yahweh is.
You say Jesus is forgiving you your sin, while scriptures say otherwise.
On Jesus dying for Christians from a moral perspective.
It takes quite an imagination and ego to think a god would actually die for us, after condemning us unjustly in the first place.
Christians have swallowed a lie and don’t care how evil they make Jesus to keep their feel good get out of hell free card.
It is a lie, first and foremost, because, like it or not, having another innocent person suffer or die for the wrongs you have done, --- so that you might escape responsibility for having done them, --- is immoral.
To abdicate your personal responsibility for your actions or use a scapegoat is immoral.
Christians also have to ignore what Jesus, as a Jewish Rabbi, would have taught his people.
Ezekiel 18:20 The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.
Deuteronomy 24:16 (ESV) "Fathers shall not be put to death because of their children, nor shall children be put to death because of their fathers. Each one shall be put to death for his own sin.
Psa 49;7 None of them can by any means redeem his brother, nor give to God a ransom for him:
There is no way that Christians parents would teach their children to use a scapegoat.
Good morals and Jesus speak against the messianic concept and bids us pick up our crosses and follow him.
Regards
DL
-
He said he came to serve.
Yes.
To serve the Father.
Not the poor.
The poor you will always have with you, but you will not always have me.
Not those who wanted revenge on Rome or had some idea that there was a "great plan" for the Messiah.
Yeeeeeeaaaah, about that...
He helped such people, but this wasn't his mission. His mission was to die on the cross for our sins.
I disagree as that would have Jesus asking us to sin to be saved.
See why in the post above.
It is immoral to ask or accept us to abdicate our own responsibilities for our actions.
Right?
Regards
DL
-
To abdicate your personal responsibility for your actions or use a scapegoat is immoral.
Christians also have to ignore what Jesus, as a Jewish Rabbi, would have taught his people.
I would agree with the immorality, but my understanding is that Jesus's sacrifice was viewed as an extension of the animal sacrifice that was common in those times, especially in the OT - hence the 'Lamb of God' moniker. The idea of a sacrifice as an act of atonement had precedent in the culture. A Rabbi of the era would absolutely have taught sacrificing a living thing as an act of atonement, not because the animal took on the guilt, but because of all the rites surrounding the idea of offerings and sacrifice.
I think the straightforward 'Person A is punished for Person B's crime' is less a theological viewpoint and more an apologetic soundbite because so few Christians seem comfortable with the Jewish roots of their faith that they'd rather ground it in immoral substition and not Jewish ritual.
-
To abdicate your personal responsibility for your actions or use a scapegoat is immoral.
Christians also have to ignore what Jesus, as a Jewish Rabbi, would have taught his people.
I would agree with the immorality, but my understanding is that Jesus's sacrifice was viewed as an extension of the animal sacrifice that was common in those times, especially in the OT - hence the 'Lamb of God' moniker. The idea of a sacrifice as an act of atonement had precedent in the culture. A Rabbi of the era would absolutely have taught sacrificing a living thing as an act of atonement, not because the animal took on the guilt, but because of all the rites surrounding the idea of offerings and sacrifice.
I think the straightforward 'Person A is punished for Person B's crime' is less a theological viewpoint and more an apologetic soundbite because so few Christians seem comfortable with the Jewish roots of their faith that they'd rather ground it in immoral substition and not Jewish ritual.
Your ideas would hold water if the Jewish messiah was an animal or human and not an immortal God that cannot die.
That and the fact that the Jewish messiah was to be an angel who was to return and lead the Jews out of bondage.
Further.
You do not understand the salvation Jesus offers. It speaks of your potential.
Here is the real way to salvation that Jesus taught. Put man above God.
Matthew 6:22 The light of the body is the eye: if therefore thine eye be single, thy whole body shall be full of light.
John 14:23 Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him.
Romans 8:29 For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.
Allan Watts explains those quotes in detail.
Joseph Campbell shows the same esoteric ecumenist idea in this link.
The bible just plainly says to put away the things of children. The supernatural and literal reading of myths.
Regards
DL
-
Your ideas would hold water if the Jewish messiah was an animal or human and not an immortal God that cannot die.
That and the fact that the Jewish messiah was to be an angel who was to return and lead the Jews out of bondage.
I think we're talking at cross-purposes again. I'm not Christian, gnostic or otherwise - honestly when it gets down to it we probably agree on a lot of core details when it comes to supernatural/literal readings of myths being unnecessary. I'm not going to go so far as to claim Jesus claimed it, because whether or not he did is irrelevant to the value of a belief in my eyes. (Ditto, 'Jesus as the Jewish Messiah' is definitely a dubious reading).
My stance is more that making a claim based on a specific reading of something that seems open to interpretation feels unhelpful.
Okay, this is something I could be wrong about, my knowledge of offering/sacrifice traditions doesn't extend as far as Judaism, but my understanding of comparable ideas in other cultures is that the act of killing something isn't where the offering comes into play - rather it's the losing something.
Which definitely gets dubious depending on Christian interpretation, the resurrection delaying the actual loss of the-man-Jesus. But the broad strokes, that the death of Christ is preventing the physical appearance and interactions with him as a teacher/a loss to those that loved him, that fills the same role.
-
The life of the flesh is in the blood.
-
He said he came to serve.
Yes.
To serve the Father.
Out of context, stupid.
Go read your bible and stop wanting Jesus to be the mass murderer Yahweh is.
You say Jesus is forgiving you your sin, while scriptures say otherwise.
On Jesus dying for Christians from a moral perspective.
It takes quite an imagination and ego to think a god would actually die for us, after condemning us unjustly in the first place.
And there you have it. After condemning "us."
You identify with Pharisees. Not with sinners.
Jesus condemned those who believed they were self-righteous, so that they might see their sin. They wanted to kill him for admitting they were not perfect ( toxic narcissism there). Because Jesus came to save sinners.
But to those who saw themselves as sinful (like the woman was to be stoned to death), he offers uncommon forgiveness. Forgiveness the rest of the world would not offer.
Here's a hint: stop seeing his condemnation as unjust.
Everything he said about those people is true. Stop identifying with them, and start living the life that Christ wants. Your own life. Not a moral life (you can, but it's poisoning you right now), but the life he died to give you. You are a sinner. Accept this. Accept also that this is not the end of your story, and there is hope for you. Just as there was hope even for the Pharisees who sentenced Christ to death.
But they had to let go of bullshit first.
Some people think Jesus was unschooled. No he obviously had at least a partial religious education after being discovered at the temple. Too much talent to be a simple carpenter. So he knew the sorts of people he was dealing with. Nothing about his assessment of them was incorrect.
But he was not trying to "condemn unjustly". He was showing them a MIRROR.
-
He said he came to serve.
Yes.
To serve the Father.
Not the poor.
The poor you will always have with you, but you will not always have me.
Not those who wanted revenge on Rome or had some idea that there was a "great plan" for the Messiah.
Yeeeeeeaaaah, about that...
He helped such people, but this wasn't his mission. His mission was to die on the cross for our sins.
I disagree as that would have Jesus asking us to sin to be saved.
See why in the post above.
It is immoral to ask or accept us to abdicate our own responsibilities for our actions.
Right?
Regards
DL
Wrong.
We naturally sin over the course of existence. There's no request here. There's only the understanding that we do sin on a regular occasion.
Here's an example: We make a commitment to a loved one, but we have a shitty boss that sabotages us at every turn. On Saturday, I have a date planned. But even though Saturday isn't a regular work day, he says "Ummmmm yeaaah, I'm gonna need you to come in on Saturday." By failing to keep our promise to a loved one, we have sinned against her. Likewise for telling the boss off. We cannot help but sin against one or the other, because sin is separation, a sort of mistreatment. But what if we try to keep both obligations? "I'll be running very late because the boss sprung a work day on me. Let's meet for dinner or something. And after that, Sunday will be the rest of the date." Then we have sinned against ourselves. Our body is exhausted from trying to please everyone, all the time.
Jesus didn't ask people to sin. He knew they sinned ALREADY, and he was asking them only to admit it. Admit your sin, and you will be forgiven. Immediately.
-
I am happy to have prayed for you and already seen such good fruit. I will continue to pray that you find strength to resist their system.
For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God.
The Holy Spirit indeed lives inside you, to be able to speak so correctly.
-
Mmmm.
Though keep in mind this:
Woe to you when all men speak well of you, for their fathers treated the false prophets in the same way.
Plus I'm probly guilty of a few heresies.
It is true that all have sinned, and all are saved by the one who came to save sinners. But it does not do to dwell on praise. Because praise is what they gave the false prophets.
You should condemn me for allowing myself to be praised.
-
Mmmm.
Though keep in mind this:
Woe to you when all men speak well of you, for their fathers treated the false prophets in the same way.
Plus I'm probly guilty of a few heresies.
It is true that all have sinned, and all are saved by the one who came to save sinners. But it does not do to dwell on praise. Because praise is what they gave the false prophets.
You should condemn me for allowing myself to be praised.
I am the only one praising you.
When all men praise you, you will indeed have a problem. I am not a false prophet.
-
Mmmm.
Though keep in mind this:
Woe to you when all men speak well of you, for their fathers treated the false prophets in the same way.
Plus I'm probly guilty of a few heresies.
It is true that all have sinned, and all are saved by the one who came to save sinners. But it does not do to dwell on praise. Because praise is what they gave the false prophets.
You should condemn me for allowing myself to be praised.
I am the only one praising you.
When all men praise you, you will indeed have a problem. I am not a false prophet.
Just a poser. Meh, sorta the same
-
You should judge trees by their fruits.
-
You should judge trees by their fruits.
Can see yours are rotten before they fall
-
Perhaps.
Stash is having trouble describing his (obviously human) emotions. Would you like to help him?
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=84725.msg2391857#msg2391857
-
Your ideas would hold water if the Jewish messiah was an animal or human and not an immortal God that cannot die.
That and the fact that the Jewish messiah was to be an angel who was to return and lead the Jews out of bondage.
I think we're talking at cross-purposes again. I'm not Christian, gnostic or otherwise - honestly when it gets down to it we probably agree on a lot of core details when it comes to supernatural/literal readings of myths being unnecessary. I'm not going to go so far as to claim Jesus claimed it, because whether or not he did is irrelevant to the value of a belief in my eyes. (Ditto, 'Jesus as the Jewish Messiah' is definitely a dubious reading).
My stance is more that making a claim based on a specific reading of something that seems open to interpretation feels unhelpful.
Okay, this is something I could be wrong about, my knowledge of offering/sacrifice traditions doesn't extend as far as Judaism, but my understanding of comparable ideas in other cultures is that the act of killing something isn't where the offering comes into play - rather it's the losing something.
Which definitely gets dubious depending on Christian interpretation, the resurrection delaying the actual loss of the-man-Jesus. But the broad strokes, that the death of Christ is preventing the physical appearance and interactions with him as a teacher/a loss to those that loved him, that fills the same role.
As a man, yes.
Not a supernatural fiction.
Jesus can never physically appear as there is likely no miracle working Jesus.
If there is, as scriptures say, there can be many.
Regards
DL
-
Because Jesus came to save sinners.
Why did God create sinners knowing he would condemn his own perfect works?
You must see God making us as a make work project.
No free will B.S. please.
Christians are always trying to absolve God of moral culpability in the fall by whipping out their favorite "free will!", or “ it’s all man’s fault”.
That is "God gave us free will and it was our free willed choices that caused our fall. Hence God is not blameworthy."
But this simply avoids God's culpability as the author of Human Nature. Free will is only the ability to choose. It is not an explanation why anyone would want to choose "A" or "B" (bad or good action). An explanation for why Eve would even have the nature of "being vulnerable to being easily swayed by a serpent" and "desiring to eat a forbidden fruit" must lie in the nature God gave Eve in the first place. Hence God is culpable for deliberately making humans with a nature-inclined-to-fall, and "free will" means nothing as a response to this problem.
If all sin by nature, then the sin nature is dominant. If not, we would have at least some who would not sin. That being the case, for God to punish us for following the instincts and natures he put in us would be quite wrong.
Regards
DL
-
He said he came to serve.
Yes.
To serve the Father.
Not the poor.
The poor you will always have with you, but you will not always have me.
Not those who wanted revenge on Rome or had some idea that there was a "great plan" for the Messiah.
Yeeeeeeaaaah, about that...
He helped such people, but this wasn't his mission. His mission was to die on the cross for our sins.
I disagree as that would have Jesus asking us to sin to be saved.
See why in the post above.
It is immoral to ask or accept us to abdicate our own responsibilities for our actions.
Right?
Regards
DL
Wrong.
We naturally sin over the course of existence. There's no request here. There's only the understanding that we do sin on a regular occasion.
Here's an example: We make a commitment to a loved one, but we have a shitty boss that sabotages us at every turn. On Saturday, I have a date planned. But even though Saturday isn't a regular work day, he says "Ummmmm yeaaah, I'm gonna need you to come in on Saturday." By failing to keep our promise to a loved one, we have sinned against her. Likewise for telling the boss off. We cannot help but sin against one or the other, because sin is separation, a sort of mistreatment. But what if we try to keep both obligations? "I'll be running very late because the boss sprung a work day on me. Let's meet for dinner or something. And after that, Sunday will be the rest of the date." Then we have sinned against ourselves. Our body is exhausted from trying to please everyone, all the time.
Jesus didn't ask people to sin. He knew they sinned ALREADY, and he was asking them only to admit it. Admit your sin, and you will be forgiven. Immediately.
I am talking at this point in time.
If Jesus were real and asked us abdicate our own responsibilities for our sins, it would be like him asking us to sin as it is immoral to do as asked.
Who gets first dibs on forgiving?
Not Jesus, so what makes you think it right for us to ignore the real victims of our sins?
Is that why the immoral will try for Jesus' get out of jail free card?
Moral Cowards abound in Christianity.
Regards
DL
-
You should judge trees by their fruits.
Christians seem to think Yahweh to be a crappy tree.
They think that the majority of his fruit ends in hell.
Why they like that putrid genocidal tree is beyond intelligence.
Why do Christians adore a loser God?
Regards
DL
-
I think the problem is also the way we define what must constitute a god. Immortal, omnipotent, omniscient, perfect.... Why?
Why can't God simply be a creator of the universe but still fallible? Why does the existence of such a creator automatically mean there is an 'after life'? I can't see why you can't have a creator but that his creations die into oblivion. In fact why must God be immortal? Maybe he lives outside the dimension of our time. Maybe it was killed creating our universe. Maybe God is the universe. All of it.
Why must a God be aware of our existence? We could be no more than we see bacteria. Are people aware of each bacteria living inside them?
Maybe there is no creator / God at all. We don't have the data to definitively state anything as fact so therefore we shouldn't judge and dictate how other people live their lives by morals and standards we humans imagined thousands of years ago.
Live free and die free. If a creator is out there and really cares, then it will accept you. While you are alive, just do your best, live well and make positive contributions in the fleeting time you have
-
I think the problem is also the way we define what must constitute a god. Immortal, omnipotent, omniscient, perfect.... Why?
Why can't God simply be a creator of the universe but still fallible? Why does the existence of such a creator automatically mean there is an 'after life'? I can't see why you can't have a creator but that his creations die into oblivion. In fact why must God be immortal? Maybe he lives outside the dimension of our time. Maybe it was killed creating our universe. Maybe God is the universe. All of it.
Why must a God be aware of our existence? We could be no more than we see bacteria. Are people aware of each bacteria living inside them?
Okay, this is where the amateur philosopher in me comes out because this is one of the most interesting and most underexplored topics, because the philosophy of God's existence inevitably turns into a Christian and atheist yelling at each other and ignoring all the other options.
There's a few arguments for God out there. Honestly I don't think any of them are all that persuasive, unless you already hold to a worldview contingent upon a deity, but of all those arguments - cause of the universe, grounding for reason and morality, design of the universe, etc etc - barely any even attempt to establish the actual omni-attributes of a God. Most completely fail to even really show uniqueness, meaning logically the end result of a lot of the arguments seems reasonably to be polytheistic (like, think about it - if you went to an alien planet and you saw a green-skinned big-eyed dude hanging around, would you assume they were some immortal being hanging around by themselves, or would you assume that they were one of a species - that whatever process or rule saw said being exist, would see others of their kind?)
A couple of arguments might claim 'The cause of the universe must be powerful,' but there's quite literally an infinite distance between 'powerful' and 'omnipotence.'
There's only one argument that really seems to seriously attempt to justify the omnis. A couple of others could be construed as doing as such, but those I'm familiar with, when you peel back the layers, just tend to rely upon the same. So enter the groundbreaking ontological argument. There's a few formulations, but
(https://cdn.goconqr.com/uploads/slide_property/image/417151/desktop_2fd1d2e4-4e57-475c-9940-2d7760f2a535.jpg)
Like, okay, there are other ways to put it but it's easily the most mocked argument for God's existence even among philosophers, and it is the only one I know of that can even attempt to show omni attributes. Greatest possible being => omni omni omni (oi oi oi)
If that persuades you, you've got the omnis. If you just look at that with bewilderment, there really is no legitimate justification for the omnis.
-
I thought this was pretty interesting. Sort of a philosophical exploratory ranking of the main arguments for the existence of God. Worth 17 minutes...
The Arguments for God's Existence Tier List
-
Your ideas would hold water if the Jewish messiah was an animal or human and not an immortal God that cannot die.
That and the fact that the Jewish messiah was to be an angel who was to return and lead the Jews out of bondage.
I think we're talking at cross-purposes again. I'm not Christian, gnostic or otherwise - honestly when it gets down to it we probably agree on a lot of core details when it comes to supernatural/literal readings of myths being unnecessary. I'm not going to go so far as to claim Jesus claimed it, because whether or not he did is irrelevant to the value of a belief in my eyes. (Ditto, 'Jesus as the Jewish Messiah' is definitely a dubious reading).
My stance is more that making a claim based on a specific reading of something that seems open to interpretation feels unhelpful.
Okay, this is something I could be wrong about, my knowledge of offering/sacrifice traditions doesn't extend as far as Judaism, but my understanding of comparable ideas in other cultures is that the act of killing something isn't where the offering comes into play - rather it's the losing something.
Which definitely gets dubious depending on Christian interpretation, the resurrection delaying the actual loss of the-man-Jesus. But the broad strokes, that the death of Christ is preventing the physical appearance and interactions with him as a teacher/a loss to those that loved him, that fills the same role.
As a man, yes.
Not a supernatural fiction.
Jesus can never physically appear as there is likely no miracle working Jesus.
If there is, as scriptures say, there can be many.
Regards
DL
You're assuming Jesus has a set form.
Gnostics are supposed to believe that Jesus (even before the whole death/resurrection thing) was a supernatural being, because the physical is evil.
But while Christian tradition treats this as heresy ("Jesus was both fully divine and fully human" is their official teaching), after the resurrection is another matter.
1. Jesus is described as phasing through a locked door.
2. But he's not a ghost, as his wounds can be touched, and he is even described as able to eat.
3. He's also described as not having a form that is not fixed, but able to change as necessity demands.
The Christian church makes the mistake of the teaching that once he returned to the father, he just sat around and allowed evil to continue, but never you worry. One day he's gonna come again, and save all the worthy (which will probably not be you or I since none of us are worthy from the content of the letters that Jesus's own followers claimed) and damn all the unworthy (which is everyone based on the same letters)
In what way is that the actions of a Savior?
It's not, and any logical view of Revelation makes this fiction fall apart rather quickly. If none of us are worthy, either:
1. None of us are worthy, and all are damned.
2. Only those who encounter Christianity and correctly identify it as the only road to salvation, and furthermore know to ask for grace instead of believing themselves hopeless are saved. This btw rules out entire countries where Christianity is not well-known or followed by the majority.
3. Or all of us must be saved.
If all of us are saved, and Jesus is not going to return to send us into a lake of fire, then him sitting on his hands and just letting evil continue is not really what is happening. The Bible says that Jesus's real name means "God With Us."
But Jesus doesn't sit on his throne like Orcus, refusing to come visit.
(http://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/images/orcus_on_his_throne.jpg)
God can only be with us, if Jesus hides among the population, speaking through the Body of Christ (his followers, mostly). But there is also a sense that Jesus is directly living within the population, and I believe I have encountered something like that.
I'm reminded of a little known film called Man of Iron (1935). Basically, the plot goes that a man who is effective at leading the lower level workers is offered a raise, and all sorts of perks from the company at an iron mill. He loses touch with his roots, and there's a big strike, and then he comes to his senses. The boss wants him to be leader still by the end of the movie, but now he does so in the factory, ignoring his title.
This is how Jesus rules the world. Not from a throne, from the "factory floor." And he explicitly says this is how things happen. So this idea of Jesus returning to the father, and having a hand-off ruling style for the next 2000 years is unbiblical. Just as unbiblical as the idea that it is Satan that rules the Earth. No, God is in charge as Isaiah 45 tells us, not only of good but also of evil. He uses both of these to create harmony. Wicked people pretend to be in charge, they lord over others, but they have no true power. The tighter the hold they keep, the more they are overthrown, because the more obvious they become. Just as Adolf Hitler's actual rule was unseated within years, once everyone figured out the truth.
-
I think the problem is also the way we define what must constitute a god. Immortal, omnipotent, omniscient, perfect.... Why?
Why can't God simply be a creator of the universe but still fallible? Why does the existence of such a creator automatically mean there is an 'after life'? I can't see why you can't have a creator but that his creations die into oblivion. In fact why must God be immortal? Maybe he lives outside the dimension of our time. Maybe it was killed creating our universe. Maybe God is the universe. All of it.
Why must a God be aware of our existence? We could be no more than we see bacteria. Are people aware of each bacteria living inside them?
Okay, this is where the amateur philosopher in me comes out because this is one of the most interesting and most underexplored topics, because the philosophy of God's existence inevitably turns into a Christian and atheist yelling at each other and ignoring all the other options.
There's a few arguments for God out there. Honestly I don't think any of them are all that persuasive, unless you already hold to a worldview contingent upon a deity, but of all those arguments - cause of the universe, grounding for reason and morality, design of the universe, etc etc - barely any even attempt to establish the actual omni-attributes of a God. Most completely fail to even really show uniqueness, meaning logically the end result of a lot of the arguments seems reasonably to be polytheistic (like, think about it - if you went to an alien planet and you saw a green-skinned big-eyed dude hanging around, would you assume they were some immortal being hanging around by themselves, or would you assume that they were one of a species - that whatever process or rule saw said being exist, would see others of their kind?)
A couple of arguments might claim 'The cause of the universe must be powerful,' but there's quite literally an infinite distance between 'powerful' and 'omnipotence.'
There's only one argument that really seems to seriously attempt to justify the omnis. A couple of others could be construed as doing as such, but those I'm familiar with, when you peel back the layers, just tend to rely upon the same. So enter the groundbreaking ontological argument. There's a few formulations, but
(https://cdn.goconqr.com/uploads/slide_property/image/417151/desktop_2fd1d2e4-4e57-475c-9940-2d7760f2a535.jpg)
Like, okay, there are other ways to put it but it's easily the most mocked argument for God's existence even among philosophers, and it is the only one I know of that can even attempt to show omni attributes. Greatest possible being => omni omni omni (oi oi oi)
If that persuades you, you've got the omnis. If you just look at that with bewilderment, there really is no legitimate justification for the omnis.
The problem with the omnis is that, as I read in a Christian library in a retreat spot, they actually make it harder not easier to convince the population that God exists (doing Christianity a disservice). This is because these are based on unrealistic expectations.
Suppose I tell you that there is a shapeshifting fox out there that interacts with humans. Okay, aside from the supernatural thing, not that farfetched.
But then I tell you the fox is 80 ft tall. You would expect such a being to be visible, right?
And I tell you she grants wishes.
And I tell you that whenever she cries, you get a shower even when it's sunny.
With each standard, you are upping the standard for followers to believe, raising the bar of credibility.
A powerful God creating the universe because he loves humans is not that unrealistic a claim. We see the created universe, and we can say "Oh, sure, why not?" Adding angels to the mix as a sort of subcontracters, is not much more a stretch. Such a God loving humans enough to die on the cross for them, less believable if you're not inclined to believe in the worth of humans. But still, technically believable.
Calling him all-seeing, all-knowing, totally good, and so on stacks more and more expectations on him, putting him into a box where people say "But I'm not seeing that happen. If God can do anything, why didn't he save my mother? If God can see anything, why didn't see that stock market crash?"
The Bible has no such illusions:
1. God is unable to protect them against chariots of irons (not all-powerful, as his ppl having weak faith means he can't or won't help them)
2. God is sometimes surprised (making him neither all-knowing or all-seeing)
3. God is sometimes a dick (not all-good, except in the grand scheme of things)
Maybe omnipresent is true. That's about it. But ditching this is actually good. It allows us to believe in God that is approachable.
-
A powerful God creating the universe because he loves humans is not that unrealistic a claim. We see the created universe, and we can say "Oh, sure, why not?" Adding angels to the mix as a sort of subcontracters, is not much more a stretch. Such a God loving humans enough to die on the cross for them, less believable if you're not inclined to believe in the worth of humans. But still, technically believable.
Calling him all-seeing, all-knowing, totally good, and so on stacks more and more expectations on him, putting him into a box where people say "But I'm not seeing that happen. If God can do anything, why didn't he save my mother? If God can see anything, why didn't see that stock market crash?"
I'd generally agree - honestly, the omnis kinda end up functioning as a loop. Some Bible verses can be interpreted as all-knowing/all-powerful/all-good, and we know that's accurate and not human embellishment because God knows if some scribe or rumour somewhere bigs him up/God can rewrite a page or influence minds/God cares if people exaggerate his attributes, and functionally the only philosophical way to prove any of those attributes is going all the way to omni...
Without the omnis, sure you can assume accuracy, but it would just be assumption. It lacks a lot of the philosophical backing that tends to go into establishing a first cause, etc.
-
Pffft, a Trumpism.
Bigs him up.
The other thing is, even if we could say God is omnipotent, many of the tests to omnipotence assume a sort of entitlement that boils down to "God has absolute power so he WILL answer my prayer, or he doesn't have absolute power and I don't believe in him."
Uhhhh wait, so God doesn't have any say in whether or not he WANTS to grant your prayer? What if your prayer is something totally destructive like destroy you enemies, or selfish like keeping alive a gramma who is in such pain that she wants to die?
-
because the physical is evil.
Strange that my information shows how we venerate the physical and our bodies as they houses the spark of God in us.
God's home within our matter is not evil, it is heaven to those who can see reality as it is.
I like our myths, but reality is more informative.
The Gnostic Christian reality.
Gnostic Christian Jesus said, "Those who seek should not stop seeking until they find. When they find, they will be disturbed. When they are disturbed, they will marvel, and will reign over all.
[And after they have reigned they will rest.]"
"If those who attract you say, 'See, the Kingdom is in the sky,' then the birds of the sky will precede you.
If they say to you, 'It is under the earth,' then the fish of the sea will precede you.
Rather, the Kingdom of God is inside of you, and it is outside of you.
[Those who] become acquainted with [themselves] will find it; [and when you] become acquainted with yourselves, [you will understand that] it is you who are the sons of the living Father.
But if you will not know yourselves, you dwell in poverty and it is you who are that poverty."
As you can see from that quote, if we see God's kingdom all around us and inside of us, we cannot think that the world is anything but evolving perfection. Most just don't see it and live in poverty. Let me try to make you see the world the way I do.
Here is a mind exercise. Tell me what you see when you look around. The best that can possibly be, given our past history, or an ugly and imperfect world?
Candide.
"It is demonstrable that things cannot be otherwise than as they are; for as all things have been created for some end, they must necessarily be created for the best end.”
That means that we live in the best of all possible worlds, because it is the only possible world, given all the conditions at hand and the history that got us here. That is an irrefutable statement given entropy and the anthropic principle.
Regards
DL
-
I'm a Christian with Taoist background.
I do not agree with long passages about the flesh.
Nor do I agree with passages where people accuse the world of being wholly corrupt.
It is imperfect to be sure. But the perfect is the enemy of the good. On this Earth, we suffer hardships. But we are sojourners wandering this Earth, until finally we leave this world.
This world is neither wholly good, nor wholly evil, nor a wishy-washy moral relativism, but a strongly mixed bag of experience. On Earth, you can be raped or beat up, but short of getting killed, there are experiences that teach you to seek after better ones. Or as the letters put it, the purpose of law is that you fail. You fail in order to lead you to the arms of Jesus.
Think of a day where the boss just treated you like crap, what do you do in response to this ordeal? You find someone to talk to (God is with us, even when we don't pray) who will cheer you up. The purpose of pain and suffering in a broken world is each other.
-
Seems to me that most religions have problems with sex, and desires of the flesh, as if somehow that's not compatible with whatever spirituality they are peddling.
Roman Catholic churches are full of violent physical imagery, people nailed to crosses, drinking blood, eating flesh. Celibate orders of nuns and priests, does anybody else see what's missing from this picture?
-
I'm Protestant.
Lutherans squelched the idea of celibacy around the time that he decided to marry a nearby nun.
Episcopalians founded because a king wanted to divorce his wife, and the Catholics wouldn't let him do it.
But do you know WHY priests were celibate in Catholic churches? Well, priests and popes would go whoring around and instead of demanding they be married (this would steal a cut from the Catholic church, because of inheritance) they would leave young mothers to starve to death. That's right, nothing to do with real scripture, everything to do with priests being scoundrels. Now celibate priests go and molest little boys.
I don't care about gay married priests (what ppl do in their own home is one thing), but the reason the leftists are pushing so hard on the gay agenda for Protestants is because they want to smear Protestantism with the same brush. It's a trap. If they say they have no use for that crap, they're homophobic. If they say okay to that, there is license to creeps to molest little kids.
Fine then, new rule. If you are a new priest, you will be married. If you haven't chosen anyone, the church will arrange a marriage with another priest. If you refuse to choose, we aren't going to allow unmarried men to go after women or young men. Unmarried males that refuse to marry agree to a sex change.
This is actually biblical. Paul says something about neither allowing nor forbidding marriage, neither allowing or forbidding being single, but commitment to whatever. It also says that if something in your body causes you to sin, cut it off.
My dad has sympathies with Catholicism being taught by some as a kid, but I find the entire faith rather hollow. Alot of Mary worship, alot of senseless rules about marriage, alot of bowing to statues, and alot of deferring to what is actually just a regular man in a funny costume.
-
I wonder where actual faith is in all of this. What a mess...
August 5, 2003 - The Episcopal Church USA, at its meeting for its General Convention in Minneapolis, votes to ordain Gene Robinson, who is openly gay, as bishop of New Hampshire.
October 7, 2003 - Over 2,000 clergy and parishioners meet in Plano, Texas, to consider splitting from the Episcopal Church USA.
October 15-16, 2003 - The leaders of the Anglican Episcopal Church meet in London to discuss the Episcopal Church USA’s vote to ordain an openly homosexual bishop.
October 17, 2003 - The US Episcopal Church will risk a break with the Anglican Church if it allows the consecration of an openly gay bishop in its New Hampshire diocese, says the president of the American Anglican Church.
November 2, 2003 - Robinson is consecrated as the first openly gay bishop.
January 20, 2004 - A group of dissident members approve a charter for a new protest organization challenging the authority of the Episcopal Church. The aim of the Network of Anglican Communion Dioceses and Parishes is “to stand within the (Episcopal) constitution and reclaim the Episcopal Church,” the group’s leader says. Under the charter, bishops would have the authority to “minister” and provide sacraments to any parish in the United States without the permission of the presiding bishop, something which is normally required.
March 7, 2004 - Robinson officially takes over as Bishop of New Hampshire, with his investiture ceremony.
October 18, 2004 - An Anglican church commission calls on the US Episcopal Church to apologize and refrain from promoting clergy living in a same-sex union.
June 21, 2006 - During its convention in Columbus, Ohio, the Episcopal Church approves a resolution calling on church leaders involved in picking bishops “to exercise restraint by not consenting to the consecration of any candidate … whose manner of life presents a challenge to the wider church and will lead to further strains on communion.”
November 4, 2006 - The Right Reverend Katharine Jefferts Schori, Bishop of Nevada, is installed as presiding bishop, elected to a nine-year term, becoming the first female to head the Episcopal Church nationwide.
December 17, 2006 - Eight conservative Episcopal congregations in Virginia announce their plans to leave the US Episcopal Church.
December 3, 2008 - At a meeting in Wheaton, Illinois, leaders of the new Anglican Church in North America announce they have formed a new province and drafted a new constitution for their church. The new church will have about 100,000 members.
April 16, 2009 - The conservative Episcopal congregations officially separate from the Episcopal church and form the Anglican Church of North America. It is now fully recognized as part of the global Anglican community.
May 15, 2010 - Mary Glasspool is consecrated as a suffragan bishop, the second openly gay person to be ordained as a bishop in the Episcopal church.
July 11, 2012 - The Episcopal Church approves a same-sex blessing service called “The Witnessing and Blessing of a Lifelong Covenant.” The church becomes the largest US denomination to officially approve same-sex relationships.
November 9, 2012 - Bishop Justin Welby, a former oil executive, is confirmed as the next archbishop of Canterbury. He is considered an outspoken critic of the excesses of capitalism, a supporter of women bishops and an opponent of gay marriage.
March 21, 2013 - Welby is enthroned as the 105th archbishop of Canterbury.
January 9, 2015 - The Episcopal Diocese of Maryland Bishop Heather Elizabeth Cook is charged with manslaughter, driving while intoxicated and leaving the scene after killing a bicyclist in Baltimore. The incident sparks revelations of prior incidents of drinking.
February 4, 2015 - Cook is indicted on additional charges including negligent driving, drunk driving, and texting while driving, all stemming from the fatal crash where she killed bicyclist Tom Palermo.
November 1, 2015 - Right Reverend Michael Bruce Curry, Bishop of North Carolina, is installed as presiding bishop. He is the first African-American to lead the Episcopal Church.
January 14, 2016 - The Episcopal Church is suspended from participating in Anglican Communion activities for three years in response to the church’s acceptance of same-sex marriage. The decision is made during a meeting of leaders from the Anglican Communion’s independent churches.
May 19, 2018 - Curry delivers an address at the wedding of Prince Harry and Meghan Markle. The choice is a break from royal custom as senior clergy from the Church of England traditionally give addresses at royal weddings.
-
bulmabriefs144
When you reply against the points you reject out of hand and without argument, you did not understand my post.
Most cannot recognize our evolving perfection. This has always been the way.
Regards
DL
-
I wonder where actual faith is in all of this. What a mess...
Faith without facts is for fools.
I begin to think that all who believe in the supernatural are fools.
They all end as liars.
Regards
DL
-
bulmabriefs144
When you reply against the points you reject out of hand and without argument, you did not understand my post.
Most cannot recognize our evolving perfection. This has always been the way.
Regards
DL
We aren't perfect. This is precisely the point.
Thinking in terms of "evolving perfection" is the problem.
I begin to think that all who believe in the supernatural are fools.
They all end as liars.
Uhhhhhhh, you do understand how foolish this idea is, right?
(https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/816868397836926996/1065362005386612826/Atheists_Are_Arrogant.jpg)
Also, Stupidism isn't a word.
-
I would like to coin the term "stupidism"
Btw, people who identify as anything other than male or female deny science.
Science says that there is only Male and Female.
There is nothing else.
You can change your gender but not your sex.
Sex is a biological thing meaning you were given it from a family member (father or mother) and you can't change it.
If you have a Y chromosome and a dick between your legs, you're a male.
-
bulmabriefs144
When you reply against the points you reject out of hand and without argument, you did not understand my post.
Most cannot recognize our evolving perfection. This has always been the way.
Regards
DL
We aren't perfect. This is precisely the point.
Thinking in terms of "evolving perfection" is the problem.
I begin to think that all who believe in the supernatural are fools.
They all end as liars.
Uhhhhhhh, you do understand how foolish this idea is, right?
(https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/816868397836926996/1065362005386612826/Atheists_Are_Arrogant.jpg)
Also, Stupidism isn't a word.
Perhaps.
As to your evolving perfection, are you not the best you can be, given your past? Yes you are.
What you do after this point in time is evolving your mind.
You are correct in that I do not understand how one who writes of a real supernatural realm is not a liar.
Perhaps you can explain it to me.
I come to learn. Please teach.
Regards
DL
-
(https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/816868397836926996/1065362005386612826/Atheists_Are_Arrogant.jpg)
Speaking of lies.
No atheist that I have ever heard of says that reality came from nothing.
All of physics posits a small amount of matter.
You are passing on a lie.
Prove me wrong.
Which is the end game of many who posit a supernatural lie.
Regards
DL
-
Not that you would lie, again.
https://www.nature.com/articles/gim200711#:~:text=Male%20or%20female%20pseudohermaphrodite%E2%80%94terms,both%20testicular%20and%20ovarian%20tissue.
https://www.google.ca/search?q=hermaphrodite&sxsrf=AJOqlzUECtetMrN4cufDTTfVBModAL2tsw:1674075640186&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwitwPDegdL8AhXlk4kEHQ1zD5oQ_AUoAXoECAIQAw&biw=932&bih=448&dpr=1.96
Perhaps it is your basic education that is lacking.
Regards
DL
-
(https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/816868397836926996/1065362005386612826/Atheists_Are_Arrogant.jpg)
Speaking of lies.
No atheist that I have ever heard of says that reality came from nothing.
All of physics posits a small amount of matter.
You are passing on a lie.
Prove me wrong.
Stephen Hawking says in his latest book The Grand Design that,
"Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing."
Yeah, he really said this. But even if he hadn't, intelligence involves inferring what people mean by their theories.
Big Bang - Intelligent Design = Uncreated Creation (Reality from nothing)
Everything, and I meant everything, proceeds from the laws of cause and effect. Trees, babies, mountains, even crafted things like canoes or cars.
Objects do not create themselves, but when you ask atheists, they yet again act like the macro-scale has nothing to do with the micro-scale. If objects can't create themselves, they think somehow there's an exception for the universe. The only thing in this universe that could create itself would meet all definitions for God. Everyone understands this, but nobody wants to admit it.
Here's what a real theologian says about Hawking.
The funny part? He has a half hour to spare for questions. He dismantled the idea of creator-less creation in half the time.
-
Everything, and I meant everything, proceeds from the laws of cause and effect. Trees, babies, mountains, even crafted things like canoes or cars.
Everything would include Gods, thus I agree.
Can you tell me why we create then adore a genocidal, homophobic and misogynous Gods like Yahweh/Jesus?
Where is the moral sense in that?
Regards
DL
-
Do you know what the definition of a God is? Let's find out!
god
n.
A being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe, the principal object of faith and worship in monotheistic religions.
The force, effect, or a manifestation or aspect of this being.
A being of supernatural powers or attributes, believed in and worshiped by a people, especially a male deity thought to control some part of nature or reality.
Now, we're going to strikethrough things that are unnecessary assumptions like the omnis.
Next, we're going to add immortal and eternal to the definition. Why? Because one thing the failed to mention in this godawful definition is that a god is a deity.
So next, we look up immortal and eternal.
immortal
adj.
Not subject to death.
Never to be forgotten; everlasting.
Of or relating to immortality.
Capable of indefinite growth or division. Used of cells in culture.
n.
One not subject to death.
One whose fame is enduring
So let's try eternal.
eternal
ĭ-tûr′nəl
adj.
Being without beginning or end.
Continuing without interruption
So back to our original definition of God, after editing crap out.
God
n.
The being conceived as the eternal and immortal originator and ruler of the universe, the principal object of faith and worship in monotheistic religions.
god
n.
A being of supernatural powers or attributes, believed in and worshiped by a people, especially a deity thought to control some part of nature or reality. Often part of a pantheon.
Immortality and eternity are synonymous with being a god, but especially God. Eternity means without beginning or end. If a being is without end, nothing can kill him (or it becomes him, if it does). If a beginning is without beginning, there is nothing that can create him.
God is eternal.
https://www.gotquestions.org/eternal-God.html
Romans 1:20 says God is eternal.
Unlike the omnis, that God is eternal is part of canon.
-
Next, we're going to add immortal and eternal to the definition. Why? Because one thing the failed to mention in this godawful definition is that a god is a deity.
Where is it that a "deity" must be immortal and eternal?
-
Next, we're going to add immortal and eternal to the definition. Why? Because one thing the failed to mention in this godawful definition is that a god is a deity.
Where is it that a "deity" must be immortal and eternal?
If time has a beginning, then whatever begins it must be outside of time, so is eternal - exists with respect to every point in time as it is beyond time. That one makes a kind of sense.
-
Next, we're going to add immortal and eternal to the definition. Why? Because one thing the failed to mention in this godawful definition is that a god is a deity.
Where is it that a "deity" must be immortal and eternal?
When a work's own canon doesn't say God is a Trinity (directly anyway), and it doesn't use the words omniscient, omnipotent, or omnipresent, but it DOES say God is eternal and immortal, then this is the definition of God we will use.
If I was Norse, the gods are by definition NOT immortal due to the gotterdammerung (also known as Ragnarok).
-
If I was Norse, the gods are by definition NOT immortal due to the gotterdammerung (also known as Ragnarok).
Some, like Baldr, died anyway. Other cultures have gods that die. Quetzalcoatl for example - he topped himself.
-
If I was Norse, the gods are by definition NOT immortal due to the gotterdammerung (also known as Ragnarok).
To be fair, Norse beliefs feature an afterlife, and after Ragnarok a god who was previously killed (Baldr) emerges to help rule the new world. Death is typically more a change of state than outright erasure.
-
Next, we're going to add immortal and eternal to the definition. Why? Because one thing the failed to mention in this godawful definition is that a god is a deity.
Where is it that a "deity" must be immortal and eternal?
If time has a beginning, then whatever begins it must be outside of time, so is eternal - exists with respect to every point in time as it is beyond time. That one makes a kind of sense.
I'm not talking about the philosophy, I'm just talking about the definition. Which is what was posited: That the definition for "god" is incorrect by including perfect, omnipotent, omniscient.
If we're talking about what "god" means to someone, then, well, that is different than what I'm addressing.
-
Well, let's pick apart these definitions.
We'll start with perfection.
https://archive.nytimes.com/opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/11/25/an-imperfect-god/
An Imperfect God
Is God perfect? You often hear philosophers describe “theism” as the belief in a perfect being — a being whose attributes are said to include being all-powerful, all-knowing, immutable, perfectly good, perfectly simple, and necessarily existent (among others). And today, something like this view is common among lay people as well.
There are two famous problems with this view of God. The first is that it appears to be impossible to make it coherent. For example, it seems unlikely that God can be both perfectly powerful and perfectly good if the world is filled (as it obviously is) with instances of terrible injustice. Similarly, it’s hard to see how God can wield his infinite power to instigate alteration and change in all things if he is flat-out immutable. And there are more such contradictions where these came from.
The second problem is that while this “theist” view of God is supposed to be a description of the God of the Bible, it’s hard to find any evidence that the prophets and scholars who wrote the Hebrew Bible (or “Old Testament”) thought of God in this way at all. The God of Hebrew Scripture is not depicted as immutable, but repeatedly changes his mind about things (for example, he regrets having made man). He is not all-knowing, since he’s repeatedly surprised by things (like the Israelites abandoning him for a statue of a cow). He is not perfectly powerful either, in that he famously cannot control Israel and get its people to do what he wants. And so on.
Philosophers have spent many centuries trying to get God’s supposed perfections to fit together in a coherent conception, and then trying to get that to fit with the Bible. By now it’s reasonably clear that this can’t be done. In fact, part of the reason God-bashers like Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris are so influential (apart from the fact they write so well) is their insistence that the doctrine of God’s perfections makes no sense, and that the idealized “being” it tells us about doesn’t resemble the biblical God at all.
So is that it, then? Have the atheists won? I don’t think so. But it does look like the time has come for some rethinking in the theist camp.
I’d start with this: Is it really necessary to say that God is a “perfect being,” or perfect at all, for that matter? As far as I can tell, the biblical authors avoid asserting any such thing. And with good reason. Normally, when we say that something is “perfect,” we mean it has attained the best possible balance among the principles involved in making it the kind of thing it is. For example, if we say that a bottle is perfect, we mean it can contain a significant quantity of liquid in its body; that its neck is long enough to be grasped comfortably and firmly; that the bore is wide enough to permit a rapid flow of liquid; and so on. Of course, you can always manufacture a bottle that will hold more liquid, but only by making the body too broad (so the bottle doesn’t handle well) or the neck too short (so it’s hard to hold). There’s an inevitable trade-off among the principles, and perfection lies in the balance among them. And this is so whether what’s being judged is a bottle or a horse, a wine or a gymnastics routine or natural human beauty.
What would we say if some philosopher told us that a perfect bottle would be one that can contain a perfectly great amount of liquid, while being perfectly easy to pour from at the same time? Or that a perfect horse would bear an infinitely heavy rider, while at the same time being able to run with perfectly great speed? I should think we’d say he’s made a fundamental mistake here: You can’t perfect something by maximizing all its constituent principles simultaneously. All this will get you is contradictions and absurdities. This is not less true of God than it is of anything else.
Or as they say, the perfect is the enemy of the good.
Moving on to the other two...
Omniscient meanings being able to know everything.
Only such knowledge creates a paradox. If you know even one thing, the future, does this mean you are helpless to prevent it? Or does it mean that you know all possible realities? In which case, you are trapped in indecision trying to piece out the best reality. Do you know how the universe works? In which case eternal existence is unbearably flat, as nothing that humans do can excite or surprise you. And can you know things that aren't so? In which case, omniscient knowledge includes things that are false, and if not, there is something you cannot know.
What about omnipotence?
Well, this has a famous paradox. "Can God create a boulder that he cannot lift?" The implication that if he is omnipotent, then yes he can create something more than himself in which case he's not omnipotent as he can't lift the boulder. But if he can't, then his power is limited to what he can do, so again not omnipotent.
Now, I know the solution to this paradox (potential and/or Jesus) but I'll let you stew in it for a few seconds.
Jesus is a being in which God lowered himself to a mortal child, a child that grew into a man that was unable to roll a stone away from a tomb while alive. Likewise, potential means you can be unable to do something now that you can do later. All the same, this definition of omnipotence is rooted in adaptability, which in turn is rooted in vulnerability.
Or this.
"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?"
Because he is God.
The problem with omnipotence is it ironically reduces God to a big ogre. A bully. A person able but not willing to prevent evil. But evil is part of free will, and to prevent free will would be to make puppets, something far more evil than so-called evil.
These ideas of what God is supposed to be blaspheme God by making him someone who can do everything and has it all figured out. God is the immortal and eternal image of a human. Humans are by definition not perfect, no omnipotent, and not omniscient. And that is the God I worship.
-
If I was Norse, the gods are by definition NOT immortal due to the gotterdammerung (also known as Ragnarok).
To be fair, Norse beliefs feature an afterlife, and after Ragnarok a god who was previously killed (Baldr) emerges to help rule the new world. Death is typically more a change of state than outright erasure.
Depends on whether you're talking Norse Norse or Wagner's Norse, I guess.
-
If I was Norse, the gods are by definition NOT immortal due to the gotterdammerung (also known as Ragnarok).
To be fair, Norse beliefs feature an afterlife, and after Ragnarok a god who was previously killed (Baldr) emerges to help rule the new world. Death is typically more a change of state than outright erasure.
Depends on whether you're talking Norse Norse or Wagner's Norse, I guess.
Prose and poetic eddas both have an account of Baldr's return. Ragnarok is more the end of an age, than the absolute end of all things. Dead gods go to an afterlife, same as mortals, so it doesn't necessarily preclude some understanding of immortality. Random mythology!
Sun blackens, Earth crumbles,
Stars tumble from heaven,
Fire laps the Ash,
Flames lick the sky.
...
Another green Earth
Will rise from the sea.
I see eagles over fells,
Sporting for fish.
...
Crops will grow unseeded;
Ills healed, Baldr returns
To live at Valhalla,
Shrine to the slaughter-Gods.
-
That's a pretty cool poem.
-
I was reading passage in Genesis where Jacob is wrestling not with an angel but with a man. When Jacob's man is unable to beat him, he smashes up his hip bone. This man gives him a blessing Israel meaning "you have wrestled with God" and the Jews are instructed not to eat animal meat near the hip bone.
So as I'm a writer, I had fun with this. Turn the other cheek Jesus is having a wrestling bout. While it could be classic Greco Roman wrestling... nah, "Let's Get Ready to Rumble!!!"
Well there's also a fair number of wrestlers that are Christians, so this idea isn't totally crazy.
Btw, the priest in Nacho Libre is based on RL Fray Tormenta.
-
I was reading passage in Genesis where Jacob is wrestling not with an angel but with a man. When Jacob's man is unable to beat him, he smashes up his hip bone. This man gives him a blessing Israel meaning "you have wrestled with God" and the Jews are instructed not to eat animal meat near the hip bone.
So as I'm a writer, I had fun with this. Turn the other cheek Jesus is having a wrestling bout. While it could be classic Greco Roman wrestling... nah, "Let's Get Ready to Rumble!!!"
I don't get it. What does professional wrestling have to do with the story in Genesis and jews not eating lower hip meat?
Well there's also a fair number of wrestlers that are Christians, so this idea isn't totally crazy.
10 is a "fair" number?
-
A fair number of those mentioned. There's probably a few more that aren't mentioned. This is one of those lists like Mojo where they have time for ten well known ones. There is probably a similar list of rock singers. Are there only ten Christian rock singers?
I don't get it. What does professional wrestling have to do with the story in Genesis and jews not eating lower hip meat?
Well, it's a good insight on how I think.
"22 That night Jacob got up and took his two wives, his two female servants and his eleven sons and crossed the ford of the Jabbok. 23 After he had sent them across the stream, he sent over all his possessions. 24 So Jacob was left alone, and a man wrestled with him till daybreak. 25 When the man saw that he could not overpower him, he touched the socket of Jacob’s hip so that his hip was wrenched as he wrestled with the man. 26 Then the man said, “Let me go, for it is daybreak.”
But Jacob replied, “I will not let you go unless you bless me.”
27 The man asked him, “What is your name?”
“Jacob,” he answered.
28 Then the man said, “Your name will no longer be Jacob, but Israel,[a] because you have struggled with God and with humans and have overcome.”
29 Jacob said, “Please tell me your name.”
But he replied, “Why do you ask my name?” Then he blessed him there.
30 So Jacob called the place Peniel, saying, “It is because I saw God face to face, and yet my life was spared.”
31 The sun rose above him as he passed Peniel, and he was limping because of his hip. 32 Therefore to this day the Israelites do not eat the tendon attached to the socket of the hip, because the socket of Jacob’s hip was touched near the tendon."
So that went from wrestling to pro wrestling.
-
A fair number of those mentioned. There's probably a few more that aren't mentioned. This is one of those lists like Mojo where they have time for ten well known ones. There is probably a similar list of rock singers. Are there only ten Christian rock singers?
I'm not saying there are only 10. But you're trying to make a point about something using a number, implying there are lots when you simply serve up 10. The point actually being, there could be lots, could be only 10, we don't know. But you're just asserting something without evidence. For reasons that are unknown.
I don't get it. What does professional wrestling have to do with the story in Genesis and jews not eating lower hip meat?
Well, it's a good insight on how I think.
"22 That night Jacob got up and took his two wives, his two female servants and his eleven sons and crossed the ford of the Jabbok. 23 After he had sent them across the stream, he sent over all his possessions. 24 So Jacob was left alone, and a man wrestled with him till daybreak. 25 When the man saw that he could not overpower him, he touched the socket of Jacob’s hip so that his hip was wrenched as he wrestled with the man. 26 Then the man said, “Let me go, for it is daybreak.”
But Jacob replied, “I will not let you go unless you bless me.”
27 The man asked him, “What is your name?”
“Jacob,” he answered.
28 Then the man said, “Your name will no longer be Jacob, but Israel,[a] because you have struggled with God and with humans and have overcome.”
29 Jacob said, “Please tell me your name.”
But he replied, “Why do you ask my name?” Then he blessed him there.
30 So Jacob called the place Peniel, saying, “It is because I saw God face to face, and yet my life was spared.”
31 The sun rose above him as he passed Peniel, and he was limping because of his hip. 32 Therefore to this day the Israelites do not eat the tendon attached to the socket of the hip, because the socket of Jacob’s hip was touched near the tendon."
So that went from wrestling to pro wrestling.
Ok, interesting insight into how you think. Kinda makes sense as you make many, many, shall we say, extrapolated incongruent dissociative unrelated associations between things.
A biblical story that involve grappling leads you to manufactured performance pro wrestling, like it somehow has something to do with scripture. Kinda like Noah built a boat, now let me draw a connection to the Americas Cup.
-
A fair number of those mentioned. There's probably a few more that aren't mentioned. This is one of those lists like Mojo where they have time for ten well known ones. There is probably a similar list of rock singers. Are there only ten Christian rock singers?
I'm not saying there are only 10. But you're trying to make a point about something using a number, implying there are lots when you simply serve up 10. The point actually being, there could be lots, could be only 10, we don't know. But you're just asserting something without evidence. For reasons that are unknown.
I don't get it. What does professional wrestling have to do with the story in Genesis and jews not eating lower hip meat?
Well, it's a good insight on how I think.
"22 That night Jacob got up and took his two wives, his two female servants and his eleven sons and crossed the ford of the Jabbok. 23 After he had sent them across the stream, he sent over all his possessions. 24 So Jacob was left alone, and a man wrestled with him till daybreak. 25 When the man saw that he could not overpower him, he touched the socket of Jacob’s hip so that his hip was wrenched as he wrestled with the man. 26 Then the man said, “Let me go, for it is daybreak.”
But Jacob replied, “I will not let you go unless you bless me.”
27 The man asked him, “What is your name?”
“Jacob,” he answered.
28 Then the man said, “Your name will no longer be Jacob, but Israel,[a] because you have struggled with God and with humans and have overcome.”
29 Jacob said, “Please tell me your name.”
But he replied, “Why do you ask my name?” Then he blessed him there.
30 So Jacob called the place Peniel, saying, “It is because I saw God face to face, and yet my life was spared.”
31 The sun rose above him as he passed Peniel, and he was limping because of his hip. 32 Therefore to this day the Israelites do not eat the tendon attached to the socket of the hip, because the socket of Jacob’s hip was touched near the tendon."
So that went from wrestling to pro wrestling.
Ok, interesting insight into how you think. Kinda makes sense as you make many, many, shall we say, extrapolated incongruent dissociative unrelated associations between things.
A biblical story that involve grappling leads you to manufactured performance pro wrestling, like it somehow has something to do with scripture. Kinda like Noah built a boat, now let me draw a connection to the Americas Cup.
What does yacht racing have to do with Noah? That is totally off base.
:shakes_head:
-
A fair number of those mentioned. There's probably a few more that aren't mentioned. This is one of those lists like Mojo where they have time for ten well known ones. There is probably a similar list of rock singers. Are there only ten Christian rock singers?
I'm not saying there are only 10. But you're trying to make a point about something using a number, implying there are lots when you simply serve up 10. The point actually being, there could be lots, could be only 10, we don't know. But you're just asserting something without evidence. For reasons that are unknown.
I don't get it. What does professional wrestling have to do with the story in Genesis and jews not eating lower hip meat?
Well, it's a good insight on how I think.
"22 That night Jacob got up and took his two wives, his two female servants and his eleven sons and crossed the ford of the Jabbok. 23 After he had sent them across the stream, he sent over all his possessions. 24 So Jacob was left alone, and a man wrestled with him till daybreak. 25 When the man saw that he could not overpower him, he touched the socket of Jacob’s hip so that his hip was wrenched as he wrestled with the man. 26 Then the man said, “Let me go, for it is daybreak.”
But Jacob replied, “I will not let you go unless you bless me.”
27 The man asked him, “What is your name?”
“Jacob,” he answered.
28 Then the man said, “Your name will no longer be Jacob, but Israel,[a] because you have struggled with God and with humans and have overcome.”
29 Jacob said, “Please tell me your name.”
But he replied, “Why do you ask my name?” Then he blessed him there.
30 So Jacob called the place Peniel, saying, “It is because I saw God face to face, and yet my life was spared.”
31 The sun rose above him as he passed Peniel, and he was limping because of his hip. 32 Therefore to this day the Israelites do not eat the tendon attached to the socket of the hip, because the socket of Jacob’s hip was touched near the tendon."
So that went from wrestling to pro wrestling.
Ok, interesting insight into how you think. Kinda makes sense as you make many, many, shall we say, extrapolated incongruent dissociative unrelated associations between things.
A biblical story that involve grappling leads you to manufactured performance pro wrestling, like it somehow has something to do with scripture. Kinda like Noah built a boat, now let me draw a connection to the Americas Cup.
What does yacht racing have to do with Noah? That is totally off base.
:shakes_head:
What does some guys in the Bible have to do with American entertainment wrestling?
Noah, boat, water, ocean. About as relevant to the aforementioned sailing race as pro wrestling is to biblical grappling.
Now do you get it?
-
No it's totally incomprehensible. I totally don't get get your point and you'll have to explain it in really stupid terms.
(https://i.imgflip.com/78z3h6.jpg)
Here's the Armageddon! It's John Cena fighting against Jesus.
-
What does some guys in the Bible have to do with American entertainment wrestling?
-
What does some guys in the Bible have to do with American entertainment wrestling?
Wait, who tf watchs WWE? You know that shit is staged, right?
-
What does some guys in the Bible have to do with American entertainment wrestling?
Wait, who tf watchs WWE? You know that shit is staged, right?
I do. But I guess bumble somehow thinks WWE is god's work.
-
What does some guys in the Bible have to do with American entertainment wrestling?
Wait, who tf watchs WWE? You know that shit is staged, right?
Hahahahaha!!!! ;D
That's the joke about wrestling. It's a low class daytime drama. Nearly everyone knows it is fake.
"Will Stone Cold avenge the Undertaker for the beatdown given to him but Hollywood Hogan and these five ladies over here? Find out on Monday!"
WWE is God's work. When God was done with Earth, he made wrestling, so that we might know that all this business about Earth being a tiny planet in an expanding universe is fake. Cuz it's all fake. The created world is a manifestation of God, and we are all God putting on a temporary show.
Although the true wrestling is WCW.
What's that? You say Jesus isn't real, and science has the answers? You say that again!!! (Shadow punches you, and you fall back with really bad timing)
-
You literally just said "cuz it's all fake" and then contradict that with "God is real".
Know your fucking place, trash.
-
You literally just said "cuz it's all fake" and then contradict that with "God is real".
Know your fucking place, trash.
Yeah it's easy to spot the trolls here. Just watch as he trips over his own bullshit.
-
You literally just said "cuz it's all fake" and then contradict that with "God is real".
Know your fucking place, trash.
Yeah it's easy to spot the trolls here. Just watch as he trips over his own bullshit.
I stopped trolling a long time ago as I got bored and then just tried to be myself but couldn't because of people like this.
-
You literally just said "cuz it's all fake" and then contradict that with "God is real".
Know your fucking place, trash.
So many want an imaginary supernatural God, that they ignore the real giver and sustainer of life, nature.
Unfortunately, the real trash are the vile and immoral Gods we have created and adore.
Note how giving the religious power has us bordering on near extinction from ecosystem damage.
They do not care about the real reality.
The secular world is stupid to allow the religious world to pollute the public space.
Laïcité is the way to go.
Regards
DL
-
Laïcité?
why?
crimes committed in the name of god
crimes committed in the name of democratic freedom
crimes committed in the name of capitalism.
crimes committed in the name of preserving the 2ndA.
crimes are crimes
the real crime is to believe a lie to justify an ends.
-
The secular world is stupid to allow the religious world to pollute the public space.
Agreed. It's time to stop giving these cults tax free breaks and credibility. To hell with them
-
Depends on how you define nonprofit and PAC.
For some of these yahoos - its their only function - profit and pac
-
I can think of no reason why a religious institution should have non-profit/tax exempt status. I mean, really, the catholic church is a non-prof?
-
I believe that the ressurection of Jesus Christ on the third day probably looked more like this...
-
I can think of no reason why a religious institution should have non-profit/tax exempt status. I mean, really, the catholic church is a non-prof?
Well a community church or friendship group or knitting circle or whatever should have npo status.
But when we get to the multilevelmarketing size ('reverse funnel') of mega churches and full on sovereign entities then the actual financial structure needs to be scurtinized.
We re talking about antiquated understanding of 2ndA level sht here where 1musket round took 1 min and tithing stayed local.
vs 100rpm and golden popemobiles.
-
I can think of no reason why a religious institution should have non-profit/tax exempt status. I mean, really, the catholic church is a non-prof?
Well a community church or friendship group or knitting circle or whatever should have npo status.
But when we get to the multilevelmarketing size ('reverse funnel') of mega churches and full on sovereign entities then the actual financial structure needs to be scurtinized.
We re talking about antiquated understanding of 2ndA level sht here where 1musket round took 1 min and tithing stayed local.
vs 100rpm and golden popemobiles.
Yes, Catholicism and televangelism do make loads of money, and both should be taxed as those are for-profit.
But the reason for tax exemption is that
(1) they are charities
(2) they don't actually make that much money, aside from megachurches
(3) There are strings attached to real tax-free churches.
a. They cannot have a main beneficiary (both Catholicism and televangelists should be disqualified, as the Pope or Joel Osteen make all the money), and
b. They cannot sponsor a political party or talk politics in sermons.
-
Laïcité?
why?
crimes committed in the name of god
crimes committed in the name of democratic freedom
crimes committed in the name of capitalism.
crimes committed in the name of preserving the 2ndA.
crimes are crimes
the real crime is to believe a lie to justify an ends.
Which is what all the lying God religions have done forever.
Why Laïcité?
Because it works to put the lying religious in their place of not insulting their traditional enemies with their show of superiority, or the rest rest of us with their delusional thinking.
Regards
DL
-
I believe that the ressurection of Jesus Christ on the third day probably looked more like this...
I see the messianic policy as fully immoral.
If you care to test your poor thinking, I am here for you.
I introduce the topic to you it this way, because the religious always run away because they cannot argue for their immoral position.
I do not expect an argument. I never get one that makes moral sense.
On Jesus dying for Christians, from a moral perspective.
It takes quite an imagination and ego to think a god would actually die for us, after condemning us unjustly in the first place.
Christians have swallowed a lie and don’t care how evil they make Jesus to keep their feel good get out of hell free card.
It is a lie, first and foremost, because, like it or not, having another innocent person suffer or die for the wrongs you have done, --- so that you might escape responsibility for having done them, --- is immoral.
To abdicate your personal responsibility for your actions or use a scapegoat is immoral.
Christians also have to ignore what Jesus, as a Jewish Rabbi, would have taught his people.
Ezekiel 18:20 The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.
Deuteronomy 24:16 (ESV) "Fathers shall not be put to death because of their children, nor shall children be put to death because of their fathers. Each one shall be put to death for his own sin.
Psa 49;7 None of them can by any means redeem his brother, nor give to God a ransom for him:
There is no way that Christians parents would teach their children to use a scapegoat.
Good morals and Jesus speak against the messianic concept and bids us pick up our crosses and follow him.
Regards
DL
-
Laïcité?
why?
crimes committed in the name of god
crimes committed in the name of democratic freedom
crimes committed in the name of capitalism.
crimes committed in the name of preserving the 2ndA.
crimes are crimes
the real crime is to believe a lie to justify an ends.
Which is what all the lying God religions have done forever.
Why Laïcité?
Because it works to put the lying religious in their place of not insulting their traditional enemies with their show of superiority, or the rest rest of us with their delusional thinking.
Regards
DL
uh....
secularizing won't change the 'god' of the times.
religion - crimes committed in the name of god
western countries invading other countries (like 1, but under different pretenses) - crimes committed in the name of democratic freedom
conservatives (slashing budgets and creating literal theft policy and breaking environmental protections and stealing peoples land) - crimes committed in the name of capitalism.
gun nuts and the politicians who run cover for them - crimes committed in the name of preserving the 2ndA.
so no... lactate doesn't end all evil.
evil is evil.
guns don't kill people.
people kill people
religion doesn't kill people.
people kill people in the name of religion.
tax isn't theft.
corrupt politicians who make corrupt tax policy is theft.
-
secularizing won't change the 'god' of the times.
That is what the un-informed say, who has not noted how France has the first female Imam and that her mosque accepts gays.
Keep up to the God of the times, the mighty Laïcité.
He is kicking the hell out of the more inferior Gods, like Christianity's and Islam's.
Then again, they are morally corrupt and an easy target.
Regards
DL
.
-
Who the hell is Laicite?
-
secularizing won't change the 'god' of the times.
That is what the un-informed say, who has not noted how France has the first female Imam and that her mosque accepts gays.
Keep up to the God of the times, the mighty Laïcité.
He is kicking the hell out of the more inferior Gods, like Christianity's and Islam's.
Then again, they are morally corrupt and an easy target.
Regards
DL
.
wtf you on about?
maybe you missed it
let me be more clear:
god of War?
god of $?
god of Democracy?
-
You're a snake, Gnostic. I won't listen to any snakes.
That is what the un-informed say, who has not noted how France has the first female Imam and that her mosque accepts gays.
Right, right. Sure it does.
Christianity moralizes against gays but Christians for the most part don't hurt them.
Christians dare tell them that a sin is in fact a sin, that anal sex will give you STDs.
Islam tells them what they want to hear and when they are a majority this is what happens.
(https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/976/cpsprodpb/AB65/production/_88477834_a4e52754-72cb-4729-93dd-e00a0d9a24a3.jpg)
(https://images.thestar.com/_kxVW5DBne64ASyHSUzH0NB-flE=/850x567/smart/filters:cb(1508919362200)/https://www.thestar.com/content/dam/thestar/news/world/2017/05/23/gay-couple-in-indonesia-caned-83-times-in-front-of-crowd/indonesia-caning.jpg)
(https://i.guim.co.uk/img/media/95bd1d6147d50e3a7f94ec49f31387943756a5e8/0_0_3000_2000/master/3000.jpg?width=880&quality=85&dpr=1&s=none)
(https://www.advocate.com/sites/advocate.com/files/2017/12/03/isis.jpg)
The US and most Christian western countries have voted to legalize gay marriages. Compare this to Muslim countries that only do so for good press, then behead gays when nobody is watching.
There's a reason why some Muslim countries have record high gender transitions (which you'll quote next). It's because being trans is seen as okay versus the death sentence of being gay. It's basically a loophole.
https://qz.com/889548/everyone-treated-me-like-a-saint-in-iran-theres-only-one-way-to-survive-as-a-transgender-person
In Iran, homosexuality is a crime, punishable with death for men and lashings for women. But Iran is also the only Muslim country in the Persian Gulf region that gives trans citizens the right to have their gender identity recognized by the law. In fact, the Islamic Republic of Iran not only allows sex reassignment, but also subsidizes it.
Worse, a trans person who is not legally recognized can be accused of homosexuality and face the death penalty. In fact, in some cases gay people in Iran decide to undergo the surgery because the alternative is death. “The sex change operation is most of the time forced on trans people by the culture and by the government,” says Ghahreman.
Even seeing trans as not gay required a fatwa after someone begged and pleaded.
-
Compare this to Muslim countries that only do so for good press, then behead gays when nobody is watching.
(https://www.advocate.com/sites/advocate.com/files/2017/12/03/isis.jpg)
Apparently someone was watching...with a camera.
-
christians are nice people?
aaaaaaah
what about the maga hat alt-right christians?
very stable individuals they are.... is that what you're saying?
http://static.reuters.com/resources/assets/?d=20161129&t=2&i=com_hate-incidents-report_hate-incident-motivations&w=&q=
(http://static.reuters.com/resources/assets/?d=20161129&t=2&i=com_hate-incidents-report_hate-incident-motivations&w=&q=)
-
Who the hell is Laicite?
Not who. What.
Look at it as an upgraded version and perfection of your Liberty, via your government, that denies the religious their penchant for rubbing the non-believers nose in his evil ways, just for not believing the same way.
Jesus saves is an insult to Muslims and those who do not feel they need saving.
Do you like to see disrespect for your way of thinking?
Guessing your answer, ---- Neither does anyone else.
That means you support Laïcité.
Regards
DL
-
Viva la Laïcité!
-
Apparently someone was watching...with a camera.
I meant news cameras.This sort of violence gets underreported by CNN and the like. Just as anti-white violence "doesn't exist."
christians are nice people?
(http://static.reuters.com/resources/assets/?d=20161129&t=2&i=com_hate-incidents-report_hate-incident-motivations&w=&q=)
Paid for by George Soros.
Btw, this "pie chart" is basically saying that this guy is 90% likely to commit a hate crime.
(http://static5.businessinsider.com/image/5a6b472717842521008b4d40-1190-625/conservative-white-male-google-employees-are-filing-hr-complaints-over-conversations-people-are-have-about-diversity.jpg)
Because all conservative whites are branded "white nationalists." Because leftism thinks that only a tiny chunk commits Anti-Trump violence, yet Trump-voting whites are all anti-Semitic, anti-black, anti-woman, and anti-LGBT.
Also note that the "pie chart" thinks Anti-White is not a thing for hate crimes. Funny how that chart doesn't seem to include all percents.
And you think this isn't a judgemental oversimplification?
You know, I rightly am skeptical about Muslims, having read history. And immigration creates a problem of human trafficking. And LGBT (having been LGBT) is a an anti-natalist cult, along with knowing that black violence on white people is about double
(https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/816868397836926996/1070540625151270922/image.png)
And that "anti-women" is a euphemism for anti-abortion even though abortion actually hurts women quite a bit.
You know what? Real stats show the left as far more likely to commit violence on people. That guy I had a picture of? I would have trouble believing him capable of hurting anything.
(https://i1.wp.com/nypost.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2017/08/berkeley-riots-antifa.jpg?quality=90&strip=all&ssl=1)
Here's Antifa, a leftist organization.
https://iahymnewsnetwork.wordpress.com/2011/08/10/new-study-shows-liberals-have-a-lower-average-iq-than-conservatives/
-
Also note that the "pie chart" thinks Anti-White is not a thing for hate crimes. Funny how that chart doesn't seem to include all percents.
Here's some more detail. Once you factor population distribution across demographics, it paints an interesting picture. EX.:
(https://i.imgur.com/j9dPMMA.png)
- US Christian Population: 63%
- US Jewish Population: 2.2%
- US Muslim Population: 1.1%
- US LGBT Population: 5.6%
(https://i.imgur.com/BsArk9Y.jpg)
-
What do you do when a group actively promotes your status as sub human or nonalive, the tendency is to fight back.
So what is anti-straight-white-male?
Then the irony and hyporcacy you post generic white male and rage over stereotyping him.
Meanwhile then proceeds to stereotype all minorites.
Amazing!
No wait - anitwhite violence was reported on many times.
"90% of hate crimes"?
Ya.
By population the description of that guy fits a profile.
But your strawman uses a %, a unitless number.
90%of the crime-commited-by of the pie can not be transfered to 90% of the white-male-population.
Thst woild be stupid.
Are you stupid?
Antiwomen is about abpetion?
What?
No
Its about actual violence on women.
Murdered abused raped.
Its about female politicians getting more rape and children thrwats inrelative to males.
Its about gamergate and coordinated online haeassement.
Or maybe i just read tue wrong things?
What do you read?
Wjat should i read?
Bulmba takes over for Lackless.
Antiwhite violence in msm ftw!
Oh wait... who was the agressor?
-
Who the hell is Laicite?
Not who. What.
Look at it as an upgraded version and perfection of your Liberty, via your government, that denies the religious their penchant for rubbing the non-believers nose in his evil ways, just for not believing the same way.
Jesus saves is an insult to Muslims and those who do not feel they need saving.
Do you like to see disrespect for your way of thinking?
Guessing your answer, ---- Neither does anyone else.
That means you support Laïcité.
Regards
DL
I like to offend everyone and don't give a shit about what others think therefore I don't give a shit about people disrespecting me for my way of thinking.
Hating everyone equally means you aren't racist.
-
Who the hell is Laicite?
Not who. What.
Look at it as an upgraded version and perfection of your Liberty, via your government, that denies the religious their penchant for rubbing the non-believers nose in his evil ways, just for not believing the same way.
Jesus saves is an insult to Muslims and those who do not feel they need saving.
Do you like to see disrespect for your way of thinking?
Guessing your answer, ---- Neither does anyone else.
That means you support Laïcité.
Regards
DL
I like to offend everyone and don't give a shit about what others think therefore I don't give a shit about people disrespecting me for my way of thinking.
Hating everyone equally means you aren't racist.
Racism has more positive than negatives.
We are tribal by nature and that includes racial factors.
We cannot and should not ignore our instincts for fellowship.
Regards
DL
-
You're a snake, Gnostic. I won't listen to any snakes.
That is what the un-informed say, who has not noted how France has the first female Imam and that her mosque accepts gays.
Right, right. Sure it does.
Christianity moralizes against gays but Christians for the most part don't hurt them.
Christians dare tell them that a sin is in fact a sin, that anal sex will give you STDs.
Islam tells them what they want to hear and when they are a majority this is what happens.
(https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/976/cpsprodpb/AB65/production/_88477834_a4e52754-72cb-4729-93dd-e00a0d9a24a3.jpg)
(https://images.thestar.com/_kxVW5DBne64ASyHSUzH0NB-flE=/850x567/smart/filters:cb(1508919362200)/https://www.thestar.com/content/dam/thestar/news/world/2017/05/23/gay-couple-in-indonesia-caned-83-times-in-front-of-crowd/indonesia-caning.jpg)
(https://i.guim.co.uk/img/media/95bd1d6147d50e3a7f94ec49f31387943756a5e8/0_0_3000_2000/master/3000.jpg?width=880&quality=85&dpr=1&s=none)
(https://www.advocate.com/sites/advocate.com/files/2017/12/03/isis.jpg)
The US and most Christian western countries have voted to legalize gay marriages. Compare this to Muslim countries that only do so for good press, then behead gays when nobody is watching.
There's a reason why some Muslim countries have record high gender transitions (which you'll quote next). It's because being trans is seen as okay versus the death sentence of being gay. It's basically a loophole.
https://qz.com/889548/everyone-treated-me-like-a-saint-in-iran-theres-only-one-way-to-survive-as-a-transgender-person
In Iran, homosexuality is a crime, punishable with death for men and lashings for women. But Iran is also the only Muslim country in the Persian Gulf region that gives trans citizens the right to have their gender identity recognized by the law. In fact, the Islamic Republic of Iran not only allows sex reassignment, but also subsidizes it.
Worse, a trans person who is not legally recognized can be accused of homosexuality and face the death penalty. In fact, in some cases gay people in Iran decide to undergo the surgery because the alternative is death. “The sex change operation is most of the time forced on trans people by the culture and by the government,” says Ghahreman.
Even seeing trans as not gay required a fatwa after someone begged and pleaded.
"queering doesn't make the world work"
-
I believe that the ressurection of Jesus Christ on the third day probably looked more like this...
I see the messianic policy as fully immoral.
If you care to test your poor thinking, I am here for you.
I introduce the topic to you it this way, because the religious always run away because they cannot argue for their immoral position.
I do not expect an argument. I never get one that makes moral sense.
On Jesus dying for Christians, from a moral perspective.
It takes quite an imagination and ego to think a god would actually die for us, after condemning us unjustly in the first place.
Christians have swallowed a lie and don’t care how evil they make Jesus to keep their feel good get out of hell free card.
It is a lie, first and foremost, because, like it or not, having another innocent person suffer or die for the wrongs you have done, --- so that you might escape responsibility for having done them, --- is immoral.
To abdicate your personal responsibility for your actions or use a scapegoat is immoral.
Christians also have to ignore what Jesus, as a Jewish Rabbi, would have taught his people.
Ezekiel 18:20 The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.
Deuteronomy 24:16 (ESV) "Fathers shall not be put to death because of their children, nor shall children be put to death because of their fathers. Each one shall be put to death for his own sin.
Psa 49;7 None of them can by any means redeem his brother, nor give to God a ransom for him:
There is no way that Christians parents would teach their children to use a scapegoat.
Good morals and Jesus speak against the messianic concept and bids us pick up our crosses and follow him.
Regards
DL
Christianity is not pinnacle of human morality, nor is it claiming to be. Nor is any fucked up pagan religions, and beliefs. Yes including stupid Talmudic head bangers and alahalahalahalah Devil worshippers.
You believe that Christianity is the Truth or you don't. Simple really.
-
I believe that the ressurection of Jesus Christ on the third day probably looked more like this...
I see the messianic policy as fully immoral.
If you care to test your poor thinking, I am here for you.
I introduce the topic to you it this way, because the religious always run away because they cannot argue for their immoral position.
I do not expect an argument. I never get one that makes moral sense.
On Jesus dying for Christians, from a moral perspective.
It takes quite an imagination and ego to think a god would actually die for us, after condemning us unjustly in the first place.
Christians have swallowed a lie and don’t care how evil they make Jesus to keep their feel good get out of hell free card.
It is a lie, first and foremost, because, like it or not, having another innocent person suffer or die for the wrongs you have done, --- so that you might escape responsibility for having done them, --- is immoral.
To abdicate your personal responsibility for your actions or use a scapegoat is immoral.
Christians also have to ignore what Jesus, as a Jewish Rabbi, would have taught his people.
Ezekiel 18:20 The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.
Deuteronomy 24:16 (ESV) "Fathers shall not be put to death because of their children, nor shall children be put to death because of their fathers. Each one shall be put to death for his own sin.
Psa 49;7 None of them can by any means redeem his brother, nor give to God a ransom for him:
There is no way that Christians parents would teach their children to use a scapegoat.
Good morals and Jesus speak against the messianic concept and bids us pick up our crosses and follow him.
Regards
DL
Christianity is not pinnacle of human morality, nor is it claiming to be. Nor is any fucked up pagan religions, and beliefs. Yes including stupid Talmudic head bangers and alahalahalahalah Devil worshippers.
You believe that Christianity is the Truth or you don't. Simple really.
You are correct on the immorality of Christianity.
That is why I joined the good Christians. Gnostic Christians.
We try to correct our beloved brethren but they are quite slow to elevate themselves.
All Christian and myriad of Abrahamic based cults and religions, including Islam, are slave holding ideologies, and have basically developed into intolerant, homophobic and misogynous religions.
Both of our mainstream religions have grown themselves by the sword instead of good deeds and continue with their immoral ways in spite of secular law showing them the moral ways.
Jesus said we would know his people by their works and deeds. That means Jesus would not recognize Christians and Muslims as his people, and neither do I. Jesus would call Christianity and Islam abominations.
Gnostic Christians did in the past, and I am proudly continuing that tradition and honest irrefutable evaluation based on morality.
The Theft of Our Values
Is religion an ideal barometer of Western values or merely an oppressor of them? The conclusions set forth in the documentary The Theft of Our Values...
topdocumentaryfilms.com
Humanity centered religions, good? Yes. Esoteric ecumenist Gnostic Christianity being the best of these.
Supernaturally based religions, evil? Yes.
Islam and Christianity being the worst of these.
Moral people will agree.
Regards
DL
-
What do you do when a group actively promotes your status as sub human or nonalive, the tendency is to fight back.
So what is anti-straight-white-male?
Antiwhite violence in msm ftw!
Oh wait... who was the agressor?
In a Family Guy episode, when the Cleveland guy admitted to being the killer (true or not) the media all cleared out. It was a joke but truth in fiction. The media does not report black on white violence, nor black on black violence.
The latter perpetuates a stereotype that black neighborhoods (especially those with the name MLK, Jr) have mostly turned sketchy.
The former destroys the narrative that only whites can be racist (and in fact, they are typically sentenced just for being white by the woke police).
Oh? Why is that? Because you've defined racism as white hatred toward other people?
Christians can do violence. So can pagans. Muslims. Even Buddhists, as shown when Muslims pushed the Buddhists too far. Likewise, blacks, whites, Asians, Whatever can and do hate each other occasionally.
Pretending it doesn't happen is the worst sort of racism, giving a free pass to one group while bullying another. That is racism!
Btw, there's a news expression " Dog bites man, that's not news! Man bites dog, that's news! " The poinr being, that if such events are so commonplace, why would the news report it? Something that happens often is not news.
-
In a Family Guy episode...
No one needs to read any further. That pretty much says it all.
-
See youve changed the subject.
Not able to defend claiming white male supremacists receiving backlash on account theyre stance is others shouldnt exist?
Now youre trying to talk bias of news reporting on crininals.
An argument no one is having, unless you want to talk the quality of news outlets.
Focus up - why do you think a white male supremacist who believes others dont have equal rights should not receive backlash?
-
I'm not defending white male supremacists.
But the news and alot of ppl assume that white males are supremacists, simply for being white males. You and the media overlook this below.
https://m.facebook.com/VICE/videos/meet-americas-black-supremacists/247197092609978/
"The only way to fight white supremacy is black supremacy."
But I thought black supremacy didn't exist because systemic racism?
https://medium.com/are-you-out-there/black-supremacy-against-white-people-is-on-the-rise-f596051fb1dd
Hmmmm.
-
Uh... no one assumes those guys are WS.
Those guys are self admitted WS.
youre nutty.
Now trying to switch it up again?
Yes, there are shtty people in every group of people.
Their existence doesnt negate your attempt to twist the fact that hatecrimes went up by proportion to the larger population group and then strawman that % and teansfer it to the entire population of said group.
Bulma arguemnent:
White male hate crime / total hate crime = 90%.
Media says 90% of the white male population are hate criminals.
This is untrue.
Wow you expertly defeated that strawman with no mecry
Welldone.
-
Racism has more positive than negatives.
We are tribal by nature and that includes racial factors.
We cannot and should not ignore our instincts for fellowship.
Regards
DL
Wow. That’s quite the statement.
Apart from the obvious of how shitty it is to be on the receiving end of racism, if you need an example of how those tribal instincts can completely screw you over, take a look at the mess the UK has gotten itself into.
-
Bulma arguemnent:
White male hate crime / total hate crime = 90%.
Media says 90% of the white male population are hate criminals.
This is untrue.
Wow you expertly defeated that strawman with no mecry
Welldone.
And no, I don't recall "changing the subject."
This is what I mean by 90%.
Including only Anti-Trump and Other next to it, the pie chart really looks like this:
(https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/816868397836926996/1071611270719086672/piechart.png)
Basically your graph is totally bogus even by graph standards.
If you're a Trump voter:
- You are automatically branded as a white supremacist (unless you happen to be a black or female Trump voter)
- Anti-woman
- Anti-black
- Anti-LGBT
- Anti-Immigrant
- Anti-Muslim
- Anti-Semitic
This is bullshit, and you know it. It is so totally a hack job, that lacks any sensible grounds in reality.
Not only are many Trump voters black or female (https://thefederalist.com/2021/05/11/majority-of-trumps-2020-voters-were-women-and-minorities/), destroying the "racist white guy" narrative, but the one who started the above narrative was none other than Hillary Clinton.
https://time.com/4486502/hillary-clinton-basket-of-deplorables-transcript/
You know, to just be grossly generalistic, you could put half of Trump’s supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables. Right? The racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic—you name it. And unfortunately there are people like that. And he has lifted them up.
https://www.cato.org/commentary/christianity-worlds-most-persecuted-religion-confirms-new-report#
Christianity, the religion of most of these "white male supremacists", is actually incredibly persecuted by the "peaceful Muslims." And also by Hindus. And during the samurai era of Japan, by Buddhists and Shintos. And by Norse and pagans. And secular people.
Christians are branded "violent", when they fight back. When they had enough. When they are are regular humans like everyone else. But Christians never pretended to be anything but human, not if they were honest. It's their enemies that held them up to impossible standards.
https://www.theblaze.com/contributions/islam-is-the-most-violent-religion-in-the-world-but-lets-keep-calling-it-peaceful-anyway
This time around, three masked gunmen stormed the offices of a French satirical newspaper, executing 12 people in cold blood, including two police officers. This is the same newspaper that infamously published a cartoon poking fun at the Prophet Mohammed a few years ago, and was promptly greeted with death threats and a Molotov cocktail for their troubles. In fairness, there's still a lot we don't know about this attack, but it seems very certain that this was another case of Muslim terrorism. The gunmen took out 12 people while shouting "Allahu Akbhar" and "the Prophet has been avenged." All of this over some jokes in a magazine.
Can you imagine Christian radicals committing mass murder at The Onion offices because they're upset about something they found on its website? Can you even fathom such a thing? Probably not, because it never happens. It just never happens. And it's not like Christians don't have plenty of provocation. I still remember stumbling upon this lovely little gem from The Onion last year. It's a hysterical article imagining that Jesus Christ, the Son of the Living God, became a prostitute to make ends meet. Haha?
This is the kind of thing Christians encounter all the time. Brutal mocking and ridicule dressed up as "humor," but designed only to offend. There's no wit, no punchline, just scorn heaped upon people of my faith. Kind of like this "Family Guy" episode, featuring an adulterous Jesus looking to have sex with a man's wife. Or that hilarious "Curb Your Enthusiasm" episode a few years back where Larry David peed on a picture of Jesus. Or of course the famous "Piss Christ," a crucifix dunked in a bottle of urine and passed off as art. Or the painting of the Virgin Mary smeared in elephant dung. Or "Dogma." Or "The Da Vinci Code." Or a thousand other examples.
Yet nobody ever died because of any of that. And, oh man, if anyone did, can you imagine the backlash? Can you imagine the media reaction if just one Christian murdered just one person as a reprisal for some offensive joke or provocative cartoon? We'd be ready to ban the entire religion in this country. Progressives are so desperate to prove that Christianity is just as violent as Islam that they frequently cite the murder of abortion doctors as an example. Only, none of those attacks were carried out in the name of Jesus. As far as I'm aware, none of the murderers shouted "Praise be to Christ" when they pulled the trigger.
And how many incidents are we even talking about here? I'll tell you: eight. Eight abortionists and abortion clinic workers have been killed in the U.S. in the past 40 years. It's happened once in the last decade and a half. Once.
Yet Christians are held to such a high standard that even these extraordinarily rare killings, not even done in the name of the faith, and always condemned by nearly every prominent Christian, are cited in almost every conversation about religious violence. Meanwhile, Muslims just gunned down 12 people over a cartoon this morning, and what do we immediately hear? "Islam is a religion of peace."
I didn't say that all Muslims are violent, or even that most Muslims are violent. I didn't even say that Islam is the most destructive religion in the world -- that title belongs to progressivism, which murders babies, destroys families, and damns souls. Yet it is the most violent, and we all know it.
And, please, don't tell me that Muslims tend to be violent because they're a historically oppressed people. All religions have been oppressed at one time or another, but Muslims have also always controlled wide swaths of the globe. Ever hear of the Ottoman Empire? And don't try to work the Crusades into this conversation, unless you want to prove my point for me. The Crusades were waged against Muslim aggressors after several hundred years of persecution at the hands of Arabic forces. The Crusades were a war of defense, sparked, as usual, by Muslim conquest. No, there's no way around this. Islam is more violent than any religion that's ever existed anywhere. We have to face that fact. Muslims especially have to face it.
(https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/816868397836926996/1071618973608714281/image.png)
Over 500 people killed, just in January.
Let's look at that Reuters pie chart, and see where in that Other chunk of the population there are violent crimes by Muslims. Oh wait, not mentioned. Even though Muslims crashed a couple planes into a couple of buildings, and gunned down a bunch of ppl in a nightclub, most of the violence that happens in Muslim areas like Dearborn Michigan stays out of neat little graphs like this.
https://religiousfreedomcoalition.org/2012/01/27/hate-crime-violence-by-muslims-on-upswing-in-michigan/
It's always whites, it's always conservatives, it's always males. If you believe the narrative.
Pie chart doesn't even have real percents. It has numbers with no dates and no context.
(https://i.imgur.com/BsArk9Y.jpg)
This one is more of a real pie graph, and after blacks, the primary target are whites.
However, we don't actually know that the murderer is white killing a black. We're just led to assume this from an incomplete chart. But other statistics don't show this.
(https://www.trbimg.com/img-1471640325/turbine/sdut-murder-by-race-02-20160819/837)
As you can see, most violence is white-on-white, black-on-black, other-on-other.
These crimes are not racially motivated.
White supremacy isn't nearly the thing you think it is. But if you're gonna make it a thing, blacks are 2.3 times more likely to kill whites than the other way around!
But we will change the subject, because this thread is about Jesus, not your transparent attempts to crucify Christianity. Christians are fallible humans. Unless you can prove that Jesus wasn't far better than his time, you're comparing apples and oranges.
-
Did Jesus practice white supremacy? No, he did not, nor does anyone believe he did beyond woke fringe. Further, he was Middle Eastern not Caucasian.
Male supremacy? No, didn't happen. His own followers included at least four women funding his work. And some of these women played key roles in witnessing his resurrection.
What about Jewish supremacy? Not that either. He does troll some Syro-Phoenician lady but then heals her after she demands his help.
So all the accusations you have leveled against Christianity should really be leveled against Christians who are bad actors. And even that is substantially less than the shit Christians deal with in third world countries.
-
Racism has more positive than negatives.
We are tribal by nature and that includes racial factors.
We cannot and should not ignore our instincts for fellowship.
Regards
DL
Wow. That’s quite the statement.
Apart from the obvious of how shitty it is to be on the receiving end of racism, if you need an example of how those tribal instincts can completely screw you over, take a look at the mess the UK has gotten itself into.
Keep the topic general and we might get better results.
Like most, when you see the word racism, you automatically think of the negatives. This is normal.
The same happens with the word discrimination. It is defined as a choice of positive or negative but most only use it negatively.
Without our initial tribal instincts, that create or serve our fellowship desires, we would not have tribes. We would be extinct.
Compare that extinction causing event, if we did not discriminate, and note how we would both demand we be racist for our own race.
All we are are tribes and should discriminate both negatively against others and positively towards others on our side.
Are you as racist as I?
What do you do at a national game?
Cheer for your team, or for the other?
Regards
DL
-
Keep the topic general and we might get better results.
Like most, when you see the word racism, you automatically think of the negatives. This is normal.
The same happens with the word discrimination. It is defined as a choice of positive or negative but most only use it negatively.
Without our initial tribal instincts, that create or serve our fellowship desires, we would not have tribes. We would be extinct.
Compare that extinction causing event, if we did not discriminate, and note how we would both demand we be racist for our own race.
All we are are tribes and should discriminate both negatively against others and positively towards others on our side.
Are you as racist as I?
What do you do at a national game?
Cheer for your team, or for the other?
Regards
DL
Think you might need to justify your claim that we would be extinct with racism, just a tad.
Good natured sports rivalry is not racism. It only becomes a problem when there’s hate involved, and fuck that. I’ve watched England v Germany matches with a bunch of Germans with us supporting our respective teams, got a bit drunk and had a great time whatever the outcome. It’s actually more fun when you’re not all rooting for the same side as long as no one gets pissy about it.
Also went to a live England v Italy rugby match with an Italian friend, at the Italian supporters end of the stadium. Although admittedly, I was a little less vocal about which team I was going for, just in case someone had an issue with it.
-
Bulma arguemnent:
White male hate crime / total hate crime = 90%.
Media says 90% of the white male population are hate criminals.
This is untrue.
Wow you expertly defeated that strawman with no mecry
Welldone.
And no, I don't recall "changing the subject."
This is what I mean by 90%.
Including only Anti-Trump and Other next to it, the pie chart really looks like this:
(https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/816868397836926996/1071611270719086672/piechart.png)
Basically your graph is totally bogus even by graph standards.
If you're a Trump voter:
- You are automatically branded as a white supremacist (unless you happen to be a black or female Trump voter)
- Anti-woman
- Anti-black
- Anti-LGBT
- Anti-Immigrant
- Anti-Muslim
- Anti-Semitic
Wow
Doubles down and does it again
Also
If trump runs on a platform of xyz.
And you support trump.
Then you support xyz.
You may not support x
You may not support y.
You may not support z.
But in general
You support him.
-
Keep the topic general and we might get better results.
Like most, when you see the word racism, you automatically think of the negatives. This is normal.
The same happens with the word discrimination. It is defined as a choice of positive or negative but most only use it negatively.
Without our initial tribal instincts, that create or serve our fellowship desires, we would not have tribes. We would be extinct.
Compare that extinction causing event, if we did not discriminate, and note how we would both demand we be racist for our own race.
All we are are tribes and should discriminate both negatively against others and positively towards others on our side.
Are you as racist as I?
What do you do at a national game?
Cheer for your team, or for the other?
Regards
DL
Think you might need to justify your claim that we would be extinct with racism, just a tad.
Good natured sports rivalry is not racism. It only becomes a problem when there’s hate involved, and fuck that. I’ve watched England v Germany matches with a bunch of Germans with us supporting our respective teams, got a bit drunk and had a great time whatever the outcome. It’s actually more fun when you’re not all rooting for the same side as long as no one gets pissy about it.
Also went to a live England v Italy rugby match with an Italian friend, at the Italian supporters end of the stadium. Although admittedly, I was a little less vocal about which team I was going for, just in case someone had an issue with it.
I hear you and see the hooligans in the same league as inquisitions and jihads.
Can't win by the rules or prove you are correct so get angry and violent.
I did not quite state it the way you did " Think you might need to justify your claim that we would be extinct with racism," --- but racism has a variety of components and we tend to discriminate positively to those we share and negatively, or what might be seen as negatively, by the other side.
Test your own thinking.
Most cities are formed of quarters. This happens mostly naturally. French quarter, German, English, whatever.
If you are moving to a new city, will you head for a quarter of you race or in the quarter of some other?
Regards
DL
-
Bulma arguemnent:
White male hate crime / total hate crime = 90%.
Media says 90% of the white male population are hate criminals.
This is untrue.
Wow you expertly defeated that strawman with no mecry
Welldone.
And no, I don't recall "changing the subject."
This is what I mean by 90%.
Including only Anti-Trump and Other next to it, the pie chart really looks like this:
(https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/816868397836926996/1071611270719086672/piechart.png)
Basically your graph is totally bogus even by graph standards.
If you're a Trump voter:
- You are automatically branded as a white supremacist (unless you happen to be a black or female Trump voter)
- Anti-woman
- Anti-black
- Anti-LGBT
- Anti-Immigrant
- Anti-Muslim
- Anti-Semitic
Wow
Doubles down and does it again
Also
If trump runs on a platform of xyz.
And you support trump.
Then you support xyz.
You may not support x
You may not support y.
You may not support z.
But in general
You support him.
Fiat (i.e. "because I said so") doesn't make it so.
Trump didn't run on the platform of racism. Nor sexism. Nor ending LGBT rights.
He ran on the platform of ending government corruption ("draining the swamp").
He ran on the platform of restoring the economy ("Make America Great Again").
He ran on the platform of securing borders ("Build the Wall").
The establishment (the exact swamp creatures he was trying to get rid of) painted him as being racist, sexist, and anti-LGBT. But actually, he upheld many LGBT rights, particularly the right to equal marriage, only taking issue at abortion. As an LGBT person myself, I found I had alot more sympathy toward him than Hillary, who spent the majority of the "peaceful transition of power" trying to lead LGBT to marches against him. They painted him as only supported by whites and men. Oh really?
(https://static01.nyt.com/images/2019/11/08/us/politics/08dc-trump1/08dc-trump1-videoSixteenByNine3000.jpg?year=2019&h=1688&w=3000&s=ce15793f1dce5ce15b46c1fa1c320555becb93179d96b2c0de3ed6b164237f3c&k=ZQJBKqZ0VN&tw=1)
(https://images.wsj.net/im-144311/social)
(https://thegrio.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/trump_YBLS.jpg)
(https://si.wsj.net/public/resources/images/ED-AY204_WL1220_GR_20181219143255.jpg)
(https://www.maynoothuniversity.ie/sites/default/files/styles/ratio_2_3/public/assets/images/Women-Trump-Supporters-Tampa-FL-Getty-640x480.jpg?itok=EaqvvWP8)
So all these women and blacks are in my head?
(https://im-media.voltron.voanews.com/Drupal/01live-166/2019-04/77090EDA-D05E-4EC3-88ED-6CAE078D9341.jpg)
Latinos.
(http://wcnc-download.edgesuite.net/video/2672208/2672208_Still.jpg)
LGBT are a bit less, but this is largely because many of them fell for the fear that Trump didn't support them.
But this isn't the first time the rulers in this world attempted this game.
10 While Jesus was having dinner at Matthew’s house, many tax collectors and sinners came and ate with him and his disciples. 11 When the Pharisees saw this, they asked his disciples, “Why does your teacher eat with tax collectors and sinners?”
8For John came neither eating nor drinking, and they say, ‘He has a demon!’ 19The Son of Man came eating and drinking, and they say, ‘Look at this glutton and drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners!’ But wisdom is vindicated by her actions.”
No matter what Jesus was or did, these same establishment swamp creatures were offended by him, and it didn't matter whether he was like John or more easy going, they found a way to condemn him. Hypocrisy at its finest.
Suppose Jesus decided to be president? I'm pretty sure that I know how this would turn out. He would earn the support of the unloved, the outcast, the neglected, and the poor of any group. Grace first, then justice (unlike modern social justice warriors). What would happen?
Well... The right elite (Joel Osteen's big givers) would decide he doesn't fit the conservative traditions. Likewise, the Pharisaic moral hypocrites in alot of churches would find his ideas objectionable.
The leftists wouldn't like him either, because he actually solved the problems of the poor and rejected. The woke group doesn't actually want solutions, they want a dependent voter base. If someone came and helped them out of debt, got them off of welfare, and made them productive and happy, they are no longer LGBT/women/blacks looking for handouts, they are independent people. Suppose Jesus in turn also performed mass healings during every political meeting when running for presidency. "He's threatening the medical industry!"
-
Well... The right elite (Joel Osteen's big givers) would decide he doesn't fit the conservative traditions. Likewise, the Pharisaic moral hypocrites in alot of churches would find his ideas objectionable.
The leftists wouldn't like him either, because he actually solved the problems of the poor and rejected. The woke group doesn't actually want solutions, they want a dependent voter base. If someone came and helped them out of debt, got them off of welfare, and made them productive and happy, they are no longer LGBT/women/blacks looking for handouts, they are independent people. Suppose Jesus in turn also performed mass healings during every political meeting when running for presidency. "He's threatening the medical industry!"
You'd have to extrapolate a litter bit farther.
If Jesus showed up and proved to the world he was actually the son of god and all that, there wouldn't be a right and a left and he wouldn't need to run as an American president, he wouldn't have to "run". He would simply be president of the World.
Not to mention, that when he showed up, there's all that Revelations shit that would happen.
-
When Trump sees signs like above that say, --- Women for Trump, --- is he thinking, of their vote or if they want their pussy's grabbed, ---- because all woman like to be pussy grabbed.
Regards
DL
-
Well... The right elite (Joel Osteen's big givers) would decide he doesn't fit the conservative traditions. Likewise, the Pharisaic moral hypocrites in alot of churches would find his ideas objectionable.
The leftists wouldn't like him either, because he actually solved the problems of the poor and rejected. The woke group doesn't actually want solutions, they want a dependent voter base. If someone came and helped them out of debt, got them off of welfare, and made them productive and happy, they are no longer LGBT/women/blacks looking for handouts, they are independent people. Suppose Jesus in turn also performed mass healings during every political meeting when running for presidency. "He's threatening the medical industry!"
You'd have to extrapolate a litter bit farther.
If Jesus showed up and proved to the world he was actually the son of god and all that, there wouldn't be a right and a left and he wouldn't need to run as an American president, he wouldn't have to "run". He would simply be president of the World.
Not to mention, that when he showed up, there's all that Revelations shit that would happen.
In reverse order.
That's assuming the Revelations stuff is true. I emphatically dismiss it as a lie by Satan to discredit Christianity.
Revelation was written by a Jew who pretended to be Christian to lead Christianity into a load of false teachings.
Just as the Roman Catholic church was a sun-worshiper (Constantine had always worshiped Apollo) trying to bog down Christianity with nonsense teachings. Relics? Indulgences? Mary being the Queen of Heaven?
Btw, that title didn't come from nowhere...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen_of_Heaven_(antiquity)
And these goddesses are actually variant names of the same goddess. Ishtar.
Second, yes, he would need to run for office. Because he'd be opposed, you see.
“Hear another parable. There was a householder who planted a vineyard, and set a hedge around it, and dug a wine press in it, and built a tower, and let it out to tenants, and went into another country. When the season of fruit drew near, he sent his servants to the tenants, to get his fruit; and the tenants took his servants and beat one, killed another, and stoned another. Again he sent other servants, more than the first; and they did the same to them. 37 Afterward he sent his son to them, saying, ‘They will respect my son.’ But when the tenants saw the son, they said to themselves, ‘This is the heir; come, let us kill him and have his inheritance.’ And they took him and cast him out of the vineyard, and killed him..."
He'd also have to compete with false claimants. Btw, did you know that the name Donald (e.g. Donald Trump) means "ruler of the world"? You can decide for yourself whether he is a true or false ruler. As for me, I don't care. Why not? Well...
But Jesus called them aside and said, “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their superiors exercise authority over them. It shall not be this way among you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, and whoever wants to be first among you must be your slave— just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life as a ransom for many.”
Jesus, if he wanted to rule the Earth, could do so simply by helping people out. Most of our leaders are not like this.
Now, since we've run out of topic, have some C.S. Lewis.
"The best proof of Christianity is Christians, the worst proof of Christianity is also Christians."
In other words, if you're focusing on accusing Christians, you've got a good reason against Christianity. Christians can be moralistic and hypocritical. They can also be very flawed, as they are human. Likewise, because they are human, they can exemplify what it means to be human, to show real humanity when the rest of the world focuses on people's pasts or what they haven't done.
Oh yes, and this. Cuz Tolkien is awesome too.
-
Well... The right elite (Joel Osteen's big givers) would decide he doesn't fit the conservative traditions. Likewise, the Pharisaic moral hypocrites in alot of churches would find his ideas objectionable.
The leftists wouldn't like him either, because he actually solved the problems of the poor and rejected. The woke group doesn't actually want solutions, they want a dependent voter base. If someone came and helped them out of debt, got them off of welfare, and made them productive and happy, they are no longer LGBT/women/blacks looking for handouts, they are independent people. Suppose Jesus in turn also performed mass healings during every political meeting when running for presidency. "He's threatening the medical industry!"
You'd have to extrapolate a litter bit farther.
If Jesus showed up and proved to the world he was actually the son of god and all that, there wouldn't be a right and a left and he wouldn't need to run as an American president, he wouldn't have to "run". He would simply be president of the World.
Not to mention, that when he showed up, there's all that Revelations shit that would happen.
In reverse order.
That's assuming the Revelations stuff is true. I emphatically dismiss it as a lie by Satan to discredit Christianity.
Why not dismiss the gospels then? Is that the way scripture works? You just kinda pick and choose what you like and toss out the rest?
Revelation was written by a Jew who pretended to be Christian to lead Christianity into a load of false teachings.
Jesus was a Jew.
And what are you basing the notion of false teachings on? Because you don't like it?
Second, yes, he would need to run for office. Because he'd be opposed, you see.
Why would he even pick America? Wouldn't he pick the world? I mean he's Jesus for christ's sake. Water into wine, rising from the dead, all that miracle son of god stuff. He wouldn't have to do a thing except think about it and boom, shit happens to anyone, anywhere, all over the globe. You are wildly underestimating the power of the guy. He's a frickin' god among men. He can make anything and everything happen. And if he somehow gets too busy, he can just ask his sky-daddy to mess with some stuff.
-
When you do an interpretive reading of the Bible (talked about this with another thread for Noah), you compare the Bible to itself.
Romans says "Nothing can separate us from the love of God."
Revelations says we can be separated eternally from the love of God from a lousy manmade mark (if that were really so, every tattoo artist would damn people to Hell).
1 John says "all have sinned, all have fallen short."
Other passages in the old testament mention that none of us are worthy when compared to God.
Revelation tells us that the worthy will go to a nice pastoral city with twelve kinds of fruit and crystal water, but the unworthy get tossed into a lake of fire.
Galatians says tells us that anyone (speaking or writing) against the Gospel is under a curse.
The Gospel has Jesus condemning judgemental assholes, not sinners. It has Jesus saying though that his ultimate goal is to save the world, not to condemn it. It has him working to do just that, healing sinners, and forgiving sins. This btw, is in contradiction to what the popular sentiment was, that Messiah would come, get rid of Judaism's enemies, and slaughter ppl left and right. Jesus vehemently opposed this teaching, and when the crowd discovered this, they handed him over to Pilate. He forgave them, on the cross, even as they killed him.
Revelation says (in direct contradiction to the Gospel, and in accord with the "Messiah will come to fight our enemies" notion) that Jesus will come to judge the Earth, punish the sinners, and get rid of the leaders/kings in this world (who are still the Romans).
And that you people who accuse and oppose Christianity are telling me that it's part of canon means it really isn't. After all, you'd be first to say Jesus wasn't as loving and peaceful as we claim but "just as bad as Islam." But you can't make such a claim without your "proof" (Revelation) can you?
Yes, Jesus was culturally Jewish. But like new wine bursting out of old wineskins, Jesus's teachings were something that wasn't contained in Judaism. The letters mentioned a group of "Christians" that emphasized circumcision and adherence to Jewish law. Revelation appears to use this same sort of language, condemning the newer Christians as a "synagogue of Satan."
Christianity was not a rebellion against the law, but it very definitely dispensed with any law that separated us from God and man.
Yet here is this "biblical" book that tells us God will act as a tyrant, and kill 1/3 here, 1/3 there, 1/3 there... wait, whe cannot kill anymore thirds! Oh, I know, we'll revive everyone and have them live together for awhile, and then God will separate the worthy from the unworthy (only none of us are worthy).
I do not pick and choose what I like. The Gospel lets us know that when Jesus is talking about the temple being restored, he is not talking about the seven years of evil in Revelation, where the temple gets rebuilt. He mentions things like signs in the heavens and in the earth. Only,what do we have in Matthew? Signs in heaven and in the earth.
There is an earthquake and the dead are released. There is darkness on the land for hours. The temple curtain is ripped from top to bottom. John makes it even more explicit. It avoids mention of these signs, and says " 'Destroy this temple and in three days I will rebuild it.' But he was talking about his body." We are not to await a third temple. We are supposed to understand that Jesus has come again.
Why would he even pick America? Wouldn't he pick the world? I mean he's Jesus for christ's sake.
Tyrants visibly show that they govern the world in unity. But God is omnipresent. That is, God would rule one land as a fit and just leader. And another by another name and face. And so on. Jesus ruling the world looks like a peaceful and sovereign rule of the world, by dividing it back into separate and free lands. Not unity but a sword. A divided world where nonetheless these differences are not conflicts.
So, Jesus would need to be elected in all the lands of the world. Back when there was Trumpism, and a push to Brexit (and France and Italy wanted the same thing), there was a sense that matbe the EU might break down, and we'd have an end to UN/NATOral (yeah I did that pun) unification of countries. But this deunification was opposed, and Trump's plan of making countries great again petered out. All of these leaders thar wanted nationalism either went corrupt or they were stopped. This is what I mean by opposition.
-
When you do an interpretive reading of the Bible (talked about this with another thread for Noah), you compare the Bible to itself.
Romans says "Nothing can separate us from the love of God."
Revelations says we can be separated eternally from the love of God from a lousy manmade mark (if that were really so, every tattoo artist would damn people to Hell).
So why not toss out Romans and keep Revelations? Why keep one and not the other?
Is the bible meant to be individually interpreted? Or is it the word of God?
The bible is filled with contradictions, but in Revelations, Christ actually speaks to John. So why isn't that taken into account as truthful. I mean, it's Jesus' words from his mouth.
Why would he even pick America? Wouldn't he pick the world? I mean he's Jesus for christ's sake.
Tyrants visibly show that they govern the world in unity. But God is omnipresent. That is, God would rule one land as a fit and just leader. And another by another name and face. And so on. Jesus ruling the world looks like a peaceful and sovereign rule of the world, by dividing it back into separate and free lands. Not unity but a sword. A divided world where nonetheless these differences are not conflicts.
So, Jesus would need to be elected in all the lands of the world. Back when there was Trumpism, and a push to Brexit (and France and Italy wanted the same thing), there was a sense that matbe the EU might break down, and we'd have an end to UN/NATOral (yeah I did that pun) unification of countries. But this deunification was opposed, and Trump's plan of making countries great again petered out. All of these leaders thar wanted nationalism either went corrupt or they were stopped. This is what I mean by opposition.
Again, you're underestimating the guy. He is the son of God, right? He shows up, displays himself to be unequivocally a god, and you think he still needs to be "elected" somewhere? All that stuff is out the window if a guy shows up and waves his hand and anything and everything just happens.
Jesus loses to Trump or DeSantis in 2024. Jesus, whilst ruminating in the loo after his defeat, says to himself, "Fuck this, you think the 1/6 hillbilly insurrection was bad, how about I get Dad to drown all you mofos...Election, schmelection..." And so it is done.
-
https://www.politifact.com/article/2016/jul/15/donald-trumps-top-10-campaign-promises/
Number 1
Build the wall to keep out the rpaists (no racism there).
2
Ban the muslims.... ok technically a religion.
Ok
So there we go.
Like i said
It wasnt his only platform but they were pretty high up there.
Keep up denying reality.
Shows real honesty.
-
You left out the best part of #1 "Build a Wall":
..."and make Mexico pay for it"
-
You think that's silly, right?
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/mexico-agrees-provide-15-billion-help-us-manage-migrants-southern-bord-rcna37889
That's $1.5 not $15. Why decimals and commas are important.
This is despite Trump being out of office. He is laughing nonstop wherever he is (last I heard, he was raided at Mar-a-Lago by G-men).
They are adamant on not calling it a "wall" but nevertheless, Mexico is paying for border security. Woke leftist doublespeak, but it amounts to woke leftists talking all bad about Trump wanting border security and "immigrants have a right to be here" until Texas sends their immigrants to Biden's doorstep, then they suddenly change their tune, and everyone talks about more security.
Build the wall to keep out the rapists (no racism there).
There wasn't any racism there. When ppl cross illegally, nothing besides criminals can be expected.
There are several problems with illegal immigration:
1. Importation of violent or shiftless immigrants
2. Under-the-table wages, which means legal workers are competing with wage slaves. This results in a market where the official wage is $15/hr but the unofficial wages are probably more like $4/hr (if that). The illegals cannot complain. The legal workers all get to compete against low wages.
3. Human sex trafficking.
Neither Trump nor any of his voters have any problem with legal immigrants. What? You think I boycott Mexican/South American restaurants? Hell no. Nor do we boycott legit workers. But hauling in illegal workers (or just as common, illegal voters) is not cool. You know this is the real reason for it, you know it has nothing to do with racism. You are exploiting people to win a contest or have a sweatshop.
But within a generation of living here, alot of Hispanics flip to conservative. Why? Well, they came from shithole areas exactly like what you are trying to turn the US into, and now that they can read English, they no longer get duped into voting for people who work against their interests.
https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2020-us-election-hispanic-latino-voters/
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/latino/trump-s-gains-among-latino-voters-shouldn-t-come-surprise-n1246463
https://www.cnn.com/2021/12/09/politics/biden-hispanic-voters-democrats-problem/index.html
-
You think that's silly, right?
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/mexico-agrees-provide-15-billion-help-us-manage-migrants-southern-bord-rcna37889
That's $1.5 not $15. Why decimals and commas are important.
"The agreement was discussed Tuesday when Mexican President Andrés Manuel López Obrador met with President Joe Biden at the White House."
Sounds like Biden came through on DJT's 7 year old pledge. Looks like Joe knows how to diplomatically make a deal better than his predecessor.
There wasn't any racism there. When ppl cross illegally, nothing besides criminals can be expected.
Yep, nothing but criminals. How Christian of you. From 2014:
At Least 47,000 Children Have Illegally Crossed the Border Since October (https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/47000-children-have-illegally-crossed-border-october-and-tens-thousands-more-are-coming-180951740/)
(https://th-thumbnailer.cdn-si-edu.com/sE3cr74ooJqA11WbpPdX6As-UnM=/1000x750/filters:no_upscale()/https://tf-cmsv2-smithsonianmag-media.s3.amazonaws.com/filer/65/80/6580f645-3d95-4f3b-8e6d-f6a1324bfbb7/06_13_2014_border_crisis.jpg)
-
Just buy out the rest of Mexico. Or give Mexico its territory back.
But seriously if you end the war on drugs and invest in making Mexico a desirable place to live so that people dont want to leave it in the first place, that will probably be a lot cheaper than some shitty looking wall
-
Actually, Biden for months said there was no problem at the border. Kamala the pro-wrestler refused to visit the border. He eventually had to admit there was a problem and do something.
Trump did not fail to build a wall through incompetence. He set to work on a wall, then environmentalists told him that he couldn't build a wall because butterflies traveling to Mexico couldn't make their trip. Yes really. So he planned a fence instead. Then they voted against funding. Repeatedly. He was also on trial for a good portion of his presidency.
Fun fact. Many of the ppl who tell us that walls don't work, and are hateful?
(https://pics.me.me/no-barriers-no-borders-we-all-just-need-to-coexist-23074698.png)
(https://pics.me.me/if-you-say-yourefor-open-borders-butlive-in-a-gated-19659997.png)
Back on topic.
Once these errant young folk cross the marshes to get to a new land what awaits them?
(Hint: they aren't "heroes" they are opportunists sold on offers of free healthcare and better income)
I'll tell you. The two women will be exploited in wages well under taxes but forced to overreport wages, since doing otherwise will reveal their illegal status to the authorities. That's if they're lucky.
If they're unlucky, they're pretty. They get turned into prostitutes, and trafficked as sex workers.
You talk about hateful and un-Christian behavior, I cannot think of anything less Christian than lying to people, using them to win elections, then turning them into slaves.
You're trying to shame me with rebuke. But I will rebuke you. This is is what illegal immigration really looks like.
Ohh, and btw? Those little children are used as tools to cross. "Look, you don't wanna separate a child from his mom, right?" Only, first of all, there would be a simple solution of sending both back, and second that isn't even their kid! They move these kids back and forth cuz of our child laws.
Oh, and finally.
https://nypost.com/2021/04/17/how-bidens-border-policy-will-increase-child-sex-trafficking-to-us/
Oops. Not as successful as you claim, huh?
-
Wow
Projecti9nist gotta priject
So he creates a strawman math debacle about whitemales and hate crimes.
Then proceeds to sterotyping negatively a group of people....
Amazing!
Racists dont think theyre racist.
They think its just 'truth'.
Also
Citing new york post, owned by fox news.
Fantsstic.
Ill totally believe.
(I dont not bleieve aspects of it)
Oh a beautiful female celevrity whos prone to paporazi and pervs stealing their underwear and trying to murder-suicide them has a gate?
Nice defeat of hypocrisy!
Take m all down!
-
Just buy out the rest of Mexico. Or give Mexico its territory back.
But seriously if you end the war on drugs and invest in making Mexico a desirable place to live so that people dont want to leave it in the first place, that will probably be a lot cheaper than some shitty looking wall
Hey better yet, you wouldn't need a wall at all, if you just told ppl south of us the truth about the American dream.
Hey ppl of Mexico, this is how things really are.
I got out of college, I wasn't the hardest working but I wrote the papers, and worked to memorize lines in drama class. I was hoping it gave me some chance at a job.
I misunderstood the term "some college" (thinking it meant some college as in not a famous college "just some college somewhere" rather than "I took some college then I dropped out" so even though I listed my college, they figured I dropped out), so I routinely flubbed job applications because college teaches things but not common sense or how to fill out forms.But
Finally, I got jobs only to find there was a hiring boom among immigrants, and no amount of earnestness was doing anything but making me poor and tired from driving around. The jobs I got didn't pay all that much, which I suppose is still better than many people who get to be "interns" surviving on ramen for years while the economy, depleted from helping migrants, tells them after working effectively as a slave that they are just not good enough. These are the native workers of the US. When I applied for a job, after running around alot in the car, the guy rejected me, telling me that American workers are lazy.
After wasting money at college which clearly mostly taught obscure facts of history (the janitor guy I worked under was pretty impressed), I worked as a janitor for a decent amount of hours, but it was erratic, and I just wanted to stop. I wasn't making much, and the hours we so irregular that I was constantly tired. Worked as a garden helper for about 2 hours a day, for maybe 3 times a week. Took on a job loading and delivering vegetables for a farmer to deliver to the city, it was one day loading (about 8 hours), then a tiring (14 hour) day the next day. The guy didn't respect that I had work outside the job, and I wound up straining multiple jobs, because he wanted to add hours to my week. He was the sort of white knight who gave me about double the load of the gal who rode with us. Then she got a day off, but he wanted to cut into my schedule, a schedule we'd agreed on when I started working. She's a great help to you? Or are you trying to make time with her? So as a result, he cuts the fourteen hour shift from my week, after successfully having sabotaged the Thursday Friday shift. Like many jobs, I didn't leave for a better job, I left it for nothing.
This is what you have to look forward to. Working multiple jobs, because none of them really make ends meet, only you can't work multiple jobs being they compete in hours.
Or Walmart where you get okay hours (compared to 14 hour exhaustion and then screwing with existing hours because the boss doesn't respect you), but the pay is terrible, and they do games with your paycheck, always spacing work days so you get just under decent wages. Oh yeah, and they actually penalize for working overtime. Do after they get you to do some last minute job, you have to go and adjust your shift the next day, because overtime work penalizes you and too many penalties and you are punished.
Assuming you get a good job (the reason for these games is that the mandated minimum wage and benefits aren't what smaller businesses can afford, so they pay you by spacing your income, and using excuses not to pay fulltime), you then have to contend with the government wanting to mandate that you have insurance (when insurance costs a different pay scale for blacks and whites, so even though I am poor and barely making two part-time paychecks a month, you expect me able to afford $400 insurance), or telling you that you have to mask up and be vaccinated to work in alot of companies. At around this time, I was working for little old ladies teaching them to use a computer, and couldn't advertise anymore, because mandates banned me from entering shops to put up flyers or meet ppl in person. The people I was working for, one fell through and the other moved away. I am now in early retirement. At 40. I have no desire to work again, at least until they do away with these standards and hire ppl based on things like availability and ability to do the job.
Mexican workers, this is what you might have to deal with in the US. Under-the-table work, spotty work hours, that is if they even pay you legal wages. Because the truth is taxes are too high to support minimum wage, and the system never accounted for weekly average anyway. And that coupled with medical bureaucracy means you might get here and find no opportunities.
Sure, we don't need a wall, because there is nothing for migrants anymore. But we do need a wall to prevent fentanyl, opioids, and other drug smuggling. We need it to prevent actual criminals from entering and shooting up schools and businesses, and we need one because our facilities (medical, commercial, etc) are overburdened by too many customers, and there are too few opportunities for income.
And typical. You don't even understand that the war on drugs is an American attempt to curb drug importation, and that America is not jurisdictionally able to do anything against drug overlords in Mexico or Guatemala.
If we ended the drug war, by making a proper wall against drug trade in America, it would still do nothing for Mexico, et al. The same is true if we gave that land back to Mexico. Without the US to trade drugs with, Mexico et al would find that any economy they did get from drugs is now gone. They are basketcases. Countries that make money from us because nearly all of their own money is in the hands of cartels.
1. Either admit Mexico is a terrible place to live, and that the US can do nothing about their smuggling, drug trade, and human trafficking except at the US end. Which liberals object to, because they actually approve of drugs, crime, and slavery.
2. Tell people that Mexico is a wonderful place to live. In which case, the narrative that they need to come and US has to help them is gone.
You can't have it both ways. Either admit that ppl from Mexico are thugs and scoundrels. Or tell us all how wonderful Mexico is, in which case immigration has to stop.
-
Wow
Projecti9nist gotta priject
So he creates a strawman math debacle about whitemales and hate crimes.
Then proceeds to sterotyping negatively a group of people....
Amazing!
Racists dont think theyre racist.
They think its just 'truth'.
I
Yes, you love to hear what you want to hear.
"I am virtuous, bulmabriefs144 is a a racist."
NOT
"Mexico has a problem with slavery and drugging its citizens, and I support slavery and cartels making money while Mexicans starve."
This is you in the mirror. Look at it!
(https://i.pinimg.com/originals/18/ea/6a/18ea6aee0d65c63fb86dbb8caf8a31aa.jpg)
-
Then they voted against funding. Repeatedly.
Who's "they"? You mean Mexico who he promised was going to fund it?
He was also on trial for a good portion of his presidency.
Good portion?
First impeachment of Donald Trump
December 18, 2019 – February 5, 2020 (1 month, 2 weeks and 4 days)
Second impeachment of Donald Trump
January 13, 2021 – February 13, 2021 (1 month)
2.5 months out of 48 months as President. You consider that a "good portion"?
-
Never ceases to amaze me that those shafted most by a system designed to make the rich richer and the poor poorer, falls for the rich man’s propaganda that’s it’s not capitalism and them at fault but the other poor bastard impoverished immigrants that the rich allow in (despite saying the opposite) to undercut wages, to keep them all poor and at each other’s throats.
Dumb mugs.
-
I misunderstood the term "some college" (thinking it meant some college as in not a famous college "just some college somewhere" rather than "I took some college then I dropped out" so even though I listed my college, they figured I dropped out), so I routinely flubbed job applications because college teaches things but not common sense or how to fill out forms.
Wait. So you think a college education should teach you that perhaps you should actually write the name of the school you attended when asked rather than "some college"? At 22-ish, you didn't know this on your own? Seriously?
On a job application where it asked for your employment history, did you scrawl in crayon, "Some company"?
-
drug cartels atained super powers because they became monopolies.
war on drugs where american funded weapons eliminated a lot of these little people.
america made the drug super powers.
american gun manufacturers continue to feed the super powers.
$$$$$$$
also elsewhere in the southern A we have big oil sponosring usa military and govt to fking over entire countries if they dare challenge "the war on socialism".
so people are fleeing the cartels and the bankrupted gov't.
or are they chaisng the american dream?
what is the american dream to a refugee vs a middle class white person?
to not be killed?
or to have a house with grass?
i dunno
kind of different when you consider the risk to personal life and your asshole/ vagina.
to some - is it a small price to pay to be raped over and over again vs not be dead?
see the disconnect?
you claim the abuse exists yet then simultaneously claim these people are coming to usa for the american dream.
sure, they can dream, but it CANT be really main motivation considering the risks.
-
I'd like to apologize for being a downer.
I don't believe our governments provide for us. In fact, they take.
But God shows me today that he provides.
Despite having real issues with advertising, someone nonetheless called me today asking if I could help with their computer. Nothing is set in stone about this request, but to be honest, I'm happy anyway even if it falls through. There isn't in fact a good reason why by my own efforts I should get a call, but I got one.
-
Anyway, yesterday I saw this.
https://www.equip.org/articles/the-jewish-talmud-and-its-use-for-christian-apologetics/
Basically, it boils down to alot of Jews relying on the Talmud, or rabbinic teachings instead of the Torah or even the Christian Bible. But it mentions how Moses gave WRITTEN law, and there is no evidence that rabbinic Oral Law (Talmud) was what God wanted.
What this means is that alot of Jews are basically in an anti-Christian cult. "We study the Torah regularly so I should know better than you." That you study something more often doesn't mean you have an unfiltered version of it though.
https://preachersinstitute.com/2015/08/31/masoretic-text-vs-original-hebrew/
For example, I looked at two quite different versions of the 613 laws. The My Jewish Learning version had several laws that were spaced out into separate laws, meaning actual different laws got swallowed up. Here's an example:
https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/the-613-mitzvot-commandments
1To know there is a God
2Not to entertain thoughts of other gods besides Him
3To know that He is one
4To love Him
5To fear Him
6To sanctify His Name
7Not to profane His Name
8Not to destroy objects associated with His Name
9To listen to the prophet speaking in His Name
10Not to test the prophet unduly
Okay first of all, other versions merge these laws into a larger law, meaning they have scrapped other laws to make this as 613 laws.
Second of all, well...
24Not to inquire into idolatry
25Not to follow the whims of your heart or what your eyes see
26Not to blaspheme
27Not to worship idols in the manner they are worshiped
28Not to worship idols in the four ways we worship God
29Not to make an idol for yourself
30Not to make an idol for others
31Not to make human forms even for decorative purposes
32Not to turn a city to idolatry
33To burn a city that has turned to idol worship
34Not to rebuild it as a city
35Not to derive benefit from it
36Not to missionize an individual to idol worship
37Not to love the missionary
38Not to cease hating the missionary
39Not to save the missionary
Laws about mercy? Not near the top. Way down in the 400 or so of such laws. Meaning preventing idolatry is always going to come before practice of mercy. To say nothing of holding hatred in your heart of the outsider with a different religion.
Now this is an entirely different set of 613 laws
https://biblicalthoughts.org/613LawsOfOldTest.htm
26 To love all human beings who are of the covenant
27 Not to stand by idly when a human life is in danger
28 Not to wrong any one in speech
29 Not to carry tales
30 Not to cherish hatred in one's heart
31 Not to take revenge
32 Not to bear a grudge
33 Not to put any Jew to shame (Lev. 19:17 - doesn't match the law, Christian - not to shame anyone)
34 Not to curse any other Israelite (Lev. 19:14 - doesn't match the law - No Evil against physically handicapped)
35 Aid the simple-minded so that they do not stumble or sin
36 To rebuke the sinner
37 Relieve a neighbor of burdens and help to unload his beast
38 To assist in replacing the load upon a neighbor's beast
39 Aid a beast that has fallen down underneath a burden
Suppose you had a friend who was hurting. But then they convert to Christianity. They are in poverty, and you know about it. They will die without help from you.
The MyJewishLearning says to legit let them die. Order of laws matters.
When the other 613 laws mentions idolatry, it says to stand by when an idolater teacher is being executed. This is not even remotely the same as the other, as it means if they are not judged as an idolater, you actually are to help them. It further says you aren't to hold grudges or hatred in your heart.
What this means is that rabbis have meddled with the Bible in order to support their evil actions. "Jesus was an idolater, so we were justified in killing him." Even if that were so, you aren't justified in your hatred of him.
Moreover, in the years following Jesus's death until the fall of the Temple, a number of strange omens fell on the Jews.
Renowned Jewish scholar Jacob Neusner cites these same omens from the Jerusalem Talmud: “Forty years before the destruction of the Temple, the western light went out, the crimson thread remained crimson, and the lot for the Lord always came up in the left hand. They would close the gates of the Temple by night and get up in the morning and find them wide open.”
Even if you decide Jesus is not the Messiah, you are not to listen to the rabbis who turned Jesus over to the Romans, as the Oral Law is not valid. And these rabbis doomed millions to die and million more to wander about without a country, which led to their Holocaust. The Jewish leaders led their own people to destruction. They continued to double down, even though it was clear God was pissed.
And they continue to mislead Jews even today. Personally not believing Jesus was the Messiah is your right. Hating Christians and seeing them as the same as idolaters is not the same, though.
This has been a public service announcement (having totally nothing to do with an argument I got in with a friend).
-
I misunderstood the term "some college" (thinking it meant some college as in not a famous college "just some college somewhere" rather than "I took some college then I dropped out" so even though I listed my college, they figured I dropped out), so I routinely flubbed job applications because college teaches things but not common sense or how to fill out forms.
Wait. So you think a college education should teach you that perhaps you should actually write the name of the school you attended when asked rather than "some college"? At 22-ish, you didn't know this on your own? Seriously?
On a job application where it asked for your employment history, did you scrawl in crayon, "Some company"?
Oh no, I wrote the name of the college, and said yes when they asked if I graduated. But it was just some college to me. The point being that this was how I think, and they should have been more clear.
Cuz it's obviously their fault. I can't be a goofball who doesn't understand that "some college" doesn't mean "I didn't go to Ivy League or anything famous" but "I didn't graduate."
Common sense has to be learned, as I've realized when none of you understand basic logic in FE discussions. Having that mentioned as I was about to graduate would be nice.
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/30-practical-things-students-need-to-know_b_3376199
Huffpost neglected to mention that most kids in seventh grade don't even have a grasp of cursive, meaning if they ever have to sign a legal form, they have cursive worse than medical doctors.
https://www.edutopia.org/article/what-we-lose-with-decline-cursive-tom-berger
Btw, I remember reading Matched, where they couldn't even write anymore.
Modern education at work. Leaving graduates with no basic common sense or life skills.
-
I think this explains an awful lot, I mean basically it does that by making things less clear initially, but taken as a whole, like if you were stepping slowly backwards with a fixed smile trying not to be rude or anything, the epiphany comes.
Good luck Bulma.
-
I misunderstood the term "some college" (thinking it meant some college as in not a famous college "just some college somewhere" rather than "I took some college then I dropped out" so even though I listed my college, they figured I dropped out), so I routinely flubbed job applications because college teaches things but not common sense or how to fill out forms.
Wait. So you think a college education should teach you that perhaps you should actually write the name of the school you attended when asked rather than "some college"? At 22-ish, you didn't know this on your own? Seriously?
On a job application where it asked for your employment history, did you scrawl in crayon, "Some company"?
Oh no, I wrote the name of the college, and said yes when they asked if I graduated. But it was just some college to me. The point being that this was how I think, and they should have been more clear.
I still don't get it. You wrote down the name of the college you went to and told them you graduated. Was it that on the form itself, not in conversation, where it said "College/University attended" you wrote, "some college"? And someone had a problem with that afterward? If so, it's quite clear why they would.
Cuz it's obviously their fault. I can't be a goofball who doesn't understand that "some college" doesn't mean "I didn't go to Ivy League or anything famous" but "I didn't graduate."
Common sense has to be learned, as I've realized when none of you understand basic logic in FE discussions. Having that mentioned as I was about to graduate would be nice.
No, it's not their fault. It's yours. Take some accountability here. Common sense, which you definitely should have had at that age is, when asked in person or an application where and when and did you graduate and with what degree is simply, for the vast majority of adults:
- University of Slovenia
- 2001-2005
- Yes, graduated
- Bachelors of Arts, major, Common Sense
Is it really that hard? Who writes down "some college"? If anything, that's just flippant and shows you can't even follow the most basic of instructions.
And yes, common sense needs to be learned. But by at least Uni, you're expected to be able to fill out a simple job application form, that's not their job to teach you something basic like that. I take it you never even had a job until your 20's. Which is weird too.
Filling out a job application is no time to test if they get your "humor" or try and shine a light on your quirky behavior. That's not formal education's job to teach. That's just your upbringing. And, apparently something went wildly amiss in that.
And people like you are the first to go ballistic if you feel a school is overreaching in what they teach. But when it's convenient you cry that education didn't teach you enough about how not to be an idiot in the real world.
So yeah, in this case, you need to totally take accountability for being a dumbass. They were clear. You were the one who decided to muddle it when you totally didn't have to.
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/30-practical-things-students-need-to-know_b_3376199
Huffpost neglected to mention that most kids in seventh grade don't even have a grasp of cursive, meaning if they ever have to sign a legal form, they have cursive worse than medical doctors.
https://www.edutopia.org/article/what-we-lose-with-decline-cursive-tom-berger
Btw, I remember reading Matched, where they couldn't even write anymore.
Modern education at work. Leaving graduates with no basic common sense or life skills.
Cursive is a terrible example. In the US, cursive is not "required", it's up to the States and districts. Why it was made not required by common core is the advent of technology and how we communicate. And you certainly don't have to sign anything with cursive. Legally, one can sign any document in any manner they want. Whether it be cursive, print, or even just an 'X'. The time saved from not teaching something completely unnecessary can be spent of things that are necessary.
And don't get caught up in the lunacy conspiracy that we stopped requiring cursive in schools so kids can't read the Constitution. Because the idiots who assert that somehow don't realize that print versions of it are available to anyone and everyone with about a 2 second google search.
You need to stop blaming others for your inadequacies or failures and learn how accept them, learn from them, and improve.
-
When Trump sees signs like above that say, --- Women for Trump, --- is he thinking, of their vote or if they want their pussy's grabbed, ---- because all woman like to be pussy grabbed.
Regards
DL
Oh look! Mr Snake, you're reply # 666.
To answer the question, real women do occasionally like their pussy getting grabbed. By men, women, or themselves.
The people who are afraid of that are often too feminist or importantly too ugly to have their pussy grabbed. Like this sad thing.
(https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-DbjGLbLR0ug/VFJvsyT_KZI/AAAAAAAADgs/vWzOvn-YCPU/s1600/feminism%2Bugly.png)
I don't think anyone will ever grab her by the pussy.
Not even her mother, on accident, when changing her diapers.
I think this explains an awful lot, I mean basically it does that by making things less clear initially, but taken as a whole, like if you were stepping slowly backwards with a fixed smile trying not to be rude or anything, the epiphany comes.
Good luck Bulma.
This is what is wrong with the world today. They see someone suffering because of a distinct lack of common sense, and instead of you know... helping, they smile and back away. Like, I'm so glad that's happening to you. They're glad someone else had to go through pain, even though this may happen twenty times, before someone finally told them they were thinking about this wrong (because it didn't even occur to them, not because they stupid, but because they think in a strange way; stupidity you can learn a lesson but an aberrant way of thinking, you would never understand how regular ppl see something without being told; so no, the epiphany never comes, and you go through years of pain because nobody had any damned conviction). There's plenty of talk of "empathy" but very little sympathy. You just smile and walk on?!? Seriously?
Had I done it the first time, and the guy reading the application said, "Why did you both check 'some college' and 'graduated' here?" and I said, " It wasn't a famous university, it was just some college," and he said, ":facepalm: No, ummm some college means you took some college and you dropped out. Here, I'll rip that one up, you fill this one" I might have gotten a first job much sooner, and overall not feel like the girl on the movie Post Grad (saw last night).
I don't regret the people I met as a result of having a goofy life. But the point is, the people who don't understand English right go through the same sorts of heartaches. Leaving large portions of the application blank (which suggests work gap or criminal record), demonstrating that that they probably need an interpreter to even do the job, or having a cultural difference that makes certain things not work even with an interpreter. Things like cultural issues with touching pork products, a different work culture, or religious vows.
Imagine a devout Roman Catholic training in nursing not understanding that he had signed up to work in an abortion clinic, thinking it was instead a hospital.
And for the record, cursive is a good example. Learning cursive teaches you to make a distinct mark on the world, have a sense of identity. For example, when I learned it, I always wanted to be unique and legible, so I tended to write large and modeled after how the book wrote it. In other words, my sense of identity was pretty weak for awhile, but I did want to be helpful to people. I think they changed the cursive Q since I was a child. It looked a bit like a 2, now it just looks like an italics Q. A cut in cursive was preceded by a cut in art and music in most schools. Almost like the point is to erase creativity and produce little data entry robots that can only type, and can't even write their own name.
-
Hey listen I wasn’t there in your hour of need, so, like I’m sorry but being half a world and some distance in time from these events I will absolve myself.
It seems like you had or have cognitive problems that should have been spotted and help forthcoming, however blaming the world for them and projecting your anger on others in unfortunate circumstances erodes the sympathy I might have felt, as you expect something from others that you show little evidence of being willing to give.
-
To answer the question, real women do occasionally like their pussy getting grabbed. By men, women, or themselves.
The people who are afraid of that are often too feminist or importantly too ugly to have their pussy grabbed. Like this sad thing.
"Real women"? For one, as a man, I don't think you get to define this. For two, you have apparently never heard of the word "consent" nor know it's meaning. Firstly you need to have consent in order to grab a women's pussy.
You're argument is that you can go around and grab the pussy of any women anywhere you like and if they object, your defense is that they are not a "real woman" and are too "feminist" and "ugly". Do you realize how utterly fucked up that is?
-
Yeah, actually I do.
I am genderfluid, meaning part of the time I present as female.
I have more womanhood in my little finger than these "women" in their whole body. I am insulting them in the same way men might insult other men who don't measure up to ideals of manhood.
I put effort into looking like a woman, into makeup, clothing, etc. I'm not exactly as beautiful as a natural woman but I try.
These lazy, entitled, ugly, and angry "women" don't deserve to be called such. This is what fake 3rd+ wave feminism has done to women. Make them less womanly than a crossdresser. Congratulations.
Actual women like men or maybe they like other women, and that's fine too. Because real women are sexual creatures. They like being touched by other human beings. So no, maybe they are shocked by Trump personally suggesting he'll grab ppl by the pussy. Trump's kinda an old pervert. But actual women occasionally get sexually aroused and like to be touched by attractive men (or women). They like to take pride in their appearance and wear makeup and nice outfits. They like being grabbed by the pussy, every now and then, at least by someone who looks like this
(https://i2.wp.com/www.bigtimedaily.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/rudynew6.jpeg?fit=855%2C1280&ssl=1)
or this depending on their taste
(https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-tR27PAYPzfY/TxHgSFEUp2I/AAAAAAAAE1Y/1ERafNbrtqM/s1600/tumblr_lwyu3simVo1qc557lo2_1280.jpg)
On the other hand, "women" who fear or hate being grabbed by the pussy... will never have it happen to them. They are too busy being political, not at all interested in caring for their own body, and angry all the time. Nobody EVER wants to touch these sexless slobs.
(https://i.imgflip.com/7aryhz.jpg)
And no, I don't go around grabbing random ppl by the pussy. I'm talking about the idea of liking sex and companionship from other humans. Real women actually try to attract other ppl. They have real motivations, real feelings (besides, you know, rage at the patriarchy), and real weakness. Vulnerability is what makes women attractive, wanting to cuddle them when life hurts them is what men like about women. They complement each other.
This is what disgusts me of superhero films like Captain Marvel. She isn't a strong woman, she is a "strong" "woman".
Actually these "women" are at best deadpan, and at worst angry and toxic. No, this is not saying women can be real and be angry. It's how Marvel removes traits of vulnerability because "vulnerable ppl aren't strong". You've just described a male wife-beater, someone so insecure that they hurt anyone who points out their flaws.
-
Yeah, actually I do.
I am genderfluid, meaning part of the time I present as female.
You've got some serious issues. Your genderfluidity is no excuse for laying hands on anyone without their consent. That is truly fucked up. And fucked up that you think someone who is different than you, because they are a feminist or perhaps not attractive, doesn't present their femininity as you would prefer or whatever, doesn't have the same rights to not be groped without their consent as anyone else. You are clearly out of your mind and a menace to humanity.
-
Yeah, actually I do.
I am genderfluid, meaning part of the time I present as female.
You've got some serious issues. Your genderfluidity is no excuse for laying hands on anyone without their consent. That is truly fucked up. And fucked up that you think someone who is different than you, because they are a feminist or perhaps not attractive, doesn't present their femininity as you would prefer or whatever, doesn't have the same rights to not be groped without their consent as anyone else. You are clearly out of your mind and a menace to humanity.
You weren't listening.
I have not been grabbing anyone by the pussy. Or anywhere else.
But actual women have a sex drive, emotions, vulnerabilities, and a need to be touched. Fake "women" walk around with arrogantface like this one.
(https://www.quirkybyte.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/captain-marvel-4.jpg)
Or worse, a constant rageface, like this famous woman.
The point being that this quote from Trump is funny, for reasons not evident to the woke crowd. It's funny because the women who like Trump actually agree with the sentiment, and the women who are angry at it never ever are in any danger of that.
Actual context.
Donald Trump: You know and I moved on her actually. You know she was down on Palm Beach.
Unknown: She used to be great. She’s still very beautiful.
Trump: I moved on her and I failed. I’ll admit it. I did try and f*** her. She was married.
Unknown: That’s huge news.
Trump: No, no, Nancy. This was— And I moved on her very heavily in fact. I took her out furniture shopping. She wanted to get some furniture. I said I’ll show you where they have some nice furniture. I took her out furniture. I moved on her like a bitch, but I couldn’t get there, and she was married.
Then all of a sudden I see her, she’s now got the big, phony tits and everything. She’s totally changed her look.
Bush: Sheesh, your girl’s hot as shit. In the purple.
Trump: Whoa! Yes! Whoa!
Unknown: Yes! The Donald has scored. Whoa, my man!
Trump: Look at you. You are a pussy.
[crosstalk as the bus doors open and close - Trump is still on the bus]
Trump: Maybe it’s a different one.
Bush: It better not be the publicist. No, it’s her. It’s —
Trump: Yeah, that’s her. With the gold. I better use some Tic Tacs just in case I start kissing her. You know I’m automatically attracted to beautiful - I just start kissing them. It’s like a magnet. Just kiss. I don’t even wait.
And when you’re a star they let you do it. You can do anything.
Bush: Whatever you want.
Trump: Grab them by the p****. You can do anything.
Bush: Yeah those legs, all I can see is the legs.
Trump: Oh, it looks good.
Bush: Come on, shorty.
Trump: Oh, nice legs, huh?
Bush: Oof, get out of the way, honey. Oh, that’s goo legs. Go ahead.
Trump: It’s always good if you don’t fall out of the bus. Like Ford, Gerald Ford, remember?
[Trump knocks on the bus door to get out]
Bush: Down below. Pull the handle.
Trump: Hello. How are you? Hi.
Arianne Zucker: Hi Mr Trump. How are you?
Trump: Nice seeing you. Terrific, terrific. You know Billy Bush?
Bush: Hello, nice to see you. How you doing, Arianne?
Zucker: I’m doing very well, thank you. Are you ready to be a soap star?
Trump: We’re ready, let’s go. Make me a soap star.
Bush: How about a little hug for the Donald? He just got off the bus.
Zucker: Would you like a little hug, darling?
Trump: Absolutely. Melania said this was okay.
Bush: How about a little hug for the Bushy? I just got off the bus. Here we go. Excellent. Well you’ve got a nice co-star here.
Trump: Good. After you. Come on, Billy, don’t be shy.
[The three of them start walking towards the set]
Bush: Soon as a beautiful woman shows up he just, he takes off. This always happens.
Let the little guy in here, come on.
Zucker: Yeah let the little guy in. How you feel now? Better? I should actually be in the middle.
Bush: it’s hard to walk next to a guy like this. Yeah, you get in the middle. There we go.
Zucker: This is much better. This is—
Trump: That’s better.
Bush: Now, if you had to choose honestly between one of us. Me or the Donald?
Trump: I don’t know, that’s rough competition. That’s some pressure right there.
Bush: Seriously, you had to take one of us as a date.
Zucker: I have to take the Fifth on that one. Yep. I’ll take both.
He's crowing about a sexual conquest. He's not telling women that he's going to grab them all by the pussy. That is, it's not a threat. It's a horndog being a horndog, with a woman who actually asks him if he'd like a hug.
The people most likely to want to be grabbed by the pussy are the same ones that might be likely to touch men by the penis, e.g. during sex. The people shocked and offended by this, will never ever EVER get laid. This is why they are angry.
That and some of them were molested by people like Joe Biden.
Bragging about conquests, or actually touching girls live on camera? I know what actually offends me more.
"And when you’re a star they let you do it. You can do anything. Grab them by the p****. You can do anything."
Biden certainly thought so. As he pawed and sniffed his way through crowds of little children. Most of which did nae want to be touched.
(https://data.ibtimes.sg/en/full/50967/joe-biden.png?w=480)
(https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/wp-content/uploads/Joe-Biden-Crotch-Circle-600x338.jpg)
(By the way, this girl is getting made to touch his crotch)
(https://i0.wp.com/appliedcynicism.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/biden-gropes-girls.jpg?w=700&ssl=1)
Not because any Trump voters actually carry through with this, but that only physically, emotionally, and spiritually healthy women ever going to be touched in the pussy, they give full consent, and they are likely to enjoy it. Trump women indeed want to be grabbed by the pussy. But they also dislike Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden.
-
Hating on larson because you were told to do so.
Amazing
Watch less crowder.
Hes a pos.
-
Actually, you and Stache are. You're both behaving like giant POS. You think it's not okay to have locker room talk (Trump probably at one point also told someone he has the biggest dick. In high school. Bragging to other kids the same age), but it is fine for women to show shameful levels of hatred toward other people (while you accuse a total virgin like me of groping ppl by the pussy), but it is totally fine for an 80 year old man to paw and sniff at girls a fraction of his age.
Who is Larson?
Oh right, Brie Larson. She has zero acting skill on camera, and off camera, she makes the men working with her visibly uncomfortable. I'm not hating on her because I'm told to. I'm hating on her because even though I gave (more than slightly woke) She-Hulk a chance, I found Captain Marvel really hard to watch.
"Quit showing your emotions."
-
Yeah, actually I do.
I am genderfluid, meaning part of the time I present as female.
You've got some serious issues. Your genderfluidity is no excuse for laying hands on anyone without their consent. That is truly fucked up. And fucked up that you think someone who is different than you, because they are a feminist or perhaps not attractive, doesn't present their femininity as you would prefer or whatever, doesn't have the same rights to not be groped without their consent as anyone else. You are clearly out of your mind and a menace to humanity.
You weren't listening.
I have not been grabbing anyone by the pussy. Or anywhere else.
For some sick reason you seem to think it's ok to do so. So one could assume that you do. And you obviously know zero about women.
-
...and off camera, she makes the men working with her visibly uncomfortable.
And you know this because...
Again, you know zero about women. Hence perhaps the virgin status.
-
...and off camera, she makes the men working with her visibly uncomfortable.
And you know this because...
Again, you know zero about women. Hence perhaps the virgin status.
He knows this because of the antilarson campainge people strung together showing her to be an uptight woke feminist
-
...and off camera, she makes the men working with her visibly uncomfortable.
And you know this because...
Again, you know zero about women. Hence perhaps the virgin status.
He knows this because of the antilarson campainge people strung together showing her to be an uptight woke feminist
I barely even know who she is and she has an anti group after her. She must be important.
-
I first sawbher 21jump street
She had cameo scotpilgrim singing metric.
Cameo as coatcheck girl in community
Did the super sad movie theroom
You ve NEVER heard of marvel cinematic universe?
Hen she hosted for kimmel with a suuuupeer low too showing off the girls.
I think facebook paid her a crapton of $$$ to promote meta
Most of the hate comes from some snide comments about boyculture and superhero orsomethingsomethingerother.
Then peolle labeled her the btichfacefeminist
-
Know the marvel universe, hard to miss, but haven't paid much attention to it. And wow, a woman speaking her mind as a woman. Shocking!
-
Yeah, actually I do.
I am genderfluid, meaning part of the time I present as female.
You've got some serious issues. Your genderfluidity is no excuse for laying hands on anyone without their consent. That is truly fucked up. And fucked up that you think someone who is different than you, because they are a feminist or perhaps not attractive, doesn't present their femininity as you would prefer or whatever, doesn't have the same rights to not be groped without their consent as anyone else. You are clearly out of your mind and a menace to humanity.
You weren't listening.
I have not been grabbing anyone by the pussy. Or anywhere else.
For some sick reason you seem to think it's ok to do so. So one could assume that you do. And you obviously know zero about women.
Yeah. In the bedroom. When both of you are having sex. Being a virgin and borderline asexual, I think you can agree that this will not happen to me.
Which was the context here, that when you're famous (it feels like) you can do anything.
But Trump less acted on this impulse than your beloved Joe Biden. A sick pedophile? Or a man who actually loves women, and who some women like back?
You obviously know nothing about women, because you conflate ball-busters like Larson as real women.
3rd and 4th wave feminists are so transmasculine that they can no longer be considered women anymore. They don't think like women, they don't act like women, they don't have female sex drive, and they care nothing for children. They are men that happen to have breasts. And I know that many of them would actually prefer to be designated this way.
You are so hung up on woke theories that you don't realize that most real women deeply loathe Brie Larson.
Critics give Captain Marvel 75%. This is even critics. The audience? Less than half. 45%.
Real women like being touched in bed. They are not hyperoffended by being grabbed by the pussy in a situation where they gave consent. They would however call the police if something similar to a subway groping happened. Nobody said that. Not Trump. Not me. Nobody (except ironically your hero).
"Women" like Brie Larson would spend the entire time they were invited up to bed morally castigating men for being men. In the end, Brie would be like "What, it's over?" Actual men not "men" (soyboys) would tell them, "Yes it's over! You spent the two hours in my bedroom telling me that I am a rapist simply for being a male, insulting the size of my penis, and then talking politics, systemic sexism, and about intersectionality. Get out of my room! I wanna go to sleep." She would be surprised at all this.
-
My friend was grabbed by the pussy at a bar.
She was not happy.
Cintrast -
Any man would like his junk fondled.... except in jail
Well mostly any man
Not that theres anythign weing with that
-
Yeah, actually I do.
I am genderfluid, meaning part of the time I present as female.
You've got some serious issues. Your genderfluidity is no excuse for laying hands on anyone without their consent. That is truly fucked up. And fucked up that you think someone who is different than you, because they are a feminist or perhaps not attractive, doesn't present their femininity as you would prefer or whatever, doesn't have the same rights to not be groped without their consent as anyone else. You are clearly out of your mind and a menace to humanity.
You weren't listening.
I have not been grabbing anyone by the pussy. Or anywhere else.
For some sick reason you seem to think it's ok to do so. So one could assume that you do. And you obviously know zero about women.
Yeah. In the bedroom. When both of you are having sex. Being a virgin and borderline asexual, I think you can agree that this will not happen to me.
Which was the context here, that when you're famous (it feels like) you can do anything.
But Trump less acted on this impulse than your beloved Joe Biden. A sick pedophile? Or a man who actually loves women, and who some women like back?
You obviously know nothing about women, because you conflate ball-busters like Larson as real women.
3rd and 4th wave feminists are so transmasculine that they can no longer be considered women anymore. They don't think like women, they don't act like women, they don't have female sex drive, and they care nothing for children. They are men that happen to have breasts. And I know that many of them would actually prefer to be designated this way.
You are so hung up on woke theories that you don't realize that most real women deeply loathe Brie Larson.
Critics give Captain Marvel 75%. This is even critics. The audience? Less than half. 45%.
Real women like being touched in bed. They are not hyperoffended by being grabbed by the pussy in a situation where they gave consent. They would however call the police if something similar to a subway groping happened. Nobody said that. Not Trump. Not me. Nobody (except ironically your hero).
"Women" like Brie Larson would spend the entire time they were invited up to bed morally castigating men for being men. In the end, Brie would be like "What, it's over?" Actual men not "men" (soyboys) would tell them, "Yes it's over! You spent the two hours in my bedroom telling me that I am a rapist simply for being a male, insulting the size of my penis, and then talking politics, systemic sexism, and about intersectionality. Get out of my room! I wanna go to sleep." She would be surprised at all this.
I don't know anything about Brie Larson. But it seems pathetic that you're judging someone's femininity, their entire identity as a human, based upon a movie review. Her movie, 'Room' (Never seen it, don't even know what it's about) has a 93% critics score and a 93% audience score. Is Ryan Reynolds less manly because 'Green Lantern' has a 26% critics score and a 45% audience score (As you would say, "Less than half")? What does that say about your "theory"?
Totally absurd, immature, daft, and ridiculous.
You really need to get your head out of the fantasy comic books. You have the emotional intelligence of a 13 year old.
-
https://www.google.com/search?q=what+did+brie+larson+say+about+captain+marvel&rlz=1C1GCEU_enCA876CA876&oq=what+did+brie+larson+say+about+captain+marvel&aqs=chrome..69i57j33i160j33i22i29i30i625.11341j0j15&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
In 2019, after her debut as Carol Danvers, Larson said she wanted Marvel to “move faster” in regard to diverse stories, roles, and opportunities for people of underrepresented backgrounds. What do you know — she's faced virulent, sexist backlash and trolling ever since.Sep 12, 2022
also
comparatively Battle Angel came out aaround same time.
battle angel was submissive cutesycutesy character who just also happened to be badass fighter.
in the trailers those "alphas" in the chat were very oddly comparing saying it's a much better character, wife material, blahblahblah and saying boycott the captain marvel and all sorts of weirdo incel shit.
so strange.
anywho
the only decent critic i saw was that they played the move in the wrong order.
and not about wokeness.
-
I don't know anything about Brie Larson. But it seems pathetic that you're judging someone's femininity, their entire identity as a human, based upon a movie review. Her movie, 'Room' (Never seen it, don't even know what it's about) has a 93% critics score and a 93% audience score. Is Ryan Reynolds less manly because 'Green Lantern' has a 26% critics score and a 45% audience score (As you would say, "Less than half")? What does that say about your "theory"?
Totally absurd, immature, daft, and ridiculous.
You really need to get your head out of the fantasy comic books. You have the emotional intelligence of a 13 year old.
Sigh... So apparently you also don't understand what Rotten Tomatoes reviews mean.
The point being made here is not "less than half equals less manly/feminine."
https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/CriticalDissonance
Critical Dissonance. When a small group of snobs thinks a film is awesome (or terrible), but the audience is at odds with them. Green Lantern's audience reception wasn't that great but it was better than say
The most hilarious case of this is God's Not Dead: A Light in the Darkness (third film). Just over half of Christians audiences liked it, but the critics loathed it.
(https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/816868397836926996/1074781803912642650/image.png)
The point being that is a film is actually good, it appeals to the critics and the audiences. But when there is a 30 point difference, you're looking at a hyped film. And in some cases, audience score is actually worse than that.
In fact, further research shows that the audience score was closer to 33% but then Rotten Tomatoes changed its policies because they wanted to scrub some of these votes, disallowing reviews until the film had a wide theatrical release.
Behold, chickens!
Even though they are quite capable of seeing reality for themselves, a third party has taught them nonsense (chicken mama told them that "only yellow containers have grubs for you to eat") and they eventually get talked into putting blinders on. In the same way, you buy that Brie Larson is a convincing woman or a convincing actress, you buy that the Earth is round, and you buy a number of other nonsense, even when you can see otherwise.
"These red containers have grubs."
"Nonsense! Only the yellow ones do that. I'm an expert."
-
I don't know anything about Brie Larson. But it seems pathetic that you're judging someone's femininity, their entire identity as a human, based upon a movie review. Her movie, 'Room' (Never seen it, don't even know what it's about) has a 93% critics score and a 93% audience score. Is Ryan Reynolds less manly because 'Green Lantern' has a 26% critics score and a 45% audience score (As you would say, "Less than half")? What does that say about your "theory"?
Totally absurd, immature, daft, and ridiculous.
You really need to get your head out of the fantasy comic books. You have the emotional intelligence of a 13 year old.
Sigh... So apparently you also don't understand what Rotten Tomatoes reviews mean.
You're seriously using tomatoes and splats as the basis for your judgments on a specific human's character, identity, place in their own life? Get out of the basement and actually engage with humanity. You may actually learn something, though doubtful. Totally ignorant and absurd. You really are a 13 year old.
-
There was a coorsinated campainge to thumbs down it.
Saw it again for the lotr anti wokeness
Gamergate carryover.
In contrast the starwars awakens 7 8 9 were soooooooooOOOOoooo stupid plots.
Yet the visuals were fantastic and organically attained high likes.
Same with aquaman.
So dumb.
-
Yeah, there's all that. My point is that it's so absurd and stupid to try and theorize about someone's interpersonal state of being, their identity, their "real woman-ness", "real man-ness" based upon a movie rating. It really doesn't get dumber than that. It's even beyond that, it's misguided, shallow, and pathetic. Something a tween would do, definitely not an adult.
-
Now youre argueing with a teenager?
Haha not doing yousrelf any favours.
Ol man stash says to bulm "getoffmylawn. Pull up yur pants. Back in my day, kids respected their elders".
Haha
Bu yes
I agree with he 1st half of your statement.
-
You two are so woke that you don't get that it actually required people to hate her enough to do this.
This doesn't happen in a vacuum.
You can actually see her awful deadpan "deer in headlights look" through the entire film, but the previews highlight it. Deadpan, or mad at the patriarchy. Those are pretty much her two settings all movie except where brief periods.
I watched the film before the reviews. I realized I agreed with them. I also found her mohawk thing butt-ugly, and her overall superior attitude grating on my nerves. I don't like watching ppl who refuse to understand that they have faults.
(https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/816868397836926996/1074923793698529340/Brie_cheesy_acting.jpg)
This ugly broad doesn't know how to act. And as much as her morally superior crowing is lines (that's grating on the nerves enough), the more awful thing is that unlike the girl in Star Wars, she full-stop believes in it. Offstage, she cuts down her costars, like it's a competition. Seriously, look at Hawkeye (do not know his real name), and how miserable he looks.
That's the sort of crap that if a guy did it, they should get some serious grief. In fact, most guys if another guy treated them that way, would get the pecking order treatment.
(Skip to 39:30, this is a rooster that it thinks it's a hen, so it competes with hens. Compare to Brie Larson's "I'm still stronger than you though" posturing, and you get why she's awful. She's psychologically scarred from her dad leaving the family at a young age, and rather than having an honest cry about it, she poses and pretends to be strong)
We have faults, you, me, all of us.
Christians accept this. They have a tradition of forgiving others, and seeing vulnerability as a good thing. A very human thing. "If you say that you have no sin, you deceive yourself, and the truth is not in you." The Pharisees and the woke left has in common that they pounce on people's flaws and try to conceal their own. But I know of their flaws, and the most obnoxious of them all is trying to not be human. Trying to remove all sins from oneself alienates you from the human race. Now look again at Brie Larson and her deadpan awfulness. And yes, I've struggled with deadpan facial expressions myself. Unlike this bitch tho, I didn't find anything praiseworthy about it. Human beings should connect to other humans. As much as they can. She instead pushes everyone away.
I'm not 13 (40 actually, as I was born in 1982), and I remember at 13 being this sort of piece of work. This is not something I like to look at, and that you praise her for this sort of shit makes you even worse. That I think differently that you doesn't make me immature. I'm probably your elder, but I said "fuck it" to alot of things that peer pressure said were grown up. When you start learning that "grown up" isn't what the stupid people around you say it is ("you're supposed to act this way at age 40", yeah sorry because all forty year olds in the city worry about climate change, driving nice cars, and moving away from their parents doesn't mean I have those priorities. In fact, I think of people with those priorities as unfilial dickheads that pay lip service to family, while figuring out how to put their grandparents (who are happy living at home) away in a nursing home to rot; in short, they're pricks), you might finally be grown up. At that point, I'll probly be too old to care. I've put up with bullshit in my life from people who had their ideas of what I should be doing based on my age or my gender or any number of other things. Not interested.
God wants us to be humble, not perfect. That passage where it says to "be perfect as God is perfect" is a misunderstanding.
Amplified Bible
You, therefore, will be perfect (growing into spiritual maturity both in mind and character, actively integrating godly values into your daily life), as your heavenly Father is perfect.
Contemporary English Version
But you must always act like your Father in heaven.
Weymouth New Testament
You however are to be complete in goodness, as your Heavenly Father is complete.
-
Now youre argueing with a teenager?
Metaphorically, yes. But not anymore. Bumble's obsession with Captain Marvel is just too creepy.
-
Actually, I'm talking about her, because she's an object lesson of the soft of outraged confrontational assholes that screamed at the sky and marched against Trump when he actually said something totally out of context.
He did not say, "I'm going to grab all women by the pussy, and go from house to house molesting women."
He did not say, "I'm gonna to grab (feminists) by the pussy as punishment for their feminism."
But you chose to interpret it as that.
What he actually said, was that when you are in power, it seems as though you can do anything. Like you're a rock star, and can get any girl you want. Is this a shocking statement? No, not really.
It's an apt observation that has been phrased poorly. Rock stars behave this way. So do some actors. There's a whole movie written about creepy shit happening in the acting career. But once again, people on the left get a free pass! Weinstein, Biden, because they are leftist molesters, their far worse behavior is excused!
And because you're sidetracked the entire discussion to defending her when in fact there isn't much to defend. This is a posturing "woman" who probably thinks of herself as more of a man then the men around her, and literally wants to fight everyone. This is behavior that needs improvement, not behavior that women and men should strive for.
It's bratty and immature behavior. Suppose I was an actress, and a fellow actor said, "You did a great job on your film."
(I don't believe she did in Captain Marvel, but even if she didn't, this is a very gracious compliment and a mark of real maturity)
And my response? "You mean for a girl? You men are all the same..." Rant, rant, mouth foaming, more ranting.
Seriously? Someone gave you a compliment, and your impulse is to attack them?!?
And more annoying? You give her a free pass for such petulant behavior, calling me a teenager, when your "heroes" display behavior even worse than anything I did at the height of adolescence.
-
Actually, I'm talking about her, because she's an object lesson of the soft of outraged confrontational assholes that screamed at the sky and marched against Trump when he actually said something totally out of context.
Actually, you are now the object lesson of the soft of outraged confrontational assholes that scream at the sky. Just read your own posts.
-
B, I don’t want to be too critical, because you are liable to label me and tell me stuff about your life that is simultaneously supposed to elicit sympathy, shock, draw out the prejudiced, or whatever, but that I honestly couldn’t care less about.
That sounds harsh I know, but where people are their own worst enemy I have to let go and say, there but for the grace of Odin go I and move on. Especially where those from vulnerable sections of society who have been left behind by circumstance, bad luck, and shitty timing, who allow resentment to dominate their thinking and cleave to the worst of humanity as their redeemers.
If you are not a troll, then you are a 40yr old virgin gender fluid outcast who defends the billionaire orange pig who would throw you under both the metaphorical and literal bus without a backward glance, whilst the powers that put him there, who use people like you as throwaway tropes to scare and appal the moral majority, are getting you wound up about an actress with at best average ability who has a flea up her arse about something! So what?
FFS focus on something that matters.
-
(Skip to 39:30, this is a rooster that it thinks it's a hen, so it competes with hens.
Whats the point of the trans chicken?
Are you saying trans people exist?
-
Charisma-on-demand guys did an evaluation on her inability to do the likebale humour thing.
Shes probabpy super annoying IRL.
But so is tomcruise apparently and deniro and many other actors.
But most of the critic is not about her, its about antiwokeism.
The character is super strong badass.
Thats the character.
Some actors be it so much its hars to turn off.
It has nothing to do with wokeness.
Thats the character.
The mohawk is from the comics...
Not her.
Its the character.
-
Has the muddle that is Jesus been cleared yet?
-
I'm Jesus!
Or was that Spartacus?
-
"i'm not mexican, he said "Hey, Zeus", MF".
-
B, I don’t want to be too critical, because you are liable to label me and tell me stuff about your life that is simultaneously supposed to elicit sympathy, shock, draw out the prejudiced, or whatever, but that I honestly couldn’t care less about.
That sounds harsh I know, but where people are their own worst enemy I have to let go and say, there but for the grace of Odin go I and move on. Especially where those from vulnerable sections of society who have been left behind by circumstance, bad luck, and shitty timing, who allow resentment to dominate their thinking and cleave to the worst of humanity as their redeemers.
Then don't be. Just know that here is what I see. I see a few hundred years of history (first wave feminism appears to have begun with a 1792 pamphlet, A Vindication of the Rights of Women) where women strive for justice and equality. They manage to earn equal rights of inheritance, and the right to vote. The right not to be abused by their own husband, nor forced into arranged marriage.
Next came the rights of women to work the same as men, to not have to rely on men for their support. I approve of that too. But this had some laws of unforeseen consequences. First of these being that lawmakers changed tax laws so now it meant some women didn't have a choice. They had to work full time, because it was now more expensive since the government figured all women would me the decision to be working women. You know, had I been born a woman, I would probably have gotten married immediately. I loathe work at any office. Greater expense means rather than equality, women don't really have the choice. They went from a society that tries to protect women from economic burden (which was called sexist, even though it was at best only a bit overbearing) to one that subjects women to poverty. More women today than 100 years ago are on welfare. Congratulations. When before women were treated as princesses, now they can expect tax law to drag them into the gutter.
Next came the rights of LGBT people to have equality in marriage. I approve of that too.
Then we started to reverse all of that. Identity politics. Women learning alot of useless crap guaranteed to ruin their lives. Women's Studies is the worst disservice you can do yourself in college. You will be in debt, have no marketable skills (you can't buy or sell theories), and have an attitude. You'll either have to be paid as a socialist agitator, or wind up in extreme poverty. To say nothing of turning men into useless tools who are not able to function properly. Fuckboys who are really not even good at that.
(https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-608b73c70f5b30e161ae233b06a7f17f)
Look at these vacant idiots. They are just there to be friends to a woman who is equally unavailable. She wanted men to be more kind and considerate, so she made them into nulls.
Then she doesn't like the result of her own attempts, so she wants exotic masculine men. Hence the rise of Islam in feminist meetings. Even though women must wear ugly and uncomfortable clothes under Muslim regimes, we get told this nonsense in America.
(https://media.tenor.com/YgQBViX6OdQAAAAC/muslims-hijabi.gif)
Oh really. So these people are totally empowered right?
(https://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2012/06/02/article-2153719-136942E8000005DC-686_634x828.jpg)
Acid attacks.
(https://media.cnn.com/api/v1/images/stellar/prod/170420141813-fgm-happens-here-too-neuwirth-opinion-restricted.jpg?q=x_0,y_0,h_1356,w_2410,c_fill/w_800)
FGM.
And feminism says nothing (https://torontosun.com/opinion/columnists/hassan-enough-with-the-feminists-who-stay-silent-on-islam).
In fact, they act like it's the solution to feminism (https://penntoday.upenn.edu/news/how-islamic-feminism-could-shape-gender-equity).
Oh it's the solution to feminism all right! Afghanistan was filled with modern women during its time under Russian rule.
(https://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2016/01/18/11/304C337400000578-0-image-a-66_1453115665027.jpg)
(https://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2016/01/18/11/304C33F900000578-0-image-a-56_1453115570473.jpg)
(https://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2016/01/18/11/304C337C00000578-3404803-image-a-111_1453118320666.jpg)
(https://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2016/01/18/11/304C339500000578-0-image-a-62_1453115600436.jpg)
Then Muslims too over, and this happened.
(http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2009/04/06/world/asia/06lede_afghan.1.480.jpg)
(https://www.gannett-cdn.com/-mm-/9db426f221ac8909afa7ef54488142a5a6a2b382/c=0-234-4500-2772/local/-/media/USATODAY/USATODAY/2014/03/20/1395335007000-AP-APTOPIX-Afghanistan.jpg?width=3200&height=1805&fit=crop&format=pjpg&auto=webp)
(https://i.guim.co.uk/img/static/sys-images/Admin/BkFill/Default_image_group/2012/1/2/1325531228619/Sahar-Gul-007.jpg?width=1200&height=630&quality=85&auto=format&fit=crop&crop=faces%2Centropy&bm=normal&ba=bottom%2Cleft&blend64=aHR0cHM6Ly9hc3NldHMuZ3VpbS5jby51ay9pbWFnZXMvb3ZlcmxheXMvZDM1ODZhNWVmNTc4MTc1NmQyMWEzYjYzNWU1MTcxNDEvdGctZGVmYXVsdC5wbmc&s=2da7b9eff6f1127e0bcd179acde3f3d9)
(https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-y6WU15zejP4/WJuFGGs0nWI/AAAAAAAAK3U/sgRQU-Udtc440pJDCfljcuO-m0HJ_kt_QCLcB/s1600/beforeafter.png)
Brie Larson represents all this crap. She blames the entire world for what her dad did to her. Rather than being an uplifting role model to young girls, she actually tears down centuries of equality to instead talk about "payback."
Jesus said, "An eye for an eye makes the world blind." One of these two understood how to get true equality for men and women. The other will guarantee that in 15 years, men will hate women enough that things will revert to pre-feminism days. Congratulations! You just stepped backwards.
If you are not a troll, then you are a 40yr old virgin gender fluid outcast who defends the billionaire orange pig who would throw you under both the metaphorical and literal bus without a backward glance, whilst the powers that put him there, who use people like you as throwaway tropes to scare and appal the moral majority, are getting you wound up about an actress with at best average ability who has a flea up her arse about something! So what?
FFS focus on something that matters.
It doe matter. More than you think.
If you are a woman, and you strive towards your own enslavement, it fucking matters.
Jesus came to set people free. But what he came to set them free of most was sin. Sin is when through selfishness, you trade away your own happiness, until you are punished by your own stupid decisions.
For example, some people think that Christians are prudes that oppose gambling, drinking, and sex.
Okay. Let's take these things to their extreme.
You drink and drink, you get liver damage and die choking on your own vomit. You also might endanger the lives of others if you go out drinking and driving. To say nothing of the amount of abuse linked to drunken rage.
Gambling gets you in debt. It ruins families, and drives people into poverty.
Sex is fine in moderation, but without a family structure, women are left to fend for themselves. To say nothing of STDs. Free love and abortion? It doesn't actually help women. It helps men, who flit about from woman to woman. If you are pro-feminist, you'd be better off being against abortion, as thus you force men to take some damned accountability.
When feminism is taken to extreme, it becomes its antithesis. Women hating on men so much that they piss them off. How does that help them? Some man might just decide they have had enough, and rape or kill them. If another woman doesn't get disgusted with them and put them in their place. Women have a pecking order, too. Women believing that abortion frees them, when actually it is a tool of male dickheads to continue their fun while women get to deal with a dead baby. To say nothing of feminists courting Muslim men, who are actually the worst sorts of chauvinist bullies on the planet.
Yes, it does matter that third and fourth wave feminism are exposed for the fraud they are. Yes, it does matter that you understand what sin actually is.
Trump did not throw me under the bus. When my people were getting murdered in Pulse nightclub in Orlando, Trump told me "If more people were armed in that nightclub they could find back." He's right. He also stood against the people who would murder them, the people from countries filled with these thugs. He did not overturn marriage equality. He did not overturn religious freedom either. He balanced religion with LGBT rights. I didn't find this time to be particularly bad. I had changed my name and gender on DMV and IRS records. He didn't change it back.
Hillary tried to throw me under the bus. I paid attention. When my people were getting murdered in Pulse nightclub in Orlando, Hillary told me "We need tougher gun laws." Great, so instead of one guy in Pulse having a gun and fighting back, only the killer (laws don't stop criminals, they stop the law-abiding) would have a gun. Every last LGBT person in that bar would have been gunned down.
"Oh but he got rid of trans people in the military." Trans people shouldn't be in the military! I say this as a person in the trans spectrum with some real damned common sense. Crossdressing should be allowed, but if you're on hormones and not at a stable place, you are dealing with too much shit at once, and you won't be combat ready. You will die. While you are dealing with fatigue and cramps, you will be gunned down. If you have an army like that, they will be massacred. They should stay home where it is safe.
-
Has the muddle that is Jesus been cleared yet?
I think we will solve that muddle before we solve the muddle that is bulmabriefs144.
I did think he was a troll before, now I'm leaning heavily towards mental illness.
-
(Skip to 39:30, this is a rooster that it thinks it's a hen, so it competes with hens.
Whats the point of the trans chicken?
Are you saying trans people exist?
The trans chicken is Brie Larson.
She is a psychologically damaged twit who cannot cope with men, and tries to cock-fight with every one of them she sees. She gets along well with women, because she sees herself as more of a man than her daddy who left her. It all boils down to daddy issues. But unlike the broken chicken who thinks it's the alpha female until some gal pecks it, I don't see Brie Larson getting better without some guy kicking her ass.
I'm pretty sure that none of you will condone that, so she's stuck as a trans chicken. Telling all the men in the world to fight her. What she needs is actual therapy, but the far cheaper version of that is her getting beat up by either sex.
Charisma-on-demand guys did an evaluation on her inability to do the likebale humour thing.
Shes probabpy super annoying IRL.
But so is tomcruise apparently and deniro and many other actors.
But most of the critic is not about her, its about antiwokeism.
The character is super strong badass.
That's the character.
Some actors be it so much its hard to turn off.
Yes, yes, of course. We are all hating on her because she's a badass.
Scarlett Johansen is a badass. But nobody objects to her. Sandra Bullock. Sigourney Weaver. All of these were in action films and well-liked by audiences. Brie's character is not a badass. She's a Mary Sue. Total difference.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Sue
People I have talked to have legit said that they didn't care whether a male or female played Captain Marvel. They did however care that Brie Larson played Captain Marvel. Personal hatred of her. What makes people hate her is how she treats people offstage.
Even liberal feminists think she should be replaced... with a black trans woman.
You know what? I agree! I would identify much with her story of a male struggling with male expectations and progressing toward more classically feminine superhero. Instead we have an angry emotional-cripple who never progresses anywhere. Character development is what makes for a good story.
How is any of this empowering? Women are told they don't get from a crappy position in life to a better one. They just kinda get lucky or they have to hope the feminist lottery gave them a super-power. Mary Sues don't make decent heroes. They need to work towards things, and gradually earn a place up. Otherwise, it feels like tokenism.
A real feminist superhero story? I got one offhand! Jupiter Ascending. Girl starts as a freaking janitor, overthrows an intergalactic immortality scheme, and although she's still a janitor after that, things are looking up. She now has super powers, a boyfriend, and a decent life. Oh yeah, and she kinda owns the Earth now. This movie didn't get nearly the love it deserves, and more unfortunately, it spent more in production than it earned.
Has the muddle that is Jesus been cleared yet?
I think we will solve that muddle before we solve the muddle that is bulmabriefs144.
I did think he was a troll before, now I'm leaning heavily towards mental illness.
It's okay, I think you all are mentally ill too. The admiration you give to damaged women and pedophiles must be endearing to you, but they are clear signs to me that you yourself are not all there.
As for Jesus, he was the most mentally healthy person on the planet. He saw that everyone on Earth needed a hero, a person to rally behind for their sins. So even though it was suicide, he became the savior of the broken, the beaten, and the damned.
People exactly like Brie.
I love Jesus precisely because I am fairly sure I could never do what he did. I can only attempt to show people a better way, because I am an enormous hypocrite, and very fucked up myself. I know Jesus's way works, because I know just how much my life doesn't work without him in it.
I am mentally healthy enough to realize that.
What about you?
-
Has the muddle that is Jesus been cleared yet?
I think we will solve that muddle before we solve the muddle that is bulmabriefs144.
I did think he was a troll before, now I'm leaning heavily towards mental illness.
Same. There's a whole lot of stuff in these posts that is so beyond whacked that multiple classifications within the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5) could be applied.
-
Well there’s a lot of words and angst there but the content is largely disparate themes taken from the book of tucker and rolled into a ball of neoconservative ramell.
The synopsis being (as far as I can make out), a middling actress with a chip on her shoulder is the reason women are subjected to the excesses of Wahhabi fundamentalism, and a would-be tyrant demagogue, whose lip service to LGBT rights is as thin as his hair, is a hero to that community because he peddled the lie that guns are the answer.
That is some major level, gold standard twisted logic, or trollism. Either way this individual either has a shockingly low self-belief allied to identity loathing, or trolling the libs is a hobby, in any case I’m glad he/she is where they are and not in my sphere of existence.
FYI, the eye for an eye, blind quote, was attributed to Ghandi not the Nazarene, but I’m guessing you knew that.
Edited; As I forgot to mention Jesus.
-
As I say. Liberals think they are sane, and everyone else has mental illness.
Conservative Christians understand that everyone has mental illness, and liberals are particularly insane.
The COVID hysteria? Liberals still believe it, and the ones who don't (never did) are figuring that conservatives are the greater fool and going to fall for the fourth or sixth jab of something that made them ill the first time.
Fauci is finally saying vaccines don't work. We knew that.
Dr Anthony Fauci has admitted that Covid vaccines do not work “overly well” against stopping people from getting infected.
Dr Fauci - who was the face of the pandemic in the US - said he still fully recommended getting vaccinated as jabs do protect against severe disease.
But he recommends them despite the fact that rounds and rounds of them have not only done nothing good and have in fact caused premature deaths from blood clots and just dropping dead. Only crazy people pursue things that don't work.
The same for feminism. Look I don't care who wears the pants in a relationship, and who wears the skirt. But you cannot have two partners working (competition over who is the breadwinner creates a rift in the marriage, and any children are neglected) nor two partners raising kids (the family falls apart due to poverty). These models don't work. Only division of labor works. It doesn't matter if the guy nurses the kids or the gal. It doesn't matter if the guy does the job or the gal. But we need equal division of labor or we have a deal where the guy is done with work but the gal has two jobs, work and family. That doesn't work.
More does the coddling of children and being afraid to tell them "No." We see this mostly in modern households and it's touted as way better than traditional raising. Actually the kid has a sick mixture of indulgence and neglect that is likely to make them sociopathic later in life. Doesn't work.
Or harebrained government programs. Conservatives ask them, "Yes, but does it WORK? If not, you're wasting money on a program that doesn't do anything." But this question means nothing to a liberal. One trillion dollars later, a lot of people are miserable, the plan backfired and caused a mess. But leftists tell themselves that they did the right thing. Because it look virtuous, not because of the results. Results matter.
Is an actress actually possessing real charm? Or is she a real bitch around her co-stars? Leftists think this question is offensive. That I'd even ask that means I'm boorish and insensitive. No, it's a valid question. Because an actress's career can't last if she never gets along with anyone.
Sorry, ppl. But when the right thing is right only in your own minds, and deliberately hurts a bunch of people, and doesn't even work, then it's the wrong thing.
If you tried to make everyone have the same salary, and it made the harder workers give up, and the lazier workers expect the salary for doing nothing, and you are building cars, pretty soon, you don't have a product. You've given one group license to do nothing, and another group you've managed to completely remove their motivation. People work harder to be promoted. If nothing they do impacts that, they stop. Or rather they burn out.
Sane people realize that Jesus wasn't a feminist, he wasn't a socialist, and he wasn't a liberal. He wasn't for gun control either, though he was peaceful.
(https://i.pinimg.com/736x/2b/84/39/2b843971a034711d6a3b4773e928d12b.jpg)
(https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/1395/3677/products/Luke2236_grande.png?v=1490159197)
Not just the first is Jesus. They both are.
This isn't a contradiction. There's a difference between defensive weapons and going out in violence to kill others.
Jesus wouldn't have supported woke ideas that didn't work. But when you finally admit to yourself that your plans were failures and the good you do does more harm than good, Jesus is the first to give you a hug.
We are all mentally ill. This is part and parcel of living in a world where good and evil are divided. Admitting you have a problem is the first step.
Try it out. Say "My name is Jura-Glenlivet II/Stash/JimmyTheLobster and I am insane." It will make you feel better, and we can get you the help you need.
Look, I'll show you how it's done. Hi, my name is bulmabriefs144...
(Hi bulmabriefs144!!!)
and I am insane.
-
I am insane.
-
And so are you.
But you know what? Because I admit that I am insane, my madness can be forgiven.
On the other hand, to compound your madness, you are lying to yourself and pretending that you are normal.
https://the-art-of-autism.com/the-heartbreak-and-shame-of-pretending-to-be-normal-in-a-neurotypical-world/
https://psychcentral.com/blog/psychology-self/2019/07/narcissist-pretending
https://thefederalistpapers.org/us/moral-narcissism-why-liberals-say-one-thing-but-do-another
When the insane are "normal", the normal are "insane."
https://thefederalist.com/2015/06/11/when-the-insane-are-normal-the-normal-are-insane/
-
This is a statement from a batshit loon...
Sane people realize that Jesus wasn't a feminist, he wasn't a socialist, and he wasn't a liberal. He wasn't for gun control either, though he was peaceful.
Jesus was a carpenter with a messianic complex.
I wasn't aware Jesus was a card-carrying NRA member and had an AR-15.
Cult + Time = Religion
-
He wasn't a card carrying member of the NRA.
But the NRA, if you actually bothered to understand them, would tell you that (unlike the abortion clinic, which feeds people a line about how their "real mission is to provide care for women" but makes money on abortion itself) the actual point of being armed is to protect oneself.
Quick fact. Some of the most peaceful people on the planet were in favor of the right to carry weapons. Carry them, but hopefully never have to use them. Weapons are a deterrent against violence, both physical and sexual.
The latest prisoners surveys estimate that 3,600 rapes a day are never attempted because the victim either showed a gun, said she had a gun, or the rapist though the victim had a gun for some other reason.
So, you tell me. Are you really for women's rights? Then tell me how, rather that stop the person from raping women in the first place, you want to kill a child who had nothing to do with it? It sounds instead like what you really support is violence.
(https://i2.wp.com/www.economicnoise.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/Gun-Control.jpg)
All of these people took power after gun control was complete. This is what the 2nd amendment means.
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
People no longer want to understand this. So I'll change up the commas and put it into plain language.
A well-armed citizenry being necessary to create a free country, the right of the people to keep and bear weapons shall not be restricted.
This is unambiguously what the founders meant. Militia is different from an army, it's more like a national guard or just a bunch of random people with guns.
You are a lunatic who is not okay with killing people who want to rape or murder you...
(Or maybe that's not true. Because when we examine people who say crap like this - particularly rich politicians - they seemed to always want other people to be disarmed. But when you ask them what they will do if a thug comes to their house, it always seems to turn out that they have armed security or a bodyguard)
...yet when it comes to an innocent third party, like a unborn child or the kids in schools, nobody gets to defend them. The woman gets raped, and the child pays the price. You're an awful person as well as being insane.
It's time to admit this, and maybe do something about it.
Now. Since I talked about that, let's talk about the muddle that is Jesus.
Today I played Lunar Silver Star Harmony. The premise is that there is a Goddess who instead of ruling the world over directly, she decided to become human. This was because she wanted humans to understand their purpose and stop relying on divine favors. They fought over who God loved most, instead of sharing love with others and living their lives. So she became part of humankind in order to help humans as a human.
-
He wasn't a card carrying member of the NRA.
How do you know? He's Jesus, son of god, all knowing and such. You said he wasn't for gun control even before guns were invented. So who is to say he wasn't pro-NRA before the NRA was invented?
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
People no longer want to understand this. So I'll change up the commas and put it into plain language.
A well-armed citizenry being necessary to create a free country, the right of the people to keep and bear weapons shall not be restricted.
Wow, now you're rewriting the constitution? You really are quite arrogant.
-
When an apparently forty-year-old single rainbow incel tells me “competition over who is the breadwinner creates a rift in the marriage,” posts bible quotes with automatic weapons and puts JC in the NRA caucus, the options of who we are dealing with, narrow down to;
A troll.
An idiot.
An idiot troll.
And clearly you know fuck all about the Cuban revolution.
-
He wasn't a card carrying member of the NRA.
How do you know? He's Jesus, son of god, all knowing and such. You said he wasn't for gun control even before guns were invented. So who is to say he wasn't pro-NRA before the NRA was invented?
A well-armed citizenry being necessary to create a free country, the right of the people to keep and bear weapons shall not be restricted.
Wow, now you're rewriting the constitution? You really are quite arrogant.
No, I'm not.
The King James Version of the Bible has some passages that are lost to time. 1776 is pretty old itself. Nobody wants to know the meaning of militia, which is why they assume only the police should have guns.
From Isaiah in the King James Version
“I will also make it a possession for the bittern, and pools of water: and I will sweep it with the besom of destruction, saith the Lord of hosts,”
Do you know what bittern means? What about besom?
In fact, newer translations say either "owls" or "hedgehogs" where bittern is. Besom is a broom. Worse yet, some words in the KJV have shifted in meaning. It's important, therefore to update the language before it is too late.
militia
mə-lĭsh′ə
noun
An army composed of ordinary citizens rather than professional soldiers.
A military force that is not part of a regular army and is subject to call for service in an emergency.
Does it make sense here to replace citizens with citizens?Yes, it does. They are saying that in order to have a free country, you need people armed. "What for?" you ask, " Is it to defend against foreign threats? Is it for hunting?" No, it's in case your own government comes to your door with their best thugs in order to take your home, to put you in chains, and put your wife and children in bondage.
Jesus never used a gun. In fact, he explained why he had no need of weapons.
Jesus said, “My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jewish leaders. But now my kingdom is from another place.”
Like the Buddha, Jesus was utterly unconcerned with this world. But he did not instruct his followers (unlike the Buddha) to reject this reality entirely. His followers were instructed to be "in the world but not of the world" meaning that while they could defend their lives if threatened, it was more important for them to embrace the world hereafter. This is why we still eat food, and aren't seen as following Jesus if we go anorexic. The physical world is to be lived in, and we are to defend our lives (buy a sword). But we are not to living in it like the people of the world. The people of the world try to take power over lands and people, as though such thing will last when you're dead. Real Christians don't use their swords to conquer, only to defend their lives and their families (and maybe their homes).
Some people love the KJV and think it ought not be changed. I happen to loathe it, and probably prefer a version that is in plain language.
The issue, then, is not merely that the KJV has some archaic words. All translations have at least a few rare or unfamiliar words. The issue is that the KJV has numerous and unnecessary archaic words and phrases which create an additional hurdle for the modern reader that simply need not be.
Pretty much, yeah.
So when the constitution uses a word that it falling out of use, we try to define it. But not one meaning comes from a concept that isn't.
And clearly you know fuck all about the Cuban revolution.
What about the Cuban Revolution?
That it's less about the marginalized people, and more about the elites supporting it in the first place? There were alot of leftists, particularly all of the beat poets , writers, and musicians (well, not ALL of them) like Hemingway, people who were armchair social reformers. You look at a revolution, they tell you about the plight of the common people. What they don't tell you about is the Robespierre figures, the puppetmasters like George Soros, who help fund revolt after revolt, then when the country is a basket case, they move to some other land and never take responsibility.
Hemingway spent all of his time drinking and smoking cigars, and slapped around his wife. He drank daiquiris while people were getting massacred outside his porch. Maybe Cuba isn't a great example?
https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/of-hemingway-castro-and-che/
In the meantime, a friend has a big sister and husband who both work full-time. Little sis (the girl I'm talking about) has to help watch their child (along with the kids' grandma), on top of her own part-time work. The parents basically don't raise the kid because they are busy all the time, just leaving it as a mess for the younger sister. This is how dual full-time families work. They don't. A third party has to help.
An idiot troll? Nah, I know what I'm talking about here.
-
He wasn't a card carrying member of the NRA.
But the NRA, if you actually bothered to understand them, would tell you that (unlike the abortion clinic, which feeds people a line about how their "real mission is to provide care for women" but makes money on abortion itself) the actual point of being armed is to protect oneself.
Quick fact. Some of the most peaceful people on the planet were in favor of the right to carry weapons. Carry them, but hopefully never have to use them. Weapons are a deterrent against violence, both physical and sexual.
quick fact
2008
that's how long "sefldefense" has existed in the constitution and 2ndA when the NRA who bought off the SCOTUS.
that's it
Heller vs DC.
so by the same wording goes Roe?
seeeya later Heller!
right's aren't given nor god given nor inherent.
they're enforced by whatever scotus is in charge... so question is (tinfoil hat time) - what shadow gov't put them there?
next quick fact
only one group continues to chant 2ndA whenever they're unhappy with whatever Fox tells themt o be unahppy about.
but when someone goes after kavangauh or alito or BLM it's all how dare they!
but whne someone goes after pelosi or jan06 or michigan lady it's all 2ndA all the way!
interesting...
unfair and unbalanced (chemically speaking as well - double zinger)
-
He wasn't a card carrying member of the NRA.
How do you know? He's Jesus, son of god, all knowing and such. You said he wasn't for gun control even before guns were invented. So who is to say he wasn't pro-NRA before the NRA was invented?
A well-armed citizenry being necessary to create a free country, the right of the people to keep and bear weapons shall not be restricted.
Wow, now you're rewriting the constitution? You really are quite arrogant.
No, I'm not.
Ummm, yeah, you did. See your post above.
In the meantime, a friend has a big sister and husband who both work full-time. Little sis (the girl I'm talking about) has to help watch their child (along with the kids' grandma), on top of her own part-time work. The parents basically don't raise the kid because they are busy all the time, just leaving it as a mess for the younger sister. This is how dual full-time families work. They don't. A third party has to help.
A sample size of one and you apply that to every single dual full-time family on the planet. Does your arrogance have any bounds
An idiot troll? Nah, I know what I'm talking about here.
It's painfully obvious that you are and that you don't.
-
He wasn't a card carrying member of the NRA.
How do you know? He's Jesus, son of god, all knowing and such. You said he wasn't for gun control even before guns were invented. So who is to say he wasn't pro-NRA before the NRA was invented?
A well-armed citizenry being necessary to create a free country, the right of the people to keep and bear weapons shall not be restricted.
Wow, now you're rewriting the constitution? You really are quite arrogant.
No, I'm not.
Ummm, yeah, you did. See your post above.
In the meantime, a friend has a big sister and husband who both work full-time. Little sis (the girl I'm talking about) has to help watch their child (along with the kids' grandma), on top of her own part-time work. The parents basically don't raise the kid because they are busy all the time, just leaving it as a mess for the younger sister. This is how dual full-time families work. They don't. A third party has to help.
A sample size of one and you apply that to every single dual full-time family on the planet. Does your arrogance have any bounds
An idiot troll? Nah, I know what I'm talking about here.
It's painfully obvious that you are and that you don't.
I never said it was the only example. It's just the example that I am looking at right at the moment.
You may occasionally get news telling you the opposite, that two-income houses are happier:
https://goodmenproject.com/families/why-two-income-families-get-divorced-less-than-single-earner-households/
Here’s why two incomes can lead to more fulfillment and lower stress
"Happier"? Are you sure? Have you asked the kids?
Because I think you're equating happiness with financial success.
They spend the article making a theoretical case that a single working father is likely to be more stressed supporting the family themselves. Yes, yes, that is a nice pipe dream. But the reality of things is that in many states, they don't give a tax break to married couples so that extra income is taken by the state. The child is a latchkey, watches TV all day because they have no family to watch them, and probably has nobody to talk to. Or they have surrogate parents. Or they use child care to basically buy someone to watch their kids.
https://money.usnews.com/money/personal-finance/family-finance/articles/2018-08-16/does-your-family-really-need-2-incomes
Child care prices can vary dramatically across the nation, with infant care being the most expensive. The average annual cost of care for an infant in a child care center in 2017 was $10,926, according to the advocacy group Child Care Aware of America. The group found that the average annual price for infant care in a home setting was $7,961. And in Massachusetts, the least-affordable state when it comes to child care, infant care in a center cost an average of $20,125 in 2017.
In other words, unless your full-time job actually results in decent income, that's one spouse's entire paycheck. Plus there are taxes, parking fees, stress from both people having to deal with the grind, and the kid gets no love because they are the person who loses out when both work.
https://money.usnews.com/money/personal-finance/family-finance/articles/2018-08-16/does-your-family-really-need-2-incomes
https://advocacycircle.com/challenges-of-a-dual-income-family/
Reading between the lines of the second one, it advises that the parents have to reach out or give up on homemade stuff because there simply isn't time.
I had a dual income family, but fortunately for me, my dad was mostly at home. This was because his main job was on Sunday. But yes, when they were particularly busy, there were some tense times. I've also seen other families struggle with this.
https://nypost.com/2018/07/07/feminism-has-destabilized-the-american-family/
In 2012, Katie Roiphe, feminist and mother of two children by different fathers, condemned concerns about single motherhood: “If there is anything that currently oppresses the children, it is the idea of the way families are ‘supposed to be.’ ” That’s the feminist mantra, but “alternative” families work only for a tiny minority. For most women, children and, as we’re coming to understand better with each passing year, men, the traditional family remains the gold standard.
Dual-income families and more importantly single-mother families have had a ruinous effect on society. In a dual-income home, the family manages to support the children economically. But they may as well not be there. When they are there, they likely fight over who is the biggest contributor to the family finances. But nobody talks about the neglect of children, since on paper, it looks as though they are well looked after.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/22/opinion/coronavirus-parenting-burnout.html
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/05/upshot/stressed-tired-rushed-a-portrait-of-the-modern-family.html
https://www.workingmomsbreak.com/2011/06/20/survey-working-parents-health-problems/
More stress, more "helicopter parenting", more demands that the child join things in order to constantly keep them busy. Notice a trend? Dual-income households have no real time in which either parent connects with the child, since after work they head right to bed. They get someone else to raise their children, whether sports teams or television or the school system. The state babysits their
But don't take my word for it. We have studies on same-sex marriages with children, where supposedly both parents were working or both were caring for the child.
https://www.heritage.org/marriage-and-family/report/impact-same-sex-parenting-children-evaluating-the-research
What they found was that the results were faked, and that there were in fact serious disadvantages. A family needs division of labor.
And we have foster care studies. In this case, the parents are not working so much as not interested.
https://www.usatoday.com/in-depth/news/investigations/2021/03/18/foster-care-children-starved-beaten-molested-florida-reports-show/6782615002/
https://crimeandjusticeresearchalliance.org/rsrch/how-foster-care-affects-children/
And we have Harry Harlow's affection studies.
https://www.popsci.com/1950s-experiments-attachment-unethical/
The point is when both parents are working, it is not some grand exception that children are abnormal. It's the rule.
https://www.thestreet.com/opinion/the-pros-and-cons-of-a-two-income-household-13379002
In a theoretical $1000 a week (i.e. $104k yearly between both) two-working-parent household, this is what the breakdown looks like.
Weekly Gross Income from Second Paycheck: $1,000
6.2% Social Security Tax: ($62)
Federal Income Tax: ($175)
State Tax (may vary by state): ($40)
Day Care: ($250)
Gas ($100)
Dry Cleaning: ($30)
Lunch/Coffee/Etc. ($50)
Effective Weekly Income from Second Paycheck: $293
The extra income doesn't do much good, and not only are the children raised by day care instead of their parents, but they are now fighting each other because any extra income is now lost.
No, sorry, this situation does not work.
-
Hey bulmbyou may want to hear robert reich
-
Why would I want to do that?
You may want to hear William Lane Craig.
Do I believe you will do that? No. Unlike you, I have no delusions that human beings do or believe in anything besides what they want.
You can also hear this testimony of how someone converted from Catholicism to Christianity.
-
I never said it was the only example. It's just the example that I am looking at right at the moment.
My point is that you develop a notion, then carpet bomb, smear it all over the rest of humanity yelling, "I am right!". You have no idea how 2 income families thrive or not for the entirety of humanity. I've know a gazillion families where both parents worked and everything was great. I've known a gazillion single parent families where it was great for all involved too. I've know a gazillion of both where it wasn't so great, for myriad reasons, not necessarily because of 1 parent or 2 parents working. It's a varied experience for everyone. With so many variable contributing factors. Not a bizarre one size fits all.
But no, here you all, all knowing, proclaiming to all of humanity that their "situation does not work". Who in the world do you think you are? Are you really, conceivably, that arrogant? That you know best for everyone? It's not the muddle of jesus here, it's your messianic complex that's on display. No muddle, clear as day. You really need to let some of the air out of that hyper-inflated ego of yours.
-
No, I understand how double income families "thrive." But you don't understand that there is more to thriving than just financial.
The mother gets up early to fix their kid a breakfast and pack a lunch. They then rush out the door. Assuming full-time at 8 hours, five days a week (some, like lawyers, work even more because monetary success is "thriving"), they work from 9 to 5 for the mom, and let's say 5 to 3 (10 hours, 4 days) for the dad. The mom is too late to pick up her kids, the dad is tired from a ten hour job. Neither is in any shape to pick up kids on top of that. The husband does it anyway, risking the kids' safety. Then the mom, who has just had 8 hours of work realizes she didn't have any time to grocery shop. She spends an hour getting groceries for the week. She hasn't planned a meal though, as her time was rushing to the store after a hard day's work. So actually, despite having bought groceries, much of American groceries are thrown out because workers have about two hours more for fulltime than they ought to have for less money than they should be paid. They are nervous, burnt out, and their children are either stressed out from activities to keep them busy (see also, soccer mom) or they incredibly lonely (see also, latchkey kid).
Children need loving homes but dual-income households provide only a strained and hectic environment. Parents that love their kids try to keep in contact, and are worn out most weeks trying to do it all. Parents that don't love their kids hire a cleaner. The cleaner acts as a cheap nanny for the children, while they desperately try to have down time. You know, that down time that they are working so hard for? Money for vacations, for nice things, heck money for a secure roof over their heads. But all of these are eaten away by child care. They can never relax whether they raise children themselves or leave it to a nanny. It's just not feasible. There aren't enough hours in a day, as about 2 hours are needed to pivot between work and family, and it's just not there! The model should be revised from 8 hours to 6 hours, from 40 a week to 30 a week, and up the pay to supplement. If you revised the work day, maybe, maybe you could have two working parents. 8 or 10 hour shifts? Fucking waste of everyone's time, and makes it difficult to have an actual life, especially if you don't want to cut heavily into sleep. 6 hours work, 6 hours sleep, 12 hours life. This is how life should be. 8/8/8 is not sensible, cuts far too deeply into family time, and creates stress and burnout.
I may be known to carpet bomb a bit.
-
No, I understand how double income families "thrive." But you don't understand that there is more to thriving than just financial.
I am by no means limiting any sort of "thriving" to finances. I'm talking about healthy, happy families. Not money. When I mention 2 income families, I'm not referring to whatever amount of money is made. I'm talking about 2 working parent families. Income comes from working. As well, two parents working may be making a lot, or a little, or anywhere inbetween based upon the work they do and how much they are compensated for it.
-
Alright, show me where in an eight to ten hour schedule this happens.
I'm not talking one works part-time, the other works full-time. This is extra income not two incomes. I approve of extra income, unlike the woke "you can have it all" model, it actually makes work-life-balance sense.
Regardless of amount of money made, it's the hours that create a problem. Either neither are there for the kids (9 to 5, eight hr job, when schools get out about 3) and both have to do chores in the evening, or the dad takes night shift and they are ships passing in the night, and they still aren't there for kids. Or one works early and long (ten to twelve hour shift) so they get Friday off, but is totally useless the other days of the week. "Honey will you take out the trash?" "Uhhh what part of, ' I've been working 12 hours straight today ' do you not get?"
That plus groceries and chores means even less time wirh family, and mostly by the end of it, they aren't up for cooking so the food gets wasted.
-
Alright, show me where in an eight to ten hour schedule this happens.
Nope, it's your claim that the two income family "situation does not work" for all two income families. You need to back that claim. Not just a sample size of 1, all of them, around the world. Let us know what you come up with.
-
Why would I want to do that?
You may want to hear William Lane Craig.
Do I believe you will do that? No. Unlike you, I have no delusions that human beings do or believe in anything besides what they want.
You can also hear this testimony of how someone converted from Catholicism to Christianity.
Pff
Insulting.
Dont project on me your own incomoetenece to expand your mind.
You should look uo robreich becaue he also d9esnt like the 2income family.
One ofnhis talks he says DINS. Double income no sex.
2 workers no sex makss lots of unhappy family.
Im continue to be here becaus i like to know what you guys think about.
I can disagree but at least i put in some efforts.
Youre right -people will only do waht they want.
And i want to learn different pov.
You?
You will do what you want, but what you want isnt what i want or what atash wants or etc.
Why wouldnt you lok up robreich?
You just showed us how you continue tobe a pos.
Amazing.
-
You can also hear this testimony of how someone converted from Catholicism to Christianity.
Ummm, Catholicism is Christian, a denomination of Christianity. Whether you like it or not.
Christianity can be taxonomically divided into six main groups: the Church of the East, Oriental Orthodoxy, Eastern Orthodoxy, Roman Catholicism, Protestantism, and Restorationism.
(http://a.abcnews.com/images/US/ChangingReligiousLandscape_01_V2_SD.jpg)
-
Well to him jesus was also a speech writer for ghandi?
You think hell know the difference of christian deniminations?
-
Well to him jesus was also a speech writer for ghandi?
You think hell know the difference of christian deniminations?
Apparently he doesn't what christian denominations are.
-
Ummm, Catholicism is Christian, a denomination of Christianity. Whether you like it or not.
Is it tho.
Well, first of all, she's a teenager. Second, she makes a good case for why it really isn't.
(http://a.abcnews.com/images/US/ChangingReligiousLandscape_01_V2_SD.jpg)
??? What actually is this chart depicting? It's comparing Christianity with atheism, and then other religions. But this is the actual breakdown of world religion.
(https://i.pinimg.com/originals/3f/09/24/3f0924d239b9b534a59e79dee25f3588.jpg)
Yes, Catholicism is assumed to be Christianity but it has several marked differences from what Christ actually taught. Or what is discussed from Acts and the letters.
- The worship of Mary, the mother of Jesus, and the use of the term, "Mother of God", as applied to her, originated in the Council of Ephesus. Also calling her "Queen of Heaven," a term traced back to Babylonian demon-goddess Ishtar.
- The wafers and wine literally become Jesus's body and blood (other Christianity says it's a symbol)
- Veneration of angels and dead saints. Only worship of God and Jesus is sanctioned, this is idolatry.
- Sign of the cross. It resembles sorcery mudras (hand motions).
- Prayers for the dead. This isn't immediately clear what the objection is, but it formed the background for the sales of indulgences.
- Purgatory, which is not mentioned in the Bible.
- Latin was made the official language of Catholicism for awhile. The Bible says that speaking in tongues as a miracle is quite different from gibberish. Latin was not commonly understood by the lay of the church.
- Prayers to Mary and the saints. God and Jesus are all we should pray to. Not dead people, and not Jesus's human mom.
- The Pope (literally meaning "Father") existing at all. There is no Father but God.
- The kissing of Pope's feet. This is a pagan custom toward emperors.
- Jesus said that his people should not lord over others. Yet the Pope is quite literally an earthly leader, and has a kingdom in Rome.
- The worship of the cross, images, and relics. This is idolatry.
- Holy water. As though a priest can make water holy.
- Veneration of St. Joseph. Joseph is just Jesus's earthly dad. Just as Mary isn't anything other than human, Joseph shouldn't be worshiped.
- Baptism of bells.
- Canonization of dead saints. Every follower of Jesus is called a saint in the Bible. But Catholicism gave standards for sainthood in defiance ofthis idea.
- Fasting on Fridays. The Bible says we don't need to fast while Jesus is with us. Jesus has risen, so any fasting is voluntary only.
- The Mass was developed gradually as a sacrifice, and attendance made obligatory in the 11th century. But the Bible teaches that the sacrifice of Christ was offered once and for all, and is not to be repeated, but only commemorated in the Lord's Supper.
- The celibacy of the priesthood. But Peter was married, and Jesus made no commandment against marriage.
- The Rosary or prayer beads. Such objects are also used by Hindus, Buddhists, and Muslims. Counting prayers is a pagan practice, not a Christian one.
- The Inquisition. Jesus did not teach that the use of force should be used to spread religion, nor that Christians be tested as in the Spanish Inquisition. "A house divided cannot stand." It is impossible for the Catholic church to punish people who were potentially Christian if it really is of Christianity.
- The sale of indulgences. Jesus himself personally protested the sale of atonement sacrifices.
- Confession of sin to the priest. God, and by extension, Jesus are the only ones that can forgive sins. And he did so already.
- The adoration of the wafer. the Roman Church worships a God made by human hands (idolatry), to say nothing of literally worshiping bread.
- The Bible was forbidden to laymen and placed in the Index of forbidden books. The Bible is to be read by all. This and Latin kept the scriptures out of reach for regular people.
- The Scapular (a piece of brown cloth, with the picture of the Virgin and supposed to contain supernatural virtue to protect from all dangers those who wear it on naked skin). Once again, idolatry and fetishism.
- Roman Church forbade the cup to believers. This was attempted during the heresy that is COVID precautions in the Protestant church. But this is at odds with the Communion which is a remembrance of the Passover before Christ suffered.
- Catholicism has 7 sacraments. Christianity has only two: baptism and communion.
- Ave Maria. Venerating Mary in a prayer.
- The Council of Trent, held in the year 1545, declared that Tradition is of equal authority with the Bible. By tradition is meant human teachings. The Pharisees believed the same way, and Jesus bitterly condemned them, for by teaching human tradition, they nullified the commandments of God.
- They came up with the Creed of Pope Pious (instead of creeds based on the scriptures).
- Immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mary. Mary is a sinner. There wasn't anything special about her womb.
- Papal Infallibility. In effect, the Pope is declaring his word to be the word of God. This is blasphemy.
- The Catholic church condemned all discoveries of modern science (1907)
- In 1930, the Catholic church condemned public schools (I actually agree with this, but I'm not the Pope declaring it by fiat either)
- Claims once again that Mary is "Mother of God." Mary herself says otherwise.
- The assumption of Virgin Mary, the myth that she was taken directly to heaven.
- And all the woke crap Francis has taught, including approving the veneration of Pachamama, a South American idol.
https://www.ibtimes.sg/did-pope-francis-worship-pagan-idols-vatican-pachamama-statue-row-flares-34356
https://www.miketheburns.com/why-catholicism-is-not-christianity/
"But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other Gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed." (Galatians 1:8 ) This isn't real Christianity, without even going through 95 points.
https://www.compellingtruth.org/Catholic-Church.html
There are certainly born-again Catholics who love God and do not worship Mary. However, inherent within the Catholic doctrines mentioned in this article are the underlying issues of: works-based salvation, the exaltation of Mary, and the claim that a human priest is necessary to be the mediator between humans and God. These key factors seem to distinguish Catholicism as its own separate religion, rather than just a denomination within Christianity.
While the church proper has some issues left over from Catholicism cornering the market for centuries and Protestantism failed to expunge all of them, Catholicism has them blatantly and deliberately, with Pope introducing more and more pagan nonsense. This was a Roman pagan attempt to corrupt and water down Christianity.
Too bad Christianity cannot be corrupted (if our sins are forgiven unconditionally, then the worst a false church can do is mislead or confuse us).
-
Ummm, Catholicism is Christian, a denomination of Christianity. Whether you like it or not.
Is it tho.
Well, first of all, she's a teenager. Second, she makes a good case for why it really isn't.
Yes, Catholicism is assumed to be Christianity but it has several marked differences from what Christ actually taught. Or what is discussed from Acts and the letters.
All of the various christian denominations differ. That's, ummm, what makes for different denominations. Otherwise there would just be one. But they are all still christian. So there's no, "converting from catholicism to christianity" thing like you said. I really don't know what your point is.
-
My point is that sometime between 30 A.D. and 300 A.D. probably closer to the latter, as Catholicism's story about directly being descended from Peter, and that Peter was the first Pope is a lie. There was never the title of Pope made for Peter (the title itself is blasphemy), and he was never in Rome.
https://www.controversyextraordinary.com/2015/04/never-pope-never-in-rome-was-apostle.html
If I had to trace the real origin , I'd put the origin with Constantine, a pagan sun-worshiper who claimed he converted to Christianity but we never have any peoof of this. Yet we have all too ample theory that maybe his real intent was to twist or subvert Christianity.
But you say, "How can that be?!? The Catholic church was clearly the first chu..." Lemme stop you there.
Before the Catholic church, there was something called the Early Church. The Early Church consisted of Jesus's direct disciples, the followers they made, and Paul.
These people were real Christians, they believed in life after death so strongly that when faced the prospect of being fed to lions, they nonetheless never recanted that Jesus is Risen. The Jesus is alive, and dwells among us.
But Catholicism? They immediately taught Revelation, a false text which tells Christians that Jesus has gone away, that he is sitting on a throne up in heaven while your grandma dies of cancer. If she's a good Catholic and confesses her sins to the priest, she'll stay out of Purgatory. If she's any other denomination (actual Christians), and believes she has to go to God and not to a priest and that God already forgave sins by dying on the cross, the Catholics probably even sentence her to Hell. But you can pray for her in Purgatory, and back when it was legal (before Luther nailed them), you could pay off her sins with money.
Does this sound like Christianity? No, first of all, the teaching of Revelation as canon means Christians arw to believe (at odds with Early Church) that there is something to fear from death, and that God and Jesus are distant, only watching from a throne. To say nothing of both acting like a bloodthirsty murderer all through Revelation. Almost like some third party deliberately changed the narrative of Christianity. jesus died and rose from the dead. He repeatedly appeared, in one case to about 500 people. The Early Church takes this as verification that Jesus overcame death, and we do not have to fear death. Whether we are Christians, Buddhists, Jews, or Catholic.
So why does it matter? If Jesus forgives all sins, how could it it matter that the "denomination" (religion) of Catholicism is not actually Christianity? Well, it doesn't ultimately matter, but in this world, much like the abusive relationships ex-Catholic girl got, when you are in a bad place spiritually, you are in Hell on Earth. That's right, I reject the idea of eternal torment in the Afterlife. It's not something that jives biblically. But if you've ever waited in the DMV for hours, you know there is Hell on Earth. This pain ends though, it is there only to refine us (to remove the dross). A lake of fire? No. Only found in Revelation, and Revelation was only accepted by the Orthodox church under alot of prodding. Luther wanted to leave it out, but then mysteriously later he accepts it. It's not like someone else wrote under his name or anything.
About this Book of the Revelation of John, I leave everyone free to hold his own opinions. I would not have anyone bound to my opinion or judgment. I say what I feel. I miss more than one thing in this book, and it makes me consider it to be neither apostolic nor prophetic.
First and foremost, the apostles do not deal with visions, but prophesy in clear and plain words, as do Peter and Paul, and Christ in the gospel. For it befits the apostolic office to speak clearly of Christ and his deeds, without images and visions. Moreover there is no prophet in the Old Testament, to say nothing of the New, who deals so exclusively with visions and images. For myself, I think it approximates the Fourth Book of Esdras; I can in no way detect that the Holy Spirit produced it.
Moreover he seems to me to be going much too far when he commends his own book so highly - indeed, more than any of the other sacred books do, though they are much more important - and threatens that if anyone takes away anything from it, God will take away from him, etc. Again, they are supposed to be blessed who keep what is written in this book; and yet no one knows what that is, to say nothing of keeping it. This is just the same as if we did not have the book at all. And there are many far better books available for us to keep.
Many of the fathers also rejected this book a long time ago; although St. Jerome, to be sure, refers to it in exalted terms and says that it is above all praise and that there are as many mysteries in it as words. Still, Jerome cannot prove this at all, and his praise at numerous places is too generous.
Finally, let everyone think of it as his own spirit leads him. My spirit cannot accommodate itself to this book. For me this is reason enough not to think highly of it: Christ is neither taught nor known in it. But to teach Christ, this is the thing which an apostle is bound above all else to do; as Christ says in Acts 1:8, “You shall be my witnesses.” Therefore I stick to the books which present Christ to me clearly and purely.
This is what he says about it.
Luther later discarded this preface and replaced it with a new one in 1530. The second preface doesn’t carry the same negative tone as the first. In fact, he thinks readers can indeed “profit” from the book, particular in terms of finding “comfort” in the hope it emits, as well as the “warning” it gives with respect to trials and persecution (LW 35:409). He ends his new preface with the following paragraph:
“In a word, our holiness is in heaven, where Christ is; and not in the world, before men’s eyes, like goods in the market place. Therefore let there be offenses, divisions, heresies, and faults; let them do what they can! If only the word of the gospel remains pure among us, and we love and cherish it, we shall not doubt that Christ is with us, even when things are at their worst. As we see here in this book , that through and beyond all plagues, beasts, and evil angels Christ is nonetheless with his saints, and wins the final victory” (LW 35:411).
Yeah, right. This seems if someone hacked my account and tried to get me to say, "Trump sucks, and you should all vote for Joe Biden." I'm gonna chalk it up to unauthorized copies circulating and spread by Catholics. You don't sat something this negative about a book and then suddenly decide it's profitable to read. So let me be clear. There is NOTHING of profit or worth in Revelation, it is a lie built to prop up the works doctrine of fake Christians, and there is no way a man committed to salvation by grace would read it and say it's not so bad. The Catholics added it to canon as a deliberate attempt to obscure the Gospel.
"Jesus will come again in glory," they say. Why? Why should Jesus come again in glory? Jesus ALREADY came again. He resurrected from death and appeared to humanity. His resurrection was in turn accompanied by several woeful signs against the Jews at their hardness of heart. The doors of the temple swinging open. The cloth remaining red. The lights of the temple going out. The lot falling on scapegoat. All of these signs happened for forty years straight as Talmud itself recounts (blaming it on Christians using insane troll logic), then the Jews died from the brutal destruction of the temple. The book of Revelation is a revenge fantasy against the kings (Rome) and the "synagogue of Satan" (Early Church). It was not written by the Early Church. It was written by the people they complain about in Acts and the letters, who teach circumcision of the flesh rather than Christ raised. The enemies of the church. These same enemies conspired to corrupt the Gospel.
But you cannot corrupt the Gospel. God's Word is not the pages of a book, it is Jesus himself. If you feel as though you have seen Jesus, parts of the Bible at odds with him are highlighted for the lies they are. They become obvious that Jesus is not a part of them.
Likewise for fake churches that claim to be Christian.
-
My point is that sometime between 30 A.D. and 300 A.D. probably closer to the latter, as Catholicism's story about directly being descended from Peter, and that Peter was the first Pope is a lie. There was never the title of Pope made for Peter (the title itself is blasphemy), and he was never in Rome.
Cool, so you're not an adherent of this particular denomination of Christianity. Much like Evangelicals probably aren't adherents of Eastern Orthodoxy. But they all fall under the banner of Christianity. So if you're just sharing your preference within Christianity, well, thanks for sharing. Otherwise, there's no such thing as converting from a christian denomination to "christianity" as one is already there. No conversion required.
-
I'm telling you it's not a denomination.
What part of "Catholicism is not Christianity" do you not understand?
Suppose I claimed to be Christian, and my church told you that Jesus did not die on the cross, Mary was a shapeshifting goblin and actually a man, and uhhh licking Ring Pops can make you blind. Am I a Christian or something else? Well, when my beliefs are simply strange but inoffensive, you can say "He/she is a crazy Christian." If something about them is antithetical to the original religion, it's important to admit it is a separate religion.
At what point would you say that a religion is different enough from the source material to be a separate material? After all, Hinduism is not Buddhism. Buddhism was originally supposed to be a Vedic reform, then ppl wanted to keep caste syatem, so no. Btw, as a side note? Untouchable caste is rumored to have started about the time of Buddhism. Which is why Buddhism moved east.
Christianity is not Judaism. I see, but Catholicism? Of COURSE it's Christianity, even though Popes come up with some new lie every 20 to 50 years. You saw how long that list is.
Orthodox Christianity is prone to icons, but unlike Catholicism, there isn't a sense of random shut told and ppl have to accept it. Evangelicals are a bit more fringe than my taste, but they are
Catholics are not Christianity in much the same way as Mormons or Muslims aren't Christianity. Anyone who has studied Mormon faith knows it is a cult, not a denomination of Christianity. Christians don't believe Jesus went to Utah.
And you know that Islam is not Christianity, but lemme explain something to you. It probably used to be related.
It was a heresy that started in Petra (not Mecca, as they tell you).
-
I'm telling you it's not a denomination.
Well, you're obviously wrong...
Chris·ti·an·i·ty
/ˌkrist(SH)ēˈanədē/
noun
The religion based on the person and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth, or its beliefs and practices.
And you don't get to decide. Thinking that you do is just another example of your blind, overwhelming arrogance. I'm just glad you have zero power in society.
-
I'm telling you it's not a denomination.
Well, you're obviously wrong...
Chris·ti·an·i·ty
/ˌkrist(SH)ēˈanədē/
noun
The religion based on the person and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth, or its beliefs and practices.
And you don't get to decide. Thinking that you do is just another example of your blind, overwhelming arrogance. I'm just glad you have zero power in society.
I'm afraid that worshipers do get to decide the rules of their own worship.
You may worship experts as gods, but that's not how Christianity works.
42So Jesus called them together and said, “You know that those regarded as rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their superiors exercise authority over them. 43But it shall not be this way among you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant
Christianity is egalitarian, not hierarchical.
Which means I get to decide how I worship. God gets to correct me if it's wrong.
Not some bureaucrats or people who write dictionary definitions. Not some guy in a funny hat either.
There is no "approved orthodoxy" on what constitutes Christianity, so Christians can say that one sect is or isn't Christian based on purely personal definitions.
But if we are working with that definition, ummmm... didn't I just give 38 reasons why it is not based on the person and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth, or its beliefs and practices?
Actually, I gave 39, as I also pointed out that they Pope actually condoned the worship of pagan idols.
https://bigthink.com/the-past/worst-popes-history/
Here's a solid 40. Not many Popes were actually spiritual. Secular leaders that did awful things even to other Popes (one Pope dug up another and desecrated his body). With leaders like these... how exactly is Catholicism based on the person and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth?
We can all agree that that Jews don't see Christianity as Jewish.
How do you think they rejected Christianity? Wait, that might be an apples and oranges comparison. Judaism can be very much a "religion by committee" where if the rabbi says you can't do it, it's forbidden.
-
Which means I get to decide how I worship.
Correct. Which has no bearing on whether a catholic worshipper is christian enough for you. As they get to decide how they worship just as you do. And they get to decide if they are Christians, you do not.
-
That is correct.
But when people tell me that I have to accept them as Christians, I tell them no I don't. They are a false religion, and that is why.
They can go on believing prayers to Mary work, and that bread turns into the body of Christ. They cross the line only when they try to shame people into donating for a "Christian charity" or telling their "Christian brothers" to do something. Sorry, but I don't have to accept your authority, Catholics.
Objectively speaking though, they have nothing in common with the Way that Christ taught.
-
Objectively speaking though, they have nothing in common with the Way that Christ taught.
According to your subjective interpretation. So you have an opinion, great. Feel free to go about your world thinking other christian denominations don't meet your personal criteria for being a christian. But your opinion has no bearing on anything. It's just your personal notion.
In the mean time, the denominations will go about their christian business regardless of what you think just like you will go about thinking your interpretation is the only valid one. Such is the bigotry built into all religions.
-
Objectively speaking though, they have nothing in common with the Way that Christ taught.
According to your subjective interpretation. So you have an opinion, great. Feel free to go about your world thinking other christian denominations don't meet your personal criteria for being a christian. But your opinion has no bearing on anything. It's just your personal notion.
In the mean time, the denominations will go about their christian business regardless of what you think just like you will go about thinking your interpretation is the only valid one. Such is the bigotry built into all religions.
Correct, my personal notion is EXACTLY the same as any orthodoxy that teaches that Catholicism is part of the mother church (we're relevant dammit) and that Peter was the first Pope. It's opinion, not the truth.
It's not bigotry though. I don't go around beating up Catholics. The people involved in Catholicism, being prejudiced against them is bigotry. To think that an ideology is false is not.
Suppose your best friend joins The People Of Flat Earth, a hardcore FE cult (to the best of my knowledge this cult doesn't exist, but I will look it up). If you are a decent friend, you do not suddenly hate your friend, do you? You hate the cult that took your friend away from you.
-
Objectively speaking though, they have nothing in common with the Way that Christ taught.
According to your subjective interpretation. So you have an opinion, great. Feel free to go about your world thinking other christian denominations don't meet your personal criteria for being a christian. But your opinion has no bearing on anything. It's just your personal notion.
In the mean time, the denominations will go about their christian business regardless of what you think just like you will go about thinking your interpretation is the only valid one. Such is the bigotry built into all religions.
Correct, my personal notion is EXACTLY the same as any orthodoxy that teaches that Catholicism is part of the mother church (we're relevant dammit) and that Peter was the first Pope. It's opinion, not the truth.
Correct, your's is an opinion, not the truth. So, I guess, thanks for sharing your opinion.
It's not bigotry though. I don't go around beating up Catholics. The people involved in Catholicism, being prejudiced against them is bigotry. To think that an ideology is false is not.
Unfortunately, bigotry is built into any religion. And you don't have to go around beating up people to be a bigot. And I'm not saying you are a bigot, though you lean hard in that direction, I'm saying religion is all about "I am right and everyone else is wrong..." and then act accordingly.
big·ot·ry
/ˈbiɡətrē/
noun
obstinate or unreasonable attachment to a belief, opinion, or faction, in particular prejudice against a person or people on the basis of their membership of a particular group.
Pretty much sums up religion right there.
-
Where did you get that from? Google Definitions?
But let's examine it.
"Obstinate or unreasonable attachment to a belief, opinion, or faction, in particular prejudice against a person or people on the basis of their membership of a particular group."
It's against people, not ideologies.
If I rightly observed that Twelve Tribes took my sister, forced her to give up all her money, and now she hates our family, calling us "heathens", the one with a bigoted or prejudiced viewpoint is her, not me. I love my sister. And those things actually happened.
But she is the one who pre-judged me (what prejudice means, an unfair judgement made ahead of time), and she is the one exhibiting bigotry. The person who was my sister is in a cult that teachers her to hate others.
I don't hate on Catholics. I hate Catholicism.
I don't hate on Muslims. I hate Islam.
Etc.
The person is not the problem. It's the toxic ideas that are the problem. If I've ever taught otherwise, I ask forgiveness.
-
I don't hate on Muslims. I hate Islam.
You're basically asking the ISIS to behead you.
If you hate Islam, Muslims will behead you for insulting Islam.
Fucking cult.
-
Where did you get that from? Google Definitions?
Something often referred to as a "Dictionary". Something you are unfamiliar with?
But let's examine it.
"Obstinate or unreasonable attachment to a belief, opinion, or faction, in particular prejudice against a person or people on the basis of their membership of a particular group."
It's against people, not ideologies.
If I rightly observed that Twelve Tribes took my sister, forced her to give up all her money, and now she hates our family, calling us "heathens", the one with a bigoted or prejudiced viewpoint is her, not me. I love my sister. And those things actually happened.
But she is the one who pre-judged me (what prejudice means, an unfair judgement made ahead of time), and she is the one exhibiting bigotry. The person who was my sister is in a cult that teachers her to hate others.
I don't hate on Catholics. I hate Catholicism.
I don't hate on Muslims. I hate Islam.
Etc.
The person is not the problem. It's the toxic ideas that are the problem. If I've ever taught otherwise, I ask forgiveness.
Ideologies don't just exist in a vacuum. It takes a human to take an ideology and put it into practice. So when someone takes the ideology of, let's say, christianity, and applies it against another faith and claims that they are right and the other is wrong, that's not the ideologies fault, it's the human espousing it.
And again, you hating an ideology is an opinion. It doesn't even in the remotest sense make you right. It's just your preference. So you have shared your preference. Cool. I'm not a fan of rocky road ice cream, but I don't think it's wrong for someone else to like it.
What I would prefer is if everyone would just keep to their faiths, not claim the others are wrong, just be happy in your own belief system and within which, don't peddle in atrocities and don't try and smear your belief system onto everyone else. And certainly keep it all far away from public policy.
-
Yes, ideologies don't kill people, people kill people.
But people can be freed from brainwashing. Ideas remain the same, until people revise their writings.
In the days of Jesus, he talked trash to the Pharisees. Was he "bigoted" against Pharisees? No, he was trying to get them to see how their actions hurt the widows, the poor, and the orphans. Their laws kept people working when taxes were starving them to death, they kept people from being healed because they were unclean, and they kept the poor from being forgiven. He spoke against the system, he wanted the people to be redeemed.
Do I hate Jews? No. I don't. I support the nation of Israel, and I oppose the nation of "Palestine." But I recognize that the Pharisees are still with us, the "rabbis" misleading Jews and telling them lies about Jesus.
They don't even know who this verse refers to! Jewish people are not the problem. Jewish teaching is the problem. That their people don't have a proper education against what they are fighting means they are indoctrinated.
How does Catholicism hurt people? How does Islam hurt people? How does atheism hurt people?
You want me to tell you?
When I say that it is important to free people from toxic ideas, can you agree, even if you think mine are toxic?
-
Yes, ideologies don't kill people, people kill people.
So I guess you're now saying that you hate the people and not the ideology. Interesting.
But people can be freed from brainwashing. Ideas remain the same, until people revise their writings.
In the days of Jesus, he talked trash to the Pharisees. Was he "bigoted" against Pharisees? No, he was trying to get them to see how their actions hurt the widows, the poor, and the orphans. Their laws kept people working when taxes were starving them to death, they kept people from being healed because they were unclean, and they kept the poor from being forgiven. He spoke against the system, he wanted the people to be redeemed.
Do I hate Jews? No. I don't. I support the nation of Israel, and I oppose the nation of "Palestine." But I recognize that the Pharisees are still with us, the "rabbis" misleading Jews and telling them lies about Jesus.
They don't even know who this verse refers to! Jewish people are not the problem. Jewish teaching is the problem. That their people don't have a proper education against what they are fighting means they are indoctrinated.
Apparently, Isaiah 53 is in the Hebrew bible, in fact, the most common one.
The standard Hebrew edition that serves as the basis for most modern translations is Codex Leningradensis (1008). Other manuscripts of the Masoretic Text tradition include Codex Cairensis (895), the Petersburg Codex of the Prophets (916), and the Aleppo Codex (10th century).[3]
And just because you have a video of a guy asking random folks whether they know that chapter doesn't mean Rabbis don't teach it. I could ask a bunch of christians on the street and ask them if they know that chapter and if they don't does that mean their minister/priest didn't teach it?
Not to mention your video is from some evangelical org. How do you know they didn't leave those who were asked and were aware of the chapter on the cutting room floor?
Additionally, the OT describing the coming of a messiah is not news to Jews. They just believe that Jesus wasn't the one. Much like Islam and every other religion in the world.
In short, there is nothing "forbidden" about that chapter and it has nothing to do with rabbis teaching.
How does Catholicism hurt people? How does Islam hurt people? How does atheism hurt people?
You want me to tell you?
No need, they hurt people all in the same ways the entirety of Christianity does. Save for atheism as it is not institutionalized like Christianity and Islam are. I'm unaware of how the Church of Atheisim hurts people.
When I say that it is important to free people from toxic ideas, can you agree, even if you think mine are toxic?
Of course. That's like saying can we agree that murder is a crime even if you have murdered someone...
-
No, I'm not saying I hate people. Read on. This paragraph connects to that one.
The point being that it was brutally obvious who the guy was talking about. The older woman knew nothing about Jesus. And no, Jews aren't taught much about Jesus. He used to be in the Talmud (called Yeshu the sorcerer). But later copies of the Talmud outright erase references to him. This is enforced rabbinical suppression of the man.
Yes, Muslims and Jews deny him, despite pretending to be the same faith tradition. Actually he was the Messiah though. Even when knowledge of Jesus is suppressed we have two signs that Jews are utterly wrong about the Messiah.
https://www.equip.org/articles/the-jewish-talmud-and-its-use-for-christian-apologetics/
A number of weird omens shortly before the fall of the temple.
https://theculturetrip.com/middle-east/israel/articles/the-story-behind-jerusalems-sealed-golden-gate/
And the fact that the gate was sealed. Prophecy not only states that the Messiah will enter riding the donkey, but that after the Lord entered, it will be closed up. Sure enough, it is closed by Muslims in 810, opened by Christians in 1102, and closed again in 1187. Jesus said, "I'm gonna build a wall, and the Muslims are gonna pay for it." Only when Christians were in power was the gate opened.
I'm unaware of how the Church of Atheisim hurts people.
Lemme tell you house the church of atheism hurts people then. I wouldn't want you to be ignorant.
Even the awful cult of Catholicism recognizes that "every life is sacred" even though alleged Catholics like Joe Biden are pro-abortion .
Atheism hurts the unborn, as it doesn't care about life, it cares about the MOther's LEgitimate CHoice (MOLECH). It starts far more wars about land or money than any religious wars (about 3% of all wars were all religions but Islam, 4% were Muslim wars, and the rest were totally secular)
https://carm.org/atheism/the-myth-that-religion-is-the-1-cause-of-war/
(https://carm.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/wars-pie-chart.jpg.webp)
And it hurts society with random crusades for "justice" that result in bloodbaths. French Revolution anyone? And who can forget people killed under Lenin & Stalin? Even if your gonna blame Christianity on Hitler, the narrative falls apart with Mao, Pol Pot, Lenin, and other communists.
Now that I have explained in what way atheism is toxic, maybe you can make steps to free yourself from some of the toxic ideologies? For reference, Buddhists are also atheists, but seem to lack some of the violent aspects of state-funded atheism.
-
Reading a manga called NULLITAS: ITSUWARI NO HANAYOME, and there's this scene that kinda sums up Christianity for me. This girl is praying to Goddess Diana or anyone who will answer. The guy comes in and says "If I become your god, what will you do for me?"
It's not about distant deities off in the sky. It's about God talking to you here. Now. Maybe you argue with God. Maybe you get aong. That's not really relevant. It's that God isn't distant.
-
No, I'm not saying I hate people. Read on. This paragraph connects to that one.
The point being that it was brutally obvious who the guy was talking about. The older woman knew nothing about Jesus. And no, Jews aren't taught much about Jesus. He used to be in the Talmud (called Yeshu the sorcerer). But later copies of the Talmud outright erase references to him. This is enforced rabbinical suppression of the man.
Don't blame rabbis, blame the Catholics (Christians)...
There are several passages in the Talmud which are believed by some scholars to be references to Jesus. The name used in the Talmud is "Yeshu", the Aramaic vocalization (although not spelling) of the Hebrew name Yeshua.[1][2]
The identification of Jesus with any number of individuals named Yeshu has numerous problems, as most of the individuals are said to have lived in time periods far detached from that of Jesus; Yeshu the sorcerer is noted for being executed by the Hasmonean government which lost legal authority in 63 BC, Yeshu the student is described being among the Pharisees who returned to Israel from Egypt in 74 BC,[3][4][5] and Yeshu ben Pandera/ben Stada's stepfather is noted as speaking with Rabbi Akiva shortly before the rabbi's execution, an event which occurred in c. 134 AD.[6][7][8] These events would place the lifetime of any Yeshu decades before or after the birth and death of Jesus.[9][10]
The first Christian censorship of the Talmud happened in the year 521.[11] However, far better documented censorship began during the disputations of the Middle Ages. Catholic authorities under Pope Gregory IX[12][13] accused the Talmud of containing blasphemous references to Jesus and his mother, Mary. Jews responded to the disputations by saying there were no references to Jesus in the Talmud. They asserted that Joshua was a common Jewish name, along with its derivations, and that the citations referred to individuals other than Jesus. The disputations led to many of the references being removed (censored) from subsequent editions of the Talmud.
Yes, Muslims and Jews deny him, despite pretending to be the same faith tradition.
Conversely, Christians don't deny him, despite pretending to be the same faith tradition.
Actually he was the Messiah though.
Sure, according to Christians, but not to non-Christians. Pretty simple really.
Even when knowledge of Jesus is suppressed we have two signs that Jews are utterly wrong about the Messiah.
https://www.equip.org/articles/the-jewish-talmud-and-its-use-for-christian-apologetics/
A number of weird omens shortly before the fall of the temple.
https://theculturetrip.com/middle-east/israel/articles/the-story-behind-jerusalems-sealed-golden-gate/
And the fact that the gate was sealed. Prophecy not only states that the Messiah will enter riding the donkey, but that after the Lord entered, it will be closed up. Sure enough, it is closed by Muslims in 810, opened by Christians in 1102, and closed again in 1187. Jesus said, "I'm gonna build a wall, and the Muslims are gonna pay for it." Only when Christians were in power was the gate opened.
There's no right or wrong, just differing belief systems.
The Talmud does not comment on Christianity at all. Why would it? Just as the Buddhist Pali canon doesn't comment on Christianity. Christanity is irrelevant to other religions.
Except for maybe Islam. They recognize Jesus as a prophet, but not the messiah, and when Jesus show's up again, he converts to Islam. Kind of a funny, ironic switcheroo.
Lemme tell you house the church of atheism hurts people then. I wouldn't want you to be ignorant.
Even the awful cult of Catholicism recognizes that "every life is sacred" even though alleged Catholics like Joe Biden are pro-abortion .
Atheism hurts the unborn, as it doesn't care about life, it cares about the MOther's LEgitimate CHoice (MOLECH).
You're assuming all atheists are pro-choice and all theists are anti-abortion. Which is bizarre and unfounded. You just would like to think that.
It starts far more wars about land or money than any religious wars (about 3% of all wars were all religions but Islam, 4% were Muslim wars, and the rest were totally secular)
You're assuming all secularists are atheists. How does that work? You're also assuming that all wars that are not specifically religious wars are waged only by secularists which is completely, utterly false.
And it hurts society with random crusades for "justice" that result in bloodbaths. French Revolution anyone? And who can forget people killed under Lenin & Stalin? Even if your gonna blame Christianity on Hitler, the narrative falls apart with Mao, Pol Pot, Lenin, and other communists.
More of a communist/fascist/dictator issue than a religious/secular one. Pol Pot, for instance wanted all "intellectuals" dead. Had nothing to do with atheism or theism.
Now that I have explained in what way atheism is toxic, maybe you can make steps to free yourself from some of the toxic ideologies? For reference, Buddhists are also atheists, but seem to lack some of the violent aspects of state-funded atheism.
Actually, you haven't, but you sure do have a way of making disastrously incorrect, incoherent, and irrelevant broad generalizations about anything and everything.
I don't believe in state-funded atheism just as much as I don't believe in state-funded theism.
-
No, I'm not saying I hate people. Read on. This paragraph connects to that one.
The point being that it was brutally obvious who the guy was talking about. The older woman knew nothing about Jesus. And no, Jews aren't taught much about Jesus. He used to be in the Talmud (called Yeshu the sorcerer). But later copies of the Talmud outright erase references to him. This is enforced rabbinical suppression of the man.
Don't blame rabbis, blame the Catholics (Christians)...
There are several passages in the Talmud which are believed by some scholars to be references to Jesus. The name used in the Talmud is "Yeshu", the Aramaic vocalization (although not spelling) of the Hebrew name Yeshua.[1][2]
The identification of Jesus with any number of individuals named Yeshu has numerous problems, as most of the individuals are said to have lived in time periods far detached from that of Jesus; Yeshu the sorcerer is noted for being executed by the Hasmonean government which lost legal authority in 63 BC, Yeshu the student is described being among the Pharisees who returned to Israel from Egypt in 74 BC,[3][4][5] and Yeshu ben Pandera/ben Stada's stepfather is noted as speaking with Rabbi Akiva shortly before the rabbi's execution, an event which occurred in c. 134 AD.[6][7][8] These events would place the lifetime of any Yeshu decades before or after the birth and death of Jesus.[9][10]
The first Christian censorship of the Talmud happened in the year 521.[11] However, far better documented censorship began during the disputations of the Middle Ages. Catholic authorities under Pope Gregory IX[12][13] accused the Talmud of containing blasphemous references to Jesus and his mother, Mary. Jews responded to the disputations by saying there were no references to Jesus in the Talmud. They asserted that Joshua was a common Jewish name, along with its derivations, and that the citations referred to individuals other than Jesus. The disputations led to many of the references being removed (censored) from subsequent editions of the Talmud.
You're reading from Wikipedia, no? Yeshu, an acronym meaning "may his name and memory be erased", what do you think the Jews have tried to do? Yet Jesus died for sins, whether you remember he did it or not. In other words, these figures are myths. They made several figures up. It doesn't matter who made him up, as I have pointed out in my own writing (1) if the Romans hated him enough to distort him in Catholicism, and the (2) Jews hated him enough to make false references of Yeshu, he obviouslt existed. (3) This is because both sides accuse the other of making him up, therefore neither did. He was a real person.
Yes, Muslims and Jews deny him, despite pretending to be the same faith tradition.
Conversely, Christians don't deny him, despite pretending to be the same faith tradition.
You're not getting what I'm saying. The Muslims are not of the same faith tradition. Their book is a poorly plagiarized mess, and they are clearly actually descended from Arab peasants in Petra (not Mecca, as all of their earliest buildings orient north of Mecca).
https://understandingislam.today/ui3/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/Is_Petra_Islams_true_birthplace.pdf
The Christian people are from the Hebrews who rejected Canaanite polytheism, who became slaves of Egypt, who endured hardships, who became the Samaritans and the Jews. The Jews in turn endured Babylonian capitivity, returned, and had their temple desecrated, and finally the temple was repaired in time for Roman oppression to happen, and the Jewish text was given to Gentiles. This is a true line of succession.
But the Jews lost their birth right to their own religion when they began to make up lies about the Messiah (even a cursory glance of the Masoretic text shows that it is just awful), trying to erase the name and memory of Jesus. Their sacrifice of atonement became a burnt offering (Holocaust) of their own people. This is what restored them, wven though they rejected God's annointed.
Even when knowledge of Jesus is suppressed we have two signs that Jews are utterly wrong about the Messiah.
https://www.equip.org/articles/the-jewish-talmud-and-its-use-for-christian-apologetics/
A number of weird omens shortly before the fall of the temple.
https://theculturetrip.com/middle-east/israel/articles/the-story-behind-jerusalems-sealed-golden-gate/
And the fact that the gate was sealed. Prophecy not only states that the Messiah will enter riding the donkey, but that after the Lord entered, it will be closed up. Sure enough, it is closed by Muslims in 810, opened by Christians in 1102, and closed again in 1187. Jesus said, "I'm gonna build a wall, and the Muslims are gonna pay for it." Only when Christians were in power was the gate opened.
There's no right or wrong, just differing belief systems.
Well, I'm usually inclined to believe this. I don't actually care what people worship as long as they are genuine about it. But I despise cover-ups.
The Talmud does not comment on Christianity at all. Why would it? Just as the Buddhist Pali canon doesn't comment on Christianity. Christanity is irrelevant to other religions.
Except for maybe Islam. They recognize Jesus as a prophet, but not the messiah, and when Jesus show's up again, he converts to Islam. Kind of a funny, ironic switcheroo.
Yeah fuck Islam.
But no, Buddhism sometimes mentions Jesus as a Bodhisattva. Doesn't really reject or care about him. Ditto to Hinduism, although they reject Christianity in general as it interferes with their (ungodly slave system) caste system.
But you're totally wrong about Judaism. There used to be a prayer recited specifically against the Christian ppl by the Jews. They also widely mentioned in their Talmuds a man who was a sorcerer, son of a whore, and had five disciples.
Judaism underwent Christian censorship, and the portions about Yeshu were removed from many Talmuds. Which is what they wished, for their own people to be totally ignorant of their own Messiah.
But the Messiah coming is a fact. Jesus was a historical figure.
I don't believe in state-funded atheism just as much as I don't believe in state-funded theism.
Well, as long as you don't believe in state-funded atheism.
-
He was a real person.
And so what? Muhamed was a real person too. Being a real person in history obviously doesn't mean that they default to being the son of god or a prophet of god.
You're not getting what I'm saying. The Muslims are not of the same faith tradition. Their book is a poorly plagiarized mess, and they are clearly actually descended from Arab peasants in Petra (not Mecca, as all of their earliest buildings orient north of Mecca).
If you say so. Just another opinion and preference though. Doesn't apply to anyone or anything else. Just you and your personal belief system. So, I guess, good for you for having a preference.
Their sacrifice of atonement became a burnt offering (Holocaust) of their own people. This is what restored them, wven though they rejected God's annointed.
Wow, this is over the top and unfounded. You may want to tone down the rhetoric a smidge.
There's no right or wrong, just differing belief systems.
Well, I'm usually inclined to believe this. I don't actually care what people worship as long as they are genuine about it. But I despise cover-ups.
Plenty of coverups throughout christianity as a whole not just focused on one denomination.
And you're a self-professed scriptural revisionist. You would prefer to "cover up", dispense with Revelations, right? Ostensibly removing something from the bible that you don't like. What's the difference between you wanting to do that and any revisions christians or jews have made over the years?
The Talmud does not comment on Christianity at all. Why would it? Just as the Buddhist Pali canon doesn't comment on Christianity. Christanity is irrelevant to other religions.
Except for maybe Islam. They recognize Jesus as a prophet, but not the messiah, and when Jesus show's up again, he converts to Islam. Kind of a funny, ironic switcheroo.
Yeah fuck Islam.
But no, Buddhism sometimes mentions Jesus as a Bodhisattva. Doesn't really reject or care about him. Ditto to Hinduism, although they reject Christianity in general as it interferes with their (ungodly slave system) caste system.
But you're totally wrong about Judaism. There used to be a prayer recited specifically against the Christian ppl by the Jews. They also widely mentioned in their Talmuds a man who was a sorcerer, son of a whore, and had five disciples.
Judaism underwent Christian censorship, and the portions about Yeshu were removed from many Talmuds. Which is what they wished, for their own people to be totally ignorant of their own Messiah.
But the Messiah coming is a fact. Jesus was a historical figure.
I would say that yes, Jesus was a historical figure. Falls into the fact bucket. Anything beyond that is certainly not a "fact".
I don't believe in state-funded atheism just as much as I don't believe in state-funded theism.
Well, as long as you don't believe in state-funded atheism.
Yep, as well, I don't believe in state-funded theism.
-
State funded anti-theism is differrent from atheism.
-
State funded anti-theism is differrent from atheism.
Yes, excellent distinction. That's similar to what I was alluding to with, "You're assuming all atheists are pro-choice and all theists are anti-abortion."
-
He was a real person.
And so what? Muhamed was a real person too. Being a real person in history obviously doesn't mean that they default to being the son of god or a prophet of god.
That's the funny part. Muhammad's people make this nice cut and dry history for him, even though like with Jesus we have all these weird supernatural things going on.
But Robert Spencer doesn't think he existed, other historiographers don't think he existed, and neither do I.
When were Jesus's teachings codified in a book? Almost immediately. The latest was about 40 or so years later. We look at historical proximity when we look at historical accuracy. The furthest event (Revelation) I don't believe, because it's colored by the fall of the Temple. All of this while these disciples were busy being persecuted, and most of the time for setting up canon had to do with that they were actively writing letters back and forth, and had to gather them in one place. And recopy by hand.
When was Muhammad's story told? Nearly 100 years later in the wrong region (think about this, they were winning battles so there was no threat of his writings being destroyed, and surely even if the guy was unlettered, he could tell someone, 'Write this down, "Muhammad is not a madman"'). In fact, Muhammad is not even a name. It's a title. So the guy doesn't even have a name for centuries, his face doesn't even appear on coins for a few centuries, and it's awhile before they call themselves Islam or get the location of their home base right.
"Wait," you say, " How could you make up a historical character out of whole cloth?" Well, it's simple if you have an entire tribe trying to build a folk hero. They basically are like, "He should be able to lie, steal, and kill because the other religions are heathens." " He should be able to marry children, and have a bunch of wives." "Really, Randy?!? Oh whatever, sure might as well." They learned metallurgy, and made coins. They learned how to write. Mostly though, they copied what other people made.
The Arab people discovered that all around them, great cultures had great religions. Romans, Norse, & Egyptians had the gods. Jews had God and Moses. Zoroaster had two gods. But they didn't have anything cool happen to them. Ever. So they made something up.
Christianity had two groups actively not wanting him to exist. Both of these groups were trying to destroy his teachings, and in fact had a lot of trouble doing so. Even while they were eaten by lions in the bread & circuses, they made their pitch and ppl could sense there was something more real to their teaching than the hedonism of Roman culture. It was impossible for Romans to get rid of Christianity, as their own people quickly numbered among the converts.
When you ask a question, "who had a vested interest in spreading this faith?" Islam has a cut-and-dry answer. The Arab people have the most to gain by setting up as a hero some thug raider dude. When you ask that same question of Christianity , a funny thing happens. Christians didn't financially benefit. They tended to die. Romans didn't benefit. Jews didn't benefit. If Christianity is a fraud, why are two groups of people trying to kill it, and the third willing to die for it? People don't tend to die for a lie.
Here's the thing about atheism. It isn't real either. The same group of people that are atheists would have been pagans in Jesus's day. You need to study your pagan gods and goddesses, because obviously you've just lost touch with what you really believe in. If it's not Jesus, then by means, you should at least believe in something.
Yes, some people are atheists. But a great deal more have skipped the steps from "I don't believe in Christ" to "I don't believe in any religion."
You would prefer to "cover up", dispense with Revelations, right? Ostensibly removing something from the bible that you don't like.
It's nor that I don't like it. It's that if you look at the Gospel, Acts, and the Letters as some giant puzzle to what Jesus's life was like, even stuff like where he told ppl to buy a sword fits. Then you get to Revelation, and it's like "This is from another puzzle." I dunno what Jesus you think you're talking about, but this end-times Jesus seems more like Muhammad . So I threw it in the trash to be burned.
Also, it's one thing to revise a thing and be clear that "This is what I changed, and this is why." A cover-up involves ppl secretly sweeping things under the rug, and then acting like it's always been that way.
-
He was a real person.
And so what? Muhamed was a real person too. Being a real person in history obviously doesn't mean that they default to being the son of god or a prophet of god.
That's the funny part. Muhammad's people make this nice cut and dry history for him, even though like with Jesus we have all these weird supernatural things going on.
But Robert Spencer doesn't think he existed, other historiographers don't think he existed, and neither do I.
So what? Just as some historiographers don't think Jesus existed and billions don't think he was the son of god.
When were Jesus's teachings codified in a book? Almost immediately.
The Muratorian Canon, which is believed to date to 200 A.D., is the earliest compilation of canonical texts resembling the New Testament. It was not until the 5th century that all the different Christian churches came to a basic agreement on Biblical canon.
I wouldn't call that "immediately". No even "almost immediately".
If it's not Jesus, then by means, you should at least believe in something.
Why? And who is to say that atheists don't believe in anything? Atheists believe in a lot of things, just not the things that you do.
Yes, some people are atheists. But a great deal more have skipped the steps from "I don't believe in Christ" to "I don't believe in any religion."
Source?
You would prefer to "cover up", dispense with Revelations, right? Ostensibly removing something from the bible that you don't like.
It's nor that I don't like it. It's that if you look at the Gospel, Acts, and the Letters as some giant puzzle to what Jesus's life was like, even stuff like where he told ppl to buy a sword fits. Then you get to Revelation, and it's like "This is from another puzzle." I dunno what Jesus you think you're talking about, but this end-times Jesus seems more like Muhammad . So I threw it in the trash to be burned.
Yes, you threw a part of the bible in the trash and burned it because you didn't agree with it. To my point, sounds an awful like the revisions people have made to the bible for the last 1500+ years. No difference.
Also, it's one thing to revise a thing and be clear that "This is what I changed, and this is why." A cover-up involves ppl secretly sweeping things under the rug, and then acting like it's always been that way.
Right, and removing a whole chapter from the bible and burning it in the trash, if you actually had any sway, in a hundred years there would be bibles everywhere without Revelations and the vast majority of bible thumpers wouldn't even know that it's missing let alone why.
I would consider the New Testament apocrypha a sweeping under the rug, as it were. A ton of gospels were literally "put away", tossed out, canceled. And I bet the majority of Christians have never even heard of them let alone know why they were covered up and removed from the bible as we know it.
-
He was a real person.
And so what? Muhamed was a real person too. Being a real person in history obviously doesn't mean that they default to being the son of god or a prophet of god.
That's the funny part. Muhammad's people make this nice cut and dry history for him, even though like with Jesus we have all these weird supernatural things going on.
But Robert Spencer doesn't think he existed, other historiographers don't think he existed, and neither do I.
So what? Just as some historiographers don't think Jesus existed and billions don't think he was the son of god.
That's where you'd be wrong.
https://www.blueletterbible.org/Comm/stewart_don/faq/the-resurrection-of-jesus-christ/04-what-historical-facts-are-undisputed-about-jesus-and-his-resurrection.cfm
https://reasonsforjesus.com/jesus-exist-scholars-agree-certainly-existed/
https://beliefmap.org/jesus/exist
No serious scholar rejects the existence of Jesus Christ. This btw includes atheist scholars who only believed him to be a teacher, not a miracle worker. This includes Jews and secular authorities that hated him.
Even Wikipedia, which is edited by just about anyone and has known bias, nonetheless has this to say.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus
Virtually all scholars of antiquity accept that Jesus was a historical figure[note 1][note 2][4][5][6][7] and dismiss denials of his existence as a fringe theory, while many details like his alleged miracles are subject to debate.[8][9][10][11]
Here's (Note 1)
Stanton (2002, p. 145):Today nearly all historians, whether Christians or not, accept that Jesus existed and that the gospels contain plenty of valuable evidence which has to be weighed and assessed critically. There is general agreement that, with the possible exception of Paul, we know far more about Jesus of Nazareth than about any first or second century Jewish or pagan religious teacher.
Wells (2007, p. 446):"Today, most secular scholars accept Jesus as a historical, although unimpressive, figure."
Ehrman (2012b, pp. 4–5): "Serious historians of the early Christian movement—all of them—have spent many years preparing to be experts in their field. Just to read the ancient sources requires expertise in a range of ancient languages: Greek, Hebrew, Latin, and often Aramaic, Syriac, and Coptic, not to mention the modern languages of scholarship (for example, German and French). And that is just for starters. Expertise requires years of patiently examining ancient texts and a thorough grounding in the history and culture of Greek and Roman antiquity, the religions of the ancient Mediterranean world, both pagan and Jewish, knowledge of the history of the Christian church and the development of its social life and theology, and, well, lots of other things. It is striking that virtually everyone who has spent all the years needed to attain these qualifications is convinced that Jesus of Nazareth was a real historical figure."
Here's (Note 2)
Robert E. Van Voorst, referring to G. A. Wells: "The nonhistoricity thesis has always been controversial, and it has consistently failed to convince scholars of many disciplines and religious creeds ... Biblical scholars and classical historians now regard it as effectively refuted".[26]
While discussing the "striking" fact that "we don't have any Roman records, of any kind, that attest to the existence of Jesus", Ehrman dismisses claims that this means Jesus never existed, saying, "He certainly existed, as virtually every competent scholar of antiquity, Christian or non-Christian, agrees, based on clear and certain evidence."[27]
Robert M. Price, a former fundamentalist apologist who is now a Christian atheist, says the existence of Jesus cannot be ruled out, but is less probable than non-existence. He agrees that his perspective runs against the views of the majority of scholars.[28]
Michael Grant, a classicist, states: "In recent years, 'no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non-historicity of Jesus', or at any rate very few, and they have not succeeded in disposing of the much stronger, indeed very abundant, evidence to the contrary."[29] "There are those who argue that Jesus is a figment of the Church's imagination, that there never was a Jesus at all. I have to say that I do not know any respectable critical scholar who says that any more."[30]
Maurice Casey, an irreligious Emeritus Professor of New Testament Languages and Literature at the University of Nottingham, concludes in his book Jesus: Evidence and Argument or Mythicist Myths? that "the whole idea that Jesus of Nazareth did not exist as a historical figure is verifiably false. Moreover, it has not been produced by anyone or anything with any reasonable relationship to critical scholarship. It belongs to the fantasy lives of people who used to be fundamentalist Christians. They did not believe in critical scholarship then, and they do not do so now. I cannot find any evidence that any of them have adequate professional qualifications."[31]
Bockmuel: "Farfetched theories that Jesus' existence was a Christian invention are highly implausible."[32]
In other words, you are more fringe than a flat Earther if you debate Jesus's existence.
Hi, I'm the leader of the fringe theories club. Welcome to the club!
In other words, Muhammad has LESS of a historical foothold than Jesus and Moses.
In fact, despite the "consensus" on climate change, you have less consensus there than the existence of Jesus.
Which you'd know, if you got your information somewhere outside the secular propaganda.
When were Jesus's teachings codified in a book? Almost immediately.
The Muratorian Canon, which is believed to date to 200 A.D., is the earliest compilationof canonical texts resembling the New Testament. It was not until the 5th century that all the different Christian churches came to a basic agreement on Biblical canon.
https://www.biblegateway.com/blog/2016/02/when-was-each-book-of-the-bible-written/
https://biblearchaeologyreport.com/2019/02/15/the-earliest-new-testament-manuscripts/
All of the books of the New Testament were written within a lifetime of the death of Jesus of Nazareth. Not so the so-called “other gospels,” which were pseudepigraphical Gnostic works written 100-300 years later.
What you're referring to when you say a compilation is called a canon. A set of books strung together. I have a trilogy that I'm working on. The first book took me about five years to make. The second book took a month because it was a short story (for me), and I was working on it every day. Were I to complete the trilogy, finding a way to compress it would take still longer. I would have to find a publisher willing to make a one-off print copy that exceeded normal book length, or I would have to massively abridge the books.
Now think about this: The books were written individually by hand on papyrus, while being persecuted. They were not made into a compilation until much later. There was not a way to do this easily. Recopying a book by hand is an extremely lengthy process, and individual scrolls were likely handed around among followers. The concept of a single entire New Testament was even possible until centuries later. But the books of the Gospel were much older than this.
I wouldn't call that "immediately". No even "almost immediately".
Because you're not a historian. You don't understand that for every completed compilation, there are alot of scattered recopies. Nevertheless, the Quran was even first written years after Muhammad existed. In other words, the man was dated to a period where nobody was alive to verify this, and it only has the Quran to rely on as a source.
The New Testament has a number of secondary sources to confirm it. Hostile secondary sources. This is literally the best thing historically to happen to it. Why? Well, if you and all of your friends ghostwrite for Lovecraft, it doesn't matter that you claim that Lovecraft deities exist, as he's written about Cyaegha in his novels. This is a self-serving narrative. That you're involved in it doesn't make it true. But if some random Christian guy claimed that he was being pestered day and night by some freakish thing that looked like this
(https://images-wixmp-ed30a86b8c4ca887773594c2.wixmp.com/f/60ec36c4-188c-4882-9954-7a671afc6bc1/d1qxh6s-91fadd21-fd58-4ee1-9e5c-b5d1c7f821f5.jpg/v1/fill/w_800,h_689,q_75,strp/cyaegha_by_eyelessentity-d1qxh6s.jpg?token=eyJ0eXAiOiJKV1QiLCJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiJ9.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.0cnwFlr16T-MGG06-nmZvqRWh4nlPZ24AScrXRTKtlk)
then yes, followers of Cyaegha can say that he is real.
But it's not just one hostile witness. The New Testament has a few.
A pagan ruler named Plinius Caecilius Secundus, better known today as Pliny the Younger, was appointed governor of Bithynia in Asia Minor in what is today northern Turkey from A.D. 111 to 113.
During his governorship, he ran across a pesky group of religious zealots called Christians. There had been rumors about what the Christians did when they gathered, and Pliny felt that it was his duty to investigate and report to the emperor exactly what the Christians were up to. He completed his investigation and reported his findings in a letter to the emperor Trajan sometime around A.D. 112.
Already, we're before your 200 AD date by 100 years.
Marcus Cornelius Fronto (A.D. 100-166), in a speech recorded by the pagan writer Caecilius, alleged that Christian worship involved “ritual murder and cannibalism.” How could Fronto be so wrong about the celebration of the Eucharist? If we look at contemporary Christian writings, we can see how a pagan such as Fronto could have misinterpreted what he heard.
Ignatius of Antioch (A.D. 50-108), for example, was bishop of Antioch and a disciple of John the apostle. In his letter to the church in Smyrna, Ignatius warned Christians about heretics who “abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in his goodness, raised up again”
So these writings obviously existed for him to be able to misunderstand them. In fact...
https://carm.org/about-the-bible/manuscript-evidence-for-superior-new-testament-reliability/
Despite the fact there was no printing press, apparently about 5600 copies of text
Your old compilation might be 200 years old, but this doesn't mean they weren't plenty of scrolls and stuff that were older. What you are referring to is the oldest compiled text.
https://aleteia.org/2020/12/04/where-to-find-the-four-oldest-new-testament-manuscripts/
Because of the way manuscripts were stored in ancient times, researchers often find only some parts of manuscripts or incomplete versions. That’s because complete manuscripts were put to use, resulting in wear and tear, while “incomplete” manuscripts that contained writing mistakes were stored into “manuscript caches.” Paradoxically, it was those “rejected” manuscripts that often could make it intact to the present day.
The stone that the builders rejected has now become the cornerstone.
The Gospel of Matthew (and the book of Revelation, which I reject) both are found in fragments that date back to the 1st century. Within Jesus's lifetime. Sorry guy, but you lose.
-
He was a real person.
And so what? Muhamed was a real person too. Being a real person in history obviously doesn't mean that they default to being the son of god or a prophet of god.
That's the funny part. Muhammad's people make this nice cut and dry history for him, even though like with Jesus we have all these weird supernatural things going on.
But Robert Spencer doesn't think he existed, other historiographers don't think he existed, and neither do I.
So what? Just as some historiographers don't think Jesus existed and billions don't think he was the son of god.
That's where you'd be wrong.
No serious scholar rejects the existence of Jesus Christ. This btw includes atheist scholars who only believed him to be a teacher, not a miracle worker. This includes Jews and secular authorities that hated him.
Some who believe he didn't exist, as in "Virtually all scholars..." & "Nearly all scholars..." & "Today, most secular scholars..." That's not all. And whose to say they are "serious". You have no idea. You're just saying that.
And we're still stuck with the fact that 6 billion people on the planet don't believe he was the son of god even if he did exist.
Jesus' existence was a Christian invention are highly implausible."[32]
[/quote]
In other words, you are more fringe than a flat Earther if you debate Jesus's existence.
Hi, I'm the leader of the fringe theories club. Welcome to the club!
Actually, I don't debate his existence. Just saying that some do. But I'm certainly not fringe when I, along with 3/4 of the humans on the planet, don't believe he was the son of god. That ain't fringe by any means.
When were Jesus's teachings codified in a book? Almost immediately.
The Muratorian Canon, which is believed to date to 200 A.D., is the earliest compilationof canonical texts resembling the New Testament. It was not until the 5th century that all the different Christian churches came to a basic agreement on Biblical canon.
https://www.biblegateway.com/blog/2016/02/when-was-each-book-of-the-bible-written/
https://biblearchaeologyreport.com/2019/02/15/the-earliest-new-testament-manuscripts/
All of the books of the New Testament were written within a lifetime of the death of Jesus of Nazareth. Not so the so-called “other gospels,” which were pseudepigraphical Gnostic works written 100-300 years later.
The canonical gospels are the four which appear in the New Testament of the Bible. They were probably written between AD 66 and 110.[5][6][7] All four were anonymous (with the modern names added in the 2nd century), almost certainly none were by eyewitnesses, and all are the end-products of long oral and written transmission.[8]
I wouldn't call that "immediately". No even "almost immediately".
Because you're not a historian.
Neither are you. And what happened to you only believe in anything that you experience first-hand?
-
He was a real person.
And so what? Muhamed was a real person too. Being a real person in history obviously doesn't mean that they default to being the son of god or a prophet of god.
That's the funny part. Muhammad's people make this nice cut and dry history for him, even though like with Jesus we have all these weird supernatural things going on.
But Robert Spencer doesn't think he existed, other historiographers don't think he existed, and neither do I.
So what? Just as some historiographers don't think Jesus existed and billions don't think he was the son of god.
Some who believe he didn't exist, as in "Virtually all scholars..." & "Nearly all scholars..." & "Today, most secular scholars..." That's not all. And whose to say they are "serious". You have no idea. You're just saying that.
And we're still stuck with the fact that 6 billion people on the planet don't believe he was the son of god even if he did exist.
Jesus' existence was a Christian invention are highly implausible."[32]
In other words, you are more fringe than a flat Earther if you debate Jesus's existence.
Hi, I'm the leader of the fringe theories club. Welcome to the club!
Actually, I don't debate his existence. Just saying that some do. But I'm certainly not fringe when I, along with 3/4 of the humans on the planet, don't believe he was the son of god. That ain't fringe by any means.
When were Jesus's teachings codified in a book? Almost immediately.
The Muratorian Canon, which is believed to date to 200 A.D., is the earliest compilationof canonical texts resembling the New Testament. It was not until the 5th century that all the different Christian churches came to a basic agreement on Biblical canon.
https://www.biblegateway.com/blog/2016/02/when-was-each-book-of-the-bible-written/
https://biblearchaeologyreport.com/2019/02/15/the-earliest-new-testament-manuscripts/
All of the books of the New Testament were written within a lifetime of the death of Jesus of Nazareth. Not so the so-called “other gospels,” which were pseudepigraphical Gnostic works written 100-300 years later.
The canonical gospels are the four which appear in the New Testament of the Bible. They were probably written between AD 66 and 110.[5][6][7] All four were anonymous (with the modern names added in the 2nd century), almost certainly none were by eyewitnesses, and all are the end-products of long oral and written transmission.[8]
I wouldn't call that "immediately". No even "almost immediately".
Because you're not a historian.
Neither are you. And what happened to you only believe in anything that you experience first-hand?
The one guy who debates it is a guy with a degree in Columbia but no position. He's unemployed, like me, and spends all his time telling people there is no evidence when there is in fact quite a lot evidence that Jesus only existed but was the Messiah. Whether you believe in miracles or not.
https://www.bethinking.org/jesus/ancient-evidence-for-jesus-from-non-christian-sources
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/archaeological-evidence-for-jesus_b_1370995
I'm more of a student of history than you are.
I experienced it firsthand. Duh.
That's right, I had an encounter with Jesus.
Now I could bore you with my testimonial, or you could read one of my books I have already written on ScribbleHub on the exact subject, known as Town of Winter. It's pretty obvious to me that Jesus not only existed, but existed long before the official date of like 2-6BC to 30 AD. There were Jesus prototypes like Horus, obviously a memory of something that people don't quite understand.
Accept with no proof? Nah, man, I have all the proof I need, and a wild story to go with it. Some of it's fiction, but you kinda tell when things break into fiction, as I go off on an adventure to a floating island in the North Pole. And blow up some dark statues with psychic powers. That's kinda the giveaway. But the part where I meet some weird person, and increasingly can't justify the encounter, yeah that's all true.
60 to 110 is in fact within a lifetime of Jesus. This would be the reach of one follower converting another. But since you mentioned that as if it were a disqualification, we'll apply the same to Muhammad.
Matthew appears to be written by Matthew. The tax collector.
I have no idea who Luke was, but he was supposed to be a physician. I know even less about Mark, except that he definitely wrote the gospel of his "immediately" ( that's the joke).
As for John, it was not written by John, son of thunder, son of Zebedee. John, son of Zebedee was (as Acts later mentions) an unlettered man, and he was also a blowhard. The tone of John is humble and sober, nothing like John. (It is the study of author tone that causes my later rejection of Revelation, which seems lifted from Ezekiel.)
Furthermore, the account of "the disciple whom Jesus loved" is first mentioned after the resurrection of Lazarus. Where Jesus weeps. Where people comment on "how he loved him". After this, we have an anonymous character appear who seems to have clout that John never had, the sort of clout that a man who was raised from the dead might. We also have this man outrun Peter to the tomb, and suddenly believe when he sees the bandages. Something someone who had been in a tomb might understand.
The gospels were not signed, but they were not exactly unauthored.
None of this has has anything to do with that the Quran appears to be a second or third generation oral yarn, with alot of stupid repetition and alot of contradictory passages. So ummm, when I was writing my first fiction, it kinda sucked. The rough nature of it had to do with trying to impress upon the reader certain things, where I was inventing the rules of the fiction (like how magic behaves). When you invent, two things tend to happen: (1) You repeat yourself, and (2) you contradict yourself. You repeat yourself because you can't remember whether you said something before, and can't seem to find that paragraph. You contradict yourself because you adjust for edits or new information. This is what people do when they lie, as any police officer or lawyer can tell you. They ask them over and over again, and they repeat themselves (repetitions). But then they also ask a series of questions where the person has to adjust the story, and then the story changes. This is supposedly proof it was written by several people, but it is entirely possible for a single person to write a contradictory narrative. If they're writing fiction.
But there's a funny thing about this text. So in 5600 copies of the Bible mentioned above, these samples are very similar.
Meanwhile, the suppose unchangeable word of Allah?
The German scholar Gerd R. Puin has been investigating these Quran fragments for years. His research team made 35,000 microfilm photographs of the manuscripts, which he dated to early part of the 8th century. Puin has not published the entirety of his work, but noted unconventional verse orderings, minor textual variations, and rare styles of orthography. He also suggested that some of the parchments were palimpsests which had been reused. Puin believed that this implied an evolving text as opposed to a fixed one.
The other thing mentioned is how scrupulously they tell us that the Quran was written immediately while they focus on compiled versions of the Bible being 200 AD.
Almost like there's a bias among historians.
And this is not at all consistent with the Quran's own history, which is supposed to be written while he was marching into battle.
Right, so in battle, you need a wagon for supplies. Sometimes that gets wrecked or burned down. Either Muhammad was a Miles Gloriosus who never went into battle and spent all of his time writing, or these texts were written by committee.
collection:According to Sadeghi and Bergmann, the results indicated that the parchment had a 68% (1σ) probability of belonging to the period between 614 CE to 656 CE. It had a 95% (2σ) probability of belonging to the period between 578 CE and 669 CE.
It has only a 68% chance of being written between his adulthood and when a successor might have wriiten about him (the single generation thing, like in the Bible). They think it was either written when he was 8 (pffft), or sometime between that and after he was dead for 35 years.
Supposing they didn't lie completely about the carbon dating (they did), it still doesn't work.
Why not? Because there was not a Mecca during this time.
https://www.ancient-origins.net/human-origins-religions/location-mecca-0016703
Muhammad was born in Mecca in 570 AD. However, the first mention of Mecca didn't happen until 741 AD in the Byzantine-Arab Chronicle, and it says it's located in Mesopotamia rather than the Hejaz
Someone is fibbing. Both in their carbon dating, and in their account of a city that didn't exist yet.
Oh sure, they claim it was built in the desert in 4th century. And that it was visited by many different religions. A barren wasteland is visited by Jews and Christians and pagans? Uhhhh, no. Petra had water. It had olive trees and other things mentioned in the Quran. The name of the town was changed and/or this was written later.
-
He was a real person.
And so what? Muhamed was a real person too. Being a real person in history obviously doesn't mean that they default to being the son of god or a prophet of god.
That's the funny part. Muhammad's people make this nice cut and dry history for him, even though like with Jesus we have all these weird supernatural things going on.
But Robert Spencer doesn't think he existed, other historiographers don't think he existed, and neither do I.
So what? Just as some historiographers don't think Jesus existed and billions don't think he was the son of god.
Some who believe he didn't exist, as in "Virtually all scholars..." & "Nearly all scholars..." & "Today, most secular scholars..." That's not all. And whose to say they are "serious". You have no idea. You're just saying that.
And we're still stuck with the fact that 6 billion people on the planet don't believe he was the son of god even if he did exist.
Jesus' existence was a Christian invention are highly implausible."[32]
In other words, you are more fringe than a flat Earther if you debate Jesus's existence.
Hi, I'm the leader of the fringe theories club. Welcome to the club!
Actually, I don't debate his existence. Just saying that some do. But I'm certainly not fringe when I, along with 3/4 of the humans on the planet, don't believe he was the son of god. That ain't fringe by any means.
When were Jesus's teachings codified in a book? Almost immediately.
The Muratorian Canon, which is believed to date to 200 A.D., is the earliest compilationof canonical texts resembling the New Testament. It was not until the 5th century that all the different Christian churches came to a basic agreement on Biblical canon.
https://www.biblegateway.com/blog/2016/02/when-was-each-book-of-the-bible-written/
https://biblearchaeologyreport.com/2019/02/15/the-earliest-new-testament-manuscripts/
All of the books of the New Testament were written within a lifetime of the death of Jesus of Nazareth. Not so the so-called “other gospels,” which were pseudepigraphical Gnostic works written 100-300 years later.
The canonical gospels are the four which appear in the New Testament of the Bible. They were probably written between AD 66 and 110.[5][6][7] All four were anonymous (with the modern names added in the 2nd century), almost certainly none were by eyewitnesses, and all are the end-products of long oral and written transmission.[8]
I wouldn't call that "immediately". No even "almost immediately".
Because you're not a historian.
Neither are you. And what happened to you only believe in anything that you experience first-hand?
The one guy who debates it is a guy with a degree in Columbia but no position. He's unemployed, like me, and spends all his time telling people there is no evidence when there is in fact quite a lot evidence that Jesus only existed but was the Messiah. Whether you believe in miracles or not.
https://www.bethinking.org/jesus/ancient-evidence-for-jesus-from-non-christian-sources
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/archaeological-evidence-for-jesus_b_1370995
I don't think there is just "one guy". But yeah, it's pretty well understood that Jesus existed as a human. That's about it though other than biased belief in the other qualities attributed to him.
Heck, people still debate whether Nazareth even existed during Jesus' time. That's a whole village, let alone one guy. And no, I'm not saying that Jesus, the guy, isn't an actual historical figure. I don't really care. It's really just the son of god business that seems inherently and extremely questionable.
I'm more of a student of history than you are.
I see no evidence of that. Quite the contrary as you seem to make up your own history to fit some narrative you've concocted. So yes, you are more of a student of your own fiction. I'll grant you that.
I experienced it firsthand. Duh.
That's right, I had an encounter with Jesus.
True to you. So good for you. I don't see how that proves anything else. All the rest is billionth-hand, by no means first hand.
60 to 110 is in fact within a lifetime of Jesus. This would be the reach of one follower converting another. But since you mentioned that as if it were a disqualification, we'll apply the same to Muhammad.
It's not a "disqualification", just not first-hand.
Someone is fibbing. Both in their carbon dating, and in their account of a city that didn't exist yet.
Ok, so you revise the bible because you don't agree with scholars on the efficacy and legitimacy of certain authors and chapters. Like you somehow know better. And you don't agree with scholars and pretty much the bulk of christians in general as to when Jesus lived and for how long. Like you somehow know better. And you don't agree with many aspects of the Quran like 6 billion people don't agree with the NT. Well good for you I guess.
You're free to cherry-pick when you believe in scholars about the existence of Jesus and disagree with them about myriad other things about Jesus. But none of which really means anthing, just your sole opinions not necessarily rooted in history or fact. Just your druthers.
-
I experienced it firsthand. Duh.
That's right, I had an encounter with Jesus.
True to you. So good for you. I don't see how that proves anything else. All the rest is billionth-hand, by no means first hand.
Try firsthand. When you meet a supernatural being, the idea that he died long ago and that's it, that's so incredibly far off the mark that you have to scoff at it. There's a reason why precursor Jesus figures were considered literal gods. People understood that the person they encountered was somehow not quite a normal human.
60 to 110 is in fact within a lifetime of Jesus. This would be the reach of one follower converting another. But since you mentioned that as if it were a disqualification, we'll apply the same to Muhammad.
It's not a "disqualification", just not first-hand.
Maybe... maybe not. If Jesus died in 30 AD, and the they were written around 80 AD, then a grown adult during the time Jesus died could be elderly but still very much alive. It's impossible though to have a firsthand account at 110 AD, you say?
Jesus said, "Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these."
Jesus had child followers. And his mission started only three years or so (around 28 AD-30AD). A child born in 23 AD might have been one of these children, and at about age five, most children have memories. It's entirely possible to live to age 87.
Someone is fibbing. Both in their carbon dating, and in their account of a city that didn't exist yet.
Ok, so you revise the bible because you don't agree with scholars on the efficacy and legitimacy of certain authors and chapters. Like you somehow know better. And you don't agree with scholars and pretty much the bulk of christians in general as to when Jesus lived and for how long. Like you somehow know better. And you don't agree with many aspects of the Quran like 6 billion people don't agree with the NT. Well good for you I guess.
You're free to cherry-pick when you believe in scholars about the existence of Jesus and disagree with them about myriad other things about Jesus. But none of which really means anthing, just your sole opinions not necessarily rooted in history or fact. Just your druthers.
And you don't? Don't delude yourself! I've seen how often I have to tell you the same damn thing because you say something is not proof, because... well, you say so.
Mecca lives near a salty ocean, no freshwater sources, and rocky dry soil. Civilization doesn't develop without fresh water! Mecca didn't have desalinization factories.
Tom Holland, while he is not as antagonistic toward Islam, nonetheless rejects the Mecca hypothesis, asserting that there was a place that answers the descriptions of Mecca. But in 4th to 8th century, Mecca was not it. It was only in recent times that actual plants were made to grow there. This was through purification of water. All Muslim assertions otherwise are lies to protect a narrative.
Here is the truth of Islam:
1. When it came time to reject idols and worship God, Islam instead worshiped idols (big rocks, actually) and rejected God
2. By Muhammad's own oaths, he declared himself a false prophet
3. He literally admitted that he was worried he was demon-possessed
4. Muhammad speaks for Allah, because Allah is actually a sock puppet (who in turn is a folk hero for the Arab people)
5. And the actual story of Islam is that it was a Christian heresy
Muhammad told you his beliefs as though they were the truth. I tell you only what I believe is not so. You are free to believe otherwise, but your itching ears have made you defend what is not true, and condemn what is. I reject some things yes, and have weird ideas. But I am firm about certain fundamentals that you don't see as important.
1. Jesus lived to heal the sick and forgive sins.
2. Jesus died for our sins.
3. Jesus lives, here today. He's not a ghost, he doesn't sit aloof from out problems, only to come on some last day to be a douchebag and kill us all for failing to measure up. He's here, he has forgiven our sins once-for-all. This is mentioned repeatedly in scripture.
That's really all that one needs to be a real Christian. If you preach gospel opposed to this, you're lying about the gospel.
43 I am come in my Father's name, and ye receive me not: if another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive.
Muhammad was the one Jesus meant. A self-important asshole who claimed that his god told him the truth, and everyone else is a heathen.
When I had a firsthand encounter with Jesus, you know the first thing I learned? It is impossible for God to tell you anything, because he speaks different words to different people. He appeared in different forms, and I had to determine the common thread. So God told me the only right truth? No, that would be a lie. He only taught me to discern lies and deceptions for what they are, and glean truth from that.
-
I experienced it firsthand. Duh.
That's right, I had an encounter with Jesus.
True to you. So good for you. I don't see how that proves anything else. All the rest is billionth-hand, by no means first hand.
Try firsthand. When you meet a supernatural being, the idea that he died long ago and that's it, that's so incredibly far off the mark that you have to scoff at it. There's a reason why precursor Jesus figures were considered literal gods. People understood that the person they encountered was somehow not quite a normal human.
Encountering a somehow not quite a normal human doesn't mean that the somehow not quite a normal human is the son of god. We've all encountered you - Are you the son of god? ;)
60 to 110 is in fact within a lifetime of Jesus. This would be the reach of one follower converting another. But since you mentioned that as if it were a disqualification, we'll apply the same to Muhammad.
It's not a "disqualification", just not first-hand.
Maybe... maybe not. If Jesus died in 30 AD, and the they were written around 80 AD, then a grown adult during the time Jesus died could be elderly but still very much alive. It's impossible though to have a firsthand account at 110 AD, you say?
Maybe...maybe not. Life expectancy and such (Muddled by insanely high infant mortality rates). As well, what's with waiting 50 years to write down what you recollect from half a century ago? One would think that if you're trying to capture the teachings of the son of frickin' god, you may want to get on that shit. Kind of a big deal, if not the biggest of deals.
You know it's not everyday you get to hang with a miracle worker, a dude who literally came back to life. One would think there would be some sort of immediacy to that. Not, "Shit, I'm pushing 80, maybe I should write down that stuff about that hippie cult leader I followed around back in the 30's..."
Jesus said, "Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these."
Jesus had child followers. And his mission started only three years or so (around 28 AD-30AD). A child born in 23 AD might have been one of these children, and at about age five, most children have memories. It's entirely possible to live to age 87.
Cool, so now the gospels rest on the head of a 7 year old's recollection of stuff some 50 years later. I'll pass.
Someone is fibbing. Both in their carbon dating, and in their account of a city that didn't exist yet.
Ok, so you revise the bible because you don't agree with scholars on the efficacy and legitimacy of certain authors and chapters. Like you somehow know better. And you don't agree with scholars and pretty much the bulk of christians in general as to when Jesus lived and for how long. Like you somehow know better. And you don't agree with many aspects of the Quran like 6 billion people don't agree with the NT. Well good for you I guess.
You're free to cherry-pick when you believe in scholars about the existence of Jesus and disagree with them about myriad other things about Jesus. But none of which really means anthing, just your sole opinions not necessarily rooted in history or fact. Just your druthers.
And you don't? Don't delude yourself! I've seen how often I have to tell you the same damn thing because you say something is not proof, because... well, you say so.
Not exactly. You just saying something is, well, not proof. That's just the way it goes. You somehow narcissitically believe that your every thought is gospel when it's really just your thought. That's not how proof works, not how evidence works, and I believe you know that and really don't need others to tell you that, but for some reason, you need to be reminded.
Mecca lives near a salty ocean, no freshwater sources, and rocky dry soil. Civilization doesn't develop without fresh water! Mecca didn't have desalinization factories.
Zamzam well. Documented by British scientists back in the 1800's, way before desalinization plants. Who know's about all the other claims about it from medieval days. But since it was there in the 1800's, whose to say it wasn't there in the 1500's and so on?
Tom Holland, while he is not as antagonistic toward Islam, nonetheless rejects the Mecca hypothesis, asserting that there was a place that answers the descriptions of Mecca. But in 4th to 8th century, Mecca was not it. It was only in recent times that actual plants were made to grow there. This was through purification of water. All Muslim assertions otherwise are lies to protect a narrative.
Why are you accepting Spiderman's word for anything? That's not first hand knowledge which you claim is the only kind that matters.
Here is the truth of Islam:
What's with all the videos from other people? That goes against your first hand mantra...Exhibit A:
You cannot get your knowledge from secondhand or thirdhand sources.
Real science is about testing and theorizing, not about "knowing". We know things only after we have tested them, and are sure what we tested is right.
When I had a firsthand encounter with Jesus, you know the first thing I learned? It is impossible for God to tell you anything, because he speaks different words to different people. He appeared in different forms, and I had to determine the common thread. So God told me the only right truth? No, that would be a lie. He only taught me to discern lies and deceptions for what they are, and glean truth from that.
If you say so. ::)
-
I experienced it firsthand. Duh.
That's right, I had an encounter with Jesus.
True to you. So good for you. I don't see how that proves anything else. All the rest is billionth-hand, by no means first hand.
Try firsthand. When you meet a supernatural being, the idea that he died long ago and that's it, that's so incredibly far off the mark that you have to scoff at it. There's a reason why precursor Jesus figures were considered literal gods. People understood that the person they encountered was somehow not quite a normal human.
Encountering a somehow not quite a normal human doesn't mean that the somehow not quite a normal human is the son of god. We've all encountered you - Are you the son of god? ;)
As appealing as it might be to claim that, do I do things consistent with Son of God? Do I behave like you'd expect Jesus to behave? Have I turned water into wine lately? I have not shown you anything supernatural about me. The best I could do is show you stock pictures of water followed by pictures of alcohol. But no, there were things about the this person that really seemed off. Like, given everything I knew about them, they would have to be in multiple places at the same time and/or shapeshift.
60 to 110 is in fact within a lifetime of Jesus. This would be the reach of one follower converting another. But since you mentioned that as if it were a disqualification, we'll apply the same to Muhammad.
It's not a "disqualification", just not first-hand.
Maybe... maybe not. If Jesus died in 30 AD, and the they were written around 80 AD, then a grown adult during the time Jesus died could be elderly but still very much alive. It's impossible though to have a firsthand account at 110 AD, you say?
Maybe...maybe not. Life expectancy and such (Muddled by insanely high infant mortality rates). As well, what's with waiting 50 years to write down what you recollect from half a century ago? One would think that if you're trying to capture the teachings of the son of frickin' god, you may want to get on that shit. Kind of a big deal, if not the biggest of deals.
You know it's not everyday you get to hang with a miracle worker, a dude who literally came back to life. One would think there would be some sort of immediacy to that. Not, "Shit, I'm pushing 80, maybe I should write down that stuff about that hippie cult leader I followed around back in the 30's..."
That statistic is based on an unwillingness to accept that actually earlier generations could live quite long if they kept good hygiene. They had lower instance of cancer (less creepy chemicals in their diet, less sunbathing, less industrial pollution). It was a matter of decent hygiene. Despite things being rather squalid at the time of Christ, Jewish people were on average more hygienic than the rest of the world's population. Christian people didn't throw this away entirely. Not martyred? Not killed by Jews or Romans? You might live a pretty long time.
Btw, they said that of Americans in the past too. It's based on averages! And the average is thrown off by high infant and early childhood death.
And yes, a religion is important to you and in danger of being forgotten, you write it down. Even if you're 80. If you're still a member of said hippie cult, then yes. If it was a hippie cult that didn't practice what they preach (most hippies in the 60s were actually scoundrels, who later became political), you regard it as an experiment in your youth.
Jesus said, "Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these."
Jesus had child followers. And his mission started only three years or so (around 28 AD-30AD). A child born in 23 AD might have been one of these children, and at about age five, most children have memories. It's entirely possible to live to age 87.
Cool, so now the gospels rest on the head of a 7 year old's recollection of stuff some 50 years later. I'll pass.
Up to you. I'd sooner trust the foggy memories of a 57 year old than the deliberate lies of someone else. Btw, I assume you remember the math you learned in 1st grade, right? So do many ppl in their 80s, provided senility hasn't set in.
Someone is fibbing. Both in their carbon dating, and in their account of a city that didn't exist yet.
Ok, so you revise the bible because you don't agree with scholars on the efficacy and legitimacy of certain authors and chapters. Like you somehow know better. And you don't agree with scholars and pretty much the bulk of christians in general as to when Jesus lived and for how long. Like you somehow know better. And you don't agree with many aspects of the Quran like 6 billion people don't agree with the NT. Well good for you I guess.
You're free to cherry-pick when you believe in scholars about the existence of Jesus and disagree with them about myriad other things about Jesus. But none of which really means anthing, just your sole opinions not necessarily rooted in history or fact. Just your druthers.
And you don't? Don't delude yourself! I've seen how often I have to tell you the same damn thing because you say something is not proof, because... well, you say so.
Not exactly. You just saying something is, well, not proof. That's just the way it goes. You somehow narcissitically believe that your every thought is gospel when it's really just your thought. That's not how proof works, not how evidence works, and I believe you know that and really don't need others to tell you that, but for some reason, you need to be reminded.
I will be sure to remind you of that, the next time you quote flat Earth stuff, talking about how this person said the Earth is round so it must be so, because they are an expert.
But it's not me saying stuff. Not really. It's that Muhammad was caught in a lie. In his own words, he basically goofed up. Several times in fact. Almost like he was trying to deceive people. Or his "god" was. This is what these videos are about. Each of them exposes things that don't match up with what the "holy prophet" said. Some of them even show things where what the "prophet" said doesn't align with what he also said.
https://answering-islam.org/Quran/Contra/ashraf.html
https://carm.org/islam/contradictions-in-the-quran/
Whether in a forum or a court of law, more powerful than any evidence presented is the lies people are caught in.
-
I experienced it firsthand. Duh.
That's right, I had an encounter with Jesus.
True to you. So good for you. I don't see how that proves anything else. All the rest is billionth-hand, by no means first hand.
Try firsthand. When you meet a supernatural being, the idea that he died long ago and that's it, that's so incredibly far off the mark that you have to scoff at it. There's a reason why precursor Jesus figures were considered literal gods. People understood that the person they encountered was somehow not quite a normal human.
Encountering a somehow not quite a normal human doesn't mean that the somehow not quite a normal human is the son of god. We've all encountered you - Are you the son of god? ;)
As appealing as it might be to claim that, do I do things consistent with Son of God? Do I behave like you'd expect Jesus to behave? Have I turned water into wine lately? I have not shown you anything supernatural about me. The best I could do is show you stock pictures of water followed by pictures of alcohol. But no, there were things about the this person that really seemed off. Like, given everything I knew about them, they would have to be in multiple places at the same time and/or shapeshift.
A shapeshifter or whatever doesn't default to a god, son of god, or whatever. But if you want to believe something different, have at it. Just maybe lighten up on the psychotropics.
60 to 110 is in fact within a lifetime of Jesus. This would be the reach of one follower converting another. But since you mentioned that as if it were a disqualification, we'll apply the same to Muhammad.
It's not a "disqualification", just not first-hand.
Maybe... maybe not. If Jesus died in 30 AD, and the they were written around 80 AD, then a grown adult during the time Jesus died could be elderly but still very much alive. It's impossible though to have a firsthand account at 110 AD, you say?
Maybe...maybe not. Life expectancy and such (Muddled by insanely high infant mortality rates). As well, what's with waiting 50 years to write down what you recollect from half a century ago? One would think that if you're trying to capture the teachings of the son of frickin' god, you may want to get on that shit. Kind of a big deal, if not the biggest of deals.
You know it's not everyday you get to hang with a miracle worker, a dude who literally came back to life. One would think there would be some sort of immediacy to that. Not, "Shit, I'm pushing 80, maybe I should write down that stuff about that hippie cult leader I followed around back in the 30's..."
That statistic is based on an unwillingness to accept that actually earlier generations could live quite long if they kept good hygiene. They had lower instance of cancer (less creepy chemicals in their diet, less sunbathing, less industrial pollution). It was a matter of decent hygiene. Despite things being rather squalid at the time of Christ, Jewish people were on average more hygienic than the rest of the world's population. Christian people didn't throw this away entirely. Not martyred? Not killed by Jews or Romans? You might live a pretty long time.
Btw, they said that of Americans in the past too. It's based on averages! And the average is thrown off by high infant and early childhood death.
And yes, a religion is important to you and in danger of being forgotten, you write it down. Even if you're 80. If you're still a member of said hippie cult, then yes. If it was a hippie cult that didn't practice what they preach (most hippies in the 60s were actually scoundrels, who later became political), you regard it as an experiment in your youth.
I think you missed the point. You hang with a guy who says he is the son of god. You believe him, follow him, willing to die for him. He is killed. 72 hours later, he comes back to life! Back from the frickin' dead, after 3 days. Don't you think you wouldn't wait 50 years to scribble at least something down. I'm pretty sure that if I was hangin' with sky daddy's kid I'd be writing down every word that came from his mouth and would have had a ton of questions. But no. It took half a century to scrounge up a pen and some papyrus and try and remember, word-for-word what the hippie cult leader said 5 decades ago? I mean, we're talking word-for-word here, right? Just seems implausible, 50+ years on and we supposedly have a word-for-word account. Doubtful. And sure, same applies for the Quran.
As well, how do we even know they were written when some claim they were written?
Jesus said, "Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these."
Jesus had child followers. And his mission started only three years or so (around 28 AD-30AD). A child born in 23 AD might have been one of these children, and at about age five, most children have memories. It's entirely possible to live to age 87.
Cool, so now the gospels rest on the head of a 7 year old's recollection of stuff some 50 years later. I'll pass.
Up to you. I'd sooner trust the foggy memories of a 57 year old than the deliberate lies of someone else. Btw, I assume you remember the math you learned in 1st grade, right? So do many ppl in their 80s, provided senility hasn't set in.
Sure, but I don't remember what my teacher said word-for-word at 7 years old when they were telling how and why 1+1=2.
Someone is fibbing. Both in their carbon dating, and in their account of a city that didn't exist yet.
Ok, so you revise the bible because you don't agree with scholars on the efficacy and legitimacy of certain authors and chapters. Like you somehow know better. And you don't agree with scholars and pretty much the bulk of christians in general as to when Jesus lived and for how long. Like you somehow know better. And you don't agree with many aspects of the Quran like 6 billion people don't agree with the NT. Well good for you I guess.
You're free to cherry-pick when you believe in scholars about the existence of Jesus and disagree with them about myriad other things about Jesus. But none of which really means anthing, just your sole opinions not necessarily rooted in history or fact. Just your druthers.
And you don't? Don't delude yourself! I've seen how often I have to tell you the same damn thing because you say something is not proof, because... well, you say so.
Not exactly. You just saying something is, well, not proof. That's just the way it goes. You somehow narcissitically believe that your every thought is gospel when it's really just your thought. That's not how proof works, not how evidence works, and I believe you know that and really don't need others to tell you that, but for some reason, you need to be reminded.
I will be sure to remind you of that, the next time you quote flat Earth stuff, talking about how this person said the Earth is round so it must be so, because they are an expert.
Nope, experimentation and observation will do. I've flown on planes. Long hauls, they follow great circle routes and the maps, distances check out. My wife has sailed across the pacific and back, following GPS and great circle paths as the shortest distance. And I have maps predicated on a globe that actually work. You don't even have a map, nada. I don't even need experts. But I do believe that some people, a lot actually, know more than I do. Something you feel you are immune to.
And for the bits in the bible you believe in, you're relying on the "experts" who wrote it and revised it. You weren't there so you have no way of verifying what was said and what was written down. You just believe...in experts.
Lest I remind you of exhibit A:
You cannot get your knowledge from secondhand or thirdhand sources.
But it's not me saying stuff. Not really. It's that Muhammad was caught in a lie. In his own words, he basically goofed up. Several times in fact. Almost like he was trying to deceive people. Or his "god" was. This is what these videos are about. Each of them exposes things that don't match up with what the "holy prophet" said. Some of them even show things where what the "prophet" said doesn't align with what he also said.
https://answering-islam.org/Quran/Contra/ashraf.html
https://carm.org/islam/contradictions-in-the-quran/
Whether in a forum or a court of law, more powerful than any evidence presented is the lies people are caught in.
Yes, and one could say the same about christian scripture.
-
I experienced it firsthand. Duh.
That's right, I had an encounter with Jesus.
True to you. So good for you. I don't see how that proves anything else. All the rest is billionth-hand, by no means first hand.
Try firsthand. When you meet a supernatural being, the idea that he died long ago and that's it, that's so incredibly far off the mark that you have to scoff at it. There's a reason why precursor Jesus figures were considered literal gods. People understood that the person they encountered was somehow not quite a normal human.
Encountering a somehow not quite a normal human doesn't mean that the somehow not quite a normal human is the son of god. We've all encountered you - Are you the son of god? ;)
As appealing as it might be to claim that, do I do things consistent with Son of God? Do I behave like you'd expect Jesus to behave? Have I turned water into wine lately? I have not shown you anything supernatural about me. The best I could do is show you stock pictures of water followed by pictures of alcohol. But no, there were things about the this person that really seemed off. Like, given everything I knew about them, they would have to be in multiple places at the same time and/or shapeshift.
A shapeshifter or whatever doesn't default to a god, son of god, or whatever. But if you want to believe something different, have at it. Just maybe lighten up on the psychotropics.
I will double down on the psychotropics.
The Gospel mentions that after death the disciples "couldn't recognize Jesus." What does this mean? Well, simple. If you know how to interpret text you realize this point. While confined to a physical body, even though Jesus can do cool stuff like heal, exorcise, and walk on water, there are certain things he can't do.
But after his death? Able to eat and drink but also able to pass through walls and change form.
I think you missed the point. You hang with a guy who says he is the son of god. You believe him, follow him, willing to die for him. He is killed. 72 hours later, he comes back to life! Back from the frickin' dead, after 3 days. Don't you think you wouldn't wait 50 years to scribble at least something down. I'm pretty sure that if I was hangin' with sky daddy's kid I'd be writing down every word that came from his mouth and would have had a ton of questions. But no. It took half a century to scrounge up a pen and some papyrus and try and remember, word-for-word what the hippie cult leader said 5 decades ago? I mean, we're talking word-for-word here, right? Just seems implausible, 50+ years on and we supposedly have a word-for-word account. Doubtful. And sure, same applies for the Quran.
As well, how do we even know they were written when some claim they were written?
Carbon dating. Unfortunately, many archaeologists are Muslim. You can see where I'm headed with this.
(https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-3AK10vEjAQs/WJ6xVoQGOWI/AAAAAAAANqE/HopQloqK3JcAcXT1C4GCjcEHnQu5YGCfwCPcB/s1600/Burning%2Bpaper.jpg)
But unfortunately for them (and for your "lack of evidence" theory), there's another way they date things. It's through comparative dating. For example if I have a theoretical prophet, and he is mentioned by a third party, we know that this first document must have an original copy that predated the one we found, even if the copy was lost (or burned). The fun thing about comparative evidence is you can't just write a book and make your religion appear older by name-dropping Moses. This first evidence has been dated to second evidence, which in turn is dated to other evidence. Without either actual dates or carbon dating this is how a real historian works.
Jesus said, "Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these."
Jesus had child followers. And his mission started only three years or so (around 28 AD-30AD). A child born in 23 AD might have been one of these children, and at about age five, most children have memories. It's entirely possible to live to age 87.
Cool, so now the gospels rest on the head of a 7 year old's recollection of stuff some 50 years later. I'll pass.
Up to you. I'd sooner trust the foggy memories of a 57 year old than the deliberate lies of someone else. Btw, I assume you remember the math you learned in 1st grade, right? So do many ppl in their 80s, provided senility hasn't set in.
Sure, but I don't remember what my teacher said word-for-word at 7 years old when they were telling how and why 1+1=2.
The teachings of Jesus were somewhat vague, much like that. They might have mixed up sequence, putting certain lessons on different days. The important parts were remembered because he probably repeated them. Also, it's very probable that before these were written in text, they were written as quick notes. Matthew writes down, "Blessed are the poor (spirit) - kingdom of God" then later he writes it all out with the other stuff he's seen. Maybe it gets lost in furniture for a few years. Or hidden since there are kinda sorta Romans and Jews trying to kill you and destroy all record of Jesus? Maybe he just couldn't find the words until after certain things happened, like other Christians getting killed.
When I met Jesus in-person, it was 2011 to 2013. I was in a weird place. I moved to the city around that time. I was very busy. Then I moved home, and I was also somewhat busy between work and chores. I kept the file on record in a flash drive for years. Then I was blocked with nothing new to write about, and remembered some stuff that happened with regards to a dream, and tied the dream to an autobiography to make a sorta "semi-fiction." This is 11 years later from the event, and some of the stuff I wrote about was from my childhood to my teens, nearly 40 years later, in order to lead up to that event and give it context. Yes, memories from long ago can be written about. The #MeToo women in some cases mentioned rape that happened years ago. We humans participate in history, and life happens. We get to doing things like finding and training converts, raising family, or other things. Sometimes we just forget and something reminds us.
Not exactly. You just saying something is, well, not proof. That's just the way it goes. You somehow narcissitically believe that your every thought is gospel when it's really just your thought. That's not how proof works, not how evidence works, and I believe you know that and really don't need others to tell you that, but for some reason, you need to be reminded.
I will be sure to remind you of that, the next time you quote flat Earth stuff, talking about how this person said the Earth is round so it must be so, because they are an expert.
Nope, experimentation and observation will do. I've flown on planes. Long hauls, they follow great circle routes and the maps, distances check out. My wife has sailed across the pacific and back, following GPS and great circle paths as the shortest distance. And I have maps predicated on a globe that actually work. You don't even have a map, nada. I don't even need experts. But I do believe that some people, a lot actually, know more than I do. Something you feel you are immune to.
Right. So my actual experiences (climbing mountains, looking at the ocean) they don't count for anything, but you get to accuse me of narcissism while only your faulty observations count. I see.
I've flown on planes too. Also long 14 hour rides. In particular, I remember a flight to China that made no sense when I looked at either the conventional square map or the globe-like maps.
(https://www.infokart.ru/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/sputnikovaja-karta-zemli.jpg)
We went north. Virginia to Seattle, Seattle to China via north route, crossing Russia. What now? Earth is round, right? I assume they've got plenty of fuel, why aren't they flying over oceans? Satellites should be above the ocean for guidance, if they have fuel, they should be stopping in Hawaii to refuel, then continuing west. It doesn't make any sense on this map.
(https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/816868397836926996/1080382543079149568/flatearth_direct-path.png)
Make perfect sense on this one, though.
Every time I tell you what I personally have seen or heard, you move the goalposts and apply "No True Scotsman" (e.g. "yes but this isn't real proof") to what I've just claimed. What, because I have no credentials? Because I don't have a fancy lab coat? You do realize these things are just props, right? That you can get education outside the classroom. That modern education is so bad these days that employers demand more education than was involved 50 years ago, and some degrees (like a master in women's studies) might even disqualify you from jobs? But yes, because you're soooo much better than me, you get to make the rules.
You cannot get your knowledge from secondhand or thirdhand sources.
But it's not me saying stuff. Not really. It's that Muhammad was caught in a lie. In his own words, he basically goofed up. Several times in fact. Almost like he was trying to deceive people. Or his "god" was. This is what these videos are about. Each of them exposes things that don't match up with what the "holy prophet" said. Some of them even show things where what the "prophet" said doesn't align with what he also said.
https://answering-islam.org/Quran/Contra/ashraf.html
https://carm.org/islam/contradictions-in-the-quran/
Whether in a forum or a court of law, more powerful than any evidence presented is the lies people are caught in.
Yes, and one could say the same about christian scripture.
I do not accept information from second or third hand sources. Does this mean I never trust secondary sources?
I believe I showed at some point this week how I'm perfectly fine accepting the tide/moon guides.
The difference is that I actually went out when it said the moon was still up, and you know? I saw the moon.
Blindly trusting secondary sources based purely on hyped credentials is not remotely the same as a question and test approach. Even if I do see exactly what they told me I'd see, I don't always trust if unless it follows the model of three points below.
1. Verify it with your eyes (If someone says water can stick to a giant rotating ball, and you put a ball into the sink and spin it around, and drips off, I don't say "yes but the Earth is special circumstances")
2. Verify it with your mind (Is it logical? Is there an agenda?)
3. Check it against other possible theories (I'm not picky. Literally any explanation that doesn't involve what my eyes just disproved and doesn't feel illogical will do)
If it passes at least two of three, it is okay to accept something. If you can't see one yourself (e.g. dark side of moon or South Pole) without spending thousands or just can't, you are left entirely trusting a secondhand report. It has to be flawless with the other two, or I immediately doubt its credibility. And I won't suddenly agree no matter how many people insult, tease, or threaten me.
With moon and tide times, even though the science is fucked up, they managed to predict the times well. I trust the times that the moon is up, not the idea that the moon creates gravitational force on the water. I have never ever observed this happen. For the record, the tide chart doesn't even indicate this all that much.
So whether I'm wrong or not, if I've never observed it happen, and there are other things that could affect tide, I cannot accept claims from anyone that it affects tides. They could even be right, I still refuse to agree with them.
You can observe 2+2 = 4 or 4x3 =12. If 3 groups of four line up in infantry, you know there are 12 soldiers. Unobservable things like water clinging to the supposed underside of Earth simply does not work. We can verify otherwise.
Ditto for imaginary numbers or math theories like Hawking's cosmology. As someone pointed out, it requires division by zero.
https://futurism.com/black-holes-so-you-can-divide-by-zero
Oh wait no, that was black holes. And no you can't. Black holes don't exist either.
As some really smart person once said, “black holes are where God (or the Flying Spaghetti monster, maybe) divided by zero.” It was probably meant to be a joke, but there's certainly a kernel of truth to it.
Yes, because this "really smart person" totally sounds really smart. If you have a basic math error, it's all also a science theory error.
FULL STOP
If you don't know math, it's better to preface your statements with that you didn't do any math. Because plenty of people try to do fake math. On the off chance your math is fake, having that exposed just makes you look like a fraud. None of us know anything. So making a bunch of gibberish hoping we won't see that in practice the formula doesn't work is a good way to ruin your credibility.
(https://images.fineartamerica.com/images/artworkimages/mediumlarge/1/2-complex-math-formulas-on-whiteboard-mathematics-and-science-with-economics-michal-bednarek.jpg)
Apparently this is about economics. I've never learned more than a few symbols so I'm not sure what this is about, but the graph seems to imply he thinks there's a formula for economic depression or something. ...Bullshit. Economic fluctuations are choice-driven not pattern-driven. That is, if 17 people bid on a house, then the realtor bails, 17 people are theoretically left with 1/17 of a house. Similar to a market crash. People get sucked into a scam and all of them lose their money when the bubble bursts.
Turns out Michal Bednarek is an artist not a scientist.
https://fineartamerica.com/profiles/michal-bednarek?tab=artworkgalleries&page=2
So this formula is probably complete crap.
-
I experienced it firsthand. Duh.
That's right, I had an encounter with Jesus.
True to you. So good for you. I don't see how that proves anything else. All the rest is billionth-hand, by no means first hand.
Try firsthand. When you meet a supernatural being, the idea that he died long ago and that's it, that's so incredibly far off the mark that you have to scoff at it. There's a reason why precursor Jesus figures were considered literal gods. People understood that the person they encountered was somehow not quite a normal human.
Encountering a somehow not quite a normal human doesn't mean that the somehow not quite a normal human is the son of god. We've all encountered you - Are you the son of god? ;)
As appealing as it might be to claim that, do I do things consistent with Son of God? Do I behave like you'd expect Jesus to behave? Have I turned water into wine lately? I have not shown you anything supernatural about me. The best I could do is show you stock pictures of water followed by pictures of alcohol. But no, there were things about the this person that really seemed off. Like, given everything I knew about them, they would have to be in multiple places at the same time and/or shapeshift.
A shapeshifter or whatever doesn't default to a god, son of god, or whatever. But if you want to believe something different, have at it. Just maybe lighten up on the psychotropics.
I will double down on the psychotropics.
Me too.
The Gospel mentions that after death the disciples "couldn't recognize Jesus." What does this mean? Well, simple. If you know how to interpret text you realize this point. While confined to a physical body, even though Jesus can do cool stuff like heal, exorcise, and walk on water, there are certain things he can't do.
But after his death? Able to eat and drink but also able to pass through walls and change form.
So what?
I think you missed the point. You hang with a guy who says he is the son of god. You believe him, follow him, willing to die for him. He is killed. 72 hours later, he comes back to life! Back from the frickin' dead, after 3 days. Don't you think you wouldn't wait 50 years to scribble at least something down. I'm pretty sure that if I was hangin' with sky daddy's kid I'd be writing down every word that came from his mouth and would have had a ton of questions. But no. It took half a century to scrounge up a pen and some papyrus and try and remember, word-for-word what the hippie cult leader said 5 decades ago? I mean, we're talking word-for-word here, right? Just seems implausible, 50+ years on and we supposedly have a word-for-word account. Doubtful. And sure, same applies for the Quran.
As well, how do we even know they were written when some claim they were written?
Carbon dating. Unfortunately, many archaeologists are Muslim. You can see where I'm headed with this.
So you believe in carbon dating as long as it's not performed by muslims?
That's a really dumb thing to say as many archeologists are not muslims. Just ridiculous.
For instance, the dead sea scrolls were first carbon dated by the AMS (Accelerator Mass Spectrometry) lab of the Zurich Institute of Technology in 1991 and then by the AMS Facility at the University of Arizona in Tucson in 1994–95. Doesn't seem super muslim to me.
Again, your assertion is beyond daft.
But unfortunately for them (and for your "lack of evidence" theory), there's another way they date things. It's through comparative dating. For example if I have a theoretical prophet, and he is mentioned by a third party, we know that this first document must have an original copy that predated the one we found, even if the copy was lost (or burned). The fun thing about comparative evidence is you can't just write a book and make your religion appear older by name-dropping Moses. This first evidence has been dated to second evidence, which in turn is dated to other evidence. Without either actual dates or carbon dating this is how a real historian works.
I'm well aware of comparative dating. But now you're relying on expert historians who have done such research. You certainly don't have access to the source materials, so you would have no idea. And basically using your logic for everything, any comparative dating you happen to agree with is fraudulent, a lie, a conspiracy to prop up christianity over other religions. Christian "experts" are never to be trusted. And considering their "research" is not for profit, it's biased, meaningless, and lies.
Jesus said, "Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these."
Jesus had child followers. And his mission started only three years or so (around 28 AD-30AD). A child born in 23 AD might have been one of these children, and at about age five, most children have memories. It's entirely possible to live to age 87.
Cool, so now the gospels rest on the head of a 7 year old's recollection of stuff some 50 years later. I'll pass.
Up to you. I'd sooner trust the foggy memories of a 57 year old than the deliberate lies of someone else. Btw, I assume you remember the math you learned in 1st grade, right? So do many ppl in their 80s, provided senility hasn't set in.
Sure, but I don't remember what my teacher said word-for-word at 7 years old when they were telling how and why 1+1=2.
The teachings of Jesus were somewhat vague, much like that. They might have mixed up sequence, putting certain lessons on different days. The important parts were remembered because he probably repeated them. Also, it's very probable that before these were written in text, they were written as quick notes.
Zero evidence of notions jotted down on post-it notes.
Matthew writes down, "Blessed are the poor (spirit) - kingdom of God" then later he writes it all out with the other stuff he's seen. Maybe it gets lost in furniture for a few years. Or hidden since there are kinda sorta Romans and Jews trying to kill you and destroy all record of Jesus? Maybe he just couldn't find the words until after certain things happened, like other Christians getting killed.
More likely you're just conjuring up excuses out of thin air as part of the world-wide christian conspiracy. Of which you are a shill.
When I met Jesus in-person, it was 2011 to 2013.
You meet Jesus in person over the course of two years and "chores" got in your way to even ruminate about it? Seriously? You hang with the son of god for christ's sake and all you have is that your were a little busy washing dishes and taking out the trash? The son of god and you're just sorta blasé about it? "Jesus and I had a thing, but I better get out there and mow the lawn..."
Not exactly. You just saying something is, well, not proof. That's just the way it goes. You somehow narcissitically believe that your every thought is gospel when it's really just your thought. That's not how proof works, not how evidence works, and I believe you know that and really don't need others to tell you that, but for some reason, you need to be reminded.
I will be sure to remind you of that, the next time you quote flat Earth stuff, talking about how this person said the Earth is round so it must be so, because they are an expert.
Nope, experimentation and observation will do. I've flown on planes. Long hauls, they follow great circle routes and the maps, distances check out. My wife has sailed across the pacific and back, following GPS and great circle paths as the shortest distance. And I have maps predicated on a globe that actually work. You don't even have a map, nada. I don't even need experts. But I do believe that some people, a lot actually, know more than I do. Something you feel you are immune to.
Right. So my actual experiences (climbing mountains, looking at the ocean) they don't count for anything, but you get to accuse me of narcissism while only your faulty observations count. I see.
The issue is that you claim that your experience is the only thing to be believed. But when it's convenient, you ditch that and rely on experts. Hypocritical.
I've flown on planes too. Also long 14 hour rides. In particular, I remember a flight to China that made no sense when I looked at either the conventional square map or the globe-like maps.
(https://www.infokart.ru/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/sputnikovaja-karta-zemli.jpg)
It would make sense if you realized that the map is a projection from a globe. Peel an orange in one whole whole rind and try and lay it flat on a table. Report back your findings.
We went north. Virginia to Seattle, Seattle to China via north route, crossing Russia.
How do you know you went the northern route from Seattle to China, crossing Russia? Did you look down out the window and se "RUSSIA" spelled out on the ground?
(https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/816868397836926996/1080382543079149568/flatearth_direct-path.png)
Make perfect sense on this one, though.
Again, super hilarious. You trot out the north pole centered Azimuthal Equidistant map. You know, a projection from a globe. If you really want to use a globe map as your flat earth, have at it. But in doing so, with north pole centered, long haul flights in the S. Hemisphere are toast.
And look, here are some AE globe projections I just created from the 'Request an Azimuthal Map' generator, all based upon a globe. Here's your N.Pole centered AE globe map:
(https://i.imgur.com/7qqjLCd.png)
Here's the same AE globe map only centered on the South Pole:
(https://i.imgur.com/8QNjFoW.png)
And I even made one centered on Virginia:
(https://i.imgur.com/LZnQ6uT.png)
All globes.
Every time I tell you what I personally have seen or heard, you move the goalposts and apply "No True Scotsman" (e.g. "yes but this isn't real proof") to what I've just claimed. What, because I have no credentials? Because I don't have a fancy lab coat? You do realize these things are just props, right? That you can get education outside the classroom. That modern education is so bad these days that employers demand more education than was involved 50 years ago, and some degrees (like a master in women's studies) might even disqualify you from jobs? But yes, because you're soooo much better than me, you get to make the rules.
Incorrect. Personal experiences are fine as anecdotes. But you never, ever, back anything up, ever, with actual evidence. It's all just opinions. And when you even slightly attempt at anything that may slightly smell like a fact, you fail at that. Equating Copernicus to freemason, climate change conspiracy crap, and say really stupid things like most muslims are carbon daters and fudge results for example. You don't even know your history. You think everything is a NASA conspiracy even if it occurred 100's of years ago. So, all of the things like that, and there are many, just makes you an unreliable narrator. And so your experiences are viewed as wildly unreliable as well. What do you expect when all you do is peddle in things you make up. After a while, all of your stuff just appears as fabrications, lies, fiction.
You cannot get your knowledge from secondhand or thirdhand sources.
But it's not me saying stuff. Not really. It's that Muhammad was caught in a lie. In his own words, he basically goofed up. Several times in fact. Almost like he was trying to deceive people. Or his "god" was. This is what these videos are about. Each of them exposes things that don't match up with what the "holy prophet" said. Some of them even show things where what the "prophet" said doesn't align with what he also said.
https://answering-islam.org/Quran/Contra/ashraf.html
https://carm.org/islam/contradictions-in-the-quran/
Whether in a forum or a court of law, more powerful than any evidence presented is the lies people are caught in.
Yes, and one could say the same about christian scripture.
I do not accept information from second or third hand sources. Does this mean I never trust secondary sources?
I believe I showed at some point this week how I'm perfectly fine accepting the tide/moon guides.
The difference is that I actually went out when it said the moon was still up, and you know? I saw the moon.
Hey, good for you. Now take it to the next step and figure out how everyone, regardles of location, sees the same same moonphase at the same time and where your moon image is hidden that is somehow magically projected on a dome that doesn't exist.
Blindly trusting secondary sources based purely on hyped credentials is not remotely the same as a question and test approach. Even if I do see exactly what they told me I'd see, I don't always trust if unless it follows the model of three points below.
1. Verify it with your eyes (If someone says water can stick to a giant rotating ball, and you put a ball into the sink and spin it around, and drips off, I don't say "yes but the Earth is special circumstances")
2. Verify it with your mind (Is it logical? Is there an agenda?)
3. Check it against other possible theories (I'm not picky. Literally any explanation that doesn't involve what my eyes just disproved and doesn't feel illogical will do)
1) Yes, that's all the earth is, a spinning ball. Same as a tennis ball. My goodness you're a simpleton.
2) Yes, a global, freemasonic conspiracy, involving 100's of millions of people, every country, every government on the planet, united as one to hide the shape of the earth for 1000's of years is logical...
3) See 1 & 2
The bottom line is that all of this scriptural stuff and evidence of when something was written and who said what is all lies anyway. Just part of a global christian conspiracy to maintain power and influence. Anyone can see that. And it definitely passes your 1,2,3 test.
-
I only responded because I forgot what thread this was.
You're not staying dispassionate. You're bringing drama from one thread into another, looks like. You're hoping to bully me into thinking as you do. Sorry, not happening.
As for the ZamZam Well, well...
Yeah, we don't have great evidence it existed.
The water in Mecca? It comes from no less than 27 desalination plants.
-
I only responded because I forgot what thread this was.
You're not staying dispassionate. You're bringing drama from one thread into another, looks like. You're hoping to bully me into thinking as you do. Sorry, not happening.
As for the ZamZam Well, well...
Yeah, we don't have great evidence it existed.
The water in Mecca? It comes from no less than 27 desalination plants.
We have evidence at least from the 1800's...Pre-desalination tech, let alone plants.
I'm extremely dispassionate. All I'm saying is that everything you are asserting is part of a world-wide christian conspiracy aimed solely at maintaining influence and power. You've been lied to and indoctrinated into the christian world order cabal that makes every false effort to claim legitimacy and attempts to falsely show illegitimacy in all other religious persuasions. Simple as that.
-
You are extremely passionate. Dispassionate people do not carry arguments from one forum section to another. They keep arguments from one forum section in that forum section. That's grudge mentality.
Not that I am blameless in that regard. But if you're gonna do it, have decency to be honest about it.
You have writings probably. You have the words of Muslims, proclaiming loudly that the ZamZam Well has always existed. From the time of Adam. Oh really. So you living right next to the Red Sea in dry desert soil and you have a well right near you. The guy said you can just google it, so let's see.
"Where does zamzam water come from?"
It shows the crude looking post-1800s well.
(https://www.makkahtour.co.uk/blogs/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/Zamzam-Well-1.jpg)
Btw, this is too fancy for an ancient well. Abraham's Well in Israel, for reference.
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4103/5172773453_c7d9922e51_b.jpg)
It shows construction of ZamZam Well with heavy equipment.
(https://i.ytimg.com/vi/Codlmd_WvUA/maxresdefault.jpg)
The video talks about how she found the well in the desert, after she was cast out by Abraham. Supposedly, Abraham was in Mecca. Yet, as mentioned by the video, here is the absurdly close ZamZam Well right in the middle of the city.
(https://www.islamiclandmarks.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/Cross-section-of-the-Zamzam-Well.jpg)
Ultimately, I cannot find anything on these desalination plants (except using a very direct search, something like "ZamZam desalination"), instead saying that somehow the water of the ZamZam is "inexhaustable" even though it supposedly comes only from rainwater.
Mecca retains its hot temperature in winter, which can range from 18 °C (64 °F) at night to 30 °C (86 °F) in the day. Summer temperatures are extremely hot, often being over 40 °C (104 °F) during the day, dropping to 30 °C (86 °F) at night.
Mecca does not experience significant seasonal variation in the frequency of wet days (i.e., those with greater than 0.04 inches of liquid or liquid-equivalent precipitation). The frequency ranges from 0% to 3%, with an average value of 2%. Among wet days, we distinguish between those that experience rain alone, snow alone, or a mixture of the two. The month with the most days of rain alone in Mecca is May, with an average of 0.8 days. Based on this categorization, the most common form of precipitation throughout the year is rain alone, with a peak probability of 3% on May 6.
3% chance of rain, with also not a significant amount of rain (0.8 inches is a high), period.
https://weatherspark.com/y/101170/Average-Weather-in-Mecca-Saudi-Arabia-Year-Round
So somehow, this scarce rainfall is able to sustain all of the visitors. Either we buy the story that extremely weak rainfall serves Hajj visitors during peak season (you're supposed to be logical and not believe in superstition), or it has to be drawn from somewhere.
"If ZamZam water really was unlimited, Saudi Arabia would have been converted into an oasis. Not to mention provide clear drinking water for the entire world."
-
"If ZamZam water really was unlimited, Saudi Arabia would have been converted into an oasis. Not to mention provide clear drinking water for the entire world."
You're blindly relying on some random "expert" from YouTube?
Your "expert" is obviously part of the christian cabal that spreads lies about other religions in order to maintain it's power and influence. You're being lied to. You've been indoctrinated into a cult that has been fabricating what it refers to as "scripture" for centuries.
When determining a scam, always ask the question "Cui bono?", basically it means, "Who benefits?" The christian cult props up it's fabrications for it's own gain, benefit. Painfully obvious.
-
Ohhhh touche!
Nice try.
Christians don't have cabals though. Cabal comes from the idea of kabbalism (secret knowledge). Yes, over history, there were groups of Christians that were driven underground, but real Christianity, not things at war with Christianity, believe in openness & honesty.
26 Fear them not therefore, for there is nothing covered that shall not be revealed, and hid that shall not be known.
27 What I tell you in darkness, that speak ye in light; and what ye hear in the ear, that preach ye upon the housetops
Ccatholics have secret orders, but as I've said before, Catholics aren't Christians.
The word mystery is related to the word for mask. Ever wonder why Muslims were the first to mask up, well before COVID? It's because they are part of Mystery Babylon, the secular-pagan culture that values secrecy and violence. They have been at war with Western culture for centuries. But Western (Christian) culture has a weapon against them that will not prevail. Truth.
The well of ZamZam is filled with arsenic. For years, they have hauled around dirty water in their hearts. If Islam is to survive, it must let go of its hatred of these people it sees as heretic.
For My people have committed two evils: They have forsaken Me, the fountain of living waters, and hewn them out cisterns—broken cisterns that can hold no water.
The ZamZam is not endless living water. Jesus is living water, and he tells ppl to love their enemies and forgive those who persecute. The ZamZam did have an underground glacial spring. They depleted that with regular hajj trips (water is renewable but it can't be taken from an area like that by visitors), now they are secretly taking it from the Red Sea. I dunno if the Red Sea will run dry first, but before that ZamZam water is not the miraculous healing water you think it is so they might die of poisoning first.
Also, if you bothered to WATCH that last video, it's pretty clear he doesn't think much of religion at all. He's a secular ex-Muslim. Not a Christian.
In what way do Christians benefit from Muslims not drinking arsenic-filled water? If you can answer that, I'll be glad to hear it.
The fact is, that area wasn't the center of Islam. There might have even been a real Muhammad. But location is PETRA, nor Mecca. Petra has an oasis, even to this day. It has olives (spoken about in the Quran). It has wild plants of all sorts. More importantly, it is a place where alot of different religions gathered.
Or was. I think Muslims destroyed it, because like other reminders of their real past, they are embarrassed of it.
Who benefits from the Mecca narrative? Muslims. Who benefits from understanding the ZamZam is poison, and the real center of Islam is in Petra? Still Muslims, long term. Admitting your past is healthy. Having a false past filled with hatred and distorted ideas? That's like a poison. If they can rid themselves of this poison and embrace the truth about themselves, I believe God actually will grant them water. As it stands, Mecca has absolutely pathetic rainfall.
-
Yes, over history, there were groups of Christians that were driven underground, but real Christianity, not things at war with Christianity, believe in openness & honesty.
I have yet to meet one of these undefined real christians. All I have met are agents from the great global christian conspiracy operating solely to undermine all other faiths to maintain their wealth, influence, and power.
CONSPIRACY
n.
1. The act of conspiring together
2. An agreement among conspirators
3. A group of conspirators
{conspirare "to agree, unite, plot," literally "to breathe together"},
1) Christianity: Check!
2) Christianity: Check!
3) Christianity: Check!
Christians have been have been paving over reality for centuries. You can tell me lies all you want, but it doesn't make them true.
-
Yes, over history, there were groups of Christians that were driven underground, but real Christianity, not things at war with Christianity, believe in openness & honesty.
I have yet to meet one of these undefined real christians. All I have met are agents from the great global christian conspiracy operating solely to undermine all other faiths to maintain their wealth, influence, and power.
Hrrrmmm.
So you see Christians like this.
(https://www.history.com/.image/t_share/MTY4OTUyODIwNDcxNDQxMjE5/gettyimages-72614716.jpg)
Meeting in secret, scheming to keep their wealth. Possibly burning sacrifices, or whatever the hell that is.
(Btw, which is worse? Keeping the $2000 or so you earned through honest work? Or some nutjob demanding you give it away because you have "privilege"?)
Tacticus thought that Christians drank blood and ate flesh. A global Christian conspiracy...
Since you're quick to tell me I'm lazy, why don't you find out what a real church service is like instead of just rehearsing prejudices. No, you won't do it.
Because you're the one who is too lazy to go out and test your theories.
1. I went and looked at the sky for several days straight, along with looking at angles of various objects in perspective, before I personally concluded RE is false. This was after believing for 28 years that if the Earth is flat we should fall off.
2. I've gone on a road trip, exploring the world I lived in. It only made me more devout about my faith.
3. I've checked out a few other denominations, including a legit bona fide cult. Heard pitches from Happy Science and Spirit Science and Christian Science. And recently, COVID science. (Apparently, I've got alot of "science" ppl trying to sway me) More of less decided what I believe but I gave them a listen.
That's three times I have been less lazy than you. How about you get off your butt for a change. If you wanna prove Christians are evil, go ahead to a church or outdoor meeting, on Easter Sunday. Be as disruptive as you want after the service, but actually listen to their pitch.
It doesn't matter to me whether you're convinced or not. What matters is whether you gave any effort or not.
No? You're not gonna try it?
Lazy.
Now, if you want a good understanding of what true Christianity is supposed to be like, here's what it says about fake Christianity.
https://churchleaders.com/outreach-missions/outreach-missions-articles/266527-7-signs-you-are-a-counterfeit-christian.html
1. A counterfeit Christian feels more guilty for missing church than hurting his or her neighbor.
2. A counterfeit Christian believes the Bible is more important than Jesus.
3. A counterfeit Christian wonders how close he or she can get to sin without actually sinning.
4. A counterfeit Christian believes it’s OK to hold a grudge against someone if he or she hurts you bad enough.
5. A counterfeit Christian believes real Christians would never engage real sinners.
6. A counterfeit Christian believes God rests in a building, not in a group of people.
7. A counterfeit Christian thinks Christian maturity is more about how much people know than what they do.
A real Christian cares about helping others, even if they are talking to ppl who can't stand them, and possibly vice versa. They care about people, not books or buildings. They don't give a shit what people think of them. They do outreach to desperate people. They understand Christianity is about forgiveness, not rules.
Or as they say, "If you don't like religious hierarchy, guess what? Jesus didn't either." He liked people.
Everything goes back to this: Love God and love your neighbor. The question Christians must wrestle with is, “Do I actually believe it’s that simple?” In a culture where denominations argue over the correct way to baptize someone, grasping the Jesus life can seem like an impossible task. But it’s not.
The Jesus life is about loving God with all of your heart, mind and strength, and it’s about transferring God’s love onto every person you encounter.
As you can tell, I need work. My mind knows what to do, but my heart kinda sucks, I think. But yeah, that's what a real Christian is like. We human beings don't really get there all the time. The effort to follow rules (what you see many "Christians" doing) is not the effort we should be spending on. It's about our humanity.
Not that you go to hell if you get stuff wrong. I don't believe in Hell. The closest thing is human misery, and that happens to everyone. And no, before you ask, Hell isn't part of the creed. It's not a necessary belief to Christianity.
-
Yes, over history, there were groups of Christians that were driven underground, but real Christianity, not things at war with Christianity, believe in openness & honesty.
I have yet to meet one of these undefined real christians. All I have met are agents from the great global christian conspiracy operating solely to undermine all other faiths to maintain their wealth, influence, and power.
Since you're quick to tell me I'm lazy, why don't you find out what a real church service is like instead of just rehearsing prejudices. No, you won't do it.
Lazy, I think not. I was raised Episcopalian.
Went to church every Sunday, every Easter, midnight masses and xmas. Been to many evangelical, catholic services and one jewish service. Sunday school, confirmation, the whole nine yards, I've been in christian churches/services 100's of times. It's a scam to extract tithing, garner political strength, put forth the Biblical way of thinking. It's a 2 billion strong global conspiracy to put other faiths down for money, power, and influence and to keep humans in fear of a wrathful "god" with false promises of salvation and sin forgiveness. Little kid dies in a cancer ward, it was "god's plan..." Garbage, all of it. Worse yet, the conspirators try and spread their power money-grubbing fiction like a cancer. Can't just keep to themselves. The conspiracy has infiltrated our culture, our politics, our science. Everything. The hubris, pride of "we know better" is a harmful virus and undermines all of humanity. It's a sham designed to keep humans down.
-
That's because you thought you had to tithe.
You don't.
Unless I have been given a check, I don't give anything.
You may tell me, "Well, Bulmabriefs144, you're a terrible selfish greedy no-good rotten just plain bad Christian." No, I'm a real Christian because I believe in the people of the church, the community. I don't give a fuck whether the priest gets money or not. And I give back to the church in two ways (if works actually mattered, which it doesn't): I spend my time trying to get people to understand that there is a difference between the church (the building & the priesthood) and the Church (the body of people and their wants and needs) to "clear the muddle that is Jesus", and I volunteer a small portion of my time to helping my dad at the food bank. Not that I think defunding priests is good, but you must understand money donated to churches is voluntaryism. If it wasn't voluntary to you, you needed to switch churches.
You are only asked to spend once more. Pick up a Bible at the store (or ummm don't, and rent it from a library). Read one of the Gospels (I don't know offhand the best one, so let's say Matthew or John). Carefully, this time from the perspective of someone who thinks exactly as you do. That the temples of the world are just greedy places. Mixed among the religious are stories about taxes and especially about offerings. Look at how Jesus lived his life in response to these. He took grain when they said it was Sabbath. He ignored the rules of Sabbath entirely and taught others they were a system to create suffering, because they were a misuse of what God wanted. He smashed up a marketplace for temple offerings. When asked about taxes period, he talks about pulling money out of a fish (next W-2, soak your check in fish livers, dry, then sign ;D ).
You thought Christianity is about what you do. What you give. Of course you'd feel used, but unlike the IRS, the church has no way of demanding money. I mentioned another time that I met Jesus firsthand, you wanna hear my story?
( "No, I don't" ) Good, cuz I'll tell you.
Also grew up Episcopalian. Was a altar boy. Back around age 6, big bro crossdressed me for some play about David Karesh for his history class (I dunno what that has to do with David Karesh, but it was a silly play). That about point I got curious about women's clothes, and I've been kinda trans ever since (why I don't buy the genetic excuse). Wasn't a regular tither to begin with, but I almost left the faith myself. Why? Well, it comes down to being an altar boy. The person teaching me what to do was the sort of anal-retentive asshole that makes church fun. "Alright, light the right candle first, then bow, then light the left. Then put the wick out and hang it on the hook over there. Okay, now snuff the candle left, then bow, then snuff the right candle. From the top. No you forgot to bow here. Or you lit the wrong candle. We're gonna have to do it all again. " It's a FUCKING candle. Just don't knock it over and you're fine. Needless to say, I was a neurotic mess by my twenties. There was a little girl wanting to get out, trapped behind the image of a "perfect" boy trying to please everyone . But of course, I couldn't please anyone. Sometime in my 20s, I moved out (actually I ran from home, but I didn't explain it this way to other people). So basically a big road trip. Hung around Arizona with my sister, couldn't find a job until it was almost time to go, used WWOOF (WorldWide Organization of Organic Farming if you're not familiar) to get stipends for travel. First trip, I went to a legit cult. Twelve Tribes. It was close to Passover, and they talked about "removing the leaven from your life." Much like the stereotype you have in your head, they wanted all my money (they're a cult after all). More on Twelve Tribes.
https://www.twelvetribes.org/
I was locked in an endless service, as they wanted me to swear my loyalty and pledge to give everything to their "church". Then something interesting happened. I was like, "I want to leave, but the doors are probably locked." Then some kid opened the doors ( that kid wuz Jesus) and I snuck out. One of the cultists, and one of the elders followed. The cultist gave me a fake sob story about how he once tried to leave but life was terrible outside and he came back. Kept packing. Then the elder came. I told him I miss my family (though it was awhile before I headed back) and he told me, " Your family is doomed. They will head to the second death, because they didn't follow Yahshua (btw, if you pronounce it wrong, they think you're not really one of them)." I gave the elder a glare that said, "Say that again, I dare you" and instead asked, "The gate is open, right? You guys didn't take my car or anything?" They didn't. Drove about 150 miles north, stayed at a campground (tent smelled like it had been peed in, as it had never been washed properly I guess), and the next day was Sunday. Went to a service, the priestess talked in depth about the Jewish offering system. She paused for effect. "We don't have to do that anymore."
You don't have to do that anymore.
That isn't the real church. The priest has a paying job, but whether you want to support him or not is completely up to you. He does donate to outreach and helping the poor, but that doesn't have to be you. The real Church is the congregation, not the building, not the priest. The Church won't ask anything you wouldn't give anyway.
Btw. That little kid who died in the cancer ward? This was all the hospital. They pumped him full of chemicals, they zapped him full of radiation. They milked his parents for money. All of this was secular system. The state. The state killed a little kid, and pepople who said that had no idea what to say about it. "He's in a better place now." Well probably , but the people you should hate most are not those who failed to cheer you up, but those who gave their oath not to do harm to the child, and broke it.
If Jesus were speaking to you today, I know what he'd say. I know that, because I learned we are the Body of Christ. That is, Jesus speaks through me, and he can speak through you (sometimes). He would say, "Forget all that wrathful god stuff. Forget the threat of punishment. Forget the tithe. That's never what I intended when I founded my church. I wanted it free of the Pharisees that bilk the poor for money, or shame people about judgement. Instead, they became priests. Help me fix the church, make it effective, instead of being at war with it." That's what he'd say. He'd probably also tell you that the state is just as big a collection system, but unlike the church, it is mostly involuntary. It also needs to be fixed, by people not being against the church and diving into mandatory taxes with open arms. By people helping reform the church into something that primarily helps the public, and only partially is about the building or the priest. When the church isn't supported all, the state has to help. Every time the state helps, higher taxes.
Go to a temple once more, but this time when collection comes, don't bring a wallet. Shrug out your pockets. You'll notice the guy can't actually send a collector to your house. Instead of focusing on the money, listen to the sermon, go to the coffee hour, and talk to people. Voila, free church service. Tell me what you learn about the "conspiracy." There isn't one. It's like another priest said to me. Something about one way leading to madness and another leading to Jesus (this was when I actively believed on of my friends was a spy). There isn't a conspiracy. There's you, there's me, and there's God.
The church leaders might want money. But they can't actually force you to give anything. The congregation, the actual lifeblood of the church, usually gives zero fucks about whether you give our not. Pay attention to them instead.
That is the muddle that is Jesus. I hope I've cleaned it a bit.
Lemme guess though. TL;DR
Sigh....
-
That's because you thought you had to tithe.
Tithing isn't the only way religious cults like christianity make money. I am forced to subsidize them every time I write my property tax check and every time I simply pay taxes. I am literally paying for them to exist with their tax exempt status. I make up the difference in their not having to pay. Their cost is passed on to me.
In Texas, for example, a minister can write off the entirely of their McMansion and acreage even if there isn't a "church" on the property. Because, when they are at rest by their pool, they are perfoming clerical duties for the sake of god. If I were a Texan, I'd be paying for said minister's holy work and residence. I can't even put a price on political influence. It's way too high to even be calculated. And this is where the conspiracy really takes hold.
As for the bible, the gospels, written by experts and refined and revised by experts over the centuries. We have no way of knowing what is true or not. But a conspiratorial cult is engineered around it and you blindly buy into it. If you simply believed in a god that would be one thing. But because you absorb and espouse even just some of the ancient writings from a book, you are a part of the conspiratorial scheme to push your expert derived "teachings" on to others. And walk around thinking your book, or parts of it, is the only way. And all other books are trash.
That is the conspiracy, to persuade others into thinking something is one way when it's really another. Hiding behind the thin veneer of holiness. It's the worst kind of conspiracy because it invokes the fear of the supernatural.
You're a part of a global machine of disinformation, indoctrination, and servitude. And not surprising that you joined yet another cult after leaving one. That's just how you are wired, to blindly fall into the trappings of group mind-think.
At least 6 billion people are not buying into the conspiracy and sham of the holier than thou nonsense that is christianity. 500-750 million of which are unaffiliated with any cult and growing. At least we're moving in the right direction.
-
That's because you thought you had to tithe.
Tithing isn't the only way religious cults like christianity make money. I am forced to subsidize them every time I write my property tax check and every time I simply pay taxes. I am literally paying for them to exist with their tax exempt status. I make up the difference in their not having to pay. Their cost is passed on to me.
That's secular government again. Just as asshole doctors kill off little kids and Christian priests and lay people are at a loss to tell you what to make of this (I will tell you, you shouldn't fawn over experts, as the experts killed children with chemotherapy and radiation), the government helps you paint a picture of Christians actually benefiting from your tax money.
But here's the thing. Until about 1909, there more or less was no income tax. That is, the church and you both paid nothing. The government is not giving them your money. They are not getting a tax refund. They have a similar tax status to me. They are not paying anything, they are not getting anything back. It's a tax exemption, not a tax refund. So basically, you are punishing people for not paying a tax.
There is a Taoist legend about a bird of prey (let's say a hawk) and a phoenix. The phoenix only eats water, and the occasional bamboo. The hawk squawks at it because it has a dead bird nearby that it's eating. It doesn't want that bird!
Secondly, all of this was done by decision of government. The 16th amendment was "ratified", allowing the government to tax you. The thing is, that's actually... probably not true. The federal government pushed through the 16th amendment because they want your money. They give a tax exemption to churches. Yes, that's true. But let's discuss.
https://michaelruark.blog/2020/09/12/states-did-not-legally-ratify-the-16th-amendment/
Oh, and btw. There is no "national debt". That's a lie by the state. If every American citizen were to pay 100% of their earnings to the government, to the point of dying in poverty, it would not make a dent. No rhetoric about fair share is true. You will NEVER be able to pay off or even pay down the debt. You know why? Because our money comes from a deal that our government has made with the Federal Reserve (which is actually a private company). They print money and loan it out to the government. The government spends money, and adds it to their debt. You get money when they spend (not on a loan but through the programs they give that trickle to you), and government tries to convince you their debt is yours. You cannot pay off someone else's debt when your money is going to pay off the wrong people.
It's impossible.
As much or little a church makes, they only save money, they are not making any of yours (unless you choose to give it).
You ever seen this?
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-trLHREqJwwY/UQu5VeUCNTI/AAAAAAAAAsg/IvftUwzX14Q/s1600/penny-take-one-leave-one.jpg)
This is how a church really works. Unlike banks, they do not charge interest. They give the money if you are in need. People also willingly donate to the church (especially in the black community), as they know they very well might be in need. When you strip the church's tax exemption, because you wrongly think that it does not deserve it, you not only punish it while leaving alone other tax-free organizations, but you add to the amount that the government spends to "help" the poor. Years of government money have not helped the homeless, but made more homeless. This is because government does not give a cent without reporting it as part of their "debt".
The secular government (who today wants priests in leftist states to violate their confidence with those who confess sins to the state, acting as government informants) wants you to think that this tax break is somehow solely collected by the church, and that it all goes to pay the priest's fat salary.
First of all, many organizations are tax exempt. Islamic mosques are tax exempt (they shouldn't be, but we'll get to that below), Jewish synagogues, Hindu temples, and whatever else. If you wanted to build an atheist church, yes you could claim tax exempt status, if you understand what is involved in this. This is called 501 (c) (3). It applies to all non-profits. This applies to any charity. You kill that, your favorite charity goes under. Unless you want to unconstitutionally create a situation of prejudice, where churches are not tax-exempt but secular charities are. Anyway, this all means that the fact that an atheist church is not a "real religion" has no bearing whatsoever on this status. What does?
1. Lack of single beneficiary.
2. Non-involvement in politics.
(They've also added 14 standards of a church, but these are ways the secular government singles out churches, other 501(c)(3) charities do not have to worry about this)
In other words, a deal is cut with the government and the church "you will stay out of government and not try to take over and establish rival government." This is the beef I have with Muslim mosques. They have shown time and again that Sharia is actually a rival government with its own laws, own courts, and ambition to run countries. The mosques, and only the mosques should be defunded. It's not because I object to their religion. It's because they misused #2 of this rule.
Likewise, outside of Joel Osteen and other tele-evangelists, most priests do not take all the offering money and go crazy with it. But people like Osteen often have to pay taxes actually (#1). As for other priests, they answer to a vestry, which decides what percent is at the priest's discretion, and what is spent by the vestry on missions, feeding the poor (the food bank I mentioned), and other projects.
Notice I said the church, not the Church (the congregation). The members of any church, as far as the government is concerned, are independent citizens. They can vote as they want. In the next election, the priest goes to the voting booth with everyone else, operating as a private citizen. But they also pay taxes as a private citizen. But the entire church cannot push all its members in an election. It's not part of lobbies or protests. Stuff like that.
Okay, here's the last thing. The priest doesn't necessarily get a tax free deal. My dad routinely files taxes, and winds up itemizing everything. The tax free status? It's on the church property. That's it. And you know what that property can do? It can give poor people a place to sleep. It can host soup kitchens. This is not all terrible conspiracy. This is a relatively cheap way of helping people that you're opposing because you don't understand that your "friends" on government-run public charity are not as friendly as you think.
When church property is seized, what happens instead is the state picks up the slack. Then they do schemes to make ppl "owe" them, because states are in the business of money collection. They don't serve anyone. They inflate the economy, they try to raise taxes, and make other schemes to get people to pay more. They can get away with this because of the sick Federal Reserve System.
Eat your chicken, and stop looking over at the phoenix.
Now, if you say "we should stop paying priests", you know what? I agree with you. We don't need the priesthood. Without it, it would be 100% leave a penny take a penny. But when you say that we should stop exempting churches, yeah I take exception. The problem is, in order to fire priests, we need a much higher lay leader education system so people understand what the Church is about, and it can function properly.
-
Jealousy of what others are or are not doing is a scarcity mindset.
But if your state has a flat 10% tax, it literally does not matter to a person making $50k what I do, what the church does, or even what the government does.
But the government convinces you it does. They want to raise the tax, so they convince the public there is urgency.
The truth is though, that the government can raise taxes so high before they kill the goose that lays the golden eggs (since you don't seem a student of literature, it's from Jack and the Beanstalk, referring to a gift that keeps on giving). If the government were to tax people making $50k or more 70%, many people would quit their job and get a lower-paying one. If they weren't forced into homelessness and poverty the first tax.
There is no urgency to pay someone else's debt. It's all a lie. Pay off your own credit debts, and stop worrying about what other people are doing.
When you do this, when you can stop being a busybody, a strange thing happens. You can discover that where you thought there was scarcity, there is actually abundance. I make less than $500 a year. Yet I manage to remain clothed through Christmas and birthday gifts, and have more than enough to eat.
-
That's because you thought you had to tithe.
Tithing isn't the only way religious cults like christianity make money. I am forced to subsidize them every time I write my property tax check and every time I simply pay taxes. I am literally paying for them to exist with their tax exempt status. I make up the difference in their not having to pay. Their cost is passed on to me.
Just as asshole doctors kill off little kids...
You never seek medical attention?
They give a tax exemption to churches.
Why do you blindly believe anything some guy with a wordpress blog says? And you accuse others of just accepting "experts"? At least the experts we cite are actually, you know, EXPERTS. Experts who have had their work tested, re-tested, measured, scrutinized, utilized and shown to work, sometimes over centuries by 100's of millions of people. Not just some random blogger the likes of which you seem to rely on, blindly.
Here's how much money these megachurches bring in across the US (https://www.foxbusiness.com/money/how-much-money-megachurches-make)
There are reportedly 1,650 Protestant megachurches in the U.S., the HIRR says on its website.
However, it’s not always clear exactly how much these megachurches make because churches aren’t legally obligated to file their financial information to the government, according to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS).
Unlike other nonprofits, churches and church-affiliated organizations are exempt from filing annual information returns to the IRS. Despite the exemption, some churches -- including some of the biggest in the U.S. -- choose to report their finances anyway.
- The Edmond, Okla.-based 'Life Church', pastored by Craig Groeschel, brought in $143.4 million in cash and noncash donations in 2018 and reported $281 million in total assets
- Lakewood Church: The report showed that the megachurch received a total of $78.7 million contributions and after its $90.6 million budget, Lakewood Church had $59 million in net assets at the end of the fiscal year.
That's just 2 out of the 1,650 megachurches...All Tax FREE!
Scott Thumma, professor of sociology and religion at Hartford Seminary told CNN that "the mega church on average has about $6.5 million in income a year."
"If you put together all the mega churches in the United States, that's easily several billion dollars."
Televangelist Asks His Followers For $54m For Private Jet
Pastor Copeland...Private Planes, yet again...
(https://i.imgur.com/YnEIP7e.gif)
TAX FREE!!! And everyone in the conspiracy can pay themselves a "salary" of any amount...TAX FREE!!!
Christianity is a scam conspiring to group-think the sheeple into believing their lies and reaping the rewards of money, influence, and power, furthering their reach to indoctrinate as many as possible. All predicated on a fictional narrative with no basis in reality. It's pretty easy to see why you've jumped from one cult to another and another - You've been indoctrinated to believe and fear the fantastical and blindly believe in a book of myths and legends is real.
-
Pastor Copeland, I don't really know, but there is a distinct difference between a small church (90% of all churches) and a megachurch running on tele-evangelism.
(https://wesleyancovenant.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/leslie-cross-CXSWIP1j16E-unsplash-scaled.jpg)
This is what I think of as a church. Before COVID, we had a Methodist church like this. Afterwards, their leadership got all fucked up due to fear, and stopped being involved in community events. They helped alot of organizations, now they're a shadow of themselves. Many small churches have no closed and the communities they helped are set adrift.
The secular left has no solution to the problems the churches deal with, they just think throwing tax money at them is better than a group of committed people doing it themselves.
And no, I don't seek medical attention. And I sincerely hope one day medical attention will stop seeking me.
For Example... (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=84725.0)
Haven't been vaccinated in years, haven't gone to the doctor even if I am sick, and when I die of something, I intend to die at home. The most disgusting thing modern society has done has been to give quacks the right to jab people with chemicals because it's for their "own good."
Here, theological question for you. With the assumption that demons are the source of evil (and not humans being able to do bad all by themselves), did God create demons?
-
And no, I don't seek medical attention. And I sincerely hope one day medical attention will stop seeking me.
For Example... (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=84725.0)
Haven't been vaccinated in years, haven't gone to the doctor even if I am sick, and when I die of something, I intend to die at home. The most disgusting thing modern society has done has been to give quacks the right to jab people with chemicals because it's for their "own good."
There you go again, all black and white: I'm healthy, don't need medical attention or I'm dead and don't need medical attention. You do realize there's a wide spectrum in-between, right?
You get in a car accident, it's a bad one. Broken bones, bleeding, concussion, not dead. Ambulance arrives. You would just wave them off and not seek medical attention?
Side questions,
- Do you currently, or in the past, accept any subsidies from the government, e.g., disability, medicaid/medicare, unemployment, food stamps. etc.?
- If your house was on fire and the FD showed up, would you wave them away?
- If your car got stolen, would you report it? House burgled, all stuff taken, computer, kindle, everything, would you report it?
- Do you pay for insurance for anything?
- If a natural disaster came your way, say a hurricane, and it destroyed your home, would you seek any help from FEMA, e.g., supplies, temp shelter, money to rebuild, etc?
Here, theological question for you. With the assumption that demons are the source of evil (and not humans being able to do bad all by themselves), did God create demons?
Philosophically, depends upon what kind of god or gods you're talking about. Reality, there's no such things as demons.
-
You having perception of or their existience affecting your life (life!) doesnt mean they dont exist.
-
You having perception of or their existience affecting your life (life!) doesnt mean they dont exist.
Are you talking to me? I have no idea what this means.
-
And no, I don't seek medical attention. And I sincerely hope one day medical attention will stop seeking me.
For Example... (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=84725.0)
Haven't been vaccinated in years, haven't gone to the doctor even if I am sick, and when I die of something, I intend to die at home. The most disgusting thing modern society has done has been to give quacks the right to jab people with chemicals because it's for their "own good."
There you go again, all black and white: I'm healthy, don't need medical attention or I'm dead and don't need medical attention. You do realize there's a wide spectrum in-between, right?
You get in a car accident, it's a bad one. Broken bones, bleeding, concussion, not dead. Ambulance arrives. You would just wave them off and not seek medical attention?
Wave them off. Of course, the thing is, they would try to haul me over anyway.
Side questions,
- Do you currently, or in the past, accept any subsidies from the government, e.g., disability, medicaid/medicare, unemployment, food stamps. etc.?
No, no, no, no, I accept food bank but that comes from working with the church to deliver food from others. I take a few leftover items.
- If your house was on fire and the FD showed up, would you wave them away?
FD and hospital are two different things.
- If your car got stolen, would you report it? House burgled, all stuff taken, computer, kindle, everything, would you report it?
PD and hospital are two different things
- Do you pay for insurance for anything?
Not except that our state requires driving insurance
- If a natural disaster came your way, say a hurricane, and it destroyed your home, would you seek any help from FEMA, e.g., supplies, temp shelter, money to rebuild, etc?
Definitely not. FEMA is evil
Here, theological question for you. With the assumption that demons are the source of evil (and not humans being able to do bad all by themselves), did God create demons?
Philosophically, depends upon what kind of god or gods you're talking about. Reality, there's no such things as demons.
-
Reality, there's no such things as demons.
You having perception of, or their existience affecting your life (life!), doesnt mean they dont exist.
They may or may not affect your afterlife.
-
And no, I don't seek medical attention. And I sincerely hope one day medical attention will stop seeking me.
For Example... (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=84725.0)
Haven't been vaccinated in years, haven't gone to the doctor even if I am sick, and when I die of something, I intend to die at home. The most disgusting thing modern society has done has been to give quacks the right to jab people with chemicals because it's for their "own good."
There you go again, all black and white: I'm healthy, don't need medical attention or I'm dead and don't need medical attention. You do realize there's a wide spectrum in-between, right?
You get in a car accident, it's a bad one. Broken bones, bleeding, concussion, not dead. Ambulance arrives. You would just wave them off and not seek medical attention?
Wave them off. Of course, the thing is, they would try to haul me over anyway.
What if you fell down the stairs in your house and broke your leg? Would you not seek medical attention?
Side questions,
- If your house was on fire and the FD showed up, would you wave them away?
FD and hospital are two different things.
I'm not equating FD with hospitals. Just asking a side question. Would you would accept FD assistance considering they are a socialistic government tax funded entity?
What do you do for money since you don't work? Do you pay for housing and utilities and such or do your parents cover that?
-
Lemme solve this problem for you.
When you have a fire, does the FD throw something on it that only snuffs it temporarily?
What about the police officers? Do they arrest someone, slap them on the wrist and let them go? The worst liberal police system is lax but not that lax.
Why then, do we tolerate medicine where most patients never have their disease resolved, only the symptoms treated, leaving them to pursue treatment time after time?
I despise fraud (as you know). All false healers ought to move aside. Even if that means there is nobody left but Jesus.
In the days of Jesus, we had the idea of yearly sacrifice for atonement. Year after year, thousands of animals were sacrificed. Like with the healing that he did, actually removing the state permanently, his death & resurrection was designed as permanent antidote for sin.
-
Lemme solve this problem for you.
What if you fell down the stairs in your house and broke your leg? Would you not seek medical attention?
-
Just a question that occurred as we are in the season of resurrection.
The “He died for us,” spiel.
Can an entity that knows he’ll be back in a couple of days, right as rain, truly have died for us?
For humanity, death is an end of existence, with a "perhaps" attached if you are religious, it often means excruciating pain and the loss of all loved ones and things and it’s coming is marked by a dread so ingrained that we have been known to do questionable things to avoid it.
JC, would I imagine be free from both the dread and the “what if I’m wrong” problems, so his experience of death would be tempered and lessened considerably by insider knowledge, and therefore, a bit of a fraud.
-
Yeah, he can.
If you understand what this process means.
Strictly speaking, Jesus did not need to die on the cross.
As the Jews say during Passover "it would have been sufficient" had Jesus simply been born and died like a normal human.
But nobody would understand what had been done.
Jesus's birth and death were actually a process of God being a part of humanity. If God was one of us, then the system had been tested, and the nature of sin is known to God (i.e. God knows what it is to resist sin, and our sins are wiped clean). Yet it was necessary for Jesus's death to be known, so that regular humans actually know that Jesus died for us, and not simply died. Even if Jesus forgave our sins as a nobody, they would be forgiven. But the population would still live as though they weren't, ignorant of the meaning of Jesus's sacrifice. Kinda like the Jews are today. They have been forgiven, but many of them are completely ignorant of Christ oe have a distorted view of him.
Jesus died, so even in the remotest part of South America, where Jesus is unheard of, they are saved. But they would still live as if they were unsaved (guilt/shame) had his death not been public.
So no, that Jesus bounced back from death is not the issue.
-
In the days of Jesus, we had the idea of yearly sacrifice for atonement. Year after year, thousands of animals were sacrificed. Like with the healing that he did, actually removing the state permanently, his death & resurrection was designed as permanent antidote for sin.
The church was the state.
They begged for a physicla king just like the other countries.
So in actuality youd be FOR a pope to rule over you.
-
Lemme solve this problem for you.
What if you fell down the stairs in your house and broke your leg? Would you not seek medical attention?
I've broken a leg before. I spent like six months in the hospital, and had to be held back. Nowadays if it was a sprain, rather than a break, I wouldn't go to the hospital.
Falling from the stairs is more likely going to be a sprain than a break. Whether a sprain or a break, I'd just go ahead. I'm pretty damned stubborn. I badly hurt my feet wearing one pair of heels, yet nonetheless walked all the way home without asking for assistance. It was about three or four blocks with sharp pain all up my leg. Who cares?
The church was the state.
They begged for a physical king just like the other countries.
So in actuality youd be FOR a pope to rule over you.
Me personally? Are you using the "If you were born in India, you'd be a Hindu" argument? Listen, Jesus was born in Israel but though he celebrated temple festivals, he defied the priests and started his own. Buddha was a Kshatriya prince. Became a pacifist monk wanderer dude.
Yes, location and time do matter some, but there is no way to gauge what someone would do if they were isekai'd to a specific place and time. I wasn't born then because I'd probably not fit. Not all supported this idea, any more than all support any idea. It's usually the mob or the loudest that decide things. Not a unanimous decision.
-
"They" as in the isrealites.
Ruling party was the prophets priests and judges.
"They" asked for a king and Saul took charge.
If you want to do away with the politcial leaders, you accept the ruling class are the priests and prophets.
The pope takes over as 'overlord'.
-
"They" as in the isrealites.
Ruling party was the prophets priests and judges.
"They" asked for a king and Saul took charge.
If you want to do away with the politcial leaders, you accept the ruling class are the priests and prophets.
The pope takes over as 'overlord'.
Yes, I knew who you were talking about and when.
Was the decision to have a king a unanimous decision? Probably not. A crowd of people come to God's prophet and tell him this. He doesn't conduct a nationwide survey. He just does it because God says it's fine.
I'm an American. If I were the same person at all, we strongly oppose kings.
(https://i.pinimg.com/originals/30/0e/8e/300e8e86ce82b72ec28fa47a19972965.jpg)
The point being, that secular people have elected the likes of Kim Jung. I don't support kings, nor do I support popes.
-
"They" as in the isrealites.
Ruling party was the prophets priests and judges.
"They" asked for a king and Saul took charge.
If you want to do away with the politcial leaders, you accept the ruling class are the priests and prophets.
The pope takes over as 'overlord'.
Yes, I knew who you were talking about and when.
Was the decision to have a king a unanimous decision? Probably not. A crowd of people come to God's prophet and tell him this. He doesn't conduct a nationwide survey. He just does it because God says it's fine.
I'm an American. If I were the same person at all, we strongly oppose kings.
The point being, that secular people have elected the likes of Kim Jung. I don't support kings, nor do I support popes.
Me personally? Are you using the "If you were born in India, you'd be a Hindu" argument? Listen, Jesus was born in Israel but though he celebrated temple festivals, he defied the priests and started his own. Buddha was a Kshatriya prince. Became a pacifist monk wanderer dude.
Yes, location and time do matter some, but there is no way to gauge what someone would do if they were isekai'd to a specific place and time. I wasn't born then because I'd probably not fit. Not all supported this idea, any more than all support any idea. It's usually the mob or the loudest that decide things. Not a unanimous decision.
NO
it clearly shows you did not know my intent as you responded completely differently about hindis and buddhis.
so you reject centralized religious authority.
further proof you're a sovereign citizen and that no discussion on religion with you is relevant because you change and move with the wind.
we can not use additional resources because you dismiss them as not part of YOUR belief system.
you have no consistent dogma.
to say you're X or Y or Z is a lie - you're a fraud.
I despise fraud (as you know).
-
Lemme solve this problem for you.
What if you fell down the stairs in your house and broke your leg? Would you not seek medical attention?
I've broken a leg before. I spent like six months in the hospital, and had to be held back. Nowadays if it was a sprain, rather than a break, I wouldn't go to the hospital.
Why would someone need to be in hospital for 1/2 a year for a broken leg?
I didn't ask about the likelihood of injury type if one falls down stairs. Talk about dodging the question. Wow.
Here it is yet again, I'll spice it up:
What if you fell down the stairs in your house and broke your leg? It's a compound fracture, bone sticking out. Would you not seek medical attention? Or would you just "go ahead"? Whatever that means.
-
It was a nasty twist and/or break. I never actually questioned it, but I think it was also that I wasn't emotionally ready yet so I was held back too. It might have also involved alot of physical therapy.
If I have a compound fracture nowadays, I'd probably just tell them to send me home in a wheelchair, and just fuck off. No extraordinary measures. No long term rehabilitation. Either I can recover on my own, or my spirit is broken and I spend the last of my life eating and sleeping.
I wanna live my life like my cat. 🐱 We didn't put her down, neither did we do anything extraordinary medicine-wise (aside from taking out a lump, and that was a nasty scene, as she moved around like a zombie for like a week between the smell of her stitched organs and her fatigue). When she went blind, she just stopped bothering to drink or eat, and that was it.
This body is not to be kept alive at all costs. Neither is it to be put down. When it's time to go, I'm not gonna burden my family with expensive procedures. While I'm here, I want to do as much as I can, learn as much as I can, and not be a welfare mooch. I accept help from family or friends, and from people/things I work for. And from the church. I accept zero help from people in lab coats, or experts, or anything that I have not made voluntary decision. "You have cancer and should get radiation and chemo." No thanks, I'd rather die near home.
to say you're X or Y or Z is a lie - you're a fraud.
So you say. While you think Christianity is some sort of Moralist Therapeutic Deism (MTD). No, I didn't coin this word. Basically, it's the sort of wishy-washy Christianity that is more into social justice, and doesn't differentiate itself from the vapid culture obsessed with success, material items, white guilt, and trend beliefs.
That "Christianity" is a fraud in the same way Catholicism is. It is moralistic in the same way that it forgets that even the secular world has morals, and confuses people-pleasing with God's Truth. It is moral in the sense that "If I am a good person (whatever that is) I will get into heaven." It is deistic, in that it never clearly defines the person role of God in our lives. And it is therapeutic in that it perceives what we do in terms of works as enough. But the Bible teaches that no amount of effort can earn grace. Grace is given, not earned, and every one of us (if not for the mercy of God) would be doomed. Because of the mercy of God, we are given our lives.
The American people ARE sovereign citizens. You've somehow misread the constitution, and not noticed that are first ten amendments were concerned with rights. Then they passed amendments to try to take rights away.
The Christian people ARE sovereign citizens. The US constitution was based on on rights granted by God. One nation under God, with liberty and justice for all. This is the America that I believe in.
MTD quickly went along with COVID hysteria, and they readily go along with climate change or social justice fads. But this wasn't Jesus. Oh yes, he did behave more like a social justice warrior than you'd think. But he had more in common with Ayn Rand than Karl Marx.
-
It was a nasty twist and/or break. I never actually questioned it, but I think it was also that I wasn't emotionally ready yet so I was held back too. It might have also involved alot of physical therapy.
Zero people are kept in a hospital for 1/2 a year for a broken leg, no matter how nasty, let alone a twist. Were you in a psych ward? That seems to be the only plausible explanation.
If I have a compound fracture nowadays, I'd probably just tell them to send me home in a wheelchair, and just fuck off.
So you would seek medical attention? Just to get a wheelchair? That makes no sense.
The question is, you're home, somehow compound fracture your leg...What do you do?
A) Seek medical attention to have it set or maybe even pinned, cast, then go home on crutches?
B) Or, do you not seek any medical attention and just stay at home with a cracked tibia poking through your skin?
-
No.
If I had a compound fracture, I would likely be carted to the hospital against my will. If they tried to suggest some experimental procedure to get my legs back into shape, I'd tell them flatly that I'm paying only to take one of their wheelchairs out of the building, and refusing any and all other treatments, including the ones they did on me. Crutches if not a wheelchair, and calling any family friends to pick me up. And I'm refusing to pay them for treatment they did on their own initiative without my knowledge or consent. I'd sign out immediately, and either recover or not. Not another second in that place.
I wouldn't "visit the hospital to get a wheelchair", I would likely be taken there against my will. Everyone who has had a compound fracture (or any kind of fracture) knows that the first person who finds you typically calls an ambulance. They don't take you upstairs to your own bed to sleep. I'd tell them immediately that I have a moral objection to medical treatment, and sign a waiver refusing as much aid as possible short of what it takes to get out of the building.
I not only was stuck in a hospital for seizures and other conditions for more of my life than I wanted, I also had to clean them as a janitor out of college. No thanks. No matter how sick I am. If a nurse wants to come visit me at home, and I have personally paid for their assistance, that is one thing.
To be stripped naked and put in a robe that has no medical purpose other than humiliation, to be in foreign room far too cold wearing that, and to have people coughing and sneezing with the clinical smell of disinfecting chemicals all around? No, no thank you. That makes me sicker.
And I'll thank you to actually understand my viewpoint and stop thinking you can accuse me of mooching on the medical industry. I don't own insurance, and I don't accept treatment. I don't have the money anyway, and won't pay for something someone else did because they were "concerned".
If they were really concerned about helping me, taking me to the hospital and leaving me with a bill was not it.
Either foot the bill as the person who rescued me, or leave me alone to die. Misguided "salvation" where you never take consequences for your actions is no good.
In the same way, if I convince you Jesus is real, and I get you to pay a tithe while I never tithe, I have defrauded you. Likewise, if my actions do more harm than good (you give charitably but then misfortune hits and you're on the streets), I was better off leaving you alone. First do no harm.
-
No.
If I had a compound fracture, I would likely be carted to the hospital against my will.
Setting a broken leg is not an "experimental procedure". Neither is putting pins in. Neither is getting a cast. Neither is getting crutches.
That aside, I probably wasn't clear in my question. You are alone. There is no one there to "cart you off". You've snapped your tibia, it's broken through the skin and you're sitting there, bleeding out, alone. What do you do? You don't call a friend of family because you know they will cart you off, call an ambulance, or whatever, and that is against your wishes. You know that no one will "find" you to cart you off for a few days and if you don't bleed to death by then, without meds, antibiotics, you'll go septic, your organs shutting down.
Do you just sit there, in immense pain, just bleed out, let sepsis take over and die because you don't want medical attention? You'd prefer death? All because of a broken leg?
Side question: You do get carted off, refuse medical treatment and get a wheel chair. You would still have to pay for that, btw. In any case, after getting your wheelchair you would still opt to be wheeled out of the ER with a bone sticking out of your skin and bleeding out in the process, waiting for infection to set in? Go home and just die all because you didn't want your busted leg to be fixed? You'd prefer death?
I not only was stuck in a hospital for seizures and other conditions for more of my life than I wanted, I also had to clean them as a janitor out of college.
How were you forced to be a hospital janitor?
And I'll thank you to actually understand my viewpoint and stop thinking you can accuse me of mooching on the medical industry. I don't own insurance, and I don't accept treatment. I don't have the money anyway, and won't pay for something someone else did because they were "concerned".
You actually don't know how the system works. Let's say you get in a car accident with multiple life threatening injuries and are unconscious. You wake up in the hospital after life saving surgeries. You have no insurance and claim "indigence". And you really are and have proof of indigence. Hospitals can waive most if not all of your medical bills. (Happened to a friend of mine who had a minor stroke at an abnormally young age, got scans, 3 days in hospital, $38,000 bill, claimed "indigence", proved it, ended up paying $2500).
In this example, you know who pays for your medical care? Me.
And I'm glad to do it because you can't and I can. I don't need a Jesus to know that is the right thing to do. Even though, at the end of the day, you are mooching off people like me who do have and pay for insurance and pay taxes. Where do you think your indigent costs get absorbed, passed off to? That's how the system works.
-
they guy was put on meds.
i think he admitted to it earlier.
is he chikijamams or newearth?
-
they guy was put on meds.
i think he admitted to it earlier.
is he chikijamams or newearth?
I get that, PTSD is a bitch. A past traumatic experience tends to make one not want to be near a similar environment again. But when push comes to shove, would you rather die? Perhaps for some.
A pretty solid even mix of chicpajamas & newdearth; Woefully ignorant and obsessed with the absence of humility and logic beset by an unbounded hubris proclaiming an all-knowing intellect and knowledge above all else on the globe.
-
Not naming names here but it seems we either have a plethora of damaged individuals, marred by a traumatic childhood who used imagination instead of education to cope, and have construed that fantasy as a reality, that all should follow, or we have a single individual with the above affliction, spamming this place in several guises.
-
No.
If I had a compound fracture, I would likely be carted to the hospital against my will.
Setting a broken leg is not an "experimental procedure". Neither is putting pins in. Neither is getting a cast. Neither is getting crutches.
That aside, I probably wasn't clear in my question. You are alone. There is no one there to "cart you off". You've snapped your tibia, it's broken through the skin and you're sitting there, bleeding out, alone. What do you do? You don't call a friend of family because you know they will cart you off, call an ambulance, or whatever, and that is against your wishes. You know that no one will "find" you to cart you off for a few days and if you don't bleed to death by then, without meds, antibiotics, you'll go septic, your organs shutting down.
Do you just sit there, in immense pain, just bleed out, let sepsis take over and die because you don't want medical attention? You'd prefer death? All because of a broken leg?
Side question: You do get carted off, refuse medical treatment and get a wheel chair. You would still have to pay for that, btw. In any case, after getting your wheelchair you would still opt to be wheeled out of the ER with a bone sticking out of your skin and bleeding out in the process, waiting for infection to set in? Go home and just die all because you didn't want your busted leg to be fixed? You'd prefer death?
I not only was stuck in a hospital for seizures and other conditions for more of my life than I wanted, I also had to clean them as a janitor out of college.
How were you forced to be a hospital janitor?
And I'll thank you to actually understand my viewpoint and stop thinking you can accuse me of mooching on the medical industry. I don't own insurance, and I don't accept treatment. I don't have the money anyway, and won't pay for something someone else did because they were "concerned".
You actually don't know how the system works. Let's say you get in a car accident with multiple life threatening injuries and are unconscious. You wake up in the hospital after life saving surgeries. You have no insurance and claim "indigence". And you really are and have proof of indigence. Hospitals can waive most if not all of your medical bills. (Happened to a friend of mine who had a minor stroke at an abnormally young age, got scans, 3 days in hospital, $38,000 bill, claimed "indigence", proved it, ended up paying $2500).
In this example, you know who pays for your medical care? Me.
And I'm glad to do it because you can't and I can. I don't need a Jesus to know that is the right thing to do. Even though, at the end of the day, you are mooching off people like me who do have and pay for insurance and pay taxes. Where do you think your indigent costs get absorbed, passed off to? That's how the system works.
No, you don't. And you know why? Because I refuse such medical treatment.
The system you are talking about is a welfare state.
The same system that says if I have diabetes, I can't just die with dignity at home, I need to be jabbed with insulin. And monitored. And told to follow a diet and exercise regime.
You think it's somehow alright that people buy a product they don't want (i.e. medicine). And that other people pay for it. I don't want medicine in the first place, I'll pay at a pharmacy myself if there is something I'll take, and I'll be damned if I'm gonna let you pay for my medicine.
Suppose we used this same idea for fast food.
"He's underweight! We need to take him to a Burger King, stat!"
"But I don't even like burgers! "
"No excuses, I'm making you eat fifteen Triple Whoppers."
"I don't even have cash with me."
"I'm treating. And you cannot refuse. "
"Look, I'm a healthy body weight. You guys are obese!"
Nevertheless, that's exactly what happens in the medical industry. Even if he leaves without having a burger, they charge him a "burger examination fee." In medicine even if the process was done against your will, even if you are only examined, you have to pay.
In any other field, if you don't get a good or service, you don't need to pay. Even in a car shop, you have enough autonomy to just leave the car by the road, and strip the plates (yes there is a way to legally abandon a car, you don't have to fix it). Or sell the car.
I want a medical industry where no third party can sign you in (or if they do, cost is on them) or make you buy "burgers" you don't want.
And no, I don't understand the system. Because I'm not going to buy a product I don't want.But
Not naming names here but it seems we either have a plethora of damaged individuals, marred by a traumatic childhood who used imagination instead of education to cope, and have construed that fantasy as a reality, that all should follow, or we have a single individual with the above affliction, spamming this place in several guises.
I'm surprised that you're so honest about your own condition.
But seriously, it seems as though you imagined education as some sorta panacea, where you wouldn't have to... oh I dunno, maybe at some point test what you had been taught for yourself? And if I find it lacking, I get to be told I am ignorant by people far more ignorant than me living on the teat of the welfare state, and shaming me by telling me "I pay for your medicine." Uhhh, no you don't. Because the only medicine I am even willing to accept is bought at a Walmart or GNC pharmacy by my own hand.
-
What happens in the medical industry if you aren't eating and are anorexic and at risk of death, they give you 'parenteral nutrition' (fed through a drip)
They dont order some greasy shit from Burger King and shove it down your throat. That could kill you (refeeding syndrome)
You clearly have no idea what the fuck you are talking about bulmadick. If you're going to troll at least become even a little bit briefed on the subject you wish to troll
Also, in your land of the free (America), people are dying from not even being able to afford insulin. Dont worry. If you are diabetic and wish to die at home, the government sure wont give a fuck about you. Do they care that millions cant afford their insulin properly? Hell no
You are so ignorant. Why cant you be a good troll that is even a little believable? Time to start a new profile. Try and do a better job and while you're at it, be a little less boring
-
You see BB weren’t you a Philippino, a while back, or a Russian and a 14 year old or something, I get mixed up, as for health care, simply move to a country that cares for its sick.
-
For the record, I am fairly certain I have diabetes and some sort of stomach or intestine issue. I have never taken insulin. I exercise occasionally and drink lots of water. When I die, I die.
Or would be the case, only in all likelihood well-meaning people (starting with my folks) will probably drag me to the hospital where they can try to make me pay for a service I don't want.
What happens in the medical industry if you aren't eating and are anorexic and at risk of death, they give you 'parenteral nutrition' (fed through a drip)
Are you aware that when suffragettes went on hunger strike, they were force-fed? Maybe it was done through tubes, maybe not. But I wasn't talking about an actual anorexic anyway. I was talking about a group of fatsos trying to fatten someone who actually is healthy body weight.
The point being not refeeding but that if other industries behaved that way, there's a problem. You see fashion interventions on What Not To Wear, but in real life, people aren't forced to buy clothing.
So why do you want me to be forced to buy medicine, only to beat me over the head about how you pay for my medicine? No you don't. Cuz I only buy medicine I want.
-
You see BB weren’t you a Philippino, a while back, or a Russian and a 14 year old or something, I get mixed up, as for health care, simply move to a country that cares for its sick.
You're thinking of someone else.
Not either of those things.
You assume because I sound similar to some pther person you talked to that I must be them.
-
For the record, I am fairly certain I have diabetes
You can be absolutely certain with a simple 2 second test. Why simply 'assume'. Given your record of assuming other things like dinosaurs being fake or vaccines are culling people I'd say your assumption record is pretty shit. Go to a doctor or a chemist and get the test. A tiny prick and you can see on a blood glucose meter for yourself if you are diabetic
Dont trust those guys? Then go attempt to donate blood. Pretty sure they test your glucose first. Get a free iron test too. In America dont they give you a couple of bucks for the blood too? Sounds like you should get some to pay your mum some board.
-
Wow
Bulm
The a doctors checkup is a service
If you are mad a middleman fees, vote better for universal healthcare and to remove predatory insurance and admin fees.
-
No.
If I had a compound fracture, I would likely be carted to the hospital against my will.
Setting a broken leg is not an "experimental procedure". Neither is putting pins in. Neither is getting a cast. Neither is getting crutches.
That aside, I probably wasn't clear in my question. You are alone. There is no one there to "cart you off". You've snapped your tibia, it's broken through the skin and you're sitting there, bleeding out, alone. What do you do? You don't call a friend of family because you know they will cart you off, call an ambulance, or whatever, and that is against your wishes. You know that no one will "find" you to cart you off for a few days and if you don't bleed to death by then, without meds, antibiotics, you'll go septic, your organs shutting down.
Do you just sit there, in immense pain, just bleed out, let sepsis take over and die because you don't want medical attention? You'd prefer death? All because of a broken leg?
Side question: You do get carted off, refuse medical treatment and get a wheel chair. You would still have to pay for that, btw. In any case, after getting your wheelchair you would still opt to be wheeled out of the ER with a bone sticking out of your skin and bleeding out in the process, waiting for infection to set in? Go home and just die all because you didn't want your busted leg to be fixed? You'd prefer death?
I not only was stuck in a hospital for seizures and other conditions for more of my life than I wanted, I also had to clean them as a janitor out of college.
How were you forced to be a hospital janitor?
And I'll thank you to actually understand my viewpoint and stop thinking you can accuse me of mooching on the medical industry. I don't own insurance, and I don't accept treatment. I don't have the money anyway, and won't pay for something someone else did because they were "concerned".
You actually don't know how the system works. Let's say you get in a car accident with multiple life threatening injuries and are unconscious. You wake up in the hospital after life saving surgeries. You have no insurance and claim "indigence". And you really are and have proof of indigence. Hospitals can waive most if not all of your medical bills. (Happened to a friend of mine who had a minor stroke at an abnormally young age, got scans, 3 days in hospital, $38,000 bill, claimed "indigence", proved it, ended up paying $2500).
In this example, you know who pays for your medical care? Me.
And I'm glad to do it because you can't and I can. I don't need a Jesus to know that is the right thing to do. Even though, at the end of the day, you are mooching off people like me who do have and pay for insurance and pay taxes. Where do you think your indigent costs get absorbed, passed off to? That's how the system works.
No, you don't. And you know why? Because I refuse such medical treatment.
It's kinda hard to refuse medical attention when you're unconscious. In my you-in-a-car-accident scenario, I will be paying for your medical treatment. So yeah, you would be living off the teat. Not me.
The same system that says if I have diabetes, I can't just die with dignity at home, I need to be jabbed with insulin. And monitored. And told to follow a diet and exercise regime.
In this scenario, as to your claim of being a 40 year old male diabetic trans virgin janitor with no job and no income, you can do what you want. No one can force you to take your insulin or force you to eat right or force you to exercise. You're an adult, at least age-wise. You are an adult, right? Hard to tell.
What will happen is that you will eventually slip into a hypoglycemic insulin shock coma and die. Then you can go hang with the dirty hippie you refer to as the son of god and live happily ever after when you're dead. No prospect of insulin jabs, healthy food, and reasonable exercise, and you can freely dress as a woman for Jesus. It's a win-win for you.
-
Usa health system turns away many people.
But ill give you they dont die with dignity.
-
Usa health system turns away many people.
But ill give you they dont die with dignity.
Yes and no. Non-emergencies, yes. Emergencies, no...
Public and private hospitals alike are prohibited by law from denying a patient care in an emergency. The Emergency Medical and Treatment Labor Act (EMTLA) passed by Congress in 1986 explicitly forbids the denial of care to indigent or uninsured patients based on a lack of ability to pay.
-
Correct
Nonemergencies where you can health system, notnecessarily hospitals, will not give you drugs or check ups or whstwver and you canstay home and die.
Sorry maaam
Your fetus is dead but we cant take it out of you until you start dying.
Please come back when youre in sepsis and we ll amputate, hystericitize or pronounce you dead.
-
Correct
Nonemergencies where you can health system, notnecessarily hospitals, will not give you drugs or check ups or whstwver and you canstay home and die.
Sorry maaam
Your fetus is dead but we cant take it out of you until you start dying.
Please come back when youre in sepsis and we ll amputate, hystericitize or pronounce you dead.
US healthcare system in a nutshell.
-
Actually, you managed to completely misunderstand somehow.
It started like this.
I have a treatment for your illness. Does it actually cure it? No. But it creates relief from the symptoms. also there are side-effects. Those who are on it are addicted, because they don't want to be in pain. Eventually they take it so often they don't even remember the ain but then if they stop, it comes back with a vengeance.
So, they wind up taking a cocktail, for side effects and side effects of side effects. That's one patient. Ever wonder why medicine is so expensive? It's not because American medical people are "mean" or "greedy". It's that the medicine that is single treatment is rare (priced out of reach for most people), devices are expensive, and the market on drugs is oversaturated. When five people want a drug, and it cures them once and for all, they can recommend ten people the drug and the doctor. Prices are under control. Now if a drug only treats not cures, and they have to have a 30 capsule bottle three times a day, they come back in three days. They and 2500 other patients with that disease that are treated not cured. Price begins to go way up on that drug.
Suddenly, people need insurance because their diabetes is regularly treated not cured. But everyone has insurance, its value doesn't cover increasing costs, so insurance also follows supply and demand. Pretty soon, you have tiered insurance, and prices are out of control. When you treat rather than curing, it screws the economy.
Jesus didn't like this model. Neither do I. One and done. If you're not curing but treating, medicine is done wrong. If you applied medical models to car repair, this would be like constantly ratcheting a slipping belt, instead of getting a new belt or fixing what causes it to slip in the first place. Car mechanics fix the actual problem, and run by word of mouth. Yet there is never a shortage in cars that need curing. A mechanic that only treats cars will find most of his customers go elsewhere.
-
You just described a "mean and gredy" system.
Amazing!
-
Actually, you managed to completely misunderstand somehow.
It started like this.
I have a treatment for your illness. Does it actually cure it? No. But it creates relief from the symptoms. also there are side-effects. Those who are on it are addicted, because they don't want to be in pain. Eventually they take it so often they don't even remember the ain but then if they stop, it comes back with a vengeance.
So, they wind up taking a cocktail, for side effects and side effects of side effects. That's one patient. Ever wonder why medicine is so expensive? It's not because American medical people are "mean" or "greedy". It's that the medicine that is single treatment is rare (priced out of reach for most people), devices are expensive, and the market on drugs is oversaturated. When five people want a drug, and it cures them once and for all, they can recommend ten people the drug and the doctor. Prices are under control. Now if a drug only treats not cures, and they have to have a 30 capsule bottle three times a day, they come back in three days. They and 2500 other patients with that disease that are treated not cured. Price begins to go way up on that drug.
Suddenly, people need insurance because their diabetes is regularly treated not cured. But everyone has insurance, its value doesn't cover increasing costs, so insurance also follows supply and demand. Pretty soon, you have tiered insurance, and prices are out of control. When you treat rather than curing, it screws the economy.
Jesus didn't like this model. Neither do I. One and done. If you're not curing but treating, medicine is done wrong. If you applied medical models to car repair, this would be like constantly ratcheting a slipping belt, instead of getting a new belt or fixing what causes it to slip in the first place. Car mechanics fix the actual problem, and run by word of mouth. Yet there is never a shortage in cars that need curing. A mechanic that only treats cars will find most of his customers go elsewhere.
Well for many ailments there simply is no cure short of changing your DNA / genes.
My wife for example has hypercholesterolemia. Her total cholesterol level was over 10mmol/L (386.7mg/dL). There simply isn't a 'one and done' cure to get her level to what is 'normal' or low risk. This level being her 'normal' is embedded into her DNA (and no, a 'good diet' is not a cure). After taking the statin, her level literally dropped by half, back to the normal range. If I were in her shoes, I'd hate the fact I have to take it but on the balance of what is worse, NOT taking the statin presents a much greater risk than taking it
Same with diabetes. If your pancreas is fucked for whatever reason, there is no available cure. You need insulin and your body has no way to create it, so obviously you have to get it somehow
I worked in lab that was looking for permanent solutions to diabetes so you look a little stupid when you claim otherwise. Lets face it, diseases like this afflict millions of people. People will always continue to get cancer and other diseases through the course of simply living so even if it were a one and done cure there is no shortage of customers and the customers will keep on coming as people are born and get afflicted with disease
-
The concept of epigenetics is such that this is not a given. Our choices can very much alter these "set in stone" codes.
We were told for years that being gay was in our genes. Oh really.
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/science/there-is-no-gay-gene-there-is-no-straight-gene-sexuality-is-just-complex-study-confirms
Genetic heritability — all of the information stored in our genes and passed between generations — can only explain 8 to 25 percent of why people have same-sex relations, based on the study’s results.
Then the trans community told us that no problem, boys can become girls.
(https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-aEHOs7SkySc/W55kzWeyacI/AAAAAAAAEv8/G9ahebBFqxEXrEDTnSSQKd_T03UTl0QOQCLcBGAs/s1600/carolina-gutierrez-03.jpg)
And voila, some of them, you wouldn't be able to say that they ever had any male genes.
And you're gonna tell me that these treatments can magically cure these diseases. Maybe they can, maybe they cannot.
Maybe lifestyle plays for more of a role than you think, and you're just making excuses.
I was perfectly fine for nearly 30 year of my life (Type 2 Diabetes), then I began to slow down after alot of sedentary activity and poor diet. If I legit got off my ass and went on long hikes and such, if I quit eating as much ramen and corn chips, my body would again begin to normalize. That I couldn't be bothered to do this in no way proves Type 2 Diabetes is genetic (which unlike Type 1 was never claimed to be otherwise).
Hypercholesterolemia (high cholesterol) is genetic? If it's genetic and there is nothing that can be done, then why is medicine able to help? If medicine is able to help the disease isn't in fact in your genes, you were just born with it.
You aren't able to change your hair color. You aren't able to change your eye color. You aren't able to change your skin color. You aren't (really) able to change your sex, not without surgery. These things are genetic.
Your cholesterol?
https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/high-blood-cholesterol/in-depth/cholesterol/art-20045192
Dude, you can cure this simply by eating different foods! Genetic? Not hardly!
Yes, I know. You couldn't be bothered either.
That's fine.
What isn't as fine is making excuses.
Honesty, not excuses, is what the Lord wants. If you are just not that into fixing a certain problem, God will not hound you about it. We are on this Earth, and we get to make good and bad choices.
But if you give lame excuses, then you need to know the truth. There is nothing fixed about hyperglycemia (Type 2).
There is nothing fixed about hypercholesterolemia. They aren't genetic.
-
For someone who knows precisely jack shit about every subject you sure waffle on a lot
-
If you're not curing but treating, medicine is done wrong.
This is literally the most misguided, ignorant statement ever. You do realize that we don't have a "cure" for everything, right?
We don't have a "cure" for diabetes type I or II, but we do have "treatments" so that you don't go blind, don't have to chop of limbs, don't go into insulin shock and die. If we didn't offer to treat then the patient they would just suffer and eventually die.
You're saying it's wrong to relieve suffering?
If you had an 8 year old kid who was just diagnosed with Type I Diabetes, the Docs send you home with a 6 month supply of insulin, you would just not treat your kid and let them suffer and die?
-
You're saying it's wrong to relieve suffering?
No.
I'm saying that it's wrong to do things against people's will to make yourself feel better.
Altruism is not Christianity. It's in fact the road directly to tyranny.
Jesus said, "Go and learn what this means, 'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.'"
When someone says, "I just want to die at home," and instead you harass them about how they are letting their parents down, and how it's their duty to keep living, this about sacrifice. Push them into spending thousands on cancer therapy, blow their family savings, all so you can torture them in a hospital and they can live years beyond what they want to.
Virtue signalling is about the most evil thing ever. It's evil because it's colossal self-delusion. Telling yourself you're doing the right thing and people who don't agree are either stupid or bad. No, sorry. You and I have opinions.
Everyone doesn't agree. It's a fact of life. You can get over it.
Life is pain. I've fine resting at home if my bones or muscles hurt. I don't want a painkiller. I don't want medicine. I just want to be left alone.
You know what they told people during the mask hysteria? They told me they were being altruistic. That they were doing this for me. Had I actually bothered talking to them (I didn't because people have a right to their choices) I would have told them, "I didn't ask you to wear this. In fact, I do not want you to wear this. So you're not doing this for me. You're doing this so you can tell me you're doing your part. You're doing this to shame me for not supposedly not doing my part. This isn't about you protecting me. Because I don't want to be protected. I want my freedom back."
Jesus was a Jew living in Israel at one of the worst times. Every citizen existed under three very overbearing laws: Jewish Torah, rabbinical law (man-made interpretation of the law), and Roman legal system. Unlike me, who does worry some about politics and religion, Jesus was pretty well disinterested in both Rome and what the rabbis wanted. The law he cared about was not what other people thought, and it wasn't about what the world said was right. It was what God said was right. He understood the law, and understood it was set up to be impossible to follow.
"There is no path to God." (23:09 to 27:30)
-
You're saying it's wrong to relieve suffering?
No.
I'm saying that it's wrong to do things against people's will to make yourself feel better.
If you had an 8 year old kid who was just diagnosed with Type I Diabetes, the Docs send you home with a 6 month supply of insulin, you would just not treat your kid and let them suffer and die?
-
Why is asking the kid not an option?
You seem like a very "father knows best" type, but honestly, I believe in choices.
I say, "Hey kid, what do you wanna do?"
1. We can get you on a diet and exercise regimen
2. We could cut out all the sugar in your diet, and give you artificial sweeteners
3. We could go to the library and learn all about Type 2 Diabetes, and decide from there
4. We could go to the hospital and get insulin
5. We could do nothing, and you live as long as you live
6. Alternative medicine (herbal, acupuncture, etc)
7. Faith healing
I'm not a parent, but if I were a parent, I'd value love, choices, and personal responsibility of those choices. Kid wants to do something, I'll give them all the knowledge to make good choices. If they still want to make those choices, I accept them.
My choice for myself is to avoid conventional medicine. Sorry, but you don't get to take that choice from me. You're not my dad, or mom, or anyone who has that right. Are you God? Aside from relatives and friends, God's what matters to me. What some people think is not.
(https://i.pinimg.com/originals/37/ea/a2/37eaa2885c830b0513e9170b2c1c4db5.jpg)
(https://i.pinimg.com/236x/db/bf/6e/dbbf6ed58a079758fd6e181b82356e76--teen-devotional-christian-crafts.jpg)
Peer pressure, approval, and image are things that people who value God have nothing to do with.
So are you God? No? Then how I raise my imaginary child is my business. I won't have you call child services on my imaginary child.
-
If you had an 8 year old kid who was just diagnosed with Type I Diabetes, the Docs send you home with a 6 month supply of insulin, you would just not treat your kid and let them suffer and die?
He would. Just like these parents
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/parents-withheld-insulin-diabetic-daughter-27408043ld-1508874.html
Police have arrested 12 members of a religious group following the death of a diabetic girl whose parents allegedly withdrew treatment in favour of a prayer ritual.
Elizabeth Struhs died on January 7 in Queensland, Australia, with police claiming the insulin needed to combat her type-one diabetes was withheld.
According to reports, rather than providing Elizabeth with her medication, parents Jason, 50, and Kerrie, 46, chanted prayers and hymns with up to 20 members of a breakaway Christian church called “The Saints”.
Officers swooped on an address in Harristown on Monday, arresting 12 members of the church.
Elizabeth's parents have been charged with murder
According to the Daily Mail, it is alleged that Elizabeth's parents withheld the insulin for several days as they believed that “God will heal her”.
The parents have reportedly been charged with murder, torture and failing to provide the necessities of life for the youngster - with officers claiming a group of 14 decided to deny Elizabeth insulin.
Regional crime coordinator detective acting superintendent Garry Watts said in quotes reported by the outlet: “It will be alleged that 14 people in total allegedly made the choice to deny this young girl her right to medical care.
Those religious fucks always think intervention is divine and can't fathom that help can come from our own genius
Reminds me of this parable
A storm descends on a small town, and the downpour soon turns into a flood. As the waters rise, the local preacher kneels in prayer on the church porch, surrounded by water. By and by, one of the townsfolk comes up the street in a canoe.
"Better get in, Preacher. The waters are rising fast."
"No," says the preacher. "I have faith in the Lord. He will save me."
Still the waters rise. Now the preacher is up on the balcony, wringing his hands in supplication, when another guy zips up in a motorboat.
"Come on, Preacher. We need to get you out of here. The levee's gonna break any minute."
Once again, the preacher is unmoved. "I shall remain. The Lord will see me through."
After a while the levee breaks, and the flood rushes over the church until only the steeple remains above water. The preacher is up there, clinging to the cross, when a helicopter descends out of the clouds, and a state trooper calls down to him through a megaphone.
"Grab the ladder, Preacher. This is your last chance."
Once again, the preacher insists the Lord will deliver him.
And, predictably, he drowns.
A pious man, the preacher goes to heaven. After a while he gets an interview with God, and he asks the Almighty, "Lord, I had unwavering faith in you. Why didn't you deliver me from that flood?"
God shakes his head. "What did you want from me? I sent you two boats and a helicopter."
-
Why is asking the kid not an option?
You seem like a very "father knows best" type, but honestly, I believe in choices.
For one, in this example, the kid is just 8. You think an 8 year old could reasonably make a solid healthy choice between getting a needle jabbed into him a few times a day versus the option of going to the library instead?
For two, what if your 8 year old said, "Yes, I want the insulin"?
For three, would you let your 8 year old make all of their own "choices"? What if the kid doesn't want to go to school anymore. You can't afford to get a tutor for him/her, you have to work, can't homeschool. You just let him stay home by himself all day because it's "his choice"?
For four, you would seriously ask an 8 year old to make this choice: "We could do nothing, and you live as long as you live". That makes you a monster, btw.
For five, what if your kid was 4 years old? Would you still let them "make a choice"?
And kind of ironic that you're now arguing, "My body, my choice" after all of your pro-life rants and are perfectly willing to let your kid, "live as long as lives." You are a pretty sick individual.
-
Dude, doesn't matter if he's 8 or 4. Or 22. If he can make a choice and tell me what he wants, let him! I'll give him information to make that choice, but it's up to him.
I would feel the same if my boy wanted to be a girl. But I would make sure he understands the implications of that. Like, they actually haven't developed tech so that you would be a real female, meaning they're sterile. These silicone organs can burst and damage the body also, so you're better off 100% growing breasts vs adding implants. If he doesn't care after knowing the facts, yes it's fine. If it goes wrong, the doctor not the boy is the one I'll blame. The kid wanted to do what they thought made them happy, and were sold a bill of goods.
But you don't seem to think ppl have choices or rights. The reason you think genetic fatalism is real is that this concept strip ppl of responsibility and agency.
Children do have rights and choices.
-
Dude, doesn't matter if he's 8 or 4. Or 22. If he can make a choice and tell me what he wants, let him! I'll give him information to make that choice, but it's up to him.
So your 4 year old says after you've explained the consequences of each...
1. NO, I don't want a diet and exercise regimen
2. NO, I don't want to cut out all the sugar in your diet, and get artificial sweeteners
3. NO, I don't want to go the library and learn all about Type 2 Diabetes, and decide from there
4. NO, I don't want to go to the hospital and get insulin
5. YES, we do nothing, and I live as long as I live
6. NO, I don't want Alternative medicine (herbal, acupuncture, etc) Needles! Owwweee!
7. NO, I don't want faith healing
And you're like, "Ok, you probably won't make it to see your 5th b-day, but it's your call little buddy, whatever you want to do."
Thank goodness you will never have children and hopefully are never near any.
But you don't seem to think ppl have choices or rights.
I guess you're saying that people have the right to choose. Interesting.
-
bulmadick has no idea what being a parent or the concept of RESPONSIBILITY entails. He just thinks he can wash his hands of being a carer and lay it all onto a child who doesn't have the maturity or understanding to make informed decisions. No matter how much you explain to a child - they wont understand or appreciate the gravity of situations. That's why we spend over a decade in the education system. Dont expect an 8 year old to be fully versed on things that adults spend years in university learning
Let's hope he never has kids
-
Dude, doesn't matter if he's 8 or 4. Or 22. If he can make a choice and tell me what he wants, let him! I'll give him information to make that choice, but it's up to him.
So your 4 year old says after you've explained the consequences of each...
1. NO, I don't want a diet and exercise regimen
2. NO, I don't want to cut out all the sugar in your diet, and get artificial sweeteners
3. NO, I don't want to go the library and learn all about Type 2 Diabetes, and decide from there
4. NO, I don't want to go to the hospital and get insulin
5. YES, we do nothing, and I live as long as I live
6. NO, I don't want Alternative medicine (herbal, acupuncture, etc) Needles! Owwweee!
7. NO, I don't want faith healing
And you're like, "Ok, you probably won't make it to see your 5th b-day, but it's your call little buddy, whatever you want to do."
Thank goodness you will never have children and hopefully are never near any.
But you don't seem to think ppl have choices or rights.
I guess you're saying that people have the right to choose. Interesting.
Yeah, people have the right to choose. Yes, I would tell the kid that he's probably gonna die if he doesn't wanna do anything. But if he's really gonna be like that, all we can do is be like "Well, we'll let you do your bucket list. What do you wanna do before you go?" If he has no bucket list, that's fine too. Just wanna spend your remaining time playing video games? Sure, let's do it. But I'm not gonna go easy on you.
You think that's appalling, I'm sure. But most human beings waste 80 years of their lives doing nothing of value. If a child wants to die that badly, I can tell them over and over that I don't think he should. But I can't lock them up and force them to care for themselves.
Just say no to the nanny state. Where people think that because some choices aren't safe, people can't make them.
People don't have the right to make choices for other people. When you sacrifice your child to the abortion gods, what you are doing is telling a child that he can't choose to have his first breath. This is not freedom to choose. Murder takes away the choices of others. As does rape. Theft. These choices result in punishment precisely because they are about narcissistic disregard for the rights of others. The purpose of the law is to curb destructive and sociopathic behavior.
Prostitution is fine though. That's two willing participants. So is drug or weapon trade.
"Oh but a fetus is not a person." Yes, do go on. I'd love to hear how you dehumanized a baby child. They didn't breathe yet, so you thought it was alright to prey on them. By that logic, a person is passed out and not breathing from alcohol poisoning or drowning. Instead of giving them CPR, you rape them and walk off.
It's okay, because they're not breathing!
-
Dude, doesn't matter if he's 8 or 4. Or 22. If he can make a choice and tell me what he wants, let him! I'll give him information to make that choice, but it's up to him.
So your 4 year old says after you've explained the consequences of each...
1. NO, I don't want a diet and exercise regimen
2. NO, I don't want to cut out all the sugar in your diet, and get artificial sweeteners
3. NO, I don't want to go the library and learn all about Type 2 Diabetes, and decide from there
4. NO, I don't want to go to the hospital and get insulin
5. YES, we do nothing, and I live as long as I live
6. NO, I don't want Alternative medicine (herbal, acupuncture, etc) Needles! Owwweee!
7. NO, I don't want faith healing
And you're like, "Ok, you probably won't make it to see your 5th b-day, but it's your call little buddy, whatever you want to do."
Thank goodness you will never have children and hopefully are never near any.
But you don't seem to think ppl have choices or rights.
I guess you're saying that people have the right to choose. Interesting.
Yeah, people have the right to choose. Yes, I would tell the kid that he's probably gonna die if he doesn't wanna do anything. But if he's really gonna be like that, all we can do is be like "Well, we'll let you do your bucket list. What do you wanna do before you go?" If he has no bucket list, that's fine too. Just wanna spend your remaining time playing video games? Sure, let's do it. But I'm not gonna go easy on you.
You think that's appalling, I'm sure. But most human beings waste 80 years of their lives doing nothing of value. If a child wants to die that badly, I can tell them over and over that I don't think he should. But I can't lock them up and force them to care for themselves.
Yes, that is appalling, murderous, and beyond cruel. Your argument for letting an 8 year old or even a 4 year old die is , "Hey kid, don't worry, it's your call and odds are you won't amount to anything anyway because most people waste their lives doing nothing of value. You would probably be one of them..."
It's okay, because they're not breathing!
It's okay, because they are 8 years old and breathing and they decided they are ok with dying before they reach 10...
Do you even realize how fucked up your thinking is? What's scary is that I don't think you do. Or you're just trolling. Hopefully it's the latter.
-
Blatant hypocrisy at work here.
It's not okay for a child to make their own decisions about their own life.
It's not even allowed for a child to say "No, I don't want to be jabbed by a possibly dangerous vaccine for COVID." Sorry kid, you're too young to have decisions. Big Brother will take care of you.
But it's told that single mothers have a right to "choice". Their choice means that child might not even be alive to say "Sorry, I don't wanna live my life taking needles every five hours." You've taken even the choice to live away from them.
Btw, realistically 98% of all children wouldn't make this choice that you described. Most children are frightened of the dark and death, and cling behind authority figures. So this choice to allow his choice? It's appalling, but it's not murderous. The kid made the choice, not me.
Suppose the child as a result of taking insulin every day of his life, knowing his parents didn't care about his decisions, he suddenly snapped and killed five people?
That would be like in the trolley problem deciding to do nothing, saying that is the same as pushing a fat guy in front of the trolley. Is inaction worse than bad action? No, it's not.
But to be honest, the trolley problem is flawed from the start, as in all likelihood, the problem people care about is reversed. "Would I kill five strangers by turning a switch, or let it continue and plow into the love of my life/grandma/etc."
The regular trolley problem isn't that impactful, and people tell themselves that actively killing a dear friend is the right answer because "the needs of the many outweigh the few." No, inaction is better than a deliberately bad action (abortion), but a so-called good action that leads to unforeseen results might be worse than a bad action.
But "the needs of the many outweigh the few" is a completely psychopathic way to look at the world. You don't actively kill a loved one in reality. Nobody does that. In real life, they make the opposite decision. They freeze when a bunch of lives are at stake, and sometimes make hasty decisions when the life of a loved one is concerned.
1a. My answer was that if it came down to someone I loved on the main road, and a bunch of strangers on the side road, I would without hesitation flip the switch.
1b. But suppose he uses his cellphone and calls me. He says, "I don't want you responsible for killing five people. I don't want you to live with that kind of guilt. And I don't wanna live with that kind of guilt. Just let me die." Given his heartfelt plea, should I not do nothing and indeed let him die as he wishes?
2. Jesus's answer is to somehow stop the trolley by toppling it over, even though it costs your life. Saving everyone else.
We petty humans generally don't have the ability to make choices that save everyone. This is why they said he is without sin.
-
So much useless waffle in your post. Not even a point to it
Too many words
-
So much useless waffle in your post. Not even a point to it
Too many words
So let's get to the point.
You guys say my raising of an imaginary child is cruel, because I do not deny the child anything, so long as their choices do not hurt the rights and choices of others.
Let's say the child is not sick. Instead, he went to school, and his leftist school convinced them that he really is a girl, and needs sex at age 8. Provided either had the money (let's say I do), what will you do?
Based on what you guys said, it's not okay for children to make choices or risk anything. Well, a sex change as well as the hormones carry tremendous risk. Estrogen has a risk of I think it was liver cancer.
https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/diseases/10312-estrogen-dependent-cancers
The sex change itself has a risk of pelvic bleeding, including bleeding to death, as with any surgery. You could also massively screw up hormonal balance, or all kinds other things. Based on that, you should not be letting your child have a sex change. Not at a young age, anyway.
https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/treatments/21526-gender-affirmation-confirmation-or-sex-reassignment-surgery
What would I do?
I'd tell him that he needs to be sure it's what he wants, and not what the school wants. If she explains that is indeed what she wants, I'd also explain that this surgery only makes her an imitation of a biological woman, she will not be able to have children. Along with possible regrets from not feeling as female as you should be.
https://www.heritage.org/gender/commentary/sex-reassignment-doesnt-work-here-the-evidence
I'd explain the risks to her. She's my child, so none of this will make any difference, what she wants is damn the costs. After that, we go ahead at a pace that is comfortable and convenient. Yes, even knowing that until a sex change is actually able to change her sex (swapping out the plumbing and making her a fertile female), she will likely find nothing but heartbreak.
-
It's not okay for a child to make their own decisions about their own life.
You are an absolute monster. You would let a kid commit suicide just because s/he would prefer not to be pinched by a needle. An 8 year old! Even a 4 year old! It's totally their call if they just want to slip into a coma and die. And all they need to do is get some insulin, whether through a needle or through a pump.
Please stay away from anyone under the age of 18.
-
Bulmamoron, it's just that you utterly fail to comprehend that a parent / guardian has a responsibility to ensure the welfare of that child. And that means a lot of the time - you make the decisions - not the child.
If your child says they've had enough of injecting insulin and they don't care about dying - then you get them help instead of watching them waste away. Because a good diet will not overcome a destroyed pancreas. And praying to God is not help either.
It doesn't matter how much you explain the gravity between choices. They don't have the maturity or understanding to make an informed decision. Hell, the male brain doesn't fully develop the part which fully understands consequences until their early 20s.
You (hopefully) are just trolling when you say this bizarre stupid shit, but if you aren't, hopefully you never get kids.
-
Bulmamoron, it's just that you utterly fail to comprehend that a parent / guardian has a responsibility to ensure the welfare of that child. And that means a lot of the time - you make the decisions - not the child.
And yet every parent who says that their child needs to have sex change goes along with it, despite the fact that their child could have numerous physical problems. The chemicals given to prevent male development will actually stunt bone growth. That's just one thing. Live cancer, breast cancer, bleeding to death, but the child says they need to be reassigned as a woman, and you're willing to risk their life on it.
What's the difference?
If your child says they've had enough of injecting insulin and they don't care about dying - then you get them help instead of watching them waste away. Because a good diet will not overcome a destroyed pancreas. And praying to God is not help either.
Actually, a good diet will help a destroyed pancreas. Because there is no such thing as a destroyed pancreas, short of actually being removed due to cancer. Diabetes is not a destroyed pancreas, it is when your body is not able to properly handle insulin. What starts type 2 diabetes is that it makes your body have difficulty flushing sugar, so it damages your body. You have several days of sugar excess, your body is slowed to a crawl, and attempts to exercise do in fact produce insulin, but it just isn't enough to put things back to normal. All insulin does is make you gain weight. Yes, diabetics can still make insulin. But they cannot deal with the backlog of excess sugar, and insulin just fattens them up. Insulin does fuck all to help, actually. You need to combine it with diet and exercise to have any hope to have a balanced blood sugar. Meaning those things on their own are more than helpful regulating things in the first place. There are herbs (such as cinnamon) that normalize blood sugar. God created these herbs. He created methods of healing.
Science didn't do that.
God isn't the same as wishing. Faith often involves action. Can you fight diabetes without insulin? Yes, you can. But it involves understanding what the fuck you are doing. You need to erase white flour, all sugar but milk and fruit, trans fats, and corn syrup from your diet, and be extremely serious about the routine.
And child welfare laws are fucking stupid. Nearly all of us are busy dying at one point or another. If I tell him that he has to stay alive, and prick his finger multiple times a day, jab himself with a syringe multiple times, I am literally torturing my son. If he decides that he is going to commit suicide anyway, am I supposed to add force-feeding to my list of crimes against him? You are nuts!
It doesn't matter how much you explain the gravity between choices. They don't have the maturity or understanding to make an informed decision. Hell, the male brain doesn't fully develop the part which fully understands consequences until their early 20s.
So basically, you have no respect for a child's decision, and even think that two sixteen year olds in love didn't actually make a decision.
(https://thelibertarianrepublic.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/obama-you-didnt-build-that.jpg)
And obviously people over the age of 60 are all probably senile. Good to know how you think so highly of your fellow humans.
You (hopefully) are just trolling when you say this bizarre stupid shit, but if you aren't, hopefully you never get kids.
Not trolling.
https://www.catholic.com/encyclopedia/age-of-reason
It may interest you to know that the Catholic church asserts that the reason is 7. Not 20. Not even 16. You know how to make your decisions at age seven. I remember making a few decisions when I was a kid. One of them was playing video games instead of paying attention, and getting left in a dentist's office because my folks didn't realize.
Yes, children are able to make decisions. Stupid ones, maybe. But to patronize them like you know best is frankly insulting. I'll send my imaginary child to go kick your leg. He'll do it too.
I was at a wedding, and some girl who was about 11 asked me to dance. Not the other way around. I said no, realizing that this would be seen as creepy pedo shit. But this girl at that age knew exactly that she liked older men. Don't tell me children don't know how to make decisions. They do. Men, women, whatever. We learn to make decisions about when we can speak. Not at 20. Absurd paternalism.
https://www.sltrib.com/opinion/commentary/2023/02/01/marisa-alder-payden-alder-thin/
In the state of Utah, minors can marry at 16 with parental permission. Parents can allow their children to play high-contact sports which can leave players with lifelong irreversible injuries. If the state prevented parents and their children from having the autonomy to make such decisions we would hear outcry about government overreach and arguments declaring our descent into a slippery slope would headline opinion pieces.
(https://www.bhwlawfirm.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/United-States-Age-of-Consent-Map.jpg)
(most states actually do have age of consent at 16, despite Hollywood's anti-natal agenda to get kids to wait until they lose interest or get woke propaganda about how they are really lesbian or gay or trans. If they cannot make decisions, why does both marriage and voting start at 16?)
It goes on to talk about trans rights, but the point in all of this is that no, we actually make plenty of choices. We can technically vote at age 16 (I suppose you think they all voted wrong?), we can get married in some states too. We can make choices long before 20. This myth of a developing brain really only applies to the effects of drugs. And you know what? I don't buy it. It's used to explain away things like why treating teenagers by forcing them to take antidepressants has backfired. Human beings don't like to be forced to do things against their will. They respond to this by hurting themselves. Just as some trans youths have tried to commit suicide because their parents told them they know best, one medical doctor experimented on a child, trying to prove that nature was irrelevant and only nurture mattered (actually, it's our choices that matter) by forcibly raising a twin as a girl and then changing his sex. Guess what? He killed himself.
Don't tell me that I was too stupid to understand things at that age. I learned economics (at least, supply and demand)
from my older brother when I was about in fourth grade. I first tried crossdressing at age 13. You are full of shit.
-
So basically, you have no respect for a child's decision, and even think that two sixteen year olds in love didn't actually make a decision.
We're talking about an 8 and 4 year old. And your stance is that if your 8 or 4 year old says they'd rather die than get insulin via a needle or pump, not change their diet, and not exercise you would say, "Cool, it's your call..."
That is not only insane, you're a murderer. Please stay far, far away from children.
-
It's not okay for a child to make their own decisions about their own life.
You are an absolute monster. You would let a kid commit suicide just because s/he would prefer not to be pinched by a needle. An 8 year old! Even a 4 year old! It's totally their call if they just want to slip into a coma and die. And all they need to do is get some insulin, whether through a needle or through a pump.
Please stay away from anyone under the age of 18.
Yes, I would.
Because I know that to tell him he cannot means he will do it anyway, and hate me to the end of his days.
To test diabetes used to involve pricking finger multiple times a day. Add that to the fact that end-state diabetes has no control of insulin at all, and he dies anyway after a long life of torture... Funny thing happens when you take drugs, the body becomes lazy (studies with dopamine showed that the body after taking chemical dopamine repeatedly stopped making it). Diabetics sometimes continue to live for years on insulin.
None of this is the natural method of coping with a disease. To dope yourself up like a junkie! No, I would neither approve nor condemn his choices. But at age 8 he's past the age of reason. He has the right to make his own choices.
If I asked you, would it be better to torture a cat morning, noon, and night or put it down, would you say to put him down? What's the difference? Leaving beings have something called death with dignity.
It's not about assisted suicide though. It's about being able to have agency. If you wanna die at home, having a heavy-handed doctor forcibly keep you alive is inhumane! You are the monster, and if you did a bit of thinking, you'd know this and repent. But you also have the right to your choices.
You do not have the right to take mine away. But this is secularism in a nutshell. Are you aware that the most tyrannical countries in the world are all atheist?
https://incapp.org/blog/?p=2784
If you believe there is no God everything is up to you. You cannot ever stop and relax because there is no one to rely on. The weight of the world is on the shoulders of the atheist. Any change the atheist wants in the world must be done by the atheist himself. Every problem must be solved by the atheist’s sweat. This doesn’t allow the atheist the ability to just let go and allow something to work. This is why atheism goes hand in hand with the command and control economy. Allowing an economy to work without oversight makes the atheist’s skin crawl. They cannot let go, since there is no God in their lives to let go to, and so they cannot fathom how a let it work economy could possibly function.
And yet, I have let life happen for two straight years. I have more than enough to eat, I have plenty to wear, I have friends (sorta), and God had provided. Atheism provides nothing and demands everything.
"Are you recycling enough? Aren't you concerned about the climate? You should worry about making enough for retirement. Have you done anything to combat systemic racism? What about LGBT rights? And what about..."
Just shut up already! The voices telling you what to do are talking loud enough to keep me up. Aren't you tired of trying to control everything in everyone's life?
Imaginary kid is imaginary. I'm pretty sure I'm too much of an incel for anyone to think about having a child with.
Can you say moot point? The actual issue is that you're trash-talking my brother for having a laissez-faire attitude to child-raising. I'd mostly agree with him on all issues but that kid being a punk who hurts other kids and doesn't respect personal boundaries. Because having him grow up like you would be bad news.
And last I checked, past the age of 18, you can make your own medical decisions. So giving me advice about medicine is unwarranted, unwanted, and frankly uncalled for. Should I in turn find out what medical issues you are suffering from? Should I hold you to your own standards and call the CDC to come bang on your door and demand you get tested and doped with any drugs they find appropriate? Or will you finally understand that you're not my doctor, not my family, and what you want me to decide is not any way my business.
In this life, Jesus wants us to know him. He isn't the autocrats that you fawn over, who dictate what you can wear, what you can eat, and what you can do with your body. He isn't even like an overconcerned parent forcing you to trust the science because it's for your own good. He sets no demands on how you live your life. When I was struggling in my life, Jesus said, "No worries." And he meant it. What happens, good or bad, is never that big a deal.
You choose the autocrats and reject him. That's your choice. Trying to push me is not.
-
It's not okay for a child to make their own decisions about their own life.
You are an absolute monster. You would let a kid commit suicide just because s/he would prefer not to be pinched by a needle. An 8 year old! Even a 4 year old! It's totally their call if they just want to slip into a coma and die. And all they need to do is get some insulin, whether through a needle or through a pump.
Please stay away from anyone under the age of 18.
Yes, I would.
Because I know that to tell him he cannot means he will do it anyway, and hate me to the end of his days.
You would let your 4 year old commit suicide for fear of him or her hating you? Wow, could you be more of a selfish narcissist? It's all about you.
To test diabetes used to involve pricking finger multiple times a day.
As always you are ignorant and wrong...
2017: FDA approves first blood sugar monitor without finger pricks (https://www.statnews.com/2017/09/28/fda-approves-blood-sugar-monitor-without-finger-pricks/)
Continuous glucose monitor (CGMs) check blood sugar levels automatically at timed intervals. People do not need to prick their fingers to test their blood sugar levels.
And insulin pumps, no jabs required, have been around for decades:
An insulin pump is a small, computerized device worn outside of the body that delivers insulin under the skin. A hybrid closed loop insulin pump attempts to mimic the body's natural communication loop by linking with a secondary device called a continuous glucose monitor, or CGM, sensor and automatically adjusting some of the insulin delivered based on continually monitored blood sugar levels.
Add that to the fact that end-state diabetes has no control of insulin at all, and he dies anyway after a long life of torture...
An insulin pump is torture?
If you were ever around a small child who has some sort of accident where medical intervention is required to keep him alive and he says he doesn't want to go to the hospital, you would just say, "No prob kid, it's your call..." as he's laying there dying. Insanity. You're an evil menace and hopefully will never have the opportunity to be even remotely near a kid.
-
You're accusing me of abusing an imaginary kid.
And yes, I'm trying to impress upon you that if I, a grown adult, refuse to submit to any of this crap, I'm gonna go "touch the spindle, touch it I say!" to a child.
What's monstrous is subjecting a child to constant pain. They live to 48, that's 40 x 365 x 3 times in their life they have to prick their finger or jabbed by syringe. What's monstrous is something like not wearing masks but being okay with your child not breathing well. If it's not good enough for you, it certainly shouldn't be subjected on them, whatever it is!
And another thing! A 8 year old child does not develop type 2 diabetes. They typically develop prediabetes, unless they are hellbent on killing themselves through sugar. Prediabetes lasts roughly 10 years, after which they are 18. At that age, they are largely considered independent.
18 year old imaginary child can make his own decisions.
-
You're accusing me of abusing an imaginary kid.
Yes. And the point is, let's just hope you are never within 50 yards of a child because you would just let them die if something happened to them. Which is psychopathic at best.
And yes, I'm trying to impress upon you that if I, a grown adult, refuse to submit to any of this crap, I'm gonna go "touch the spindle, touch it I say!" to a child.
Is everything about you? Sure seems that way. We're talking about a small child and what you would do. Not about your "feelings".
What's monstrous is subjecting a child to constant pain. They live to 48, that's 40 x 365 x 3 times in their life they have to prick their finger or jabbed by syringe.
Once again you've demonstrated that you know nothing...
2017: FDA approves first blood sugar monitor without finger pricks (https://www.statnews.com/2017/09/28/fda-approves-blood-sugar-monitor-without-finger-pricks/)
Continuous glucose monitor (CGMs) check blood sugar levels automatically at timed intervals. People do not need to prick their fingers to test their blood sugar levels.
And insulin pumps, no jabs required, have been around for decades:
An insulin pump is a small, computerized device worn outside of the body that delivers insulin under the skin. A hybrid closed loop insulin pump attempts to mimic the body's natural communication loop by linking with a secondary device called a continuous glucose monitor, or CGM, sensor and automatically adjusting some of the insulin delivered based on continually monitored blood sugar levels.
And another thing! A 8 year old child does not develop type 2 diabetes.
Type I diabetes. Stop being cagey and playing the idiot. Unless you are, in fact, an idiot.
The 4 or 8 year old tells you that they don't want to change their diet, don't want to exercise and don't want the non-jab pump & non-jab testing and would rather die before they hit double figures. Your response is, "Makes sense, it's your call. And I don't want you to hate me. Most people don't amount to anything anyway, so yeah, I'll just let you slip into a coma and die..."
Just because you haven't amounted to anything doesn't mean other people can't. You are beyond a murderous narcissistic monster. You shouldn't even be let near pets let alone small children.
-
Bulmadick is just an irresponsible, ignorant dickhead who will hopefully never have kids
Short of raping a woman I can't see how any lady would open her legs for such a dumbarse troll.
His stupidity on every subject just boggles the mind.
-
You're accusing me of abusing an imaginary kid.
Yes. And the point is, let's just hope you are never within 50 yards of a child because you would just let them die if something happened to them. Which is psychopathic at best.
And yes, I'm trying to impress upon you that if I, a grown adult, refuse to submit to any of this crap, I'm gonna go "touch the spindle, touch it I say!" to a child.
Is everything about you? Sure seems that way. We're talking about a small child and what you would do. Not about your "feelings".
What's monstrous is subjecting a child to constant pain. They live to 48, that's 40 x 365 x 3 times in their life they have to prick their finger or jabbed by syringe.
Once again you've demonstrated that you know nothing...
2017: FDA approves first blood sugar monitor without finger pricks (https://www.statnews.com/2017/09/28/fda-approves-blood-sugar-monitor-without-finger-pricks/)
Continuous glucose monitor (CGMs) check blood sugar levels automatically at timed intervals. People do not need to prick their fingers to test their blood sugar levels.
And insulin pumps, no jabs required, have been around for decades:
An insulin pump is a small, computerized device worn outside of the body that delivers insulin under the skin. A hybrid closed loop insulin pump attempts to mimic the body's natural communication loop by linking with a secondary device called a continuous glucose monitor, or CGM, sensor and automatically adjusting some of the insulin delivered based on continually monitored blood sugar levels.
And another thing! A 8 year old child does not develop type 2 diabetes.
Type I diabetes. Stop being cagey and playing the idiot. Unless you are, in fact, an idiot.
The 4 or 8 year old tells you that they don't want to change their diet, don't want to exercise and don't want the non-jab pump & non-jab testing and would rather die before they hit double figures. Your response is, "Makes sense, it's your call. And I don't want you to hate me. Most people don't amount to anything anyway, so yeah, I'll just let you slip into a coma and die..."
Just because you haven't amounted to anything doesn't mean other people can't. You are beyond a murderous narcissistic monster. You shouldn't even be let near pets let alone small children.
Did you notice I said type 2 diabetes? It's because I have type 2 diabetes. Since we're told type 1 diabetes is genetic, there is nothing meaningful that I can do for him, because after all, people with genetic disorders can't change. So if he hasn't any choice in the matter, then it really is down to "do you want to prick yourself thousands of times over the course of your life?"
But that's assuming type 1 diabetes actually is genetic. One article I found said it may be caused by a disease.
Frankly, I'm dubious, as there is what is called type 1.5 diabetes.
https://www.masteringdiabetes.org/about-adult-onset-type-1-diabetes/
Almost like you do have a choice in how quickly it affects you. Almost like the genetic thing was a story after all.
Now regardless of what the kid says, I wouldn't "feed him sugar". Normal meals were always a thing in my house, and regardless of his decision, I also wouldn't enable it. He'd have to buy candy with his own allowance, and he'd have to be pretty hardcore to keep buying it after bad things kept happening.
Are you the type of person that claims to support public school but you never went there? Who makes others go through things that you never did?
As for me, it actually matters that I'm unwilling to take such medicine. If he makes the choice to have insulin, I won't forbid him. Unlike the candy and cookies, I'd actually help fund it. But if he didn't, how hypocritical do you have to be to demand others take something that you won't.
But I firmly believe Type 1 is far more controllable than medicine claims it is, and the genetic thing is just an excuse for ppl who have no discipline. Type 1 & 2 are just spectrums of the same disease, and diet & exercise is the deciding factor.
-
You're accusing me of abusing an imaginary kid.
Yes. And the point is, let's just hope you are never within 50 yards of a child because you would just let them die if something happened to them. Which is psychopathic at best.
And yes, I'm trying to impress upon you that if I, a grown adult, refuse to submit to any of this crap, I'm gonna go "touch the spindle, touch it I say!" to a child.
Is everything about you? Sure seems that way. We're talking about a small child and what you would do. Not about your "feelings".
What's monstrous is subjecting a child to constant pain. They live to 48, that's 40 x 365 x 3 times in their life they have to prick their finger or jabbed by syringe.
Once again you've demonstrated that you know nothing...
2017: FDA approves first blood sugar monitor without finger pricks (https://www.statnews.com/2017/09/28/fda-approves-blood-sugar-monitor-without-finger-pricks/)
Continuous glucose monitor (CGMs) check blood sugar levels automatically at timed intervals. People do not need to prick their fingers to test their blood sugar levels.
And insulin pumps, no jabs required, have been around for decades:
An insulin pump is a small, computerized device worn outside of the body that delivers insulin under the skin. A hybrid closed loop insulin pump attempts to mimic the body's natural communication loop by linking with a secondary device called a continuous glucose monitor, or CGM, sensor and automatically adjusting some of the insulin delivered based on continually monitored blood sugar levels.
And another thing! A 8 year old child does not develop type 2 diabetes.
Type I diabetes. Stop being cagey and playing the idiot. Unless you are, in fact, an idiot.
The 4 or 8 year old tells you that they don't want to change their diet, don't want to exercise and don't want the non-jab pump & non-jab testing and would rather die before they hit double figures. Your response is, "Makes sense, it's your call. And I don't want you to hate me. Most people don't amount to anything anyway, so yeah, I'll just let you slip into a coma and die..."
Just because you haven't amounted to anything doesn't mean other people can't. You are beyond a murderous narcissistic monster. You shouldn't even be let near pets let alone small children.
Did you notice I said type 2 diabetes? It's because I have type 2 diabetes. Since we're told type 1 diabetes is genetic, there is nothing meaningful that I can do for him, because after all, people with genetic disorders can't change. So if he hasn't any choice in the matter, then it really is down to "do you want to prick yourself thousands of times over the course of your life?"
But that's assuming type 1 diabetes actually is genetic. One article I found said it may be caused by a disease.
Frankly, I'm dubious, as there is what is called type 1.5 diabetes.
https://www.masteringdiabetes.org/about-adult-onset-type-1-diabetes/
Almost like you do have a choice in how quickly it affects you. Almost like the genetic thing was a story after all.
Now regardless of what the kid says, I wouldn't "feed him sugar". Normal meals were always a thing in my house, and regardless of his decision, I also wouldn't enable it. He'd have to buy candy with his own allowance, and he'd have to be pretty hardcore to keep buying it after bad things kept happening.
Are you the type of person that claims to support public school but you never went there? Who makes others go through things that you never did?
As for me, it actually matters that I'm unwilling to take such medicine. If he makes the choice to have insulin, I won't forbid him. Unlike the candy and cookies, I'd actually help fund it. But if he didn't, how hypocritical do you have to be to demand others take something that you won't.
But I firmly believe Type 1 is far more controllable than medicine claims it is, and the genetic thing is just an excuse for ppl who have no discipline. Type 1 & 2 are just spectrums of the same disease, and diet & exercise is the deciding factor.
I've known 3 people with Type I and they did/do all the right things, diet, exercise and still have had insulin crashes and would be dead without modern medicine.
You seem like the type of person who has never had to be responsible for anyone or anything in life and it's all just your world and everyone else just lives in it. At 40 you have the maturity of a tween. As your advice to a kid speaks volumes; most people don't turn out to be much, so why bother.
-
Watching BB dancing from a rope of his own making, thinking it has any sort of intellectual cohesion, begs the question.
What happens to a society where it wilfully not only neglects the education of its citizens, but when those cohorts of fools break out and start to proudly flaunt their idiocy, they are encouraged and given platforms, albeit a virtual stack of milkcrates in a computer generated field.
One could almost imagine it is a conspiracy to cement the underclasses in place, but why allow them guns?
I suppose because the only threat they pose is to themselves, the government being too well armed, and there is a ready source of fresh bodies to throw under whatever the Chinese drive up the beaches come the changeover.
All a bit depressing to watch though.
-
I've known 3 people with Type I and they did/do all the right things, diet, exercise and still have had insulin crashes and would be dead without modern medicine.
You seem like the type of person who has never had to be responsible for anyone or anything in life and it's all just your world and everyone else just lives in it. At 40 you have the maturity of a tween. As your advice to a kid speaks volumes; most people don't turn out to be much, so why bother.
And you've confused maturity with growing up to be a good little wind-up doll.
Mature people don't do what they are told. They do what God wants for them, which is to be their authentic selves. Now maybe God wants you to be a conformist sheeple, I cannot answer that.
What I do know is that it is unconscionable for me to enforce standards on others that I won't abide myself.
Right now, my mom tried to push me into agreeing to volunteer to something, and she fucking lost her shit when I said no. You know, I'm been pushed to do things before, and nothing ever came out of it. I wasn't happy, the people I hoped to please just took advantage of me, and I wound up going every week even though I hated it.
"Do unto others as you would have them do until you."
But actually what I wanted was for people to like me. Instead, I got what I didn't have anything to do with, getting used for trying to help. Being abused for even bothering people. I don't have that many friends, because most people I know are either profoundly non-neurotic (and will avoid me when I get to be too much) or turn out to be so controlling that I'd rather be alone. I just want to know real people.
Yes, I know that you're worried that I'm lonely. You're right, I am a bit lonely. But I got this way because every social engagement I tried out became a chore that took my time and my patience and my energy, made me feel used and drained. Does she have to do any of that? No she does what she wants, and then imposes a law on me.
I'm sorry, but mature people don't set standards on others. I can by all means tell the child that he will most likely die without constant insulin injections. But ultimately, he will point to how I'm not taking the drugs. Meaning you're trying to force everyone to go along with your stupid rules.
Medical Autonomy. Go and learn what this term means.
It means we are created by the hands of God, given freedom to live our lives, and the pricks who wanna do all this medical bullshit can do it if they want. But their outrage about other people not doing it stops at the point where they try to tell me how to live my life. When I do chores for someone, and they try to tell me how to live that's one thing. When I am online and someone who doesn't even know who I am does the same, they have even less worth in my life.
-
I've known 3 people with Type I and they did/do all the right things, diet, exercise and still have had insulin crashes and would be dead without modern medicine.
You seem like the type of person who has never had to be responsible for anyone or anything in life and it's all just your world and everyone else just lives in it. At 40 you have the maturity of a tween. As your advice to a kid speaks volumes; most people don't turn out to be much, so why bother.
And you've confused maturity with growing up to be a good little wind-up doll.
Mature people don't do what they are told. They do what God wants for them, which is to be their authentic selves. Now maybe God wants you to be a conformist sheeple, I cannot answer that.
What I do know is that it is unconscionable for me to enforce standards on others that I won't abide myself.
Right now, my mom tried to push me into agreeing to volunteer to something, and she fucking lost her shit when I said no.
The fact that your mom feels the need to push you to do anything at your age is rather telling unto itself. Apparently you're doing nothing, her idea is, "Well, if you can't bring yourself to actually work, why don't you at least be somewhat altruistic and contribute something, anything, like maybe volunteering..." Like doing something just to do something that benefits others and not yourself. Even that you have a problem with. Seems mighty unchristian. And you're 40, act like an adult and people won't feel the need to treat you like a child for christ's sake.
Maturity comes form knowing that if you actually have any wherewithal and actually do something, people will stop telling you what to do. So instead of complaining about people telling you what to do, do something that makes them not feel the need to do so. It's confounding that at your age you haven't even figured this out.
Isn't that the whole Jesus thing anyway? Helping others who can't help themselves? You seem to think the Jesus thing is, "Do whatever you can to benefit yourself." Maybe I'm wrong, but that doesn't seem very Jesusy to me.
I'm sorry, but mature people don't set standards on others. I can by all means tell the child that he will most likely die without constant insulin injections. But ultimately, he will point to how I'm not taking the drugs. Meaning you're trying to force everyone to go along with your stupid rules.
But you are setting a standard. A standard that is applied by you, "Kid, you can do whatever you want whenever you want, you won't amount to anything most likely anyway." That is a standard.
Apparently you've never heard a parent say, "Do as I say, not as I do."
So you don't believe in any sort of discipline?
"Mommy, why do you get to have two mezcal margaritas before dinner, smoke a cigarette after, and then stay up until 3 watching hardcore porn and I don't?" inquires the 8 year old. And you're like, "You're right, why am I imposing restrictions on you when I don't apply them to myself...Here, I'll make you a margarita, light you a smoke and you can stay up as late as you want and my collection of hardcore porn is in the bureau over there...Oh, I know you don't like school, so it's your call if you want to stop going or not..."
Medical Autonomy. Go and learn what this term means.
Sounds like pro-choice to me.
It means we are created by the hands of God, given freedom to live our lives, and the pricks who wanna do all this medical bullshit can do it if they want. But their outrage about other people not doing it stops at the point where they try to tell me how to live my life. When I do chores for someone, and they try to tell me how to live that's one thing. When I am online and someone who doesn't even know who I am does the same, they have even less worth in my life.
Following the tenets of a book is not freedom to live your life. It's living your life by the rules written by messianic age cultists and perpetually altered throughout medieval times. It's 2023, act like it is 2023. Just because you're wasting your life because you can't bring yourself to do anything productive and actually contribute anything doesn't mean that that standard of yours applies to everyone else. So much 'whoa is me' complaining and so little action.
-
Yeah it is pro-choice, except when it came to such choices, they didn't really have a leg to stand on, because there was another life involved.
Did you know that many abortions aren't actually the woman's choice? That they get pressured by the man not to have the baby so he will not have to pay her anything?
You can't be be pro-choice and denying the rights of children to make choices. You can't be pro-choice and supporting the pressuring of women. You can't be pro-choice and killing children before they choose to take their first breath or not.
And you can't be pro-choice and telling people who dislike or fear syringes that it's "for their own good" that they suck it up and get jabbed anyway, whether for COVID or diabetes or something else.
(https://i.etsystatic.com/14151438/r/il/09b794/3239635704/il_1588xN.3239635704_d86d.jpg)
There are several things medically wrong with injections.
First, any nurse who hasn't had enough training or enough sleep might kill the patient outright by air embolism. Which means either you pay for the services of a nurse or you try to do it yourself risking your own life. Second, unlike a pill, you can underdose or overdose an injection somewhat easily. Third injections represent the epitome of medical aggression, as they can be done with permission and even which someone is unconscious. They are literally symbolic of the sort of violation you would get if you are raped.
I have a suspicion that as a child I might have been raped. I am strongly defensive of my own body, fearful of sex, shy about being touched. I don't have a memory to go with it, but my early childhood before age 9 is very very blocked. And btw, that is weird because on at least two occasions I was able to memorize the contents of a page perfectly, one of which involved a map of the states of China. So when you tell me that I don't have medical choices and my child doesn't either, my answer is an emphatic no.
Lastly, the way a syringe enters the body is wrong. It bypasses the skin, the digestive system, and respiratory system to instead go directly into the body like a leech bite. All of these systems are the body's defenses against illness, and you've just ripped past them, drilling a small hole in the body that bacteria and other things can use to intrude the body.
If you ever invent a pill form of insulin, that's one thing. But I won't consent to injection, and I won't make my child do it if they don't wanna.
You tell me I'm a monster for letting someone who is young make an informed choice, but you won't let anybody make any choice.
It is a misconception (ooooh, unintended pun when referring to childbirth rights) that Jesus died to sacrifice. Jesus died for mercy, to save us from our sins. The notion of sacrifice brought all this theological garbage about altruism. There is no requirement in the Bible to be altruistic.
34Then Jesus called the crowd to Him along with His disciples, and He told them, “If anyone wants to come after Me, he must deny himself and take up his cross and follow Me. 35For whoever wants to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for My sake and for the gospel will save it.
36What does it profit a man to gain the whole world, yet forfeit his soul? 37Or what can a man give in exchange for his soul? 38If anyone is ashamed of Me and My words in this adulterous and sinful generation, the Son of Man will also be ashamed of him when He comes in His Father’s glory with the holy angels.”
Yes, the cross does involve sacrifices. But it isn't a sacrifice. It is a choice, freely made to follow. What does Jesus mean by losing your soul? It means that trying to be popular, to be liked, is a good way to lose your soul (self). You commit yourself to Jesus, you ignore pressure from peers around you, and do what Jesus is telling you to do.
Altruism twists the message of the cross into one of endless setting aside personal rights and freedoms. But Jesus died for our rights and freedoms. He died so that if you want to wear a mask and I don't, both of us can do as we wish.
Following the tenets of a book is not freedom to live your life. It's living your life by the rules written by messianic age cultists and perpetually altered throughout medieval times. It's 2023, act like it is 2023.
Oh yes, the "the Bible is sooooo outdated" rationale. Because things like murder and rape, and killing children, worrying about whether they're wrong is just soooo passe.
And has it occurred to you that 2023 doesn't feel particularly advanced? We were doing this state authority thing in pre-Chistian Rome, in Mesopotamia, and certainly back nearly a century in Hitler Germany and Lenin/Stalin Russia. These are not advanced ways to live. They are akin to the slavery of the 1700s and 1800s. I have no use for the "modern" culture if it strips my rights. The Bible in standing up for freedoms, is alwats advanced, always progressive. Oppression is always regressive. You can call yoursel "progressive" all you want, but the things you support are the taking of rights of others wpaway. Rights are always progressive. Any progressive that thinks they are obsolete is not a progressive. As is anyone who does not get that the Bible moved from a less free world (the laws of which I don't respect) to a more free world.
You'll see that I no longer care about eating pork or not, so some things are not relevant. But the things that count are still applicable today. One of them is that someone died so that I (and you) might have freedom. If you can't respect that, I can't respect you.
-
Also. It's "woe is me."
Whoa is an expression you say to horses.
-
One of them is that someone died so that I (and you) might have freedom. If you can't respect that, I can't respect you.
Are you referring to the fable of Jesus? Whose existence can not even be confirmed?
Lets say for arguments sake he existed.... Ok, so his sacrfice did what for me? What did it do for the billions of people to follow?
I'll tell you one thing - religion has never made people 'free'. It has always been a tool to control the masses. People are not free when they follow it. All the people murdered, whipped and jailed for offenses commited under the guise of offending old testament values is not freedom. And yo usee these old testament values certainly in Christian America today. So much judgment. So much hate. So much intolerence. Fuck religion
If someone is gay or wishes to have children out of 'wedlock' (marriage itself an institution hijacked by religion and not a creation of religion). What business is it of anyone elses?
Is it freedom when a gay person is forced to marry or be in relationships with the opposite sex? Is it freedom that if they speak their truth and they are discriminated against, jailed or killed for it? These values of intolerance stem from religion. So again, fuck religion
Jesus did not die for 'me'. I'd rather pay respect to soldiers who died on battlefields in wars that defended my country and it's values than some fable who may or may not have existed and whose sacrifice amounted to a whole lot of nothing. Well I guess it did amount to persecution of Jewish people that still goes on thousands of years later. All over a fucking fable
-
Yes, you're offended by the fact that indeed Jesus did die for you.
And what's worse, unlike the fundies, I will tell you that there are no strings attached. If you want to snort coke every day until the day you die, perfectly fine.
The atonement of Christ is unlimited. It is just as valuable today as thousands of years ago.
No, you don't have the right to my body, but yes, you have the free gift of salvation. And the free gift is free.
It doesn't require saying Jesus is Lord (though Jesus is Lord).
It doesn't require any major rules.
It doesn't require anything really.
The only difference is that nonbelievers are like the people in Hosea's time, ignorant of God and saying "look, all around us is plenty, where is the evidence of your God?" Yet good and bad fortune exist, and when life gets really rough, not having anyone to turn to is awful. Maybe that's just me though, and you're perfect.
-
Yes, you're offended by the fact that indeed Jesus did die for you.
And what's worse, unlike the fundies, I will tell you that there are no strings attached. If you want to snort coke every day until the day you die, perfectly fine.
The atonement of Christ is unlimited. It is just as valuable today as thousands of years ago.
Do tell us how his sacrifice resulted in my freedom
I for one do not see religion as freedom. It is a ball and chain. It is shackles. It is for many, the recieving end of a whip or a noose for around their neck
Religion and freedom are at opposite ends
Agnosticism is freedom and the only logical choice in a universe of unknowns
-
There are several things medically wrong with injections.
First, any nurse who hasn't had enough training or enough sleep might kill the patient outright by air embolism. Which means either you pay for the services of a nurse or you try to do it yourself risking your own life.
You're as uninformed as ever. Basically ignorant.
In the past 25 years (as of 2017) there have been 67 air embolism cases. 77.8% were during an operation/invasive procedure, not from a syringe in the arm whether in a medical facility or outside one. Overall with a 21% mortality rate. Meaning:
- In the past 25 years 14 people have died from an air embolism
- That’s 1.78 deaths per year for the past 1/4 century
- That equates to 3 people dining from an air embolism not during a surgical procedure
- Therefore non-surgical air embolism deaths equate to 0.12 deaths per year for the past 1/4 century
Second, unlike a pill, you can underdose or overdose an injection somewhat easily.
And how many times do you need to be told that insulin pumps have been readily available for decades? No jabs required. As well, for Type II only, depending upon the progression of your disease, a doctor most likely will prescribe oral medication first before insulin shots.
If you weren't so paranoid you might actually learn something about medicine if you talk to some Drs and then choose what you think is best for you. Instead, you just ignorantly sit in a corner and conjure up all sorts of reasons why not to be informed.
Third injections represent the epitome of medical aggression, as they can be done with permission and even which someone is unconscious. They are literally symbolic of the sort of violation you would get if you are raped.
Is taking out your damaged spleen while your unconscious after a car accident so that you don't go septic, internally bleed, and die considered rape? Sticking a needle in your arm to help save your life is not considered rape by rational intelligent people.
I have a suspicion that as a child I might have been raped. I am strongly defensive of my own body, fearful of sex, shy about being touched. I don't have a memory to go with it, but my early childhood before age 9 is very very blocked. And btw, that is weird because on at least two occasions I was able to memorize the contents of a page perfectly, one of which involved a map of the states of China. So when you tell me that I don't have medical choices and my child doesn't either, my answer is an emphatic no.
I don't know what to say about this because it reads like the ramblings of a lunatic.
Lastly, the way a syringe enters the body is wrong. It bypasses the skin, the digestive system, and respiratory system to instead go directly into the body like a leech bite. All of these systems are the body's defenses against illness, and you've just ripped past them, drilling a small hole in the body that bacteria and other things can use to intrude the body.
Now you're a doctor?
If you ever invent a pill form of insulin, that's one thing.
There are pills. Type II only. Stop being ignorant and get informed.
But I won't consent to injection, and I won't make my child do it if they don't wanna.
Cool, just let your kid die. How christian of you.
You tell me I'm a monster for letting someone who is young make an informed choice, but you won't let anybody make any choice.
You can make any choice you want, has nothing to do with me. If you want to let your 8 year old drink booze, smoke cigarettes, stay up late watching hardcore porn, refuse life-saving medication, and never have to go to school again because it's your 8 year old's choice, have at it. You're still a monster though with zero sense of responsibility and a child abuser.
Your little 8 year old tells you that he wants jump off the roof of your 5 story apartment building with umbrella because he thinks he can float down to the pavement below. You tell him that no, he will drop like a stone, splatter on the street, and die. Informed consent. He wants to do it anyway because he's sure you're wrong. You just let him do it because it's his "choice". Yes, you're a monster.
There is no requirement in the Bible to be altruistic.
Really? Shows how much you don't know.
Altruism is an unselfish concern for the welfare of others. An altruistic person gives generously of time and resources for no personal gain, and often at personal risk. A major theme of the Bible is godly altruism. As far back as the Mosaic Law, the Bible records God’s desire that His people care for the widows, the orphans, and the poor in their communities (Deuteronomy 26:12; Psalm 68:5; Zechariah 27:10). In the New Testament, James 1:27 says, “Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world.”
Following the tenets of a book is not freedom to live your life. It's living your life by the rules written by messianic age cultists and perpetually altered throughout medieval times. It's 2023, act like it is 2023.
Oh yes, the "the Bible is sooooo outdated" rationale. Because things like murder and rape, and killing children, worrying about whether they're wrong is just soooo passe.
I don't need a bible to know that those things are wrong. Just like for most of the 6 billion people in the world who don't believe in Jesus know those things are wrong. Are you really trying to say that only Christians know that murder and rape, and killing children is wrong? Really?
-
Wow, way to advertise your ignorance bulmatroll.
Firstly, how the fuck do you give yourself an 'air embolism' in a subcutaneous injection. You know the many billions of insulin injections done by people over the decades has resulted in how many fatalities of an air embolism? Seems to be a big deal for you, maybe you can tell us. Contrast it with those who died for not recieving their injection. You do the math and tell us what poses a bigger risk
The fact that you would suggest pills as an alternative to injections for insulin just shows how stupid you are. Insulin is a complicated protein. And what does the stomach and intestines do with proteins? It denatures them. Even if a fragment of insulin survived the process, there is no way you can predict how much will and if the dose was sufficient. You inject insulin into the body so that it arrives inside your body in the same condition and appear in your blood through the same process as your pancreas would (if you had a normal functioning pancreas).
Maybe this is where you realise that any further posting on this subject only embarrasses you even more and now might be the time to bow out. Your ignorance is laughable. Probably why you're such an unsuccessful loner.
-
There are several things medically wrong with injections.
First, any nurse who hasn't had enough training or enough sleep might kill the patient outright by air embolism. Which means either you pay for the services of a nurse or you try to do it yourself risking your own life.
You're as uninformed as ever. Basically ignorant.
In the past 25 years (as of 2017) there have been 67 air embolism cases. 77.8% were during an operation/invasive procedure, not from a syringe in the arm whether in a medical facility or outside one. Overall with a 21% mortality rate. Meaning:
- In the past 25 years 14 people have died from an air embolism
- That’s 1.78 deaths per year for the past 1/4 century
- That equates to 3 people dining from an air embolism not during a surgical procedure
- Therefore non-surgical air embolism deaths equate to 0.12 deaths per year for the past 1/4 century
Second, unlike a pill, you can underdose or overdose an injection somewhat easily.
And how many times do you need to be told that insulin pumps have been readily available for decades? No jabs required. As well, for Type II only, depending upon the progression of your disease, a doctor most likely will prescribe oral medication first before insulin shots.
If you weren't so paranoid you might actually learn something about medicine if you talk to some Drs and then choose what you think is best for you. Instead, you just ignorantly sit in a corner and conjure up all sorts of reasons why not to be informed.
Third injections represent the epitome of medical aggression, as they can be done with permission and even which someone is unconscious. They are literally symbolic of the sort of violation you would get if you are raped.
Is taking out your damaged spleen while your unconscious after a car accident so that you don't go septic, internally bleed, and die considered rape? Sticking a needle in your arm to help save your life is not considered rape by rational intelligent people.
I have a suspicion that as a child I might have been raped. I am strongly defensive of my own body, fearful of sex, shy about being touched. I don't have a memory to go with it, but my early childhood before age 9 is very very blocked. And btw, that is weird because on at least two occasions I was able to memorize the contents of a page perfectly, one of which involved a map of the states of China. So when you tell me that I don't have medical choices and my child doesn't either, my answer is an emphatic no.
I don't know what to say about this because it reads like the ramblings of a lunatic.
Lastly, the way a syringe enters the body is wrong. It bypasses the skin, the digestive system, and respiratory system to instead go directly into the body like a leech bite. All of these systems are the body's defenses against illness, and you've just ripped past them, drilling a small hole in the body that bacteria and other things can use to intrude the body.
Now you're a doctor?
If you ever invent a pill form of insulin, that's one thing.
There are pills. Type II only. Stop being ignorant and get informed.
But I won't consent to injection, and I won't make my child do it if they don't wanna.
Cool, just let your kid die. How christian of you.
You tell me I'm a monster for letting someone who is young make an informed choice, but you won't let anybody make any choice.
You can make any choice you want, has nothing to do with me. If you want to let your 8 year old drink booze, smoke cigarettes, stay up late watching hardcore porn, refuse life-saving medication, and never have to go to school again because it's your 8 year old's choice, have at it. You're still a monster though with zero sense of responsibility and a child abuser.
Your little 8 year old tells you that he wants jump off the roof of your 5 story apartment building with umbrella because he thinks he can float down to the pavement below. You tell him that no, he will drop like a stone, splatter on the street, and die. Informed consent. He wants to do it anyway because he's sure you're wrong. You just let him do it because it's his "choice". Yes, you're a monster.
There is no requirement in the Bible to be altruistic.
Really? Shows how much you don't know.
Altruism is an unselfish concern for the welfare of others. An altruistic person gives generously of time and resources for no personal gain, and often at personal risk. A major theme of the Bible is godly altruism. As far back as the Mosaic Law, the Bible records God’s desire that His people care for the widows, the orphans, and the poor in their communities (Deuteronomy 26:12; Psalm 68:5; Zechariah 27:10). In the New Testament, James 1:27 says, “Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world.”
Following the tenets of a book is not freedom to live your life. It's living your life by the rules written by messianic age cultists and perpetually altered throughout medieval times. It's 2023, act like it is 2023.
Oh yes, the "the Bible is sooooo outdated" rationale. Because things like murder and rape, and killing children, worrying about whether they're wrong is just soooo passe.
I don't need a bible to know that those things are wrong. Just like for most of the 6 billion people in the world who don't believe in Jesus know those things are wrong. Are you really trying to say that only Christians know that murder and rape, and killing children is wrong? Really?
Yeah, the thing is, I don't care what is or isn't available medically. What I do care about is the hard sell.
Suppose I were to walk into a car dealership, and within 4 minutes, I had scoped out all the cars, and decided what sort of cars I will and won't take. In particular, I've realized I don't want a car at all. I decided I want a motorcycle (alt medicine). I tell you this, but you don't listen at all. Instead, you refuse to let me see if you have any motorcycles in stock and continue to press me to buy a car. When I tell you that motorcycles seem cheaper and more fuel efficient, you tell me they don't actually work. And you tell me when I say I don't like electric vehicles (syringes) that these electric vehicles are different, they have a minor upgrade that is suppose to impress me.
That's what you've been doing for at least three pages of posts.
Really. Because when religion flees an area (as happened in communist Russia, communist Germany, communist China when they banned religion), the borrowed morals the secular world slowly fade. Abortion goes up. Rape, murder, and half-siblings go up as a result of secular society. Because family ties go down, this also means inbreeding becomes a thing.
"Atheism is a cruel long-term business, and I have gone through it to the end." Jean-Paul Sartre.
Atheism has no morals of its own. It borrows them from Judaism and Christianity (and occasionally Islam). What happens when those religions are forgotten or suppressed? In famously religiously-declining Europe, we are seeing a rise of unsteady relationships and moral vagueness.
https://gatesofvienna.net/2013/04/effects-of-atheist-propaganda-come-home-to-roost/
-
There are several things medically wrong with injections.
First, any nurse who hasn't had enough training or enough sleep might kill the patient outright by air embolism. Which means either you pay for the services of a nurse or you try to do it yourself risking your own life.
You're as uninformed as ever. Basically ignorant.
In the past 25 years (as of 2017) there have been 67 air embolism cases. 77.8% were during an operation/invasive procedure, not from a syringe in the arm whether in a medical facility or outside one. Overall with a 21% mortality rate. Meaning:
- In the past 25 years 14 people have died from an air embolism
- That’s 1.78 deaths per year for the past 1/4 century
- That equates to 3 people dining from an air embolism not during a surgical procedure
- Therefore non-surgical air embolism deaths equate to 0.12 deaths per year for the past 1/4 century
Second, unlike a pill, you can underdose or overdose an injection somewhat easily.
And how many times do you need to be told that insulin pumps have been readily available for decades? No jabs required. As well, for Type II only, depending upon the progression of your disease, a doctor most likely will prescribe oral medication first before insulin shots.
If you weren't so paranoid you might actually learn something about medicine if you talk to some Drs and then choose what you think is best for you. Instead, you just ignorantly sit in a corner and conjure up all sorts of reasons why not to be informed.
Third injections represent the epitome of medical aggression, as they can be done with permission and even which someone is unconscious. They are literally symbolic of the sort of violation you would get if you are raped.
Is taking out your damaged spleen while your unconscious after a car accident so that you don't go septic, internally bleed, and die considered rape? Sticking a needle in your arm to help save your life is not considered rape by rational intelligent people.
I have a suspicion that as a child I might have been raped. I am strongly defensive of my own body, fearful of sex, shy about being touched. I don't have a memory to go with it, but my early childhood before age 9 is very very blocked. And btw, that is weird because on at least two occasions I was able to memorize the contents of a page perfectly, one of which involved a map of the states of China. So when you tell me that I don't have medical choices and my child doesn't either, my answer is an emphatic no.
I don't know what to say about this because it reads like the ramblings of a lunatic.
Lastly, the way a syringe enters the body is wrong. It bypasses the skin, the digestive system, and respiratory system to instead go directly into the body like a leech bite. All of these systems are the body's defenses against illness, and you've just ripped past them, drilling a small hole in the body that bacteria and other things can use to intrude the body.
Now you're a doctor?
If you ever invent a pill form of insulin, that's one thing.
There are pills. Type II only. Stop being ignorant and get informed.
But I won't consent to injection, and I won't make my child do it if they don't wanna.
Cool, just let your kid die. How christian of you.
You tell me I'm a monster for letting someone who is young make an informed choice, but you won't let anybody make any choice.
You can make any choice you want, has nothing to do with me. If you want to let your 8 year old drink booze, smoke cigarettes, stay up late watching hardcore porn, refuse life-saving medication, and never have to go to school again because it's your 8 year old's choice, have at it. You're still a monster though with zero sense of responsibility and a child abuser.
Your little 8 year old tells you that he wants jump off the roof of your 5 story apartment building with umbrella because he thinks he can float down to the pavement below. You tell him that no, he will drop like a stone, splatter on the street, and die. Informed consent. He wants to do it anyway because he's sure you're wrong. You just let him do it because it's his "choice". Yes, you're a monster.
There is no requirement in the Bible to be altruistic.
Really? Shows how much you don't know.
Altruism is an unselfish concern for the welfare of others. An altruistic person gives generously of time and resources for no personal gain, and often at personal risk. A major theme of the Bible is godly altruism. As far back as the Mosaic Law, the Bible records God’s desire that His people care for the widows, the orphans, and the poor in their communities (Deuteronomy 26:12; Psalm 68:5; Zechariah 27:10). In the New Testament, James 1:27 says, “Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world.”
Following the tenets of a book is not freedom to live your life. It's living your life by the rules written by messianic age cultists and perpetually altered throughout medieval times. It's 2023, act like it is 2023.
Oh yes, the "the Bible is sooooo outdated" rationale. Because things like murder and rape, and killing children, worrying about whether they're wrong is just soooo passe.
I don't need a bible to know that those things are wrong. Just like for most of the 6 billion people in the world who don't believe in Jesus know those things are wrong. Are you really trying to say that only Christians know that murder and rape, and killing children is wrong? Really?
Yeah, the thing is, I don't care what is or isn't available medically. What I do care about is the hard sell.
Suppose I were to walk into a car dealership, and within 4 minutes, I had scoped out all the cars, and decided what sort of cars I will and won't take. In particular, I've realized I don't want a car at all. I decided I want a motorcycle (alt medicine). I tell you this, but you don't listen at all. Instead, you refuse to let me see if you have any motorcycles in stock and continue to press me to buy a car. When I tell you that motorcycles seem cheaper and more fuel efficient, you tell me they don't actually work. And you tell me when I say I don't like electric vehicles (syringes) that these electric vehicles are different, they have a minor upgrade that is suppose to impress me.
That's what you've been doing for at least three pages of posts.
Nope, not what I'm doing at all. You can do whatever you like, buy a car, buy a motocycle, I don't care. What I have been telling you is that you would gleefully allow a little kid to inadvertently kill him or herself if that was their "choice". Which makes you a monster and a horrible person. And also telling you how you know nothing about christianity when you say shit like:
There is no requirement in the Bible to be altruistic.
When:
Altruism is an unselfish concern for the welfare of others. An altruistic person gives generously of time and resources for no personal gain, and often at personal risk. A major theme of the Bible is godly altruism. As far back as the Mosaic Law, the Bible records God’s desire that His people care for the widows, the orphans, and the poor in their communities (Deuteronomy 26:12; Psalm 68:5; Zechariah 27:10). In the New Testament, James 1:27 says, “Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world.”
Obviously, you really don't know shit about anything that you type. And you're a would-be child abuser. You have no sense of responsibility for another human being. No compassion, no empathy. It's just all about you. The definition of a psychopath.
-
Nope, not what I'm doing at all. You can do whatever you like, buy a car, buy a motocycle, I don't care. What I have been telling you is that you would gleefully allow a little kid to inadvertently kill him or herself if that was their "choice". Which makes you a monster and a horrible person. And also telling you how you know nothing about christianity when you say shit like:
There is no requirement in the Bible to be altruistic.
When:
Altruism is an unselfish concern for the welfare of others. An altruistic person gives generously of time and resources for no personal gain, and often at personal risk. A major theme of the Bible is godly altruism. As far back as the Mosaic Law, the Bible records God’s desire that His people care for the widows, the orphans, and the poor in their communities (Deuteronomy 26:12; Psalm 68:5; Zechariah 27:10). In the New Testament, James 1:27 says, “Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world.”
Obviously, you really don't know shit about anything that you type. And you're a would-be child abuser. You have no sense of responsibility for another human being. No compassion, no empathy. It's just all about you. The definition of a psychopath.
The worst psychopaths convince people they are being virtuous. They tell people that it's in their best interest to "give their fair share," and do their part. But when they are asked to give, it's all guilt trip.
Psychopaths don't act like me. They are normal. They appear sane. Charming even. Just one difference from regular people. They enjoy pushing and intimidating people. A classic psychopath is an abuser. "Ohh honey, I've changed. I've stopped drinking and look at all the things I've done to prove I'm a better person now." Only as soon as she comes back he beats her to death, then blames it on the alcohol.
If you really "didn't care" as you say, you would literally not care. But you have not stopped responding. Actual psychopaths don't give people choices. They put on a caring act. They gaslight you and tell you that you are crazy. They do things that they know may hurt or even kill you, willingly poisoning you. They tell you that when you say no or refuse them that you are the one who is evil, for standing up for your rights and those of others.
https://www.powerofpositivity.com/11-ways-psychopaths-will-try-manipulate/
2. Psychopaths engage in brainwashing.
Hypnotists and psychopaths use techniques to manipulate your thoughts and actions, such as brainwashing. If you notice that your conversations become strangely repetitive, where the person says the same thing repeatedly, they’re probably trying to implant an idea in your mind.
8. Preventing you from doing things that you want.
Seeing your friends, going out, wearing that outfit you love – whatever you enjoy doing, a psychopath will try to transform into a negative. Alternatively, they will fabricate why you can’t do the thing you love. Never allow a psychopath to take away your joy.
9. Psychopaths control people via verbal abuse
Name-calling, belittling, or even a loud, angry tone are all psychological manipulation tools used by the psychopath. They want you in a low, fearful state so that you feel powerless against them. Don’t fall for their mind games, though; ignore or walk away from their abuse.
I know this because I've been used and abused by sociopaths and psychopaths before. And they always seem to be the sweetest people, right before they hurt you. Yes, I have a deadpan personality, but I am decidedly not in the antisocial spectrum.
Suppose I know that the medicine may have side-effects. Is it wrong to not want to take them when the risk is permanent disability or death?
- fatigue
- inability to speak
- sweating
- confusion
- loss of consciousness
- seizures
- muscle twitching
- pale skin
Or maybe the drug you are told to take has some unsavory additives.
Ingredients found in some vaccines
Stabilizers (Examples: Sugars, gelatin)
Adjuvants (Examples: Aluminum salts)
Residual inactivating ingredients (Example: Formaldehyde†)
Residual cell culture materials (Examples: Egg protein^)
Residual antibiotics (Examples: Neomycin, Kanamycin, Streptomycin)
Preservatives (Example: Thimerosal)
Thimerosal is fucking mercury. Formaldehyde? Aluminum salts? To say nothing of COVID vaccines literally altering mRNA.
No, you may like to call me a psychopath, but I'm not the one forcing imaginary kids to take poison, all while telling them it will make them better. And for the record, I'm not forcing the child not to take medicine. I believe people have right to choice. If he wants to take it, I will not stop him. But you want both of us to do as you say, because you say so. And when you don't, you tell me I'm an evil person.
I saw all of this crap all through COVID. The people telling people that it was "for their own good" that they were trying to make them take poison. But "for their own good" was never good enough. When one poison failed to kill the people (or they refused to take) they wanted, they talked about boosters and flattening the curve. Yeah, "why aren't you dead yet?"
Maybe it's because I know what being pushed looks like, and know the difference between wanting you to develop healthy habits and pushing you to take chemicals that hurt your body.
Here's the thing. Jesus died even for a psychopath like you. He made you be born a psychopath, didn't do anything to change your background, and then died for you on the cross. I don't have to answer to you, as you are not my mom, not my dad, not my friend, and frankly I don't know you. Yet to people who were actively trying to kill him, Jesus said "Forgive them because they don't know what they are doing." And you don't know what you are doing. You are trying to drive someone to suicide who already wants to do so.
You're just wasting your time.
-
Obviously, you really don't know shit about anything that you type. And you're a would-be child abuser. You have no sense of responsibility for another human being. No compassion, no empathy. It's just all about you. The definition of a psychopath.
It's pretty clear that bulmatroll is another dipshit who uses the boring theme of religion to sound like an elitist prick.
Must be a real pathetic sob in real life
Pack it up bulmadick. You're done
-
Nope, not what I'm doing at all. You can do whatever you like, buy a car, buy a motocycle, I don't care. What I have been telling you is that you would gleefully allow a little kid to inadvertently kill him or herself if that was their "choice". Which makes you a monster and a horrible person. And also telling you how you know nothing about christianity when you say shit like:
There is no requirement in the Bible to be altruistic.
When:
Altruism is an unselfish concern for the welfare of others. An altruistic person gives generously of time and resources for no personal gain, and often at personal risk. A major theme of the Bible is godly altruism. As far back as the Mosaic Law, the Bible records God’s desire that His people care for the widows, the orphans, and the poor in their communities (Deuteronomy 26:12; Psalm 68:5; Zechariah 27:10). In the New Testament, James 1:27 says, “Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world.”
Obviously, you really don't know shit about anything that you type. And you're a would-be child abuser. You have no sense of responsibility for another human being. No compassion, no empathy. It's just all about you. The definition of a psychopath.
No, you may like to call me a psychopath, but I'm not the one forcing imaginary kids to take poison, all while telling them it will make them better.
Yeah, insulin is "poison". ???
It's pretty clear. You'd let an 8 year old jump off a building to their death because it's their "choice", all because you don't want them to hate you because if you said no and in your eyes, he wouldn't have amounted to anything anyway as most people don't. Equals a psychopath, at a minimum, sociopath.
On top of that, you think christianity isn't supposed to be about compassion, caring, altruism...You think it's about your freedom to do whatever you want. Bizarre.
-
Insulin is poison. Particularly synthetic insulin.
The body can learn to make things on its own. But when you have an industrially made chemica, it's too pure, it's the wrong dose, and it might even be a fake version that needs fillers. Industrially made estrogen gives you hardcore cancer, so when they list side-effects like that, I believe them. Wrong purity, wrong dosage, not designed for the sedentary body.
I don't believe any body is incapable of ever making insulin. That's crap. You knew people and they exercised and ate right. That's great. Did they exercise (walk a half hour a day) or Exercise (very long walks of two hours oe more)?
What this is really about is telling me:
1. I can't do it myself
2. I need you to tell me what to do
That's precisely what abusers and control freaks say.
Ummmm no, I don't. We have an expression in Christianity, that gets used in occasions like baptism oaths. "We will, with God's help." It's not men that I trust, even supposedly good or righteous men. I don't need your medicine. And I don't need you.
I want to help you. Just as a diabetic can walk out their inability to make insulin and switch to high fiber low sugar portions, you can actually break that kick of yours of manipulating and abusing people. Do you want to be helped? If not, you should go.
I know you are possessing him, and have been for years. It is easy to possess atheists and agnostics, because they can themselves be undermined until they are like an empty husk. They don't notice their actions feel controlled because they reject superstition (supposedly).
Jesus offers help to everyone, and I mean everyone.
The Demons and the Pigs
(Matthew 8:28–34; Luke 8:26–39)
1On the other side of the sea, they arrived in the region of the Gerasenes. 2As soon as Jesus got out of the boat, He was met by a man with an unclean spirit, who was coming from the tombs. 3This man had been living in the tombs and could no longer be restrained, even with chains. 4Though he was often bound with chains and shackles, he had broken the chains and shattered the shackles. Now there was no one with the strength to subdue him. 5Night and day in the tombs and in the mountains he kept crying out and cutting himself with stones.
6When the man saw Jesus from a distance, he ran and fell on his knees before Him. 7And he shouted in a loud voice, “What do You want with me, Jesus, Son of the Most High God? I beg You before God not to torture me!” 8For Jesus had already declared, “Come out of this man, you unclean spirit!”
9“What is your name?” Jesus asked.
“My name is Legion,” he replied, “for we are many.” 10And he begged Jesus repeatedly not to send them out of that region (in some translations, it says not to send them into the abyss).
11There on the nearby hillside a large herd of pigs was feeding. 12So the demons begged Jesus, “Send us to the pigs, so that we may enter them.”
13He gave them permission, and the unclean spirits came out and went into the pigs, and the herd of about two thousand rushed down the steep bank into the sea and drowned in the water.
Do you understand what is happening here?
In an exorcism, the spirit would be destroyed. Demonic spirits were a leftover from the Nephilim of Noah's time. They died, and their spirits were immortal, but God didn't want them reborn in a new body. So we have a problem of too many guests trying to possess weak hosts. What you'd call in secular terms, a plague of psychiatric disorders.
So Jesus could have sent them into the abyss through exorcism, and this is how most exorcists work. They don't care about the fate of a demon. But Jesus didn't destroy the demon, he sent it to a herd of pigs which immediately killed itself. You may think, but they still died. Yes, naturally. Not by being sent into a world of nonexistence but being reborn at some point in a new body. Jesus gave freaking demons a second chance.
-
I cant believe the level of stupid. Such a obvious troll. Or if you really are that stupid, you must have an IQ in the single digit range
If your pancreas is fucked up, it's not making insulin. Your body needs insulin and a fucked up pancreas such as where your bodies immune system has destroyed the cells responsible for making it means your body will not be producing it.
One mans posion is another mans medicine
Yeah, you wont take insulin because you dont need to. Some people do need to - or they die
The same way that I dont take a lot of pills for the heart or high blood pressure or arthritis etc because that would be bad for me. To an old person or someone presribed these things, it can markedly improve their quality - and quantity of life
But I guess just because you wont take them (largely because you dont need them) - no body should be taking them lol. Perhaps we should die a lot sooner than we ought to because God supposedly wishes it and these medicines are interfering in Gods plan to take us? Fuck you
Lets hope you get diagnosed with a disease that requires you to take medicine to keep living - and in your stubborn and stupid mode you're like 'a good diet and a few hours walk per day is all I need!'
Good luck with that ::) (actually not really)
-
Insulin is poison. Particularly synthetic insulin.
How did you find out you are Type II diabetic? is it pre-diabetes or full on?
You're still a sociopath for letting a kid die because it was his "choice". How you don't see that is, well, sociopathic.
Not to mention that you obviously know nothing about christianity.
-
How did I find out?
Not from any doctor.
Biofeedback.
I feel sick, including nerve pain. And it seems to coincide with days that I have refined sugar.
I didn't need a damned doctor to know that I am constantly thirsty, have energy that ebbs and flows with how much sugar I have, constant fatigue, and it has caused me to gain weight when before I was thin as a rail. Nor do I need it to know that exercise is not doing the same thing as before, making me tired and worsening weight gain, instead of keeping me fit.
Did I go for a checkup to verity? No. I simply know what I have from the symptoms. Could it be prediabetes? Could be. But the point is, I don't care. I don't want medicine, I don't need it where I'm going, and you charlatans who tell me what I already figured out can take a hike.
-
Non Silba Sed Anthar is a Ku Klux Klan slogan intended to mean "Not Self, But Others."
Interestingly, the English was still the motto at my school when I attended.
Only found this out later.
https://www.adl.org/resources/hate-symbol/non-silba-sed-anthar
So all you altruist assholes, altruism is from the KKK.
Not from Jesus. Jesus had boundaries. He took care of himself, up to the point where they killed him.
https://www.soulshepherding.org/jesus-set-boundaries/
He helped other people because he had himself able to give. People who say not self but others get sucked into selfless activities. Like being told they have to give up their property. They either are exhausted or they do more harm than good.
There are plenty of anecdotes of doctors and nurses working too long a shift, and making mistakes that cost lives.
Jesus Accepted His Personal Limits (Part of His Incarnation)
Meeting His Personal Needs. He ate healthy foods, got the sleep he needed, and even took naps, took time to relax, and did a lot of walking (Matthew 26:18, 20; Mark 1:16, 3:23, 4:38; Luke 7:36; John 10:40, 12:2).
Receiving Support from Friends. He sought the company of friends (Matthew 26:36-38).
Enjoying Solitude. He withdrew from the crowds to go away on retreat, alone or with friends.
Enjoying the Moment (These people, this place, this time). He left one city to go to another because he couldn’t be in two places at the same time (Mark 1:38).
Unhurried Pace of Life. He was never in a hurry, except to go to Jerusalem and embrace his cross (John 11:6; Mark 10:32).
Abandoning Outcomes to God. Jesus was tempted to become paralyzed with fear about the cross. Satan and his demons, along with many people who hated him, were trying to kill him. Would he make it to the cross to die for us, to be “lifted up” publicly so it would draw people to God? He let go. He chose not to force things, but to trust the Father’s will. To the Father, he abandoned the outcomes of his sufferings and trials to come, as he always did. (Mark 14:32-42)
Jesus Said No to Inappropriate Behavior
Demands. He withdrew from the crowds who wanted him, for one-on-one time with the Father (Luke 5:15-16).
Abuse. He fought his way through the crowd that was trying to throw him off a cliff for claiming to be the Messiah (Luke 4:28-30).
Entitlement. He didn’t give in to his mother and brothers who tried to use their relationship with him to pull him away from the crowd he was ministering to (Matthew 12:46-50).
Baiting Questions. When the religious leaders asked him baiting questions to make him look foolish, he answered with incisive questions of his own (Matthew 21:23-27, 22:15-22).
Cynicism. He said no to Herod’s mocking demand, “Show us a sign that you are the Son of God.” (Luke 23:8-9).
Manipulation. He said no to Peter and the disciples who had an inappropriate agenda for Jesus to be a political king or military warrior rather than a sacrificial lamb. (Matthew 16:23).
Pride. He didn’t heal those who were too proud to trust Him (Matthew 13:58).
Jesus Spoke the Truth in Love to Those Stuck or Wrong
Exploitation. He used a whip to clear out the temple of the vendors and money changers who were taking advantage of the poor and turning God’s house into a marketplace (Matthew 21:12-17, John 2:12-16).
Addiction. He told the Rich Young Ruler that he couldn’t help him until he gave away the money that was controlling him (Matthew 19:16-21).
Misguided. He rebuked the disciples who tried to keep the little children away from him and told them that they needed to emulate the children’s faith (Matthew 19:13-15).
Jesus Had Expectations for People in Need
What do you want? Two blind men called out to him for help from the Jericho road. He asked them, “What do you want me to do for you?” They needed to ask for what they needed and they needed to trust Him (Matthew 20:29-34).
Do you want to get well? For 38 years the invalid at the Sheep Gate pool hadn’t been able to get into the miracle waters. He felt helpless and sorry for himself. He expected someone to fix his problem. Jesus challenged him, “Do you want to get well?… Get up! Pick up your mat and walk.” It was up to him to be motivated and to take responsibility for himself (John 5:1-14).
Do you believe? A father sought deliverance for his son who was mute and had seizures and said to Jesus, “If you can do anything, take pity on us and help us.” Jesus put it back on the father, “`If you can’? Everything is possible for him who believes.” The father needed to believe that Jesus could cure his son (Mark 9:17-27).
Jesus Offered Grace and Truth According to the Need
The humble and broken. To the woman caught in adultery, he offered grace (“Neither do I condemn you.”) and truth (“Go and sin no more.”).
The proud and self-righteous. To the Pharisees who tried to condemn this woman and to trap Jesus, he listened (grace) and then confronted their pride and scapegoating with the truth (“Let him who is without sin throw the first stone.”)
(John 8:1-11)
Jesus Taught Us Examples of How to Be Setting Boundaries
Personal Prayer Time: “But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen” (Matthew 6:6).
Be Honest and Direct (Don’t Pressure People or Try to Get Them to Do Things): “Simply let your ‘Yes’ be ‘Yes,’ and your ‘No,’ ‘No’; anything beyond this comes from the evil one” (Matthew 5:37).
Set Priorities: “No servant can serve two masters. Either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other” (Luke 16:13).
Please God, Not People: “How can you believe if you accept praise from one another, yet make no effort to obtain the praise that comes from the only God?” (John 5:44).
Obey God: “What do you think? There was a man who had two sons. He went to the first and said, ‘Son, go and work today in the vineyard.’ ‘I will not,’ he answered, but later he changed his mind and went. Then the father went to the other son and said the same thing. He answered, ‘I will, sir,’ but he did not go. Which of the two did what his father wanted?” “’The first,’ they answered” (Matthew 21:28-31).
-
How did I find out?
Not from any doctor.
Biofeedback.
I feel sick, including nerve pain. And it seems to coincide with days that I have refined sugar.
I didn't need a damned doctor to know that I am constantly thirsty, have energy that ebbs and flows with how much sugar I have, constant fatigue, and it has caused me to gain weight when before I was thin as a rail. Nor do I need it to know that exercise is not doing the same thing as before, making me tired and worsening weight gain, instead of keeping me fit.
Did I go for a checkup to verity? No. I simply know what I have from the symptoms. Could it be prediabetes? Could be. But the point is, I don't care. I don't want medicine, I don't need it where I'm going, and you charlatans who tell me what I already figured out can take a hike.
Literally a 2 second test will give you assurance and with that knowledge you would be better armed to deal with any such problem. A test isn't then forcing you to take medicine. It gives you knowledge. And knowledge is power. Power to take control of your life with the right decisions
I agree, Type 2 diabetes can be mostly managed with a healthy diet and lifestyle in certainly many of the cases. When you see some fat fuck who probably cant remember the last time he's seen his penis chowing down on fast food and other junk and complains he has Type 2 diabetes then yeah, he is a stupido.
You are trying to assert that a child suffering from Type 1 diabetes can be managed without taking insulin which is utter bullshit. If you were a parent of such a child, your arse would be in jail for neglect if you allowed them to waste away. You can search online for many people who thought like you that a good diet or 'faith healing' could cure them. Well their child is dead and they got a nice stint in jail.
You have no idea what it means to be responsible so it's probably why you have these stupid thoughts. Thankfully you seem just as unpleasant and stupid in real life as you do here. No chance any child will find themselves in your 'care'
-
Did I go for a checkup to verity? No. I simply know what I have from the symptoms.
How do you know those are the symptoms of Type II diabetes?
-
Biofeedback.
he did an "ocular pat down" of himself.
-
Did I go for a checkup to verity? No. I simply know what I have from the symptoms.
How do you know those are the symptoms of Type II diabetes?
:rolls_eyes_hard:
You guys really have zero ability to do research, don't you?
(https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/816868397836926996/1086061940981375097/image.png)
No wonder I have to tell you the same things over and over again.
Yes, you can diagnose yourself through biofeedback.
Biofeedback involves listening to yours body and narrowing down symptoms into a result.
- Am I coughing up blood?
- Have I been punched or shot recently?
- Do I have chest pain but no accompanying bruises?
- Do I live in a crowded urban area, particularly one with alot of other people coughing within earshot?
Geee, uhhh maybe I should move to the country, rather than wasting good travel money having the doctor run tests and tell me that it's tuberculosis, and taking much of said travel money?
You don't know the cause of it, you think it just magically appears or something, when several studies pointed to a clear dietary component (and not just "too much sugar", but also an important component of lipid makeup). And you don't understand that exercise and several other things (including just drinking water and flushing yourself out) can in fact slow the progression.
And you don't really understand the symptoms. Particularly that prediabetes, early stage diabetes, and end stage diabetes are quite a bit different. Our neighbor has late stage diabetes, and can't move around much at all because sugar has attacked many of her organs.
Tell me, if some rando who didn't even doesn't what the symptoms or possible courses of action tells me that I HAVE to jab myself (or whatever medicines you seem to know more about than the disease itself), what makes you think I should believe them?
At a very young age, I learned what "first do no harm" meant. After my parents subjected me to several medically unnecessary treatments. The one thing they did help with was that I had childhood obesity. I got rid of that with alot of walking with my mom and dad, not through any medical intervention. But the medicine I took for ADD (often misdiagnosed), seizures (Rolandic seizures, you typically outgrow without medication), and acne (cetaphil, made my skin itch which meant I touched it alot more), none of it was any good. Oh yeah, and I also had heard Wild Yam was a replacement for estrogen (dry powdery pills that turned my stomach and made me cough).
You are more humane, and do less harm if you do nothing than you are for torturing a kid, then he dies anyway not much longer. If a kid will die at age ten, or die at age thirteen but in the latter case every waking moment is pain, I will ask him and if he doesn't want it, that's fine. "Well, he lived three years longer!" Yes, but...
"You are quite wrong," said Dumbledore, still closing in upon Voldemort and speaking as lightly as though they were discussing the matter over drinks. "Indeed, your failure to understand that there are things much worse than death has always been your greatest weakness."
When you are dead, it's just the end of life. I believe in an Afterlife. But there are several things far worse than death.
1. Being isolated for years.
2. Turned to stone (or trapped in cement), yet still conscious.
3. Being forced to relive trauma over and over.
4. Being tortured.
5. Being kept alive when you want to die.
Just offhand, all of these things manage to make life worse than death. But yes, go on believing that it's somehow the worst thing ever to just go ahead and die when things go south, instead of prolonged agony.
You have no idea.
-
Did I go for a checkup to verity? No. I simply know what I have from the symptoms.
How do you know those are the symptoms of Type II diabetes?
:rolls_eyes_hard:
You guys really have zero ability to do research, don't you?
Yes, I'm rolling my eyes hard because where do you think the definition of symptoms of Type II Diabetes comes from? Yes, that's right, from the very same doctors/medical establishments that you claim to distrust and avoid because of their evil demonic quackery. The very same ones that could provide life saving insulin to your 8 year old that you would deny and let him die as a result.
So now you're saying that you do trust these same folks to provide you with the correct diagnostic criteria for what ails you? You don't see a conflict in that? You're a master of contradictions and hypocrisy.
-
This is why people who believe so strongly in an 'afterlife' are so dangerous. They couldn't give 2 shits about the sanctity of this life
So if a kid hates taking his medication - let him waste away they believe. When he/she dies they go to an afterlife anyway ::)
Fucked in the head ideology.
-
Nonsense.
The biggest supporters of abortion are secular.
https://www.atheists.org/2021/09/dobbs-v-jackson-brief/
If it were about preserving life, secular society would not be responsible for most of hum wars.
(https://carm.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/religious-wars-bar-chart.jpg.webp)
https://carm.org/atheism/the-myth-that-religion-is-the-1-cause-of-war/
It would not be responsible for the deaths and organ harvests of thousands of children.
What it is about is control. You are a control freak, and when someone calls you out on it, you figure calling them evil will somehow mask that fact. You say you believe in the sanctity of life, but that sanctity is only worth shit if that life actually has options. You have failed to understand this text.
2:15 And the LORD God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it.
2:16 And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:
2:17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.
3:1 Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?
3:2 And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden:
3:3 But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.
3:4 And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:
3:5 For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.
3:6 And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.
You think that through moral perfectionism that you can somehow undo the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, and be lowfat sin-free. Sorry, guy, it doesn't work this way. The sanctity of life involves making good and bad choices. Without allowing people those choices, they simply aren't human.
-
What a load of shit
Try religious violence, not wars. And are people who are non believers/without faith drawing on their non belief when being violent?
Religion is the inspiration for much violence, suppression, judgment and abuse of human rights around the world however. Using a full scale war as a metric is stupid.
Wars and violence usually boil down to
Money
Power
Land
Greed
Religion
Drugs/Alcohol
Women (lol)
That sort of thing. If someone decided you were a dickhead that needed his skull caved in, a lack of religion would not be a factor into it.
However there are occasions where someone might feel compelled to strap a bomb to themselves and blow you up simply because their religion somehow demands you die.
Also many religious people also have abortions. A lot of religious people wank too (technically punishable by death if you believe one of the fables in the bible).
Do you consider masturbation a sin? Because religion does. Talk about control of other peoples lives!
-
The biggest supporters of abortion are secular.
Nonsense.
The biggest supporter of abortion is god. How many pregnant women and actual babies did he drown, out-and-out murder, during the great flood?
Btw way, where do you think the definition of symptoms of Type II Diabetes comes from? Yes, that's right, from the very same doctors/medical establishments that you claim to distrust and avoid because of their evil demonic quackery. The very same ones that could provide life saving insulin to your 8 year old that you would deny and let him die as a result.
So now you're saying that you do trust these same folks to provide you with the correct diagnostic criteria for what ails you? You don't see a conflict in that?
Just another example of your contradictions and hypocrisy when it comes to all things, whether it be science, medicine, or god. Not to mention you apparently don't even know anything about christianity...
There is no requirement in the Bible to be altruistic.
When:
Altruism is an unselfish concern for the welfare of others. An altruistic person gives generously of time and resources for no personal gain, and often at personal risk. A major theme of the Bible is godly altruism. As far back as the Mosaic Law, the Bible records God’s desire that His people care for the widows, the orphans, and the poor in their communities (Deuteronomy 26:12; Psalm 68:5; Zechariah 27:10). In the New Testament, James 1:27 says, “Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world.”
-
That's your read on it.
What Jesus actually said is that you do unto others as you would have them do unto you. He said love others as yourself.
Meaning since I don't want to have a world where people interfere even with my right to die in my own home when it's time, I don't go around telling little kids "you need to take your medicine", when they say it hurts or it's yucky.
Not altruism.
Equivalency.
Judaism already taught altruism. The Jews were currently suffering under the worst oppression you can imagine, made even worse by the fact they interpreted God as wanting them to sacrifice. Jesus told them to treat others as well as they wanted to be treated.
Calling something "godly" doesn't mean it is what God wants, it means it is what human beings wrote God wants. I edit my Bible precisely because I do not believe 100% of it sounds unedited in the first place, and want a Bible that reflects things that sound true.
And I reject the same canon that Luther rejected (particularly Revelation, but also...)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luther%27s_canon
But he thereby brought Paul into direct verbal conflict with James, who says (James 2:24), "by works a man is justified, and not only by faith" ("nicht durch den Glauben allein"). It is well known that Luther deemed it impossible to harmonize the two apostles in this article, and characterized the Epistle of James as an "epistle of straw," because it had no evangelical character
I just watch La Traviata cuz parents were going to Richmond to see folks and they'd booked it.
First of all, there was no sister. She is never named, and Violetta shoulda called the manipulating old man out on it. Second, had she said no to his demands, TB is a disease that gets better with country air. She and Alfredo literally would have lived happily (But there'd be no more plot).
The point being, if God came to the world, would he tell people "I need even more self-sacrifice"? No, but he doesn't tell them either "Just keep raping and killing each other, that's what I want." He tells them that the way they treat others reflects back on the way they are treated, and if they don't want crap thrown on them, they shouldn't give crap on others.
For his trouble, he gets the biggest load of crap thrown on him (crucifixion? Really?), and people continue to think he taught about altruism, by the very people who are least altruistic.
Islam and atheism most think you will somehow be rewarded for hurting others. No. It is mercy that you aren't punished. You need to stop deluding yourself about how good you are. Not that Christians are perfect either, but they explicitly say that "everyone has sinned."
The point, that's it. Understand you aren't perfect, stop treating yourself as the person who gets to tell others what to do. So this means, if you don't want to believe in a flat Earth that's on you (I only will tell you why it works for me), and likewise you don't have the right to tell me what medical decisions I can make.
-
That's your read on it.
It's not my "read" on it. You're seriously going to stick to:
There is no requirement in the Bible to be altruistic.
That the bible teaches "every man for himself"? You know pretty much every scholarly and non-scholarlry good christian would disagree with this. It's way more your read on it, not mine and everyone elses'. But your read does seem to play into your lack of compassion and charity wheelhouse.
To say christianity doesn't teach and promote altruism, whether in practice or not, is simply wrong and shows how little you actually know about the faith. Though you claim to know everything.
What Jesus actually said is that you do unto others as you would have them do unto you. He said love others as yourself.
Meaning since I don't want to have a world where people interfere even with my right to die in my own home when it's time, I don't go around telling little kids "you need to take your medicine", when they say it hurts or it's yucky.
Not altruism.
Equivalency.
Incorrect. Equivalency would be raising others to your level, equal. That is not charity, nor altruism. Christianity teaches people to help others, simple as that. Altruistically, without strings. In your bizarre world of "equivalency" someone who is rich would have to give to others to make them as rich. That is wildly wrong.
In the New Testament, James 1:27 says, “Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world.”
Altruism is taught throughout Scriptures in a variety of ways. First, God commanded that His people “love your neighbor as yourself” (Leviticus 19:18, 34; Galatians 5:14). Then Jesus modeled altruism during His years on earth (Matthew 7:12; Mark 10:42–45; John 13:3–5). And the New Testament writers echoed that theme by urging Christians to “do nothing from selfishness or empty conceit, but with humility of mind regard one another as more important than yourselves; do not merely look out for your own personal interests, but also for the interests of others” (Philippians 2:3–4). Paul explained that Christians must “learn to devote themselves to doing what is good, in order to provide for urgent needs and not live unproductive lives” (Titus 3:14).
You don't know what you are talking about and are just making things up as usual to support your internal narrative.
-
The Bible does not teach "every man for himself".
And that's your read on what I just said. You really need to learn to read.
It's simple.
If you live a life identical to a typical woke atheist... you will die.
If you live a righteous life according to the Jewish covenant... you will die.
Buddhism eightfold path... you will die.
And so on.
What, you think I'm going to tell you that Christians somehow are exempt?
The wages of sin is death. This very night, I could die in my sleep, for sin I committed more than an hour ago.
All of us sin, all of us pay the penalty. What Christianity teaches.
1. Treating others as you wanna be treated makes life bearable, especially if the people at the other end of the equation have even basic respect for your right to privacy, a quiet life, and basic freedoms.
1b. Of course, if they are total assholes, the most sensible thing to do is remind them that you do want to be ignored so you will ignore them. I don't care what you think.
2. The Bible taught morality, not altruism. The purpose of morality was that God would presumably reward righteousness with things like long life. Read this again. They were serving God, not because of no strings attached selflessness, but because God made several vows in reward for their loyalty. Now, yes, there were people like Hosea, who loved God in the same way as God loved Israel, as a love of a man for an unfaithful wife. But the inherent teaching of the Bible is that you follow God because he has promised you a land, he has promised protection of your land and people, and that while you dwell in Israel in righteousness, the land is fertile, flowing in milk and honey.
3. But even in the story of Job, there is a sense that God is not some lifeless set of laws, but a person with desires. An immortal person, yes, but we see God testing Job who has
tried to follow the law his whole life.
4. Which brings us to the point. You cannot follow God's law. It will never ever be enough. You confuse morality for altruism, but you could give everything you have, and die in poverty, while the law system (not God) declares the rich forgiven. That's the meaning of the parable of the widow's mite. Not that "she gave everything she had, how virtuous!" but "she gave everything she had to live on".
5. The law then, is viewed as a curse.
For all who rely on works of the law are under a curse; for it is written, "Cursed be everyone who does not abide by all things written in the Book of the Law, and do them." Now it is evident that no one is justified before God by the law, for "The righteous shall live by faith." But the law is not of faith, rather "The one who does them shall live by them." Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us—for it is written, "Cursed is everyone who is hanged on a tree"
In other words, asking to not be bothered medically is a valid request, and the so-called teachers of altruism are the worst sorts of hypocrites, for they expect everyone around them to sacrifice, but they never sacrifice themselves.
What have you sacrificed? Are you aware how the COVID "science" left many people impoverished, as they were booted from their jobs? Are you aware that it's one thing to say, "You need to take this medicine," but quite another to not even have the money to take a medicine every day, the rest of my life? If I had cancer or this imaginary child, you'd demand we spend our last dollar on chemo and/ or radiation or else "we hadn't tried enough."
Teachers of altruism beat other people over the head about how they haven't been selfless enough.
But Jesus says “love your neighbor as yourself. " Equivalency, not altuism. And he's quoting what was interpreted already as one of the two greatest commandments, the other being to love God entirely. In other words this isnot a new teaching, it is the core teaching even of Judaism, and they lost sight of it.
Jesus also tells of people who are "altruistic" doing good deeds in order to brag or be praised. Virtue signalling. But I tell you, you've been rewarded by empty praise. Nothing about what you did was virtuous, and now you have the evil to tell others to sacrifice, when nothing you did was for anything but praise.
The human heart is incapable of pure altruism because it is self-seeking and prideful by default (Jeremiah 17:9). In other words, attempting to be selfless is inherently dishonest. The model to live by is expecting the same standards for others as self. Rather what Bible really taught was that that goodness is nor something we earn, but an outpouring from the grace we already receive.
https://pjmedia.com/culture/walter-hudson/2014/04/06/altruism-has-no-place-in-christianity-n151291
“It is better to give than to receive.” How often have we heard that? The motto of the altruist, this would-be-proverb exhorts us to act for others at our expense. Among the vast culture of Christendom, altruism has been adopted as a tenant of the faith by many if not most believers. Churchgoers are encouraged to give sacrificially, which generally gets interpreted as giving until it hurts.
Yet careful examination of scripture suggests that altruism has no place in the Christian life. Consider this from pastor and theologian John Piper:
After my message to the Liberty University student body [in September of 2013], a perceptive student asked this clarifying question: So you don’t believe that altruistic acts are possible or desirable?
I asked for his definition of altruism so that I could answer what he was really asking. He said, “Doing a good deed for others with no view to any reward.” I answered: that’s right, whether or not it’s possible, I don’t think it’s desirable, because it’s not what the Bible teaches us to do; and it’s not what people experience as genuine love. Because it isn’t genuine love.
What does Piper mean by that? Consider that the phrase “it is better to give than to receive” does not actually appear in scripture. Instead, Acts 20:35 reads:
In all things I have shown you that by working hard in this way we must help the weak and remember the words of the Lord Jesus, how he himself said, ‘It is more blessed to give than to receive.’”
More blessed for who? The Contemporary English Version translates it this way. “More blessings come from giving than from receiving.” The New Life Version among others translates it another way. “We are more happy when we give than when we receive.” Christ, according to Paul, tells us we are better off helping the weak than being among the weak who require help.
In other words, not that giving or receiving is better, but if you're on the receiving end, it means you're poor. Being poor sucks.
Reflecting upon the second part of Piper’s assertion, that giving without expectation of reward is “not what people experience as genuine love,” we can prove the worthlessness of altruism through our own experience. Imagine how your wife would react if you bought her a tremendous bouquet of her favorite flowers and said, “This cost me $100 that I would have rather spent on myself.” Try it and get back to me.
Most people don’t want to be “a charity case,” which is to say they don’t want to receive from pity or a begrudging sense of obligation. What makes a gift a gift is the love imbued within it. Otherwise, it’s just a handout.
We're assuming a joint account.
Instead, the model we have of giving is Christmas. Hopefully, you remember the actual guest of the birthday party, but Jesus's birthday, even with all the commercial nonsense, is a party where people give each other gifts.
They do to others as they want done to them. They share presents both ways. And as you get older and don't need presents as much, Christmas instead is about mutually agreed on family time. Or whatever else.
Altruism is not genuine love. I know this from experience, having done several volunteer stints, and become fed up by how used I felt. I was hoping the volunteering led to work, instead they thanked me, and I was expected to keep coming in. What I actually wanted, to find friends that liked me back, not a bunch of cheap users, was never paid to me. Failing that, money was okay (but from sucky jobs, sometimes not really worth it).
Christian giving promotes life and health. Altruism promotes starvation and death. Altruism redistributes. Christian giving transacts. Christ’s own words assure us of greater blessing in giving than receiving. Christian giving leaves us better off, not worse. Altruism therefore proves atheistic, as Piper declares. We will never give more to others than God will give to us.
And here indeed is someone who is not a Christian quoting scripture to convince me of something that is not so. Sorry pal, I know better. You're a con artist hoping to swindle the public into poverty. A "socialist of plenty". I've seen the houses of such people. Greta Thunberg is a millionaire. I have worked my whole life, and my average income was about $8000. I could work 100 years and not make what that "altruistic" twit made in about two to four years.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limousine_liberal
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Champagne_socialist
Since you have such a bleeding heart about this imaginary child of mine, here's an idea.
You help them. Make a GoFundMe paying for this kid's insulin for the next fifty years. The caveat is that I've not going to tell him how to use it. It by default goes into a trust to give him the medicine, but he can also ask me for the money and instead carry out a bucket list. Because I believe children have the right to live their lives without meddling from hypocrites.
-
Bulmafaggot, time to pack up this troll shtick of yours and find something new. Nobody is buying that your some religious geek who adheres to the faith. Because the shit you come out with is nonsense. Even for the religion
Close the porno pages tabs, pull up your pants and get yourself a job. You embarrass yourself
-
The Bible does not teach "every man for himself".
And that's your read on what I just said. You really need to learn to read.
I never said it did. It's your claim that the bible doesn't teach, promote altruism. And, you are wrong.
Yet careful examination of scripture suggests that altruism has no place in the Christian life. Consider this from pastor and theologian John Piper:
Why do immediately glom on to this "expert", this John Piper guy. You're like, "Hey, look here, I found one guy on the internet who agrees with me!!!"
I don't buy anything he says...He's for spousal abuse...
Piper infamously said of wives being abused by their husbands. He quipped, “If it’s not requiring her to sin, but simply hurting her, then I think she endures verbal abuse for a reason, she endures perhaps being smacked one night.”
Not to mention cringe worthy...
Piper suggested that while “there is something sexually stimulating” about muscular women, “it probably means the sexual encounter that such an image would lead to is something very hasty and volatile, and in the long run unsatisfying.”
And he has some sort of master/slave fetish...
Piper has demonstrated grave errors in his theological judgment. Chief among these is that his rhetoric is identical to those of chattel slavery apologists. Because (so goes the argument) an explicit call to abolition never was given in the New Testament, but explicit instructions to masters and slaves do occur in the household codes, slavery is a divine hierarchical relationship that must be righteously ordered.
Contrary to the Apostle Paul...
Galatians 3:28 under the inspiration of the Spirit, “There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.”
Seems this Piper guy didn't really set a solid precedent...
John Piper’s Successor Latest to Resign as Allegations of Abusive Leadership Mount at Bethlehem Baptist (https://julieroys.com/john-pipers-successor-resigns-amid-allegations-of-abusive-leadership-at-bethlehem-baptist/)
The successor to John Piper at Bethlehem Baptist Church in Minneapolis this week resigned in what appears to be a major shake-up at the church amid allegations of toxic and abusive leadership.
Piper’s successor, Jason Meyer, is the fourth pastor to resign from Bethlehem in the past four months.
“At Bethlehem . . . there’s harm being done,” Pickering said. “There’s unethical behavior. There’s domineering. There’s bullying. . . . cultural, damaging behavior that’s being done, and has been done, for a long time.”
You pick the worst people as sources to support your personal narrative. You end up knowing less about christianity than I do.
-
So what.
Should we dig up the stuff YOU have been up to?
I bet you're too embarrassed to tell me.
Or like most of the population, when asked, you present a whitewashed version of your life, that other people are supposed to believe but I know better.
Yeah uhhh, the family that I looked up to as a children are basically in a marriage where he's being verbally abused all day long about one instance of talking he did with some girl (not even the really juicy stuff), and nothing he says can convince her otherwise.
21 Then Peter came to him and asked, “Lord, how often should I forgive someone who sins against me? Seven times?”
22 “No, not seven times,” Jesus replied, “but seventy times seven!
23 “Therefore, the Kingdom of Heaven can be compared to a king who decided to bring his accounts up to date with servants who had borrowed money from him. 24 In the process, one of his debtors was brought in who owed him millions of dollars. 25 He couldn’t pay, so his master ordered that he be sold—along with his wife, his children, and everything he owned—to pay the debt.
26 “But the man fell down before his master and begged him, ‘Please, be patient with me, and I will pay it all.’ 27 Then his master was filled with pity for him, and he released him and forgave his debt.
28 “But when the man left the king, he went to a fellow servant who owed him a few thousand dollars.[d] He grabbed him by the throat and demanded instant payment.
29 “His fellow servant fell down before him and begged for a little more time. ‘Be patient with me, and I will pay it,’ he pleaded. 30 But his creditor wouldn’t wait. He had the man arrested and put in prison until the debt could be paid in full.
31 “When some of the other servants saw this, they were very upset. They went to the king and told him everything that had happened. 32 Then the king called in the man he had forgiven and said, ‘You evil servant! I forgave you that tremendous debt because you pleaded with me. 33 Shouldn’t you have mercy on your fellow servant, just as I had mercy on you?’ 34 Then the angry king sent the man to prison to be tortured until he had paid his entire debt.
All of us are flawed and are now treated better than we deserve. If you do not realize this and instead go around pointing people and going "Ahhh hah! He isn't so perfect after all!" Yeah, congratulations , you found out that Christians have flaws like the rest of us. You know what? They don't teach perfection. Maybe some of the followers think "be perfect, as God is perfect" too much means they can't make a mistake.
But read what Paul says.
7 And lest I should be exalted above measure by the abundance of the revelations, a thorn in the flesh was given to me, a messenger of Satan to buffet me, lest I be exalted above measure. 8 Concerning this thing I pleaded with the Lord three times that it might depart from me. 9 And He said to me, “My grace is sufficient for you, for My strength is made perfect in weakness.” Therefore most gladly I will rather boast in my infirmities, that the power of Christ may rest upon me. 10 Therefore I take pleasure in infirmities, in reproaches, in needs, in persecutions, in distresses, for Christ’s sake. For when I am weak, then I am strong.
Even Paul, a notorious boaster admits that he has some sort of private sin, though he won't admit what it is, because he's a notorious boaster.
-
So what.
Finding one slave/master loving, beating your wife is warranted, abusive god guy on the internet who happens to agree with you is pathetic. That's so what. When the vast majority of christian scholars, ministers, pastors, priests, patrons, church goers, bible thumpers all wildly disagree with your warped interpretation of the bible. That's so what.
Your MO seems to be that you know better than anyone else about everything. It's quite remarkable the level of your hubris. It's off the charts. And it has never occurred to you that you may be mistaken even when confronted with mountains of information that shows you are.
And the hypocrisy. Doctors and modern medicine are evil, yet you diagnose yourself using doctor and modern medicine information. All the way to, "I'm the sole determiner of how the bible should be interpreted." You cast a very wide net of arrogance. That's so what.
-
No seriously, so what.
A parable:
A man tells his son, "Never shoplift from any stores."
His son observes how hard his dad tries to be perfect, and finds him a huge bore. His friends all tell him that he should try stealing a couple of things, because it's an adrenaline rush. Little thefts turn into big ones and eventually he is arrested for trying to shoplift thousands in merchandise. His father bails him, and the guard upon seeing him says, "I should have known! Like father, like son!" The son asks about this, and is outraged to find out after all the lectures about not shoplifting that his father had a criminal record for that exact crime. The son wants to call him a hypocrite and have nothing to do with him, but the dad explains, "It is precisely because I spent several months in prison that I didn't want the same to happen to you. In fact, I wouldn't have had much to work for if your mother hadn't been my parole officer. She got me on track, and I work every day to make up for it."
Deciding that something someone does disqualifies everything else they say is an identity fallacy. "Oh he's a horse-fucker don't listen to him." Yes, but he might know a thing or two about other subjects, you know. He also is sure to know about equine STDs.
You are quick to judge people's arguments invalid because of their past.
Should we also judge your opinions irrelevant because of something bad you did 10 years ago?
-
You are quick to judge people's arguments invalid because of their past.
When the past is relevant, yes, they will be relevantly judged. His beliefs about christianity in the past (and present) are whacked. So highly relevant to his scriptural beliefs.
If he was busted 15 years ago for smoking a doobie, that would be irrelevant. But his christian scriptural interpretations are highly relevant, past and present.
-
You are quick to judge people's arguments invalid because of their past.
When the past is relevant, yes, they will be relevantly judged. His beliefs about christianity in the past (and present) are whacked. So highly relevant to his scriptural beliefs.
If he was busted 15 years ago for smoking a doobie, that would be irrelevant. But his christian scriptural interpretations are highly relevant, past and present.
I feel like you were big into judgement before you left the church.
Busybodies gonna busybody.
But there's no long term payoff there.
As for his theory, it's only "whacked" as you say, precisely for the same reason that you left the church. The gospel was a stumbling block to you. To a real Christian, Christ dying on the cross is a cornerstone to a life where everything you do has value, all your struggles are important. Even if you wanna goof off and write books instead of getting a "real job" or play video games. You can do anything (though not everything is good for you).
To a Jew or fake Christian (same thing), the cross is a stumbling block. They do not understand that Christ died once for all as a perfect sacrifice for all sins. Does depression end? No, I am afraid I get depressed all the time. Ditto for aches and pains in this life. Yet what this means is because your sins were paid for, this notion that we also must sacrifice is bogus. The disciples did, as that was the price they wanted to pay to spread the gospel. But if the struggles of Christianity are no different from the nagging of the secular world about the environment or politics or justice, then we aren't any better off than the Jews.
I do not set aside the grace of God, for if righteousness could be gained through the law, Christ died for nothing!
You can't gain the gospel by doing things. Because you do will ever be good enough, if not everyone is saved, nobody would ever be able to pay the price of sin.
Are you gonna accuse Paul of abuse or molestation too?
It is because of grace that people's words cannot be judged on their private lives.
Let us suppose I were a suspected child molester, and I apply to a pet-sitting job. The world says no to to person like me, and I don't get the job. But a decent person says what I do to children isn't relevant to how I treat pets. Not gonna molest them also? Great, walk my dogs twice a day, and be sure to feed them this kibble.
Unless you can prove that his (what was it, spousal abuse) is somehow directly relevant to his argument, I'm afraid it's just a feeble attempt to discredit him. It is precisely because Christ died on the cross for his sins that he has the freedom to make his own choices and is not forced to be selfless but can be a real asshole yet God still loves him. This is a stumbling block to you. But to me, even though I wouldn't wanna watch abuse going on, I no less understand that even someone like him precisely doesn't have to be an altruist to be a Christian. To be a Christian is simply to be a fangirl of Jesus. It doesn't mean automatically being a perfect person. It means trying to be a better person. For some people they think that means altruism. But from my experience , alot of altruists have insincere reasons for doing what they do. Jesus forgives them too. But in the mean time, they're a nuisance to the Church, as they set alot of people down a rotten path that creates alot of suffering.
-
Sorry not been here a while since bullshittroll started preaching suffer the children to do what they will, even if they die, because of freedumb.
But now he’s quoting preachers that think wife beating is funny whilst saying do-gooders are a nuisance, under the umbrella of the returning sinner is more important than the regular non offender, the get out clause for pedo-priests and the like.
One gets the impression, that troll or not, BB is not a very wholesome fellow, I’m glad that the world is as large as it is, and he’s elsewhere to me.
-
You know, Jesus wasn't a very wholesome fellow either.I
By the standards of other ppl.
Omg, he isn't clean! He eats with sinners! He doesn't care that THOSE PPL are tax collectors.
He also shows mercy to those struggling with real problems, and condemns the smug instead of the sinner.
By the standards you see, you think there is only one right way. Your right way is the wrong way.
If anyone else thinks he has reason for confidence in the flesh, I have more: 5 circumcised on the eighth day, of the people of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; as to the law, a Pharisee; 6 as to zeal, a persecutor of the church; as to righteousness under the law, blameless. 7 But whatever gain I had, I counted as loss for the sake of Christ. 8 Indeed, I count everything as loss because of the surpassing worth of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord. For his sake I have suffered the loss of all things and count them as rubbish, in order that I may gain Christ 9 and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which comes through faith in Christ, the righteousness from God that depends on faith— 10 that I may know him and the power of his resurrection, and may share his sufferings, becoming like him in his death, 11 that by any means possible I may attain the resurrection from the dead.
St Paul thought as you did, that righteousness is the important thing. But mercy is the important thing. Neither how I am, nor how this suspected wife beater is, have any bearing on God's truth. What does, is that you seem to be lacking in mercy. Maybe work on that?
-
What does, is that you seem to be lacking in mercy. Maybe work on that?
You'd let a little kid die because they don't like life saving pointy things that sting. Because your belief is that people generally don't amount to much anyway. You have a lot more work to do in the mercy department than anyone else kicking around here. Maybe work on that sociopathy while you're at it.
-
It is not mercy to torture people, to keep them alive and uncomfortable against their will.
I'm not likely to say lethal injections (those are for violent criminals), but when someone is hurting, it is not being merciful to tell them how to live.
The little kid is either an adult by the time they get real diabetes (type 2) or they were born like that. But I ask you, why are the medical decisions of a child woethless and suddenly at age 18 they get to make valid decisions? Bullshit. BULLSHIT!
There's no magical time when a person suddenly becomes mentally competent. If someone described at age 10 that they wanted to put a tracking device in me because COVID restrictions now involved the Mark of the Beast, I'd say "what does that have to do with medicine?" followed by " I'm not doing it!" even if the consequences of not doing it are execution at age 10.
My mom is getting senile, and she worries about me being lonely. That's fine, I am a bit lonely. But her idea was to force me to volunteer at social events, usually doing chores for people I don't know and wouldn't choose as friends anyway. Look, fuck off. Yes, even though you're my mom, that's too much (I am not paranoid that everyone is trying to trap me in duties). I did dome of these "just one week" and they always turned into "every week" for over a year.
When someone is miserable, you help cheer them up. When they want to stop suffering, you don't bully them into seeing things your way.
How about I find where you live, and go to your house and be like "time for your flu shot injection!" And refuse to respect that maybe you even wanna wait to make sure this one has no side effects. And while I'm at it, I'll make you take multivitamins and cholesterol medicine.
Does that sound insane? It should! Jesus didn't say "Be busybodies." The Pharisees were busybodies. They were in people's lives, trying to get them to observe Sabbath and shouting them down if they ate with unclean people. Jesus by contrast didn't fucking care what people wear or what they ate, in a society where crossdressing was taboo and you could be banned just for eating a slice of bacon. Yes, this is busybody culture. I don't want busybodies as followers of Jesus, and I won't be one too. There is more to life than duty or even concern for safety.
We're not gonna have a safe life. It's time to admit that at some point your kid might decide they want to try sushi or kimchi, and a bad batch gives them botulism and they die. In what way is that any different from saying, "I'll cope without the needles"? People take risks. I should also point out that the safety culture made people take a bunch of undertested COVID needles. All the side effects? Lack of testing. You're one to talk about mistreating kids, you'd force some needle on them that could potentially screw with their DNA.
-
Every post you make bulmatroll shows just how fucked up and divorced from reality you rally are. I'd have to hope you're trolling because the nonsense you say is an insult to the intelligence and potential of the human race.
You have zero concept of what being a parent or guardian is. Zero concept about what welfare means. Zero concept of what it is to be responsible - especially when that applies to others. You have zero moral or ethical standing ground here. The line of thinking you vomit is disgusting
-
It is not mercy to torture people, to keep them alive and uncomfortable against their will.
Let me get this straight. Giving a child live-saving insulin for his Type I diabetes, even via a pump, no needles required, you consider "torture". So you would prefer to just let the kid die because you think that's more humane, merciful?
How about I find where you live, and go to your house and be like "time for your flu shot injection!" And refuse to respect that maybe you even wanna wait to make sure this one has no side effects. And while I'm at it, I'll make you take multivitamins and cholesterol medicine.
Does that sound insane?
Does that sound insane? Yes. You come to my house, knock on my door, and tell me it's time for my flu shot and I turn around and close the door and go about my day as if you never even existed. Are you insane or just wildly ignorant and immature.
Are people holding a gun to your head to make you do things? You're 40 for god's sake, get it together. You're mom suggests you volunteer. You say no, you don't want to, end of discussion. You volunteer for a week and it turns into a year? Because you were held against your will and forced to do chores? Just stop going.
You're a child. It's beyond pathetic. If you don't want to do something, don't do something. Are you sure you're not really 11 years old? What's wrong with you?
-
No, what's wrong with you?
It's cool for you to go into someone else's house, and tell them they are not recycling? Or that they aren't keeping kosher? Or that their dog or cat isn't chipped? And yes, that is the same difference. You're just using alarmism tactics to try to convince me it isn't, acting like the child would die even a jab were even a second too late. If I were a parent, I am pretty sure that I have crossed way into helicoptering if I oversee his/her dosages. I could lay out a pill for them if I am really concerned about their health, but if they spit the pills out and flush them down the toilet, I can't exactly hound them to make them take the medicine. Doing so would not be parenting, and in fact would cause a rift that might make them leave me anyway, one way or another.
Ummm, no. You've barged into someone's house, you told them how to live.
And then you have the blatant ignorance to say that my Messiah would do something that any casual reading reveals that he was pretty much against.
What does the Bible say about busybodies (https://www.gotquestions.org/busybody-Bible.html)?
The Bible has strong words for busybodies (2 Thessalonians 3:11; 1 Timothy 5:13). First Peter 4:15 warns us, “Make sure that none of you suffers as a murderer, or thief, or evildoer, or a troublesome meddler.” It is noteworthy that Peter lists meddling as prohibited right along with murder and theft. Busybodies within the church often camouflage their nosey meddling as compassionate concern. The difference between meddling and concern, however, is whether or not the intrusion is beneficial or productive in the lives of others.
Because it is in the same rank as murder and theft. When you murder someone, you take their life. When you steal, you take their property. And when you control-freak over people, you take their privacy and their agency.
Are you concerned about my wellbeing? Hell no! You don't know me. You don't even like me.
A potential busybody should ask him/herself the following questions:
1. Is this any of my business? (1 Timothy 5:13) (https://biblia.com/bible/esv/1-timothy/5/13)
2. Has God given me this assignment? (Ephesians 6:19) (https://biblia.com/bible/esv/ephesians/6/19)
3. Am I qualified to involve myself with this? (Romans 14:10) (https://biblia.com/bible/esv/romans/14/10)
4. Is my true motivation to bring help, or do I only want to feel needed? (1 Corinthians 13:1) (https://biblia.com/bible/esv/1-corinthians/13/1)
5. How much of my “discussion” about the situation could be classified as gossip? (Proverbs 11:13) (https://biblia.com/bible/esv/proverbs/1/13)
6. What was the result the last time I intruded in a situation that was not my problem? (Proverbs 26: 11) (https://biblia.com/bible/esv/proverbs/26/11)
7. Has my opinion been sought by those involved? (Proverbs 27:2) (https://biblia.com/bible/esv/proverbs/27/2)
8. Am I motivated by love for this person or by a sense of my own importance? [img=https://biblia.com/bible/esv/1-corinthians/16/14]http://(1 Corinthians 16:14)[/img]
9. Am I basing my “help” on Scripture or on my own opinion? (Proverbs 16:25) (https://biblia.com/bible/esv/proverbs/16/25)
10. Do I respond with anger when my “advice” is not accepted or found to be flawed? (Proverbs 17:10) (https://biblia.com/bible/esv/proverbs/17/10)
By contrast, I give sermons about what Jesus says, but they never remotely reach the "you have to do this" level that you've just demonstrated.
-
No, what's wrong with you?
It's cool for you to go into someone else's house, and tell them they are not recycling? Or that they aren't keeping kosher? Or that their dog or cat isn't chipped? And yes, that is the same difference. You're just using alarmism tactics to try to convince me it isn't, acting like the child would die even a jab were even a second too late.
No one said they would die within a second. But ultimately, in fairly short order, they will go into insulin shock, coma, and die if no intervention.
If I were a parent, I am pretty sure that I have crossed way into helicoptering if I oversee his/her dosages. I could lay out a pill for them if I am really concerned about their health, but if they spit the pills out and flush them down the toilet, I can't exactly hound them to make them take the medicine. Doing so would not be parenting, and in fact would cause a rift that might make them leave me anyway, one way or another.
Ummm, yes, yes you can hound them. It's part of being a parent. All you care about is whether the kid likes you or not. So wow, that is some seriously fucked up shit. You would just let the kid do whatever they want whenever they want so they like you. That is not parenting. That's your immaturity gone awry. Do you even take care of yourself, or do your parents still handle everything? You're 40 and your mom houses you, pays the bills, buys the groceries and you contribute what? You're basically a man-child.
Ummm, no. You've barged into someone's house, you told them how to live.
The only barging in that would occur is when you call into the ER and the EMT's show up to find your kid is lying on your kitchen floor in a coma from insulin shock because you couldn't bring yourself to get the kid an insulin pump for fear that he might resent you.
Are you concerned about my wellbeing? Hell no! You don't know me. You don't even like me.
Typical narcissist. This has nothing to do with your "well being". It's about letting a kid die because he said he doesn't want an insulin pump for his Type I Diabetes. And you're like, "Whatever you want little Timmy. And Timmy, you said you don't ever want to do any homework ever again. No problem, you don't have to. And you like playing that game where you dart out into a busy street with your eyes closed...That's ok too...You can do whatever you want, just please keep liking me..."
-
If you ACTUALLY loved anyone, you would understand the difference between wanting what you think is best for them, and wanting what they know is best for them.
Now, a person who is snacking constantly or not eating or bulimia is quite different from someone who doesn't wanr to keep going. Let's forget the medical illness diabetes, since you so clearly hung up on that.
I have a friend. Let's call her Peach. Peach wants to eventually leave her shitty home life, and head toward the city to be with her friends. I don't share her ambitions, as I know there is struggle everywhere. I honestly wish she'd live with me. Especially after my folks die. Even though she'd likely live with a boyfriend. But ultimately, while I can make things tolerable for her here, I can't keep her from the city.
I met some girl online, who I talked until I was blue in the face trying to convince her not to suicide herself. She jumped anyway. She survived with an injury, but afterwards our conversation led nowhere (basically everything was an "I told you so" to her, and she cut all ties). You can't control people you love. If you want to own them, you never loved them.
I suspect strongly that you don't have kids or pets, which is you know, a real shame, as you'd probably put a tracking program on both. As for me, I was raised by parents who grew up in the 50s where there wasn't rampant Child Services waiting to snatch the child for neglect. Parents would see the kid pass by, and they could play across town, and nobody would call the police. People actually let kids be kids. Now we have large roads cutting through town, and crime happening on every corner.
Say I did make this kid take diabetes medicine every day. Now say they hated it so much they left home, and mixed themselves up with with a bad crowd, and got killed anyway. Not my fault? Totally my fault! I pushed him so hard, I pushed him away.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Dallas_Egbert_III
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_McCandless
Real life example of parents pushing too hard.
-
Say I did make this kid take diabetes medicine every day. Now say they hated it so much they left home, and mixed themselves up with with a bad crowd, and got killed anyway. Not my fault? Totally my fault! I pushed him so hard, I pushed him away.
Let's say, you did make the kid keep his no-jab pump charged. Like millions of kids, he didn't necessarily like it but understood it was keeping him alive so he could play with his dog, hang with his friends, generally enjoy what it is to be a human kid. And just like millions of other kids, he didn't run away and mix themselves up with with a bad crowd, and got killed anyway. You know, like millions and million of other kids.
So the kid never wants to do his homework ever again and doesn't want to go to school ever again. He's 8. You say ok because you don't want to push him and if you did, he obviously, de facto, would leave home, and mix themselves up with with a bad crowd, and get killed.
Did you grow up in a psych ward? You know just how insane that all is, right?
How about you move out of your parents house, get a job, maybe some responsibilities in your life, pay rent, buy your own food. I mean you're 40. Maybe then you would actually understand what it is to be an adult.
-
maybe some responsibilities in your life
While I am sure this would help him grow as a person and be less of an arsehole, who is going to be game enough to be the first to give this guy any responsibility?
-
I met some girl online, who I talked until I was blue in the face trying to convince her not to suicide herself. She jumped anyway. She survived with an injury, but afterwards our conversation led nowhere (basically everything was an "I told you so" to her, and she cut all ties). You can't control people you love. If you want to own them, you never loved them.
Shit. I might disagree with literally everything you say, but I’m sorry to hear that. Well done for trying. Even if it cost your friendship it was the right thing to do.
-
Say I did make this kid take diabetes medicine every day. Now say they hated it so much they left home, and mixed themselves up with with a bad crowd, and got killed anyway. Not my fault? Totally my fault! I pushed him so hard, I pushed him away.
Let's say, you did make the kid keep his no-jab pump charged. Like millions of kids, he didn't necessarily like it but understood it was keeping him alive so he could play with his dog, hang with his friends, generally enjoy what it is to be a human kid. And just like millions of other kids, he didn't run away and mix themselves up with with a bad crowd, and got killed anyway. You know, like millions and million of other kids.
So the kid never wants to do his homework ever again and doesn't want to go to school ever again. He's 8. You say ok because you don't want to push him and if you did, he obviously, de facto, would leave home, and mix themselves up with with a bad crowd, and get killed.
Did you grow up in a psych ward? You know just how insane that all is, right?
How about you move out of your parents house, get a job, maybe some responsibilities in your life, pay rent, buy your own food. I mean you're 40. Maybe then you would actually understand what it is to be an adult.
Sorry, you were saying something?
And you may find yourself living in a shotgun shack
And you may find yourself in another part of the world
And you may find yourself behind the wheel of a large automobile
And you may find yourself in a beautiful house, with a beautiful wife
And you may ask yourself, “Well, how did I get here?”
Letting the days go by, let the water hold me down
Letting the days go by, water flowing underground
Into the blue again after the money's gone
Once in a lifetime, water flowing underground
And you may ask yourself, “How do I work this?”
And you may ask yourself, “Where is that large automobile?”
And you may tell yourself, “This is not my beautiful house”
And you may tell yourself, “This is not my beautiful wife”
Letting the days go by, let the water hold me down
Letting the days go by, water flowing underground
Into the blue again after the money's gone
Once in a lifetime, water flowing underground
Same as it ever was, same as it ever was
Same as it ever was, same as it ever was
Same as it ever was, same as it ever was
Same as it ever was, same as it ever was
Water dissolving and water removing
There is water at the bottom of the ocean
Under the water, carry the water
Remove the water at the bottom of the ocean
Water dissolving and water removing
Letting the days go by, let the water hold me down
Letting the days go by, water flowing underground
Into the blue again, into the silent water
Under the rocks and stones, there is water underground
Letting the days go by, let the water hold me down
Letting the days go by, water flowing underground
Into the blue again after the money's gone
Once in a lifetime, water flowing underground
You may ask yourself, “What is that beautiful house?”
You may ask yourself, “Where does that highway go to?”
And you may ask yourself, “Am I right? Am I wrong?”
And you may say to yourself, “My God! What have I done?”
Letting the days go by, let the water hold me down
Letting the days go by, water flowing underground
Into the blue again, into the silent water
Under the rocks and stones, there is water underground
Letting the days go by, let the water hold me down
Letting the days go by, water flowing underground
Into the blue again after the money's gone
Once in a lifetime, water flowing underground
Same as it ever was, same as it ever was
Same as it ever was and look where my hand was
Time isn't holding up, time isn't after us
Same as it ever was, same as it ever was
Same as it ever was, same as it ever was
Same as it ever was, same as it ever was
Letting the days go by, same as it ever was
Here a twister comes, here comes the twister
Same as it ever was, same as it ever was (Letting the days go by)
Same as it ever was, same as it ever was (Letting the days go by)
Once in a lifetime (Let the water hold me down)
Letting the days go by (Water flowing underground)
Into the blue again
This song is about middle class life, or the pursuit of it.
I have been down this road far more than you think, and you know what I found? The singer knows what he's talking about. I bet you can't even analyze this song though, so we'll force feed it to you.
The song is about pursuit of American Dream and the pressure that comes with it (water at the bottom of the ocean). You work your entire life for the beautiful house and the beautiful wife, but since you can't appreciate what you do have (because, guess what, you're off to work paying for it, using that large automobile to drive to work). You never get to travel or really have fun. Oh yes, I know about this. I've tried plenty of jobs, given up or had someone give up for me, if you know what I mean. Had the fun experience of downsizing or adjusting. But I've gotten to seethe other side too. Living in shotgun shacks, actually knowing where that highway goes to (it goes nowhere, because everywhere is ruined by the high parking fees of the American Dream). And get get to see in real time as "here comes the twister" and blows away what my brother and my brother-in-law have worked for. My brother in law was working as a nurse in a clinic and paying for his wife and family, now they built another clinic and he's redundant. He showed me a picture yesterday of how they have him doing stuff like dress as a leprechaun. Or my brother, always hot shot yuppie that he is. Works for Capital One... only Capital One is now under new management or something, and his future is uncertain (and he's 6 years older than I, and in business they push you outta the door at 50 or so). He's rich, but his wife has stopped working and none of them understand abour saving.
Gerbils. You're fucking gerbils running on a wheel that gets you nowhere. Or was that hamsters? Guinea pigs? Same difference. You can't even see the wheel. In a moment of clarity, I saw the wheel. I gave my apartment notice, and left right on April 1st. Seemed a good day for a fool like me to cut bait. Moved back home, helped out my folks. Of course, there's never enough. But I don't have to worry about the house or car anymore. Though here too, things could change. They could die, get senile, or decide I'm a mooch and throw me out. But I like them, and like just hanging out with them. I will live until I die, hopefully ending my life quietly just by not waking up in my bed one day.
Here. Have some pellets. We'd give you real sunflower seeds, but you know, the medical field thinks that pellets and dry processed food are better for animals than their own natural diet.
If you don't have something beyond all this to believe in, none of it matters. Because this world will chew you up and spit you out. You won't come out of it alive.
-
I could die today.
Or tomorrow.
And it won't matter to me.
I know that my Savior lives.
As for you? I picture you living another 20 years, and realizing too late that I was right about things like earnings and "success" being important. On your death bed, as you realize that secularism has nowhere to go. You say there's nothing after death? Then everything you worked for,your whole life, it was for nothing.
Assuming, of course, that you are not a bot. In which case, one day Stah 2.8 will be made obsolete by Stash 2.9 or maybe we'll all stop using the internet.
No I don't care about imaginary kid. I will hug and cuddle him as long as he wants to keep going, and his last day? I'll want to make it the best one that I can. That's taken care of.
But you're the kid I want to save.
And as we can see, you don't want my help.
So you answer the question. Am I a monster for letting you live your own life?
I'll make it easy.
The answer is no.
-
Bulmatroll lecturing all the venture capitalists and captains of industry that hang out at the Flat-earth bar & grill on what’s important, classic.
Anyway, got to go, the guy that washes my cars scuffed the Bentley’s leather, or was it the Rolls, do I even have a Rolls? Oh, three? Anyway, just got to get him evicted and confiscate his wife’s dialysis machine or the other staff will think I’m vulnerable.
And there is no god.
-
And you may find yourself in a beautiful house...
This song is about middle class life, or the pursuit of it.
David Byrne just sold his Greenwich Village 5 story townhouse last year for $17,000,000...I think he found himself in a beautiful house...Definitely a middle class life...
(https://i.imgur.com/nXxBOnN.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/UBLAJim.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/JZ3axxO.png)
But I don't have to worry about the house or car anymore. Though here too, things could change. They could die, get senile, or decide I'm a mooch and throw me out.
Yep, you quit the rat race because it's meaningless and a grind. And are now leeching off your parents with no job, no income, zero responsibilities and you're 40. Talk about meaningless.
And you get all bunched up in a knot when your mom suggests that maybe you volunteer somewhere, something, anything. You obviously didn't pick up what she was putting down: Since you do nothing, contribute nothing, why don't you at least do something.
You get all indignant, "My lord Mom, how could you suggest such a thing. I'm sitting here in the kitchen with you while you make me breakfast doing god's work all day...By the way Mom, for the umpteenth time, I like my eggs sunnyside up not over-easy..."
You have zero qualifications to remark on anything meaningful other than how to complain about "the system" whilst draining your parents bank accounts & patience and potentially leaning on society to bail you out if you ever get medical treatment you are unable to prevent. I, like your parents, will be subsidizing your life.
Yes, meaningless as you offer nothing to anyone anywhere. It's all about you.
-
And you may find yourself in a beautiful house...
This song is about middle class life, or the pursuit of it.
David Byrne just sold his Greenwich Village 5 story townhouse last year for $17,000,000...I think he found himself in a beautiful house...Definitely a middle class life...
(https://i.imgur.com/nXxBOnN.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/UBLAJim.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/JZ3axxO.png)
But I don't have to worry about the house or car anymore. Though here too, things could change. They could die, get senile, or decide I'm a mooch and throw me out.
Yep, you quit the rat race because it's meaningless and a grind. And are now leeching off your parents with no job, no income, zero responsibilities and you're 40. Talk about meaningless.
And you get all bunched up in a knot when your mom suggests that maybe you volunteer somewhere, something, anything. You obviously didn't pick up what she was putting down: Since you do nothing, contribute nothing, why don't you at least do something.
You get all indignant, "My lord Mom, how could you suggest such a thing. I'm sitting here in the kitchen with you while you make me breakfast doing god's work all day...By the way Mom, for the umpteenth time, I like my eggs sunnyside up not over-easy..."
You have zero qualifications to remark on anything meaningful other than how to complain about "the system" whilst draining your parents bank accounts & patience and potentially leaning on society to bail you out if you ever get medical treatment you are unable to prevent. I, like your parents, will be subsidizing your life.
Yes, meaningless as you offer nothing to anyone anywhere. It's all about you.
Oh how wonderful! And what happens when you get priced out of your neighborhood?
They wanna bust your block, so they can build more crowded high rises. That apartment you bought for prestige suddenly becomes several times higher (and you were a fool to buy an expensive apartment anyway, when all you needed was a place that didn't have assholes living in it, besides yourself, of course). Wikipedia tells you it doesn't happen anymore. Sorry, that's not true Wiki. Just doesn't happen for racial reasons anymore. It still very much happens due to a developer wanting to build the area up or clear it out.
Or maybe that job you've been living at (I won't say working at, because you likely spend more time there than at home) suddenly falls through. Or maybe the wife and kids are rotten because the city is actually toxic to the soul, and makes everyone stressed, wasteful, and shortsighted. Suddenly you leave or they leave. And that nice house? Not so nice. You're stuck with far more house than you need.
$17 million? You only see that value as worth. I see that he sold that nice property. If he turned and bough a more expensive one, he's a fool that neither of us should listen to anyway.
Overpriced flats is all they are. A person actually needs about a six to ten foot room. And I've slept in cars before. For nearly a year in fact. Minimal furnishings, just some books and such.
Why do you think he sold it? Oh wait, I know! Because it was more place that he was worth. Or maybe because he figured out that someone like you might try to snatch it up (while someone like me would not be interested). Now, if he was smart, he pocketed the money, moved to some place that was the opposite of the Cheers song (you wanna go where nobody knows your name), and figured out where the absolute cheapest property in the area. Then move when they try to price him out, or just buy the place to get the guy to leave him alone. But once you own property, the federal government gets to tax you. So you never own anything.
Yes, I know how much houses at the city cost. My cheapest apartment was such that I was wasting the majority of my money trying to find friends, who were all across town. And I was appalled to learn that as soon as I started making steady income, the landlord wanted to raise my rate. Joke was on him, the very next month the stress of job plus him meant something had to give. It turned out to be my income. Sorry landlord, I guess I'm not sticking around.
When your life is about credentials, you think that people can't learn lessons without a single lifespan. And then you blunder into those same mistakes.
Since you do nothing, contribute nothing, why don't you at least do something.
You get all indignant, "My lord Mom, how could you suggest such a thing. I'm sitting here in the kitchen with you while you make me breakfast doing god's work all day...By the way Mom, for the umpteenth time, I like my eggs sunnyside up not over-easy..."
I cook my own food (now and then, though some meals she or my dad cook, but I certainly don't act like that). I also help vacuum, mow the lawn, and help her carry laundry. Sweep/shovel the walk during winter. One day, it'll be more house than I can handle and I'll look into donating it to preservation (or at least, donating the books to preservation, as the books and records of the house are worth something to future generations). As for me, I've lived in a car before, I can probably do it again.
Sunny side up eggs are gross. I either do my eggs, or let someone else do them. But usually, I have cereal.
-
As for me, I've lived in a car before, I can probably do it again.
Doesn't surprise me. Considering that and the fact that you're living with your parents at age forty and do a handful of chores that humans need to do anyway, making the effort seem herculean and a massive contribution all the while your parents still house and feed you like you're a teenager (you probably demand an allowance for all of your hard work), you are hardly qualified to weigh in on the economic choices and the lifestyles of people who actually do something for a living, contribute to society, and how they decide to enjoy their time on earth.
I keep on forgetting that it's your world and everyone else just lives in it.
-
I never said it was herculean.
You act like you've done your parents a favor by moving away from them.
What actually happens to older people when they don't have people watching? They burn down the house because of a senior moment. Or they slip in the bathroom, and we nobody running to get ice foe their leg, it is hours before they get up, and the leg heals wrong and has gangrene. They fall and end up in that same hospital you want me and this child to go to. The same hospital that could potentially do this.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/unnecessary-tests-and-treatment-explain-why-health-care-costs-so-much/
Two years ago, Margaret O’Neill brought her 5-year-old daughter to Children’s Hospital Colorado because the band of tissue that connected her tongue to the floor of her mouth was too tight. The condition, literally called being “tongue-tied,” made it hard for the girl to make “th” sounds.
It’s a common problem with a simple fix: an outpatient procedure to snip the tissue.
During a pre-operative visit, the surgeon offered to throw in a surprising perk. Should we pierce her ears while she’s under?
O’Neill’s first thought was that her daughter seemed a bit young to have her ears pierced. Her second: Why was a surgeon offering to do this? Wasn’t that something done free at the mall with the purchase of a starter set of earrings?
“That’s so funny,” O’Neill recalled saying. “I didn’t think you did ear piercings.”
The surgeon, Peggy Kelley, told her it could be a nice thing for a child, O’Neill said. All she had to do is bring earrings on the day of the operation. O’Neill agreed, assuming it would be free.
Her daughter emerged from surgery with her tongue newly freed and a pair of small gold stars in her ears.
Only months later did O’Neill discover her cost for this extracurricular work: $1,877.86 for “operating room services” related to the ear piercing—a fee her insurer was unwilling to pay.
Or they just keep granny on life support for the rest of her existence, sedating her when dealing with a sprain is simple. Running unnecessary tests ("while she was in, we found she had cancer and tuberculosis and chlamydia") and then taking custody of her. When you're not nearby, shit like this can happen.
But yes, it's so expensive to feed one more person. We farm, we help out at a food bank (and get a small cut on things they can't use), and at the end of the day, it doesn't matter all that much whether I'm at home or not. But if Mom or Dad suddenly yell out, it sure matters that I'm not hundreds of miles away working at a white collar job, trying to rationalize living alone at too much house to someone who doesn't share the same values, calling them inexperienced, when they understand exactly what the long haul is likely to look like.
Uhhhh, yeah, my dad currently has a smart device hooked to him to monitor his vitals while he walks around. I'm pretty sure I know things are harder than a few chores.
I bet you work for the hospital.
-
Here's just how little I like hospitals.
I discovered while masturbating (proof that masturbation is a thing that should be done) that I was bleeding down there. Some sort of friction opened the area up.
Am I going to the emergency room? Not at all! I'm going straight to the laundry room, after I am sure the bleeding has stopped).
Any hospital would subject me to a long wait on a hard chair, followed by an open gown, unnecessary vaccination nowadays (or they'd say they can't treat), and my little one would probably be worse infected than doing nothing.
In a place where all infection gathers, it is the least healthy place to be, not the most.
-
Here's just how little I like hospitals.
I discovered while masturbating (proof that masturbation is a thing that should be done) that I was bleeding down there. Some sort of friction opened the area up.
Am I going to the emergency room? Not at all! I'm going straight to the laundry room, after I am sure the bleeding has stopped).
Any hospital would subject me to a long wait on a hard chair, followed by an open gown, unnecessary vaccination nowadays (or they'd say they can't treat), and my little one would probably be worse infected than doing nothing.
In a place where all infection gathers, it is the least healthy place to be, not the most.
Why the fuck would you go to the hospital for that?
Hospitals triage. So yeah, if you go to the hospital for a minor complaint, expect to wait and be pushed further in the queue as others with actual medical emergencies roll in
Use basic first aid, make an appointment with your doctor or drop in to a pharmacy and ask for advice
If you were suffering a medical emergency where your life was on the line, I'm sure you'd appreciate the hospital putting you higher in the priority to be seen ASAP over some troll who beat his chopper a bit too much
-
If you were a real Christian, Bulmadick, you'd say shit like "Masterbation is a sin" instead of beating your little peck a bit too much.
How the fuck does one make themselves bleed from whacking their seed?
I can say that I have never bleeded while whacking it.
And if you're just slightly bleeding on your dick then they'll get to you at some point as they have more important patients (like school shooting victims)
You live in a state of denial and retardation.
-
Oh look. Two people that I've ignored in a row. Guess I'll continue to ignore you.
In the mean time it's like this.
Real Virtue: Happens when you either care about something enough to want to do it on its own merit (most things like that have been beaten out of me, no thanks to life), or because it is the lesser of two evils. Jesus died for humanity not for "altruism" because because he so loved the world. I'm not Jesus, so far as I know. I don't have to do that. Thank God! Cuz some of you out there are real shits. I couldn't be bothered to make that kind of sacrifice. Nor would it be appropriate. Jesus's death was a once-for-all sacrifice for sins. "It is enough for the disciple to be like the master". While I do not embrace altruism, I try to live a godly life, and teach people what it means that Jesus loved you enough to die for you. Cuz I admit, I certainly wouldn't. That's the point.
Here's an example of lesser of two evils. We have a dog, rented from my sister. He's a Henry. Meaning he's an over-the-hill pug/terrier mix that won't climb stairs at night. He obnoxiously cannot cope with sleeping alone, and cannot jump on beds. And my parents aren't about to be altruistic enough to let him into their downstairs bedroom ( :ahem: anyone who asks you to sacrifice is not doing any sacrifices themselves). So this leaves me sleeping on the downstairs couch, or having to haul a pug that decides to actively flop around when people are trying to carry him (thus ensuring everyone has their back thrown out (after one try, I refused to do it, meaning I walk behind my dad who outweighs me by several pounds and will hurt or kill me if he tumbles down the stairs)). Obviously having him find a place to sleep downstairs and sleeping down there myself is not a great imposition, while carrying a 20 lb struggling weight is. When a dog that is supposed to be light exerts all of its weight unevenly, 20 lb feels like 50 lb.
Fake Virtue: Talking about how wonderful you are, and playing the guilt card, hoping random people that you don't know will cave to your thinking. It isn't really from some feeling that they should be moral, as you don't actually have real morality. It's about being a control freak.
Would you be willing to haul an actively resisting dog up a flight of steps? Would you be willing to host a dig in your room (like my parents wouldn't)? Would you at least sleep in the same room as a dog, instead of just your regular bed? It's not that great an imposition, as I usually just watch movies or shows until I fall asleep. But I suspect you wouldn't do any of them. You're asking me to make sacrifices you would never do.
-
It is not mercy to torture people, to keep them alive and uncomfortable against their will.
I'm not likely to say lethal injections (those are for violent criminals), but when someone is hurting, it is not being merciful to tell them how to live.
The little kid is either an adult by the time they get real diabetes (type 2) or they were born like that. But I ask you, why are the medical decisions of a child woethless and suddenly at age 18 they get to make valid decisions? Bullshit. BULLSHIT!
There's no magical time when a person suddenly becomes mentally competent. If someone described at age 10 that they wanted to put a tracking device in me because COVID restrictions now involved the Mark of the Beast, I'd say "what does that have to do with medicine?" followed by " I'm not doing it!" even if the consequences of not doing it are execution at age 10.
My mom is getting senile, and she worries about me being lonely. That's fine, I am a bit lonely. But her idea was to force me to volunteer at social events, usually doing chores for people I don't know and wouldn't choose as friends anyway. Look, fuck off. Yes, even though you're my mom, that's too much (I am not paranoid that everyone is trying to trap me in duties). I did dome of these "just one week" and they always turned into "every week" for over a year.
When someone is miserable, you help cheer them up. When they want to stop suffering, you don't bully them into seeing things your way.
How about I find where you live, and go to your house and be like "time for your flu shot injection!" And refuse to respect that maybe you even wanna wait to make sure this one has no side effects. And while I'm at it, I'll make you take multivitamins and cholesterol medicine.
Does that sound insane? It should! Jesus didn't say "Be busybodies." The Pharisees were busybodies. They were in people's lives, trying to get them to observe Sabbath and shouting them down if they ate with unclean people. Jesus by contrast didn't fucking care what people wear or what they ate, in a society where crossdressing was taboo and you could be banned just for eating a slice of bacon. Yes, this is busybody culture. I don't want busybodies as followers of Jesus, and I won't be one too. There is more to life than duty or even concern for safety.
We're not gonna have a safe life. It's time to admit that at some point your kid might decide they want to try sushi or kimchi, and a bad batch gives them botulism and they die. In what way is that any different from saying, "I'll cope without the needles"? People take risks. I should also point out that the safety culture made people take a bunch of undertested COVID needles. All the side effects? Lack of testing. You're one to talk about mistreating kids, you'd force some needle on them that could potentially screw with their DNA.
These posts should have like under them. Good post.
-
Every post you make bulmatroll shows just how fucked up and divorced from reality you rally are. I'd have to hope you're trolling because the nonsense you say is an insult to the intelligence and potential of the human race.
You have zero concept of what being a parent or guardian is. Zero concept about what welfare means. Zero concept of what it is to be responsible - especially when that applies to others. You have zero moral or ethical standing ground here. The line of thinking you vomit is disgusting
Wrong. Pay attention and you might learn something.
-
Every post you make bulmatroll shows just how fucked up and divorced from reality you rally are. I'd have to hope you're trolling because the nonsense you say is an insult to the intelligence and potential of the human race.
You have zero concept of what being a parent or guardian is. Zero concept about what welfare means. Zero concept of what it is to be responsible - especially when that applies to others. You have zero moral or ethical standing ground here. The line of thinking you vomit is disgusting
Wrong. Pay attention and you might learn something.
Trying to throw an uno reverso card against people doesn't mean anything. Your post is just fluff. Means nothing.
Especially coming from another dumbarse troll. Your opinion is worthless
-
Thank you sceptimatic.
Rick Warren's holiday follow-up to A Purpose Driven Life, not at all because he wanted to milk his franchise for more money, talks about The Purpose of Christmas.
"It is finished" is actually a single word in Hevrew that Jesus cried out. It is stamped on bills that have been paid off, and prison sentences that have been completed. It means "paid in full!" Religion says "do! " (referring to the laws of religion) Jesus says, "Done!" He has already takencare of the expense of your salvation.
So when you demand altruism, you are doing an on the surface comparison to Christianity. But actually, altruism describes an atheist model. A model that acts as though Jesus never lived and died for us.
The only thing atheism will contribute to the world is obscuring the truth that already is grace. It might, if successful, manage to make the gospel lost to time. But the truth of the gospel will never be lost even if the lost human blows himself up and all Bibles are destroyed.
This, but God instead of Buddha.
Buddha: You haven't even left my hand.
Monkey: What?!?
Buddha: You've been in my hand the entire time!
Monkey: I knew you'd try to make a fool out of me, so I left a message proving where I was.
Buddha: Did you use a paintbrush? (shows fingers with monkey's handprint and drawn face) Look familiar?
Monkey: Yeah, but how'd ya...
Buddha: So this is your palm print?
Monkey: (tries to escape) Wait a minute, lemme go and check it out.
Buddha: You cannot escape me, Kongo. (grabs him) Kongo, you must understand that my reach is infinite. I am here, but at the same time I exist everywhere throughout the universe. I exist in the shadows and the light. I am even inside you, Kongo. My power is timeless and absolute. It is foolish to think that you can defeat me. You have not destroyed the Celestial Heavens. Look, in the blink of an eye, all is restored. Your power has no significance in this universe.
Look, in the blink of an eye, all is restored. Your power has no significance in this universe.
Atheists always behave like Monkey. But in the end, they can't escape anything.
-
On a hill, early spring as the sunsets. A lark sings high above and a breeze from the south brings false promise of summer.
God pops out of nowhere.
“I see that you are moved by my works human.”
“Are they your works, or are you taking credit for what Ymir ‘s children fashioned from his corpse?”
“Good grief man, that’s obvious tosh, gods crawling from the armpits of a sleeping giant suckled by an ice cow, were you born yesterday?”
“Relatively, yes, but that story absurd as it is, mimics closely the Enuma Elis, found in the Library of Ashurbanipal, dated to at least 1,000 years BC, with its slumbering progenitor murdered by its offspring, the body of Tiamat used to make the earth and heaven, where were you then?”
“It was the bronze age FFS, those idiots weren’t ready for the truth.”
“Right, the people that inscribed the code of Hammurabi couldn’t handle the truth, whereas those that can’t figure out the reason for the 2nd amendment, they can?”
“Oh fuck off!”
God pops off, the lark drifts slowly down, its trilling quietens as it lands to sleep.
-
Bulma: I don't agree with some of the stuff you say.
I don't believe in any god but respect that you and many others do.
I do agree with a lot of the points you make but there is a debate here and some of the others do make some good points also.
It's about give and take where religion comes in and also values of each individual have to be taken into account to understand why a person may opt for one way against another.
-
Trying to throw an uno reverso card against people doesn't mean anything. Your post is just fluff. Means nothing.
Especially coming from another dumbarse troll. Your opinion is worthless
I'm just saying it's best to take notice instead of offering nasty insults when you don't agree.
It doesn't mean your points are all invalid.
-
Oh look. Two people that I've ignored in a row. Guess I'll continue to ignore you.
You say you ignore us but it clearly sounds like you read our posts.
-
When they get their arse handed to them and have zero rebuttal, they claim to ignore so they can excuse themselves from embarrassing themselves any further
Of course they read it. And their failure to reply only makes them look like bigger morons. On the plus side we can reply with intelligence while all they have is scatter brained nonsense.
I guess bulmadick is too busy beating his cheesy dick raw. Try not to get blood all over your mums carpet this time eh?
-
Bulma: I don't agree with some of the stuff you say.
I don't believe in any god but respect that you and many others do.
I do agree with a lot of the points you make but there is a debate here and some of the others do make some good points also.
It's about give and take where religion comes in and also values of each individual have to be taken into account to understand why a person may opt for one way against another.
I don't expect you to. You're like Slime, not always in agreement but willing to concede certain points, which is why I'm friending you, and have blocked both of them. People who can't be bothered to listen, it's difficult or impossible to have a civil conversation with.
Jesus taught do unto others as you would have them do unto you. When someone online is like talking to a slab of meat or brick wall for all that they ignore you, I put them on the ignore list too.
I'm typing "s l e m o n" and it's writing it as "slime".
-
People who can't be bothered to listen, it's difficult or impossible to have a civil conversation with.
You mean like yourself and septic? No matter how deep anyone explains anything to you both, you just say its wrong and regurgitate the same bullshit nonsense as before. You aren't even believable that even you believe your bullshit
Pro tip, go outside and find a partner and get a life. It's better than bleeding all over your mums carpet as you whack your dick raw
-
"Get a life"?
Buddy
We all here posting.
Not really a good burrnnn...
-
"Get a life"?
Buddy
We all here posting.
Not really a good burrnnn...
I post here during my work hours. None of my actual free time that I could spend with friends, family, going out, playing the xbox or watching movies are wasted here.
But hey if you enjoy your free time here, go ahead. I know I have better things to do in it myself. It's 3am for me and hey I might as well kill time here while I wait for my shift of almost nothingness to end
-
Why you presume bulmba isnt at work?
People work 8-10hrs
-
Why you presume bulmba isnt at work?
People work 8-10hrs
He's admitted he doesn't work. He doesn't do anything by his own admission. Just leeches of everyone elses hard work and then bitches to everyone how they should be operating and thinking
My shifts are 12 hours 8)
-
If you want to type in slemon you have to insert a bbc code thing between any letters after the s as the word "lemon" is filtered by the word filter as I think to stop people from linking to the shock/gore site "lemon party"
-
Why you presume bulmba isnt at work?
People work 8-10hrs
He's admitted he doesn't work. He doesn't do anything by his own admission. Just leeches of everyone elses hard work and then bitches to everyone how they should be operating and thinking
My shifts are 12 hours 8)
sounds like you get paid to spam the internet.
aaaah
no i tease
being on call and waiting is still 'work'.
my cousin is a fireman.
he's jacked becuase all he does is exercise.
and play guitar, and read books.
-
Well, I sorta work?
But not conventionally.
I work as an author. I now how an amazon author page! Sorta. A search of my name gets mixed in with books about hookers. A search of my books, it's usually the third or fourth book mentioned.
https://www.amazon.com/s?i=stripbooks&rh=p_27%3ASamantha+Rinne+Hooker
As for most of the people debating with me, yes I do think they are paid to spam the internet. They seem to be on much of the day. That or they have a job but no life. That's just as tragic. You guys need to go on dates! Live your life! Don't be like me, as I stay indoors much of my life.
-
Well, I sorta work?
But not conventionally.
I work as an author. I now how an amazon author page! Sorta. A search of my name gets mixed in with books about hookers. A search of my books, it's usually the third or fourth book mentioned.
https://www.amazon.com/s?i=stripbooks&rh=p_27%3ASamantha+Rinne+Hooker
As for most of the people debating with me, yes I do think they are paid to spam the internet. They seem to be on much of the day. That or they have a job but no life. That's just as tragic. You guys need to go on dates! Live your life! Don't be like me, as I stay indoors much of my life.
Indoors and beating that trouser snake until it bleeds. Dont worry, no one is like you
-
Yay! ;D
-
I assure you that like Wolvaccine, none of my free time is spent on this site.
I usually come on here when I do my homework.
When I'm not I'm playing on my Xbox or Nintendo Switch.
I have things to do other than this.
-
Mmmhhhm.
-
You can see I'm not on during the weekends.
-
So basically the weekends you get offline because you're not paid to do work. You got out on dates, you go to church, and you go rock climbing. It's easier to believe that than a job where you make a living only working two days a week. That said, my dad is a minister.
-
I said I go on here when I do my schoolwork.
-
Today is Good Friday.
It is also the week of Passover.
-
Who wants to play Rebecca Black's "friday" song to annoy Bulmadick?
-
You act like I care about the things you stereotypically assign to me.
I don't care what critics say, about a song being bad.
She's cute, and the song is funny to listen to. Yesterday was Thursday. Tomorrow is Saturday. After that comes Sunday. Gosh, you don't say. None of you understand satire, or the idea of something being intentionally bad to make a point. You listen to the experts and don't realize they aren't doing their jobs if they don't at least put satire in its own category.
You can't annoy me until you actually understand me.
Better ppl than you have tried.
-
Referring an answer from another section.
What if she did have a choice?
What it would mean is that God would have a list of potential candidates.
We don't know whether Mary is the first person God asked. There may even have been a wide timeline for this prophecy. They had a numerological calendar deciding when their Messiah was supposed to come, but it's up to choice, really. And if she said no, God would just arrange another descendent of the house of David.
You think I'm kidding. You think it's rare to be related to a king. My dad does genealogy, one thing that struck me was how ordinary it is to have certain things in your genealogy. Like, most European people are related to one of the kings of England or France or Spain. Possibly multiple ones. It is far more rare to have been serfs every generation for all time.
So yeah, they killed alot of descendants of the house and lineage of David. It was the one who agreed to be God's woman that was spared. Think of all those other women as ones who said no if you want to blame God. But those were killed by human hands.
I can't stop you from blaming God. But Mary was given a choice. At the very least, she could could have killed herself to try to thwart God. Sorry, but you'd be dead and God would just pick someone else.
We see Judas saying no to God. He later repents. Now most Christians don't think he was forgiven. But Judas actually has a death identical to Jesus (by hanging), and leaves a legacy that has lasted thousands of years. The Field of Blood was used to bury foreigners for generations. So I ask you, if God forgave even Judas for saying no, why do you not think he will forgive you? He loves you. Human beings die in one way or another in this life. It's the immorality of the Afterlife that is relevant.
All of the disciples shared with Jesus in death. Including John. Revelation is a lie.
Then James and John, the sons of Zebedee, came to him. “Teacher,” they said, “we want you to do for us whatever we ask.”
“What do you want me to do for you?” he asked.
They replied, “Let one of us sit at your right and the other at your left in your glory.”
“You don’t know what you are asking,” Jesus said. “Can you drink the cup I drink or be baptized with the baptism I am baptized with?”
“We can,” they answered.
Jesus said to them, “You will drink the cup I drink and be baptized with the baptism I am baptized but to sit at my right or left is not for me to grant. These places belong to those for whom they have been prepared.”
Jesus explicitly predicts that they will both die for his sake. Only according to legend does it say he survived boiling oil. It's in the Acts of John, an extrabiblical text. In other words, an urban legend meant to prop up the narrative of Revelation.
John ACTUALLY died with his brother, with whom he did everything else.
https://biblewise.com/bible_study/questions/boiled-in-oil.php
The Acts of John purports to give an eyewitness account of the missionary work of the apostle John in and around Ephesus. It probably dates to the 2nd half of the 2nd century. Although no complete text exists, there are considerable portions in Greek and in Latin. Unfortunately, the actual story of the boiling in oil is not included in any existing text or fragment. But parts of the book are clearly missing, including the beginning of the story. The Acts of John tells how Domitian, upon ascending the throne in 81AD, immediately began persecuting the Jews. They, in turn, accused the Christians, and Domitian turned his attention toward them, committing horrible atrocities against the Christians. He heard of John who was teaching in Ephesus at that time. He sent for him and made him drink poison, which did not hurt him. (But when they tried it on a common criminal, that man died - only to be revived by John.) Domitian was impressed, but he banished him to Patmos. It is thought that Nerva recalled John.
On the way home, John was involved in a shipwreck and landed at Miletus, eventually finding his way back to Ephesus. Tertullian and other Latin writers have made the claim that either Domitian or the Proconsul at Ephesus cast him into a cauldron of boiling oil, which also did him no harm. No Greek text confirms this event. Some early writers claim this happened prior to his banishment to Patmos.
Perhaps one of the more interesting witnesses for this event dates back to the middle of the tenth century. Aelfric, an Abbot of the Benedictine monastery near Oxford (955-1017), included this story in one of his sermons. He did not identify his source, but he was renowned for being a stickler about orthodoxy. He did much to discredit apocryphal materials, yet he told this story. Elsewhere he referred to Jerome, a Church Father, who had written about John in his Ecclesiastical History, and perhaps on that basis used him as an authority for the incident.
We may never know whether it actually happened, or if it's just an urban legend. We do know, however, that it is not in any of the canonical books.
As they mention twice though, it's a fragmentary mess, and there's no confirmation. Jesus prophesied that they woulf die, I believe him. So do people who dispute Revelation as a false teaching.
What I find interesting is that enemies of Christ alwayd defend the canon that includes Revelation. It's easy to see why. It helps their case against Christianity. But if enemies of Christ accept it as canon, it was obviously written by enemies of Christ.
-
Referring an answer from another section.
Referring an answer from another section...
Umm, yeah, there were ppl still around. "cohabited with the human women". Human woman were still around. Same as human men and human children and human babies, still around. The Nephilim weren't fucking human men, children, and babies and siring non-ppl. And the Nephilim were still kicking around after the murderous flood.
As well, God just went ahead an rammed a baby into Mary's womb totally without her consent. That's some seriously rapy shit. What's up with that?
Luke 1:30 But the angel said to her, “Do not be afraid, Mary; you have found favor with God.
Luke 1:31 You will conceive and give birth to a son, and you are to call him Jesus.
Like she had a choice? Gabriel basically shows up and says, "Oh, by the way, God WILL be planting his seed in you, period."
What's Mary going to say to one of God's Angels who just commanded that this will happen?
"Umm, yeah, well, here's the thing, Gabe...Can I call you that? It just seems like we're having a pretty personal convo, so I'm thinking I can. In any case, I'm a virgin and I don't want to be knocked up by God because you see, you already know the virgin bit, but I have a husband, everyone will know it's not his kid. People will talk. I'm not cool with that. And you know, I'd kinda like to hook up with Joe first, have him take my flower, so to speak...It's kind of a special thing we got going on, married and all. And how emasculated do you think Joe is going to feel? 'God got it on with me first' - How can he even compare?
Can you go tell God that I appreciate the offer, but no, I'm good with Joe. Thanks, but no thanks. A hard pass. I'm sure God will be cool with that...Umm, right Gabe? He'll be down with the that, right? He's not going to get all pissy about my refusal and start drowning everyone again, right? Gabe, talk to me." Mary, increasingly nervous, "What's his vibe? He's still into the free will thing, right? He's not going to smite me or Joe, right?
-
The implication of Noah was that humans were quickly becoming a lost gene pool.
in other words, God wanted a man (of the tribe of Israel) to die for the sins of all men.
Suppose we repeated this experiment, found some ancient angel genes, cloned them, and got our freaky on with this.
(https://i.pinimg.com/736x/ea/e5/14/eae5141fc1bb596bc38e5ad2ef6bcfee.jpg)
I know, I know, it's sexy.
Would God destroy the Earth again?
Probably not. Because no matter what we try to do, including a Dalek or Cyberman replacement of humanity, Jesus died for all sins, now and forever.
COVID vaccine alters your DNA? Irrelevant. You're human. Your sins are forgiven. Same deal if you have an artificial heart whatever. Cyborg? Beastman? Whatever.
These are attempts to distance yourself from God.
But you're too late. He's won, humans "lost".
The Nephilim were siring divine men. That's pretty explicit in the text. And given that you came after one look at that sexy beast, I am certain that this wasn't an occasional thing but a clear case of humans going too far.
But God turned a destructive event into a means of showing his promise not to do it again, and his covenant with humanity. Not just gays get the rainbow. Everyone does.
(https://i.imgflip.com/nufyx.jpg)
The rainbow symbolizes how the covenant stands for them also. Even though they think it's about pride. The gay rainbow excludes indigo. Six colors (six is a number of imperfection). God's rainbow includes indigo ppl. It includes everyone. He died on the cross for everyone, including the worst sort of lynch mob imaginable.
Suppose Jesus was a gay trans female today. The same Christians that purport to worship him would again say "crucify him". But other Christians might not. Does he condemn the first? No, he honors the second and forgives the first.
http://wp.production.patheos.com/blogs/exploringourmatrix/files/2015/10/Jesus-and-Gender-Identity.png
Yes, Gabriel would in fact pull out his checklist and goes, "Okay there's Ava in the north end of Damascus. She's also of the house and lineage of David. But she doesn't have any connection with Judaism, so it'll take awhile... Mary, look at this."
(https://ordonews.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/Neuralizer-from-Men-in-Black-already-exists-2.jpg)
-
Rainbows existed on Earth for billions of years. Indeed, they exist anywhere in the universe where light exists moving through a medium that can scatter it
God didn't spontaneously 'make' it for Noah as some promise. Pure bullshit
-
The implication of Noah was that humans were quickly becoming a lost gene pool.
But God turned a destructive event into a means of showing his promise not to do it again, and his covenant with humanity. Not just gays get the rainbow. Everyone does.
God drowned, 750 million people, men, women, children, babies, and every other creature on earth save for a handful of humans and the pairs of elephants and giraffes and mosquitos, etc.
And yes, he promised not to fuck up again and murder everything. In my world a genocidal murderer doesn't get to kill everyone and then say, "My bad in the first go. I promise, this time I won't murder you all again. Just trust me on that, OK? We cool? Great, now worship the shit out of me or go to hell..."
-
The implication of Noah was that humans were quickly becoming a lost gene pool.
But God turned a destructive event into a means of showing his promise not to do it again, and his covenant with humanity. Not just gays get the rainbow. Everyone does.
God drowned, 750 million people, men, women, children, babies, and every other creature on earth save for a handful of humans and the pairs of elephants and giraffes and mosquitos, etc.
And yes, he promised not to fuck up again and murder everything. In my world a genocidal murderer doesn't get to kill everyone and then say, "My bad in the first go. I promise, this time I won't murder you all again. Just trust me on that, OK? We cool? Great, now worship the shit out of me or go to hell..."
Actually mosquitoes could fly, and like to breed on water sources, so there was no reason to take only two of them on an ark.
Once again confusing Christianity for Judaism.
1. Judaism is "live following these laws if you want to have a long life" (Judaism didn't have a firmly codified idea of afterlife, so the reward for behavior was more life).
2. Christians sometimes teach other people that "do good and get into heaven" is Christianity.
List of Christian heresies (https://news.fordham.edu/inside-fordham/top-10-heresies-in-the-history-of-christianity/):
5. Cathars may have formed groups in southern France and Italy in the 12th through 14th centuries. The most extreme among them believed that the physical world was the handiwork of an evil god. Avoiding meat, cheese and some other foods, as well as refraining from sexual intercourse, were ways to connect with the spiritual world.
8. Pelagians derived their name from Pelagius, a British monk who preached in fifth-century Rome. He allegedly declared that Christians could earn their way into Heaven by doing good deeds, without the need of divine grace.
I skipped the irrelevant ones. The point being that if you think you can earn your way into heaven, that not what's taught. In any case, you have to die. Jesus told his disciples no delusions about following him. You will be handed over to authorities, you'll have to defend yourself, and many of you will be put to death.
3. What Christianity actually taught was that Jesus died for our sins. But from the very first, Christians had trouble with a group of people called "Judaizers" teaching "Christianity" in attempt to spread Judaism instead. They taught that following the law of Moses and getting circumcised was the way to be saved.
Yes, you can trust that God won't destroy everyone again. Because deeds are no longer necessary. It's about God extending grace and mercy. Either he will or he won't, and nothing you do can buy his mercy.
-
I can believe a flood event happened in the area where the alleged Noah lived. I can believe an ark could be built and he took some animals on it. It clearly didn't happen everywhere though. Did Australia flood? Why is there evidence of Aboriginals living here for the past 60,000 years? Cave paintings made many thousands of years ago that should have been destroyed in a flood, still pristine? Animals like Emus, Kangaroos and others unique to Australia still around?
Many countries around the world have uninterrupted histories. They clearly didn't suffer an extinction level flood event
Also 2 of every animal is not enough to sustain a population. The human race also needs at least 100-150 individuals and very specific breeding to start with to ensure we can maintain a healthy genetic profile. The idea that the human race was reduced to Noah, his wife (no longer breeding), so just his 3 sons and their wives is ridiculous.
We have seen results of inbreeding and it always ends up in death of the family line. In a hideous fashion too. And with so few individuals - how far can they really travel as nomads with the technology they had at the time?
And where did all the coloured people appear from all of a sudden if they were all wiped out?
Can we just agree that the story of Noah as told in the bible is not a true account of history at least as far as the entire world is concerned?
-
Flood myths from around the world.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_flood_myths
Australia
- Tiddalik: A water-holding frog awoke one morning with an extreme thirst, and began to drink until all the freshwater was consumed. Creatures and plant life everywhere began to die due to lack of moisture. Other animals devised a plan for him to release all of the water he had consumed by making him laugh. As Tiddalik laughed, the water rushed out of him to replenish the lakes, swamps and rivers.
- Lizards vs Platypuses: The world became overpopulated with birds, reptiles, and other animals. Therefore, a meeting took place in the Blue Mountains to mitigate this. Tiger Snake planned that birds and animals who have good mobility should migrate to a new country. The lizards, who knew about rainmaking, decided to rid the world of the platypuses, whereby instructing all of their family to perform the rain ceremony. The lizards fled to mountain tops, before a deluge covered the land below, destroying most of the world. The flood eventually ended and there were no platypuses. After some time Carpet Snake observed the existence of platypus. The animals discovered that they were all related to the platypuses, who were then invited back and treated as ancient value. Eventually the head platypus married into the bandicoot family, although platypuses were never comfortable with other animals
It's nice every now and then, if you learn to research on your own.
And yes, some countries do have uninterrupted histories.
A worldwide event can mean one of two things.
1. The water level was high enough to cover every inch of land, and everywhere was flooded. This is not what I mean.
2. The water rose at every area of Earth, but only actually succeeded in permanently flooding certain lowlands. We have large body of scientists that already accept that the Bering Strait used to be connected to US Alaska through land (or at least ice).
Given that from South America to Australia to Europe to China, to Africa all say the same thing, yes some flooding did occur. But it didn't completely remove all land. It did however happen worldwide.
-
Flood myths from around the world.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_flood_myths
Australia
- Tiddalik: A water-holding frog awoke one morning with an extreme thirst, and began to drink until all the freshwater was consumed. Creatures and plant life everywhere began to die due to lack of moisture. Other animals devised a plan for him to release all of the water he had consumed by making him laugh. As Tiddalik laughed, the water rushed out of him to replenish the lakes, swamps and rivers.
- Lizards vs Platypuses: The world became overpopulated with birds, reptiles, and other animals. Therefore, a meeting took place in the Blue Mountains to mitigate this. Tiger Snake planned that birds and animals who have good mobility should migrate to a new country. The lizards, who knew about rainmaking, decided to rid the world of the platypuses, whereby instructing all of their family to perform the rain ceremony. The lizards fled to mountain tops, before a deluge covered the land below, destroying most of the world. The flood eventually ended and there were no platypuses. After some time Carpet Snake observed the existence of platypus. The animals discovered that they were all related to the platypuses, who were then invited back and treated as ancient value. Eventually the head platypus married into the bandicoot family, although platypuses were never comfortable with other animals
It's nice every now and then, if you learn to research on your own.
Oh. Aboriginal fables that talk of some water LOL. And even if those fairy tales were true, it does not depict a flood that drowned the entire continent
You will clutch at any straw, no matter how ridiculous to justify your BS
Perhaps you could also find some fables for China, Japan, Africa and South American countries all supporting a flood that killed everyone off
Perhaps you could explain how the human race survived no problem after being reduced to just 3 breeding pairs a few thousand years ago?
-
The implication of Noah was that humans were quickly becoming a lost gene pool.
But God turned a destructive event into a means of showing his promise not to do it again, and his covenant with humanity. Not just gays get the rainbow. Everyone does.
God drowned, 750 million people, men, women, children, babies, and every other creature on earth save for a handful of humans and the pairs of elephants and giraffes and mosquitos, etc.
And yes, he promised not to fuck up again and murder everything. In my world a genocidal murderer doesn't get to kill everyone and then say, "My bad in the first go. I promise, this time I won't murder you all again. Just trust me on that, OK? We cool? Great, now worship the shit out of me or go to hell..."
Actually mosquitoes could fly, and like to breed on water sources, so there was no reason to take only two of them on an ark.
Only the female mosquitoes feed on blood. Male mosquitoes feed on plant nectar and juices. Where were every variety of plant stored on the ark? And mosquitos can fly for 40 days?
Where were every variety of insect stored on the ark?
How did Noah nab "every living thing of all flesh, you shall bring two of every sort into the ark to keep them alive with you."?
Every creature; birds, mammals, reptiles, all flora, insects, everything, even all of those not indigenous to Mesopotamia. Every creature from around the world.
Either:
- Noah's ark is a lie and didn't happen
OR
- Noah's ark happened and God drowned 750 million people, men, women, children, babies, and every other creature on earth
Pick your poison.
-
Bottom line.
Supernatural thinking and beliefs are not the best way to think.
Some of the speculative nonsense of supernatural thinking can get us thinking out of a box, but it has to relate to the real physical world.
Facts should and will always trump supernatural thinking.
God was always meant to be defined as a mystery.
The intelligent and moral do so, as we reject the vile demiurges on offer.
Regards
DL
-
None of you understand satire, or the idea of something being intentionally bad to make a point.
Because I'm Autistic, moron.
-
Bottom line.
Supernatural thinking and beliefs are not the best way to think.
Some of the speculative nonsense of supernatural thinking can get us thinking out of a box, but it has to relate to the real physical world.
Facts should and will always trump supernatural thinking.
Why?
Why should "facts" trump supernatural thinking? Why will they? You don't even know the simplest facts are true. So everything you know is based on possibly faulty assumptions from you, or secondhand knowledge from someone who seems smart. Nothing is actually a fact.
The sky is blue. That's a very simple fact, right. Well uhhh no. You see, unlike the other colors, blue isn't really a pigment. It has to do with specific way light is reflected.
https://bestlifeonline.com/blue-in-nature/
And in fact, ancient humans seem to have not been able to see blue skies. So we don't actually know the sky is blue.
https://www.grunge.com/285728/the-real-reason-ancient-people-didnt-see-the-color-blue/
Math problems? Even the simplest number equations like 2+2 rely on defined terms. Two is this and this (pointing). But if you have double vision due the drunkenness or an eye problem, you seeing four things not two. If you're on hallucinogenic substances, you're seeing anything but two things. And if it's binary...
Two doesn't exist (at least not with translating binary into values).
Facts aren't real. In the end supernatural truth is the only thing that matters, as when you're cold and in a cave, placating the bear with weird sacrifices means the difference between the bear eating you and the bear getting you honey.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bear_worship
The ancient cavemen knows their bear god is real, just as I know God is more real than a cave bear.
No amount of facts will save your life, if they aren't true facts. If the chips are down and you're in the southern hemisphere, and to get back to New Zealand after a plane crash in Peru, you decide to head south rather than east. If you're mistaken about the Earth being round, then you never get to New Zealand that way.
But if you're on the verge of starvation and having a positive attitude gets you to grow crops instead of saying "it's hopeless, there's nothing but seeds here" then yes supernatural thinking is of far greater worth than facts. Supernatural thinking allows us to embrace the world with a mindset. Having been in a few situations where I thought I was gonna die, having a mindset is very important to whether things fail or not.
This is the mindset of atheism.
You get sidetracked from the proper duty of a child (playing and having fun) to learn "facts". Foe years and years you sit in these classrooms, then it's done and you sit in an office, then it's done and you sit in a nursing home.
And none of those facts were true. They were factual, yes. But truth is something entirely different. in the end, your life is meaningless, and now that you're about to die, you ask is that all there is? Because if there's nothing beyond that, you've just wasted things in a sad and dreary way doing the same as everyone else. If there's no God and no afterlife, then the world is an incredibly dark and gray place made even worse by politicians.
Jesus didn't see things that way. Neither do most religions.
-
Facts aren't real.
Thanks for the insight, stupid.
Try using a dictionary.
Regards
DL
-
That's the only resource you guys know how to use.
"Dictionary definition says marriage is no longer between a man and a woman so..." If you don't understand the how and why of knowledge and facts, you shouldn't trust them.
Dictionaries give meanings not based on objective truth but on most common meaning of a term. This means that words can be distorted and can even have the opposite meaning.
Literally
adv.
1.in the literal or strict sense
2. in a literal manner; word for word
3. actually; without exaggeration or inaccuracy
4. in effect; in substance; very nearly; virtually
Definition 4 is bending the truth. With the introduction of definition 4, you have people saying stuff like "I literally died of stage fright." You figuratively died of stage fright.
In effect or virtually stretches to mean "not at all, but sorta."
The point being that a fact is worthless, if you can't understand where they come from or how to know they are true.
There used to be a section in libraries known as methodology. That is, how do we know what we know. But that got phased out I think. Now people are allowed to be cocksure of "facts." Facts don't exist.
Here's a simple math problem.
PE
MD
AS
I aligned the math order of operations because some people confuse the hierarchy, and skip subtraction to add first. But the order of operations goes left to right, except when a higher hierarchy comes along.
So in school we were taught that this is just left to right:
2+4-2+1-3,
while this multiplies first before adding:
2+4x3,
or 2 and 14.
With me so far? Well when I was working in a library I discovered that what you are taught isn't necessarily right.
I would have to average something (I forget what), and I quickly discovered that the technical calculator for the computer would do it wrong. The more sophisticated the calculator, the more I would have to use brackets, because it would add all previous numbers. In other words, the cheap solar calculator would always average right because it had no memory.
84+85+86/3 according to order of operations is
86/3 first, then 84+85+28.6667=197.6667
Congratulations. If you had a job as a teacher, all your kids are doing brilliantly according to this. You however are fired.
If you aren't able to question facts, you will always believe things that aren't so.
How does a thing get created when nobody is there to create it? Oh right, "It just happens." So by your logic, trees don't come from seeds, but just kinda appear fully formed without a cause.
Cause and effect is one of the simplest science rules, and it was developed when science worked hand in hand with religion. Now that science has taken leave of religion, the very basic logic that a canoe doesn't just appear on the banks of a shore, someone built it and bought it and owns it, this escapes the minds of so-called non-superstitious people. Or they think that doesn't apply to the universe and to life.
There must be an Origin. Sorry.
Supernatural truth will always and should always trump "facts."
Were I your teacher, I'd teach cause and effect, then critical thinking, then launch into Hawking and the others in science who proposed a godless universe. I'd gush over them to give you the impression that I really liked them. Then I'd give you an essay test that asked "Given what we know about cause and effect, use critical thinking to form a conclusion about Hawking's (et al) theories of a self-created universe." And I'd enjoy giving you an F for that test, as you wrote a long complicated answer telling me what you thought I wanted to hear, that nonetheless missed the part where Hawking was wrong.
忍者は明白なことを超えて考える必要があります
-
That's the only resource you guys know how to use.
Yeah, I know, facts are really a terrible resource.
-
No, I mean, the goto for people who can't do actual research is to look at a dictionary.
"Dictionary.com says this:
flat-earther
(flat-ur-ther)
n.
1. a person who adheres to the idea that the earth is flat.
2. a person who clings to an idea or theory that has long been proved wrong.
so my research is done! :closes_the_book:"
I kid you not, it actually gives that as a second definition.
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/flat-earther
So does Wikipedia, as I know from watch youtube videos with a wikipedia disclaimer.
Neither of them offer up what this "proven wrong" looks like.
You see, in order for facts to be facts, they must be observable. I have observed Jesus (long story, unless you say you wanna hear it). I have not observed, ever, the godless causeless universe that atheists propose. I have however seen numerous things from babies to jet planes, all of which were designed and created. And I've written, what is it now, 17 books? Though many are variations. I currently am working on a Japanese translation for Oracle of Tao.
https://www.amazon.com/Oracle-Tao-Earth-Trilogy-Japanese-ebook/dp/B0C2BPD4BH/
If you've ever tried to translate a language you dunno, you understand what a chore it is to get meaning right, and to make sure they didn't gobble up words (Google Translate likes to do this). Yes I know that created things are actually created, they don't just happen. Which means I absolutely know God is real. Whether he cares for us can be questioned (he does, but sometimes I don't feel it) but whether he exists is rather obvious.
I have however seen how feminism and LGBT rights, the great champion causes of the secular world have failed. Birth rate in South Korea is a shocking .7 meaning the average woman doesn't have children. Overpopulation indeed, the secular world is about to hit population freefall, because beyond simple equality between men and women, women don't understand what fuck they want, and men are completely tired of feminists all around them blaming them for everything. I had a girl I liked, who liked me for being a weird person into women's clothes. After years of hanging out though, I realized I was probably too fucked out to raise a child myself (though I help my sister and brother out), and I also realized she was pretty squarely asexual and we'd still be unmarried at age 60. She's a good friend, but I don't know any other girls so... Anyway, the biblical scholars are right when they say that the way of the wicked is doomed (that includes ppl like me, and I accept that). You can see the secular world die out in real time.
And I can clearly see that light has a limited range (cannot be from "outer space" millions of miles away), that horizons are flat, that water doesn't bend even in a curved container (it separates, meaning no glass water-filled model would work, as it would immediately show water dripping off the Earth), and so on.
Oh look, water has to be pumped, and as much as you can get it to turn, water doesn't remain on top.
-
No, I mean, the goto for people who can't do actual research is to look at a dictionary.
"Dictionary.com says this:
flat-earther
(flat-ur-ther)
n.
1. a person who adheres to the idea that the earth is flat.
2. a person who clings to an idea or theory that has long been proved wrong.
so my research is done! :closes_the_book:"
I would say that this place is proof that some people don't just say, "so my research is done! :closes_the_book:"
You see, in order for facts to be facts, they must be observable.
One individual's observation(s) does not make for fact.
Oh look, water has to be pumped, and as much as you can get it to turn, water doesn't remain on top.
One individual's observation(s) does not make for fact. If the world were to rely on just your experience and your observations as "proven" or "fact", we might as well be back in the bronze age.
(Aside: Out of your 17 books, which one would you recommend to me?)
-
I would say that this place is proof that some people don't just say, "so my research is done! :closes_the_book:"
It's filled with those exact people.
You see, in order for facts to be facts, they must be observable.
One individual's observation(s) does not make for fact.
I see. So I could stare at the sun taking notes until I eventually start to go blind, write down all my observations, and... submit it to a review panel, who instead of verifying the facts as observed and coming to a newer consensus, they go with established dogma, and categorically reject everything I observed. Yes, this sounds very scientific.
Oh look, water has to be pumped, and as much as you can get it to turn, water doesn't remain on top.
One individual's observation(s) does not make for fact. If the world were to rely on just your experience and your observations as "proven" or "fact", we might as well be back in the bronze age.
We got out of the Bronze Age because people using their own observations, acted on those and made things. Had there been a review panel in the Bronze Age like there is today, we would still have:
1. Rubbing mud on people's eyes as medicine
2. No running water
3. No power. All your cool computer stuff? All movies? Books? Games? Gone.
4. More importantly no private toilets or clean water. Wanna use a sponge to wipe your ass while several other men watch you do your business? Wanna die of some easily treatable disease because of awful water?
These consensus reviewers aren't part of science. They are gatekeepers to the free exchange of ideas. All that actually matters is one person's observations (and that they are not insane, and can make accurate observations). Hopefully they repeat those and their conclusions aren't distorted. But even insane observations are better than groupthink.
(Aside: Out of your 17 books, which one would you recommend to me?)
Depends. You want fiction? Nonfiction?
New Gaia (https://www.amazon.com/New-Gaia-Earth-books/dp/B09QP3M8SH/) is a TSR-style dice & paper game. I constantly update the rules though, so you're gonna have to decide on house rules and stick with them. You'll also need some friends.
For fiction, I have Oracle of Tao, Town of Winter, and In the Moment. I suppose, if you really only read one, Oracle of Tao is in a cute little trilogy with larger print (the original had to be shrunk to 8pt, because it was a War & Peace type novel).
I don't recommend reading Town of Winter or In the Moment without reading Oracle of Tao. I suppose you could, but I feel like there would be a sense of disconnect. But if you want the whole epic that you can read on Kindle, check out this.
https://www.amazon.com/New-Earth-Trilogy-Samantha-Hooker-ebook/dp/B0BZTGCTVH/
Ummmm, start with Oracle of Tao: Sidequests.
https://www.amazon.com/Oracle-Tao-Sidequests-Earth-Trilogy/dp/B0BZFCJ8N2/
The middle book. It's a good place to start with a brief recap (Ambrosia is a beggar girl called on a holy mission (of course) who meets a bunch of ppl in Book I. Among these is the villain sorcerer Yazim Jianne. She battles against a demon Belial, collected about eight tattoos with mystical powers. Things didn't go so well last time though...)
I personally think it's the best section of Oracle of Tao, as the other parts have more of a driving story, but this is kinda less so, and more like open-world gaming. It also introduces the main theme of the book near the end of Book II: Sidequests. Plus there's a yawning cat. How can you say no?
(https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/51XeV-e1zlL._SY346_.jpg)
(Disclaimer: cat not featured in actual novel)
-
The greatest fiction and rewrite of our initial collective religious myth, is The Bible.
It shows a natural as well as supernatural God.
Regards
DL
-
I would say that this place is proof that some people don't just say, "so my research is done! :closes_the_book:"
It's filled with those exact people.
I actually don't know any here. If there were some, those people would just say, "the book says...done..."
No one does, or very few and far between. I actually see it more on FE, maybe because there's way more evidence for GE. There's just a ton of FE, "...conspiracy, conspiracy, conspiracy...indoctrination, indoctrination, indoctrination...shuts book."
Someone providing evidence and disagreeing with you are not the people you describe. It may just feel that way because they are disagreeing with you. Which is natural.
People here generally provide justification for their views. The quality of said justifications may at times be questionable, but at least they are there. And you'll often find that there is a tremendous amount of pushback against anyone who tries to just, "because I said so," without evidence type of folks if they do come ambling about. You'll also find a few of us GEr's who push back on other GEr's who do that or have shit arguments, in essence, GEr's defending FE.
You see, in order for facts to be facts, they must be observable.
One individual's observation(s) does not make for fact.
I see. So I could stare at the sun taking notes until I eventually start to go blind, write down all my observations, and... submit it to a review panel, who instead of verifying the facts as observed and coming to a newer consensus, they go with established dogma, and categorically reject everything I observed. Yes, this sounds very scientific.
You're strawmannig your way right through this as usual. If you have your notes with measurements, documented observational/experimental techniques that are repeatable, show a solid body of evidence, clearly demonstrating that you have extremely compelling evidence to overturn a massive body of evidence and experimentation that already exists, people will take notice. They will repeat your work with the attempt to falsify (What science does) your results and then see what the outcomes are. Happens all the time. That's why GR still exists because people have been trying to falsify it for nearing a century. So far it has held up. Though we keep doing so as more revelations come to the fore, more knowledge, better equipment, etc., and will continue to do so. That is science.
You saying that rainbows arc meets none of the above criteria.
Oh look, water has to be pumped, and as much as you can get it to turn, water doesn't remain on top.
One individual's observation(s) does not make for fact. If the world were to rely on just your experience and your observations as "proven" or "fact", we might as well be back in the bronze age.
We got out of the Bronze Age because people using their own observations, acted on those and made things. Had there been a review panel in the Bronze Age like there is today, we would still have:
1. Rubbing mud on people's eyes as medicine
2. No running water
3. No power. All your cool computer stuff? All movies? Books? Games? Gone.
4. More importantly no private toilets or clean water. Wanna use a sponge to wipe your ass while several other men watch you do your business? Wanna die of some easily treatable disease because of awful water?
These consensus reviewers aren't part of science. They are gatekeepers to the free exchange of ideas. All that actually matters is one person's observations (and that they are not insane, and can make accurate observations). Hopefully they repeat those and their conclusions aren't distorted. But even insane observations are better than groupthink.
Again, you're just strawmannig away. A veritable clear-cutting buzzsaw of made-up absolutes. Everything is so black & white with you. No sense of nuance whatsoever. All that matters is one person's observartions? Fine, I've never observed god. Therefore god does not exist. Boom! Done. All should take my one observation as absolute truth. No if's, ands, or buts.
You do realize that many, many things are not created by committee, right? Just because large swaths of reality disagree wit you doesn't make you right and that it's just that the "groupthink" has its thumb on your temple. You may just be wrong. Maybe you're insane and can't make accurate observations. Has that ever occurred to you?
Everything is not a one size fits all gig. Why you seem to think so is just bizarre. Pro tip, some of your insane, ridiculous notions based up your "observations" may actually be a smoldering hot mess of utter garbage. But somehow your ego won't allow you actually examine it and see that to be the case. Because every opinion you have with just your "observation" as evidence, to you, seems to be golden and spot on and unquestionably correct.
You're not special. You have to operate under the same rules the rest of us do: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
I think I'll start with Oracle of Tao: Sidequests. I'm even gonna go with the hardback. It's in my cart now.
-
It's not an extraordinary claim though.
That God exists is an ordinary claim.
The ancients knew God existed in some sort (some explained this through polytheism, I'm not sure God cares what we believe or he'd take definite sides in the Catholic vs Protestant conflict). They could see the blessings in the harvest, in the sun, the rain, in victory in battle, and even in bad fortune and death.
It's not that they "couldn't explain" nature and we enlightened ppl have all the answers. It's that God's hand was all around them and had a direct tie in their life.
One of the problems of modern life is that we get aloof from the actual blessings. We don't grow stuff, so Thanksgiving is just a day to eat turkey and watch football. And many of us live in the city where the rush of life forces us into a frenzied pace. When I worked at Amazon, I rose and got to work before the sun rose, and it had practically set after I got out. That job depressed me, but even there I had a distinct view of how God was relevant. Precisely because I could see that job led to a black hole (Bezos is a legit sadist, and offers ppl incentives to quit). Suppose I was a follower of Apollo (sun deity) and had that job. I'd lose my faith pretty quickly. That's what the frantic rush of modern life does. Convinces us God isn't there cuz we're too busy to notice him.
We see God as existing as an extraordinary claim. It's quite ordinary. God is as common as the air we breathe (I say this, having asthma due to being out of shape, having shut myself up ironically after COVID was big, as I finally got sick of people pushing my away, and just avoided them), the ground we walk on, and the people we meet.
The extraordinary claim is saying that we can't know God exists, it is more difficult a claim to "know (something) does NOT exist," especially because that claim involves searching everywhere at all times. We could have reasonable cause for believing something does exist at the first sign, we have to outright acquire disproof to be sure God doesn't exist .
Think of a unicorn. They're quite elusive. Are we sure they don't exist? Or maybe we just haven't seen them. God is much more common than a unicorn and without the rainbow filled orifices.We've just lost our sense of wonder, and demand proof for someone who can be seen in everything we see.
==============================
I'd follow it up with Book III, then In The Moment, and then Town of Winter, (then Book I somewhere in there, if you wanna know how it all started with Ambrosia). Kinda, what's thar Star Wars method of watching? Machete something or other. You get a sorta weird look at the series, and the last two books just sorta work in. Book I is my longest section and really big enough to be its own book. It's also the most like a regular novel, whereas In The Moment is deliberately in nonsequential time to kinda wrap things together (almost in a schizophrenic manner). Town of Winter is ordered by topic.
And yes, I do have a flat Earth in book, but there's a specific story reason to do so. And I keep changing the shape of Earth actually! And the world's history also changes a few times.
-
At church yesterday, the minister quoted statistics. Apparently 83% of the US population thinks that Jesus himself had a good idea for humanity (even atheists don't hate on the guy himself, except for the hardcore). But she said only about 38% of people think Christians are really living that message, with most common complaint among non-Christians that most seem to be mean and judgemental people. She then went on to spout some crap about loving everyone equally. I'm reminded of my study of Mohism (thanks to my background in history and religion, I know about obscure Chinese faiths), where universal love basically meant they don't actually love anyone.
I agree that moral hypocrisy is a problem. But I think this statistic doesn't account for a very important demographic. That is, many atheists aren't friends with any Christians. All of their friends are woke atheists like themselves. So the only Christians they know of are from films. Even the Christian films, many of them conflated moralism with Christianity. And the non-Christian films? Oh boy. I can't tell you how many LGBT films I've seen where the big mean Christian mother or father is not letting her live as the woman she really is. Such depictions are about as fair as depicting pro-abortion doctors eating babies or something.
That is, theism is an ordinary claim, but the existence or non-existence of God is largely academic, and is no different in Christianity from Judaism, Islam, or for that matter Hinduism (although mostly polytheistic, they have a sorta overdeity called Brahman, which is not much like the God of the Jews/Christians).
If you're still debating God, you're really still on page 1 of the conversation. The point of Jesus is the question of whether or not God actually cares for us, and whether non-religious ppl can have a relationship with religious ppl.
======================
It's a strange book, but hopefully you like it. I know I had fun writing it.
-
Atheists question whether or not Jesus even existed
Also the question whether religious people can have a relationship with non religious people is for the religious. Most religious people are pretty stuck up and intolerant. Then you have Islam, which dictates that they can not even be buried at the same area as non Islamic people. So a Islamic husband and a Christian wife? Forbidden to be buried together.
Most atheists or agnostics dont give a shit. Laid back and not allowing millennia old values dictate how they live their life or think. We live in an age where we dont need 'Gods' to explain our world. If a ship is lost at sea in a storm, do we blame Neptune? if there is a raging thunderstorm outside do we say it's Thor? The time will come when the Abrahamic God will have had its day and people wont throw away their lives and freedom to such fables. Much the same way people used to believe in Roman, Greek, Egyptian, Aztec Gods and so forth
Is there a creator of the universe? Maybe. But humans thousands of years ago who had virtually zero understanding of their place in the universe (and evidenced by the writings, clearly the 'Gods' that spoke to them didn't either) didn't figure it out.
People dont need 'Gods' to behave in a moral and civilised manner. And judging by the behaviour of some of the Popes throughout history, clearly religion certainly help them to be all that good of spirit to their fellow people either.
I would bet with religion out of the way, we would be a far more tolerant and peaceful society. It is religion which allowed a suffocating patriarchy. Religion allowed man to hit, beat and rape his wife. Religion allowed for the discrimination and abuse of gay people. Or of people born out of wedlock. It is religion which has allowed so much hate and intolerance to people with different ideas. Religion kept us from advancing our knowledge in science when they condemned, arrested and jailed people who dare speak the truth (eg Galileo). Religion allowed the 'burning of witches' etc. I could go on
Anyway, the sooner the world drops the religious bullshit - everywhere and every BS faith/cult, the better. Religion is good for ideas to make fictional movies. Beyond that, it's bullshit. Why enslave yourself - and others - to such nonsense.
-
It's not an extraordinary claim though.
That God exists is an ordinary claim.
Not to me.
One of the problems of modern life is that we get aloof from the actual blessings. We don't grow stuff, so Thanksgiving is just a day to eat turkey and watch football. And many of us live in the city where the rush of life forces us into a frenzied pace.
Here's where you myopic narcissism comes into play. Just because you've had craptastic soul crushing jobs doesn't mean everyone else has.
I've had some amazingly fulfilling jobs and have lived right in the heart of a big city for years and have never found it rushed or frenzied. Quite chill actually. It's all in what you make of it. And I get that it's not for everyone. But that's the point. I don't smear my personal experience across all of humanity like you do. Claiming that I have the answers for everyone, like you do.
==============================
I'd follow it up with Book III, then In The Moment, and then Town of Winter, (then Book I somewhere in there, if you wanna know how it all started with Ambrosia). Kinda, what's thar Star Wars method of watching? Machete something or other. You get a sorta weird look at the series, and the last two books just sorta work in. Book I is my longest section and really big enough to be its own book. It's also the most like a regular novel, whereas In The Moment is deliberately in nonsequential time to kinda wrap things together (almost in a schizophrenic manner). Town of Winter is ordered by topic.
And yes, I do have a flat Earth in book, but there's a specific story reason to do so. And I keep changing the shape of Earth actually! And the world's history also changes a few times.
I don't get my hardcover copy of Tao until like the 5th or something. I think for self-published folks, it's a print on demand scenario. Out of the 16 bucks what's your cut? Just curious as to how much bezos lines his pockets.
-
Let's put it this way. I get a far better cut (and you probably get your book far sooner) if you just do Kindle.
I get $0.87 for a hardcover book. It's loss leader. The Kindle version is about 40% of the price, meaning even at 2.99, I make most of it.
Hardcover is pretty much only I you want the feeling of sticking something on a shelf, stroking the binding, or fondling the soft feel of the book...
Well that, and the Kindle is not as pretty because KDF (their snazzy creator) doesn't actually work. It says "book cannot be published" what I try to do it that way. So I either make a doc or a pdf. PDF in particular seems to like to ignore page breaks on the Kindle upload.
(I'll probably respond to the other stuff later)
-
Let's put it this way. I get a far better cut (and you probably get your book far sooner) if you just do Kindle.
I get $0.87 for a hardcover book. It's loss leader. The Kindle version is about 40% of the price, meaning even at 2.99, I make most of it.
Hardcover is pretty much only I you want the feeling of sticking something on a shelf, stroking the binding, or fondling the soft feel of the book...
Well that, and the Kindle is not as pretty because KDF (their snazzy creator) doesn't actually work. It says "book cannot be published" what I try to do it that way. So I either make a doc or a pdf. PDF in particular seems to like to ignore page breaks on the Kindle upload.
(I'll probably respond to the other stuff later)
Oh shit, sorry, I thought I was giving you more by going hardback. Plus I wanted something physical of your work. I just bought the kindle version. Writing is hard. It should be rewarded more, especially the self-published. I'm glad this now exists and is trying to be a disrupter to the Simon & Schusters of the world and their arcane elitism.
I've got a friend who self-published his novel a few years back. It's pretty good. But it is still hidden behind the mega-marketing and distribution walls of the NYC publishing cabal. I'm not sure why publishing hasn't been uprooted as much as record labels have. Not sure of the mechanics.
And I wonder how these self-published breakouts happen like Hugh Howey's 'Wool'.
-
Nah it's okay.
Pick the one you want.
Printing is expensive, as I figured out by making exactly one self-bound book. I call it a softcover, as it is a hard cover without any stiff backing. Leather with cardstock paper (I had no cardboard, so I tried that) for the backing, leather lacing and glue to hold it together and to open or close, cotton paper as the inner stuff. The book cost like $50, $25 to print (library is $.10 a page but there were 500 pages, two-sided), $25 for the big strip of leather for the cover. The glue was free. I'm not if I paid for the leather straps but I think they were shoe laces for an old leather shoe. Professional publishers make money by having loads of cheap materials on hand.
One of the things I went into writing was to veer away from the idea of big contract. You know, you got to a job, you make good money, but the asshole nags at you to work harder and earn more. I worked at big companies, two named ones (Walmart and Amazon), but I had poor de-stressing skills, and I'd spend money or time to entertain myself, only to be less rested or more behind financially (I never got in debt, but I got to the point where my parents had to pay for my apartment, at which point I decided I was kidding myself about being independent). Then I moved home and worked at smaller companies. Going to a smaller company didn't help. I still felt stressed and nagged so I went to work for myself. Evetntually, I realized the truth. The asshole nagging me to work harder and earn more? It was me. It was my own greed making me feel unhappy.
Around COVID, I switched to working at home. The model I now work under is to try to view payment as a bonus rather than my main goal. I didn't get into this to make money (though some writers get highly successful in monetary terms), but to find a job that gives me peace of mind. And hopefully I have some people be like "I loved your book!" You can buy both if youre okay with waiting until the 5th. I know some people prefer the feel of hardcover, even though it's a lousy royalty.
What I usually get though is "Well... I tried to read your book." I suppose that will have to do. :(
I currently have one fan (they mention having read my books, and then ordered them for the library), though I'm not sure my latest book (In The Moment) was all that great. I had a good idea, but the execution felt less than perfect. But yeah, writing books is tough. Either you do it for the money (you can either make alot with a publisher sponsoring you but see the asshole thing above, or you make not much money), or you do it for the love (and occasionally ppl don't like your newest work). I try to find job in the work itself, though sometimes I have to take a break when it doesn't feel rewarding. So I try to write books that I can enjoy reading, but then they aren't always what publishers think the public might read.
And I wonder how these self-published breakouts happen like Hugh Howey's 'Wool'.
They spend money to make money. They hand out free copies, they generate hype, and then their books start to sell. Or they're part of the porn genre, and in that case, no advertising is needed. My stuff usually needs a link because it's far down the list.
(https://www.flipsidecomics.com/comic/com-flip27-30.gif)
(https://www.flipsidecomics.com/comic/com-flip28-05.gif)
(https://www.flipsidecomics.com/comic/com-flip28-09.gif)
It's possible to do that, I just don't care about that. I want to make books that I enjoy reading and that other people ideally enjoy reading, though really I expect the response of "Well I tried to read your book..."
And yes, as you'll notice, I write like this even when not arguing with people.
-
Here's where you myopic narcissism comes into play. Just because you've had craptastic soul crushing jobs doesn't mean everyone else has.
I've had some amazingly fulfilling jobs and have lived right in the heart of a big city for years and have never found it rushed or frenzied. Quite chill actually. It's all in what you make of it. And I get that it's not for everyone. But that's the point. I don't smear my personal experience across all of humanity like you do. Claiming that I have the answers for everyone, like you do.
Bah, you know you secretly hate your job.
I think what tended to do it for me was stuff like wanting to be helpful. Like at the library, they had a computer that was displaying their announcements. I tried to fix it so the background would display that. Wound up making more work for them as nobody could figure out what I was doing.
Yesterday, I tried to help a wasp, stuck in a window pane I opened the window and tried to move the guy down towards the exit. The thing bit me for my trouble.
This kinda relates back to topic. Jesus wanted to save the world from their sins. Had he been a regular person, like me, he would discover that ppl (and wasps) don't wanna be helped. We're happy Jesus, we don't wanna be saved. Oh and also, crucify him. The Christian mindset is that unlike me, he actually succeeded because his goal wasn't about this world but the next. That he wasn't a regular human. Now you can chalk that up as wishful thinking, but I think it's something to aspire to.
-
Looks like this thread is finally dead. So ummm... enjoy your book if you managed to find a good version.
-
Well, here’s some more to the muddle:
I just saw a YouTube advert from a group called “One for Israel”. Not sure how the omniscient Google algorithm tagged me for this one?
Seems this lot are Jews who believe Jesus is the Messiah. Now, ignorant to the ways of religion that I am, I’d have thought that would basically make them Christians, right? Apparently not.
Can anyone explain this to me?
-
israelis
hebrews
jews
they have many names
they identify as a peoples and/ or as religion.
a jew can be a christian which some the original jew followers were.
and i'm definitely NOT saying jew like JEW! (with accent of disdain while spitting on the ground).
-
israelis
hebrews
jews
they have many names
they identify as a peoples and/ or as religion.
a jew can be a christian which some the original jew followers were.
and i'm definitely NOT saying jew like JEW! (with accent of disdain while spitting on the ground).
OK, I know said I was ignorant, so only have myself to blame.
I get that it’s kind of both a race and religion, I know that there are plenty of Christian Israelis, that Jesus and his early followers were Jewish, etc, etc
But this just seemed… something else.
If they want to preach about Jesus, then why make such a thing about being Jewish? It seemed to be aimed exclusively at Jewish people. Just weird.
And why the fuck am I, an English atheist getting these ads? Maybe rejecting tracking cookies really does work after all?
-
ya my wife got her period and we joked yesterday because fking YT sent me women's bathing suit ad that boasted period proof liner
hahaha
we don't even have a google sound device so how they found out?
crazy
anywho
islam and muslims
westerns and christian
israeli and jew
they just promoting their group because they want to hang out with jews who are christians?
do you think it's weird they're being oddly specific or you think it's weird becayse the jews-christian relationship?
cougar dating ap
maga dating ap
rich person dating ap
sugar daddy dating ap
jew dating ap
-
Well, here’s some more to the muddle:
I just saw a YouTube advert from a group called “One for Israel”. Not sure how the omniscient Google algorithm tagged me for this one?
Seems this lot are Jews who believe Jesus is the Messiah. Now, ignorant to the ways of religion that I am, I’d have thought that would basically make them Christians, right? Apparently not.
Can anyone explain this to me?
Indeed. They are Christians, who have forgotten or ignore the laws that Jesus taught.
Those are quoted in in the first TLDR below.
The explanation is that like most religions, the Abrahamic cults who believe in Yahweh and Jesus have always has a right wing supernatural believers, and a left wing who are not literal readers of their myths.
More on this from a Jewish perspective in the second TLDR below.
============
On Jesus dying for Christians, from a moral perspective.
It takes quite an imagination and ego to think a god would actually die for us, after condemning us unjustly in the first place.
Christians have swallowed a lie and don’t care how evil they make Jesus to keep their feel good get out of hell free card.
It is a lie, first and foremost, because, like it or not, having another innocent person suffer or die for the wrongs you have done, --- so that you might escape responsibility for having done them, --- is immoral.
To abdicate your personal responsibility for your actions or use a scapegoat is immoral.
Christians also have to ignore what Jesus, as a Jewish Rabbi, would have taught his people.
Ezekiel 18:20 The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.
Deuteronomy 24:16 (ESV) "Fathers shall not be put to death because of their children, nor shall children be put to death because of their fathers. Each one shall be put to death for his own sin.
Psa 49;7 None of them can by any means redeem his brother, nor give to God a ransom for him:
There is no way that Christians parents would teach their children to use a scapegoat.
Good morals and Jesus speak against the messianic concept and bids us pick up our crosses and follow him.
=========
I hope you can see how intelligent the ancients were as compared to the mental efforts that modern preachers and theists are using with the literal reading of myths.
https://bigthink.com/videos/what-is-god-2-2
Further.
http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/03132009/watch.html
Rabbi Hillel, the older contemporary of Jesus, said that when asked to sum up the whole of Jewish teaching, while he stood on one leg, said, "The Golden Rule. That which is hateful to you, do not do to your neighbor. That is the Torah. And everything else is only commentary. Now, go and study it."
Please listen as to what is said about the literal reading of myths.
"Origen, the great second or third century Greek commentator on the Bible said that it is absolutely impossible to take these texts literally. You simply cannot do so. And he said, "God has put these sort of conundrums and paradoxes in so that we are forced to seek a deeper meaning."
Matt 7;12 So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets.
This is how early Gnostic Christians view the transition from reading myths properly to destructive literal reading and idol worship.
Regards
DL
-
ya my wife got her period and we joked yesterday because fking YT sent me women's bathing suit ad that boasted period proof liner
hahaha
we don't even have a google sound device so how they found out?
crazy
anywho
islam and muslims
westerns and christian
israeli and jew
they just promoting their group because they want to hang out with jews who are christians?
do you think it's weird they're being oddly specific or you think it's weird becayse the jews-christian relationship?
cougar dating ap
maga dating ap
rich person dating ap
sugar daddy dating ap
jew dating ap
Well it’s not a dating app and they appear to be trying to convert rather than just hang out.
Anyway, I think I’ve found my answer: Messianic Judaism. An evangelical movement that identifies as Judaism, but everyone else apparently considers to be basically Christian. I bet that pisses them off.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messianic_Judaism
At least I’m not the only one who thought it seemed a tad contradictory.
I hope you can see how intelligent the ancients were as compared to the mental efforts that modern preachers and theists are using with the literal reading of myths.
Thanks for the reply, but I personally don’t believe any of it, so you probably shouldn’t waste too much time on me.
I have no issue with other peoples’ religious beliefs as long as they don’t interfere with everyone else who doesn’t agree.
-
Well, here’s some more to the muddle:
I just saw a YouTube advert from a group called “One for Israel”. Not sure how the omniscient Google algorithm tagged me for this one?
Seems this lot are Jews who believe Jesus is the Messiah. Now, ignorant to the ways of religion that I am, I’d have thought that would basically make them Christians, right? Apparently not.
Can anyone explain this to me?
Wow, I thought this thread was dead, so I stopped looking. Then suddenly there are about six new posts. I can't answer them all.
Ummm to answer your question though. Judaism isn't about rejection of Jesus as the Messiah.
It's a racial thing (meaning Soros is a Jew despite being very anti-Israel), it's a national thing (meaning non-religious Jews can nonetheless be devted to the nation of Israel), and a religious thing.
Some of this religion is about traditions, some is about worship of God. Messianic Hews keep kosher (unlike Christians ) and celebrate Jewish holidays, but they see Jesus as the Messiah. They may or may not also see him as the Son of God.
Complicating mattees is that nany Jewish rabbis arw deeply anti-Christian and tell other Jews that these are false Jews and that they would become cut off if they accepted Jesus was the Messiah.
-
The so called Judaism and Islam of those sand people that y'all talking about are inventions of the Beast System that we are living in!
Human civilisation began in central and northen Europe, probably British Isles! Hence British Israilism!
Also thank God for the Spanish! If it wasn't for them there would be no Mexico. Mexico rocks!
-
Complicating mattees is that nany Jewish rabbis arw deeply anti-Christian and tell other Jews that these are false Jews and that they would become cut off if they accepted Jesus was the Messiah.
Complicating matters is that many Christian ministers are deeply anti-Jewish and tell other Christians that these are false Christians and that they would become cut off if they denied that Jesus was the Messiah.
-
I hope you can see how intelligent the ancients were as compared to the mental efforts that modern preachers and theists are using with the literal reading of myths.
Thanks for the reply, but I personally don’t believe any of it, so you probably shouldn’t waste too much time on me.
I have no issue with other peoples’ religious beliefs as long as they don’t interfere with everyone else who doesn’t agree.
[/quote]
My statement was for those who have retarded their thinking with supernatural beliefs.
Not a good way to think. It is for the mentally lazy.
Regards
DL
-
Complicating mattees is that nany Jewish rabbis arw deeply anti-Christian and tell other Jews that these are false Jews and that they would become cut off if they accepted Jesus was the Messiah.
Complicating matters is that many Christian ministers are deeply anti-Jewish and tell other Christians that these are false Christians and that they would become cut off if they denied that Jesus was the Messiah.
That's Revelation. You're talking about the so-called "synagogue of Satan", no?
Some background on that. Everyone thinks that it's Christians talking about the Jews that stayed in Judaism.
Frank Harding of The Apocalypse Deception: The Book of Revelation is not what it claims to be disagrees, making a connection between Christians who taught circumcision of the flesh mentioned... mostly in Acts, I think (the Judaizers), and the text of Revelation which is very anti-grace, and seems to have borrowed heavily from Ezekiel. In other words, this is not Christians talking about Jews. It's a sect who wanted Christianity to be moralistic like Judaism but spread it to Gentiles (gave lip service to Jesus, but didn't understand his message of repentance and forgiveness), talking about Christians who did things like eat sacrifices or let women preach or eat pork. These were things Christianity could do, that the Jews resented. And so a bunch of false Christians call Christians false Christians. Do you get why Christianity is kinda a funny religion yet? For years, what's not funny is that Christianity labored under a false teaching (known as Roman Catholicism) where works not grace were important, where Mary not Jesus forgives sins, and importantly back then, where priests forgive sins and do so by sale of indulgences. Of equal importance is that priests reading this crap text, saw Jews as the synagogue of Satan and pogroms against them started. I ripped Revelation out of several copies of the New Testament, and you should too. Especially since it lets you take some steam off the rest of the Bible.
Gnostic Christian Bishop, it looks like you messed up a quote. Also, why do you call yourself that when you are clearly not Gnostic, not Christian, and not a bishop?
-
"Rip out revelation?"Picking and choosing ....nice
Also
Irrationally hating jews possibly comes from remnants of nazi whitespremacy.
There are christian persians and arabs
-
No, on the one hand, you accuse Christianity of being too brutal and point to this end times vision of a bunch of people getting tossed in to a lake of fire.
On the other hand, you tell me to uphold canon on a book you probably don't even follow or believe in.
Make up your mind.
As for me, I have. A loving God would not toss people into a lake of fire.
For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life. 17 For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through Him. 18He who believes in Him is not judged; he who does not believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. 19 This is the judgment, that the Light has come into the world, and men loved the darkness rather than the Light, for their deeds were evil. 20 For everyone who does evil hates the Light, and does not come to the Light for fear that his deeds will be exposed. 21 But he who practices the truth comes to the Light, so that his deeds may be manifested as having been wrought in God.
Directly contradicts Revelation.
So does this:
6 I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you to live in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel— 7 which is really no gospel at all. Evidently some people are throwing you into confusion and are trying to pervert the gospel of Christ. 8 But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let them be under God’s curse!
The very first thing "John" says is that an angel told him all of this!
As for the second point, you're confusing truth for hate.
Christianity is a reform of the gospel of works that Judaism labored under in 1 century and before, where Jews lost sight of the relationship with God, and fixated on laws. There is nothing inherently wrong with kosher or with Jewish people. But there is plenty wrong 1st century Judaism. Jesus tells in detail about the "pay to win" nature of Jewish temple, and how the widows and orphans are neglected, and how the Sabbath laws are making the poor struggle that much more.
-
As a side topic, I found this today after crawling the web on Tears of the Kingdom.
-
Make up your mind.
Nothing like cherry-picking from the most cherry-picked book ever to have existed. So trite and obvious. "My god would never murder everyone on the planet except for a handful. No, not my god." Ask the next person,"Oh yeah he would...He had to purge and start over, murdering babies and saving the mosquitoes had to happen..."
Fast forward rounding out the wrath of god in Revelations, here we go again..."My god would never murder everyone on the planet except for the faithful. No, not my god." Ask the next person,"Oh yeah he would...He had to purge and start over, make way for the second coming and all that..."
Nice bookends.
So yeah, just pick and choose what you like and don't like. That's pretty much how religion works. Though you gotta hand it to the creationist/literalists even though they are a bunch of psychopaths. At least they are all in, no whishy-washyness. What's in the book is the word of god, it all happened and will all happen. Buck-up and fly right. Or else!
-
Or else?
Good to know that the people who accuse Christians of being hateful and evil are not above resorting to threats. Or else what? You'll come to my house and hurt me? Or maybe, you'll sic God on me, even though you've decided the Bible is mostly nonsense?
The reason Revelation is removed by me has alot to do with the fact that at the beginning, there was a need for God to say "or else". Certain behaviors had to be corrected because people only knew laws. But after Jesus came, there isn't. So Revelation directly contradicts the gospel by making things once again about the wrath of God. But there isn't an "or else" any more.
But don't take my word for it. The letters even say this.
The Purpose of the Law
(see also Romans 7:1–6)
15Brothers, let me put this in human terms. Even a human covenant, once it is ratified, cannot be canceled or amended. 16The promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. The Scripture does not say, “and to seeds,” meaning many, but “and to your seed,” meaning One, who is Christ.
17What I mean is this: The law that came 430 years later does not revoke the covenant previously established by God, so as to nullify the promise. 18For if the inheritance depends on the law, then it no longer depends on a promise; but God freely granted it to Abraham through a promise.
19Why then was the law given? It was added because of transgressions, until the arrival of the seed to whom the promise referred. It was administered through angels by a mediator. 20A mediator is unnecessary, however, for only one party; but God is one.
21Is the law, then, opposed to the promises of God? Certainly not! For if a law had been given that could impart life, then righteousness would certainly have come from the law. 22But the Scripture pronounces all things confined by sin, so that by faith in Jesus Christ the promise might be given to those who believe.
23Before this faith came, we were held in custody under the law, locked up until faith should be revealed. 24So the law became our guardian to lead us to Christ, that we might be justified by faith. 25Now that faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian.
The guy who was on the cross with Jesus? The one he said would join him in paradise? A murderer and a thief. The people he told God "forgive them for they do not know what they are doing"? They were calling for his crucifixion.
There isn't an "or else" anymore. The law still exists, and you would be arrested by cops if you tried anything against me. But unlike before, your sins are forgiven.
Therefore no matter how many mushrooms John had, there cannot be a Revelation. I'm not "cherrypicking." Canon was established by men, not God. Corruptmen in the Catholic church, who even though Luther said,
About this Book of the Revelation of John, I leave everyone free to hold his own opinions. I would not have anyone bound to my opinion or judgment. I say what I feel. I miss more than one thing in this book, and it makes me consider it to be neither apostolic nor prophetic.
First and foremost, the apostles do not deal with visions, but prophesy in clear and plain words, as do Peter and Paul, and Christ in the gospel. For it befits the apostolic office to speak clearly of Christ and his deeds, without images and visions. Moreover there is no prophet in the Old Testament, to say nothing of the New, who deals so exclusively with visions and images. For myself, I think it approximates the Fourth Book of Esdras; I can in no way detect that the Holy Spirit produced it.
Moreover he seems to me to be going much too far when he commends his own book so highly (Revelation 22)—indeed, more than any of the other sacred books do, though they are much more important—and threatens that if anyone takes away anything from it, God will take away from him, etc. Again, they are supposed to be blessed who keep what is written in this book; and yet no one knows what that is, to say nothing of keeping it. This is just the same as if we did not have the book at all. And there are many far better books available for us to keep.
Many of the fathers also rejected this book a long time ago; although St. Jerome, to be sure, refers to it in exalted terms and says that it is above all praise and that there are as many mysteries in it as words. Still, Jerome cannot prove this at all, and his praise at numerous places is too generous.
Finally, let everyone think of it as his own spirit leads him. My spirit cannot accommodate itself to this book. For me this is reason enough not to think highly of it: Christ is neither taught nor known in it. But to teach Christ, this is the thing which an apostle is bound above all else to do; as Christ says in Acts 1, “You shall be my witnesses.” Therefore I stick to the books which present Christ to me clearly and purely.
the Catholic Church went around telling people that anyone who didn't accept Catholic canon (including the book of Revelation) was a heretic.
So sorry, but ummm I have my own canon, and Revelation is at the top of the list of things left out.
-
Or else?
Good to know that the people who accuse Christians of being hateful and evil are not above resorting to threats. Or else what? You'll come to my house and hurt me? Or maybe, you'll sic God on me, even though you've decided the Bible is mostly nonsense?
No. It has nothing to do with me. I'm just saying that religious texts are chock full of fear and "or else's". The bible and the quran pretty much top that list.
You're all a bunch of sinners worshipping false idols and no me. So I'm gonna murder all of you and reset.
You believers get the rapture awesomeness, the rest of you lot are destroyed by the 7 seals, four horsemen, fire, earthquakes, famine, pestilence, bowls of gross shit poured all over the place, etc. And all the other other craziness in between. The quran fairs no better.
So sorry, but ummm I have my own canon, and Revelation is at the top of the list of things left out.
Thanks for proving my point.
-
First off. Fare refers to fortune, fair refers tpo something being at least okay. Fairs, therefore is not a verb. If you're gonna sat something wrong and stupid, at least use good spelling/grammar doing it.
Second of all, Islam is actually a Christian heresy. Oh they'll deny it up and down, but this is pretty much what went down. Early Christianity had a bunch of people who either didn't get it, or were actively trying to distort the message of the cross. Galatians discusses this.
6 I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you to live in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel— 7 which is really no gospel at all. Evidently some people are throwing you into confusion and are trying to pervert the gospel of Christ. 8 But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let them be under God’s curse! 9 As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let them be under God’s curse!
So what is this false gospel? Well read on!
10 Am I now trying to win the approval of human beings, or of God? Or am I trying to please people? If I were still trying to please people, I would not be a servant of Christ.
People pleasing. Living according to human ideas of morality. Moral law instead of forgiveness and love. The idea of constructed laws.
Islam came about from a bunch of people living in Petra. We think they're Arabs, but they had contact with people who taught the Trinity was Father, Child, and Mother. There wasn't a Muhammad. There wasn't a Mecca. We can conclude this from several clues. But the point of just as bad is something everyone says. Load of crap. Islam is backsliding by a bunch of heretics that believed in laws rather than grace. They have laws on how many times you pray, what women wear, what direction you face when praying, even what hand you use to eat/masturbate/wipe your butt.
Same exact goofballs that tried to add Revelation to the Bible pushed this shit. You know how I know this? Because Islam to a very large extent talks about end times! In other words, precisely the problem is the Muslims were propagandized by people who thought in final days, all heretics will be killed so they go ahead and do just that. Moral of the story: thinking you have to go convert everyone because it's the final hour is the problem.
Thanks for proving my point.
Actually, no I didn't? Your point is that people say the Bible is filled with peace and love, yet kinda excuses things like THE FINAL JUDGEMENT or Noah's Ark. My position is that canon is not written by God, and anyone who tells you that either (1) doesn't know that they are talking about or (2) is trying to sell you something. I am not making excuses for it, I am saying that without exception everyone is saved by Jesus but some people have a harder time than others.
Jesus mentioned blaspheming the Holy Spirit as a bad sin (the only one that isn't automatically forgiven). Essentially, when you tell people lies about who Jesus or God is. Jesus according to the gospel, said he is NOT here to judge the world. Cannot get more clear than that! That means all these plagues, famines, signs, and weirdness? Garbage. Lies. Nonsense.
Jesus says this:
24 Jesus left the temple and was walking away when his disciples came up to him to call his attention to its buildings. 2 “Do you see all these things?” he asked. “Truly I tell you, not one stone here will be left on another; every one will be thrown down.”
3 As Jesus was sitting on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to him privately. “Tell us,” they said, “when will this happen, and what will be the sign of your coming and of the end of the age?”
4 Jesus answered: “Watch out that no one deceives you. 5 For many will come in my name, claiming, ‘I am the Messiah,’ and will deceive many. 6 You will hear of wars and rumors of wars, but see to it that you are not alarmed. Such things must happen, but the end is still to come. 7 Nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom. There will be famines and earthquakes in various places. 8 All these are the beginning of birth pains.
9 “Then you will be handed over to be persecuted and put to death, and you will be hated by all nations because of me. 10 At that time many will turn away from the faith and will betray and hate each other, 11 and many false prophets will appear and deceive many people. 12 Because of the increase of wickedness, the love of most will grow cold, 13 but the one who stands firm to the end will be saved. 14 And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come.
15 “So when you see standing in the holy place ‘the abomination that causes desolation,’ spoken of through the prophet Daniel—let the reader understand— 16 then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains. 17 Let no one on the housetop go down to take anything out of the house. 18 Let no one in the field go back to get their cloak. 19 How dreadful it will be in those days for pregnant women and nursing mothers! 20 Pray that your flight will not take place in winter or on the Sabbath. 21 For then there will be great distress, unequaled from the beginning of the world until now—and never to be equaled again.
22 “If those days had not been cut short, no one would survive, but for the sake of the elect those days will be shortened. 23 At that time if anyone says to you, ‘Look, here is the Messiah!’ or, ‘There he is!’ do not believe it. 24 For false messiahs and false prophets will appear and perform great signs and wonders to deceive, if possible, even the elect. 25 See, I have told you ahead of time.
26 “So if anyone tells you, ‘There he is, out in the wilderness,’ do not go out; or, ‘Here he is, in the inner rooms,’ do not believe it. 27 For as lightning that comes from the east is visible even in the west, so will be the coming of the Son of Man. 28 Wherever there is a carcass, there the vultures will gather.
29 “Immediately after the distress of those days
“‘the sun will be darkened,
and the moon will not give its light;
the stars will fall from the sky,
and the heavenly bodies will be shaken.
I omitted the heading because it's wrong. This is about the destruction of the temple in 70 AD, and the incredible turmoil surrounding that event. in fact, some of these signs happen with the death of Jesus. Some will always happen, as they are part oc the struggle of being a Christian. Not some grand future event. In fact, Jesus tells us not to put stock in signs or be alarmed.
There is NO official canon. There are books in the Bible that are universal, while others are not. Some groups accept some scripture, some do not.
But Revelation should be tossed into a dumpster, have oil poured on it until it turns to ash. Then sucked into a vacuum. Tossed into an urn. Sent to the middle of the ocean and dropped in with a rock added. It has nearly 2000 years of leading people away from Jesus and into fundamentalist thinking. The fundies are wrong. They have always been wrong, and they have centuries of violence and murder to answer for. And I'll thank you to stop hating on Christians for what fundies, Muslims, and Catholics do.
-
But Revelation should be tossed into a dumpster, have oil poured on it until it turns to ash. Then sucked into a vacuum. Tossed into an urn. Sent to the middle of the ocean and dropped in with a rock added. It has nearly 2000 years of leading people away from Jesus and into fundamentalist thinking. The fundies are wrong. They have always been wrong, and they have centuries of violence and murder to answer for. And I'll thank you to stop hating on Christians for what fundies, Muslims, and Catholics do.
Thanks again for proving my point about you cherry-pickers.
-
Thanks again for proving my point about you cherry-pickers.
(https://media.tenor.com/v4ub63L9VbgAAAAd/coffee-cherry.gif)
Here's a funny thing about picking cherries (or any fruit really). Something I know from garden/farm work.
So, if you expect to get paid, you take as much fruit as possible. But the master isn't going to look fondly on you wasting paid time picking rotten fruit. Nor unripened fruit.
Prophecies are unripened fruit. We ignore them until they seem like they are likely to come to pass. And as I know from figs, some never do. They were unripe near the end of the season, so before they come to fruit, they die. These are like prophecies where they miss the window of opportunity. They just can't work anymore because there no longer are any Hittites. Some have enough time to fruit, in which case, we pick them when they start to ripen. We don't do like those damned food industry people and put it on a truck to gas ripen. In the same way, there is no sense worrying about predicted things that haven't happened yet. The prophecies of several books in the Bible either came to fruit, died on the vine, or still haven't happened. If it hasn't happened, unless there is good cause why it should, there is no sense stressing over it. Revelation is filled with prophecy, and unfortunately, the writing is so vague that much like the garbage of Nostradamus, it could be true or complete crap. There are people who are convinced Nostradamus accurately predicted 2020, and will know exactly how the Earth will turn out. Rubbish.
Next we have rotten fruit. These are works of scripture that do not speak to the Bible. The Bible actually contains a curse against scripture that is against the gospel. And guess what? Revelation meets all standards.
But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let them be under God’s curse!
1. Against the teachings of the gospel
2. John actually mentions that an angel from heaven gave these prophecies
Rotten fruit is fruit that you shouldn't pick because it potentially rots the core teaching. Just as "one bad apple can ruin the entire bunch" (this isn't just a cute expression, rotting apples have ripening agents), including faulty scripture creates a canon that is bad overall. Revelation disregards the Resurrection of Jesus when it instead talks of the Second Coming. It disregards the idea in Romans that nothing can separate us from the love of God, when it tries to tell people that if you have some sorta tattoo or mark on your body, this will somehow brand you as not God's. It disregards the doctrine of grace, when it over and over again teaches that bad works will result in you being tossed in a lake of fire. And in fact, nowhere in the gospel is there mention of this lake of fire until you get to Revelation. It's also one of the most violent and destructive books in the Bible, made to sound happy only by virtue of 1000 years of peace (but let's talk about that; this peace is a bunch of licentious behavior, effectively the equivalent of if I said free love was suddenly gonna be okay, even though before all that everyone got AIDS if they slept around alot) and this pretty sounding Eden-like place for the worthy (just one problem: there are no worthy, by the Bible's own standards, as only with Jesus's grace freely provided do we have salvation).
How did this rotten fruit make the cut?
https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/13997/what-historical-reasons-resulted-in-revelation-being-included-in-most-christian
As a source, the book of Revelation is something of an outlier for a book of the Bible that got accepted into the canonical New Testament of most branches of Christianity: it is the only explicitly eschatological work in the New Testament, its date of composition is generally taken to be far later than the other books, its content is dramatic, and its author is not certain.
Of the authorship, they say...
However, scholars debate the exact identity of the John who wrote the Apocalypse. Briefly, they give four possibilities: 1) John the Apostle; 2) John the Elder; 3) John Mark; 4) an unknown/pseudonymous John. As Revelation displays no similarities with Mark's gospel in style or grammar the third option has never been a serious consideration.3 Likewise, an unknown or pseudonymous John would be unlikely to gain major acceptance in the churches. Indeed, a pseudonymous work had little chance of becoming canonical.
Are you sure about that? It was not included in the canon until 419 AD, long after any of the authors who might have written it were dead. We have no idea who wrote the Gospel of John (it does not sound like John, somewhat arrogant brother of James, "son of thunder", as this "John" won't even mention his name). You see, writing styles can be analyzed. The book of Revelation has several expressions that linguists and historians connect with Egyptian Jews, not with Christians under Roman occupation who Further, this Patmos story only exists in Revelation and in writings outside the Bible. There are a number of works that didn't make it into the Bible. These are called Apocrypha (extra stuff) and Pseudepigrapha (false writings). So yes, it is that damned important that text actually be properly authored, or we can't call it the word of God. That would make a forged text, written by people who didn't know Jesus, didn't like Jesus, and didn't want the message of the gospel to actually be understood.
And so, we have what is called a canon. A canon is a group of accepted books. How were these texts made canon? Divine light from heaven? Sorry, no. A bunch of people basically said it is. Forgive me, but I think I'll stay skeptical.
Some indeed of those before our time rejected and altogether impugned the book, examining it chapter by chapter and declaring it to be unintelligible and illogical, and its title fake. For they say that it is not John's, no, nor yet an apocalypse, since it is veiled by its heavy, thick curtain of unintelligibility; and that the author of this book was not only not one of the apostles, nor even one of the saints or those belonging to the Church, but Cerinthus, the same who created the sect called ‘Cerinthian’ after him, since he desired to affix to his own forgery a name worthy of credit. . . . But for my part I should not dare to reject the book, since many brethren hold that the interpretation of each several passages in some way hidden and more wonderful.
We see in the comments of Dionysius that some Church Fathers were reluctant to reject the book, simply because they did not understand it. Not understanding it, they feared that it might contain hidden mysteries that should not be lost. For others, the fact that the book was signed by a man named John meant that this otherwise unknown author might be the apostle John, in which case they dared not reject the book.
I dare. I dare to reject this book, even though its author says that anyone who adds or removes from the Bible is damned. "John" cannot damn me, only God can. As to this "John", nothing about the way he writes is at all similar either to the Gospel of John, nor 1/2/3 John. That you accept it as canon is not reassuring, since your vested interest is not in following the gospel but in accusing the Bible. So yeah, I dare to reject this book. And you should too. Anyone who follows the contents of this book desires a war where everyone is killed, then revived, and people who don't believe the right way are enslaved. This is a prophecy written as a sort of wet dream by Satan. Rotten fruit.
(https://4.bp.blogspot.com/_sxS111oiBik/TAm8FqlmonI/AAAAAAAAAHM/2bJ-ZU6oYNI/s1600/Cherry+brown+rot-Alternaria-comparison.JPG)
You okay with me picking this cherry out of the finished bunch? Or you wanna keep it?
-
John of Patmos: Errors, Contradictions and False Prophecies
by Michael R. Burch
As we count down to 2012, should anyone believe the Revelation of John of Patmos aka John the Divine? Or is the book of Revelation full of errors, contradictions and false prophecies? Was the writer of the Apocalypse a prophet, or a deeply disturbed lunatic?
Robert G. Ingersoll branded Revelation "the insanest of all books."
Thomas Jefferson considered Revelation "merely the ravings of a maniac."
Martin Luther said "Christ is neither taught nor known in it."
John Calvin "had grave doubts about its value."
Mark Twain said, "Most people are bothered by those passages of Scripture they do not understand, but the passages that bother me are those I do understand."
What bothers me about the Revelation of John of Patmos is not the parts I don't understand, but the parts I do understand: the parts where God, Jesus Christ and the Angels abandon every ethical teaching enshrined in the Bible and becoming a pack of rabid, religion-besotted serial killers.
Clearly, the book of Revelation is full of errors and horrors. And the errors and horrors are not only factual, scientific and prophetic, but also theological, because John of Patmos clearly refuted core Christian beliefs. For example, John called Jesus the "bright and morning star" when that was Lucifer's designation (Isaiah 14:11-15). John then went on to describe a God who acts like the Devil: killing women, children and innocent animals, then torturing human beings with fire and brimstone, "in the presence of the Lamb and Holy Angels." What sort of "God," what sort of "lamb" and what sort of "angels" torture other beings with fire and brimstone, or sit idly by and watch them being tortured? Will heaven be like Auschwitz? Will Jesus Christ turn out to be another Mengele and God the Father another Hitler?
In his bizarre, palpably evil "revelation," John of Patmos said Jesus would kill the children of an adulteress "with death." Crude grammar aside, according to the Bible, Jesus rescued an adulteress from being stoned, so why would he kill innocent children for something their mother did, when the act didn't merit death even for her? Why do so many Christians insist on turning Jesus into a woman-killer and a child-killer, when they say he will return to destroy multitudes of non-Christians? Good men do not kill women and children purposefully for any reason, and to kill anyone, even an adult, for having sex is barbaric. When Christians calmly assume that having sex is a valid reason for other people to be killed, then tortured for all eternity, one must question whether they believe that Jesus Christ is actually the Devil. If like John of Patmos they believe Jesus will kill children because adults have sex, they make him seem perverse beyond all belief.
Of course one can "prove" that their is an afterlife, or the God exists, or that Jesus continues to live in some other dimension. But it almost seems not to matter, to me. What's the point of "belief" if the the only "hope" is that beings worse than Hitler and Mengele will allow their obedient slaves to watch them kill, then eternally torture, other human beings?
And why such unbelievable punishments for trivial things like eating, drinking and having sex? According to John of Patmos, Christians are condemned for eating food sacrificed to idols, but according to Jesus, Peter, and Paul, all food is clean. Paul said that he could eat food offered to idols with a clear conscience. Jesus said that it is what comes out of our mouths (words) that we should worry about, not the food we ingest. Among Christians, only the Judaizers that Paul opposed so vehemently believed certain foods were "unclean." Obviously, John of Patmos was a Judaizer. There is no reason to worry about food being offered to idols, because the "gods" represented by idols are not real. So John of Patmos was a superstitious man, according to Jesus, Peter and Paul, if he believed that offering food to a nonexistent "god" made it "unclean."
Contradicts even basic teachings of Jesus
That John is a Judaizer is clear, because even if a church is doing well, it must continue doing works to be saved. Salvation is not by grace, but depends on works, eating the right things, not having the wrong kind of sex, etc. This is clearly illustrated in these verses:
Revelation 20:12-13—And I saw the dead, great and small, standing before the throne, and books were opened. Another book was opened, which is the book of life. The dead were judged according to what they had done as recorded in the books. The sea gave up the dead that were in it, and death and Hades gave up the dead that were in them, and each person was judged according to what he had done.
So obviously grace had nothing to do with salvation, according to John. The only thing that mattered was works.
It is also important to note that Hades was not "hell," but the grave. This is also true for the Hebrew word Sheol. Sheol and Hades were not hell, but the grave or the abode of all the dead (not just the "wicked"). It makes no sense to say that God sent people to "hell" only to judge them and decide that they were righteous, after all. So Bibles such as the KJV are obviously wrong when they translate Sheol and Hades as "hell." Job asked to be hidden from suffering in Sheol; King David said God would be with him if he made his bed in Sheol (i.e., if he died); the sons of Korah said God would redeem them from Sheol; and Israel himself said that he and Joseph would be reunited in Sheol. Obviously, they were not talking about a place of eternal suffering that could never be escaped. They were talking about the grave: a place where there would be no more suffering. But Christians have been terrified of a place called "hell" for centuries because of a Bible they fail to understand. There is no reason to believe in a place called "hell" as a revelation of an all-knowing God, because the God of the Bible never mentioned "hell" or suffering after death to his best human friends: Adam, Eve, Abel, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob/Israel, Joseph, Moses, David, Solomon, or a long line of Hebrew prophets (the prophets said even Sodom would be restored in the end). Nor did Paul ever mention a place called "hell" in his epistles, the earliest-written Christian texts. Nor did the word "hell" appear in any of the early Christian sermons recorded in the book of Acts (ostensibly the self-recorded history of the early church). When Peter spoke directly to the men who had murdered Jesus forty days before Pentecost, he spoke of the "restitution of all things to God, spoken of by all the Holy Prophets since the world began," but he never mentioned anyone going to a place called "hell" for any reason. The only Sheol/Hades references in the book of Acts are two quotations of David saying that his soul would not remain in Sheol (the grave). The early Christians were clearly using the resurrection of Jesus to claim that verses in the Hebrew Bible that prophesied a resurrection had been fulfilled. They claimed that this proved that Jesus was the Messiah. But there was nothing in the Hebrew Bible about a place called "hell" where people suffered after death. So while most Christians today assume that the Jews and early Christians believed in a place called "hell," this is obviously not the case. Because Sheol and Hades did not mean "hell," people like John of Patmos actually created a new, nameless place where human beings would be tortured after death. Later, it seems Sheol, Hades and this nameless "lake of fire" became confused, but if any of the parts of the Bible that prophesied the Messiah and a resurrection and a peaceful kingdom came from God, there never was a "hell" or a "lake of fire" for anyone to fear. Ironically, according to the Jewish historian Josephus, it was the Pharisees who introduced the idea of suffering after death to the Judaism of their day. So even more ironically, it seems John of Patmos may have been a Pharisee, one of the sworn enemies of Jesus.
Invents a hell where the rest of the Bible (if translated properly) does not have one!
And here's another area of disagreement: the Bible clearly teaches that human beings die only once, but John spoke of a "second death," which Christians were in danger of. If there is a second death, why didn't God or Jesus or any prophet or apostle ever mention it anywhere else in the Bible?
John said that Jesus would turn his back on Christians if they grew cold or even lukewarm, but this refutes the promise of Jesus never to leave or forsake Christians, "even to the ends of the earth."
John’s "God" is evil and unjust, a monster. For instance, John heard all the creatures of the earth praise God, after which he turned around and destroyed them.
John’s "God" made ridiculous mistakes. For instance, all the grass was destroyed by fire, but then later God "forgot" that the grass had been destroyed and told the giant locusts not to harm the grass.
John said Jesus had "paps" (female breasts). Nowhere else in the Bible is God or the Messiah described as being a hermaphrodite, although some pagan "gods" had such attributes.
John said Jesus would search the hearts and kidneys ("reins") of believers. Kidneys, really? No one believes kidneys play a role in how we think, act or feel, today. We know the will and emotions spring from our brains, not our kidneys!
John obviously believed that the earth was flat, with corners, and that the stars were tiny pinpoints of light.
If you agree that Revelation is part of the Bible, this means you accept flat Earth theology. Otherwise, at the very least you should agree that there are some things to reject about Revelation.
He said he saw four angels standing on the four corners of the earth. We know that his earth was flat because he said that every eye would see Jesus when he descended from the clouds. That can only happen on a flat earth. And John obviously believed that this would happen in his own lifetime, because he said that the people who had "pierced" Jesus would see him return. The people who had pierced Jesus were the Roman soldiers who crucified him. John may have written his original text while living in Jerusalem as it was being beseiged by the Romans (circa AD 70). If so, John was understandably full of hatred for the Romans and wanted Jesus to return and destroy them. In John's vision, which seems to have been wishful thinking, the people who had murdered Jesus would see him return to judge the "Beast" (the Roman emperor) and "Babylon" (the Roman empire).
His hatred of the Romans probably led John to say they would be tortured with fire and brimstone "in the presence of the Lamb and Holy Angels." But Jesus had asked God to forgive his murderers because they didn’t know what they were doing. How can these two very different visions of Jesus be reconciled? And how can anyone believe Jesus and the Angels are going to torture human beings, in heaven? So much for hell being "separation from God."
While most Christians now believe that Revelation forecasts future events, it seems clear that the early Christians believed Jesus would return to their generation:
Mathew 16:28―"I tell you the truth, there are some standing here who will not experience death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom."
Luke 9:27―"I tell you the truth, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the kingdom of God."
Mark 13:30―I tell you the truth, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place.
Mark 14:62―[Jesus speaking to his accusers said] "You will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Power and coming with the clouds of heaven."
And he was right! Stephen, when he was being stoned, says exactly that. The resurrection of Jesus was the second coming.
Yet another disagreement: John said God has seven spirits. This is not mentioned anywhere else in the Bible.
John also got the names of the twelve tribes wrong, leaving out Dan and Ephraim, but including Joseph. Joseph's sons were generally considered separate tribes in their own right because they were allotted tribal territories within Israel, but if Joseph’s sons are included there are fourteen tribes rather than twelve (or thirteen if Joseph is not counted). It seems highly unlikely that an all-wise God would have forgotten the names of the twelve tribes of Israel! But it's easy for human beings to make mistakes, when they think there are twelve tribes but there are actually fourteen.
John said the things he described must soon take place because the time was near. And in a way he was right, because Jerusalem was destroyed in AD 70 by the Romans, and the Jews who lived went into Diaspora. So their world really did end. But even if he was right about the timing, John was wrong about the victors.
In John's book, the churches are judged collectively, not as individuals, and it is not faith in Jesus that saves the churches, or the grace of God, but works.
The early church fathers knew the writer of Revelation was not the writer of the Gospel of John, because Revelation is a poorly written book. Ancient church fathers who denied that the author of John also wrote Revelation included John Chrysostom, Cyril of Jerusalem, Denis of Alexandria, Eusebius of Caesarea, and Gregory Nazianzen. For example, Eusebius wrote of Revelation: "The phrasing itself also helps to differentiate between the Gospel and Epistles of John on the one hand, and the book of Revelation on the other. The first two are written not only without errors in the Greek, but also with real skill with respect to vocabulary, logic and coherence of meaning. You won't find any barbaric expression, grammatical flaw, or vulgar expression in them. ... I don't deny that this other author (John of Patmos) had revelations ... but I notice that in neither language nor in style does he write accurate Greek. He makes use of barbaric expressions and is sometimes guilty even of grammatical error ... I don't say this in order to accuse him (far from it!), but simply to demonstrate that the two books are not at all similar."
Eighteen hundred years ago, Dionysius (Bishop of the Patriarchy of Alexandria) stated that Revelation was not written by the same person who wrote John's Gospel and Letters. He compared the writing styles and found John of Patmos to be unlike any other New Testament writer.
Tom Harpur describes Revelation's Greek style as "barbarous."
Martin Luther believed Revelation contradicted much of the content of the Gospel of John and the synoptic Gospels, so he relegated it to an appendix in his German translation of the Bible.
John of Patmos contradicts John the Apostle at nearly every turn. And we should remember that Revelation was doubted by many early Christians and was not generally accepted as part of the New Testament canon until AD 508. Some Christian sects still do not include it in their Bibles. Therefore criticism of Revelation is not new.
And if the number of the beast is so important, why do different texts have different numbers: 666 and 616?
The early Church father Irenaeus knew of several occurrences of the 616 variant. The testimony of Irenaeus is important, because he was a disciple of Polycarp who according to his followers was a disciple of the apostle John.
In May 2005, it was reported that scholars at Oxford University using advanced imaging techniques had been able to read previously illegible portions of the earliest known record of Revelation (a 1,700 year old papyrus), from the Oxyrhynchus site, Papyrus 115 or P115, dating one century after Irenaeus. The fragment gives the Number of the Beast as 616 (χ ι ϛ), rather than the majority text 666 (χ ξ ϛ). The other early witness Codex Ephraemi Rescriptus (C) has it written in full: hexakosiai deka hex (lit. six hundred sixteen). Significantly, P115 aligns with Codex Alexandrinus (A) and Codex Ephraemi Rescriptus (C) which are generally regarded as providing the best testimony to Revelation.
Dr. Paul Lewes in his book, A Key to Christian Origins (1932) wrote: "The figure 616 is given in one of the two best manuscripts, C (Codex Ephraemi Rescriptus, Paris), by the Latin version of Tyconius (DCXVI, ed. Souter in the Journal of Theology, SE, April 1913), and by an ancient Armenian version (ed. Conybaere, 1907). Irenaeus knew about it [the 616 reading], but did not adopt it (Haer. v.30,3), Jerome adopted it (De Monogramm., ed. Dom G Morin in the Rev. Benedictine, 1903). It is probably original."
Professor David C. Parker, Professor of New Testament Textual Criticism and Paleography at the University of Birmingham, thinks that 616, although less memorable than 666, is the original. Dr. Ellen Aitken said: "Scholars have argued for a long time over this, and it now seems that 616 was the original number of the beast. It's probably about 100 years before any other version."
The remainder of this page consists of a letter by Thomas Jefferson:
TO GENERAL ALEXANDER SMYTH MONTICELLO
January 17 1825
DEAR SIR,
I have duly received four proof sheets of your explanation of the Apocalypse with your letters of December 29th and January 8th; in the last of which you request that so soon as I shall be of opinion that the explanation you have given is correct I would express it in a letter to you. From this you must be so good as to excuse me because I make it an invariable rule to decline ever giving opinions on new publications in any case whatever. No man on earth has less taste or talent for criticism than myself and least and last of all should I undertake to criticise works on the Apocalypse. It is between fifty and sixty years since I read it and I then considered it as merely the ravings of a maniac no more worthy nor capable of explanation than the incoherences of our own nightly dreams. I was therefore well pleased to see in your first proof sheet that it was said to be not the production of St John but of Cerinthus a century after the death of that apostle. Yet the change of the author's name does not lessen the extravagances of the composition and come they from whomsoever they may I cannot so far respect them as to consider them as an allegorical narrative of events past or subsequent. There is not coherence enough in them to countenance any suite of rational ideas. You will judge therefore from this how impossible I think it that either your explanation or that of any man in the heavens above or on the earth beneath can be a correct one. What has no meaning admits no explanation and pardon me if I say with the candor of friendship that I think your time too valuable and your understanding of too high an order to be wasted on these paralogisms. You will perceive I hope also that I do not consider them as revelations of the Supreme Being whom I would not so far blaspheme as to impute to Him a pretension of revelation couched at the same time in terms which He would know were never to be understood by those to whom they were addressed. In the candor of these observations I hope you will see proofs of the confidence esteem and which I entertain for you.
A second person says that it was Cerinthus, not John. So do I, tbh.
The Writings of Thomas Jefferson By Thomas Jefferson, Andrew Adgate Lipscomb, Albert Ellery Bergh, Richard Holland Johnston, Thomas Jefferson memorial association of the United States
-
Anyway, that's why there is a muddle about Jesus. Because we hear him talk about forgiving even the people trying to kill him. And then we have these lovely writings about end times where both he and God are behaving like psychopaths (almost like the author of this book worships Satan as God). And then we followers, listening that rather than remembering that he rose from the dead, become crazed types who declare it's the end of the world and fight people they think are evil.
You see yet why I had to write this thread? It's because there is a real gap between what Christians believe about Jesus, and what he actually promised. "He will come again in glory to judge the Earth" is something they say every Sunday in the Nicene Creed. Uhhhhno? He explicitly says in John 3:17
For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him.
Judge the Earth? What are you smoking?
And this is also the divide between Christians and non-Christians. They think Christians are going to condemn them.
I might decide that I personally don't like how you live. But there is a vast difference between that, and you being condemned to "Hell". And what do you care if I did think you're going to Hell (I don't)? You don't have to believe in this stuff.
-
"Rip out revelation?"Picking and choosing ....nice
Also
Irrationally hating jews possibly comes from remnants of nazi whitespremacy.
There are christian persians and arabs
Sorry, this should have updated sooner, but I think I missed a comment somewhere. First off, I don't hate on Jews. I rightly understand that they have rejected God's Word to instead follow kings, manmade rules, and worship of the Temple. Now what do I mean by God's Word? Do I mean the Bible? No, I do NOT. The Bible is written text. It is not the Holy Word of God. The Bible tells us in Colossians 2 not to put our stock in manmade rules (using the laws about festivals and moon rites and what you cannot touch as an example; this closely parallels Jesus's own word about Jews practicing handwashing). John explicitly tells us that the Word of God is Jesus. 1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning.
Look, I can pick up a Bible and rip out random pages, then soak some of them in water, burn others, and feed others to a goat. The Bible is not the Holy Word of God, and should not be called the Holy Bible. However, the Bible contains the words of Jesus. Jesus is the Holy Word of God. The Bible is holy for that reason, not Holy as an object (that's idolatry). So yes, if something other than the Gospel (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John) offends, Jesus himself said to pluck it out. Despite attempts to muddle his words for two millennia, you can still very much piece together everything he meant to say. Which brings us to an argument between Cerinthus, a notable heresy writer and John. Cerinthus (Greek: Κήρινθος, romanized: Kērinthos; fl. c. 50-100 CE) was an early Gnostic, who was prominent as a heresiarch in the view of the early Church Fathers. Contrary to the Church Fathers, he used the Gospel of Cerinthus, and denied that the Supreme God made the physical world. In Cerinthus' interpretation, the Christ descended upon Jesus at baptism and guided him in ministry and the performing of miracles, but left him at the crucifixion. Similarly to the Ebionites, he maintained that Jesus was not born of a virgin, but was a mere man, the biological son of Mary and Joseph. (see Adoptionism)
Early Christian tradition describes Cerinthus as a contemporary to and opponent of John the Evangelist, who may have written the First Epistle of John and the Second Epistle of John to warn the less mature in faith and doctrine about the changes Cerinthus was making to the original gospel. According to early Christian sources, the Apostle John wrote his gospel specifically to refute the teachings of Cerinthus.
All that is known about Cerinthus comes from the writing of his theological opponents.
And also... A late second century heretical Christian sect (later dubbed the Alogi) headed by Caius of Rome alleged Cerinthus was the true author of the <Gospel of John and> Book of Revelation. According to Catholic Encyclopedia: Caius: "Additional light has been thrown on the character of Caius's dialogue against Proclus by Gwynne's publication of some fragments from the work of Hippolytus "Contra Caium" (Hermathena, VI, p. 397 sq.); from these it seems clear that Caius maintained that the Apocalypse of John was a work of the Gnostic Cerinthus."
You can call them heretical all you want, but they are right about the book of Revelation. I used <> to indicate a part that should be excised. No sane or reasonable person would think Revelation and John are written by the same author. That's a smear. John has told us that Jesus was referring to his bodt when talking about the rebuilding of the temple (invalidating the idea in Revelation of a new temple built by the Antichrist), and John also says Jesus has come to save the world not to condemn it (invalidating Revelation, where Jesus condemns the world rather than saving it). Either "Cerinthus" is arguing with himself according to Caius, or he believed (as do I) that John was written in opposition to Cerinthus (as even Wikipedia admits earlier), and you can pretty clearly tell which wrote which.
-
Basically you don't have a response to this, and are instead trying to bury it.