Pope says...will the more conservative follow his lead?

[Cerpin Taxt]

Um, the point remains no matter what our objections are to pedophilia. Jesus didn't directly condemn it. Do you think God isn't offended by somebody molesting a 4 year old?

If there is a God, it's certainly within his power to stop it, and yet he doesn't.

If a certain person could simply flip a switch and instantly end pedophelia everywhere, what would you think of that person if he refused to do it?

 

[Fanatical Meat]

If there is a God, it's certainly within his power to stop it, and yet he doesn't.

If a certain person could simply flip a switch and instantly end pedophelia everywhere, what would you think of that person if he refused to do it?

That's why we're not in the Garden of Edan

 

[buckshot24]

That's why we're not in the Garden of Edan

If God "flipped a switch" and ended all sin we'd all be dead.

 

[Retro Rob]

No, it isn't. Jesus says quite plainly how to get to heaven: feed the hungry, visit the prisoners, clothe the naked, etc.

That's all.

OK, I will address this below after my very next reply.

No, I distinguish them because Paul is not Jesus. Also, Paul does not condemn homosexuality.

Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John also weren't Jesus, yet you accept what they said Jesus said. Can you not read? This is the very point that proves that you're cherry-picking.

I also did not say Paul condemned "homosexuality", Einstein. I said he condemned "same-sex relations".

Did the pedophile feed the hungry, care for the sick, etc?

If he did, would he make it to heaven while moslesting children on his spare time? Answer this.

Based on YOUR "logic", I can steal, rob, molest, rape, murder and make it to heaven...as long as I feed the hungry, clothe the naked, and visit the imprisoned.

Is that what you're saying?

Well, yes. When Paul and Jesus are in conflict, I'd think that "Christians" would side with Jesus. I guess you nutters have your reputations for these reasons, however.

Actually, you accept the entire Bible as God's word, not parts of it you like.

The cherry picking on your part is an interesting phenomena!

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

OK, I will address this below after my very next reply.

You say that, and then yet you didn't.

Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John also weren't Jesus, yet you accept what they said Jesus said. Can you not read? This is the very point that proves that you're cherry-picking.

What point do you think you're making, Rob? Is the accuracy of the content attributed to Jesus suddenly in doubt? Do you not believe that Jesus said the things that are attributed to him?

I also did not say Paul condemned "homosexuality", Einstein. I said he condemned "same-sex relations".

He didn't condemn that, either.

If he did, would he make it to heaven while moslesting children on his spare time? Answer this.

According to the words attributed to Jesus in the parable of sheep and goats, yes.

Based on YOUR "logic", I can steal, rob, molest, rape, murder and make it to heaven...as long as I feed the hungry, clothe the naked, and visit the imprisoned.

If you think that this is *my* logic, you're an idiot.

Is that what you're saying?

No, that's what Jesus is saying.

Actually, you accept the entire Bible as God's word, not parts of it you like.

Says who? Jesus? Where did he say that?

The cherry picking on your part is an interesting phenomena!

Rob, it's fairly obvious you don't have the foggiest idea what you're talking about.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

If God "flipped a switch" and ended all sin we'd all be dead.

Your assertion is awaiting justification.

What if he just ended, like almost all sin? Like, what if only 1 sin was left? Would we just be mostly dead?

 

[Retro Rob]

What point do you think you're making, Rob? Is the accuracy of the content attributed to Jesus suddenly in doubt? Do you not believe that Jesus said the things that are attributed to him?

The point I am making is that you're woefully inconsistent, and self-contradictory. You'd reject what Paul said because he's "not Jesus", yet, the Gospel writers were "not Jesus" either but you seem more accepting of what they attribute to Jesus.

Fact is, it really doesn't matter who wrote what. Its the content you have issue with. Keep trying to deny that and making yourself look like more of a lying asshole that what you already are

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

I'm still amused by the idea of a supposedly "all-powerful" being that just can't manage to figure out a way to end all the sin while keeping those darn humans alive.

God: Me-dammit! Why do they keep dying when I do that? *scratches head* Okay, let's try this again, I guess...

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

The point I am making is that you're woefully inconsistent, and self-contradictory. You'd reject what Paul said because he's "not Jesus", yet, the Gospel writers were "not Jesus" either but you seem more accepting of what they attribute to Jesus.

Do you think the words attributed to Jesus are the words of Jesus, Rob? If the answer is yes, then your argument is utterly disingenuous.

My argument is an informal reductio ad absurdum, Rob. That means that for the sake of argument I assume the truth of certain beliefs and demonstrate that they lead to an absurdity. What I actually believe is not a part of this argument. The premise that Jesus' words were accurately recorded is a Christian premise, and yet you're attacking it.

The problem here -- and I'm being totally serious -- is that you're thinking like a 5-year old, not an adult. The nuances of my argument are not subtle, and yet they totally elude you because as it appears, you really want to believe this:

Fact is, it really doesn't matter who wrote what. Its the content you have issue with. Keep trying to deny that and making yourself look like more of a lying asshole that what you already are

It's time for you to sit down and shut up, Rob. You're embarrassing yourself.

 

[Retro Rob]

Do you think the words attributed to Jesus are the words of Jesus, Rob? If the answer is yes, then your argument is utterly disingenuous.

This is not about whether or not Jesus actually said what is attributed to him. This about how you reject Paul because he's "not Jesus" but accept the Gospel writers who also were "not Jesus".

How do you plan to rectify this inconsistency on YOUR part?

My argument is an informal reductio ad absurdum, Rob. That means that for the sake of argument I assume the truth of certain beliefs and demonstrate that they lead to an absurdity. What I actually believe is not a part of this argument. The premise that Jesus' words were accurately recorded is a Christian premise, and yet you're attacking it.

I know you're an atheist, Einstein.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

This is not about whether or not Jesus actually said what is attributed to him.

And yet here you are calling it into question because the gospel writers are not Jesus. It only matters that they're not Jesus if you think they are not accurately reporting his words. Is that what you think, Rob? If you think his words are recorded accurately, the fact that his stenographer is not himself is a red herring.

This about how you reject Paul because he's "not Jesus" but accept the Gospel writers who also were "not Jesus".

You're just restating the argument I've already refuted. Again, my argument is that Christians appear to side with Paul when he is in conflict with the words of Jesus. Your "counterargument" totally misses the mark. I don't side with either of them. If you believe that Jesus' words are accurate, then my argument describes you. What I believe Jesus did or did not say is immaterial.

How do you plan to rectify this inconsistency on YOUR part?

I'm not inconsistent. You're just so stupid you can't grasp an obvious reductio.

I know you're an atheist, Einstein.

Then what do my beliefs have to do with the behavior of Christians that I'm describing?

 

[Fanatical Meat]

I'm still amused by the idea of a supposedly "all-powerful" being that just can't manage to figure out a way to end all the sin while keeping those darn humans alive.

God: Me-dammit! Why do they keep dying when I do that? *scratches head* Okay, let's try this again, I guess...

Keep in mind I'm not a biblical scholar. The basic premise is we are all sinners its a simple concept but it takes time to understand. We are all born sinners, every single one of us. We became sinners when Adam & Eve followed the instructions of the Snake (Satan). We can be redeemed by admitting our sins but sinning is constant. Evil is always present, always tempting us that's essentially why pedophiles exist. Bucks point is flipping a switch to remove all sin would remove nearly all of us instantly the ones left would then ultimately sin. It's our job to redeem ourselves, God will guide us but we need to do the work.

This is why Buck & Retro probably both agree Trumps claim of being a great fundamentalist and has a close relationship with God but a sentence later he says he's never asked for forgiveness. That's a really strange thing to say after his first comment. Same with these guys on TV collecting money for undefined projects but they seem to have tons of money.
Also this paragraph is an example of sin. I cast judgement on someone when its not my job and I sinned again by not removing it from the post.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Keep in mind I'm not a biblical scholar. The basic premise is we are all sinners its a simple concept but it takes time to understand. We are all born sinners, every single one of us. We became sinners when Adam & Eve followed the instructions of the Snake (Satan). We can be redeemed by admitting our sins but sinning is constant. Evil is always present, always tempting us that's essentially why pedophiles exist. Bucks point is flipping a switch to remove all sin would remove nearly all of us instantly the ones left would then ultimately sin. It's our job to redeem ourselves, God will guide us but we need to do the work.

Nonsense, you're thinking too small like the Christians do. He could just make sinful acts physically impossible, or redefine some to no longer be sinful.

Basically there's nothing logically inconsistent about recreating the universe instantaneously without sin. People like you and Fuckshit just haven't examined your own assumptions, so you have trouble seeing that.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

Nonsense, you're thinking too small like the Christians do. He could just make sinful acts physically impossible, or redefine some to no longer be sinful.

Basically there's nothing logically inconsistent about recreating the universe instantaneously without sin. People like you and Fuckshit just haven't examined your own assumptions, so you have trouble seeing that.

Recreating everything without sin would remove us and replace us with something different its fine to not believe that's your choice I'm just trying to explain the best I can.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Recreating everything without sin would remove us and replace us with something different.

No, it wouldn't. It would simply change us. You're changing all the time, yet you don't suppose that you've been "removed" and "replaced" from moment to moment.

You understand we're talking about GOD here, right? The maker of the rules. Yet, here you are saying, "no, he couldn't do that, because it's against the rules." If you intend to argue that there is something that an omnipotent being can't do, then you'll need to show that it is itself an incoherent idea.

its fine to not believe that's your choice I'm just trying to explain the best I can.

And I'm trying to explain to you that the Christian story is for children who haven't learned to think freely, and it's time to grow up now.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

No, it wouldn't. It would simply change us. You're changing all the time, yet you don't suppose that you've been "removed" and "replaced" from moment to moment.

You understand we're talking about GOD here, right? The maker of the rules. Yet, here you are saying, "no, he couldn't do that, because it's against the rules." If you intend to argue that there is something that an omnipotent being can't do, then you'll need to show that it is an itself an incoherent idea.


And I'm trying to explain to you that the Christian story is for children who haven't learned to think freely, and it's time to grow up now.

In simplest terms if there were a perfect clone of you, the clone even had the same memories as you would you be ok being disintegrated in a furnace?
I'm not one of these guys who preach nor am I compelled to defend what I believe because its for me to believe.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

In simplest terms if there were a perfect clone of you, the clone even had the same memories as you would you be ok being disintegrated in a furnace?

What the righteous fuck does that have to do with anything?

I'm not one of these guys who preach nor am I compelled to defend what I believe because its for me to believe.

I don't care if you preach or don't. I just want you to think.

 

[MongGrel]

Who is this god guy and what is a sin ?

Large groups of people seem to have various definitions for personal gain a lot of the time, at least at the highest levels.

The pope has a direct hotline to him right ?

:hmm:

Douglas Adams makes more sense every day.

 

[agent00f]

If there is a God, it's certainly within his power to stop it, and yet he doesn't.

If a certain person could simply flip a switch and instantly end pedophelia everywhere, what would you think of that person if he refused to do it?

There was a substantial decline of faith in europe following the world wars because people simply could not believe that a worthy god would allow if not commit something so horrendous.

Ironic that's part why the US is of the most religious of first world countries, when the wars made america a rich superpower with a relatively underdeveloped population.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

What the righteous fuck does that have to do with anything?


I don't care if you preach or don't. I just want you to think.

I have and I know that after I leave Church on Sunday or sometimes Wednesday I feel better than when I came in. I don't need more than that

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

I have and I know that after I leave Church on Sunday or sometimes Wednesday I feel better than when I came in. I don't need more than that

Well, bully for you. I know this heroin addict that feels better every time he shoots up, too. Guess that means its good for him, right?

 

[emperus]

What the righteous fuck does that have to do with anything?


I don't care if you preach or don't. I just want you to think.

Your premise may be fundamentally flawed. Your trying to bring understanding to something that by definition is beyond your understanding. By definition an omnipotent/omniscient being is all powerful and all knowing. So, how do you suppose you/we can understand His understanding. Wouldn't that make you omniscient as well? Do you believe your omniscient?

It's like trying to rationalize 10 dimensions as 3 dimensional beings.

I do understand your argument though, it's something myself and a lot of Christians struggle with at times. For me I simply choose to believe that there's a purpose for everything in life. I try to understand what the greater purpose may be with an understanding that I may never understand.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

Well, bully for you. I know this heroin addict that feels better every time he shoots up, too. Guess that means its good for him, right?

Sure if using heroin is the same as going to Church with your neighbors.
Epirus has said it better than I.

 

[1prophet]

Nonsense, you're thinking too small like the Christians do. He could just make sinful acts physically impossible, or redefine some to no longer be sinful.

Basically there's nothing logically inconsistent about recreating the universe instantaneously without sin. People like you and Fuckshit just haven't examined your own assumptions, so you have trouble seeing that.

Your right

" He could just make sinful acts physically impossible, or redefine some to no longer be sinful."

But then you end up with automatons, basically robots that do exactly as commanded and in effect sin free, but the moment one has free will, even if created perfect, then they have the ability and choice to sin or not to.

And you are right again

"Basically there's nothing logically inconsistent about recreating the universe instantaneously without sin."

According to the bible God created that perfect universe without sin long before mankind, but the moment he allowed free will it all went to hell literally.

12“Son of man, take up a lamentation over the king of Tyre and say to him, ‘Thus says the Lord GOD,
“You had the seal of perfection,
Full of wisdom and perfect in beauty.
13“You were in Eden, the garden of God;
Every precious stone was your covering:
The ruby, the topaz and the diamond;
The beryl, the onyx and the jasper;
The lapis lazuli, the turquoise and the emerald;
And the gold, the workmanship of your settings and sockets,
Was in you.
On the day that you were created
They were prepared.
14“You were the anointed cherub who covers,
And I placed you there.
You were on the holy mountain of God;
You walked in the midst of the stones of fire.
15“You were blameless in your ways
From the day you were created
Until unrighteousness was found in you.

Step by step explanation
https://www.blueletterbible.org/faq/don_stewart/don_stewart_82.cfm

A bit of trivia

This same being that became imperfect was used as the basis for the character Melkor in the beginning of Silmarillion BY J.R.R. Tolkien.

The first section of The Silmarillion, Ainulindalë ("The Music of the Ainur"[7]), takes the form of a primary creation narrative. Eru ("The One"[8]), also called Ilúvatar ("Father of All"), first created the Ainur, a group of eternal spirits or demiurges, called "the offspring of his thought".

Ilúvatar brought the Ainur together and showed them a theme, from which he bade them make a great music. Melkor — whom Ilúvatar had given the "greatest power and knowledge" of all the Ainur — broke from the harmony of the music to develop his own song.

Some Ainur joined him, while others continued to follow Ilúvatar, causing discord in the music. This happened thrice, with Eru Ilúvatar successfully overpowering his rebellious subordinate with a new theme each time. Ilúvatar then stopped the music and showed them a vision of Arda and its peoples. The vision disappeared after a while, and Ilúvatar offered the Ainur a chance to enter into Arda and govern over the new world.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Your premise may be fundamentally flawed. Your trying to bring understanding to something that by definition is beyond your understanding. By definition an omnipotent/omniscient being is all powerful and all knowing. So, how do you suppose you/we can understand His understanding. Wouldn't that make you omniscient as well? Do you believe your omniscient?

It's like trying to rationalize 10 dimensions as 3 dimensional beings.

Please do not project your own ignorance onto me. My argument is rational and it must be dealt with as such.

I do understand your argument though, it's something myself and a lot of Christians struggle with at times. For me I simply choose to believe that there's a purpose for everything in life. I try to understand what the greater purpose may be with an understanding that I may never understand.

So children starving and girls being raped are actually good things in your worldview, because they achieve the greater purpose.