RankStranger Posted June 25, 2013 Share Posted June 25, 2013 Love has nothing to do with a god. It has to do with being able to see past the end of your own nose and care about others as much or more than you do yourself. Men are notoriously bad at that. Maybe ya'll need to work on being a little more lovable. The dishes are a good place to start. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Galien Posted June 25, 2013 Share Posted June 25, 2013 Love has nothing to do with a god. It has to do with being able to see past the end of your own nose and care about others as much or more than you do yourself. Men are notoriously bad at that. Maybe ya'll need to work on being a little more lovable. The dishes are a good place to start. Dishes have nothing to do with love fella Get a maid. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest end3 Posted June 25, 2013 Share Posted June 25, 2013 Mainstream CHRISTIAN theology places Jesus as God, which is about as meaningful a statement as saying that Democrats vote Democrat. The majority of the world is not Christian, so I would hardly call your theology mainstream. What you're doing here is continuing to speak in obscure terms and refusing to address legitimate counter-arguments. This is a tacit admission that you have no way of arguing persuasively that Jesus is God. So maybe you don't really believe this. Christians are fond of saying that that no one will die for a belief they know isn't true. I hope you never face such a situation in your life, but I contend that you would not be faithful to Jesus unto death if put to the test. You don't seem to firmly believe the very doctrines you're advocating for. Certainly the products of sacrifice are repeatable and real, and someday may be potentially quantified by some definition, but this does not "prove" that a God exists. It does, however correlate to what is described in the Bible in my mind. How about a quazi mechanism: Sacrifice -> Love God = Love Sacrifice -> God And having some physiological mechanism does no more disprove God than mine provides proof. "There is no need for God here" "It's the burden of the one making extraordinary claims" are easy outs. Perhaps you could put it in simple terms what you are asking. You seem to ignore the part where I said I accept the existence of God. You want to attribute love to God? Fine by me. But nothing you've said points to Jesus. Jesus is a false god who isn't worthy of worship. Why should anything you've said move me to bow to Jesus? Please tell me if this needs to be reduced to further simplicity. Certainly what I have said point to Jesus. Sacrifice on his part = Love = God. If you were saddled with the "hellish" existence you could imagine and someone said follow me and I will take it away, then I doubt you would choose otherwise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Galien Posted June 25, 2013 Share Posted June 25, 2013 Well thAts , the problem, it doesn't get taken Away Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RankStranger Posted June 25, 2013 Share Posted June 25, 2013 Mainstream CHRISTIAN theology places Jesus as God, which is about as meaningful a statement as saying that Democrats vote Democrat. The majority of the world is not Christian, so I would hardly call your theology mainstream. What you're doing here is continuing to speak in obscure terms and refusing to address legitimate counter-arguments. This is a tacit admission that you have no way of arguing persuasively that Jesus is God. So maybe you don't really believe this. Christians are fond of saying that that no one will die for a belief they know isn't true. I hope you never face such a situation in your life, but I contend that you would not be faithful to Jesus unto death if put to the test. You don't seem to firmly believe the very doctrines you're advocating for. Certainly the products of sacrifice are repeatable and real, and someday may be potentially quantified by some definition, but this does not "prove" that a God exists. It does, however correlate to what is described in the Bible in my mind. How about a quazi mechanism: Sacrifice -> Love God = Love Sacrifice -> God And having some physiological mechanism does no more disprove God than mine provides proof. "There is no need for God here" "It's the burden of the one making extraordinary claims" are easy outs. Perhaps you could put it in simple terms what you are asking. You seem to ignore the part where I said I accept the existence of God. You want to attribute love to God? Fine by me. But nothing you've said points to Jesus. Jesus is a false god who isn't worthy of worship. Why should anything you've said move me to bow to Jesus? Please tell me if this needs to be reduced to further simplicity. Certainly what I have said point to Jesus. Sacrifice on his part = Love = God. If you were saddled with the "hellish" existence you could imagine and someone said follow me and I will take it away, then I doubt you would choose otherwise. Who created that hell? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest end3 Posted June 25, 2013 Share Posted June 25, 2013 Mainstream CHRISTIAN theology places Jesus as God, which is about as meaningful a statement as saying that Democrats vote Democrat. The majority of the world is not Christian, so I would hardly call your theology mainstream. What you're doing here is continuing to speak in obscure terms and refusing to address legitimate counter-arguments. This is a tacit admission that you have no way of arguing persuasively that Jesus is God. So maybe you don't really believe this. Christians are fond of saying that that no one will die for a belief they know isn't true. I hope you never face such a situation in your life, but I contend that you would not be faithful to Jesus unto death if put to the test. You don't seem to firmly believe the very doctrines you're advocating for. Certainly the products of sacrifice are repeatable and real, and someday may be potentially quantified by some definition, but this does not "prove" that a God exists. It does, however correlate to what is described in the Bible in my mind. How about a quazi mechanism: Sacrifice -> Love God = Love Sacrifice -> God And having some physiological mechanism does no more disprove God than mine provides proof. "There is no need for God here" "It's the burden of the one making extraordinary claims" are easy outs. Perhaps you could put it in simple terms what you are asking. You seem to ignore the part where I said I accept the existence of God. You want to attribute love to God? Fine by me. But nothing you've said points to Jesus. Jesus is a false god who isn't worthy of worship. Why should anything you've said move me to bow to Jesus? Please tell me if this needs to be reduced to further simplicity. Certainly what I have said point to Jesus. Sacrifice on his part = Love = God. If you were saddled with the "hellish" existence you could imagine and someone said follow me and I will take it away, then I doubt you would choose otherwise. Who created that hell? Who created the satisfaction of autonomy....not that your leftist mind would understand that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JamesG Posted June 25, 2013 Share Posted June 25, 2013 I honestly do not see how soldiers coming home has anything to do with 1st john 4:8. If god was love why would he allow these men/women who sacrifice their minds and bodies to suffer in their personal relationships after being away destroying their minds and bodies during war? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bhim Posted June 25, 2013 Share Posted June 25, 2013 Certainly what I have said point to Jesus. Sacrifice on his part = Love = God. If you were saddled with the "hellish" existence you could imagine and someone said follow me and I will take it away, then I doubt you would choose otherwise. I don't agree with your statement that Jesus' sacrifice is at all an act of love. Even if it were, it is far outweighed by the fact that Jesus sends people to eternal hell. Acts of love such as what you describe point away from Jesus, if anything, because soldiers don't eternally torment anyone. Where there is Jesus, there can be no love. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bhim Posted June 25, 2013 Share Posted June 25, 2013 On a sidenote, I'm beginning to see End's post approaching the "word salad" that I've seen a lot of fundamentalist Christians post online. I am definitely on this forum im part to discuss with and debate Christians. But I'm not sure how productive any discussion with End is going to be unless he stops talking nonsense and starts being clear in his meaning. I'm talking to End since he's the only Christian here, but I'm not even entirely certain what he's trying to say. His posts are poorly written and don't convey many meaningful points. This may all end up being a waste of time, and honestly I have better things to do (which is why my comments to him thus far have been shorter than my usual, more verbose posts). 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RankStranger Posted June 25, 2013 Share Posted June 25, 2013 Mainstream CHRISTIAN theology places Jesus as God, which is about as meaningful a statement as saying that Democrats vote Democrat. The majority of the world is not Christian, so I would hardly call your theology mainstream. What you're doing here is continuing to speak in obscure terms and refusing to address legitimate counter-arguments. This is a tacit admission that you have no way of arguing persuasively that Jesus is God. So maybe you don't really believe this. Christians are fond of saying that that no one will die for a belief they know isn't true. I hope you never face such a situation in your life, but I contend that you would not be faithful to Jesus unto death if put to the test. You don't seem to firmly believe the very doctrines you're advocating for. Certainly the products of sacrifice are repeatable and real, and someday may be potentially quantified by some definition, but this does not "prove" that a God exists. It does, however correlate to what is described in the Bible in my mind. How about a quazi mechanism: Sacrifice -> Love God = Love Sacrifice -> God And having some physiological mechanism does no more disprove God than mine provides proof. "There is no need for God here" "It's the burden of the one making extraordinary claims" are easy outs. Perhaps you could put it in simple terms what you are asking. You seem to ignore the part where I said I accept the existence of God. You want to attribute love to God? Fine by me. But nothing you've said points to Jesus. Jesus is a false god who isn't worthy of worship. Why should anything you've said move me to bow to Jesus? Please tell me if this needs to be reduced to further simplicity. Certainly what I have said point to Jesus. Sacrifice on his part = Love = God. If you were saddled with the "hellish" existence you could imagine and someone said follow me and I will take it away, then I doubt you would choose otherwise. Who created that hell? Who created the satisfaction of autonomy....not that your leftist mind would understand that. Yeah, you fuckin ooze satisfaction when you whine about how hard your life is. Man it must be hard to have inherited enough money to squander it on a failing business. Nice deflection, but 100% irrelevant. You're trying to equate the christian gawd with love, and trying to explain away his direct threat that we will be "cast" (meaning forcefully thrown) into hell. Who created hell? Was that a loving thing to do? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest end3 Posted June 25, 2013 Share Posted June 25, 2013 On a sidenote, I'm beginning to see End's post approaching the "word salad" that I've seen a lot of fundamentalist Christians post online. I am definitely on this forum im part to discuss with and debate Christians. But I'm not sure how productive any discussion with End is going to be unless he stops talking nonsense and starts being clear in his meaning. I'm talking to End since he's the only Christian here, but I'm not even entirely certain what he's trying to say. His posts are poorly written and don't convey many meaningful points. This may all end up being a waste of time, and honestly I have better things to do (which is why my comments to him thus far have been shorter than my usual, more verbose posts). Bhim, if you were truely as smart as I thought you were, you wouldn't be threatened by a highschool dropout. You are exhibiting no empathy nor character nor modeling nor help that I gather. So what was it you wished to do with your existance? Additionally, when you have to go to this type deconstruction, you've pretty much lost. Quoting ALI, "I am the greatest of ALLLL TIME"....lol. Mainstream CHRISTIAN theology places Jesus as God, which is about as meaningful a statement as saying that Democrats vote Democrat. The majority of the world is not Christian, so I would hardly call your theology mainstream. What you're doing here is continuing to speak in obscure terms and refusing to address legitimate counter-arguments. This is a tacit admission that you have no way of arguing persuasively that Jesus is God. So maybe you don't really believe this. Christians are fond of saying that that no one will die for a belief they know isn't true. I hope you never face such a situation in your life, but I contend that you would not be faithful to Jesus unto death if put to the test. You don't seem to firmly believe the very doctrines you're advocating for. Certainly the products of sacrifice are repeatable and real, and someday may be potentially quantified by some definition, but this does not "prove" that a God exists. It does, however correlate to what is described in the Bible in my mind. How about a quazi mechanism: Sacrifice -> Love God = Love Sacrifice -> God And having some physiological mechanism does no more disprove God than mine provides proof. "There is no need for God here" "It's the burden of the one making extraordinary claims" are easy outs. Perhaps you could put it in simple terms what you are asking. You seem to ignore the part where I said I accept the existence of God. You want to attribute love to God? Fine by me. But nothing you've said points to Jesus. Jesus is a false god who isn't worthy of worship. Why should anything you've said move me to bow to Jesus? Please tell me if this needs to be reduced to further simplicity. Certainly what I have said point to Jesus. Sacrifice on his part = Love = God. If you were saddled with the "hellish" existence you could imagine and someone said follow me and I will take it away, then I doubt you would choose otherwise. Who created that hell? Who created the satisfaction of autonomy....not that your leftist mind would understand that. Nice deflection, but 100% irrelevant. You're trying to equate the christian gawd with love, and trying to explain away his direct threat that we will be "cast" (meaning forcefully thrown) into hell. Who created hell? Was that a loving thing to do? I would guess hell was created to protect man from himself. Is that loving? Yes. Btw, returneth to your normal subforum and leftist jail like cubicle.....it more suits your standard bitching. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RankStranger Posted June 25, 2013 Share Posted June 25, 2013 On a sidenote, I'm beginning to see End's post approaching the "word salad" that I've seen a lot of fundamentalist Christians post online. I am definitely on this forum im part to discuss with and debate Christians. But I'm not sure how productive any discussion with End is going to be unless he stops talking nonsense and starts being clear in his meaning. I'm talking to End since he's the only Christian here, but I'm not even entirely certain what he's trying to say. His posts are poorly written and don't convey many meaningful points. This may all end up being a waste of time, and honestly I have better things to do (which is why my comments to him thus far have been shorter than my usual, more verbose posts). Bhim, if you were truely as smart as I thought you were, you wouldn't be threatened by a highschool dropout. You are exhibiting no empathy nor character nor modeling nor help that I gather. So what was it you wished to do with your existance? Mainstream CHRISTIAN theology places Jesus as God, which is about as meaningful a statement as saying that Democrats vote Democrat. The majority of the world is not Christian, so I would hardly call your theology mainstream. What you're doing here is continuing to speak in obscure terms and refusing to address legitimate counter-arguments. This is a tacit admission that you have no way of arguing persuasively that Jesus is God. So maybe you don't really believe this. Christians are fond of saying that that no one will die for a belief they know isn't true. I hope you never face such a situation in your life, but I contend that you would not be faithful to Jesus unto death if put to the test. You don't seem to firmly believe the very doctrines you're advocating for. Certainly the products of sacrifice are repeatable and real, and someday may be potentially quantified by some definition, but this does not "prove" that a God exists. It does, however correlate to what is described in the Bible in my mind. How about a quazi mechanism: Sacrifice -> Love God = Love Sacrifice -> God And having some physiological mechanism does no more disprove God than mine provides proof. "There is no need for God here" "It's the burden of the one making extraordinary claims" are easy outs. Perhaps you could put it in simple terms what you are asking. You seem to ignore the part where I said I accept the existence of God. You want to attribute love to God? Fine by me. But nothing you've said points to Jesus. Jesus is a false god who isn't worthy of worship. Why should anything you've said move me to bow to Jesus? Please tell me if this needs to be reduced to further simplicity. Certainly what I have said point to Jesus. Sacrifice on his part = Love = God. If you were saddled with the "hellish" existence you could imagine and someone said follow me and I will take it away, then I doubt you would choose otherwise. Who created that hell? Who created the satisfaction of autonomy....not that your leftist mind would understand that. Nice deflection, but 100% irrelevant. You're trying to equate the christian gawd with love, and trying to explain away his direct threat that we will be "cast" (meaning forcefully thrown) into hell. Who created hell? Was that a loving thing to do? I would guess hell was created to protect man from himself. Is that loving? Yes. Btw, returneth to your normal subforum and leftist jail like cubicle.....it more suits your standard bitching. Go back and check my stealth-edit, End. But returning to the topic at hand: So Gawd is threatening to punish us with unimaginable torment for all eternity- in order to protect us from... ourselves? Really? Seems to me that we need protection from HIM. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest end3 Posted June 25, 2013 Share Posted June 25, 2013 On a sidenote, I'm beginning to see End's post approaching the "word salad" that I've seen a lot of fundamentalist Christians post online. I am definitely on this forum im part to discuss with and debate Christians. But I'm not sure how productive any discussion with End is going to be unless he stops talking nonsense and starts being clear in his meaning. I'm talking to End since he's the only Christian here, but I'm not even entirely certain what he's trying to say. His posts are poorly written and don't convey many meaningful points. This may all end up being a waste of time, and honestly I have better things to do (which is why my comments to him thus far have been shorter than my usual, more verbose posts). Bhim, if you were truely as smart as I thought you were, you wouldn't be threatened by a highschool dropout. You are exhibiting no empathy nor character nor modeling nor help that I gather. So what was it you wished to do with your existance? Additionally, when you have to go to this type deconstruction, you've pretty much lost. Quoting ALI, "I am the greatest of ALLLL TIME"....lol. Mainstream CHRISTIAN theology places Jesus as God, which is about as meaningful a statement as saying that Democrats vote Democrat. The majority of the world is not Christian, so I would hardly call your theology mainstream. What you're doing here is continuing to speak in obscure terms and refusing to address legitimate counter-arguments. This is a tacit admission that you have no way of arguing persuasively that Jesus is God. So maybe you don't really believe this. Christians are fond of saying that that no one will die for a belief they know isn't true. I hope you never face such a situation in your life, but I contend that you would not be faithful to Jesus unto death if put to the test. You don't seem to firmly believe the very doctrines you're advocating for. Certainly the products of sacrifice are repeatable and real, and someday may be potentially quantified by some definition, but this does not "prove" that a God exists. It does, however correlate to what is described in the Bible in my mind. How about a quazi mechanism: Sacrifice -> Love God = Love Sacrifice -> God And having some physiological mechanism does no more disprove God than mine provides proof. "There is no need for God here" "It's the burden of the one making extraordinary claims" are easy outs. Perhaps you could put it in simple terms what you are asking. You seem to ignore the part where I said I accept the existence of God. You want to attribute love to God? Fine by me. But nothing you've said points to Jesus. Jesus is a false god who isn't worthy of worship. Why should anything you've said move me to bow to Jesus? Please tell me if this needs to be reduced to further simplicity. Certainly what I have said point to Jesus. Sacrifice on his part = Love = God. If you were saddled with the "hellish" existence you could imagine and someone said follow me and I will take it away, then I doubt you would choose otherwise. Who created that hell? Who created the satisfaction of autonomy....not that your leftist mind would understand that. Nice deflection, but 100% irrelevant. You're trying to equate the christian gawd with love, and trying to explain away his direct threat that we will be "cast" (meaning forcefully thrown) into hell. Who created hell? Was that a loving thing to do? I would guess hell was created to protect man from himself. Is that loving? Yes. Btw, returneth to your normal subforum and leftist jail like cubicle.....it more suits your standard bitching. Actually, the Bible declares that god created Hell for the devil and his angels and then later decided to throw the majority of mankind into that fowl abyss. Not to mention the concern this has about an omniscient god who supposedly exists outside time and space, this certainly does not get god off the hook. The real issue is in the definition of love, I don't see it as "loving" at all (if the meaning had any real sense at all) for god to say, "I exist and you simply have to believe and I love you and killed my son for you and if you reject me I'll burn you forever." While you might see this as a caricature it is actually just a simplification without all the religious jargon and is built on these premises: 1. The Bible says that one has to simply believe in god (or rather that people do believe he exists but rather suppresses the truth in unrighteousness), and that his existence is plain to see in the things that have been made. 2. God's love is displayed in sending his son to be a propitiation 1 John 4:8. Propitiation is from the Latin Vulgate's translation Propitio which in essence means a sacrifice to appease a divine being. God's love is supposedly shown in his Son absorbing all of his wrath and anger "justly" due towards humanity. 3. If a man for whom Christ died does not repent, even despite god's incredible love for them. He will now torture that poor soul for all eternity with no hope of abatement. If this is love or justice in any form then I don't know how one could have any realistic concept of love and justice when they're wrapped up in human sacrifice, torture and conditional responses. To #1...thanks for the reminder. EVIDENCE of God in plain sight. Need I say more. To #2....I would be most proud of MY son for sacrificing for another. We hold this truth to the highest level as evidenced by the respect we pay to our active and fallen soldiers. Most of us do Rank. To #3 God gives us the storyline and the answer in advance, yet we STILL stubbornly say screw off. It's human nature. Maybe God's tired of dumbasses who will choose hell over Heaven.....ya reckon? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest end3 Posted June 25, 2013 Share Posted June 25, 2013 Gheeze FLorduh, can't you fix my editing back to the old style so I can quit using so much bandwidth? When I push the top left button, the old style comes back but none of my editing is allowed. ????? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
◊ crazyguy123 ◊ Posted June 25, 2013 Share Posted June 25, 2013 Mainstream CHRISTIAN theology places Jesus as God, which is about as meaningful a statement as saying that Democrats vote Democrat. The majority of the world is not Christian, so I would hardly call your theology mainstream. What you're doing here is continuing to speak in obscure terms and refusing to address legitimate counter-arguments. This is a tacit admission that you have no way of arguing persuasively that Jesus is God. So maybe you don't really believe this. Christians are fond of saying that that no one will die for a belief they know isn't true. I hope you never face such a situation in your life, but I contend that you would not be faithful to Jesus unto death if put to the test. You don't seem to firmly believe the very doctrines you're advocating for. Certainly the products of sacrifice are repeatable and real, and someday may be potentially quantified by some definition, but this does not "prove" that a God exists. It does, however correlate to what is described in the Bible in my mind. How about a quazi mechanism: Sacrifice -> Love God = Love Sacrifice -> God And having some physiological mechanism does no more disprove God than mine provides proof. "There is no need for God here" "It's the burden of the one making extraordinary claims" are easy outs. Perhaps you could put it in simple terms what you are asking. You seem to ignore the part where I said I accept the existence of God. You want to attribute love to God? Fine by me. But nothing you've said points to Jesus. Jesus is a false god who isn't worthy of worship. Why should anything you've said move me to bow to Jesus? Please tell me if this needs to be reduced to further simplicity. Certainly what I have said point to Jesus. Sacrifice on his part = Love = God. If you were saddled with the "hellish" existence you could imagine and someone said follow me and I will take it away, then I doubt you would choose otherwise. Who created that hell? Who created the satisfaction of autonomy....not that your leftist mind would understand that. Nice deflection, but 100% irrelevant. You're trying to equate the christian gawd with love, and trying to explain away his direct threat that we will be "cast" (meaning forcefully thrown) into hell. Who created hell? Was that a loving thing to do? I would guess hell was created to protect man from himself. Is that loving? Yes. Btw, returneth to your normal subforum and leftist jail like cubicle.....it more suits your standard bitching. I don't understand your reasoning in thinking that eternal torture in Hell is protecting man from himself, therefore a loving action. What about all of the people in Hell? Were they all so bad that they deserved to be tortured forever? Is god so hard-hearted that he can't ever let go of how pissed off at those people he is? Is he not merciful enough to realize that at some point, the people in Hell would have had enough? Even the worst person to ever live can't possibly deserve an eternity of torture. If the suffering they cause is less than the suffering that they experience in Hell, then them being in Hell is no longer just and their punishment is nothing more than sadistic vengeance. 1. The Bible says that one has to simply believe in god (or rather that people do believe he exists but rather suppresses the truth in unrighteousness), and that his existence is plain to see in the things that have been made. 2. God's love is displayed in sending his son to be a propitiation 1 John 4:8. Propitiation is from the Latin Vulgate's translation Propitio which in essence means a sacrifice to appease a divine being. God's love is supposedly shown in his Son absorbing all of his wrath and anger "justly" due towards humanity. 3. If a man for whom Christ died does not repent, even despite god's incredible love for them. He will now torture that poor soul for all eternity with no hope of abatement. If this is love or justice in any form then I don't know how one could have any realistic concept of love and justice when they're wrapped up in human sacrifice, torture and conditional responses. To #1...thanks for the reminder. EVIDENCE of God in plain sight. Need I say more. To #2....I would be most proud of MY son for sacrificing for another. We hold this truth to the highest level as evidenced by the respect we pay to our active and fallen soldiers. Most of us do Rank. To #3 God gives us the storyline and the answer in advance, yet we STILL stubbornly say screw off. It's human nature. Maybe God's tired of dumbasses who will choose hell over Heaven.....ya reckon? #1 is not evidence of any god, especially not your god. It is nothing more than, "Things exist, therefore a god exists, and that god must be the one I believe in." Wouldn't it be just as valid for me to say, "The existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster is plain to see in the things that have been made, especially anything that is a sphere, because meatballs are shaped like spheres." #2 I suppose, in a way, you could see Jesus as someone sacrificing himself to save everyone, but do you not realize what he is saving people from? His father, Yahweh, hates humans so much because they are imperfect, that he's got a gun aimed at the Earth, called Hell, and Jesus basically jumps in front of it and Yahweh probably enjoys it too, because he loves bloody sacrifices, especially the ones that get burned. #3 Where do you get the idea that Hell is a choice? It's certainly not. From what I can see, nearly everyone who has rejected either your god or belief in your god, did so because there was not enough evidence to convince them (No, confirmation bias does not count. I realize that the Bible relies on confirmation bias as proof, but that does not change anything.) or because they see no reason to trust your god. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JamesG Posted June 25, 2013 Share Posted June 25, 2013 from the few interactions I have had with end3 I thought I could respect him. This thread has clearly demonstrated a strong lack of judgment on my part. The posts here have been devoid of any reason or respect to others and filled with everything that is the opposite of the title post. You should be ashamed of yourself end3 clearly you are not demonstrating "Christ's love" You should apologize right now for all of your personal insults to people who merely questioned your original post. If you cant do that you clearly are just another delusional Christian bigot trying to get his rocks off insulting ex-Christians. There is a thing called the high road if there really was a god I think it would have been telling you to take it. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest end3 Posted June 25, 2013 Share Posted June 25, 2013 Doesn't the Bible say it's a test? We are either on one side or another. If you choose perfect morality then by default you have to choose God. Otherwise you are claiming you have more wisdom than God. And in doing so, you are actively choosing human nature over an alternative. Perfect human nature would likely be hell. Your choice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest end3 Posted June 25, 2013 Share Posted June 25, 2013 from the few interactions I have had with end3 I thought I could respect him. This thread has clearly demonstrated a strong lack of judgment on my part. The posts here have been devoid of any reason or respect to others and filled with everything that is the opposite of the title post. You should be ashamed of yourself end3 clearly you are not demonstrating "Christ's love" You should apologize right now for all of your personal insults to people who merely questioned your original post. If you cant do that you clearly are just another delusional Christian bigot trying to get his rocks off insulting ex-Christians. Just discuss if you want to James. I'm not forcing you to type. Additionally, dude, you don't even know me. If you took the time to know me and my life's circumstances, you might choose to define our relationship with a touch more Grace than this crap you just penned. Blessings. More than half the grief I deal to these forum regulars is because we do this to each other as friends. We discuss like hell and then gladly buy each other a beer in the end. Effectively we have cussed and discussed with each other to a point of friendship. Please don't come in here and tell us how my cow ate your cabbage. Push your post numbers up in to the thousands and your active years in a number greater than 1 before ramming your gavel down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
◊ crazyguy123 ◊ Posted June 25, 2013 Share Posted June 25, 2013 Doesn't the Bible say it's a test? We are either on one side or another. If you choose perfect morality then by default you have to choose God. Otherwise you are claiming you have more wisdom than God. And in doing so, you are actively choosing human nature over an alternative. Perfect human nature would likely be hell. Your choice. How could choosing Biblical morality be choosing "perfect morality". Is treating women like property, who are inferior to men, simply because a difference in reproductive organs, perfect morality? Is it perfect morality to stone people to death for having consensual homosexual sex. Is it really so bad that it deserves the same punishment as murder? Is it perfect morality to endorse slavery? Is it perfect morality to punish innocent people for the actions of the guilty? I don't think so, and all I have described is Biblical morality. What Biblical morality is, is subjective, primitive, and barbaric, human morality, masked as godly morality by the barbarians who created the myths in the Bible. from the few interactions I have had with end3 I thought I could respect him. This thread has clearly demonstrated a strong lack of judgment on my part. The posts here have been devoid of any reason or respect to others and filled with everything that is the opposite of the title post. You should be ashamed of yourself end3 clearly you are not demonstrating "Christ's love" You should apologize right now for all of your personal insults to people who merely questioned your original post. If you cant do that you clearly are just another delusional Christian bigot trying to get his rocks off insulting ex-Christians. There is a thing called the high road if there really was a god I think it would have been telling you to take it. To be fair, from what I have seen posted by End3, since I joined this site, his life is and has been quite difficult for quite a while and he's got a lot of nasty crap to deal with. A person's emotional state usually will heavily influence a person's words, behavior, or thoughts. I know it has had negative affects on me before. I have said lots of angry and mean things, both as a Christian and as an atheist, and have had people react just like you did, to my words. Afterwards, I have thought, "I wish I had not said those things" and apologized. Regardless of whether or not specific behavior is excusable, you still need to take into an account a person's emotional state when they post something. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JamesG Posted June 26, 2013 Share Posted June 26, 2013 Thats fair crazy. this is just a different side to him than i have seen in the past in regards to discussing things with him. It really made me take a step back.in the way i look upon him. Your right end i dont know you and i was trying to discuss the subject YOU brought up. Instead i have to sort through a fuck load of word salad and personal insults to get any meaningful discussion out of it. But since you decided to open that can of worms with me. You need a reality check i dont give a fuck how "hard" your life is life is hard man up and deal with it. Stop being a whiny bitch i was abused as a child did i go around insuli Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JamesG Posted June 26, 2013 Share Posted June 26, 2013 Insulting people because my life is "hard"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JamesG Posted June 26, 2013 Share Posted June 26, 2013 If you can only interact with people by being an asshole then that is the response you will get from me i can be an asshole. So you want to throw some personal jabs at each other and go get a beer fine lets do that. I garuntee you tiny pricked fucktard i can get a lot more personal and a lot more assholish than you could dream of so its your choice we can either be civil or i can be an asshole what do you want? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JamesG Posted June 26, 2013 Share Posted June 26, 2013 It doesnt matter one bit how long i have or have not been here. You in your thousands of posts still are incapable of clearly illusrrating in prose the bullshit correlation between soldiers coming home from a fucked up situation to gods genuine love. Please illustrate this to me because so far i have only seen gods divine bullshit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest end3 Posted June 26, 2013 Share Posted June 26, 2013 Listen James. if I have offended you, my apologies. My normal mode of discussion is "elevated". Some folks don't find that normal. I do get frustrated when people won't open their minds to different viewpoints which generally makes me more adament. Please understand, if I were mad or angry or trying to be some level of offensive above my normal self, you would know. I appreciate your interest in the thread and will try to bring my normal self down to some almost civilized level. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest end3 Posted June 26, 2013 Share Posted June 26, 2013 It doesnt matter one bit how long i have or have not been here. You in your thousands of posts still are incapable of clearly illusrrating in prose the bullshit correlation between soldiers coming home from a fucked up situation to gods genuine love. Please illustrate this to me because so far i have only seen gods divine bullshit. Ok, let me try. I define God, or an aspect thereof, as the result of two entities which are able to form a bond through mutual "sacrifice" so that each are known to the other as Christ is known to the Father. Moving to the example I cited. the resulting joy, excitement, unity, love, etc. witnessed in the soldier's reunion would be and example in my mind of two entities uniting through sacrifice, resulting in joy, Love, God. And fwiw, I think it is paralled in nature. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts