No Shit Sherlock

[mymistake]

 

However, the apologists that do this don't bother to address the reason why we're all sinners, deserving of death.

Here's your chance. What are your expectations within a relationship?

 

 

 

 

What the hell kind of an off the wall question is that?

[FreeThinkerNZ]

 

What are your expectations in a relationship NZ?

 

I have no idea what tangent you're about to go on to avoid talking about why your immoral sky fairy kills people for touching things but if it's to say we are supposed to have a relationship with said sky fairy, you should try to define what a relationship with a sky fairy is, first.

[midniterider]

How is this picture any different from the bible's war criminals?

 

 

Of course it was a Christian movement...well, Anti-Jew, anyway. :-)

[◊ crazyguy123 ◊]

Here's your chance. What are your expectations within a relationship?

 

 

I expect that in a relationship, all that are involved within that relationship love and respect each other because they have all earned that love respect from one another. None of them would demand that the others love and respect them while threatening to kill and/or torture them if they do not comply. None of them would do things for the others for the sole purpose of glorifying themselves and if they gave gifts to the others, those gifts would not come with a price tag.

[Roz]

He's absolutely stumped as to how to prove that his relationship with sky spook is any more credible than:

Ellen White's

That girl who rejoiced at the Japanese tragedy

The bible writers who advocated killing children

Those 19 hijackers and suicide crusaders

[◊ crazyguy123 ◊]

 

 

However, the apologists that do this don't bother to address the reason why we're all sinners, deserving of death.

Here's your chance. What are your expectations within a relationship?

 

 

 

 

What the hell kind of an off the wall question is that?

 

 

It was an interesting one. You ought to check out my off the wall answer!

[Roz]

Crazy, and any other ex-c here.  I would only have relationships with living beings that I can see.  Would you have a relationship like Mantai Teo and his imaginary girlfriend?  

 

EDIT:  Take a guess who among here would have one of those kinds of relationships... Starts with E and stops with 3...

[Guest end3]

 

What are your expectations in a relationship NZ?

I have no idea what tangent you're about to go on to avoid talking about why your immoral sky fairy kills people for touching things but if it's to say we are supposed to have a relationship with said sky fairy, you should try to define what a relationship with a sky fairy is, first.

 

I'm kinda through with my explanation that no one wishes to consider so I was moving on to our ability to function within a relationship. I assume people have different thoughts about the efficacy of such efforts. I was attempting to solicit yours. The reason I asked, so you will see the mental dot connecting I was doing was you were saying my view of "we are all worthy of death" directly relates to our ability to execute life. Life in my opinion has to do with relationships.

[mymistake]

I'm kinda through with my explanation that no one wishes to consider so I was moving on to our ability to function within a relationship. I assume people have different thoughts about the efficacy of such efforts. I was attempting to solicit yours. The reason I asked, so you will see the mental dot connecting I was doing was you were saying my view of "we are all worthy of death" directly relates to our ability to execute life. Life in my opinion has to do with relationships.

 

 

End, your word salads are not explanations.  Many people have tried hard to consider your efforts but when you butcher the language nobody else can figure out what you were trying to do.

[mymistake]

How is this picture any different from the bible's war criminals?

 

 

 

He was such a Goodchristianman.  And yes Goodchristianman is all one word.

[bornagainathiest]

I was wondering where I'd seen this kind of crap before... 

Where a Christian asks a deflecting question (one that's designed to draw attention away from a contradiction in their position) and insists that it be answered, then claims victory when it isn't.

 

 

What (still) puzzles me is why End3 persists with the assumption/assertion that the God of the Bible is good and moral?
 
Why he continues to argue that this God has a higher morality and greater morality than we do?
.
.
.
Why can't End simply admit that the order to massacre Amalekite children was an evil and immoral order, given by an evil and immoral God?
 
Not so long ago he admitted that this same God knew evil, caused evil and did evil.
 
I haven't forgotten this admission.
 
Care to retract it, End?

If you were God and you knew baby Adolph was going to turn out the way he did, would it be moral to kill baby Adolph.....again, if you knew.

 

 

Insists that it be answered...

Posted Yesterday, 02:30 PM

"No, answer this question as I have written it. What you both are going into is the free will argument. Don't dodge." 

 

...and then claims victory when it isn't.

Posted Yesterday, 04:33 PM

"Ha, I knew y'all wouldn't have the fortitude to answer." 

.

.

.

Well, I've finally remembered just who used to pull crap like that.

It was this lying, hypocritical, homophobic s.o.b. http://www.ex-christian.net/user/4907-rayskidude/#.U5IIrfldVzM

He was the master of the deflecting question maneuver and just LOVED 'winning' debates this way, if you can call this winning.  Here's a shining example...

 

rayskidude, on 22 November 2010 - 06:50 AM, said:

Here, you simply reveal your cowardice. Or the fact that no one with any Christian credentials holds to the nonsense you've put forth. Face it, BAA - I've scored the TouchDown and I've already done my victory dance in the end zone - the refs have reviewed and confirmed that I scored. You, on the other hand, are just about to get an 'unsportsmanlike conduct' penalty. Stop, before you embarrass yourself further.

 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Congratulations End!  You've become a clone of Rayskidude.

 

Fyi, debates are won, not by the ballsiest person but by the one who has the truth.  

People who say that God is evil, but defend him as being good do NOT have the balance of truth in a debate.  They are contradicting themselves and have lost the debate before it's even started.  Which is why I wrote this...

 

 Posted Yesterday, 04:14 PM

end3, on 05 Jun 2014 - 8:30 PM, said:

No, answer this question as I have written it. What you both are going into is the free will argument. Don't dodge.

 

No, End.

You resolve the outstanding question of God's nature.

That unresolved question preceded this entire thread.

You said God is knows, causes and is responsible for evil.

Don't defend God and argue that He is good if you've already said he's evil!

 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Anything you write or have written in this thread is STILL completely nullified by this.

 

Deal with it.

[FreeThinkerNZ]

 

 

What are your expectations in a relationship NZ?

I have no idea what tangent you're about to go on to avoid talking about why your immoral sky fairy kills people for touching things but if it's to say we are supposed to have a relationship with said sky fairy, you should try to define what a relationship with a sky fairy is, first.

 

I'm kinda through with my explanation that no one wishes to consider so I was moving on to our ability to function within a relationship. I assume people have different thoughts about the efficacy of such efforts. I was attempting to solicit yours. The reason I asked, so you will see the mental dot connecting I was doing was you were saying my view of "we are all worthy of death" directly relates to our ability to execute life. Life in my opinion has to do with relationships.

 

That's not what I said at all.  I said "we are all worthy of death" is a depressing thing for xians to indoctrinate people with.  It's a sick lie anyway.

 

You can't describe a relationship with something that doesn't exist.

[thereisnoperfect]

 

Interesting how End works. Lurkers, take note:

 

When I make a post pointing out how his "yay Amelikite killing!" doesn't fit well with the "love your neighbor" moral code, he ignores that and instead insults my intelligence and ability to understand, also ignoring the "love your neighbor" command.

 

When I point out that this hurt and angered me, he ignores it.

 

This is christian morality in practice.

The reason I responded as I did was your tone. If you would like to talk across rather than disrespectfully, I am capable of that type conversation. Please note exchanges between the Prof. and I as an example. I don't dislike you, I just don't like your disrespect.

 

OH, now I get it.

 

You are used to being able to insult people and get away with it because rules of propriety protect you. You're not used to people actually expressing anger when they feel it.

 

Well here is the same thing in a different tone:

Genocide is reprehensible. 

Killing people who have done nothing wrong, on the theory that they might someday do something wrong, is reprehensible. 

Neither of those is consistent with a position of love for others.

 

I understand what you write about as well as anyone can, given that you seldom connect your thoughts with transitions.

 

When you claim that my answer can be ignored because I just don't understand, that is offensive. Not as offensive as genocide, but offensive. 

When you claim that we are feigning being offended, that is also offensive.

 

See? I can write in any tone I choose. When I wrote in an aggressive tone, that was a choice. I wanted you to have to confront how offensive and hurtful your claims were. Instead, you stuck your head in the sand.

 

Now I have a couple of requests for you:

Can you show me where your bible says to only be loving to people who address you in a respectful tone?

Can you show me where your bible says that the reason for killing the Amelikites had anything to do with epigenetics or anything at all other than "because I said so"?

[TheRedneckProfessor]

 

End3, I hate to be the one to say it, but your argument is invalid.  

 

First of all, from your own words, "we are all evil".  To compare us to the god from whom absolute morality is supposed to come is therefore unfair.  Whatever god would or would not have done is incomparable to the morality of those who have actually experienced humanity.

 

Secondly, whatever any of us would have done or not done concerning Hitler, the present fact is that god let him live--a fact which cost the lives of 6.5 million of god's "chosen people".  Using Hitler, who actually did commit evil atrocities, as a defense of the genocide of the Amalekites, who are only alleged by the same god to have been evil, is simply disingenuous.

 

Lastly, it seems pretty clear that we ex-christians have demonstrated a higher morality than your god.  That your defense of his atrocities sickens us is certain evidence of the fact.

 

This argument has therefore failed.  You should consider approaching your god's atrocities from a different angle.  You admit that he is capable; you've admitted that he created evil and has acted upon it.  That his ways are not ours is simply not a good enough defense.  Try something new.

It appears that by whatever means or order God guided humanity, humanity disagreed/disagrees. As you mention, God did level the playing field by sending Christ, and subsequently we have Grace. As you note and demonstrate, you are unhappy with the atrocities because of the non-human experience God had, but now that God addressed that allows suffering through evil, you whine at that too. So it appears as God's teaching mode has gone near full cycle....which also seems somewhat synonymous to asking God for another way just as you have requested that I find another approach.

 

The fact that many are unable to agree on cause really reflects a theme of humanity IN the Bible......which makes it true to me.

 

If god purports to teach, guide, or otherwise intervene in the minutiae of our daily lives, he should at bare minimum present himself as someone/thing that can be trusted.  He has not done so, but rather has gone to great pains to make himself extremely untrustworthy, except to those who have already decided, on blind faith alone, to trust him.

 

I am still waiting for you to present your scientific evidence that supports the claim that the "sins" of the father pass via genetics to the child.  I trust you more that god, so I'm certain you won't let me down on this point.

[mymistake]

 

 

 

However, the apologists that do this don't bother to address the reason why we're all sinners, deserving of death.

Here's your chance. What are your expectations within a relationship?

 

 

 

 

What the hell kind of an off the wall question is that?

 

 

It was an interesting one. You ought to check out my off the wall answer!

 

 

I do like your answer.  It's just that I have seen this pattern from End too many times.  He will ask a theology question.  Then when that isn't working for him he will change the topic to something weird - perhaps the color pink.  Then he will change the subject again - say the migration habits of sea gulls.  Then he tries to combine all the answers to all these different questions and subjects.  Then he acts mad when it doesn't work.  Migrating pink seagulls of salvation!

[Guest end3]

 

 

 

 

However, the apologists that do this don't bother to address the reason why we're all sinners, deserving of death.

Here's your chance. What are your expectations within a relationship?

 

 

 

 

What the hell kind of an off the wall question is that?

 

 

It was an interesting one. You ought to check out my off the wall answer!

 

 

I do like your answer.  It's just that I have seen this pattern from End too many times.  He will ask a theology question.  Then when that isn't working for him he will change the topic to something weird - perhaps the color pink.  Then he will change the subject again - say the migration habits of sea gulls.  Then he tries to combine all the answers to all these different questions and subjects.  Then he acts mad when it doesn't work.  Migrating pink seagulls of salvation!

 

I don't connect the dots when I write for others. It's not helpful. Point A, B, C. I think about A, B, and C and make point F without ever filling in D and E for people to see the how A,B, and C are connected to F. And like you say, some people never see the connection even if I attempt to flesh it out.

[mymistake]

 

I don't connect the dots when I write for others. It's not helpful. Point A, B, C. I think about A, B, and C and make point F without ever filling in D and E for people to see the how A,B, and C are connected to F. And like you say, some people never see the connection even if I attempt to flesh it out.

 

 

 

Seeing how half the points you make deal with some imaginary religious item perhaps the connections are imaginary too.

[sdelsolray]

This one's hubris is growing nicely.  No doubt it's genetic predisposition.

[Guest end3]

 

I don't connect the dots when I write for others. It's not helpful. Point A, B, C. I think about A, B, and C and make point F without ever filling in D and E for people to see the how A,B, and C are connected to F. And like you say, some people never see the connection even if I attempt to flesh it out.

 

 

Seeing how half the points you make deal with some imaginary religious item perhaps the connections are imaginary too.

 

You don't have to be an ass MM. I was trying to explain so you would understand

[Guest end3]

Prof:

 

http://www.clinicalepigeneticsjournal.com/content/4/1/1

[mymistake]

 

You don't have to be an ass MM. I was trying to explain so you would understand

 

 

I don't see it as being an ass.  You are not thinking critically about these ideas.  This forum is a safe refuge for critical thinking so if you bring them here you should expect they will be tested.  If they turn out to be untestable or if they start behaving like magic then you should expect that to be called out on it.

[Guest end3]

 

You don't have to be an ass MM. I was trying to explain so you would understand

 

I don't see it as being an ass.  You are not thinking critically about these ideas.  This forum is a safe refuge for critical thinking so if you bring them here you should expect they will be tested.  If they turn out to be untestable or if they start behaving like magic then you should expect that to be called out on it.

 

You read the article?

[mymistake]

 

 

You don't have to be an ass MM. I was trying to explain so you would understand

 

I don't see it as being an ass.  You are not thinking critically about these ideas.  This forum is a safe refuge for critical thinking so if you bring them here you should expect they will be tested.  If they turn out to be untestable or if they start behaving like magic then you should expect that to be called out on it.

 

You read the article?

 

 

If you mean the one about the environmental effects on DNA I've only read about a third of it.  What was it suppose to prove?

[Guest end3]

 

 

 

You don't have to be an ass MM. I was trying to explain so you would understand

 

I don't see it as being an ass.  You are not thinking critically about these ideas.  This forum is a safe refuge for critical thinking so if you bring them here you should expect they will be tested.  If they turn out to be untestable or if they start behaving like magic then you should expect that to be called out on it.

 

You read the article?

 

 

If you mean the one about the environmental effects on DNA I've only read about a third of it.  What was it suppose to prove?

 

I don't know, Exodus 20:5 maybe?

[Roz]

Christian lurkers, we have here a man who believes he's a christian as well.  He's one of you. 

He's trying to tie any amount of credibility to his conclusions:  His god, yeshua, is the true god, and he rightly discerned that all those infants were genetically predisposed to be Hitler.  They had to die.  He would kill them himself if his god ordered it.

 

That was and is still his stance.  Re-read this thread for proof.  Lots of people called him out on it.

 

Now.  Let's look at his article.  One paragraph in particular caught my eye:

"Since the discovery of these two phenomena, abnormalities in these processes have been identified in a number of disorders, including Beckwith-Wiedemann syndrome (characterized by gigantism at birth [22]) Prader-Willi syndrome (characterized by obesity and features of obsessive-compulsive disorder), Angelman syndrome, (characterized by intractable epilepsy [19,20]), and XCI disorders such as ring Turner syndrome (which occurs when both the X and small ring X chromosomes are active, and is characterized by severe developmental delay that starts at birth [21]). Complete failure of XCI results in embryonic abortion [23,24]. These findings imply that proper epigenetic gene regulation is essential for normal development (Figure 1, middle)."

 

What are these two phenomena? 

Genomic imprinting

XCI

 

These two apparently are passed down from parent to child, making it hereditary.  The paragraph I've quoted says that from these two events, a range of syndromes take shape in the yet-unborn child. 

 

There's another paragraph that deals with environmental factors playing a role in gene manipulation, causing other syndromes like autism.

"Either de novo mutations in synaptic genes, congenital abnormalities of epigenetic control (for example, Rett syndrome), or acquired alterations of epigenetic control induced by various environmental factors can lead to synaptic dysfunction and resultin autism. Besides this category of 'synaptic autism', the categories of 'inflammatory autism' and 'splicing autism' are proposed"

 

"It was recently reported that short-term mental stress caused by maternal separation during the neonatal period alters the epigenetic status of the glucocorticoid receptor (Gr) promoter in the rat hippocampus, which leads to changes in gene expression. This altered epigenetic status and abnormal gene expression persisted throughout life, and resulted in abnormal behavior"

 

 

---Now, why is he telling us all of this?

What was his point he was trying to get across?

"The point being, the actions or lives of the parents can effect the child for generations....is this correct or not." -End3 post 113

 

"All these mass murderers. And then society screaming what happened. And then we of course define them as genetically warped? or sentence them to punishment. And somehow you would discount God knowing in advance." post 75

 

There it is.  His god knows all of these in advance, so his god somehow did the right this by giving the order for genocide.  Since his god, yeshitwa, gave a good order, he will follow it.  Read that over again.  He will follow it.

 

Mind you, the women children who were still virgins all seem to be perfectly OK and they're good to keep as sex slaves (Num 31).  But the male children of whole towns and cities?  Kill.  Also, kill the elderly, kill the helpless, kill the non-virgin women. 

 

Do you see his point?  He's somehow saying that all of the elderly, the helpless, the non-virgin women, and all males were somehow genetically bent on becoming Hitler. 

 

But wait a minute.  What else did he say?

"Let me help. ALLLLLLLLLLL people are worthy of death per the same genetic dysfunction."  post 146

 

Christians, read Num 31, the whole chapter. 

They kept the women children for themselves.

 

If End3 believes that all people are worthy of death because we somehow have some genetic dysfunction, then why the order to kill just the males and non-virgin women?  Why didn't his god order the deaths of all?

 

Anyways, let's continue on with this desperate grasping at straws.

 

What if a Muslim used this as justification?  This christian, this claimed brother in christ with you christian lurkers, said he will do it in the name of his god.  Why?  Because all mankind is genetically predisposed to be somehow worthy of death.  But no, his god is good.

 

What if a Muslim used this as justification for this:

 

Would you, dear christian, condemn that Muslim because he's wrong?  What is your justification and evidence that you're right and he's wrong?  Your holy book? 

 

End3 is the perfect poster for a Christian Taliban.  No, I don't say that lightly.  He has said himself he is perfectly willing to kill if god ordered it be done. 

 

What makes your faith in your god different from this American Taliban member?  What makes your faith any different from a Muslim's?

 

You can use science and rationality to suit your own conclusions.  You can choose to have a conclusion like the bible or the koran first, and then try and cobble together rationals and evidence that support your conclusion.

 

Or you can free your mind, and look at the evidence first, without any conclusions that tie you down.  This is real impartial reasoning.  Otherwise, you could very well turn out like this guy.