Is it actually impossible to reason with a devout christian?

[freshstart]

On 10/9/2019 at 5:25 PM, Edgarcito said:

Interesting dream I had several months after Dad died.  He was an atheist.  I've had dreams with relatives who have passed before....none had ever spoken that I remember.  But this dream....Dad comes back and sits at a table with me.  He had some other man with him that I didn't recognize.  Then he said something along the lines of "we are fortunate to have the Lamb".  Dream over.  It was kind of like you get to visit one person after you die.....go back once and give a message.  Very surprising actually.  Was it real?  I don't know.  Was it my own brain trying to help my Dad?  I don't know....possibly.

I would like to revisit this, Edgarcito. Your dad died an atheist. Is he deserving of eternal torture in hell? (I do not mean this to sound callous, by the way. My dad died an atheist, too. There can be a lot of emotional baggage that comes along with a parent's death, so I empathize).

You exhibit wishful thinking in your statement, giving credence to the possibility that the dead get to "go back once and give a message."

Please explain in what way your brain might be trying to "help" your deceased dad. Are you dealing with the probability (in your mind) that he is suffering in hell? If so, that is a special kind of emotional torture that Christians live with and my heart goes out to you.

 

[midniterider]

On 10/17/2019 at 6:43 PM, Edgarcito said:

 I have an quasi-intellectual side and a spiritual side that are mostly separate and that aren't threated by the other. 

    

 

Really, everyone of every stripe learns to deal with contradiction in every day life without it destroying their mind. 

[Edgarcito]

1 hour ago, freshstart said:

I would like to revisit this, Edgarcito. Your dad died an atheist. Is he deserving of eternal torture in hell? (I do not mean this to sound callous, by the way. My dad died an atheist, too. There can be a lot of emotional baggage that comes along with a parent's death, so I empathize).

You exhibit wishful thinking in your statement, giving credence to the possibility that the dead get to "go back once and give a message."

Please explain in what way your brain might be trying to "help" your deceased dad. Are you dealing with the probability (in your mind) that he is suffering in hell? If so, that is a special kind of emotional torture that Christians live with and my heart goes out to you.

 

Thanks.  One, the dream wasn't voluntary on my part.  I'm sure Dad loved us...he just opted for a more selfish life at some point.  Yeah, no one wants a person to go to hell.  Even I think it too severe given we're all subject to the generations before us.  I just thought the dream unusual in that it would have to have been very important that he made the effort to communicate....giving it more credibility from my perspective.  And he used words that were unusual to him....i.e. "the Lamb".  Was that my brain doing that?  Idk, possibly.  Truthfully, it surprised me that there might be hope we misunderstand the hell message and that Dad is not there.

[Edgarcito]

1 hour ago, WalterP said:

 

Edgarcito,

 

I see that you called my question stupid and then deflected, asking me a counter-question.  Let's see if you can do any better if I repeat it for you and also spell out your options.

 

Edgarcito, at the age of ten, one of YOUR children is abducted and sold into sexual slavery and brutally raped (anally, if you only have sons) multiple times every day, he/she kills commits suicide a year later.  Is that the level/place god needed him/her to be to fit his plan?'

 

Your options are these.

 

1. Agree that your child's suffering is part of god's plan.  (This would make you a monster.  What parent would allow their own child endure such torment?)

 

2. Deny that their suffering is part of god's plan.  (This would make you a hypocrite.  The ten year old girl that you've already washed your hands of wasn't one of your children.)

 

3. Say that you don't know.  (This would mean contradicting your reply to Freshstart, that your child has to suffer according to god's plan.)

 

4. Refuse to answer. (This would mean that when it comes to your own flesh and blood, you don't have the courage of your convictions.)

 

Well?  

The fact that these things happen beyond our control, that we rationalize them being part of a greater plan, does not make those people, nor me, a monster. 

You act like parents don't do their best in every/any way to prevent or stop these tragedies from happening. 

 

For the record, so you won't be confused.....you can't seem to infer from many attempts to answer your questions, my understanding/opinions.  For this reason, I don't wish to continue to reason with you anymore.  Thanks for the effort.   

[Edgarcito]

3 hours ago, Joshpantera said:

 

 

You're going with the option that I've all but falsified several fold now?

 

There's nothing perfect about a plan of evident, demonstrable, self contradicting nonsense. And yet, that's what you reach for. Pretty UNREASONABLE, wouldn't you think Edgarcito? 

Josh, the scope of the plan is what you seem to ignore....the finish.....the resurrected humanity in Him.....eternal life.  New understandings, ice cream, sprinkles....it's all gonna be there brother.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

Yes... ice cream.  That will make a life of sexual slavery and brutal atrocity worthwhile.  god is good.

[WalterP]

39 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

The fact that these things happen beyond our control, that we rationalize them being part of a greater plan, does not make those people, nor me, a monster. 

You act like parents don't do their best in every/any way to prevent or stop these tragedies from happening. 

 

For the record, so you won't be confused.....you can't seem to infer from many attempts to answer your questions, my understanding/opinions.  

 

 

 

Yes we can.  Your options are limited to being a monster, being a hypocrite, to contradicting yourself or not having the courage of your convictions.

 

You've declined to answer the question, so the last one applies to you.

 

39 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

 

 

 

For this reason, I don't wish to continue to reason with you anymore.  Thanks for the effort.   

 

[freshstart]

1 hour ago, Edgarcito said:

Thanks.  One, the dream wasn't voluntary on my part.  I'm sure Dad loved us...he just opted for a more selfish life at some point.  Yeah, no one wants a person to go to hell.  Even I think it too severe given we're all subject to the generations before us.  I just thought the dream unusual in that it would have to have been very important that he made the effort to communicate....giving it more credibility from my perspective.  And he used words that were unusual to him....i.e. "the Lamb".  Was that my brain doing that?  Idk, possibly.  Truthfully, it surprised me that there might be hope we misunderstand the hell message and that Dad is not there.

 

Ed, I'd like to better understand what you're saying, so lets break this down:

How are any dreams voluntary vs involuntary?

What makes you believe that the dead are capable of communicating via dreams? Are you hoping that by receiving this possible communicatuon from your dad, then perhaps he is not in hell? Could it be that you pushed down the emotional agony of "knowing" your father is suffering in hell to the depths of your subconscious? Perhaps in an attempt to ease your own discomfort about your father's demise, you had a dream that offered hope that your dad had somehow escaped hell.

 

If you think hell  "is too severe, given that we're all subject to the generations before us," then maybe you are having the exact same conflict that we all had before we deconverted?

 

I have been (presumably) where you are right  now: trying to piece together  a belief, a faith, that somehow explains why I should feel ok to trust some invisible entity when deep down, I have this horrible sense of discomfort knowing that fellow humans who believe differently than us are suffering for eternity as part of a perfect plan? How could this EVER be perfect?!

 

My atheist father was an asshole in many ways. He wasn't the perfect dad and he was a selfish man. I could go on and on about that. But neither was he a monster. He never physically abused me, he provided for me, supported me through college and eventually, after I had kids, became a teddy-bear, a completely different man than I grew up with. Is this the sort of person that deserves eternal hell? I mean, maybe a good ass-kicking for what he put my mom through for 3 decades. But an unspeakable suffering for all eternity? C'mon. . . . no one deserves that. Not your atheist dad. Not mine. Not all the jews, muslims, atheists, etc. And even with all my flaws, not me.

You say you were "surprised there might be hope that we misunderstand the hell message." Think about what you are saying there. You are basing your hopes about how the concept of hell has been interpreted by millions of people for millenia. . . . on a dream, a personal dream. How will you ever come to a conclusive answer about what the truth is? Will you trust your gut? Your dreams?  New interpretations of the bible? These things are all personal to you. Why should they apply to anyone else? If I have a dream that Edgarcito is deconverting into an atheist, why should that matter to you?

 

My hope for you is that you come here able to have an open mind and willing to seek truth, not necessarily validations for what you already believe.

[Joshpantera]

7 hours ago, Edgarcito said:

Josh, the scope of the plan is what you seem to ignore....the finish.....the resurrected humanity in Him.....eternal life.  New understandings, ice cream, sprinkles....it's all gonna be there brother.

 

No, I have not ignored the scope of the plan. I made very clear what the bible presents as this plan of salvation per the book of Revelation, which is what you're referring to above. The plan doesn't make any sense against what you believe, though. 

 

1) The god is eternal, he's always had eternal life. All along. The whole time. 

2) The god is omnipresent, meaning he's "all", and leading to your pantheistic notions of god. 

3) The god is omniscient, meaning he's all knowing, therefore doesn't have to experience anything or learning anything, because he necessarily already knows it all. 

 

If god has always had eternal life, and god is everything, then everything is just as eternal as god is. Because god is everything, and god is eternal. 

 

People living and dying, is an illusion in this sense. They are not really living and dying. They are just the god bubbling up forms and images out of itself which have the appearance of everything visible - planets, star systems, elements, life forms, and finally human beings. It all has to be the omnipresent god. And omnipresent god is eternal, hence, there isn't anything in existence which is actually finite or non-eternal. Do you follow this? All of the generations of people from adam to jesus, and from jesus to now, can not be anything OTHER than the god who is "all." 

 

What is resurrected? Nothing ever died to begin with? Nothing could have died, if EVERYTHING is nothing more than the god itself. It's not as if god had to come down to the earth in human form - the omnipresent god had been on the earth in human form all along, in every human that had ever existed. As well as everything else in existence. To suggest striving towards a time ahead in the future when everything will be ice cream and peachy, when eternal life is finally made available to humans, makes no sense. The plan of salvation is nonsense against philosophical pantheistic framework. 

 

What exactly do you think the scope of this plan is? The bible is contradictory across the board, including it's presentation of a plan of salvation, by an omnipresent god.

 

It's never going to all work together and line up. It's not possible for it to work together and line up. Because we're talking about differing opinions written about by differing personality types over the course of at least 500 years, if not a 1,000 year period of various writing. Who all saw in terms of small pieces of a puzzle, which, put altogether do not amount to a full picture. It is impossible for you to reconcile the bible as internally consistent when it never was to begin with. 

 

That's the big picture here, Edgarcito. 

 

That's what we've all come to realize, each in our own ways. The bible is nonsensical from beginning to end. Pantheism doesn't solve the bible's contradictions, it only creates more of them. The fall of man, plan of salvation, cross, resurrection, ascension, and return are part of the nonsense included in the bible. We're aware of the details surrounding that conclusion. 

 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

3 hours ago, Edgarcito said:

Yeah, no one wants a person to go to hell.  Even I think it too severe given we're all subject to the generations before us. 

Hell is too severe; but childhood rape is all just part of god's plan. 

[WalterP]

Hello folks.

 

About 20 hours ago, when I asked Edgarcito about what he would do if his own child were abducted and forced into sexual slavery, here's what he replied.

 

What are the alternatives Walter....you raise children as well as you are able given your own inexperience.  Try to teach and protect them as well as possible.  What are you going to do, kill the offender?  It's a tragedy on all sides.  I don't want to call this a stupid question Walter....but pretty close sir.

 

See that, folks?  He'd protect his child as well as possible.  Yet, nine days ago, when the RedneckProfessor asked him about a child that wasn't his, here's what was said.

 

Posted October 10

  On 10/10/2019 at 12:13 AM, TheRedneckProfessor said:

A ten-year-old girl gets sold into sexual slavery and is brutally raped multiple times every day; she kills herself a year later.  Is that the level/place god needed her to be to fit his plan?  

That would be the theory...

 

 

 

Can you see the hypocrisy of Edgarcito's two different responses?

 

If the child was his, he'd protect it as well as possible.

 

If the child wasn't his, then her suffering is just god's plan for her.  

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[freshstart]

4 hours ago, Edgarcito said:

Josh, the scope of the plan is what you seem to ignore....the finish.....the resurrected humanity in Him.....eternal life.  New understandings, ice cream, sprinkles....it's all gonna be there brother.

 

And what about all the deceased atheists, like your father and mine?  Will they be enjoying eternal life . . .complete with ice cream and sprinkles?

Tell me, Ed, how will all the true Christians like yourself enjoy "the finish" knowing millions of others are suffering in hell?  Will they just pretend these folks don't exist?  When Christ waves his magic cross and gives everyone a "new understanding" will that include amnesia?  Will heaven be located far enough away from hell that no one in heaven hears the screams?  Or could it be that these concepts (heaven and hell) were created and utilized by men to help manipulate and control populations in certain parts of the globe?  Could it be that the authors of these stories never counted on humans evolving into people that are far more compassionate and knowledgeable than they were?  Who would have thought that, for some folks, love might win out over fear?  Huh. 

 

[florduh]

6 hours ago, Edgarcito said:

Josh, the scope of the plan is what you seem to ignore....the finish.....the resurrected humanity in Him.....eternal life.  New understandings, ice cream, sprinkles....it's all gonna be there brother.

There is no reason to believe this. Are you really that gullible? I'd like to talk to you about Amway......

[Edgarcito]

18 hours ago, WalterP said:

Hello folks.

 

About 20 hours ago, when I asked Edgarcito about what he would do if his own child were abducted and forced into sexual slavery, here's what he replied.

 

What are the alternatives Walter....you raise children as well as you are able given your own inexperience.  Try to teach and protect them as well as possible.  What are you going to do, kill the offender?  It's a tragedy on all sides.  I don't want to call this a stupid question Walter....but pretty close sir.

 

See that, folks?  He'd protect his child as well as possible.  Yet, nine days ago, when the RedneckProfessor asked him about a child that wasn't his, here's what was said.

 

Posted October 10

  On 10/10/2019 at 12:13 AM, TheRedneckProfessor said:

A ten-year-old girl gets sold into sexual slavery and is brutally raped multiple times every day; she kills herself a year later.  Is that the level/place god needed her to be to fit his plan?  

That would be the theory...

 

 

 

Can you see the hypocrisy of Edgarcito's two different responses?

 

If the child was his, he'd protect it as well as possible.

 

If the child wasn't his, then her suffering is just god's plan for her.  

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

No Walter, it doesn't matter whose child it is, the theory is that we are all within God's plan.  We are all subjects to something larger....whether we wish to call it God or something else. 

[Edgarcito]

19 hours ago, Joshpantera said:

 

No, I have not ignored the scope of the plan. I made very clear what the bible presents as this plan of salvation per the book of Revelation, which is what you're referring to above. The plan doesn't make any sense against what you believe, though. 

 

1) The god is eternal, he's always had eternal life. All along. The whole time. 

2) The god is omnipresent, meaning he's "all", and leading to your pantheistic notions of god. 

3) The god is omniscient, meaning he's all knowing, therefore doesn't have to experience anything or learning anything, because he necessarily already knows it all. 

 

If god has always had eternal life, and god is everything, then everything is just as eternal as god is. Because god is everything, and god is eternal. 

 

People living and dying, is an illusion in this sense. They are not really living and dying. They are just the god bubbling up forms and images out of itself which have the appearance of everything visible - planets, star systems, elements, life forms, and finally human beings. It all has to be the omnipresent god. And omnipresent god is eternal, hence, there isn't anything in existence which is actually finite or non-eternal. Do you follow this? All of the generations of people from adam to jesus, and from jesus to now, can not be anything OTHER than the god who is "all." 

 

What is resurrected? Nothing ever died to begin with? Nothing could have died, if EVERYTHING is nothing more than the god itself. It's not as if god had to come down to the earth in human form - the omnipresent god had been on the earth in human form all along, in every human that had ever existed. As well as everything else in existence. To suggest striving towards a time ahead in the future when everything will be ice cream and peachy, when eternal life is finally made available to humans, makes no sense. The plan of salvation is nonsense against philosophical pantheistic framework. 

 

What exactly do you think the scope of this plan is? The bible is contradictory across the board, including it's presentation of a plan of salvation, by an omnipresent god.

 

It's never going to all work together and line up. It's not possible for it to work together and line up. Because we're talking about differing opinions written about by differing personality types over the course of at least 500 years, if not a 1,000 year period of various writing. Who all saw in terms of small pieces of a puzzle, which, put altogether do not amount to a full picture. It is impossible for you to reconcile the bible as internally consistent when it never was to begin with. 

 

That's the big picture here, Edgarcito. 

 

That's what we've all come to realize, each in our own ways. The bible is nonsensical from beginning to end. Pantheism doesn't solve the bible's contradictions, it only creates more of them. The fall of man, plan of salvation, cross, resurrection, ascension, and return are part of the nonsense included in the bible. We're aware of the details surrounding that conclusion. 

 

I hear you Josh....makes decent sense.  I need to explore these thoughts.  One thing comes immediately to mind....that although there may be different manifestations, they all don't possess the same abilities.  For example a leaf on a tree is alive for a time....then it takes a different path back toward life after it falls to the ground.  This is still a pantheistic approach yet seemingly contradicts your eternal life statement.  But, that's just quickly off the cuff.  I'll think some more.  Again, thanks for the effort.

[Edgarcito]

20 hours ago, freshstart said:

 

My hope for you is that you come here able to have an open mind and willing to seek truth, not necessarily validations for what you already believe.

Thanks for the response.  Let me please say this as plainly as possible.  I can see the points made on both sides.  The dream could have been my brain certainly.  I'm sure I've pushed some of this down internally.  Hell is very severe  for a dad that was seemingly much like yours.  All of what you say is viably a part of "my truth".  But the certainty I have in Christianity is also that truth and because it's by faith, I can't disqualify it because it doesn't exactly match the other forms of "my truth".  Why is it necessary that the objective truths hold a higher ground.  I find great stability and comfort, peace, in Christianity.  Why must it be an either, or.  Do each of you see something I don't.  Do you see discomfort somehow?  I don't.  Granted I'm not too fond of the church crowd, but that's independent of my relationship with the Cosmos.

[freshstart]

28 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

I find great stability and comfort, peace, in Christianity.  Why must it be an either, or.  Do each of you see something I don't.  Do you see discomfort somehow?  I don't.  Granted I'm not too fond of the church crowd, but that's independent of my relationship with the Cosmos.

 

Listen, if you find great stability and comfort and peace in Christianity, good for you. For me there is no comfort in believing that millions of people suffer at the hands of god.  Personally I would have to "cherry pick" parts of the bible to "find comfort."  But once I rejected the biblical god as benevolent, all-knowing, etc.  I began a search to see if there was any real merit to the "what if I"m wrong" argument.  I'm not fond of the church crowd either (never was).  And I'm not exactly an atheist.  I'm a fan of Alan Watts and his explanations of an intelligent universe - based on Eastern philosophies.  There are a lot of ex-Christians who do not reject the possibility of a "higher power," for lack of a better term.  But we do reject the notion that a god, as described in the bible, was anything other than mythology - similar to Greek mythology.  If your gut is telling you there must be something more, some spiritual realm that perhaps we do not fully understand yet, why do you have to explore that from the Christian mind-set?  Chances are, if you were born in a different part of the globe, you would be holding fast to whatever the religion was most prominent in that geographical area.  Doesn't it strike you as odd that the biblical god doesn't really seem to give shit about the billiions of people who have lived and died in certain geographical areas where Christianity never really took hold?  But listen if you are perfectly comfortable ignoring certain parts of the bible, the contradictions, etc then good for you. 

[Edgarcito]

7 minutes ago, freshstart said:

 

Listen, if you find great stability and comfort and peace in Christianity, good for you. For me there is no comfort in believing that millions of people suffer at the hands of god.  Personally I would have to "cherry pick" parts of the bible to "find comfort."  But once I rejected the biblical god as benevolent, all-knowing, etc.  I began a search to see if there was any real merit to the "what if I"m wrong" argument.  I'm not fond of the church crowd either (never was).  And I'm not exactly an atheist.  I'm a fan of Alan Watts and his explanations of an intelligent universe - based on Eastern philosophies.  There are a lot of ex-Christians who do not reject the possibility of a "higher power," for lack of a better term.  But we do reject the notion that a god, as described in the bible, was anything other than mythology - similar to Greek mythology.  If your gut is telling you there must be something more, some spiritual realm that perhaps we do not fully understand yet, why do you have to explore that from the Christian mind-set?  Chances are, if you were born in a different part of the globe, you would be holding fast to whatever the religion was most prominent in that geographical area.  Doesn't it strike you as odd that the biblical god doesn't really seem to give shit about the billiions of people who have lived and died in certain geographical areas where Christianity never really took hold?  But listen if you are perfectly comfortable ignoring certain parts of the bible, the contradictions, etc then good for you. 

Lol... I’m ok where I’m at.  You’re a little fiery is why I’m laughing.

[WalterP]

1 hour ago, Edgarcito said:

No Walter, it doesn't matter whose child it is, the theory is that we are all within God's plan.  We are all subjects to something larger....whether we wish to call it God or something else. 

 

Yes, it does edgarcito and your words confirm that.

 

If you protect your own child from suffering, then that is your standard for your flesh and blood.

 

If you wash your hands of a child that isn't yours, then that's a different standard of conduct on your part.

 

If we are all subjects of God's plan, then you are interfering with that plan by keeping your own child safe from harm...

 

...but not interfering with the plan, when you allow a child that isn't your own to continue suffering.

 

Two different standards.  That's hypocrisy.

[Edgarcito]

16 minutes ago, WalterP said:

 

Yes, it does edgarcito and your words confirm that.

 

If you protect your own child from suffering, then that is your standard for your flesh and blood.

 

If you wash your hands of a child that isn't yours, then that's a different standard of conduct on your part.

 

If we are all subjects of God's plan, then you are interfering with that plan by keeping your own child safe from harm...

 

...but not interfering with the plan, when you allow a child that isn't your own to continue suffering.

 

Two different standards.  That's hypocrisy.

My caring for my child is inclusive to the plan.  My level of caring for someone else's child is also in the inclusive to the plan.  You need to go re-read my earlier posts.  I have never said that I wash my hands of someone else's child, nor wouldn't interfere. I HAVE said that their circumstance and outcome is within the plan.  Please make an attempt to understand this that I might remove you from the idiot column in my brain.  Thx.

[Justus]

2 hours ago, WalterP said:

Two different standards.  That's hypocrisy.

 

So what are you doing except being that same ole self righteous, judgmental, holier than thou, religious hypocrite that you were before you came to the knowledge of your new imaginary truth like you did when you ran around claiming Jesus is Lord! Jesus is Lord!. ...............yet what are you doing to help that girl?   (So do you feel like you where a sself righteous, judgmental, holier than thou, religious hypocrite when you were a Christian-if you weren't then please accept my apology and disregard this post.)

 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

I get the overall impression that Swirling Eddie resents many parts of god's plan, possibly even the bulk of it; but feels more-or-less trapped by the ideas that a). there is a god, b). that god must be everything, and c). that god must have a divine destiny mapped out for everything and everyone since it's all part of him anyway.  It seems sometimes like he's trying to defend, even justify, a plan he greatly disagrees with.  I know that feeling all too well...  For me, it eventually became plain that god never had a plan for any of us; perhaps the same will eventually happen for ed.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

3 hours ago, Edgarcito said:

Please make an attempt to understand this that I might remove you from the idiot column in my brain

Anyway, I know some mention has already been made about lashing out and fear wearing masks, so, could you deal with that so I can move you from the angry column in my brain?

[WalterP]

52 minutes ago, Justus said:

 

So what are you doing except being that same ole self righteous, judgmental, holier than thou, religious hypocrite that you were before you came to the knowledge of your new imaginary truth like you did when you ran around claiming Jesus is Lord! Jesus is Lord!. ...............yet what are you doing to help that girl?   (So do you feel like you where a sself righteous, judgmental, holier than thou, religious hypocrite when you were a Christian-if you weren't then please accept my apology and disregard this post.)

 

 

Yes Justus, in one respect, you're exactly right.

 

I WAS a self righteous, judgmental, holier than thou religious hypocrite when I was a Christian, BECAUSE I did nothing to help that girl, in clear contradiction of what Jesus told his followers to go and do. 

 

But now, years later, when I'm finished and done with Jesus, I've actually done something about it.  Here in the UK there's an organization called the NSPCC. 

https://www.nspcc.org.uk/what-you-can-do/make-a-donation?gclsrc=aw.ds&&gclid=EAIaIQobChMIyITkk-Gr5QIVTUTTCh03cgAOEAAYASAAEgJ7qfD_BwE&gclsrc=aw.ds

Up until five years ago I was the secretary of our local branch, responsible for fundraising and sponsorship.  All told, I've spent a dozen years assisting the NSPCC in various ways.  Besides donating thousands of pounds in person, I've run half-marathons, taken part in sponsored swim-marathons and I've added a clause to my will, bequeathing a portion of my personal estate to the NSPCC when I die.  

 

Ok, it could be argued that I'm not actually helping THAT particular little girl.  My response to that accusation would be to point out that when I broke with Jesus I also broke with the terms and conditions of his new covenant of the blood.  Therefore, what I should have been responsible for when I was a Christian is no longer binding upon me.  I would also counter that charge by pointing out that I've done much, much more for sexually abused children since leaving Christianity than when I was a Christian.

 

Justus, now that you know these things about me, if you still want to consider me to be a self-righteous, judgmental, holier than thou religious hypocrite, then go ahead.

 

But you'll have no grounds for considering me to be holy or religious, ok?

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

 

 

[WalterP]

3 hours ago, Edgarcito said:

My caring for my child is inclusive to the plan.  My level of caring for someone else's child is also in the inclusive to the plan.  You need to go re-read my earlier posts.  I have never said that I wash my hands of someone else's child, nor wouldn't interfere. I HAVE said that their circumstance and outcome is within the plan.  Please make an attempt to understand this that I might remove you from the idiot column in my brain.  Thx.

 

The plan seems to be all-important, Edgarcito.

 

So, please help this idiot understand your role in the plan by answering another question.

 

Where does the plan end and your free will begin?

 

I ask because the topic of Predestination was a frequently-discussed one in my church.  If the plan is fixed and predetermined by god, then you have no free will and it was his choice for you to care or not care.  But if you have free will, then I'd like to understand where it fits in with god's plan.

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.