Suffering for the Sins of the World

[☆ DarkBishop ☆]

7 hours ago, walterpthefirst said:

And yet, there is another curious example from scripture of a person who avoided inheriting their sin from Eve.

 

Genesis 14 : 18  - 20.

 

18 Then Melchizedek king of Salem brought out bread and wine. He was priest of God Most High, 

19 and he blessed Abram, saying,

“Blessed be Abram by God Most High,
    Creator of heaven and earth.
20 And praise be to God Most High,
    who delivered your enemies into your hand.”

Then Abram gave him a tenth of everything.

 

Psalm 110 : 4

 

The Lord has sworn
    and will not change his mind:
“You are a priest forever,
    in the order of Melchizedek.”

 

Hebrews 7 : 1 - 3

 

7 This Melchizedek was king of Salem and priest of God Most High. He met Abraham returning from the defeat of the kings and blessed him, 

2 and Abraham gave him a tenth of everything. First, the name Melchizedek means “king of righteousness”; then also, “king of Salem” means “king of peace.” 

3 Without father or mother, without genealogy, without beginning of days or end of life, resembling the Son of God, he remains a priest forever.

 

If the apostle Paul was the true author of the book of Hebrews then we have another scriptural contradiction.  Paul explains that Melchizedek was not descended from Eve.  Therefore, he is exempt from any of the curses god laid upon Adam and Eve.  This meant that he could live forever and never die.  Which is why he was fit to be a priest forever.  No priest can approach god's presence in the Holy of Holies without a blood sacrifice to wash away their sins.  But Melchizedek could. 

 

So, it seems that if god wishes it, he could create people who would never need the forgiveness found in Jesus' blood.  They were made sinless and stayed sinless forever.  Which is a direct contradiction to Romans 3, also written by Paul. 

 

Romans 

 

21 But now apart from the law the righteousness of God has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. 

22 This righteousness is given through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference between Jew and Gentile, 

23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 and all are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus.

 

But because god made Melchizedek sinless and fit to be a priest forever, ALL have not sinned.

 

Paul contradicts himself.

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

 

Some believe that Melchizedek was Jesus. We believed there were several instances where Jesus appeared throughout the Bible. But only once where he came in the flesh like us. When he was born of Mary. 

[freshstart]

11 hours ago, Edgarcito said:

And that in the end we are essentially arguing for the same outcome.

And what exactly is "the same outcome?"

Im sorry Ed. . . it may be just me (and I in no way mean this as a personal attack) but I have a hard time folllowing the meaning of what you post sometimes. Is it my imagination or do you tend to talk in ways that don't really convey specific information? I feel like you are sometimes trying to get people  to interpret what you're saying rather than saying it directly. But again, I could be way off base. This is just my perception.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

15 hours ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

Cool story.  But which group is our 10-year-old sex slave in?  And why is she in that group?

 

14 hours ago, Edgarcito said:

She's in the waiting to get out group....

@Edgarcito, please explain why the 10-year-old sex slave is in the "waiting to get out" group.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

17 hours ago, Edgarcito said:

Jesus becomes sin.

You also understand, of course, per the law of non-contradiction, that jesus could not become sin while simultaneously being a holy god.  This is because A cannot be not A, as in A cannot also be the complete opposite of A.  Sin cannot be holiness; and holiness cannot be sin.  If jesus became sin, then he was no longer holy; and if he was no longer holy, then he was no longer god.

 

This is not a major sticking point that I want to spend too much time arguing on at present.  I'm much more concerned about the 10-year-old sex slave.  So long as it is accepted that this idea of jesus becoming sin is yet another inconsistency in the bible. 

[walterpthefirst]

15 hours ago, DarkBishop said:

Some believe that Melchizedek was Jesus. We believed there were several instances where Jesus appeared throughout the Bible. But only once where he came in the flesh like us. When he was born of Mary. 

 

Yes, my church taught that Jesus appeared in the OT, DB.  Here's one that I recall.

 

Joshua 5 : 13 - 15

 

13 Now when Joshua was near Jericho, he looked up and saw a man standing in front of him with a drawn sword in his hand. Joshua went up to him and asked, “Are you for us or for our enemies?”

14 “Neither,” he replied, “but as commander of the army of the Lord I have now come.” Then Joshua fell facedown to the ground in reverence, and asked him, “What message does my Lord have for his servant?”

15 The commander of the Lord’s army replied, “Take off your sandals, for the place where you are standing is holy.” And Joshua did so.

 

The reasoning went like this.

Who else but Jesus would be the commander of god's army and who else but Jesus would accept it when someone fell face down in reverence in front of them.  The prophet Daniel and the apostle John both fell down like this in the presence of powerful angels but they were told by these angels, "Do not do it!".  Those angels knew that only god himself was worthy of such adoration.

 

But was Melchizedek, Jesus?  Who knows?  I certainly don't.  However, in Genesis 14 he seems to be fully human.  I suppose the jury's out on this one and will stay out forever - just like Melchizedek's priesthood.

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

[walterpthefirst]

Posted Tuesday at 04:04 PM

Edgarcito,

 

I've been thinking hard about our discussion in this thread and perhaps this might help you understand where the responsibility (and fault) lies in Eden.  You're from Texas so I've no need to explain to you about rattlesnakes and how people have died from being bitten by them.  Now please put yourself into this scenario.

 

 

You have two very young, innocent and vulnerable children and you know that if a rattler came into your garden it could do them harm.  As a loving, intelligent and resourceful father with deep pockets you could protect your children by encircling your garden with a 100% effective snake-proof fence.  By doing that your children would 100% safe from all harm.

 

But you don't do that.

 

You don't warn your children about the clear and present danger of these rattlesnakes and besides, they are too young and naïve to understand what these things are, how these snakes could hurt them and they don't understand what death is either.  The responsibility for their safety lies exclusively with you.  Not with your children and not with anyone else.  This is down to you.  Only you.  YOU.

 

One day you see that a rattler is in your garden and is gliding swiftly and silently towards your little girl.  She is in immediate danger.  If you don't do something quickly the snake will harm her.  You only have a short time to act.

 

But you don't do anything.

 

She sees the snake but doesn't understand how dangerous it is and she lets it get right up close to her.  It's getting ready to strike.  You only have seconds to act and save her from harm and death.

 

But you still don't do anything.

 

The snake bites her!  You could still intervene and stop it from injecting too much venom into her.

 

But you do nothing at all.

 

 

Now let's transfer this over to what happened in Eden.  Unlike you god knew in advance that Satan intended to harm Adam and Eve.  But, like you he had the resources, the opportunity and the means of fully protecting his vulnerable children from harm.  Like you he did nothing to protect them.

 

Like you, god saw Satan approaching his daughter Eve in the form of a serpent and like you he had the opportunity to protect her from harm.  Once again, like you, god did nothing to protect her.

 

Like you god saw that Eve was unaware of the danger she was in, just as you saw that your daughter was unaware of the danger she was in from the rattlesnake.  Like you, god still had the time and the opportunity to protect Eve from harm.  Once again, like you, god did nothing to protect her.

 

Just as you saw the rattler get within striking distance of your daughter, so god saw Satan about to speak to Eve.  Like you, if god had reacted quickly enough he could have protected his daughter from harm.  And like you, god did nothing.

 

Just as you saw the snake bite and still had time to intervene, so god had time to cut short Satan's lies and save Eve from the harm Satan intended to do her.  And just as you did nothing before it was too late, so god did nothing before it was too late.

 

 

Now we come to the questions, Edgarcito. 

 

In your garden in Texas who was responsible for keeping your daughter safe from harm?

 

In the garden of Eden who was responsible for keeping Eve safe from harm?

 

In your garden in Texas who's fault was it that your daughter came to harm?

 

In the garden of Eden who's fault was it that Eve came to harm?

 

 

Please answer these questions.

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

 

 

[Edgarcito]

12 hours ago, freshstart said:

And what exactly is "the same outcome?"

Im sorry Ed. . . it may be just me (and I in no way mean this as a personal attack) but I have a hard time folllowing the meaning of what you post sometimes. Is it my imagination or do you tend to talk in ways that don't really convey specific information? I feel like you are sometimes trying to get people  to interpret what you're saying rather than saying it directly. But again, I could be way off base. This is just my perception.

You're right.  I graduated college but had quit high school previously.  I don't write well.  I don't adequately flesh out what I'm trying to say.  It's hindersome to everyone involved.  Apologies for dining at Ed's word salad bar...

[☆ DarkBishop ☆]

1 hour ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

You also understand, of course, per the law of non-contradiction, that jesus could not become sin while simultaneously being a holy god.  This is because A cannot be not A, as in A cannot also be the complete opposite of A.  Sin cannot be holiness; and holiness cannot be sin.  If jesus became sin, then he was no longer holy; and if he was no longer holy, then he was no longer god.

 

This is not a major sticking point that I want to spend too much time arguing on at present.  I'm much more concerned about the 10-year-old sex slave.  So long as it is accepted that this idea of jesus becoming sin is yet another inconsistency in the 

 

I still don't agree with trinitarian beliefs. They debated about that for years before the council of Nicea.

 

In the gospels Jesus always pointed to the father. For Jesus God was always greater. He can't very well set on the right hand of the father unless he was a separate entity. It just seems to me that the concept of God the father, God the son, and God the Holy Ghost isn't supported enough in the bible. 

 

So if all three are not literally one being. How does that change the argument? Or does it? 

[Edgarcito]

12 hours ago, freshstart said:

And what exactly is "the same outcome?"

Im sorry Ed. . . it may be just me (and I in no way mean this as a personal attack) but I have a hard time folllowing the meaning of what you post sometimes. Is it my imagination or do you tend to talk in ways that don't really convey specific information? I feel like you are sometimes trying to get people  to interpret what you're saying rather than saying it directly. But again, I could be way off base. This is just my perception.

Regarding your question.  I don't think anyone here is pro-human trafficking.  Nor am I.  That we could live with each other knowing what the other needs.  I think Christianity helps me do that.  Everyone here likely chooses a different mechanism.  But betting everyone is more or less trying to be good people.  That's what I was speculating about.

[☆ DarkBishop ☆]

16 minutes ago, walterpthefirst said:

But was Melchizedek, Jesus?  Who knows?  I certainly don't.  However, in Genesis 14 he seems to be fully human.  I suppose the jury's out on this one and will stay out forever - just like Melchizedek's priesthood.

There really isn't enough written about him to know for sure. I imagine that at some point there was more written about Melchizedek. It seems like whoever Melchizedek was he was the inspiration for Abraham. 

 

Since there is so little written or so little that has survived the test of time. It makes me think that he was part of the early beliefs, kind of like the pantheon of El found in the Ugarit Tablets. There's not much left of those old polytheisic beliefs left in the bible. But there are still little snipets here and there. Like Genesis chapter 6.

 

1 And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them, 2 That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose. 3 And the LORD said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years. 4 There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.

 

This is obviously polytheistic in nature. And reminiscent of other polytheistic tales from Greek and norse mythology. According to what was found in the Ugarit tablets El had Sons and a Wife. The infamous Baal being one of El's sons even. 

 

So in light of that. God having a son named Jesus who was a separate being all together isn't a stretch. Especially when that child was supposedly prophesied to come, born of a Virgin. 

 

I can understand how this became an issue in the early church that was trying to convince the Roman's to break away from polytheistic beliefs. 

[walterpthefirst]

I've come across this before too, DB.

 

That is, the apparent evolution of scripture from a polytheistic mindset to a monotheistic one.  Needless to say this was vigorously opposed by some of the hard-line Christians of my acquaintance.  And you can see what they were worried about.

 

If the supposedly inerrant and divinely-inspired Word of god shows signs of evolving in this way, doesn't that suggest that the bible is, in fact, the work of changeable human minds in changing cultures, rather than a single and unchanging heavenly author?

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

[☆ DarkBishop ☆]

7 minutes ago, walterpthefirst said:

I've come across this before too, DB.

 

That is, the apparent evolution of scripture from a polytheistic mindset to a monotheistic one.  Needless to say this was vigorously opposed by some of the hard-line Christians of my acquaintance.  And you can see what they were worried about.

 

If the supposedly inerrant and divinely-inspired Word of god shows signs of evolving in this way, doesn't that suggest that the bible is, in fact, the work of changeable human minds in changing cultures, rather than a single and unchanging heavenly author?

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

 

Yes it absolutely does. But that is what happened. It won't work in any Christian church that takes an inerrant stance on the Bible. Or anything close to an inerrant stance. 

 

As a former Christian tho it answers so much of the confusion that I felt when reading and studying the Bible as a believer. Its liberating to finally have answers for all those questions. 

[walterpthefirst]

Amen.

 

But perhaps we'd better wind up this little excursion.  It's interesting, but off - topic.  Ok?

 

 

Walter.

[☆ DarkBishop ☆]

12 minutes ago, walterpthefirst said:

Amen.

 

But perhaps we'd better wind up this little excursion.  It's interesting, but off - topic.  Ok?

 

 

Walter.

Lol. Amen. Don't use that one much anymore. 

 

Yeah, I get it. We can drop it. But about my question that does pertain to the topic. If there are 3 separate beings that were present during creation. Would that change the argument any?

 

Also, this kind of goes back to an evolutionary tale of the omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent. When you read Genesis. God seems to be taken by surprise. Like he didn't know what had happened when he walked into Eden that day. 

 

8 And they heard the voice of the Lord God walking in the garden in the cool of the day: and Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the Lord God amongst the trees of the garden.

9 And the Lord God called unto Adam, and said unto him, Where art thou?

10 And he said, I heard thy voice in the garden, and I was afraid, because I was naked; and I hid myself.

11 And he said, Who told thee that thou wast naked? Hast thou eaten of the tree, whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldest not eat?

 

So either God in genesis wasn't omniscient or he was being slightly deceptive. Acting like he didn't already know. And if was being deceptive, would that not be considered guile? Which causes a whole other issue because biblically thats not supposed to be possible. 

 

2pet 2:22 KJV

Who did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth:

 

2 pet 2:22 NIV

Who committed no sin, Nor was deceit found in His mouth

 

DB

[☆ DarkBishop ☆]

So maybe Genesis God wasn't omniscient or omnipotent. And if he is neither of those. Than he could still be omnibenevolent. All loving but incapable of stopping Satan and not able to see what is about to happen. In that case would he be excused from sin and death passing upon all men?

 

However, I know that later in the bible, God is definitely all three. Omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent. But maybe God had to grow into that himself. This was the beginning after all. 

[alreadyGone]

3 minutes ago, DarkBishop said:

So maybe Genesis God wasn't omniscient or omnipotent. And if he is neither of those. Than he could still be omnibenevolent. All loving but incapable of stopping Satan and not able to see what is about to happen. In that case would he be excused from sin and death passing upon all men?

 

However, I know that later in the bible, God is definitely all three. Omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent. But maybe God had to grow into that himself. This was the beginning after all. 

 

The Bible states that God has/had no beginning and no end.

 

I would assert that if the God of the bible is not omniscient and omnipotent, then none of the Gospel makes any sense at all.

 

[☆ DarkBishop ☆]

9 minutes ago, alreadyGone said:

 

The Bible states that God has/had no beginning and no end.

 

I would assert that if the God of the bible is not omniscient and omnipotent, then none of the Gospel makes any sense at all.

 

Exactly  

 

There are all kinds of issues that just don't fit. Just like that all over the Bible. 

 

So now we have the issue of God not being completely sinless and deciet free then. Because, as stated before. He was acting like he didn't know. Which is deciet. Or was he giving another "test"? Checking to see if they would lie to him as well as disobey him?

 

But even if it was a "test". Would it be ok for a sinless God to be deceptive even if it is a test? 

[Edgarcito]

2 hours ago, walterpthefirst said:

Posted Tuesday at 04:04 PM

Edgarcito,

 

I've been thinking hard about our discussion in this thread and perhaps this might help you understand where the responsibility (and fault) lies in Eden.  You're from Texas so I've no need to explain to you about rattlesnakes and how people have died from being bitten by them.  Now please put yourself into this scenario.

 

 

You have two very young, innocent and vulnerable children and you know that if a rattler came into your garden it could do them harm.  As a loving, intelligent and resourceful father with deep pockets you could protect your children by encircling your garden with a 100% effective snake-proof fence.  By doing that your children would 100% safe from all harm.

 

But you don't do that.

 

You don't warn your children about the clear and present danger of these rattlesnakes and besides, they are too young and naïve to understand what these things are, how these snakes could hurt them and they don't understand what death is either.  The responsibility for their safety lies exclusively with you.  Not with your children and not with anyone else.  This is down to you.  Only you.  YOU.

 

One day you see that a rattler is in your garden and is gliding swiftly and silently towards your little girl.  She is in immediate danger.  If you don't do something quickly the snake will harm her.  You only have a short time to act.

 

But you don't do anything.

 

She sees the snake but doesn't understand how dangerous it is and she lets it get right up close to her.  It's getting ready to strike.  You only have seconds to act and save her from harm and death.

 

But you still don't do anything.

 

The snake bites her!  You could still intervene and stop it from injecting too much venom into her.

 

But you do nothing at all.

 

 

Now let's transfer this over to what happened in Eden.  Unlike you god knew in advance that Satan intended to harm Adam and Eve.  But, like you he had the resources, the opportunity and the means of fully protecting his vulnerable children from harm.  Like you he did nothing to protect them.

 

Like you, god saw Satan approaching his daughter Eve in the form of a serpent and like you he had the opportunity to protect her from harm.  Once again, like you, god did nothing to protect her.

 

Like you god saw that Eve was unaware of the danger she was in, just as you saw that your daughter was unaware of the danger she was in from the rattlesnake.  Like you, god still had the time and the opportunity to protect Eve from harm.  Once again, like you, god did nothing to protect her.

 

Just as you saw the rattler get within striking distance of your daughter, so god saw Satan about to speak to Eve.  Like you, if god had reacted quickly enough he could have protected his daughter from harm.  And like you, god did nothing.

 

Just as you saw the snake bite and still had time to intervene, so god had time to cut short Satan's lies and save Eve from the harm Satan intended to do her.  And just as you did nothing before it was too late, so god did nothing before it was too late.

 

 

Now we come to the questions, Edgarcito. 

 

In your garden in Texas who was responsible for keeping your daughter safe from harm?

 

In the garden of Eden who was responsible for keeping Eve safe from harm?

 

In your garden in Texas who's fault was it that your daughter came to harm?

 

In the garden of Eden who's fault was it that Eve came to harm?

 

 

Please answer these questions.

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

 

 

Let me stop you at the bolded part as I felt compelled to do that having almost this scenario on the farm/ranch I lived on.  My wife had invested in a mixed bag of chicks to be an experience for our kids and the groups that would come out to the house as a field trip.  My wife raised butterflies for release.  In the process, it was a good learning experience for young kids to come understand the butterfly cycle.  Again, she had purchased a bunch of mixed chicks by mail to put out there so the children could watch the chickens while they were there.  Moving forward, we lost many to coyotes but had one big black shiny rooster still left with a couple others.  So, my second daughter was maybe two years old or three maybe.  She wanders out in the yard and waddles by this rooster, and I am there watching.  Both cross paths and then she waddles away laughing...and I'm thinking to myself, wow, that rooster didn't react.  And just as I was thinking that he runs towards her and spurred her in the back and knocked her down.  Seems harsh but I shot him with a shotgun and then stomped on him before I put him in the burn barrel and later burnt him up with the trash.  I knew the rooster had the potential.  I would have stopped the spurring had I known it was happening.  And I killed the rooster for the act.

 

To our questions,

 

1) Was mine.

2) God and Adam, unless you are a modern feminist, then Eve handles her own shit.

3) I allowed the crossing of paths, but it was the rooster's fault.

4) God allowed it, but it was the serpent's deception.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

41 minutes ago, DarkBishop said:

However, I know that later in the bible, God is definitely all three. Omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent. But maybe God had to grow into that himself. This was the beginning after all. 

Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever. 

Hebrews 13:8

 

So, DB, if jesus is god, then god cannot change, per his word.  This means that if the god of Genesis was not omniscient, then the god of those later verses in the bible could not have been omniscient either.  Ditto that for omnipotent, omnibenevolent, and omnipresent (which goes back to the question of how god could not have known where Adam and Eve were hiding if god was literally already there with them).

 

This also goes back to Ed's claim that jesus became sin.  Well, no he didn't; because if he is holy today, then he was also holy yesterday, and he will be holy forevermore.  He is the same as he ever was; and he cannot change.

 

Personally, I never doubted that jesus was god while I was a christian; nor did I doubt that the bible was the inerrant and infallible word of god.  Obviously, I've found significant problems with both doctrines since then.  But, having firmly believed them previously comes in mighty handy now in arguing against them.  That's one reason I am always so impressed by your counter-arguments and posts.  I can tell they come from a True Scotsman.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

@Edgarcito, please explain why the 10-year-old sex slave is in the "waiting to get out" group.

[Edgarcito]

11 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

@Edgarcito, please explain why the 10-year-old sex slave is in the "waiting to get out" group.

Perhaps she thinks the situation she's in is normal.  Perhaps she reveres whoever is abusing her because she's not old enough to understand.   Regardless, when she becomes aware of her own ideologies, she one, doesn't comprehend the universe and how to adequately treat her subjectiveness such that she goes through life understanding the ramifications of her actions, and two, her nature and will place her, just like the rest of humanity in the same boat, ignorant of sin, and also willing to do so.  And until Jesus busts through the clouds kicking ass....except for the feminists kicking ass for themselves, she will remain in the Holy Spirit part of the dispensation of God's plan.

 

 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

10 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

Perhaps she thinks the situation she's in is normal.  Perhaps she reveres whoever is abusing her because she's not old enough to understand.   Regardless, when she becomes aware of her own ideologies, she one, doesn't comprehend the universe and how to adequately treat her subjectiveness such that she goes through life understanding the ramifications of her actions, and two, her nature and will place her, just like the rest of humanity in the same boat, ignorant of sin, and also willing to do so.

So, it's her fault.  She's ten years old, sold into slavery, and raped on a daily basis... and it's her fault.

 

I'm ashamed of you, Ed; but not nearly as ashamed as an omnibenevolent god would be, if one existed.

[Edgarcito]

And EVEN if she's able to totally overcome her situation, she is still affected by generations of the aforementioned and the consequences that she can't even fathom.

[Edgarcito]

Just now, TheRedneckProfessor said:

So, it's her fault.  She's ten years old, sold into slavery, and raped on a daily basis... and it's her fault.

 

I'm ashamed of you, Ed; but not nearly as ashamed as an omnibenevolent god would be, if one existed.

I don't see it as her fault at age 10 but she's trapped in the mire.  

 

I'm not particularly proud of you either John....js.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

Just now, Edgarcito said:

And EVEN if she's able to totally overcome her situation, she is still affected by generations of the aforementioned and the consequences that she can't even fathom.

Exactly.  Because all of jesus' "suffering" and "taking on the sins of the world" did absolutely nothing to assuage the actual suffering from the sins of the world.  The innocent are still subject to the horrific brutality of the evil; and the consequences of untold malevolence inflicted upon the heads of children.  We've now gone full circle back to the opening post of this thread, 15 pages ago.  Whatever "suffering" jesus endured was obviously not enough to quench the blood lust of your bloodthirsty god; so he allows children to continue suffering as a result of the same Sin.

 

The suffering of jesus for the sins of the world has made absolutely no demonstrable, practical impact on the suffering from the sins of the world.

 

Children starve, through no fault of their own; children die, abused and abandoned because of sins they never even dreamed of committing.  Meanwhile your god does absolutely nothing to prevent it; preferring instead to sit on his lofty, laurel-lined throne proudly proclaiming that he's already suffered for the sins of the world...

 

...as if that is going to comfort a little girl who is struggling to breathe from underneath a bloated, middle-aged IT technician from Idaho, who had to swallow 6 little blue pills just to get hard enough to rape her.