Evolution and Coffee

[5wize]

Sorry, pal. But puking up more juvenile rhetoric about "whack-a-doodle" isn't going to cut it here. You ignorantly claimed a contradiction between Matthew and Corinthians, and provide zero verses from either. Fill in the blanks here or admit you are full of crap:

Paul says in ________, chapter ______, verse ____, "________________," which contradicts what Matthew says in _______- chapter ______, verse _________-, when he says, "_______________________."

You know nothing about Christian eschatology and the various ages involved in the restitution of all things, stupidly thinking as you do that the separation of the sheep and goats discussed in Matthew 25 occurs in a spiritual realm as opposed to a pre-millennial event on earth.

I know more about the morphing of Christian eschatology than you ever will from the beginning of the ancient Jewish eschatology of Sheol, through the advent of Jewish apocalypticism because they couldn’t explain why the righteous were suffering in this world, onto Jesus - a Jewish apocalypticist - that thought he was the Jewish messiah and believed, as they did, that the wicked would NEVER inherit their kingdom as proven in Matt 25 (the Christian concept not even being a thing yet), onto Paul who had to mix a bunch of the philosophy of Plato into it because the region became hellenized and they were having none of his purely Jewish nonsense and they questioned this resurrection of flesh thing (Jews though the soul required the body - and so did Paul as proven in I Cor 15) so Paul made some nonsense about that up. Yes, the sleeping until the rapture, the judgement, the millennial kingdom, and then the streets get swept. Then Paul figured he was going to die without seeing the second coming so changed it all again and claimed he wasn’t going to sleep until the judgement but was going to immediately be with his lord and would rather die and do that.... blah, friggin’, blah, blah, blah....

Trust me... you’re in over your head with all your convoluted make it up as you go Christian eschatology...... pal.

 

[stiggy wiggy]

The issue is whether God chose to drown them or to rapture them. Either way gets them to heaven, but one way involves suffering -

All death involves suffering.

Reads to me like God drowned them.

So why are you more concerned about the drowning of people 5,000 years ago in an event which you don't think happened than you are are about the drowning of people this morning in Baltimore in an event you KNOW happened?

But you agreed last time that whether or not the suffering is remembered does not impact the morality of causing it.

Have you changed your mind?

Nope. Never thought otherwise.

But one causes needless suffering. Why did God choose the option that causes needless suffering?

Prove that the suffering we all will experience in dying will have no beneficial effect on individuals dying or on all mankind.

Even when he needlessly drowns babies rather than rapturing them straight up to heaven? Can you explain why you consider that an act of love?

Because Christ IS Love and thus every act He performs is an act of love in the long run. This is not the shallow quid pro quo cosmos of your juvenile imagination.

Are you having memory problems? Drowning babies in the Flood - causing needless suffering - when he could have raptured them straight into heaven.

As long as you're bitching about the exploits of a god you don't think exists, why confine your bitching to an event 5,000 years ago the you don't think happened? Castigate this imaginary god for causing that bridge to collapse this morning.

You are glossing over the real issue here which is God choosing to drown the babies rather than rapture them to heaven.

I couldn't care less how God chose to rescue those babies. They are in glory now, no worse off for drowning than I am for having some foreskin removed from my penis several decades ago.

It's downright weird of you to fake such concern for babies you don't really think were drowned.

 

[stiggy wiggy]

I know more about the morphing of Christian eschatology than you ever will

Then why are you dodging this task:

Fill in the blanks here or admit you are full of crap:

Paul says in ________, chapter ______, verse ____, "________________," which contradicts what Matthew says in _______- chapter ______, verse _________-, when he says, "_______________________."

 

[stiggy wiggy]

I always amuse at how little you know about your god hiding behind that restorationist - “What? Who? Me?... They destroy themselves. I don’t do it" facade:

Psalm 11:5-6: The Lord examines the righteous, but the wicked, those who love violence, he hates with a passion. On the wicked he will rain fiery coals and burning sulfur; a scorching wind will be their lot.
Proverbs 15 - The Lord detests the way of the wicked, but he loves those who pursue righteousness. Stern discipline awaits anyone who leaves the path; the one who hates correction will die.
Revelation 2:5 You hate the practices of the Nicolaitans, which I also hate.
Hosea 9: Because of all their wickedness in Gilgal, I hated them there. Because of their sinful deeds, I will drive them out of my house. I will no longer love them; all their leaders are rebellious.

If you're too stupid to understand that Love requires hating hate and hateful things, I can't help you. Maybe you should find a teddy bear to clutch, and dream of lovey-dovey movies with Ryan O'Neal and slogans like "Love is never having to say you're sorry."

 

[5wize]

Then why are you dodging this task:

Fill in the blanks here or admit you are full of crap:

Paul says in ________, chapter ______, verse ____, "________________," which contradicts what Matthew says in _______- chapter ______, verse _________-, when he says, "_______________________."

I didn’t. I explained it in the proper way. I’ll explain just that portion of it again... and as always I thank you for the opportunity to do so and get the truth out there yet again:

Jesus - a Jewish apocalypticist - that thought he was the Jewish messiah and believed, as they did, that the wicked would NEVER inherit their kingdom as proven in Matt 25 (the Christian concept not even being a thing yet), onto Paul who had to mix a bunch of the philosophy of Plato into it because the region became hellenized and they were having none of his purely Jewish belief concerning the resurrection of flesh thing (Jews though the soul required the body - and so did Paul as proven in I Cor 15) so Paul made some nonsense about that up.

So you tell me... why did you think I Cor 15 was an answer to my charge that the flood account mentioned NOTHING about resurrecting the drowned to glory? What information did you think I Cor 15 possessed to show us that?

 

[5wize]

If you're too stupid to understand that Love requires hating hate and hateful things, I can't help you. Maybe you should find a teddy bear to clutch, and dream of lovey-dovey movies with Ryan O'Neal and slogans like "Love is never having to say you're sorry."

Oh, wow.... that explains it Love is hate, hate is love, god is master and creator of ALL, but god is only responsible for the good, god didn’t create the bad (even though the Bible says he did). The Christian coin that always comes up heads when you can define your own nonsensical language over time to try and cover for the blaring issues of a very conflicted false belief system.

 

[stiggy wiggy]

I didn’t. I explained it in the proper way.

Sorry, I'm reading no further, but I promise to go back and read your bullshit once you stop cowardly ducking this:

Fill in the blanks here or admit you are full of crap:

Paul says in ________, chapter ______, verse ____, "________________," which contradicts what Matthew says in _______- chapter ______, verse _________-, when he says, "_______________________."

 

[stiggy wiggy]

Oh, wow.... that explains it Love is hate, hate is love,

No one ever taught you about direct objects:

Love is not hate. Love HATES hate. Hate HATES love.

Are you equally stupid in other matters or is it just with the subject of love? If someone tells you that aardvarks eat ants, do you say "Oh wow, that explains it. Aardvarks are ants." Good Lord, you are dumb.

 

[The Pixie]

All death involves suffering.

Does the rapture involve suffering?

That was God's alternative. He could rapture the babies up to heaven, with no pain or suffering at all. Or drown them. He choose to drown them - needless suffering.

So why are you more concerned about the drowning of people 5,000 years ago in an event which you don't think happened than you are are about the drowning f people this morning in Baltimore in an event you KNOW happened?

How does my opinion impact on God's actions? Are you suggesting that because I am not so concerned about flooding in Baltimore that it is therefore perfectly moral for God to cause needless harm by drowning babies?

Do please explain your thinking here, stiggy.

Nope. Never thought otherwise.

And yet you keep saying comments like:

"But if they were drowned I doubt it caused any more suffering than our own circumcision which neither of us remember."​

​

"Now tell us how your penis was "slaughtered" as an infant. Do you remember?"​

Does not remembering the suffering impact the morality of the person causing it or not? Can you try to decide one way or the other?

Prove that the suffering we all will experience in dying will have no beneficial effect on individuals dying or on all mankind.

I doubt I can. So what?

Are you saying my inability to prove that somehow makes it okay for God to cause needless suffering? Or are you saying that God could not rapture the babes up to heaven because I cannot prove it?

Talk me through your logic here, stiggy.

Because Christ IS Love and thus every act He performs is an act of love in the long run. This is not the shallow quid pro quo cosmos of your juvenile imagination.

So you are saying God causing needless suffering in babies was an act of love is based on your presupposition that every act by God is an act of love...

The real issue here is whether Christianity is true. I say it is not true because of the inherent contradictions with in it. What you say here highlights just that. One the one hand you say every act by God is an act of love, and on the other hand you have God choosing needless suffering in babies rather than rapture them up to heaven.

And you are clearly unable to reconcile that contradiction.

As long as you're bitching about the exploits of a god you don't think exists, why confine your bitching to an event 5,000 years ago the you don't think happened? Castigate this imaginary god for causing that bridge to collapse this morning.

As you say, I do not think he exists.

This is discussion is not about God being morally wrong, it is about Christianity being factually wrong. Christianity is clearly contradictory, and therefore it is wrong.

I couldn't care less how God chose to rescue those babies.

So you do not care if the God you worship caused needless suffering? Seems a big deal to me.

 

[sobchak]

No one ever taught you about direct objects:

Love is not hate. Love HATES hate. Hate HATES love.

Tell us more about direct objects please.

Can we apply the same on other word pairs?

Love is not hate. Love HATES hate. Hate HATES love.​

Light is not dark. Light DARKENS dark. Dark DARKENS light.​

Hmmm....

 

[5wize]

No one ever taught you about direct objects:

Love is not hate. Love HATES hate. Hate HATES love.

Are you equally stupid in other matters or is it just with the subject of love? If someone tells you that aardvarks eat ants, do you say "Oh wow, that explains it. Aardvarks are ants." Good Lord, you are dumb.

Listen, all your little language machinations and musings do not detract from the fact that you were wrong when you said "All of His acts are acts of love."

Let’s go over it again: Psalm 11:5-6: The Lord examines the righteous, but the wicked, those who love violence, he hates with a passion. On the wicked he will rain fiery coals and burning sulfur; a scorching wind will be their lot.

His act of raining fiery coals is directly attached to his act of hatred of THE INDIVIDUAL, not the act, not the sin... the actual person that loves violence.

Now use your weaselly Christian language alchemy required to separate that direct subject/object/verb binding.... I’ll get the popcorn.

 

[stiggy wiggy]

Does the rapture involve suffering?

The rapture ends suffering.

That was God's alternative. He could rapture the babies up to heaven, with no pain or suffering at all. Or drown them. He choose to drown them - needless suffering.

So why not just make a new OP and say:

"God is immoral because we all die and every death involves suffering."

Why are you hung up on flood deaths?

How does my opinion impact on God's actions? Are you suggesting that because I am not so concerned about flooding in Baltimore that it is therefore perfectly moral for God to cause needless harm by drowning babies?

Why are you so concerned about the morals of a god you don't believe exists?

Do please explain your thinking here, stiggy.


And yet you keep saying comments like:

"But if they were drowned I doubt it caused any more suffering than our own circumcision which neither of us remember."​

​

"Now tell us how your penis was "slaughtered" as an infant. Do you remember?"​

Well, DO you?

Does not remembering the suffering impact the morality of the person causing it or not?

Not the morality, but the efficacy. Rescue followed by glorification, with or without forgettable short-lived minor suffering.

So you are saying God causing needless suffering in babies was an act of love is based on your presupposition that every act by God is an act of love...

Correct. But my presupposition is based on my certitude that He is Love, proven experientially in my life.

The real issue here is whether Christianity is true. I say it is not true because of the inherent contradictions with in it. What you say here highlights just that. One the one hand you say every act by God is an act of love, and on the other hand you have God choosing needless suffering in babies rather than rapture them up to heaven.

Your own belief that the suffering of Jesus of Nazareth on the cross was needless makes you unqualified to declare what suffering is needless and what suffering is not.

And you are clearly unable to reconcile that contradiction.


As you say, I do not think he exists.

This is discussion is not about God being morally wrong, it is about Christianity being factually wrong. Christianity is clearly contradictory, and therefore it is wrong.

Christianity is about Truth.

So you do not care if the God you worship caused needless suffering?

I care for the sufferers, but not anywhere nearly as much as He does.

 

[stiggy wiggy]

Tell us more about direct objects please.

Sure. It's a noun phrase denoting a person or thing that is the recipient of the action of a transitive verb.

Can we apply the same on other word pairs? Depends:

Light DARKENS dark.​

Only if it's blinding.

Love hates hate.

 

[stiggy wiggy]

Listen, all your little language machinations and musings do not detract from the fact that you were wrong when you said "All of His acts are acts of love."

Incorrect, since all of His acts are acts of love.

Let’s go over it again: Psalm 11:5-6: The Lord examines the righteous, but the wicked, those who love violence, he hates with a passion.

Yes, love hates wickedness and hateful violence.

On the wicked he will rain fiery coals and burning sulfur; a scorching wind will be their lot.

Tough love burns away the sin.

His act of raining fiery coals is directly attached to his act of hatred of THE INDIVIDUAL

His or her sin, you mean.

Now use your weaselly Christian language alchemy required to separate that direct subject/object/verb binding....

I like that. Christian language is indeed like alchemy. The Word (Logos) can transform the word (rhema) into gold. Thus the Bible.

I’ll get the popcorn.

Try to get Orville Redenbacher, and we can share.

 

[sobchak]

Love hates hate.

when love hates hate, love hates love’s hate and therefore love hates love!!!

Or…

Does love love love’s hate for hate and therefore love loves hate?!?

 

[5wize]

Incorrect, since all of His acts are acts of love.

Yes, love hates wickedness and hateful violence.

As well as the person engaged in it as proven in the Psalm

Tough love burns away the sin.

But he burns the person - the direct object of His hate, not just the sin as proven in the Psalm

His or her sin, you mean.

No, not what I mean, but what the Psalm directly says. The person is hated by your god.

I like that. Christian language is indeed like alchemy.

I’m sure you do like it. It supplies an endless configuration of self-soothing lies you need for your faith.

 

[stiggy wiggy]

As well as the person engaged in it as proven in the Psalm

By the psalmist sinner/murderer David (not God).

But he burns the person -

Yep, He burns me when I need it.

No, not what I mean, but what the Psalm directly says. The person is hated by your god.

I'm a big fan of David, but he's not my god.

I’m sure you do like it. It supplies an endless configuration of self-soothing lies you need for your faith.

No, actually He (Logos) or it (biblical rhema) MANIFESTS the lies in my heart.

 

[Caroljeen]

Listen, all your little language machinations and musings do not detract from the fact that you were wrong when you said "All of His acts are acts of love."

Let’s go over it again: Psalm 11:5-6: The Lord examines the righteous, but the wicked, those who love violence, he hates with a passion. On the wicked he will rain fiery coals and burning sulfur; a scorching wind will be their lot.

His act of raining fiery coals is directly attached to his act of hatred of THE INDIVIDUAL, not the act, not the sin... the actual person that loves violence.

An act of judgment can be considered an act of love especially if the one receiving the correction changes their ways because of it.

Psalm 11: 4-7
The Lord is in his holy temple;
the Lord’s throne is in heaven.
His eyes behold; his gaze examines humankind.
5 The Lord tests the righteous and the wicked,
and his soul hates the lover of violence.
6 On the wicked he will rain coals of fire and sulfur;
a scorching wind shall be the portion of their cup.
7 For the Lord is righteous;
he loves righteous deeds;
the upright shall behold his face.

Is God an unjust judge when he rewards the righteous and punishes the wicked?

 

[treeplanter]

An act of judgment can be considered an act of love especially if the one receiving the correction changes their ways because of it.

Even when the act of judgement includes an infliction of needless harm?

God can always provide correction so as to change our ways WITHOUT harming us in the process, can He not?

 

[treeplanter]

Is God an unjust judge when he rewards the righteous and punishes the wicked?

No, but is that how it always works out?

At the end of the day, God doesn't judge us righteous because of our actions in life
He judges us righteous simply on the basis of whether or not we submit to Him

People who behave wickedly in life are whisked to Heaven if they become born again prior to their deaths and people who behave righteously in their lives are sent to Hell if they happen to die without having discerned Jesus as Lord

This is not rewarding righteousness and punishing wickedness!