Who Bears Responsibility?

treeplanter

Active member
Charles Manson did not personally murder Sharon Tate, Jay Sebring, Wojciech Frykowski, Abigail Folger, Steven Parent, Leno LaBianca, or Rosemary LaBianca

Nonetheless, Charles Manson was convicted of these 7 horrific murders because the State of California was able to successfully prove by a preponderance of evidence and beyond a reasonable doubt that those individuals who did the actual, physical killing {Tex Watson, Susan Atkins, Patricia Krenwinkel, and Leslie Van Houten} were acting at the direction of Charles Manson

Manson was as guilty as if he, personally, had plunged the knife into his victims and we can all thank the jurors for having sense enough to realize this

Can you imagine the havoc that Manson would have wrought upon society had he been found not guilty and set free on the basis of the jury deciding that since Manson had no physical, tangible blood on his hands he, therefore, had no metaphorical blood on his hands {i.e. guilt}?

Thank God Stiggy Wiggy wasn't on that jury!
He, apparently, would have voted not guilty

Here is the correlation:

Our esteemed Stigs is somehow under the delusion that YHVH did not crucify Jesus because it was Roman soldiers who physically nailed Jesus to the cross and not God, Himself

God orchestrated the crucifixion
Scripture tells us so

Acts 2:23
"This man was handed over to you by God’s deliberate plan and foreknowledge; and you, with the help of wicked men, put him to death by nailing him to the cross"

Acts 4:28
"They did what your power and will had decided beforehand should happen"

God is every bit as responsible for having crucified Jesus as if it was He who personally drove the nails through Christ's hands and feet



Tell us about Hitler, Stigs?

I suppose he wasn't responsible for the 6-12 million or so deaths that occurred throughout the holocaust era because it wasn't him personally squeezing the trigger and flipping the switch outside the gas chambers?
 

Authentic Nouveau

Well-known member
Tell us about Hitler, Stigs?

I suppose he wasn't responsible for the 6-12 million or so deaths that occurred throughout the holocaust era because it wasn't him personally squeezing the trigger and flipping the switch outside the gas chambers?
Hitler is one of your bros. Tell us about Hitler. several of your Nazi/atheeist bros insist he was a Christian.
 

The Pixie

Active member
Hitler is one of your bros. ...
Not so.

My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter.
In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was his fight against the Jewish poison. Today, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before the fact that it was for this that He had to shed his blood upon the Cross.

- My New Order, Hitler, 1922
 

Whatsisface

Active member
Hitler is one of your bros. Tell us about Hitler. several of your Nazi/atheeist bros insist he was a Christian.
You've had a quote from Hitler, here's one from Adolph Eichmann, one of the main organisers of the holocaust, a man in Hitler's inner circle....

"Long live Germany. Long live Argentina. Long live Austria. These are the three countries with which I have been most connected and which I will not forget. I greet my wife, my family and my friends. I am ready. We'll meet again soon, as is the fate of all men. I die believing in God".
 

Harry Leggs

Member
Charles Manson did not personally murder Sharon Tate, Jay Sebring, Wojciech Frykowski, Abigail Folger, Steven Parent, Leno LaBianca, or Rosemary LaBianca

Nonetheless, Charles Manson was convicted of these 7 horrific murders because the State of California was able to successfully prove by a preponderance of evidence and beyond a reasonable doubt that those individuals who did the actual, physical killing {Tex Watson, Susan Atkins, Patricia Krenwinkel, and Leslie Van Houten} were acting at the direction of Charles Manson

Manson was as guilty as if he, personally, had plunged the knife into his victims and we can all thank the jurors for having sense enough to realize this

Can you imagine the havoc that Manson would have wrought upon society had he been found not guilty and set free on the basis of the jury deciding that since Manson had no physical, tangible blood on his hands he, therefore, had no metaphorical blood on his hands {i.e. guilt}?

Thank God Stiggy Wiggy wasn't on that jury!
He, apparently, would have voted not guilty

Here is the correlation:

Our esteemed Stigs is somehow under the delusion that YHVH did not crucify Jesus because it was Roman soldiers who physically nailed Jesus to the cross and not God, Himself

God orchestrated the crucifixion
Scripture tells us so

Acts 2:23
"This man was handed over to you by God’s deliberate plan and foreknowledge; and you, with the help of wicked men, put him to death by nailing him to the cross"

Acts 4:28
"They did what your power and will had decided beforehand should happen"

God is every bit as responsible for having crucified Jesus as if it was He who personally drove the nails through Christ's hands and feet



Tell us about Hitler, Stigs?

I suppose he wasn't responsible for the 6-12 million or so deaths that occurred throughout the holocaust era because it wasn't him personally squeezing the trigger and flipping the switch outside the gas chambers?
Your toxic and judgemental posts lead us to suppose you would have no problem killing children if ordered to do so even if it is denied by you.

Your anger and toxicity speaks louder than anything to have to say.
 

Gus Bovona

Member
Your toxic and judgemental posts lead us to suppose you would have no problem killing children if ordered to do so even if it is denied by you.

Your anger and toxicity speaks louder than anything to have to say.
Whether a post is toxic or judgmental has nothing to do with whether it is logical or factual or not. Try dealing with the substance of the post. Calling a post toxic and judgment is just throwing a pejoratives at it instead of actually addressing what the post says.

Your conclusion about killing children in no way follows, unless you can show your work.

Anger and toxicity also have nothing to do with whether a post is logical or factual or not.
 

treeplanter

Active member
Your toxic and judgemental posts lead us to suppose you would have no problem killing children if ordered to do so even if it is denied by you.

Your anger and toxicity speaks louder than anything to have to say.
Sure, Harry, sure

My "anger" that God is immoral is proof positive that I, too, am willing to be immoral

That makes perfect sense
 

Harry Leggs

Member
Whether a post is toxic or judgmental has nothing to do with whether it is logical or factual or not.
Not only toxic and judgemental, i forgot hateful.
Try dealing with the substance of the post.
This is from a poster that breaks out in that Vincent Gigante routine.
Calling a post toxic and judgment is just throwing a pejoratives at it instead of actually addressing what the post says.
That was done in previous posts.
Your conclusion about killing children in no way follows, unless you can show your work.
Actually it does. If the claim is no killing children if ordered to then it is fair game and these sort of hate-filled posts is not conducive with the claim. Some of these indicative of a psychopath as opposed to a person of high integrity.
Anger and toxicity also have nothing to do with whether a post is logical or factual or not.
So why are you lecturing me which also has nothing to do with whether the post is factual or not. If you believe it is factual then make your case from the material and don't resort to the Vincent Gigante schtick when the going gets rough.
 
If a General sends his Lieutenant son on a suicide mission into enemy lines in order to save thousands of lives of POWs, a mission for which his son volunteers, only a toxic and judgmental idiot would accuse the General of killing his son.
 
Last edited:

treeplanter

Active member
Not only toxic and judgemental, i forgot hateful.

This is from a poster that breaks out in that Vincent Gigante routine.

That was done in previous posts.

Actually it does. If the claim is no killing children if ordered to then it is fair game and these sort of hate-filled posts is not conducive with the claim. Some of these indicative of a psychopath as opposed to a person of high integrity.

So why are you lecturing me which also has nothing to do with whether the post is factual or not. If you believe it is factual then make your case from the material and don't resort to the Vincent Gigante schtick when the going gets rough.
Why are you fixated on Gus?

Or did you take to heart my assurance on the other thread that engaging a poster in conversation does NOT mean that one is fixated on the other?

Speaking of the other thread, how come you have swung so wildly from
"You sound like a decent guy in spite of it all"
to
"Treeplanter is hateful?"
 

Gus Bovona

Member
Not only toxic and judgemental, i forgot hateful.
Your standards for not deal with the substance of the post are slipping.
This is from a poster that breaks out in that Vincent Gigante routine.
Had to Wikipedia that one! I can say that you helped me learn something today, thank you!

That was done in previous posts.
That's good that you addressed the substance in an earlier post. You're approaching 100% substantive replies (but not quite there yet).

Actually it does. If the claim is no killing children if ordered to then it is fair game and these sort of hate-filled posts is not conducive with the claim. Some of these indicative of a psychopath as opposed to a person of high integrity.
Can you re-phrase your point here using different words? I can glean what you're trying to say at all.

So why are you lecturing me which also has nothing to do with whether the post is factual or not.
I'm trying to encourage you to deal with substance, not pejoratives. The first step is to identify those pejoratives. Another step is to praise dealing with substance, which I did above.

If you believe it is factual then make your case from the material and don't resort to the Vincent Gigante schtick when the going gets rough.
I didn't say anything about some claim being factual or not. All I did here (so far) was to identify those times you weren't being substantive. That's it. At some point I may decide to weigh in as to whether some claim is factual or not.
 

Authentic Nouveau

Well-known member
Whether a post is toxic or judgmental has nothing to do with whether it is logical or factual or not. Try dealing with the substance of the post. Calling a post toxic and judgment is just throwing a pejoratives at it instead of actually addressing what the post says.

Your conclusion about killing children in no way follows, unless you can show your work.

Anger and toxicity also have nothing to do with whether a post is logical or factual or not.
As a hardline speculationist, list 5 reasons you refuse to show your work and support brainwashing.

1 Show us the human/primate "common ancestor" well written of in evoWerks.

2 A yeast cell contains about 4 ×10^-12 g of protein. 50×10^6 molecules of protein per cell. DEMONSTRATE how dumb luck organized the them into chains.

3 All atheism and darwinism is developed from a platform of anger and toxicity.

4 Your toxic kults rely totally on faith to leap past abiogenesis your deal breaker.
 

Authentic Nouveau

Well-known member
Charles Manson did not personally murder Sharon Tate, Jay Sebring, Wojciech Frykowski, Abigail Folger, Steven Parent, Leno LaBianca, or Rosemary LaBianca

Nonetheless, Charles Manson was convicted of these 7 horrific murders because the State of California was able to successfully prove by a preponderance of evidence and beyond a reasonable doubt that those individuals who did the actual, physical killing {Tex Watson, Susan Atkins, Patricia Krenwinkel, and Leslie Van Houten} were acting at the direction of Charles Manson

Manson was as guilty as if he, personally, had plunged the knife into his victims and we can all thank the jurors for having sense enough to realize this

Can you imagine the havoc that Manson would have wrought upon society had he been found not guilty and set free on the basis of the jury deciding that since Manson had no physical, tangible blood on his hands he, therefore, had no metaphorical blood on his hands {i.e. guilt}?

Thank God Stiggy Wiggy wasn't on that jury!
He, apparently, would have voted not guilty

Here is the correlation:

Our esteemed Stigs is somehow under the delusion that YHVH did not crucify Jesus because it was Roman soldiers who physically nailed Jesus to the cross and not God, Himself

God orchestrated the crucifixion
Scripture tells us so

Acts 2:23
"This man was handed over to you by God’s deliberate plan and foreknowledge; and you, with the help of wicked men, put him to death by nailing him to the cross"

Acts 4:28
"They did what your power and will had decided beforehand should happen"

God is every bit as responsible for having crucified Jesus as if it was He who personally drove the nails through Christ's hands and feet



Tell us about Hitler, Stigs?

I suppose he wasn't responsible for the 6-12 million or so deaths that occurred throughout the holocaust era because it wasn't him personally squeezing the trigger and flipping the switch outside the gas chambers?
Why are you fixated on StiggyWiggy?

Or is it Hitler?
 

treeplanter

Active member
If a General sends his Lieutenant son on a suicide mission into enemy lines in order to save thousands of lives of POWs, a mission for which his son volunteers, only a toxic and judgmental idiot would accuse the General killing his son.
If a General sends his Lieutenant son on a suicide mission into enemy lines in order to save thousands of lives of POWs, a mission for which his son volunteers, only a toxic and judgmental idiot would accuse the General of killing his son.
These are my words:
"Remember, it was God, The Father who crucified God, The Son..."

The same words that you took issue with and claimed are "WRONG!" in the thread titled "your reasons for rejecting Jesus"

What is toxic and judgmental about this?
I simply pointed out a fact, Stiggy

A fact borne out in scripture
A fact affirmed to by God, Himself
{or are you denying the infallibility of the bible?}

Acts 2:23
"This man was handed over to you by God’s deliberate plan and foreknowledge; and you, with the help of wicked men, put him to death by nailing him to the cross"

Acts 4:28
"They did what your power and will had decided beforehand should happen"

The butthurt that you Christians are now experiencing doesn't have anything to do with me - it's to do with the inability to reconcile your own better human judgement with God's highly questionable decisions
 

Gus Bovona

Member
As a hardline speculationist, list 5 reasons you refuse to show your work and support brainwashing.

1 Show us the human/primate "common ancestor" well written of in evoWerks.

2 A yeast cell contains about 4 ×10^-12 g of protein. 50×10^6 molecules of protein per cell. DEMONSTRATE how dumb luck organized the them into chains.

3 All atheism and darwinism is developed from a platform of anger and toxicity.

4 Your toxic kults rely totally on faith to leap past abiogenesis your deal breaker.
You're going to need to demonstrate a desire to sincerely engage with another's ideas that are different than yours (which means, in part, eliminating all the pejoratives) for a pretty long time before you'd be on the plus side for me to respond substantively to you, given your past posting history.
 
Acts 2:23
"This man was handed over to you by God’s deliberate plan and foreknowledge; and you, with the help of wicked men, put him to death by nailing him to the cross"

Acts 4:28was
"They did what your power and will had decided beforehand should happen"
.
Yep, just as in my analogy, the General had a "deliberate plan," as well as foreknowledge that it was a suicide mission. Let's look at it again:

If a General sends his Lieutenant son on a suicide mission into enemy lines in order to save thousands of lives of POWs, a mission for which his son volunteers, only a toxic and judgmental idiot would accuse the General of killing his son.

You screwed up. Your OP is all wet.
 

treeplanter

Active member
Your standards for not deal with the substance of the post are slipping.

Had to Wikipedia that one! I can say that you helped me learn something today, thank you!


That's good that you addressed the substance in an earlier post. You're approaching 100% substantive replies (but not quite there yet).


Can you re-phrase your point here using different words? I can glean what you're trying to say at all.


I'm trying to encourage you to deal with substance, not pejoratives. The first step is to identify those pejoratives. Another step is to praise dealing with substance, which I did above.


I didn't say anything about some claim being factual or not. All I did here (so far) was to identify those times you weren't being substantive. That's it. At some point I may decide to weigh in as to whether some claim is factual or not.
If I may interject, I believe the "point" that our hirsute limbed friend is trying to make has something to do with this bizarre exchange that we shared on my thread titled SELF DEFEATING NUMBSKULLERY

Harry:
Post 209
"Fear of God will also prevent me from killing innocents if ordered by human authorities to do so. Fear God, not men."

*Note that Harry introduced this bit about killing innocents, if ordered to, out of the blue*

Me:
Post 210
"That appears to be the difference between you and me
I refrain from killing innocents because it is the right thing to do and you refrain from killing innocents because you are afraid of what God might do to you if you did"

Harry:
Post 211
"Not really."

Me:
Post 212
"What do you mean "not really"?
You literally said in your previous post that it is fear of God that would prevent you from killing an innocent person!
You didn't say that your conscience would prevent you
You didn't say that a moral standard would prevent you
You said that fear of God would prevent you"

Harry:
Post 214
"This thread is not about me. So why are you fixated on me? fear of God would prevent me from killing children if ordered by men to do so. Mentioned before and ignored by you. What would prevent you since you have no fear of God and would face execution if you refused? You can say your own values which run counter to nature since nature does not grant humans anything including a right to life. The rationa lthing to do if ordered by human authorities to kill children is to kill children which would be consistent with your model."

Me:
Post 217
"Fixated on you??
Egotistical, much?
Pride, much?
It's called a conversation, Harry
and you're free to call it quits whenever you'd like!

This is my thread, and you're right - it's not about you

As a matter of fact, the OP is a thinly veiled shot at CARM management for having deleted an innocuous thread titled "An Unbent Knee" that I had started about humility

I did not ignore that "fear of God is what would prevent you from killing an innocent IF ORDERED BY MEN TO DO SO"
I simply saw no point in repeating the addendum "IF ORDERED BY MEN TO DO SO" because it is not relevant to the point I was making

However, if it makes you feel better, we'll do it your way:

The difference between you and me is that fear of God is what would prevent you from killing an innocent IF ORDERED BY MEN TO DO SO while a desire to remain moral is what would prevent me from killing an innocent IF ORDERED BY MEN TO DO SO"
 
Last edited:

treeplanter

Active member
Yep, just as in my analogy, the General had a "deliberate plan," as well as foreknowledge that it was a suicide mission. Let's look at it again:

If a General sends his Lieutenant son on a suicide mission into enemy lines in order to save thousands of lives of POWs, a mission for which his son volunteers, only a toxic and judgmental idiot would accuse the General of killing his son.

You screwed up. Your OP is all wet.
Then YHVH crucified Jesus - just like I said He did - and your response was to scream "WRONG!"

So who was wrong, Stiggy?

You
You were wrong

YHVH DID crucify Jesus
 
Then YHVH crucified Jesus - just like I said He did - and your response was to scream "WRONG!"

So who was wrong, Stiggy?

You
You were wrong

YHVH DID crucify Jesus
I smoked you with my analogy, which is why you failed to address it and have now resigned yourself to repeating what you typed before I offered it. Here it is again. Try this time to debunk it, or admit your OP is full of crap:

If a General sends his Lieutenant son on a suicide mission into enemy lines in order to save thousands of lives of POWs, a mission for which his son volunteers, only a toxic and judgmental idiot would accuse the General of killing his son.
 
Top