9/11 Was Warning From God About Evolution, Church-State Separation

[OGIS]

According to Billy Graham's daughter.


Lotz told Deace she was praying that “some of this craziness would settle down” in a nation that “seems to be shaking its fist in God’s face and telling him to get out of our politics, get out of our schools, get out of our businesses, get out of our marketplace, get off the streets” and is “basically abandoning God as a culture and as a nation.”

When we abandon God, she said, “the Bible says God abandons us and He backs away and takes His hand of favor, blessing, His hand of protection away from us and He abandons us.”

If Americans repent, she said, then “there will be peace on our streets” and God will begin to "reveal the plots of our enemies and terrorists before they are carried out” and “control the weather patterns and protect us from these violent storms that are taking human life.”

She added that “God allows bad things to happen” like the September 11 attacks and the mass shooting in San Bernardino “to show us that we need Him, you know, we’re desperate without him.”

http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/anne-graham-lotz-911-was-warning-god-about-evolution-church-state-separation?utm_source=fark&utm_medium=website&utm_content=link

Wow. Just... wow.

[AZ Jim]

Typical religious bullshit.

[Mac-7]

Typical religious bull$#@!.

Its just good old Christian common sense.

humans are naturally sinful and following the guidelines that God has given us through the Bible and Jesus makes us a better nation.

Ignoring God and His wisdom leads to trouble for the reason I first stated - men are naturally sinful and cruel.

[waltky]

Granny says, "Dat's right...

... when a nation defies God...

... it loses His protection."

[stjames1_53]

Its just good old Christian common sense.

humans are naturally sinful and following the guidelines that God has given us through the Bible and Jesus makes us a better nation.

Ignoring God and His wisdom leads to trouble for the reason I first stated - men are naturally sinful and cruel.

You've nailed it! Man has not changed one damned bit in 100,000 years

[Peter1469]

You've nailed it! Man has not changed one damned bit in 100,000 yearsmillions

[Mac-7]

You've nailed it! Man has not changed one damned bit in 100,000 years

The nature of man has not changed

[exotix]

Nothing worse than wacked-out religious-freaks.

[stjames1_53]

The nature of man has not changed

I should have written Man.....that would have been inclusive.
I served in 'Nam. I saw the absolute worse that Man could be. Man is a predator by nature. No rules, only process......
It took me years to come to terms with it..............and a lot of talks with God.

[Private Pickle]

Nothing worse than wacked-out religious-freaks.

Wacked out communist freaks come to mind...

[Crepitus]

So according to her god killed 3,000 people a few years ago to remind us that we need him?

Let thousands of families grieve, children without a parent, bereaved spouses, not to mention all those who had to make the horrible choice to burn or jump?

Yea, way to go god. Teach us a lesson. So benevolent, so kind, so forgiving.

You guys keep your "god". I want no part of it.

[Private Pickle]

So according to her god killed 3,000 people a few years ago to remind us that we need him?

Let thousands of families grieve, children without a parent, bereaved spouses, not to mention all those who had to make the horrible choice to burn or jump?

Yea, way to go god. Teach us a lesson. So benevolent, so kind, so forgiving.

You guys keep your "god". I want no part of it.

God isn't exactly "fair". Haven't you ever seen City of Angels?

[Crepitus]

God isn't exactly "fair". Haven't you ever seen City of Angels?
If I want a capricious god I vote for Thor or Zeus or one of the other cool old ones.

[OGIS]

Its just good old Christian common sense.

humans are naturally sinful and following the guidelines that God has given us through the Bible and Jesus makes us a better nation.

Ignoring God and His wisdom leads to trouble for the reason I first stated - men are naturally sinful and cruel.

Unfortunately, the picture of God that emerges from this view turns Him into a vindictive and petty sociopath. "LIKE ME OR I WILL KILL YOU" is not a satisfactory basis for worshiping someone.

If God is like this, I would actually rather go to Hell. At least there I will have my self-respect.

[OGIS]

Granny says, "Dat's right...

... when a nation defies God...

... it loses His protection."

DO AS I SAY AND WORSHIP ME OR DIE! The battle cry of every tyrant throughout history.

[OGIS]

millions

Impossible. I've been informed by reliable people that the Universe is only 6,000 years old.

[OGIS]

I should have written Man.....that would have been inclusive.
I served in 'Nam. I saw the absolute worse that Man could be. Man is a predator by nature. No rules, only process......
It took me years to come to terms with it..............and a lot of talks with God.

And yet God created this predator....

[OGIS]

So according to her god killed 3,000 people a few years ago to remind us that we need him?

Let thousands of families grieve, children without a parent, bereaved spouses, not to mention all those who had to make the horrible choice to burn or jump?

Yea, way to go god. Teach us a lesson. So benevolent, so kind, so forgiving.

You guys keep your "god". I want no part of it.

As a reader and writer of science fiction, I have to say that - assuming the existence of God - there is no logical reason why he has to be either sane, or benevolent, or understanding of human foibles.

Perhaps Earth is an ant farm and God is a sociopathic eight year old with a magnifying glass.

Why not?

[OGIS]

God isn't exactly "fair". Haven't you ever seen City of Angels?

Great movie.

[domer76]

Its just good old Christian common sense.

humans are naturally sinful and following the guidelines that God has given us through the Bible and Jesus makes us a better nation.

Ignoring God and His wisdom leads to trouble for the reason I first stated - men are naturally sinful and cruel.

A micromanager god that D and Peter deny. Well, that blows their perception all to hell.

[domer76]

I should have written Man.....that would have been inclusive.
I served in 'Nam. I saw the absolute worse that Man could be. Man is a predator by nature. No rules, only process......
It took me years to come to terms with it..............and a lot of talks with God.

When you hear voices in your head it's schizophrenia. When you hear voices of God in your head, it's flat out batshit crazy.

[domer76]

If I want a capricious god I vote for Thor or Zeus or one of the other cool old ones.

I liked Q.

[Peter1469]

Impossible. I've been informed by reliable people that the Universe is only 6,000 years old.

hundreds of millions....

[domer76]

hundreds of millions....

shhhhh. Don't tell Zelmo. It might dent his perception of his micromanager god

[Standing Wolf]

This kind of thinking (very broadly defined) is nothing new. Remember Pat Robertson's comments about Hurricane Katrina?

http://mediamatters.org/research/2005/09/13/religious-conservatives-claim-katrina-was-gods/133804

No doubt in my mind that if we did a bit of research, we could find similar "Christian" commentary on events like the great San Francisco earthquake and the sinking of the Titanic. Preachers are nothing if not opportunistic.

[Subdermal]

According to Billy Graham's daughter.


Wow. Just... wow.

Okay. Another kewl thread from godless boy. Good story.

[Standing Wolf]

Okay. Another kewl thread from godless boy. Good story.

Funny how so much that is labeled "anti-Christian" is nothing more than someone pointing out the very obvious stupidity and illogic of what some self-identified "Christian" has said or done. So I guess the "Christian" response to such pronouncements is simply to either pretend what the person said made some kind of sense, or...what, ignore it?

[Crepitus]

Funny how so much that is labeled "anti-Christian" is nothing more than someone pointing out the very obvious stupidity and illogic of what some self-identified "Christian" has said or done. So I guess the "Christian" response to such pronouncements is simply to either pretend what the person said made some kind of sense, or...what, ignore it?

Willful ignorance.

[Mister D]

Funny how so much that is labeled "anti-Christian" is nothing more than someone pointing out the very obvious stupidity and illogic of what some self-identified "Christian" has said or done. So I guess the "Christian" response to such pronouncements is simply to either pretend what the person said made some kind of sense, or...what, ignore it?

Right so when someone routinely focuses on the anti-social behavior of blacks you won't suspect a racial animus on their part, right? Wrong. You would and we both know it. This is a pattern with OGIS.

OGIS, show us on the doll where the bad priest touched you.

[domer76]

Right so when someone routinely focuses on the anti-social behavior of blacks you won't suspect a racial animus on their part, right? Wrong. You would and we both know it. This is a pattern with OGIS.

OGIS, show us on the doll where the bad priest touched you.

You just hate it when your god micromanages, don't you?

[Standing Wolf]

Right so when someone routinely focuses on the anti-social behavior of blacks you won't suspect a racial animus on their part, right? Wrong. You would and we both know it. This is a pattern with OGIS.

OGIS, show us on the doll where the bad priest touched you.

You can detect an animus till the bovines complete their trajectory, D - it doesn't change whether something that was said was wrong, illogical or just plain stupid. (Or, in the case of Graham's daughter's 9-11 nonsense, actually un-Christian.)

"If there's a reason, there's a season, and if it's truth it can't be treason."

[Subdermal]

Funny how so much that is labeled "anti-Christian" is nothing more than someone pointing out the very obvious stupidity and illogic of what some self-identified "Christian" has said or done. So I guess the "Christian" response to such pronouncements is simply to either pretend what the person said made some kind of sense, or...what, ignore it?

Yes, you ignore it. The fact is that this type of story - to atheists - is nothing more than flamebait and trolling, because it's not about the story. It's about an attack on the concept of God, and another in a continuing and long line of efforts to marginalize Christians, and Christianity.

But you won't engage in this, because you reject the concept. This is culturally ingrained, and you're at war with the culture, and the majority in it who - still - believe in God, though their fervor and actions are sliding away.

And you want nothing more than for that to continue, so you look to help disparage.

Culture: the phrase 'God Bless America'. It's in our vernacular; it's in our pledges and anthems and songs; it's every 7th inning in Major League Baseball games.

And you're at war with it. But you're not at all honest about it, which is why you and your disgusting and merry band of heathens won't drop the pretense and have an honest discussion about your rank bigotry and dishonesty.

If you think God can Bless America, then the converse must be true. But you don't think God can - or does - you don't even acknowledge His existence. You're free to do so. But I'll be DAMNED if I'll allow you to sit and and continually poke people who believe in Him in the eye. You'll be met with the fiercest and most vehement objections I can muster, and I'll do my best to make you appear to be what you are: openly intolerant, bigoted and hypocritical.

Conclusion: if you believe in God; if you believe that God bestow blessings on His People - as the Bible explains - then you can also easily believe and defend the notion that His absence can result in the opposite.

So your argument is from hypocrisy. You cannot argue about something in which you do not believe.

So do the right thing and get lost, and allow someone who has personal religious beliefs to express them in freedom without being constantly derided by petty and small-minded atheists who live to attack others, and not for themselves.

[Mister D]

You can detect an animus till the bovines complete their trajectory, D - it doesn't change whether something that was said was wrong, illogical or just plain stupid. (Or, in the case of Graham's daughter's 9-11 nonsense, actually un-Christian.)

"If there's a reason, there's a season, and if it's truth it can't be treason."

Likewise, those who point to the anti-social behavior of blacks may be the most despicable racists around but that doesn't change the fact that blacks commit a grossly disproportionate amount of violent crime or the fact that we would have nothing resembling a "gun problem" were it not for violent black males. But we both know you'd be singing a very different tune in that case.

[domer76]

Yes, you ignore it. The fact is that this type of story - to atheists - is nothing more than flamebait and trolling, because it's not about the story. It's about an attack on the concept of God, and another in a continuing and long line of efforts to marginalize Christians, and Christianity.

But you won't engage in this, because you reject the concept. This is culturally ingrained, and you're at war with the culture, and the majority in it who - still - believe in God, though their fervor and actions are sliding away.

And you want nothing more than for that to continue, so you look to help disparage.

Culture: the phrase 'God Bless America'. It's in our vernacular; it's in our pledges and anthems and songs; it's every 7th inning in Major League Baseball games.

And you're at war with it. But you're not at all honest about it, which is why you and your disgusting and merry band of heathens won't drop the pretense and have an honest discussion about your rank bigotry and dishonesty.

If you think God can Bless America, then the converse must be true. But you don't think God can - or does - you don't even acknowledge His existence. You're free to do so. But I'll be DAMNED if I'll allow you to sit and and continually poke people who believe in Him in the eye. You'll be met with the fiercest and most vehement objections I can muster, and I'll do my best to make you appear to be what you are: openly intolerant, bigoted and hypocritical.

Conclusion: if you believe in God; if you believe that God bestow blessings on His People - as the Bible explains - then you can also easily believe and defend the notion that His absence can result in the opposite.

So your argument is from hypocrisy. You cannot argue about something in which you do not believe.

So do the right thing and get lost, and allow someone who has personal religious beliefs to express them in freedom without being constantly derided by petty and small-minded atheists who live to attack others, and not for themselves.

^Hey Pete and D, another guy who has a micromanager god. It seems that you two are in the minority on this concept.

Subdermal, is your god

Omnipotent?
Omniscient?
Omnibenevolent?

All of the above or just some of the above?

[Standing Wolf]

Likewise, those who point to the anti-social behavior of blacks may be the most despicable racists around but that doesn't change the fact that blacks commit a grossly disproportionate amount of violent crime or the fact that we would have nothing resembling a "gun problem" were it not for violent black males. But we both know you'd be singing a very different tune in that case.

I'm not one of those members who expect all the other members to always know and remember what they have posted on certain topics, D - that would be arrogant. However, if you and I have been sharing the same discussion forum for six months or a year or whatever it has been, and you are not aware that on matters of race and guns I am about as far from being PC and lockstep liberal as it's possible to be, then I've got to believe you have me confused with some other poster.

I know, I know, and I understand; it would be so much simpler if everyone who disagreed with you about one thing disagreed with you about everything...but that isn't reality. Try again.

[Mister D]

I'm not one of those members who expect all the other members to always know and remember what they have posted on certain topics, D - that would be arrogant. However, if you and I have been sharing the same discussion forum for six months or a year or whatever it has been, and you are not aware that on matters of race and guns I am about as far from being PC and lockstep liberal as it's possible to be, then I've got to believe you have me confused with some other poster.

I know, I know, and I understand; it would be so much simpler if everyone who disagreed with you about one thing disagreed with you about everything...but that isn't reality. Try again.

I know exactly what you post on guns. It's rational and coherent. What you post on race isn't. In any case, if someone demonstrated a pattern of focusing on the anti-social behavior of blacks we both know you'd be singing a very different tune. You certainly wouldn't leap to that member's defense reminding us that this pattern reveals no racial animus. Stop lying to yourself and stop lying to me.

Oh, and another thing: you don't perceive his hostility to Christianity because you likely share it.

[domer76]

I know exactly what you post on guns. It's rational and coherent. What you post on race isn't. In any case, if someone demonstrated a pattern of focusing on the anti-social behavior of blacks we both know you'd be singing a very different tune. You certainly wouldn't leap to that member's defense reminding us that this pattern reveals no racial animus. Stop lying to yourself and stop lying to me.

Oh, and another thing: you don't perceive his hostility to Christianity because you likely share it.

Christians. What a poor fucking set of victims. Don't worry. You'll have your reward in heaven. Wings and all.

[Subdermal]

Christians. What a poor $#@!ing set of victims. Don't worry. You'll have your reward in heaven. Wings and all.

...he babbles, while ignoring the fact that it's the atheists who constantly run around and whine that the Christians are offending them.

[Peter1469]

Christians. What a poor fucking set of victims. Don't worry. You'll have your reward in heaven. Wings and all.

= social autism.

[domer76]

...he babbles, while ignoring the fact that it's the atheists who constantly run around and whine that the Christians are offending them.

Other than an insult to the intelligence of thinking people, I've never been offended by a Christian. I have, however, seen Christians use their victim status and religion as a reason to discriminate. And they are getting bitch slapped in the courts for it.

Now, back to the question you never answered. Is your god

Omnipotent?
Omniscient?
Omnibenevolent?

All of the above of just some of the above.

[domer76]

= social autism.

= You have no rational response. And a boring mantra

[Peter1469]

= You have no rational response. And a boring mantra


Why respond to a person mocking religion? I dismissed you. You remain dismissed.

[Standing Wolf]

I know exactly what you post on guns. It's rational and coherent. What you post on race isn't.

For example?


In any case,

Code for "What I just wrote may be totally wrong, so in case it is...".


if someone demonstrated a pattern of focusing on the anti-social behavior of blacks we both know you'd be singing a very different tune.

Oh, I get it now - we're talking about you. No, you see, what you've done here is try to subtly change the conversation to suit what passes for an argument. You've gone from "...blacks commit a grossly disproportionate amount of violent crime or the fact...[that] we would have nothing resembling a "gun problem" were it not for violent black males" - which statement I believe to be a true fact - to "the anti-social behavior of blacks" - which is a racial stereotype and a belief that you are constantly invoking as part of your philosophy of White superiority. Two very different concepts.

[Subdermal]

Other than an insult to the intelligence of thinking people, I've never been offended by a Christian. I have, however, seen Christians use their victim status and religion as a reason to discriminate. And they are getting $#@! slapped in the courts for it.

Now, back to the question you never answered. Is your god

Omnipotent?
Omniscient?
Omnibenevolent?

All of the above of just some of the above.

Omnibenevolent?

:biglaugh:

I think you're Omnignorant.

[Mister D]

For example?



Code for "What I just wrote may be totally wrong, so in case it is...".



Oh, I get it now - we're talking about you. No, you see, what you've done here is try to subtly change the conversation to suit what passes for an argument. You've gone from "...blacks commit a grossly disproportionate amount of violent crime or the fact...[that] we would have nothing resembling a "gun problem" were it not for violent black males" - which statement I believe to be a true fact - to "the anti-social behavior of blacks" - which is a racial stereotype and a belief that you are constantly invoking as part of your philosophy of White superiority. Two very different concepts.

Pick virtually any post here:

http://thepoliticalforums.com/threads/59859-Race-Take-Two

No, I was spot on and we both know it.

Me? Sorry, race is a favorite topic of some of our progressives but not one of mine. Moreover, I'm not arguing these facts. I'm just saying we both know what your reaction would be if someone had a habit of focusing on those facts. This reference to my supposed philosophy of "white superiority" only supports my contention. Again, if anyone demonstrated a pattern of focusing on the anti-social behavior of blacks you would not remind everyone that this particular focus is not indicative of a racial animus toward blacks and does not change the facts surrounding black criminality. We both know that. Stop lying to yourself and stop lying to me.

The only reason you don't perceive any animus on the part of OGIS is because you share that animus.

[domer76]

Why respond to a person mocking religion? I dismissed you. You remain dismissed.

You don't respond because you have no response. Admit it and move on.

I see Subdermal likes your post, but won't respond to my question. Just like you. I'll pose it again. Is your god:

Omniscient?
Omnibenevolent?
Omnipotent?

All of the above, none of the above or just some of the above?

[domer76]

Omnibenevolent?

:biglaugh:

I think you're Omnignorant.

= You can't answer a simple fucking question.

[stjames1_53]

You don't respond because you have no response. Admit it and move on.

I see Subdermal likes your post, but won't respond to my question. Just like you. I'll pose it again. Is your god:

Omniscient?
Omnibenevolent?
Omnipotent?

All of the above, none of the above or just some of the above?

I get it.................you're fulofshitoent

[Peter1469]

You don't respond because you have no response. Admit it and move on.

I see Subdermal likes your post, but won't respond to my question. Just like you. I'll pose it again. Is your god:

Omniscient?
Omnibenevolent?
Omnipotent?

All of the above, none of the above or just some of the above?
troll

[domer76]

I get it.................you're fulofshitoent

Is that the best you poor fuckwads have? No answer to a very simple question except diversionary attacks.

Your god:

Omniscient?
Omnibenevolent?
Omnipotent?

All of the above? None of the above? Some of the above?

Or do you pray to a feckless pussy?

[domer76]

troll

= "I can't answer because I really don't have an answer that's defensible to a thinking person"

Omniscient? Yes or no
Omnibenevolent? Yes or no
Omnipotent? Yes or no

Three binary questions. Not tough. You must already have the answer. Why are you so shy to provide an answer?

[Mister D]

troll

His failures in logic have been demonstrated to him at least twice now. I know that for sure because I was the one who demonstrated them. :laugh: Does he really believe anyone cares to bother at this point?

[decedent]

So according to her god killed 3,000 people a few years ago to remind us that we need him?

Bush ignored the memo, so God gave us a bigger one.

[donttread]

According to Billy Graham's daughter.



Wow. Just... wow.

If it weren't for religion and nationalism where would the power mongers find there soliers?

[domer76]

His failures in logic have been demonstrated to him at least twice now. I know that for sure because I was the one who demonstrated them. :laugh: Does he really believe anyone cares to bother at this point?

Obviously, Dodge just isn't a town in Kansas. You poor "Christians" have failed to answer even the simplest questions about your theology. Quite amusing, actually.

D, you haven't demonstrated doodle squat except to refuse to answer 3 very simple questions. Your god:

Omniscient? Yes or no.
Omnibenevolent? Yes or no.
Omnipotent? Yes or no.

No answer? Obviously, pussyfied about your own theology. Pretty sad that you can't answer basic questions about your own god.

[Ransom]

Omnipotent...yes.

Unlimited benevolence.....I'd be guessing.

All knowing? I truly don't believe God knows what paths and decisions each of us will choose.

[domer76]

Omnipotent...yes.

Unlimited benevolence.....I'd be guessing.

All knowing? I truly don't believe God knows what paths and decisions each of us will choose.

At least we have an answer.

Not a benevolent god? A vengeful and spiteful one?

[Mister D]

If it weren't for religion and nationalism where would the power mongers find there soliers?

Odd comment. At odds with reality that is. The "power mongers" in question have been steadily eroding the influence of religion and nationalism.

[donttread]

= "I can't answer because I really don't have an answer that's defensible to a thinking person"

Omniscient? Yes or no
Omnibenevolent? Yes or no
Omnipotent? Yes or no

Three binary questions. Not tough. You must already have the answer. Why are you so shy to provide an answer?

I choose to believe that we don't yet comprehend the secrets of the universe. Otherwise it boils down to beliefs very much like the beliefs we made fun of pagans over, and persecuted them for. Magic.
Either some ball of energy/matter some how existed outside time and space and therefore would have had no forces acting upon it yet it blew up one day and created all there is.
Or a magical being simply waved his hand for 6 straight days and created all that exist. Still magic

[zelmo1234]

I think that through out history trials and tribulations cause people to seek God.

Since WWII the world has been in moral decay and lets face it the Wars have been mild IN WWII million and million of people were killed all the world was involved in one way or another.

There is also a pattern in history where the nations that turn toward God tend to thrive. But I think that morals have a lot to so with the direction of a country. moral nations is a responsible one, the USA is neither at this time.

So I believe the nation could use a good dose of Religion but that is my opinion.

[Ransom]

At least we have an answer.

Not a benevolent god? A vengeful and spiteful one?

You asked if God possessed unlimited benevolence...not none at all. Correct?

[domer76]

You asked if God possessed unlimited benevolence...not none at all. Correct?

So, not totally benevolent? Tends to have spurts of malevolence? Must be an OT kinda guy.

[Ransom]

So, not totally benevolent? Tends to have spurts of malevolence? Must be an OT kinda guy.

Domer.....you asked a question....I answered it. I asked a question, you asked yet another in response.

You asked omnibenevolent....is what you asked. I said, I'm not sure. Without any benevolence whatsoever is what you skipped to....that wasn't asked. You're now slobbering on about spurts of benevolence......it is you who is clearly guessing here.

My belief.....and it is mine alone I understand....is that God left free will to men. That each of us has a choice, can pick good or evil, can be capable of both, can be capable of neither. I don't believe he's aware of every outcome nor dictates that outcome.

You seem like you're trying to bait...rather than involved in intellectual curiosity. Might I be correct?

[Chris]

His failures in logic have been demonstrated to him at least twice now. I know that for sure because I was the one who demonstrated them. :laugh: Does he really believe anyone cares to bother at this point?

https://i.snag.gy/UpxivS.jpg

[Mark III]

Pick virtually any post here:

http://thepoliticalforums.com/threads/59859-Race-Take-Two

No, I was spot on and we both know it.

Me? Sorry, race is a favorite topic of some of our progressives but not one of mine. Moreover, I'm not arguing these facts. I'm just saying we both know what your reaction would be if someone had a habit of focusing on those facts. This reference to my supposed philosophy of "white superiority" only supports my contention. Again, if anyone demonstrated a pattern of focusing on the anti-social behavior of blacks you would not remind everyone that this particular focus is not indicative of a racial animus toward blacks and does not change the facts surrounding black criminality. We both know that. Stop lying to yourself and stop lying to me.

The only reason you don't perceive any animus on the part of OGIS is because you share that animus.

Why did a thread about religion turn into an argument about race?

Mr D got involved.

[domer76]

Domer.....you asked a question....I answered it. I asked a question, you asked yet another in response.

You asked omnibenevolent....is what you asked. I said, I'm not sure. Without any benevolence whatsoever is what you skipped to....that wasn't asked. You're now slobbering on about spurts of benevolence......it is you who is clearly guessing here.

My belief.....and it is mine alone I understand....is that God left free will to men. That each of us has a choice, can pick good or evil, can be capable of both, can be capable of neither. I don't believe he's aware of every outcome nor dictates that outcome.

You seem like you're trying to bait...rather than involved in intellectual curiosity. Might I be correct?

We'll just stick with semi-benevolent.

[Ransom]

We'll just stick with semi-benevolent.

I'll stick with I'm not sure about semi-benevolent, I am sure you're being a troll here.

[Mister D]

Why did a thread about religion turn into an argument about race?

Mr D got involved.

1. It's not an argument about race.

2. Coming from you..I mean really, dude? LOL!

[domer76]

I'll stick with I'm not sure about semi-benevolent, I am sure you're being a troll here.

You're sure about omnipotence, but unsure about the rest. What makes you so sure about the all-powerful?

[Mister D]

I'll stick with I'm not sure about semi-benevolent, I am sure you're being a troll here.

As you quickly realized, theology, like history, culture, politics etc, is beyond the man's depth. He's not just not that bright or honest.

[domer76]

As you quickly realized, theology, like history, culture, politics etc, is beyond the man's depth. He's not just not that bright or honest.

= "I just can't verbalize my own concept of my feckless god."

[Subdermal]

I get it.................you're fulofshitoent

That's Omnexcrement.

[Peter1469]

His failures in logic have been demonstrated to him at least twice now. I know that for sure because I was the one who demonstrated them. :laugh: Does he really believe anyone cares to bother at this point?

Some people are too stupid to converse with. Those same people don't even know how foolish they look.

[domer76]

That's Omnexcrement.

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then He is not omnipotent. Is He able, but not willing? Then He is malevolent. Is He both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is He neither able nor willing? Then why call Him God?

Perhaps you should just call your god Bill or Sue.

[Mister D]

This is a perfect example. This was torn to shreds a couple weeks ago. It's boring now.

[domer76]

Some people are too stupid to converse with. Those same people don't even know how foolish they look.

If you can't answer the question, just say so.

[domer76]

This is a perfect example. This was torn to shreds a couple weeks ago. It's boring now.


If you can't answer the question, just say so.

[Chris]

There are no answers to the logic chopping being done here. It's not the answers that are wrong but the very questions asked.

[domer76]

There are no answers to the logic chopping being done here. It's not the answers that are wrong but the very questions asked.

The questions are simple. Just three of them. Subdermal is the only one to answer and his answer is that he worships a flawed god.

[Chris]

The questions are simple. Just three of them. Subdermal is the only one to answer and his answer is that he worships a flawed god.

They are childish logic chopping. Ask a meaningful question.

[Peter1469]

This is a perfect example. This was torn to shreds a couple weeks ago. It's boring now.

It is a circle with these people. It must be similar to what being inside a mental institution is like.

[Peter1469]

lol

[Subdermal]

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then He is not omnipotent. Is He able, but not willing? Then He is malevolent. Is He both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is He neither able nor willing? Then why call Him God?

Perhaps you should just call your god Bill or Sue.

The Bible answers these questions. I don't know why I should, but I'm going to anyway. Your goal isn't to seek answers, though. Your goal is to laugh at the answers, and you'll eventually be reduced to a 'prove it' response, which is useless to faith.

Let's see if the prediction is accurate.

God tolerates evil as a test. God Created the Earth, and has allowed Evil to influence it, after the agreement He made with Adam and Eve was violated by them. He can prevent evil at any time, as evil has no power in His presence.

Malevolence is an improper characterization. God is a Vengeful God - again, as the Bible explains (http://christianthinktank.com/madgod.html).

God is not "Omnibenevolent"; that sounds like an invention created by nonbelievers to troll believers.

Evil arose from the rebellion of one of His angels: Lucifer.

It has been my long-standing belief that this Creation is intended for the purpose of allowing each of God's Creations to take mortal form and live a life during which they decide in which camp they wish to spend eternity: with - or without - God.

It's possible - I don't know - if every single one of God's Creations is required to take mortal form for this test, or only those who didn't automatically decide that the time of rebellion in Heaven.

These are my faith-based beliefs. They are nothing more.

[Subdermal]

The questions are simple. Just three of them. Subdermal is the only one to answer and his answer is that he worships a flawed god.

You are incorrect. Regardless: yours is an argument from hypocrisy. How can you call 'flawed' something which doesn't exist?

And why would a Superior Being have to be flawless in order to exist, regardless of what my or anyone else's personal beliefs on the matter are?

[domer76]

The Bible answers these questions. I don't know why I should, but I'm going to anyway. Your goal isn't to seek answers, though. Your goal is to laugh at the answers, and you'll eventually be reduced to a 'prove it' response, which is useless to faith.

Let's see if the prediction is accurate.

God tolerates evil as a test. God Created the Earth, and has allowed Evil to influence it, after the agreement He made with Adam and Eve was violated by them. He can prevent evil at any time, as evil has no power in His presence.

Malevolence is an improper characterization. God is a Vengeful God - again, as the Bible explains (http://christianthinktank.com/madgod.html).

God is not "Omnibenevolent"; that sounds like an invention created by nonbelievers to troll believers.

Evil arose from the rebellion of one of His angels: Lucifer.

It has been my long-standing belief that this Creation is intended for the purpose of allowing each of God's Creations to take mortal form and live a life during which they decide in which camp they wish to spend eternity: with - or without - God.

It's possible - I don't know - if every single one of God's Creations is required to take mortal form for this test, or only those who didn't automatically decide that the time of rebellion in Heaven.

These are my faith-based beliefs. They are nothing more.

Here's how your Bible works:


14726

[Peter1469]

:shocked:

[Chris]

It is a circle with these people. It must be similar to what being inside a mental institution is like.

More like whack-a-mole, knock it down here, pops up over there.

http://s32.postimg.org/kervxxh8z/whack_a_mole_o.gif

It gets tiresome.

[Mister D]

Subdermal if this is how old man domer wants to spend his golden years (i.e. trolling message boards) please don't indulge him any longer.

[domer76]

The Bible answers these questions. I don't know why I should, but I'm going to anyway. Your goal isn't to seek answers, though. Your goal is to laugh at the answers, and you'll eventually be reduced to a 'prove it' response, which is useless to faith.

Let's see if the prediction is accurate.

God tolerates evil as a test. God Created the Earth, and has allowed Evil to influence it, after the agreement He made with Adam and Eve was violated by them. He can prevent evil at any time, as evil has no power in His presence.

Malevolence is an improper characterization. God is a Vengeful God - again, as the Bible explains (http://christianthinktank.com/madgod.html).

God is not "Omnibenevolent"; that sounds like an invention created by nonbelievers to troll believers.

Evil arose from the rebellion of one of His angels: Lucifer.

It has been my long-standing belief that this Creation is intended for the purpose of allowing each of God's Creations to take mortal form and live a life during which they decide in which camp they wish to spend eternity: with - or without - God.

It's possible - I don't know - if every single one of God's Creations is required to take mortal form for this test, or only those who didn't automatically decide that the time of rebellion in Heaven.

These are my faith-based beliefs. They are nothing more.

Kinda leaves out the innocent newborns who have no chance for choice, doesn't it?

[Mister D]

More like whack-a-mole, knock it down here, pops up over there.

http://s32.postimg.org/kervxxh8z/whack_a_mole_o.gif

It gets tiresome.

Now he's back to the circular logic mantra. Yet another term he doesn't understand how to apply. This guy is about as worthless as cigar at this point.

[Peter1469]

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-fDbWGmI8VXs/UHBY6rvuCII/AAAAAAAAHdg/Cb2EfLzqBNQ/s1600/insane-asylum-dayroom.jpg

[Ransom]

You're sure about omnipotence, but unsure about the rest. What makes you so sure about the all-powerful?

Far from sure and my faith tested daily. And remember "the rest" is a query from a tpf troll. You're merely a doubting Thomas, domer...a sinner. Fear not, you're not alone. I too am a sinner. My friend Pete...a sinner. Mister D...my man....a sinner.

Faith tested daily and we all struggle......but we don't troll others concerning religion. Why do you? If you don't believe, don't. And move on. Why be an idiot?

[Subdermal]

Kinda leaves out the innocent newborns who have no chance for choice, doesn't it?

Why?

[Subdermal]

Here's how your Bible works:


14726

In one post, you proved what I predicted. I answered your questions, and you weren't satisfied.

If you want to approach this logically, it seems that I could at most be wrong for 80-90 years, and you could be wrong forever.

You have more at stake.

[Ransom]

In one post, you proved what I predicted. I answered your questions, and you weren't satisfied.

If you want to approach this logically, it seems that I could at most be wrong for 80-90 years, and you could be wrong forever.

You have more at stake.

He didn't want his questions answered, he's trolling

[OGIS]

When you hear voices in your head it's schizophrenia. When you hear voices of God in your head, it's flat out bat$#@! crazy.

My wife heard God all the time before she got put on meds. Did a lot of praying and crying on her knees, as her God was an angry vengeful God that demanded certain actions or He would kill me and all the pets.

At that time she was fishing around for a faith, and had been going to Catholic services. I actually had to restrain her one Sunday from standing up during the service and preaching to the Catholic congregation. Seems like God had ordered her to collect disciples and travel to the Middle East and find "General David" who would give her a magic glowing sword and the Launch Codes for Israel's nuclear-tipped missiles. Then, together, she and General David would begin Holy Nuclear War against the Muslims, the Christians and the Jews. So spoke God. victory was assured because God personally told her it was.

Have you ever met someone who radiated total certainty and confidence? My wife is a very persuasive speaker, and the madness gave her an inner certainty that even had the shrink she eventually saw half-wondering if she was a messenger of God. She scared the living crap out of me.

Probably nothing would have happened, other than the priest calling the local cops to come get the crazy lady. But I like to think that I possibly prevented a new and very bloody religion from being created that day. I might have saved the lives of a few billion people.

And I am pretty sure the same scenario with variations has played out in the past. Each of our religions is the fallout of some persuasive hermit's schizophrenia, or caused by ergot-induced or starvation-induced or heatstoke-induced (Middle East is hot) hallucinations.

With steady medication (Risperidone) that calms the synapses she looks back and wonders where the hell all that alternate reality came from. For it was an alternate reality; talk to any schizophrenic and they will tell you that as far as they can tell the visions and the voices are just as real as anything in the real world.

[OGIS]

I liked Q.

Q's just a Sufficiently Advanced Alien.

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/SufficientlyAdvancedAlien

[Peter1469]

oh boy....

[OGIS]

shhhhh. Don't tell Zelmo. It might dent his perception of his micromanager god

Fickle Micromanager Gods

Band name?

[Mister D]

My wife heard God all the time before she got put on meds. Did a lot of praying and crying on her knees, as her God was an angry vengeful God that demanded certain actions or He would kill me and all the pets.

At that time she was fishing around for a faith, and had been going to Catholic services. I actually had to restrain her one Sunday from standing up during the service and preaching to the Catholic congregation. Seems like God had ordered her to collect disciples and travel to the Middle East and find "General David" who would give her a magic glowing sword and the Launch Codes for Israel's nuclear-tipped missiles. Then, together, she and General David would begin Holy Nuclear War against the Muslims, the Christians and the Jews. So spoke God. victory was assured because God personally told her it was.

Have you ever met someone who radiated total certainty and confidence? My wife is a very persuasive speaker, and the madness gave her an inner certainty that even had the shrink she eventually saw half-wondering if she was a messenger of God. She scared the living crap out of me.

Probably nothing would have happened, other than the priest calling the local cops to come get the crazy lady. But I like to think that I possibly prevented a new and very bloody religion from being created that day. I might have saved the lives of a few billion people.

And I am pretty sure the same scenario with variations has played out in the past. Each of our religions is the fallout of some persuasive hermit's schizophrenia, or caused by ergot-induced or starvation-induced or heatstoke-induced (Middle East is hot) hallucinations.

With steady medication (Risperidone) that calms the synapses she looks back and wonders where the hell all that alternate reality came from. For it was an alternate reality; talk to any schizophrenic and they will tell you that as far as they can tell the visions and the voices are just as real as anything in the real world.

Oh boy indeed...

It's patently obvious that OGIS is a traumatized weirdo but sometimes I'd rather he didn't elaborate.

[OGIS]

Funny how so much that is labeled "anti-Christian" is nothing more than someone pointing out the very obvious stupidity and illogic of what some self-identified "Christian" has said or done. So I guess the "Christian" response to such pronouncements is simply to either pretend what the person said made some kind of sense, or...what, ignore it?

But don't you dare tell them that their beliefs are insane, or they will whine that you are persecuting them.

[OGIS]

Right so when someone routinely focuses on the anti-social behavior of blacks you won't suspect a racial animus on their part, right? Wrong. You would and we both know it. This is a pattern with OGIS.

OGIS, show us on the doll where the bad priest touched you.

goodbye

[Mister D]

goodbye

CYA, coward. :laugh:

[Mister D]

But don't you dare tell them that their beliefs are insane, or they will whine that you are persecuting them.

No animus there, Wolf. :laugh:

[Mister D]

Looks like the mods are slackin', OGIS. Maybe that Manning guy bought them off? Or maybe it's Kevin Swanson again! :shocked:

[Dr. Who]

Mister D has been thread banned at the request of the OP, please do not respond to this member's posts.

[Ransom]

Oh boy indeed...

It's patently obvious that OGIS is a traumatized weirdo but sometimes I'd rather he didn't elaborate.

OGIS I spell IGNORELIST

[domer76]

Far from sure and my faith tested daily. And remember "the rest" is a query from a tpf troll. You're merely a doubting Thomas, domer...a sinner. Fear not, you're not alone. I too am a sinner. My friend Pete...a sinner. Mister D...my man....a sinner.

Faith tested daily and we all struggle......but we don't troll others concerning religion. Why do you? If you don't believe, don't. And move on. Why be an idiot?

Do you question your god about allowing innocent death?

[OGIS]

= social autism.

Just like Einstein.

I wonder which group has accomplished more in the world, and left it a better place?
Social autistics?
Or lawyers?

[OGIS]

= You have no rational response. And a boring mantra

Yeah, it is boring.

I liked "prancing ponies" better.

Much better alliteration than "social autist."

Peter has a certain talent.

[OGIS]

Why respond to a person mocking religion? I dismissed you. You remain dismissed.

Is that there one of them there legalisticisms?

[Tahuyaman]

The nature of man has not changed

Nor will it.

[Tahuyaman]

Nothing worse than wacked-out religious-freaks.

uh...... Forget it......

[Chris]

Funny how so much that is labeled "anti-Christian" is nothing more than someone pointing out the very obvious stupidity and illogic of what some self-identified "Christian" has said or done. So I guess the "Christian" response to such pronouncements is simply to either pretend what the person said made some kind of sense, or...what, ignore it?

But how does criticism of what some individual say, something even stupid or illogical, justify anti-Christian or even anti-religious sentiment like that expressed here? I'm not Christian or religious but just don't get that, these attacks on what people believe in and hold sacred. It makes no sense.

[ADMIN]

Subdermal and Peter1469 have been thread banned at the request of the OP, please do not respond to these members' posts.

[OGIS]

Omnipotent...yes.

Unlimited benevolence.....I'd be guessing.

All knowing? I truly don't believe God knows what paths and decisions each of us will choose.

Sounds more like a Sufficiently Advanced Alien.

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/SufficientlyAdvancedAlien

and if God is omnipotent, can he create a stone that he can't move?

[OGIS]

I choose to believe that we don't yet comprehend the secrets of the universe. Otherwise it boils down to beliefs very much like the beliefs we made fun of pagans over, and persecuted them for. Magic.
Either some ball of energy/matter some how existed outside time and space and therefore would have had no forces acting upon it yet it blew up one day and created all there is.
Or a magical being simply waved his hand for 6 straight days and created all that exist. Still magic

We can imagine neither endlessness nor ending. Logic, grounded inevitably in cause and effect (the apparent rule in a 3D Universe), cannot deal with a agentless (and therefore causeless) effect. This is the exact problem that faces both theists (Who created God?) and physicists (What created Existence?) 3D logic cannot handle it. It's the same as asking a fish to explain hard vacuum.

[OGIS]

Why did a thread about religion turn into an argument about race?

Mr D got involved.

Bingo. He rarely brings anything of value into a thread, then whines when he gets TBed.

Waste of bandwidth.

I know you can't proactively ban someone from a thread, but is there any way to set up a special warning email notification distinct from the regular emails? Seriously.

[Dr. Who]

Chris has been thread banned at the request of the OP, please do not respond to this member's posts.

[domer76]

More like whack-a-mole, knock it down here, pops up over there.

http://s32.postimg.org/kervxxh8z/whack_a_mole_o.gif

It gets tiresome.

Here's your circle:

"The Bible is the word of God"
"How can you be sure it's the word of God?"
"Because the Bible tells us so"
"Why believe the Bible?
"The Bible is infallible"
"How do you know it's infallible?"
(return to top)

[iustitia]

and if God is omnipotent, can he create a stone that he can't move?
Chris Mister D this is sad.

[Standing Wolf]

But how does criticism of what some individual say, something even stupid or illogical, justify anti-Christian or even anti-religious sentiment like that expressed here? I'm not Christian or religious but just don't get that, these attacks on what people believe in and hold sacred. It makes no sense.

Statements criticizing the religious beliefs of others is protected speech in this country, is it not? It may not be good manners, but it won't get you jailed, as it will in some parts of the world - and I'm not referring solely to the Muslim parts.

Do some take it too far? Of course, just as some Christians do. Some Christians take it too far, in my opinion, when they want the secular authorities to enforce their religious doctrines and prohibitions. In America, civil laws with a religious basis have largely disappeared over the course of the last half century, and I believe that's a good thing; no one should be forced to observe someone else's religion. Some Christians take it too far when they demand rights and privileges for themselves that they would deny other religious groups.

If an individual or group wants to believe that God is punishing man's sinfulness by "allowing" everything from natural disasters to terrorist attacks, that's their right - they have the freedom to proclaim it from the rooftops, if they feel so moved; what they do not have is immunity from having that belief ridiculed - even rebutted using their own sacred scriptures. Not everything any Christian says is necessarily a legitimate expression of Christian belief - any more than the actions of any individual Christian can be used to impugn that person's Faith or cast doubt on religion generally.

So yes, I agree with you, of course - some non-religious, even anti-religious people do take any occasion that comes along to blast the very concept of religious faith and ridicule those who have it. It makes me uncomfortable because I have had an extensive and varied experience with religious groups and their adherents over the past thirty-five years, and I have personally known many good and decent Christians - from a funny, humble Nazarene minister in northern California who claimed, half-seriously, that Gordon Lightfoot was a prophet; to an Irish priest in northern Florida who told me, with a straight face and a wonderful accent, that he believed Florida was "the country-western version of California"; to the Japanese coach of the Olympic boxing team. There are many millions of good people, in this country alone, whose Faith has inspired them to be even better.

It has been my experience and observation that those with the truest, purest faith tend to be the least interested in forcing others to adhere to their doctrines.

[OGIS]

Here's your circle:

"The Bible is the word of God"
"How can you be sure it's the word of God?"
"Because the Bible tells us so"
"Why believe the Bible?
"The Bible is infallible"
"How do you know it's infallible?"
(return to top)

Do loop.

Always leak before you loop.

[OGIS]

Statements criticizing the religious beliefs of others is protected speech in this country, is it not? It may not be good manners, but it won't get you jailed, as it will in some parts of the world - and I'm not referring solely to the Muslim parts.

Do some take it too far? Of course, just as some Christians do. Some Christians take it too far, in my opinion, when they want the secular authorities to enforce their religious doctrines and prohibitions. In America, civil laws with a religious basis have largely disappeared over the course of the last half century, and I believe that's a good thing; no one should be forced to observe someone else's religion. Some Christians take it too far when they demand rights and privileges for themselves that they would deny other religious groups.

If an individual or group wants to believe that God is punishing man's sinfulness by "allowing" everything from natural disasters to terrorist attacks, that's their right - they have the freedom to proclaim it from the rooftops, if they feel so moved; what they do not have is immunity from having that belief ridiculed - even rebutted using their own sacred scriptures. Not everything any Christian says is necessarily a legitimate expression of Christian belief - any more than the actions of any individual Christian can be used to impugn that person's Faith or cast doubt on religion generally.

So yes, I agree with you, of course - some non-religious, even anti-religious people do take any occasion that comes along to blast the very concept of religious faith and ridicule those who have it. It makes me uncomfortable because I have had an extensive and varied experience with religious groups and their adherents over the past thirty-five years, and I have personally known many good and decent Christians - from a funny, humble Nazarene minister in northern California who claimed, half-seriously, that Gordon Lightfoot was a prophet; to an Irish priest in northern Florida who told me, with a straight face and a wonderful accent, that he believed Florida was "the country-western version of California"; to the Japanese coach of the Olympic boxing team. There are many millions of good people, in this country alone, whose Faith has inspired them to be even better.

It has been my experience and observation that those with the truest, purest faith tend to be the least interested in forcing others to adhere to their doctrines.

Mine too.

[stjames1_53]

And yet God created this predator....

Yes He did. It was to give us a choice. To either act like Men, or succumb to the "animal" side of Man.
That's what separates us from the animals. The ability to choose to be Men or to act like animals.
Don't forget what it is that separates us from them... a conscience.
It establishes morality.
animals don't have morality, only process.

[stjames1_53]

Is that the best you poor $#@!wads have? No answer to a very simple question except diversionary attacks.

Your god:

Omniscient?
Omnibenevolent?
Omnipotent?

All of the above? None of the above? Some of the above?

Or do you pray to a feckless $#@!?

Do you kiss your wife with that mouth? your kids? Your mom?

[Chris]

Statements criticizing the religious beliefs of others is protected speech in this country, is it not? It may not be good manners, but it won't get you jailed, as it will in some parts of the world - and I'm not referring solely to the Muslim parts.

Do some take it too far? Of course, just as some Christians do. Some Christians take it too far, in my opinion, when they want the secular authorities to enforce their religious doctrines and prohibitions. In America, civil laws with a religious basis have largely disappeared over the course of the last half century, and I believe that's a good thing; no one should be forced to observe someone else's religion. Some Christians take it too far when they demand rights and privileges for themselves that they would deny other religious groups.

If an individual or group wants to believe that God is punishing man's sinfulness by "allowing" everything from natural disasters to terrorist attacks, that's their right - they have the freedom to proclaim it from the rooftops, if they feel so moved; what they do not have is immunity from having that belief ridiculed - even rebutted using their own sacred scriptures. Not everything any Christian says is necessarily a legitimate expression of Christian belief - any more than the actions of any individual Christian can be used to impugn that person's Faith or cast doubt on religion generally.

So yes, I agree with you, of course - some non-religious, even anti-religious people do take any occasion that comes along to blast the very concept of religious faith and ridicule those who have it. It makes me uncomfortable because I have had an extensive and varied experience with religious groups and their adherents over the past thirty-five years, and I have personally known many good and decent Christians - from a funny, humble Nazarene minister in northern California who claimed, half-seriously, that Gordon Lightfoot was a prophet; to an Irish priest in northern Florida who told me, with a straight face and a wonderful accent, that he believed Florida was "the country-western version of California"; to the Japanese coach of the Olympic boxing team. There are many millions of good people, in this country alone, whose Faith has inspired them to be even better.

It has been my experience and observation that those with the truest, purest faith tend to be the least interested in forcing others to adhere to their doctrines.


All well and good but my point had to do with overgeneralizations, from one to many.

And with the delight some seem to take in, well, making up hypocrisies and mocking people for them and then patting themselves on the back as if they're clever. Isn't that too a form of trying to force conformity if not silence?

[Chris]

According to Billy Graham's daughter.

...She added that “God allows bad things to happen” like the September 11 attacks and the mass shooting in San Bernardino “to show us that we need Him, you know, we’re desperate without him.”
[/SIZE]


Wow. Just... wow.


Returning to the OP. No one has addressed this: What exactly is wow about that? WOlf hinted it was stupid and illogical--how? Why? And please, don't answer with more domer-like logic chopping. This thread is flagged as tPF, indicating discussion is sought. Discuss.

[stjames1_53]

Sounds more like a Sufficiently Advanced Alien.

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/SufficientlyAdvancedAlien

and if God is omnipotent, can he create a stone that he can't move?

well, it's obvious that you aren't moving towards God, so I guess he can create an immovable object.

[PolWatch]

All well and good but my point had to do with overgeneralizations, from one to many.

And with the delight some seem to take in, well, making up hypocrisies and mocking people for them and then patting themselves on the back as if they're clever. Isn't that too a form of trying to force conformity if not silence?

There are always some who feel that THEIR views are right and other views should be silenced. Municipal employees that refuse to do their jobs based on their religion? What is that, if not trying to force conformity to their views? If they don't pat themselves on the back for being clever, they insist that they have divine enforcement. I don't think we can say that one side is more guilty than the other side.

[Chris]

Chris Mister D this is sad.

It is. OGIS has been on this kick for a few days now. He tells us his atheism is "honed" yet he tells us nothing about it other than he developed his philosophical position around the age of 12. Instead he repeats domer's logic chopping as if it's ever so clever.

[Chris]

There are always some who feel that THEIR views are right and other views should be silenced. Municipal employees that refuse to do their jobs based on their religion? What is that, if not trying to force conformity to their views? If they don't pat themselves on the back for being clever, they insist that they have divine enforcement. I don't think we can say that one side is more guilty than the other side.

Right, both sides, but how does one go from a piddling government clerk not doing her job to all Christians? How does one go from the words of Billy Graham's daughter to a criticism of Christianity? That's not very rational.

[iustitia]

It is. OGIS has been on this kick for a few days now. He tells us his atheism is "honed" yet he tells us nothing about it other than he developed his philosophical position around the age of 12. Instead he repeats domer's logic chopping as if it's ever so clever.

Honed! LOL! Like he's an atheist Jedi! Or would he be a Sith? Darth Ogis!


TBed by OP.

[OGIS]

Yes He did. It was to give us a choice. To either act like Men, or succumb to the "animal" side of Man.
That's what separates us from the animals. The ability to choose to be Men or to act like animals.
Don't forget what it is that separates us from them... a conscience.
It establishes morality.
animals don't have morality, only process.

Not so sure about that. Though widely held, even with scientists, it's a rather simplistic view. This is one of the areas where I disagree with Ayn Rand. Her "plants-sensation; animals-perception; humans-conceptualization" trichotomy is simplistic. Conceptualization is necessary for morality, and I suspect that, as with thought and conceptualization, there is a range.

Example: Is there simple instinct operating here? Or something more? It's a male dog, so it's not any maternal instinct. The dog, who apparently was a street fighter, saw a helpless infant.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XzxsagVcKCg

[Bo-4]

Why didn't she use gays as a whipping post like all the other Wackanoid evangies?

http://www.salon.com/2014/04/11/6_most_absurd_things_the_christian_right_has_blame d_on_gays_partner/

[OGIS]

Returning to the OP. No one has addressed this: What exactly is wow about that? WOlf hinted it was stupid and illogical--how? Why? And please, don't answer with more domer-like logic chopping. This thread is flagged as tPF, indicating discussion is sought. Discuss.

I said "wow" as a substitute for other, far less polite, words. To me, the woman is a self professed loon, and the sheeple who buy into her weirdness are self-admitted morons and evil asshats.

[Ransom]

Salon, Bo?

Integrity....decreasing by the minute.

Why not quit while you're behind and admit what we all here already know.

[OGIS]

well, it's obvious that you aren't moving towards God, so I guess he can create an immovable object.

Actually, I have a theoretical justification for requiring some form of Supreme Being, as the cutting edge cosmology theories (if I understand them correctly) don't work without one. But since I'm using it in a novel that's currently on hold, I won't be discussing it here, except to say that this Being would be nothing like the religionists claim It is, and It probably doesn't give a flying fig about us. Sorry.

[Ransom]

Do you question your god about allowing innocent death?

Every day.

[OGIS]

All well and good but my point had to do with overgeneralizations, from one to many.

And with the delight some seem to take in, well, making up hypocrisies and mocking people for them and then patting themselves on the back as if they're clever. Isn't that too a form of trying to force conformity if not silence?

No, it isn't. No one is trying to force people to be silent. Embarrassing someone into holding their tongue is not using force. The problem is that the righty (to borrow one of peter's favorite ad homs) social autistics are clueless as to how they come across, so embarrassing them generally does not work. Efforts of that nature merely point out the intellectual and moral bankruptcy of the Right.

Oh, and you seem to be whining here. Would you like some cheese with that?

[OGIS]

Right, both sides, but how does one go from a piddling government clerk not doing her job to all Christians? How does one go from the words of Billy Graham's daughter to a criticism of Christianity? That's not very rational.

The EXACT same way that Right Wing Christians excoriate Muslims for not publicly taking principled stands against the extremist terrorists in their midst. Show me where waves of Christian congregations are denouncing this asshat.

I'll wait.

[OGIS]

Salon, Bo?

Integrity....decreasing by the minute.

Why not quit while you're behind and admit what we all here already know.

Can you actually point to any lies, distortions, or misstatements of fact in the article?

Didn't think so.

Yes, indeed, integrity.

[leekohler2]

I should have written Man.....that would have been inclusive.
I served in 'Nam. I saw the absolute worse that Man could be. Man is a predator by nature. No rules, only process......
It took me years to come to terms with it..............and a lot of talks with God.

Did you record your conversations? I'd very much like to hear them.

[Chris]

My apologies. I'd been TBed late last night but didn't realize it when I posted this morning. I am TBed. Please don't respond to me further in this thread.

[Bo-4]

Salon, Bo?

Integrity....decreasing by the minute.

Why not quit while you're behind and admit what we all here already know.

You can find the same stories complete with YouTube vids in a million other places.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_DwHRcvIfYI

[OGIS]

There are always some who feel that THEIR views are right and other views should be silenced. Municipal employees that refuse to do their jobs based on their religion? What is that, if not trying to force conformity to their views? If they don't pat themselves on the back for being clever, they insist that they have divine enforcement. I don't think we can say that one side is more guilty than the other side.

Except, of course, when the choice is between reason, logic and evidence on the one hand and "You must believe because I/The Bible/God says you must believe - or else." There is a fairly clear difference there.

[Standing Wolf]

Returning to the OP. No one has addressed this: What exactly is wow about that? WOlf hinted it was stupid and illogical--how? Why? And please, don't answer with more domer-like logic chopping. This thread is flagged as tPF, indicating discussion is sought. Discuss.

What is "Wow!" about the notion that God permits bad things to happen to punish man for his sinfulness? When you stop focusing on the big, spectacular, media-saturated events - the terrorist attacks, the mass shootings, the natural disasters - you find that, just in the normal course of events, about 153,424 people in the world die every day...56 million every year. 68% die from non-communicable diseases. Many are murdered, of course. Is God sending us a message by "permitting" all that carnage? The deaths caused by terrorist attacks, mass shooting, even natural disasters are a drop in the proverbial bucket.

[domer76]

Do you kiss your wife with that mouth? your kids? Your mom?

^Another that can't/won't answer a simple question.

[domer76]

Every day.

How dare you question the creator of the universe!

[stjames1_53]

Not so sure about that. Though widely held, even with scientists, it's a rather simplistic view. This is one of the areas where I disagree with Ayn Rand. Her "plants-sensation; animals-perception; humans-conceptualization" trichotomy is simplistic. Conceptualization is necessary for morality, and I suspect that, as with thought and conceptualization, there is a range.

Example: Is there simple instinct operating here? Or something more? It's a male dog, so it's not any maternal instinct. The dog, who apparently was a street fighter, saw a helpless infant.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XzxsagVcKCg

Instinct is different than morality.
Instinctive behavior is a pattern of behaviors passed along genetic lines. A wolf knows it needs to hunt because it is in its genes. The rabbit is fast to elude predators. The point is, all things [sic] are designed, either by a Greater Entity or by chance, to have a base instinct. Actually three: breath, eat, cast off waste. All else is learned. At some point, animals separate according to their breed and their spot on the food chain.
Man is the only animal that acts against base instincts. Morals are given and taught to function within any society, whether it is a wolf pack, or hundreds of thousands of men living in the same social construct.
Men usually determine the morality of a system through conscious effort.
Rats, chipmunks, blackbirds all collect shiny things. Small bits of things they cannot use. Instinct.
Man collects shiny things. Morality. If a man decides to walk instead of getting a ride...morality. A conscious decision based on a multiple of inputs. The ability to recognize consequences determine morality, something an animal is incapable of.
An animal only reacts based on instinct.
Man has it to respond (morality) or react (instinct). That is the demonstrative factor between instinct and morality.

[OGIS]

What is "Wow!" about the notion that God permits bad things to happen to punish man for his sinfulness? When you stop focusing on the big, spectacular, media-saturated events - the terrorist attacks, the mass shootings, the natural disasters - you find that, just in the normal course of events, about 153,424 people in the world die every day...56 million every year. 68% die from non-communicable diseases. Many are murdered, of course. Is God sending us a message by "permitting" all that carnage? The deaths caused by terrorist attacks, mass shooting, even natural disasters are a drop in the proverbial bucket.

My original "wow" was due to the fact that I was at a loss for polite words.

"She added that “God allows bad things to happen” like the September 11 attacks and the mass shooting in San Bernardino “to show us that we need Him, you know, we’re desperate without him.”

These words actually offer a description of virtually every murderous sociopathic attention-wh0re monarch, dictator and nutso stalker in history. One sentence that came to mind was "I'll make you love me! I'll kidnap and torture your little dog/child/family until you DO love me."

Love. respect, and fealty must be earned. Her God sounds simply evil. If this is her Good Guy, I will gladly take the Bad Guy.

[stjames1_53]

^Another that can't/won't answer a simple question.

well, YOU can answer a question without being foul-mouthed.
Rule number 7: I never address a person of low-intelligence that demonstrates a limited vocabulary punctuated with words they don't want their momma to hear.

[donttread]

Its just good old Christian common sense.

humans are naturally sinful and following the guidelines that God has given us through the Bible and Jesus makes us a better nation.


Ignoring God and His wisdom leads to trouble for the reason I first stated - men are naturally sinful and cruel.

Wasn't the old Testament God "sinful and cruel?" He was one nasty SOB

[OGIS]

Instinct is different than morality.
Instinctive behavior is a pattern of behaviors passed along genetic lines. A wolf knows it needs to hunt because it is in its genes. The rabbit is fast to elude predators. The point is, all things [sic] are designed, either by a Greater Entity or by chance, to have a base instinct. Actually three: breath, eat, cast off waste. All else is learned. At some point, animals separate according to their breed and their spot on the food chain.
Man is the only animal that acts against base instincts. Morals are given and taught to function within any society, whether it is a wolf pack, or hundreds of thousands of men living in the same social construct.
Men usually determine the morality of a system through conscious effort.
Rats, chipmunks, blackbirds all collect shiny things. Small bits of things they cannot use. Instinct.
Man collects shiny things. Morality. If a man decides to walk instead of getting a ride...morality. A conscious decision based on a multiple of inputs. The ability to recognize consequences determine morality, something an animal is incapable of.
An animal only reacts based on instinct.
Man has it to respond (morality) or react (instinct). That is the demonstrative factor between instinct and morality.

So explain how the "instinct" of this male dog - a breed quite close, genetically, to wolves - who was (per that man in the video) an urban-feral "street fighter" brought it to the point where it decided to protect a baby hummingbird?

You may be correct, and we know that people (including me) can be fooled into anthropomorphizing animal behavior. But this particular instance, for me, raises a bunch of questions.

The old idea that there are three levels of existential awareness (plants - sensations; animals - perceptions; humans - conceptions) appears to be somewhat simplistic. Conscious morality requires, I think, the use of concepts. And I am pretty sure that various animals possess various levels of conceptualization. So I think it likely that, yes, animals can act as moral agents.

[OGIS]

well, YOU can answer a question without being foul-mouthed.
Rule number 7: I never address a person of low-intelligence that demonstrates a limited vocabulary punctuated with words they don't want their momma to hear.

Interesting. What are the other rules? Can you supply a list?

[domer76]

well, YOU can answer a question without being foul-mouthed.
Rule number 7: I never address a person of low-intelligence that demonstrates a limited vocabulary punctuated with words they don't want their momma to hear.

Studies show that people who swear possess a higher intelligence.

Douchenozzle

[leekohler2]

Instinct is different than morality.
Instinctive behavior is a pattern of behaviors passed along genetic lines. A wolf knows it needs to hunt because it is in its genes. The rabbit is fast to elude predators. The point is, all things [sic] are designed, either by a Greater Entity or by chance, to have a base instinct. Actually three: breath, eat, cast off waste. All else is learned. At some point, animals separate according to their breed and their spot on the food chain.
Man is the only animal that acts against base instincts. Morals are given and taught to function within any society, whether it is a wolf pack, or hundreds of thousands of men living in the same social construct.
Men usually determine the morality of a system through conscious effort.
Rats, chipmunks, blackbirds all collect shiny things. Small bits of things they cannot use. Instinct.
Man collects shiny things. Morality. If a man decides to walk instead of getting a ride...morality. A conscious decision based on a multiple of inputs. The ability to recognize consequences determine morality, something an animal is incapable of.
An animal only reacts based on instinct.
Man has it to respond (morality) or react (instinct). That is the demonstrative factor between instinct and morality.

Wait, you gave three base instincts, yes?: Breath, eat, cast off waste. Then you say that we act against them.

I fail to see how we act against any of those. I breathe, eat and caste off waste constantly. So do you. And walking instead of riding is a moral issue?

And of course animals recognize consequences, how else would they be able to be trained? They recognize reward too. You might want to think this through a bit more.

[OGIS]

Studies show that people who swear possess a higher intelligence.

Douchenozzle

See ya.

[Chris]

Studies show that people who swear possess a higher intelligence.

Douchenozzle



domer76 TBed by OGIS so please do not respond further in this thread.

[OGIS]

Wait, you gave three base instincts, yes?: Breath, eat, cast off waste. Then you say that we act against them.

I fail to see how we act against any of those. I breathe, eat and caste off waste constantly. So do you. And walking instead of riding is a moral issue?

And of course animals recognize consequences, how else would they be able to be trained? They recognize reward too. You might want to think this through a bit more.

I think that Ayn Rand was in a sense correct when she said that (paraphrased) "morality replaces instinct."

Her broad-brush was that lower life forms simply react to stimulii (plants to sensations, animals to the aggregation of sensations which is perceptions). They therefore behave automatically; withing the context of the moment they have no choice.

Man, OTOH, has the ability to conceptualize perceptions, which (she thought) over-rode instinct and therefore required the development of a moral system (OUGHT - CAN OR NOT DO) to replace an instinctual behavior system (AUTOMATIC - MUST DO).

I think that she was far too naive in this. Much like Newton, the basic equations are fine, but fall apart the closer one looks at the Universe. I think the current thoughts in the appropriate research communities are that - though the "sensation-perception-concept" progression is, indeed, absolutely correct - there is also a constant shading or blending as one goes up the tree of life.

Analog, not digital.

And this makes actual (common) sense. There is a hell of a lot of mental, emotional and behavioral difference between, say, a chimp and a lizard. Though our tendency to anthropomorphize sometimes makes it difficult to see such differences.

Dogs (and, yes, cats), in other words, do partially act from moral decisions. When and how that occurs probably depends greatly on the circumstances.