.
Polymorpheus
Member
Seen
4 yrs ago
Gwynbleidd Summon The Bitches
Banned
Seen
4 yrs ago
Wait, you mean Muller isn't investigating President Nixon?!
I know! Shocker.
Apparently Muller is working on it.
And we'll see where he gets to, if anywhere.
The very best you can say is that Trump's campaign had sketchy Russian connections (Mannafort) and sketchy Turkish connections (Flynn). It is easy to imagine that Trump, a relative new comer to the political stage wouldn't be aware, or at least aware of how problematic, this could become. I think its completely understandable that his legal counsel is ultra cautious. I haven't really been following the story but I haven't heard they are obstructing.
One possible path of many. Or, there's nothing really to any of this and there was no collusion; also a possible path.
Gwynbleidd Summon The Bitches
Banned
Seen
4 yrs ago
Don't y'all just love how NeoMcCarthyism is rattling federal US politics?
It's an entertaining year, that's for sure.
One possible path of many. Or, there's nothing really to any of this and there was no collusion; also a possible path.
Right its possible that its just a number of people in the Trump campaign engaged in illegal activity. Sunlight, disinfectant ect.
OP
Dolerman Chrysalis Form
Member
Seen
10 mos ago
Xandrya Lone Wolf
Member
Seen
13 hrs ago
2x Laugh
The Harbinger of Ferocity
Member
Seen
3 yrs ago
@catchamber
Yes, I am sure we should weigh things on what humans deem meritable rather than the cosmic entirety of everything in the context of a being that is considered all knowing and all powerful. Excellent standards set there, I can in no way foresee how that is a logical fallacy and false equivalency. Retort aside, it appears you are not grasping that the God in question is offering not demanding a relationship and or freedom in return for submission. I will repeat it again, the philosophy of this faith goes that in order for one to be free of their sin and evils - those imposed on them by the choices of their forefathers and the way Satan manipulated them - they must bend knee and submit, but they are not forced to. It is entirely and completely the person's choice, consequences for both actions laid bare.
That said, do excuse me if I take your holding of God to your standards as a nonsensical argument. You are legitimately saying in essence, "Well I know, or people know that they know, better than God, because our standards are better and we have better ethics." That is an irrational argument and I will not entertain it, I apologize. Feel free to believe what you personally want, but on this subject that has no weight.
Proceeding to the argument of free will versus God's plan, I propose it this following way; you may choose any action you deem fit but God, being able to foresee and know all outcomes, will always be at least one step ahead of you if not unquestionably more. You are allowed to choose because no matter what you do choose there is no way you can interfere or intervene in a way that would not benefit him. You might not call this free will but at that point you are using your own definitions, as you oft do, for something regarded as a settled matter in its context. There is no conflict of function other than the ones people attempt to enforce on the debate - legitimately nothing is preventing God from being both all powerful and all knowing while you retain free will, because in the end, he will always circumvent you because he will always know exactly how to, leaving your choices to be your own and the results determined from them, but always to his benefit.
Transitioning completely, no, you are reading exactly what you want to - entirely out of context as I proved - what you desire from the argument you are making. You are legitimately stating that I am incorrect because of one passage, which by technical and purest form in absolute isolate is true, but no one operates in that vacuum and to claim they do is willful ignorance. To dismantle this further, the outcome you are talking about requires the absolute destruction and dissolution of the old Heaven and Earth, remade by God - legitimately making "all things new" - and all people who have died and given themselves to him to be reborn as he promised them from the start. It says nothing in there or at all about how "your personal comfort and consolation are my goal" when it is pretty evident the rule of the Kingdom of Heaven and God is the end goal. Your happiness is granted as reward for participation and good loyalty, not just for existing; you do not get a participation trophy.
Never the less, just because God has foreseen that you will sin and knows that you will sin, does not mean he will intervene with his shield at the ready to stay your hand. He is not obligated to, in fact, there is no apparent desire to. Why? Because sin is a choice, this is repeated time and again, being the very reason people need ask for atonement and pray for forgiveness when they do sin. No one is forcing people to do this, so however "petty" it is, is your perception. As far as I can see, and as far as history demonstrates, being able to continue to make the same or worse mistake time and time again so you can retain your own independent agency then return to submit for forgiveness isn't something you see in the real world; the idea of it is very inhuman. I know of no person who, no matter how many times you fail in your oaths, what a fool you make of yourself, how humiliating you violate yourself, or how evil you act, will always forgive you if you are sincere.
As for the "no justification of Hell", do not humor yourself too much. The justification is pretty evident throughout the Bible, in that man was told not to do one thing - of the countless and many things he was allowed to do - yet still was fooled by the deceiver, cast out of paradise, the traitor angels cast out too, and man told that for his failures from here on out would have actual consequence, that consequence being without God and dying a death. The justification seems pretty clear and evident, the same philosophy for why say, prison exists to use a crude example; you break the law, you are punished. The difference came later that someone who could always forgive you and absolve you of those things was a factor. Arguing that God is responsible for sin is utterly lifting the responsibility off of man and Satan in the drama, which is both naive and foolish; Satan was openly jealous and angry that God favored a lesser being so much so over the far greater angelic hosts and sought to prove to God how fallible and weak man was. The end result that both were punished, which is pretty rational.
Another matter, I would call your thought of "unwarranted demands for respect" a notion that does not take into totality of the thing we are discussing. We are talking about a literal god, the God of an entire system of faith, and you are claiming that their demands are "irrational and hypocritical". I might say it best with this, "Just who are you?" It is arrogance at its supreme to say to a literal all-powerful thing, "Well, in my opinion, I do not like these things." Who are you again? An absolute nobody, correct? Just any other human being like the rest?
There is no other reasonable way to interpret that approach. It is a demand, unspoken and completely implied. Humans have no special authority or respect they need be granted or due. They are not the glittering, glinting, drifting snowflakes they all think themselves to be, because in the eyes of the religion they are stained by sin - any beauty, admirability or greatness ruined until they are redeemed. In short, I will phrase it my way, "Get over yourselves and your opinions."
And as for it being "retarded" and your "argument" thereafter, consider that a "cute" response, one which I will just smile and nod to, allowing you to stick to it; I know your mind isn't going to change no matter what argument I pose. It is as classically human as anyone could expect and utterly focused upon itself. As for me? I am more than content to admit I take that process of thought less seriously than I do faiths of questionable status or those I outright reject as valid.
Given nothing of value is going to come from debating with you, as it classically hasn't from my experience, feel free to carry on with someone else if you wish.
Yes, I am sure we should weigh things on what humans deem meritable rather than the cosmic entirety of everything in the context of a being that is considered all knowing and all powerful. Excellent standards set there, I can in no way foresee how that is a logical fallacy and false equivalency. Retort aside, it appears you are not grasping that the God in question is offering not demanding a relationship and or freedom in return for submission. I will repeat it again, the philosophy of this faith goes that in order for one to be free of their sin and evils - those imposed on them by the choices of their forefathers and the way Satan manipulated them - they must bend knee and submit, but they are not forced to. It is entirely and completely the person's choice, consequences for both actions laid bare.
That said, do excuse me if I take your holding of God to your standards as a nonsensical argument. You are legitimately saying in essence, "Well I know, or people know that they know, better than God, because our standards are better and we have better ethics." That is an irrational argument and I will not entertain it, I apologize. Feel free to believe what you personally want, but on this subject that has no weight.
Proceeding to the argument of free will versus God's plan, I propose it this following way; you may choose any action you deem fit but God, being able to foresee and know all outcomes, will always be at least one step ahead of you if not unquestionably more. You are allowed to choose because no matter what you do choose there is no way you can interfere or intervene in a way that would not benefit him. You might not call this free will but at that point you are using your own definitions, as you oft do, for something regarded as a settled matter in its context. There is no conflict of function other than the ones people attempt to enforce on the debate - legitimately nothing is preventing God from being both all powerful and all knowing while you retain free will, because in the end, he will always circumvent you because he will always know exactly how to, leaving your choices to be your own and the results determined from them, but always to his benefit.
Transitioning completely, no, you are reading exactly what you want to - entirely out of context as I proved - what you desire from the argument you are making. You are legitimately stating that I am incorrect because of one passage, which by technical and purest form in absolute isolate is true, but no one operates in that vacuum and to claim they do is willful ignorance. To dismantle this further, the outcome you are talking about requires the absolute destruction and dissolution of the old Heaven and Earth, remade by God - legitimately making "all things new" - and all people who have died and given themselves to him to be reborn as he promised them from the start. It says nothing in there or at all about how "your personal comfort and consolation are my goal" when it is pretty evident the rule of the Kingdom of Heaven and God is the end goal. Your happiness is granted as reward for participation and good loyalty, not just for existing; you do not get a participation trophy.
Never the less, just because God has foreseen that you will sin and knows that you will sin, does not mean he will intervene with his shield at the ready to stay your hand. He is not obligated to, in fact, there is no apparent desire to. Why? Because sin is a choice, this is repeated time and again, being the very reason people need ask for atonement and pray for forgiveness when they do sin. No one is forcing people to do this, so however "petty" it is, is your perception. As far as I can see, and as far as history demonstrates, being able to continue to make the same or worse mistake time and time again so you can retain your own independent agency then return to submit for forgiveness isn't something you see in the real world; the idea of it is very inhuman. I know of no person who, no matter how many times you fail in your oaths, what a fool you make of yourself, how humiliating you violate yourself, or how evil you act, will always forgive you if you are sincere.
As for the "no justification of Hell", do not humor yourself too much. The justification is pretty evident throughout the Bible, in that man was told not to do one thing - of the countless and many things he was allowed to do - yet still was fooled by the deceiver, cast out of paradise, the traitor angels cast out too, and man told that for his failures from here on out would have actual consequence, that consequence being without God and dying a death. The justification seems pretty clear and evident, the same philosophy for why say, prison exists to use a crude example; you break the law, you are punished. The difference came later that someone who could always forgive you and absolve you of those things was a factor. Arguing that God is responsible for sin is utterly lifting the responsibility off of man and Satan in the drama, which is both naive and foolish; Satan was openly jealous and angry that God favored a lesser being so much so over the far greater angelic hosts and sought to prove to God how fallible and weak man was. The end result that both were punished, which is pretty rational.
Another matter, I would call your thought of "unwarranted demands for respect" a notion that does not take into totality of the thing we are discussing. We are talking about a literal god, the God of an entire system of faith, and you are claiming that their demands are "irrational and hypocritical". I might say it best with this, "Just who are you?" It is arrogance at its supreme to say to a literal all-powerful thing, "Well, in my opinion, I do not like these things." Who are you again? An absolute nobody, correct? Just any other human being like the rest?
There is no other reasonable way to interpret that approach. It is a demand, unspoken and completely implied. Humans have no special authority or respect they need be granted or due. They are not the glittering, glinting, drifting snowflakes they all think themselves to be, because in the eyes of the religion they are stained by sin - any beauty, admirability or greatness ruined until they are redeemed. In short, I will phrase it my way, "Get over yourselves and your opinions."
And as for it being "retarded" and your "argument" thereafter, consider that a "cute" response, one which I will just smile and nod to, allowing you to stick to it; I know your mind isn't going to change no matter what argument I pose. It is as classically human as anyone could expect and utterly focused upon itself. As for me? I am more than content to admit I take that process of thought less seriously than I do faiths of questionable status or those I outright reject as valid.
Given nothing of value is going to come from debating with you, as it classically hasn't from my experience, feel free to carry on with someone else if you wish.
Andreyich AS THOUGH A THOUSAND MOUTHS CRY OUT IN PAIN
Member
Seen
0-24 hrs ago
Haha lol DRUMPF (get it lol) is a russian plant literally a sleeper cell checkmate rednecks rayciss xd
POOHEAD189 The Abmin
Admin
Seen
3 hrs ago
NASA has recently discovered an 8 planet system, with 2 planets theorized to have the potential for life, using its Kepler Spacecraft. Friday at 1 PM ET they are hosting a teleconference to announce something as well.
Burning Kitty
Member
Seen
6 yrs ago
theblaze.com/news/2017/12/14/a-woman-…
These fake rape/sexual assault reports need to end and the women who do it massively punished. At minimum twice what a conviction would have gotten the falsely accused.
These fake rape/sexual assault reports need to end and the women who do it massively punished. At minimum twice what a conviction would have gotten the falsely accused.
Xandrya Lone Wolf
Member
Seen
13 hrs ago
@Burning Kitty
I disagree. People falsely accusing others should get, at the max, the same sentence as the "perpetrator" if they were found to be guilty. But people need to get back on the due process train, and anyone accused should be treated as innocent until proven guilty. Such process has been faltering lately, but the accusers shouldn't get a harsher sentence to make up for it. They didn't commit a crime against persons, they only lied in an attempt to ruin someone else, but no one should jump the gun in cases like these, or any other case for that matter.
Note: Typing anything more than a few sentences on a phone is extremely aggravating.
I disagree. People falsely accusing others should get, at the max, the same sentence as the "perpetrator" if they were found to be guilty. But people need to get back on the due process train, and anyone accused should be treated as innocent until proven guilty. Such process has been faltering lately, but the accusers shouldn't get a harsher sentence to make up for it. They didn't commit a crime against persons, they only lied in an attempt to ruin someone else, but no one should jump the gun in cases like these, or any other case for that matter.
Note: Typing anything more than a few sentences on a phone is extremely aggravating.
2x Like
POOHEAD189 The Abmin
Admin
Seen
3 hrs ago
@POOHEAD189
When ever does the current administration admit anything to their opposition? Look at the lengths they have gone to in order to prevent leaking. Everything they do behind the scenes is under absolute lock and key, utter secrecy, because anything they do - even going back to the moon - is somehow fuel for controversy and spite. As for having "Nothing to hide.", that seems to be the real issue, that they have nothing to hide. But this comes back around, do you enjoy people spying on you? Everyone makes a great point of the hysteria about "net neutrality" and internet privacy, see all the issues taken with the National Security Agency alone, so why would this be any different? Let us not forget the man has been called "one of the most transparent administrations in history" and has complied with all the requests for information.
The Donald Trump Jr. meeting, as we have come to learn was a set-up by his opposition in an attempt to trap him for having a meeting. I remind you that they were indeed there under entirely different pretenses that had nothing to do with intelligence gathering about their opponent. If that were untrue, the argument of collusion would have been proven outright. Donald Trump Jr. politely saw himself out the moment it turned that direction and this has been publicly validated; it was posted directly to Twitter even.
I am not going to point fingers at previous administration, because everyone rolls their eyes at it, but thus far? There is significantly less scandal here still compared to "scandal free" presidencies and ones that promised transparency and still have holdovers who refuse to honor it - to the point of ignoring court orders, repeatedly choosing to plead the fifth, decline to appear, or submit documents for Freedom of Information requests or investigative agency demands. That is suspicious to me. The President and his inner circle being completely tight-lipped? Not an ounce of shock down the spine here.
Sorry, I was busy the last two days.
1) This isn't the 'opposition' that is questioning. This is the United States of America trying to see who they can and cannot trust.
2) This also isn't 'people are spying on me and no one likes that.'
The fact of the matter is, this isn't a case where some backwards neighbor is rooting through someone's garbage. This is a Federal Investigation, and Donald Trump, along with his staff are under allegations of treason.
Anytime someone is not 100% truthful with the investigation, particularly with Russians, means they are either guilty of something they don't want found out, they have abysmal memories, or they're just stupid.
Also, if I were you I'd find other sources than the ones you used that claim the meeting was a 'plot by the opposition.' It's already known Donald Trump Jr. wanted to find info on his opposition at the meeting but he did not get the chance.
Look to the fake news parade and how many times they have jumped the metaphorical gun with believing they had proof on this investigation; no one knowing anything is for the better, because apparently, if they even so much as think they know something, they fire it off and hope they are right. That is not how an agency, federal or news, should be doing business.
I wouldn't call people claiming there is a smoking gun 'fake news' but it's definitely misleading so far. Though it's about as misleading as Trump calling CNN fake news.
POOHEAD189 The Abmin
Admin
Seen
3 hrs ago
Oh, speak of the devil.
Polymorpheus
Member
Seen
4 yrs ago
.
1x Laugh
@The Harbinger of Ferocity If I created you and your environment, all while knowing everything you will do in advance, how can you have the ability to freely make your own decisions?
Please answer this without a giant wall of text.
If you plant an apple tree and care for it and water it and all that crap, it grows the way it's gonna grow. You know it's gonna grow apples, not pears; hell let's say you know everything there is to know about apple trees, and you know how tall this one's gonna grow and how many branches and all sorts of things about it.
Your knowledge and care benefits the tree, but the tree (being a tree) has no possible way of perceiving your involvement. It simply does what trees do and lives treeishly. It grows, it makes fruit, it drinks water and eats sunlight and votes for Pedro. It has the tree-equivalent of free will, and also, it's part of a plan.
We're more complex than trees, and God is smarter than your average gardener. The principle (I think) is similar.
Polymorpheus
Member
Seen
4 yrs ago
.
@mdk In this scenario, the tree has no ability to grow in any way that diverges from your plan, because you know everything about it, its environment, and the consequences of the system you designed to fulfill your plan.
Try again.
Maybe if you define what free will means to you, that'll help.
Polymorpheus
Member
Seen
4 yrs ago
.
@mdk The ability to make decisions that you were not forced to make.
And with that statement you have just invalidated your whole argument. Just because I know someone is going to do something doesn't mean I force them to do it. Often times I can tell if one of my students is not going to do their homework based on personality, the type of work, etc. I can try all I want to give them every reason to do it, but in the end it is completely their choice to make.
No matter how much knowledge someone has does not change the fact that the person doing an action, chose to make that action.
Essentially your argument boils down to, because he made people and decided to give them the ability to make decisions in the first place, but because he knows everything, that somehow takes away the free will humanity was given in the first place? No that's a complete fallacy. Knowledge does not mean you made something happen, just that you can predict how things will happen. People choose their own path and God lets them do it because he gave humanity free will in the first place.
Polymorpheus
Member
Seen
4 yrs ago
.
© 2007-2024