Why Should Jesus Love Me?

Since: Apr 08

Watford, UK

#534400 May 15, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
It's ridiculous. Creationists based that 6,000 year guess on the assumption that the six days if creation were a literal 144 hours.
You're right

Yet it's surprising how much mileage they get with this crazy idea.

Thankfully, science is not with them on this.

Catcher1

Since: Sep 10

Fremont, CA

#534401 May 15, 2013
Skombolis wrote:
<quoted text>
You are not understanding the difference between mens rea and voluntarily. It may seem subtle but it is very distinct and important
If we had no free will, we couldn't be held responsible. That is very different than being insane. Being insane prevents someone from acting with guilty intent but free will would prevent someone from acting voluntarily. They are two very different things
Its no big deal, I am not going to pursue this one further
Again: The concept of "free will," in the religious sense, is not recognized by the law. You won't find the term in criminal statutes. All people are held legally responsible for their actions, unless they are found to be insane; this presumes that people make decisions and are responsible for them, but "free will" is never a consideration. BTW, there are different types of crimes--some require specific intent, some don't. But "free will" is not a legal concept.

It's ok to discuss the issue of "free will" in discussions about religion. But leave the law out of it. All you will do is create confusion.

“I.Spirit.Son.God”

Since: Jan 12

Location hidden

#534402 May 15, 2013
G_O_D wrote:
<quoted text>
Thank you for demonstrating that you are incapable of having an intelligent conversation. I leave you to your fantasy world.
uh huh.

RiversideRedneck

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#534403 May 15, 2013
Khatru wrote:
<quoted text>
Great post!
So everytime a prophecy is made, freewill goes out the window.
I'll remember that.
Uh huh...

So if I were to tell you that you will respond to this post and you do, that means you didn't have free will to do so?

HA !

Gimme a break.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#534404 May 15, 2013
Khatru wrote:
<quoted text>
Great post!
So everytime a prophecy is made, freewill goes out the window.
I'll remember that.
It wouldn't affect free-will unless the people involved were told in advance, wanted to do something different, and were prevented from doing so. As far as I know there is no account of that happening

Otherwise prophesy is simply a glimpse into the future at events yet to take place in current time

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#534406 May 15, 2013
Catcher1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Again: The concept of "free will," in the religious sense, is not recognized by the law. You won't find the term in criminal statutes. All people are held legally responsible for their actions, unless they are found to be insane; this presumes that people make decisions and are responsible for them, but "free will" is never a consideration. BTW, there are different types of crimes--some require specific intent, some don't. But "free will" is not a legal concept.
It's ok to discuss the issue of "free will" in discussions about religion. But leave the law out of it. All you will do is create confusion.
You were the one that brought the law into it

I asked a hypothetical if man didn't have free will people like Stalin and Hitler would be innocent

YOU were the one who used that hypothetical to bring the actual law into it and brought up the concept of mens rea (without saying mens rea) and starting talking about legal definitions like "legally insane" and claimed that basically under the law they would still be guilty

And like i pointed out, even in a real situation not a hypothetical one, they would not be considered guilty

Someone can be convicted of certain crimes even if they lacked guilty intent. But not if they lacked free-will or how the law states it; an act must be voluntary

RiversideRedneck

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#534407 May 15, 2013
Mark wrote:

Try to give arguments for that.
Wait for it....
You mean they were impressed by another miracle worker in a small province. They had one on every corner in the street in those days. Most had better tricks than described in the bible about Jesus.
HA HA HA !!! Remember, it's spelled "hypocrite"...

In order for me to believe you and continue this nonsense, you'll have to provide evidence that:

they were impressed by another miracle worker in a small province

They had one on every corner in the street in those days

And

Most had better tricks than Jesus.

Catcher1

Since: Sep 10

Fremont, CA

#534408 May 15, 2013
Skombolis wrote:
<quoted text>
You originally claimed someone without free-will is still legally responsible for their crimes
No, I never claimed that somebody without free will is legally responsible for his crimes.

What I said is that "free will" is not a legal concept at all. The law doesn't deal with free will or no free will.

The term is fine for discussion of philosophy or religion.

But you shouldn't mix it in with law; it only creates confusion, which I already see in your posts.

RiversideRedneck

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#534410 May 15, 2013
Khatru wrote:
<quoted text>
You're right
Yet it's surprising how much mileage they get with this crazy idea.
Thankfully, science is not with them on this.
Science? Well, ya. But proper translation and a little but of common sense works better than science, in that regard.

Catcher1

Since: Sep 10

Fremont, CA

#534411 May 15, 2013
trifecta1 wrote:
<quoted text>
uh huh.
Here's a question for you: Does Jesus love Satan?

Since: Apr 08

Watford, UK

#534413 May 15, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you understand that the "suppose you" beginning of each one means they're examples, not actual stories?
Do you understand the allegory of each one?
Do you understand that they are written for Israelites and not the entire world?
Those scriptures want us to fear the spiritual idolatry of covetousness, and the love of worldly pleasure. Also to not to support them in our families, by our example or by the education of our children.
I know y'all are sick of hearing "it's an allegory!", but it is.
I take your points about the scriptures being written for the Israelites. That is true of pretty much all of the OT books, so I'm wondering why Christianity still relies so much on them.

I'd say that by using "suppose you" they are making an assumption rather than a definite statement.

However, the murder and mayhem advocated by these scriptures is, ostensibly, what the verses seem to be saying.

Why have a hidden meaning anyway? Why not just be clear about it?

These scriptures are, on the face it, instructions to kill followers of other religions.

Why does the god of the bible have to hide his meaning in such brutal words? A meaning that many of his readers just own't get.

Why can't he inform his followers to love people of other religions?

Anyway, if the bible is full of hidden and abstract meanings that are beyond the ken of the majority, perhaps we should go back to what the Catholics used to do and limit bibles to the select few.
Mark

Hedel, Netherlands

#534414 May 15, 2013
dr Shrink wrote:
<quoted text>
BUT you are mentaly not able to cure Psychopath,
bambling what Bible says,
and having not clue even about own language,and your chicken brain size
look at mirror, you look like yellow zombie uncle of Dracula from Romania
You can not cure psychopaths. Only Christianity claims that. Did you ever wonder why they actively recruit drug addicts and criminals? They have the right mindset. Among criminal drug addicts there are a lot of psychopaths, the ideal recruits to welcome in their organisation. They tell them they are cured by Jesus.

Older religions only allowed people that were spiritually advanced, and they had to go through an initiating process to make sure these people were fit.

In Christianity it is the opposite they have a liking for the biggest creeps. War criminals, drug addicts, sleazy businessmen, rapists, paedophiles. They prefer their own kind as sheepdogs. They actively advertise to get common people to prey on, called the flock, the sheep. But they need predators as dogs.

That is why you can not be saved by Jesus if you do not admit you are evil. Then "Jesus will wash your sins". But to enter his club, you must be evil.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#534415 May 15, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
I think the atheists have talked themselves into not believing that we have free will because it alleviates humans of all of our wrongdoings and places the blame strictly in God's hands. They don't want to blame people for our faults, they want to blame God.
You found us out. Atheists blame gods.
RiversideRedneck wrote:
They only want to thank humans for all of our accomplishments but not blame ourselves for our own faults.
Damn! You found me out again.

By the way, Christian - nice work. I want to thank you for your accomplishments and not blame you. If any bad has occurred is association with Christianity, it was the god's fault, not yours.

Once again, congratulations, and thank you for all you do.
RiversideRedneck wrote:
They think that if there's no free will, it's all God's plan and God's fault. Atheists? Agree? Disagree?
How could I not agree with that?
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_y_TIcRevj9w/SnGnaI1... [image]
Skombolis wrote:
The argument absolutely is to blame God
There you go, RR. The Dimwit agrees. There's a coveted endorsement all right.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#534416 May 15, 2013
Skombolis wrote:
But ironically they also claim God should intervene. intervene to stop people not acting of their own free-will?
No, Dimwit. We claim that your god's failure to intervene is evidence that you made it up. It's really unbelievable that one can have this conversation with adults. Not that you believe - but that you have no concept of unbelief about gods. Neither of you seem to know it's possible, let alone common.
Skombolis wrote:
They want to blame God if man doesn't have free will and blame him if he does
The Dimwit continues.
Skombolis wrote:
And God will eventually hold people accountable for their actions.
You'd better hope not. You defile your god's name.
Skombolis wrote:
He gives everybody a shot with the gift of human life. If we wish to continue past that point, He has told us what needs to happen
Actually, that's your priests telling you how you need to think and act. And it turns out that what they want, surprisingly enough, is for you to submit, obey, pay tithes, and be satisfied with your lot however meek, forgiving, and longsuffering you need to be to do that.

Nice chatting with you boys as always.

Since: Apr 08

Watford, UK

#534418 May 15, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Are you another atheist that every word in the bible literally?
I take it as literally as I take something by Homer.

However, there are believers who take every word as the inerrant and literal word of their god.

Then there are those believers who will decide for themselves what is literal and what is symbolic.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#534419 May 15, 2013
Mark wrote:
<quoted text>
If you say that in private it is sincere
But this is a commercial
purposely done to make an impression
You want to receive praise for your exalted words
A real spiritual person can taste that
He can easily distinguish diamonds from paste
Christianity always has this quality of fakeness. It is a rational belief that only mimics feeling. It is the quality that makes psychopaths so dangerous. They mimic feeling without feeling trough a process of rationalisation.
By the way, it does not mean that psychopaths do not believe their words. The whole is point of rationalizing is self-deceit. They do want to believe that Jesus is guiding them. If they exploit people they will pray: thank you Jesus for your bountiful gifts. It is very important for psychopaths to believe their own lies and connect them to God.
Psychopaths over-rationalize, they have no feeling, only feelings. No feeling for others, strong feelings for themselves. All this talk about being saved is always about me, myself and I. Their life story is often the same, they did terrible things, but now they are saved. From now on they will harm people feeling good under the cloak of Jesus. Now they have found the perfect legitimization. The feel so relieved, so happy, they are safe, no more guilt feelings, no more consequences, Jesus forgives anything.
One thing we need to understand, these people have no self-knowledge what so ever. They live in beliefs, convictions and make it into a fake value, not to question them. Questioning them would seriously hurt their own ego and they have huge ego's.
They are the most vainest of all people. They pretend to be humble servants of the Lord. But there is nothing more presumptuous than that you can act as the caretaker of God. That would make you second in command in the Universe. You place yourself above everyone else.
But they found a way to hide that fact by pretending they are only executing the orders given by God in the Bible. That is why they constantly refer to the Bible. It is the legitimation of all their evil. The bible is the perfect tool, for the bible can legitimize any atrocity in the name of God. It is just a matter of finding the right texts and framing it in the right words. Like the Jesuits wrote to the pope, we can prove anything you want proven. The bible is that flexible, it is the preferred tool for these slippery, two-faced people.
Since these people have no self-knowledge, they do this unconsciously. To them it feels like a "revelation from God". They will say things like: God told me to do that. These people make self-deceit into an art-form. They prey on people full of lust, but tell themselves they are doing Gods work.
When they are unmasked in public their natural reaction is always to deny and lie. A nice example is one of their leaders, Ted Haggard. When presented with accusations, he lied. When presented with proof, he changed his lies. Every time they produced more facts, he adapted his lies.
But does Ted Haggard see himself as deceitful person unworthy of teaching moral to others? No. He simply rationalized again. This was in Gods plan to purify him, and now he is even more worthy to use his gift to serve God.
You believe things about spirits that I don't, but you understand Christianity the way I do, and that I welcome and applaud.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#534422 May 15, 2013
Catcher1 wrote:
<quoted text>
No, I never claimed that somebody without free will is legally responsible for his crimes.
What I said is that "free will" is not a legal concept at all. The law doesn't deal with free will or no free will.
The term is fine for discussion of philosophy or religion.
But you shouldn't mix it in with law; it only creates confusion, which I already see in your posts.
YOU brought up the term "legally insane" as to whether or not under a hypothetical of no free-will would someone be considered guilty. You are going to really say you didn't bring the law into it when you use terms like "legally insane" to try to explain why they would still be guilty even if they didn't know what they were doing was wrong?

C'mon man, that is what you were arguing. Except not knowing what we are doing is wrong is different than being able to act voluntarily

I really don't care any more either way. Any way someone wants to look at it, without free-will we can't be responsible for our actions, and we should be

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#534424 May 15, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
No, Dimwit. We claim...
I'm gonna stop you right there Taint

There is just one of you

Maybe when you grasp that simple concept and start talking like a big boy we can go from there. But don't hold your breath. Or do. Whichever:)

~snicker

“~ Prince of Peace~”

Since: Apr 08

~ And the greatest is LOVE~

#534425 May 15, 2013
_-Alice-_ wrote:
<quoted text>
Hey !!!
A fake River Tam photobomb.
http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lpk8u2wATQ1...
That's not right.
Oh My.....Is that a guy (with a thong on)....Or.....Never mind

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#534426 May 15, 2013
Khatru wrote:
<quoted text>

Then there are those believers who will decide for themselves what is literal and what is symbolic.
Who should decide if not the individual himself with his own knowledge and understanding?

If you agree everything is not meant to be taken literally, why would you think the best idea is to let someone else dictate to others how to interpret it instead of the individual learning and deciding for himself?

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Top Stories Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Plurality of Americans think Trump is failing (Mar '17) 8 min swampmudd 37,319
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 1 hr Gomer 988,616
Why are Europeans a race of savages, thieves, a... (Jun '15) 2 hr RFD 80
Why doesn't God STOP the world's MADNESS and in... 2 hr HFCS - What It Is 12
The American Dream is DEAD DEAD DEAD. 3 hr RFD 19
Bring the jobs back to the USA! 3 hr Wheres The Lighter 25
God is REAL - Miracles Happen! (Jun '11) 3 hr Tony 6,555
News Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 8 hr oneear69 688,931
More from around the web