Forum
Veta
|
greekboi wrote
at 4:23 PM, Wednesday March 23, 2011 EDT
Do you really think that Republicans are that different from Democrats? Obviously on the surface you have your major differences in ideology, but the fact that you support Obama so loyally and think that Republicans are so very evil makes me think you are quite ignorant. Did you not notice the whole launching 122 missiles into Libya thing? What's up with that imperialist bullshit? Oh and how bout the whole economic "stimulus" plan? Can you really argue that it was any different than Bush's bailout? Throughout his campaign, Barack emphasized how he would put the money into the hands of the people, not the other way around. What about all his talks about moving away from the heated bipartisanship and bringing about cooperation to advance our national agenda? Bottom line is that Obama is full of shit. Everything he says is a load, and if you don't see past that, you are a moron. You guys need to get over your political parties, they mean nothing. Start voting on the issues.
Anyways, I know this hasn't been the most articulate post in the world, but I'll leave with you a quote from 2007: ?The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation. History has shown us time and again, however, that military action is most successful when it is authorized and supported by the Legislative branch.? I'll let you guess who said it. |
|
Thraxle wrote
at 9:49 AM, Tuesday March 29, 2011 EDT 100!
|
|
|
Thraxle wrote
at 9:50 AM, Tuesday March 29, 2011 EDT fuck
|
|
|
Thraxle wrote
at 9:51 AM, Tuesday March 29, 2011 EDT "God does not commit murder bc he does not act out of hate, but instead love. Would you never punish a child bc you love it? Of course not. You punish precisely bc you love."
Even if that punishment means the murdering of little babies? Wow, that's REAL love. I hope nobody loves me enough to kill my ass. |
|
montecarlo wrote
at 9:51 AM, Tuesday March 29, 2011 EDT sorry, just got off baby duties (newborn diapers wayyy easier than 2yr old, thank god).
i think BO's contention is not that parents shouldnt punish their kids, but that they shouldnt punish them with a 'just' everlasting punishment. if God is love, then why wouldnt he forgive the sinner after 10 minutes of torment, or 100, or a billion years? instead, its an everlasting concept of hell. its a good point. |
|
Tourney Champ wrote
at 9:52 AM, Tuesday March 29, 2011 EDT kind long i know. but straight from the source
Romans:9 14 What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all! 15 For he says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.”[f] 16 It does not, therefore, depend on human desire or effort, but on God’s mercy. 17 For Scripture says to Pharaoh: “I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.”[g] 18 Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden. 19 One of you will say to me: “Then why does God still blame us? For who is able to resist his will?” 20 But who are you, a human being, to talk back to God? “Shall what is formed say to the one who formed it, ‘Why did you make me like this?’”[h] 21 Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for special purposes and some for common use? 22 What if God, although choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath—prepared for destruction? 23 What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory— |
|
|
montecarlo wrote
at 9:54 AM, Tuesday March 29, 2011 EDT and yes God sent a flood that killed evil people as well as 'innocent' babies. hell, look at what he allowed to happen to job. he fuckin let satan kill jobs entire offspring. wtf kind of god is that?
one other occurrence of testing God is the gideon story, where gideon basically demanded scientific proof that God existed... and God gave it to him twice (gideon still doubted after the first time). but skrum is right, it's not always a good thing to test God. but just sayin that the bible supports the idea of testing God occasionally. |
|
skrumgaer wrote
at 9:54 AM, Tuesday March 29, 2011 EDT We are punished not necessarily for what we have done, but for what we are. The Stanford experiment showed that given the power, any of us may become a monster. No wonder God would want to shut us away forever.
|
|
|
Thraxle wrote
at 9:56 AM, Tuesday March 29, 2011 EDT So God is a murderer and it's OK for God to be a murderer because He is God. Makes great sense.
|
|
|
montecarlo wrote
at 9:57 AM, Tuesday March 29, 2011 EDT romans 9 is fuckin deep. if you can accept that, then you can accept the God of the OT (yes i know its the same God as the NT).
i think the major point of contention here is that BO/thrax/most standard people with a brain would answer to the romans 9 question: Shall what is formed say to the one who formed it, "Why did you make me like this?" HELL YES IT SHOULD ASK THAT QUESTION, OTHERWISE YOURE A FUCKIN SCHIZO GOD thats just my guess, and once again, its a reasonable reaction to romans 9. |
|
mr Kreuzfeld wrote
at 10:00 AM, Tuesday March 29, 2011 EDT skum, that argument is really incoherent.
you contradict yourself this is how it should be done a) God is testable b) God is not testable in science to be testable means that you can device a test that will give the same result every time you do it. if I want to test the existance of gravity, I device a test with masses and very little friction, if I want to test the existance of electricity I can turn on a lightbulb. Any test of the existance of God should give the same result every time. noone have every proposed a test, and gotten a positive result. therefor the existance of God is not testable (if new tests comes in the future, this might change). some versons of god is testable, and all those have been disproven. in short, if god is the one deciding if he wants to be testable or not today. then there is no test that can disprove his existence, then in scientific terms, he is not testable. any result can be dismissed if this is your hypothesis. your suggesting about prayer working is never been proven, I have never heard of any peer reviewed paper proving any such correlation. I have heard of alot of bad non peer reviewed science "proving" all sorts of stuff, but never any good per reviewed science coming anywhere close to proving anything like this. |