THANK GOD for the earthquake

tell me where she is lying? which means in regard to heathen nations and god's wrath?

we've already established that she may have been trolling but what is it about god's wrath on heathen nations you think is lying?


the only reason i converse with you at all, though like most christians, you have no sense of responsibility in reasoning (with any truth or facts), is because i don't think you are bad-hearted. but your intellectual dishonesty is a problem.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Thanks for this! I was trying to get at this idea, but didn't have the courage.

Honestly, I felt stupid and convicted by the things she said in that video.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

A singular cause (like an earthquake) seems more alike human action, and things that look like human action are seen as more direct, more personal, more intentional.
Compare an earthquake to a nuclear bomb explosion - they are similar in the above sense.

Conversely, adverse effects that accumulate slowly tend not to be seen as direct, personal, intentional. Such as heart disease or people getting burnt out in the workplace.

Because when we can presume there was intention behind something (and if only specific demographics are affected, this suggests there was intention at work, choosing), that places the action into a different category, one with potential for good and evil.

The Sun shines on everyone, so we don't think much of it.
Rhodes scholarships are awarded only to exceptional students, and Charles Manson only had something against the rich - this selectivity implies intention, and a recognition of intention brings in issues of good and evil.

Yes, if the according intention can be stipulated, both for the dead one and the killer.

That would be rather recent reasoning; as in earlier times in most societies, mortality was a lot more even across the age groups.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

This is such a matter-of-fact explanation. I cannot derive an instruction for action from it!

Seriously, this is what I was thinking about. Is witnessing a demise like an earthquake, and considering that one might be in it at any moment, enough to say "Hey lady, you keep being mean to me, you're not my guru, so why would I have to treat you as if you were?" -?

 

See, just because she's now claiming that she was trolling, doesn't mean that she didn't really mean what she said. Her opinions and thoughts are inflammatory, and she expressed them to the whole world in really dire times, and that's what makes her a troll. The words trolling or troll don't exclude the possibility that views she expressed were her exact thoughts.

Also, what an idiot she was to give away her face with such evil meant words on the internet. I don't know, but most trolls I've met hide themselves behind 00110011011 and don't display their face next to the inflammatory messages.

 

anyway, trying to give exuses about thoe girls who said that, if few girsl said that, it doesnt mean that, somehow the bible, or christanity, or that church, is telling them to, or, teaching them to hate, and etc... it's also a misunderstanding, i mean, true what they said is horrible, instead of saying may god be with them, and may god help them, but, that doesnt mean, somehow, it's the christanity fault, so, if it's not about christanity as a relegion, why is this thread on the relegion section? it should be for example,in "Ethics, Morality, & Justice" section, or the "Free thought" section

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

trolling is dishonest. and upon establishing her as a troll, it is then not intellectually dishonest to assume that she is not a christian, has an anti-christian agenda, which she is attempting to perpetuate or aggravate, by misrepresenting herself, then lying about her own beliefs in a grossly dramatic fashion, and attributing them to god, or to christ, or to a religion, or a doctrine that does not support them.

i know you don't want to believe that. you want to believe lies. this lady's beliefs are entirely unfounded, and her chosen method of delivery in itself, is a lie. and as long as people are around that want to hear it, she'll have an audience. but if you want to know the truth, you'll read the bible yourself. better yet, get to know god yourself. that way you can't skip all the aspects that don't fit your agenda. i would like you to read the book of revelation in particular, and to tell me honestly how you think this lady's platform is supported by what the book actually has to say. if you don't, you're no better than the religious assholes that spew this shit.

 

wow, you are really dishonest. you will not in any way take responsibility for the religion you support and even accuse someone else of believing in lies when the bible does say that god's wrath is used against heathen nations. you also never own up to the fact it's in the bible.

if what she said was erroneous you would have an argument. you have none. you are dishonest.

it's unbelievable that you call her dishonest and we really don't know if she was trolling. but that's not the issue, is it? because what she said is a very fundamental belief of christianity. no one is trying to misrepresent your religion here.

this is just one of many scriptures in the bible related to god and nations.

http://bible.cc/micah/5-15.htm

http://bible.cc/psalms/79-6.htm

i understand this problem way better than you do. if we view this scripture soley as metaphors for morality rather than christianity or a particular religion (acceptance of jesus christ and conversion to christianity), then it would be more legitimate in that christians would have some grounds to say they are being misrepresented.

however, you are blaming christians who believe any nation that is not of christianity or obeying the christian god and thus will have god's wrath visited upon them as dishonest in accordance with the religion when it is.

this is the problem with christianity, both in the new and old testament. it set itself up with hypocrisy as a fundamental religion (regardless of the ethical metaphors) which excludes or would make every other religion incorrect or the wrong god. it's also wrong to accuse that girl of misrepresenting when it is clear it is in the bible and alignment with christianity.

why i think you are being dishonest is because if you don't agree with the beliefs in the bible, then why are you a christian? and why would you accuse others of being unchristian when they are just taking it from the bible which is the basis of the religion? if you are as pantheist or believe god is not of a particular religion, then why would you represent yourself as a christian (which is a fundamental religion)?

as for whether non-christians agree with these beliefs is another topic.

 

Maybe she is not supposed to feel good about it, but what was the flood of Noah?

 

what a wonderful god and religion.

has anyone noticed that these innocent and sweet christians always read from a bible that has this in it yet feel no responsibility to address it except to say it does not apply anymore? yet they keep it in their book like a dirty secret and hold fast to it. hmm, wonder why?

this part is just classically unethical. classic sociopathy.

 

Wasn't that stuff from the old testament? Looks like historical recorded information:

25] And all who fell that day, both men and women, were twelve thousand, all the people of Ai.

I am gonna get a Bible and read it.

 

what??! what are you reading? not what i'm reading. those scriptures are direct commandments from the christian god.

so you believe the old testament is just 'recorded' information? there are no directives from god? these scriptures are not directives from the christian god?

do you know how to read?

 

Birch, are you angry?

 

What a stupid thing to ask someone responding to your posts.

That is very dramatic, Birch. Sure look the hell like a historical account considering we are talking about a book over 2,000 years old.

 

i'm sure to you it does.

 

on questions whether the old testament is considered valid today.

not adhering to the old law but referencing it. what bullshit. this has nothing to do with morality yet fundamental religions tout themselves as teachers of it. this is how they pretend to be ethical (since it is farce), by not adhering to the old law but by condoning the old law. what?

translation: god's morality has not changed, just his methods so the old testament is still god's word and laws.

the ends justify the means. this means the core values are condoned though such as oppression or slaughtering of non-christians or nations. absolutely unethical.

this one is just skirting with lots of mumbo jumbo. notice he doesn't mention the many direct commandments from god in the old testament to oppress, use, abuse, enslave or murder non-christians.

these two were the popular answers.

this one is more truthful to scripture.

this one is the most honest and gives the real honest reason. neither the two above were the most popular answers rather than the first two.

pretty obvious why.

conclusion: this is why christians do not "directly" say they condone the type of actions, prejudice or morals in the old testament citing jesus christ fulfilled the law. but really, none of that makes any sense.

it is all a mix of psychotic and sociopathic reasoning. it just doesn't have any basis in anything sound or reasonable.

 

Where are you getting these quotes from? When was the Old Testament written?

 

i believe what i do because of what i've experienced, spiritually and physically. i do have an apocalyptic perspective. i only expect things to get worse. and if you read the book of revelation, you will see that my perspective is indeed biblical. it is made clear in this book, that being alive is a curse. going so far as to say that, in those days men would seek death and not find it, terrified, while mountains are falling on their heads, and stars are falling out of the sky, and bombs are blazing, and they're covered in sores. it may have a happy ending but it's not a nice book, and i don't buy this perspective of it being a blessing to survive in the tribulation.

beyond that, one of the major tenets of the bible and of christ's teachings is that judgement amongst men is incorrect, which renders this woman's evil rant moot. what the bible says is that we're all in this toilet together. how does this woman's rant compare with the idea of christian martyrdom? how can her accusation have any weight if christ is a personal savior? her message is to fear death. that it's a curse from a god who hates you. in a world this cruel and not knowing what's on the other side? that's a lie. if this woman knew god she would not be doing this.

 

So the words of John the Apostle of Patmos mean as much to you as Jesus?

 

"Then I saw another beast which rose out of the earth; it had two horns like a lamb and it spoke like a dragon. It exercises all the authority of the first beast in its presence, and makes the earth and its inhabitants worship the first beast, whose mortal wound was healed. It works great signs, even making fire come down from heaven to earth in the sight of men; and by the signs which it is allowed to work in the presence of the beast, it deceives those who dwell on earth, bidding them make an image for the beast which was wounded by the sword and yet lived; and it was allowed to give breath to the image of the beast so that the image of the beast should even speak, and to cause those who would not worship the image of the beast to be slain. Also it causes all, both small and great, both rich and poor, both free and slave, to be marked on the right hand or the forehead, so that no one can buy or sell unless he has the mark, that is, the name of the beast or the number of its name."

"This calls for wisdom: let him who has understanding reckon the number of the beast, for it is a human number, its number is six hundred and sixty-six." (Revelation 13:1-18 RSV)