The Origin of Specious Nonsense. Twelve years on. Still going. Answer soon.

J C

bumper234 wrote: »

Good actors


here's one for you.

A priest consistently rapes a young boy (10 years old) for months on end. The boy reports this rape but the crime is covered by the church. The boy grows up but is haunted by what happened to him and eventually cannot take it anymore and kills himself.

Meanwhile the priest continues to live a life of luxury continuing to rape children. He eventually gets caught. He asks "God" for forgivness and his sins are absolved.

According to the bible your priest dies and goes to heaven while his victim goes to hell.

Where does the Bible say that?

The only person who knows the eternal destiny of anybody is the person themselves and Jesus Christ.

... but if the parable of the Pharisee and the Publican is anything to go by ... it is very likely that the self-righteous (and deeply sinful) priest is the one who is most likely to go to Hell and the young man to be saved ... but their eternal destiny is ultimately up to them ... and their decsion ... or not to be Saved.

Luke 18:9-14
King James Version (KJV)

9 And he spake this parable unto certain which trusted in themselves that they were righteous, and despised others:

10 Two men went up into the temple to pray; the one a Pharisee, and the other a publican.

11 The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, God, I thank thee, that I am not as other men are, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this publican.

12 I fast twice in the week, I give tithes of all that I possess.

13 And the publican, standing afar off, would not lift up so much as his eyes unto heaven, but smote upon his breast, saying, God be merciful to me a sinner.

14 I tell you, this man went down to his house justified rather than the other: for every one that exalteth himself shall be abased; and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted.

Sarky

J C wrote: »

... but if the parable of the Pharisee and the Publican is anything to go by ...

It's not.

Obliq

J C wrote: »

The only person who knows the eternal destiny of anybody is the person themselves and Jesus Christ.

... but if the parable of the Pharisee and the Publican is anything to go by ... it is very likely that the self-righteous (and deeply sinful) priest is the one who is most likely to go to Hell and the young man to be saved ... but their eternal destiny is ultimately up to them ... and their decsion ... or not to be Saved.

See, that's what's so f*cked up about your beliefs JC. Your morals are not your own.

I do believe that you had to go check your bible to see what it might say about this moral dilemma presented to you by bumper234 before you could give an answer. And it's the wrong answer. Your bible stories/quotes are NOT the answer to life's moral questions, and the rest of us know that.

Everyone's out of step except our Charlie, eh?

J C

Sarky wrote: »

It's not.

It is.

J C

Obliq wrote: »

See, that's what's so f*cked up about your beliefs JC. Your morals are not your own.

I do believe that you had to go check your bible to see what it might say about this moral dilemma presented to you by bumper234 before you could give an answer. And it's the wrong answer. Your bible stories/quotes are NOT the answer to life's moral questions, and the rest of us know that.

Everyone's out of step except our Charlie, eh?

Leaving aside your expletives ... what exactly is wrong with what I have said?

Delirium

J C wrote: »

It is.

No, it isn't. The priest in the example given isn't self-righteous as he seeks forgiveness and his sins are absolved (albeit after being caught). But most Christian sects teach that there are no sins that cannot be forgiven if sincerely sought. The pharisee was rejected for seeking to exalt himself, the priest in the abuse example didn't.

Suicide is a mortal sin according to some Christian teachings, so the abused child would go to hell.

Obliq

J C wrote: »

Leaving aside your expletives ... what exactly is wrong with what I have said?

Ok. This 'Christian' conundrum was from bumper234:
"here's one for you.

A priest consistently rapes a young boy (10 years old) for months on end. The boy reports this rape but the crime is covered by the church. The boy grows up but is haunted by what happened to him and eventually cannot take it anymore and kills himself.

Meanwhile the priest continues to live a life of luxury continuing to rape children. He eventually gets caught. He asks "God" for forgivness and his sins are absolved.

According to the bible your priest dies and goes to heaven while his victim goes to hell."

You answered to it thusly:

"The only person who knows the eternal destiny of anybody is the person themselves and Jesus Christ.

... but if the parable of the Pharisee and the Publican is anything to go by ... it is very likely that the self-righteous (and deeply sinful) priest is the one who is most likely to go to Hell and the young man to be saved ... but their eternal destiny is ultimately up to them ... and their decsion ... or not to be Saved."

I said your morals are not your own, because you answered to a clear moral question with (to paraphrase) the only person who knows the answer to whether they should be damned to hell is Jesus and it is very likely (but not unequivocal, in your view) that the priest will go to hell . You cannot come up with your own opinion without checking that you're not second guessing Christ the Redeemer.

I find that kind of inhumane, actually.......and fascinating that you can be so wide of the mark while still considering yourself to be considerate and conscientious.

Delirium

Obliq wrote: »

See, that's what's so f*cked up about your beliefs JC. Your morals are not your own.

I do believe that you had to go check your bible to see what it might say about this moral dilemma presented to you by bumper234 before you could give an answer. And it's the wrong answer. Your bible stories/quotes are NOT the answer to life's moral questions, and the rest of us know that.

Everyone's out of step except our Charlie, eh?

Think about the garden of Eden myth if you really want to see morality on a truly messed up scale. Adam + Eve didn't know the difference between right and wrong prior to eating the apple. They were essentially kicked out of paradise because the developed morality, which was previously the exclusive property of God.

God gets pissy because they did something wrong, even though they didn't have a moral compas. They did eat the apple after all

Some Christians argue we were better off before the apple eating. That humans were better off as morally ignorant drones.

J C

Originally Posted by Sarky
He'll hide behind the flimsy defence that he's not Catholic, but rather one of the crazier fringe groups of Christian.

bumper
Yeah like David Koresh

I'm a Saved Christian ... not a member of a fringe group ... not like David Koresh ... just Saved in Jesus Christ ...

and if you want to talk about fringe groups in America ... then Devil Worshipping Groups are amongst the most sinister:-

Sarky

See?

Delirium

J C wrote: »

I'm a Saved Christian ... not a member of a fringe group ... not a David Koresh ... just Saved in Jesus Christ ...

and if you want to talk about fringe groups in America ... then Devil Worshipping Groups are amongst the most sinister:-

Really? The first sinister group in the states that popped into my mind was a Christian terrorist group called the KKK.

Quatermain

Yeah. See. The whole "satanism" thing does not have much relevance at all here. The "Dagon" mentioned earlier is a character from the Cthulhu mythos of Howard Philips Lovecraft. He's not even a deity, just a very powerful entity and one of the leaders of a race of sea-dwelling mutants known as "Deep Ones". Being apparently urged to worship him makes just as much sense as being asked to worship Dumbledore.

Here he is in trading card form, as a matter of interest. Just look at those stats.



And with that said, goodnight.

Obliq

koth wrote: »

Some Christians argue we were better off before the apple eating. That humans were better off as morally ignorant drones.

Gas, isn't it?! Well, actually no.....one of those 'it would be funny if it wasn't so tragic' scenarios.

J C

Obliq wrote: »

Ok. This 'Christian' conundrum was from bumper234:
"here's one for you.

A priest consistently rapes a young boy (10 years old) for months on end. The boy reports this rape but the crime is covered by the church. The boy grows up but is haunted by what happened to him and eventually cannot take it anymore and kills himself.

Meanwhile the priest continues to live a life of luxury continuing to rape children. He eventually gets caught. He asks "God" for forgivness and his sins are absolved.

According to the bible your priest dies and goes to heaven while his victim goes to hell."

You answered to it thusly:

"The only person who knows the eternal destiny of anybody is the person themselves and Jesus Christ.

... but if the parable of the Pharisee and the Publican is anything to go by ... it is very likely that the self-righteous (and deeply sinful) priest is the one who is most likely to go to Hell and the young man to be saved ... but their eternal destiny is ultimately up to them ... and their decsion ... or not to be Saved."

I said your morals are not your own, because you answered to a clear moral question with (to paraphrase) the only person who knows the answer to whether they should be damned to hell is Jesus and it is very likely (but not unequivocal, in your view) that the priest will go to hell . You cannot come up with your own opinion without checking that you're not second guessing Christ the Redeemer.

I find that kind of inhumane, actually.......and fascinating that you can be so wide of the mark while still considering yourself to be considerate and conscientious.

I think you may be confusing morality i.e. sinfulness with Salvation.
Jesus Christ came to Save sinners ... not the self-righteous who think that they can Save themselves.
Everyone sins (or do you think you are an exception?)... in various ways ... and if anyone of us were to be judged by our infinitely Holy God we would most definitely be condemned in justice for our sins.
... however God is also infinitely merciful and loving as well ... and if we repent and ask forgiveness ... God will apply His mercy to Save us ... rather than His Justice to condemn us.
... and the choice is up to us.

Obliq

No, I am certainly not confused. Morality is quite simple. It is the "principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behaviour."

As I have pointed out, you don't seem to be able to decide what is despicable enough in your view to warrant going straight to your hell without you checking the rule book (you know....the suspect one that allows rape and killing small children). Unlike you, we others here in this conversation seem to be at a socially consensual level of morality. You gotta go check with Christ the Redeemer before you answer to a simple case of who is an evil fcuk and who deserves better.

J C

koth wrote: »

Really? The first sinister group in the states that popped into my mind was a Christian terrorist group called the KKK.

Where did you get the idea that the KKK is a Christian organisation ... can I remind you of Jesus Christ's definition of what it means to be a Christian ... and the KKK seems to have forgotten the loving thy neighbour bit ... and therefore the love of God (and respecting of His Word) bit.

Mt 22:34-39

But when the Pharisees had heard that he had put the Sadducees to silence, they were gathered together.

35 Then one of them, which was a lawyer, asked him a question, tempting him, and saying,

36 Master, which is the great commandment in the law?

37 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.

38 This is the first and great commandment.

39 And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
.

Sarky

More no true scotsmen nonsense.

J C

Obliq wrote: »

No, I am certainly not confused. Morality is quite simple. It is the "principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behaviour."

As I have pointed out, you don't seem to be able to decide what is despicable enough in your view to warrant going straight to your hell without you checking the rule book (you know....the suspect one that allows rape and killing small children). Unlike you, we others here in this conversation seem to be at a socially consensual level of morality. You gotta go check with Christ the Redeemer before you answer to a simple case of who is an evil fcuk and who deserves better.

You're still confusing sin/immorality ... with our eternal destiny.

All sin is despicable enough to an Infinitely Holy God to warrant an eternity in Hell for the sinner ... but He is moved by love and mercy to Save those who ask to be Saved.

_Redzer_

J C wrote: »

You're still confusing sin/immorality ... with our eternal destiny.

All sin is despicable enough to an Infinitely Holy God to warrant an eternity in Hell for the sinner ... but He is moved by love and mercy to Save those who ask to be Saved.

JC, what are your views on divorce, abortion and same-sex marriage/adoption?

If you've no problem with any of that and you're all about the love, I honestly can't see you doing too much wrong and I'd let you off to think whatever way you like since you wouldn't be bothering anybody too much

Delirium

J C wrote: »

Where did you get the idea that the KKK is a Christian organisation ... can I remind you of Jesus Christ's definition of what it means to be a Christian ... and the KKK seems to have forgotten the loving thy neighbour bit ... and therefore the loving God (and respecting His Word) bit.

Mt 22:34-39

But when the Pharisees had heard that he had put the Sadducees to silence, they were gathered together.

35 Then one of them, which was a lawyer, asked him a question, tempting him, and saying,

36 Master, which is the great commandment in the law?

37 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.

38 This is the first and great commandment.

39 And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
.

then by that rationale, you're not a Christian either.

"Thou shalt not bear false witness" being the first litmus test you fail

Goose, gander, and all that jazz.

J C

Sarky wrote: »

More no true scotsmen nonsense.

.. that's your presumption ... no true anti-Christ would be a KKK ... when their hatred places them all firmly in the Anti-christ camp!!!:)

Delirium

J C wrote: »

.. that's your presumption ... no true anti-Christ would be a KKK ... when their hatred places them all firmly in the Anti-christ camp!!!:)

just proved sarkys point.

J C

_Redzer_ wrote: »

JC, what are your views on divorce, abortion and same-sex marriage/adoption?

If you've no problem with any of that and you're all about the love, I honestly can't see you doing too much wrong and I'd let you off to think whatever way you like since you wouldn't be bothering anybody too much

I wouldn't do any of these things myself ... but if others want do them that is their business.

Like I have said, Jesus came to Save sinners ... and He respects people's free-will ... and so do I.

_Redzer_

J C wrote: »

I wouldn't do any of these things myself ... but if others want do them that is their business.

Like I have said, Jesus came to Save sinners ... and He respects people's free-will ... and so do I.

So would you vote in favour of them in their respective referenda?

J C

koth wrote: »

just proved sarkys point.

... about himself!!!:):D

J C

_Redzer_ wrote: »

So would you vote in favour of them in their respective referenda?

One of the benefits of our liberal democracy is the secrecy of the ballot box and I think that how people vote on any issue should remain that way ... secret.

Sarky

A cop out answer. How utterly predictable.

J C

Sarky wrote: »

A cop out answer. How utterly predictable.

Not a cop out ... just supporting a very important pillar of every true democracy ... the right to vote in secrecy.

... or are you saying that we should be made to publicly cast our vote?

Sarky

You're dodging. Given your, ahem, unusual religious leanings, asking how it informs your opinion on issues in reality is completely relevant. If you had any conviction in your belief, you'd tell us, and pay no heed to any mockery that followed. But as this thread and others before it have shown to all, you and conviction have been divorced for a long time. Kind of ironic, that.

_Redzer_

J C wrote: »

One of the benefits of our liberal democracy is the secrecy of the ballot box and I think that how people vote on any issue should remain that way ... secret.

Fúck sake. Now we have a problem with your shíte when it starts to affect other people just because you believe some utter nonsense. It's obvious by your answer what you'd do.

Had you voted in favour I'd honestly say you weren't doing any harm and to carry on believing what you believe, but the typical religious shíte of 'everyone has to conform to what I believe" sets in. That's not on