0
- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Has anyone considered that this execution debacle could be God's will?
Posted on 10/13/26 at 7:51 pm to BrodyDad
Posted on 10/13/26 at 7:51 pm to BrodyDad
It is easy to explore the intersection of divine sovereignty and human free will through three main theological lenses:
Compatibilism: Human free will and God's plan coexist; people choose freely, but their choices align with God's sovereign outcome.
Libertarian Free Will: Humans possess true self-determination and can act contrary to God's desires, operating under divine autonomy rather than strict control.
Determinism: Free will is an illusion, with every action strictly predestined by God's absolute will.
Despite these differing views, theologians generally agree on key distinctions: free will is essential for authentic love, humans retain moral responsibility within God's overarching framework, and God's will remains absolute and uncoerced.
Ultimately, Christian teaching frames divine sovereignty and human agency as complementary—God's sovereignty encompasses human freedom rather than canceling it out.
Compatibilism: Human free will and God's plan coexist; people choose freely, but their choices align with God's sovereign outcome.
Libertarian Free Will: Humans possess true self-determination and can act contrary to God's desires, operating under divine autonomy rather than strict control.
Determinism: Free will is an illusion, with every action strictly predestined by God's absolute will.
Despite these differing views, theologians generally agree on key distinctions: free will is essential for authentic love, humans retain moral responsibility within God's overarching framework, and God's will remains absolute and uncoerced.
Ultimately, Christian teaching frames divine sovereignty and human agency as complementary—God's sovereignty encompasses human freedom rather than canceling it out.
Posted on 10/13/26 at 10:01 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
Maybe they would
Yeah that would be the consensus. No good, kind, moral, and loving person would say such nonsense that babies deserve to be endlessly tortured.
quote:
but because you still don't understand the difference between subjective and objective standards, you make this statement as if it matters to me.
quote:
I don't think you understand the difference between a religious belief and a psychotic delusion
You believe in invisible things for which no evidence exists. You believe in a false reality. That’s the definition of a psychotic delusion.
quote:
Ah, I see. You have given a name to your rejection of history that most other atheists even accept.
Me? No. I think that term is credited to language scholar Max Müller in the mid 1800s.
quote:
You're closer to being described as having psychotic delusions than I am
Only one of us believes in invisible magical creatures.
quote:
At least there is historical evidence for Jesus
False.
quote:
And all those other atheists that accept that the evidence points to Jesus are mistaken?
Have you read any of Bart Ehrman’s books about the historical Jesus? You probably think he’s some kind of atheist pope or something. Josephus, Tacitus, Suetonius, Pliny… all forgeries and/or non contemporaneous “accounts” simply accounting for there being Christians who worshipped Jesus in the second century… duh, we know there were people who believed in a historical Jesus in the second century. And we also know there we’re Christians who did not believe in the historical Jesus (1 John, 2 John, 2 Peter polemics are the easiest to comprehend). And the gospel accounts are unreliable and there’s no other accounts to back up this stories which are all - every one of them - Midrash of an Old Testament story of some other prophet or person. And all pre gospel letters mention nothing of a Jesus on earth. Paul and the writer of Hebrews tells us Jesus was never on earth and was killed in the heavens. And Philo and Essenes were worshipping a version of Jesus in the BC timeframe. Bart acknowledges all this… but says “come on, there must’ve been a real guy!” Bart is dogmatic, similar to you.
There are dozens of scholars who are mythicists but claim “I’m not a mythicist…” In 15-20 years the mythicist model will be mainstream.
quote:
It's based on the Bible as evidence. You can reject it, but it's not baseless.
1. "The Bible is the infallible word of God."
2. "How do we know it is infallible?"
3. "Because the Bible says it is, and the Bible is the word of God, so it cannot lie."
Petitio Principii
Is circular. It’s fallacious. It’s baseless.
And you’re stupid.
Posted on 10/16/26 at 1:29 pm to Squirrelmeister
quote:You're missing the point. Consensus doesn't determine truth. Even if all the people in the world at a particular moment were in agreement about the morality of an issue, that doesn't make that issue morally right or wrong.
Yeah that would be the consensus. No good, kind, moral, and loving person would say such nonsense that babies deserve to be endlessly tortured.
If 10 people were in a room and shared the opinion that yellow was the best color, that wouldn't make yellow the best color. It would just mean that all people in the room at that time had the opinion that it was.
If you are going to make moral value judgements, you need to provide something more than your own personal opinion, which is all you have in your worldview.
quote:You are the one who cannot understand basic concepts and you call me stupid? Perhaps you should do some self-examination.
you are stupid
quote:Uh, no it's not.
You believe in invisible things for which no evidence exists. You believe in a false reality. That’s the definition of a psychotic delusion.
Here's just one example of a definition or description of a delusion, from Johns Hopkins Medicine:
A delusion is a fixed, false, and idiosyncratic belief and is one of the trilogy of psychotic symptoms: hallucinations, delusions, and thought disorder.
-"Fixed" refers to the strength of the patient’s belief. The patient is certain, and not persuaded by any arguments to the contrary.
-"False" relates to the veracity of the patient’s belief.
Beliefs about which the truth cannot be known with reasonable certainty, such as cultural or religious beliefs, should not be classified as delusions without careful consideration.
LINK
You can't just claim that because you believe God doesn't exist that to disagree with you is a delusion. You are the one being delusional if you can't see the difference between having an imaginary friend and believing in God.
You keep doing this: you make an assumption or have a belief that you then move forward with as if it is absolutely true, and then you draw false conclusions based on that assumption or belief. You are either not educated or not rational (or both, perhaps).
quote:Yes, I'm sure he did. However, I'm talking about what you are identifying as your own beliefs. You have rejected clear evidence because you prefer the alternative. Just because others share your anti-intellectualism doesn't mean you are right.
Me? No. I think that term is credited to language scholar Max Müller in the mid 1800s.
If historians used the same standard you seem to be using, we would be able to dismiss figures like Pythagoras and Socrates. It's another reason why your position is terrible.
quote:God is not "magical", and He's certainly not a "creature". He is the creator. There is also a plethora of evidences He exists, even if you are not persuaded by them.
Only one of us believes in invisible magical creatures.
You are the one who claims to be an unbiased examiner of evidence that can be persuaded based on said evidence, yet you deny an abundance of evidence even exists. Such a denial is anti-intellectual at its core, and denies basic realities about the nature of evidence and belief. You are too steeped in your atheism to see reality. That's why I said you're closer to being described as delusional than me. At least I can make sense of our shared reality in my worldview. You can't.
quote:quote:False.
At least there is historical evidence for Jesus
there's that denial of reality that I was talking about. quote:I haven't, no. He's not the only one out there, you know.
Have you read any of Bart Ehrman’s books about the historical Jesus? You probably think he’s some kind of atheist pope or something.
quote:Apparently you know more than the vast, vast majority of the atheist scholars on this matter. You know that those examples you provided were all forgeries or irrelevant evidence, even though the vast, vast majority of atheist scholars disagree with you.
Josephus, Tacitus, Suetonius, Pliny… all forgeries and/or non contemporaneous “accounts” simply accounting for there being Christians who worshipped Jesus in the second century… duh, we know there were people who believed in a historical Jesus in the second century...
There are dozens of scholars who are mythicists but claim “I’m not a mythicist…” In 15-20 years the mythicist model will be mainstream.
You are taking the minority position and hanging your hat on the hope that others will join you in the future, even though there is no new evidence to support your position. It's absolutely pie-in-the-sky thinking based on a higher level of scrutiny about Jesus than for other historical figures, based on bias rather than fact.
You hate God. You hate that Jesus is your judge. You hate that Christians remind you that when you die, you'll face judgement for your idolatry (worshiping self) and refusal to heed the commands to repent and believe. You are absolutely biased against and antagonistic towards Christianity and you are a living example of the truthfulness of Romans chapters 1 and 2. You have made yourself to be a fool by your denial of the truth, and you will one day experience God's eternal wrath because you refused to turn from your sinful ways when others like me confronted you with the truth. Turn now, before it is too late. Jesus will still accept you if you run to Him in faith.
quote:First, not all circular reasoning is vicious and therefore fallacious. There is such a thing called epistemic circularity that grants that first principles are necessarily circular because you cannot appeal to anything greater. Some examples are logic (you can't prove logic without using logic), sense perception (you have to observe in order to prove observational understanding), and memory (you have to use your memory to validate memory to use inductive reasoning).
1. "The Bible is the infallible word of God."
2. "How do we know it is infallible?"
3. "Because the Bible says it is, and the Bible is the word of God, so it cannot lie."
Petitio Principii
Is circular. It’s fallacious. It’s baseless.
Second, your syllogism is not what is being stated, but is a common caricature presented by the deceitful, like yourself. It's also known as a strawman. There are several reasons why the Bible is understood to be the word of God that go beyond that it says that it is. It has historical credibility, internal coherence, and explanatory power, and God testifies to its truth to those He draws.
There are several different syllogisms that could be used in response, but I prefer this one:
P1. If the God of Scripture did not exist, there would be no basis for logic, moral absolutes, or the uniformity of nature.
P2. Logic, moral absolutes, and the uniformity of nature exist, and they are presupposed even in your own reasoning.
C1. Therefore the God of Scripture exists.
Third, you have your own circularity problems to contend with, so don't act like you are walking on solid ground while I have my feet in the air. It's quite the opposite.
Posted on 10/16/26 at 2:33 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
Consensus doesn't determine truth. Even if all the people in the world at a particular moment were in agreement about the morality of an issue, that doesn't make that issue morally right or wrong.
If everyone in the world at a moment agrees on the morality of an action, you can take it to the bank, idiot, along with your sad analogies.
quote:
-"False" relates to the veracity of the patient’s belief. Beliefs about which the truth cannot be known with reasonable certainty, such as cultural or religious beliefs, should not be classified as delusions without careful consideration.
That comment about what “should” be done is due to the majority of people being deluded and that hurts their feelings and isn’t very “nice”.
quote:
You can't just claim that because you believe God doesn't exist that to disagree with you is a delusion. You are the one being delusional if you can't see the difference between having an imaginary friend and believing in God.
It isn’t a lack of agreement with me. If you claim things that are unknowable and untestable about invisible beings who live outside of our reality, but affect our reality, it’s simply delusional.
quote:
You have rejected clear evidence because you prefer the alternative
There’s no evidence for me to reject of the existence of your particular deity, Yahweh. You only have baseless assertions and arguments. If there was “clear evidence” of Yahweh, we wouldn’t be having this discussion. Other peoples like the Muslims and Hindus who sincerely want to worship and believe in “the truth” would flock over to your Christianity if there was clear evidence. Catholics would stop committing idolatry and your Protestant pastors would stop hiring male prostitutes if the evidence was clear.
quote:
If historians used the same standard you seem to be using, we would be able to dismiss figures like Pythagoras and Socrates. It's another reason why your position is terrible.
Bad analogy again. Pythagoras and Socrates weren’t Euhemerized. They didn’t start out as pre-existent divinities that created the cosmos and did magic. The claims about them were that they were smart dudes in mathematics and philosophy. There are no claims of them being born of a virgin. If the story of Jesus was a crazed apocalyptic rabbi with a normal mother and father, that would increase the likelihood of him having been a real dude.
quote:
God is not "magical", and He's certainly not a "creature".
God is magical. And notice I didn’t say God was a creature. I said magical creatures. Surely you believe in cherubim, ophanim, seraphim, angels, and daemons right?
Foo, you are an immoral, delusional, disgusting character and waste of molecules. The worst part about you is your promotion of the idea that babies deserve to be tortured endlessly for eternity. Sick.
Posted on 10/16/26 at 5:16 pm to Squirrelmeister
quote:No, you can't. And you still don't understand the difference between objective and subjective morality. You adhere to subjective morality, so that means there is no actual moral standard that applies to everyone. It is really whatever people agree on. That means if a society thinks that sexually assaulting children before torturing and killing them is a good thing, then that means it actually is a good thing. You can't escape that, because it's the logical conclusion of your worldview.
If everyone in the world at a moment agrees on the morality of an action, you can take it to the bank, idiot, along with your sad analogies.
quote:Are you saying that appealing to definitions of anyone that disagrees with you is wrong because they must be deluded, too? Am I understanding you correctly?
That comment about what “should” be done is due to the majority of people being deluded and that hurts their feelings and isn’t very “nice”.
quote:That's not what the word "delusional" means, though. Delusions are beliefs about knowable false things. You are talking about things that are either not knowable, not provable beyond any doubt, or things that you aren't convinced about. Having a difference of belief about God is not delusional because it has not been proven that He doesn't exist. You have to first prove that He doesn't exist before you can say that to believe in His existence is delusional. You can't just assert it without a basis, like you are doing. Otherwise it goes to show that "delusional" is another word in your vocabulary that you don't understand.
It isn’t a lack of agreement with me. If you claim things that are unknowable and untestable about invisible beings who live outside of our reality, but affect our reality, it’s simply delusional.
quote:You are ignoring that many people actually are convinced of the truth and do believe it, rejecting the false beliefs that they held previously.
There’s no evidence for me to reject of the existence of your particular deity, Yahweh. You only have baseless assertions and arguments. If there was “clear evidence” of Yahweh, we wouldn’t be having this discussion. Other peoples like the Muslims and Hindus who sincerely want to worship and believe in “the truth” would flock over to your Christianity if there was clear evidence. Catholics would stop committing idolatry and your Protestant pastors would stop hiring male prostitutes if the evidence was clear.
The problem is not intellectual, though. It's moral. You are blinded by your sinful nature and natural desire to rebel against your Creator to the point that you reject even the possibility that He is real and will hold you in contempt. You're like a person in denial about a loved one dying because their brains can't cope with the emotional loss. You just can't accept that you will be judged by Jesus Christ one day, and so you just pretend that He doesn't exist. Your hatred of the truth prevents you from seeing reason.
quote:It doesn't matter if they were "Euhemerized" or not. The point is that there is more contemporary or recent evidence to the existence of Jesus than other figures like Pythagoras and Socrates, so you would have to reject those figures existed historically if you held them to the same standard. Your arbitrary criterion of not having embellishments of divinity or miracles also falls short with Pythagoras, as most of what we know about him comes from biographies that actually claim he performed miracles and was of divine origin. Try again
Bad analogy again. Pythagoras and Socrates weren’t Euhemerized. They didn’t start out as pre-existent divinities that created the cosmos and did magic. The claims about them were that they were smart dudes in mathematics and philosophy. There are no claims of them being born of a virgin. If the story of Jesus was a crazed apocalyptic rabbi with a normal mother and father, that would increase the likelihood of him having been a real dude.
quote:God is not magical. Magic is manipulation of forces through rite, ritual, or mechanical actions to manipulate natural forces to a desired outcome. God does not work mechanically. He is power in and of Himself, not manipulating other forces or higher powers (there is no higher power). To say God performs "magic" is not just insulting, it's factually not correct and it is a category error.
God is magical. And notice I didn’t say God was a creature. I said magical creatures. Surely you believe in cherubim, ophanim, seraphim, angels, and daemons right?
I believe in supernatural beings, not magical creatures. See above.
quote:You are lost and on the way to destruction. You have become a fool with an irrational worldview. You pretend to be an intellectual but you are anything but one. You are not unbiased, but you are predisposed to hate the truth. You are the disgusting one, because you reject the only objective moral standard there is: God's standard, based on His unchanging and holy character. I can call you disgusting and immoral and it means something, because it's not merely my opinion. When you call me that, it doesn't mean anything, because all it possibly can be is your mere opinion, which I don't care about. When an idiot calls someone an idiot, that is not something to be offended by. The same can be said when you call me immoral. You are the immoral one, and you have no rational basis for condemning me or anything else because of it.
Foo, you are an immoral, delusional, disgusting character and waste of molecules. The worst part about you is your promotion of the idea that babies deserve to be tortured endlessly for eternity. Sick.
Posted on 10/16/26 at 5:21 pm to alphaandomega
I would choose the weed overdose the conservatives would have used believe exists.
Posted on 10/18/26 at 5:11 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
And you still don't understand the difference between objective and subjective morality
No, this is your sin, your flaw, not mine.
quote:
That means if a society thinks that sexually assaulting children before torturing and killing them is a good thing, then that means it actually is a good thing.
Hey idiot, you’re the one that promotes that babies deserved to be endlessly tortured based on a book of ancient fables.
quote:
Are you saying that appealing to definitions of anyone that disagrees with you is wrong because they must be deluded, too? Am I understanding you correctly?
Anyone who is convinced of imaginary invisible good and evil deities that exist outside of our time and space but can affect our reality and even hear people’s thoughts and affect people’s actions are deluded.
quote:
Having a difference of belief about God is not delusional because it has not been proven that He doesn't exist. You have to first prove that He doesn't exist before you can say that to believe in His existence is delusional.
So if someone believes in leprechauns or the mind flayer or Zeus, and the imaginary beings that you know do not exist are tormenting them, you would argue that the person is not delusional because you can’t prove a leprechaun doesn’t exist?
quote:
You can't just assert it without a basis, like you are doing.
frick yeah I can assert it. Positive assertions require positive evidence. You don’t have any evidence. I reject your assertions as I have no reason to believe them.
quote:
You are ignoring that many people actually are convinced of the truth and do believe it, rejecting the false beliefs that they held previously.
People being convinced of imaginary shite is insufficient reason for me to believe it. There are 2 Billion people in the world today that believe the prophet Muhammad flew up and through the 7 heavens on a flying donkey. I’m not convinced, but if you believe people believing in something is evidence of the truthfulness of the belief, then you have to deal with Muhammad and his flying donkey.
quote:
You are blinded by your sinful nature
No, you’re just a fricking idiot.
quote:
natural desire to rebel against your Creator
I love my parents, thank you. If you’re talking about Yahweh Sabaoth, the fiery of the Shasu nomads in Arabia, there’s nothing to rebel against. Ahmenhotep III, when he wrote of annihilating the Shasu of Yah, left some stragglers… had he succeeded, you would be just as convinced of whatever bullshite religion your mom and dad raised you in, because you are a gullible yet very arrogant prick.
quote:
You just can't accept that you will be judged by Jesus Christ one day
quote:
The point is that there is more contemporary or recent evidence to the existence of Jesus than other figures like Pythagoras and Socrates
No, this is bullshite. I’m sure you are convinced of this but it is a false statement. The early Christian sects of Paul and the ones “1 John” and “2 Peter” attack would reject your shite and agree with me that the religion is not based on a Jesus that had ever been on earth.
quote:
Your arbitrary criterion of not having embellishments of divinity or miracles also falls short with Pythagoras, as most of what we know about him comes from biographies that actually claim he performed miracles and was of divine origin. Try again
George Washington and Elvis and many others were documented by some to have performed miracles and to be of divine origins. But they were humans, not celestial supernatural beings written to be a human on earth as fan fiction.
quote:
God is not magical.
Well “God” doesn’t exist but the character in mythology is magic.
quote:
To say God performs "magic" is not just insulting, it's factually not correct and it is a category error.
God performs magic. Period.
quote:
You pretend to be an intellectual but you are anything but one.
Not only am I smarter than you, but I have a shitload more common sense than you. I’m just tired of your shite.
quote:
You are the disgusting one, because you reject the only objective moral standard there is: God's standard, based on His unchanging and holy character.
There is no objective standard in the Bible. There is none period. Yahweh Sabaoth is a fictive mythical character. And you abhor babies so much that you promote their endless torture. You’re fricking sick.
Posted on 10/19/26 at 9:30 am to Squirrelmeister
quote:No, it's objectively your issue. Anyone with access to the internet can find the difference between objective and subjective truth (especially applied to morality) and see that you are wrong on this. I've explained it to you many times but you still don't get it.
No, this is your sin, your flaw, not mine.
quote:1. No, not by other humans.
Hey idiot, you’re the one that promotes that babies deserved to be endlessly tortured based on a book of ancient fables.
2. All people deserved to suffer for our sins for eternity
3. Not based on a book of ancient fables. Based on God's word, which confirms the truth already written on our consciences (the law).
quote:According to your false belief, not reality. You reject evidence for the existence of God, believe He doesn't exist, and then force that belief on me by saying I'm deluded for not seeing the obvious truth that you see. You are too blinded to see that delusion doesn't pertain to questions that are up in the air (from a worldly standpoint, at least), such as the existence of God. God could exist, and therefore to believe He exists is not delusion.
Anyone who is convinced of imaginary invisible good and evil deities that exist outside of our time and space but can affect our reality and even hear people’s thoughts and affect people’s actions are deluded.
quote:They may or may not be delusional, but I couldn't say for sure. They could be tormented by a demon that they think is Zeus or a leprechaun. My worldview accounts for the supernatural, so delusion is harder to definitively declare. I can say they are wrong or mistaken based on my own beliefs, but I can't say they are necessarily delusional.
So if someone believes in leprechauns or the mind flayer or Zeus, and the imaginary beings that you know do not exist are tormenting them, you would argue that the person is not delusional because you can’t prove a leprechaun doesn’t exist?
quote:There are endless examples of evidence for the existence of God. From spiritual arguments to evidential arguments to mathematical to moral to philosophical arguments, His existence has been argued about for a long, long time, with many people being persuaded by the arguments and evidence.
yeah I can assert it. Positive assertions require positive evidence. You don’t have any evidence. I reject your assertions as I have no reason to believe them.
If you deny there is any evidence for God, then you are just being ridiculous, because no intellectual person can deny the fact that evidence exists. The question is whether or not that evidence is persuasive. That's why I said previously that you don't understand the difference between proof and persuasion.
quote:This again goes back to the difference between proof and persuasion. Learn the difference.
People being convinced of imaginary shite is insufficient reason for me to believe it.
quote:I'm happy to deal with that. There are many arguments that can be made against the Qur'an and the Haddith to show that it's false. Also, you are conflating different events.
There are 2 Billion people in the world today that believe the prophet Muhammad flew up and through the 7 heavens on a flying donkey. I’m not convinced, but if you believe people believing in something is evidence of the truthfulness of the belief, then you have to deal with Muhammad and his flying donkey.
quote:I'm sure you do. I'm talking about your Creator: God.
I love my parents, thank you.
quote:You are rebelling against God by disobeying Him and not honoring Him as God.
If you’re talking about Yahweh Sabaoth, the fiery of the Shasu nomads in Arabia, there’s nothing to rebel against
quote:Your misunderstanding of the early Christian teachings and beliefs don't help you here. We've gone over this many times with Paul and the AoI, and I was finally glad you conceded that you misunderstood the documentation that was critical to your belief about Paul's teachings. But, like I said, there is more evidence for Jesus' existence then Pythagoras and Socrates. That's an objective fact, and why so many people hostile to Christianity can accept it.
No, this is bullshite. I’m sure you are convinced of this but it is a false statement. The early Christian sects of Paul and the ones “1 John” and “2 Peter” attack would reject your shite and agree with me that the religion is not based on a Jesus that had ever been on earth.
quote:Perhaps you're right about GW and Elvis, but that doesn't change my point. Your own criteria doesn't work for addressing historical claims.
George Washington and Elvis and many others were documented by some to have performed miracles and to be of divine origins. But they were humans, not celestial supernatural beings written to be a human on earth as fan fiction.
quote:If you're going to go off of the book that claims His existence, you have to use the same standard for the use of the word "magic". According to that same book, God isn't magical. He's divine. There's a substantive difference in those things. You need to be consistent or else you further show the irrationality of your position.
Well “God” doesn’t exist but the character in mythology is magic.
God performs magic. Period.
quote:You may be the smartest person alive, but you don't demonstrate it on this forum. Your ignorance of basics of grammar, textual interpretation, and even basic philosophical concepts seems to demonstrate you are not as smart as you want others to think you are.
Not only am I smarter than you, but I have a shitload more common sense than you. I’m just tired of your shite.
quote:The 10 commandments are an objective standard. You deny objective moral standards (and you still don't seem to know the difference between objective and subjective in terms of truth claims) and so all you can possibly do is emote your personal opinions, which no one cares about. I don't care what your favorite color is, either.
There is no objective standard in the Bible. There is none period. Yahweh Sabaoth is a fictive mythical character. And you abhor babies so much that you promote their endless torture. You’re fricking sick.
You are sick, and even beyond that, you are spiritually dead. You need to be made alive by God and turn to Him by faith. Ask Him to forgive you and to give you faith before you are the one being tortured in everlasting damnation.
Posted on 10/19/26 at 9:31 am to BrodyDad
Yeah, let's get our legal advice from a middle eastern myth.
That's balanced.
That's balanced.
Posted on 10/19/26 at 9:51 am to FooManChoo
Foo, I remind you of Matthew 7:6. I think it is definitely appropriate here.
Posted on 10/19/26 at 11:05 am to BFIV
quote:Thank you for the reminder
Foo, I remind you of Matthew 7:6. I think it is definitely appropriate here.
I'm trying to hold that verse in tension with other verses like Titus 1:9 "[an elder] must hold firm to the trustworthy word as taught, so that he may be able to give instruction in sound doctrine and also to rebuke those who contradict it.". (I know I'm not the board's elder here, but looking at the principle of protecting other brothers and sisters from his arguments), and Proverbs 26:5, "Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own eyes."
Needless to say, I'm sure I could be doing better here. I appreciate your prayers on this.
This post was edited on 10/19/26 at 11:06 am
Posted on 10/19/26 at 2:59 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
No, it's objectively your issue. Anyone with access to the internet can find the difference between objective and subjective truth (especially applied to morality) and see that you are wrong on this. I've explained it to you many times but you still don't get it.
You are patently retarded. Foo, you can’t objectively demonstrate your Yahweh Sabaoth exists. Secondly, you can’t demonstrate that the Bible contains an objective standard. It simultaneously says to stone adulterous women, while saying not to stone adulterous women. If that, along with massacring babies is dependent on who’s giving the orders, or based on the time, or the culture, or the context, then there’s no objectivity. Your holy books tells Israelites how to acquire, buy, and keep slaves as property forever, and how to beat them and how to give them to their sons as inheritance. If it’s objective about anything it is slavery, and that’s how - using the Bible - Christians have justified slavery for nearly two millennia. I bet you don’t think support slavery. You reject that objective standard. You love you some baby torture though.
quote:
You reject evidence for the existence of God,
There is none to reject. You’ve certainly never provided anything of the sort. Show some evidence and settle this. Leave arguments that could be used for Allah or Thor or Zeus out of it. Show me Yahweh Sabaoth, the god who fires arrows of lightning bolts at his enemies and makes his arrows drunk with the blood of his enemies, and whose sword devours flesh, and to whom all the gods will worship.
quote:
God could exist, and therefore to believe He exists is not delusion.
So the Flying Spaghetti Monster could exist. You would then logically have to argue that anyone who believes in the FSM is not deluded.
quote:
There are endless examples of evidence for the existence of God. From spiritual arguments to evidential arguments to mathematical to moral to philosophical arguments, His existence has been argued
Arguments aren’t evidence, Foo. “There must be a God, and it must be just one God, and it must be Yahweh Sabaoth, because this book I have is true, and I know it’s true because Yahweh inspired it.” isn’t evidence. It’s only useful in apologetics to validate people’s delusions to make them feel good. It isn’t useful to persuade anyone who doesn’t already share your delusions.
quote:
If you deny there is any evidence for God, then you are just being ridiculous, because no intellectual person can deny the fact that evidence exists
You don’t understand what a fact is.
quote:
Perhaps you're right
Holy shite!!!
quote:
The 10 commandments are an objective standard.
Do you keep the Sabbath, Foo? Do you have a Jewish refrigerator where the light inside doesn’t illuminate on the Sabbath?
Even if you do, it still isn’t objective. It says “Do not murder”. Murder is a subjective term, an unjustified killing. Who decided what is justice? Does it depend on the context? Then it’s subjective.
quote:
You are sick
You promote baby torture.
Posted on 10/19/26 at 6:31 pm to BFIV
quote:
Foo, I remind you of Matthew 7:6. I think it is definitely appropriate here.
Yeah you guys should just give up, because the god of this world has blinded me so that I cannot perceive the Truth. Notice I put a capital “T” on there. I don’t even have any free will, because either Satan is more powerful than Yahweh or or Yahweh just chooses for me to be blinded and to not be saved. 2 Corinthians 4:4
Or… here’s a thought. You could come up with some convincing evidence of your religious assertions. It’s going to be tough though! Because there’s no truth in what you guys are peddling.
Posted on 10/19/26 at 7:30 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
Titus 1:9 "[an elder] must hold firm to the trustworthy word as taught, so that he may be able to give instruction in sound doctrine and also to rebuke those who contradict it.".
Well that’s fake Paul. Pseudepigrapha. The real Paul would have said to give up because some people can’t be convinced because the god of this world won’t let them understand Paul’s theology.
Posted on 10/19/26 at 10:19 pm to Squirrelmeister
Squirrel I’ve watched you dismantle Pope Foo for years but this is your greatest takedown of all 
Posted on 10/20/26 at 9:05 am to FooManChoo
Foo, Matthew 10:14 " And if anyone will not receive you or listen to your words, shake off the dust from your feet when you leave that house or town. "
Posted on 10/20/26 at 9:21 am to Ham Malone
quote:
Squirrel I’ve watched you dismantle Pope Foo for years but this is your greatest takedown of all
I’m glad you like my thoughts and content. Hopefully others get something out of it as well. The Bible and religion in general has a negative effect on people like Foo with psychotic tendencies and turns them into moral monsters.
He’s gone above and beyond the beliefs of the very founders of his religion. The founders, the original Christian writers whose material became canonized, knew there was no evidence to support their claims. Foo, on the other hand, with his delusions, thinks his baseless arguments and assertions are evidence, and that his “faith” is based on evidence. He doesn’t even know what evidence means. Let me show you how some of the first Christians handled belief and evidence.
Hebrews 11:1
quote:
Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.
1 Peter:8
quote:
Though you have not seen him, you love him. Though you do not now see him, you believe in him and rejoice with joy that is inexpressible and filled with glory
2 Corinthians 5:7
quote:
for we walk by faith, not by sight.
Romans 8:24
quote:
For in this hope we were saved. Now hope that is seen is not hope. For who hopes for what he sees?
John 20:29
quote:
Jesus said to him, “Have you believed because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.”
The early Christian authors said it was the people who believed without evidence who were blessed.
Foo and others like him assert that the gospels are eyewitness accounts - and are historical and factual. The editor or redactor of the gospel according to “John” though tells us that these are not written to be historical factual accounts but because…
quote:
30Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; 31but these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.
I’ll give you one example, but I won’t quote it. Just read Matthew 4 where Jesus is tempted by the devil. It was just Jesus and the devil in the wilderness on a mountain. It was before Jesus even had disciples. Jesus is quoting Deuteronomy at the devil. Who the frick was writing all that down? Think Jesus, once he had disciples, was sitting around a campfire and was like “hey guys, let me tell you the story about how I totally owned the Devil and was quoting Deuteronomy at him!” That doesn’t fit his character to be bragging about something like that. But that’s exactly what someone like Foo would think.
So let me use another example from Matthew 26:
quote:
42Again, for the second time, he went away and prayed, “My Father, if this cannot pass unless I drink it, your will be done.” 43And again he came and found them sleeping, for their eyes were heavy. 44So, leaving them again, he went away and prayed for the third time, saying the same words again. 45Then he came to the disciples and said to them, “Sleep and take your rest later on. See, the hour is at hand, and the Son of Man is betrayed into the hands of sinners. 46Rise, let us be going; see, my betrayer is at hand.” 47While he was still speaking, Judas came, one of the twelve, and with him a great crowd with swords and clubs, from the chief priests and the elders of the people. 48Now the betrayer had given them a sign, saying, “The one I will kiss is the man; seize him.” 49And he came up to Jesus at once and said, “Greetings, Rabbi!” And he kissed him. 50Jesus said to him, “Friend, do what you came to do.”
Ok so Jesus was praying while the disciples were asleep. He told them to wake up, and as he was telling them to wake up, Judas came with the crowd to capture Jesus. Then Jesus was executed. Who in the actual frick recorded word for word the prayers that Jesus spoke while he was alone while the disciples were sleeping?
How did the gospel authors know the Magi from the east met secretly with Herod?
In Matthew 22:15 and 12:14, how did the author know about secret meetings of the Pharisees and their goals? Did the author interview a Pharisee who was there to tell the story?
Check out this part of Matthew 27:
quote:
3Then when Judas, his betrayer, saw that Jesus was condemned, he changed his mind and brought back the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and the elders, 4saying, “I have sinned by betraying innocent blood.” They said, “What is that to us? See to it yourself.” 5And throwing down the pieces of silver into the temple, he departed, and he went and hanged himself. 6But the chief priests, taking the pieces of silver, said, “It is not lawful to put them into the treasury, since it is blood money.” 7So they took counsel and bought with them the potter’s field as a burial place for strangers. 8Therefore that field has been called the Field of Blood to this day
So who the frick actually knows what Judas was thinking. It says he went and hanged himself. Who interviewed Judas? Who interviewed the chief priests and elders and wrote down word for word what they said? To claim this is eyewitness account is madness and stupid.
There is no evidence for Jesus’ existence. All we have are letters of early Christians who believed in a celestial Jesus before the gospels were written, and we have the gospels with are mythology written in first-person omniscient sense, and then some more letters like 1 John, 2 John, and 2 Peter written as polemics against the original Christianz who didn’t believe Jesus had ever been on earth and who correctly pointed out that Christians like the one who wrote 2 Peter were following “cleverly devised myths” - the gospels.
Page 10 of 10
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News