1
- 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 10/3/26 at 12:30 pm to FooManChoo
Posted on 10/3/26 at 12:30 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
Federal representation: God, at times, judges groups based on their representative.
You would be the one to accept that evil as righteousness. After all, you’re a proponent of killing innocent babies as long as you believe their fathers were sinful. You’re a sick person. Sick in the head.
Posted on 10/3/26 at 12:57 pm to Squirrelmeister
quote:Not true. Jesus didn’t rebuke the law, but time and time again, He upheld the law over and against the traditions of the Pharisees. You can’t just make false claims like that. You need to back them up.
Well you’re full of shite. Jesus didn’t uphold the law. He rebuked the law. They believed everyone to be sinful, so there was no one without sin there to cast the first stone. The law says X, but Jesus says not X. It’s a common theme.
quote:She was claimed to be caught in the act of adultery. How can one claim such a thing if there wasn’t another person participating in the sin?
Well the story doesn’t contain any mention of a “couple”. Just a woman. I know it’s hard for you not to gin up details not in evidence, but try.
quote:Im going off of the text and the Old Testament law. You are grasping for air (not even straws) by speculating beyond what is reasonable in the text, itself.
Did you ever stop to think? Maybe this is a parable that wasn’t meant to be historical. After all, it’s in several places in the gospel of John in the oldest manuscripts and even in the gospel of Luke in an old manuscript. Maybe there was no guilty male party. Maybe the male she was with didn’t know she was married or betrothed. Nah you didn’t think. You never do.
The law against adultery was straight forward. You should know this if you’ve read the Bible.
quote:Jesus didn’t rebuke the law.
Well yes exactly. He rebuked the Torah. Jesus was not a fan obviously- at least not the version of Jesus in the gospel of John. Why do you insist Jesus kept the law when you admit Jesus rebuked the law?
Posted on 10/3/26 at 1:25 pm to BrodyDad
Women botched it.
See Cracker Barrel and lots of other businesses
See Cracker Barrel and lots of other businesses
Posted on 10/3/26 at 2:22 pm to BrodyDad
Everything is God's will, and nothing is God's will. Depends on your belief system. One thing that you cannot do is choose which events God was involved in and which events he was not. You can't have it both ways.
Posted on 10/3/26 at 2:37 pm to Squirrelmeister
quote:All you've got is insults. You've been shown, time and time again, that you don't know what you're talking about. Keep calling names. It really shows your intellectual prowess.
You would be the one to accept that evil as righteousness. After all, you’re a proponent of killing innocent babies as long as you believe their fathers were sinful. You’re a sick person. Sick in the head.
Posted on 10/3/26 at 4:32 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
Not true
Yes it’s true.
quote:
Jesus didn’t rebuke the law, but time and time again, He upheld the law over and against the traditions of the Pharisees.
He rebuked the law.
quote:
You can’t just make false claims like that. You need to back them up.
Here’s another:
38“You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ 39But I say to you, Do not resist the one who is evil. But if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.
quote:
She was claimed to be caught in the act of adultery. How can one claim such a thing if there wasn’t another person participating in the sin?
It was possible for the woman to be caught in adultery while the man wasn’t. If the man doesn’t know she is married or betrothed, he can be innocent while she is guilty. I thought I explained this already.
quote:
Im going off of the text and the Old Testament law. You are grasping for air (not even straws) by speculating beyond what is reasonable in the text, itself.
No, you piece of shite. You were the one originally speculating by claiming there was a guilty male party when it doesn’t say any such thing. You are the speculator.
quote:
Jesus didn’t rebuke the law.
Jesus permitted work on the sabbath. He healed the sick (worked) on the sabbath. He said the kosher laws are bullshite and that there are no unclean foods. He rebuked the law.
ETA: and the beauty is that while he rebuked the law, he also upheld the law and told his followers the only way to have eternal life is to keep the law to every dot and tittle of the law but don’t stop there - keep it in spirit in addition to the letter of the law. Like just about everything in the bible, there are contradictory statements.
This post was edited on 10/3/26 at 4:59 pm
Posted on 10/3/26 at 4:33 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
All you've got is insults. You've been shown, time and time again, that you don't know what you're talking about. Keep calling names. It really shows your intellectual prowess.
You could have defended yourself saying “I would never promote the killing of innocent babies”. But that would be a lie.
Posted on 10/3/26 at 5:21 pm to Squirrelmeister
God told him not to take the census. David took a census. It’s not that hard. You sure seem to spend a lot of time learning about someone you don’t believe in.
You don’t believe, I get it. It is really impressive that someone can know so much and not be able to see just how sovereign God is. He is not bound yours or my thinking or sense of morality. You can twist things around to fit your narrative but that’s all you will ever have. Me, I choose to believe that He is holy and loving and has my best interest in mind.
You don’t believe, I get it. It is really impressive that someone can know so much and not be able to see just how sovereign God is. He is not bound yours or my thinking or sense of morality. You can twist things around to fit your narrative but that’s all you will ever have. Me, I choose to believe that He is holy and loving and has my best interest in mind.
Posted on 10/3/26 at 6:25 pm to Squirrelmeister
quote:He did not. See below.
He rebuked the law.
quote:Not an example of a rebuke of the law at all.
38“You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ 39But I say to you, Do not resist the one who is evil. But if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.
Jesus, a few verses earlier, said, "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them". So, whatever Jesus was saying in verse 38 could not be a rebuke of the law.
What we see Jesus doing in verses 39 and following is giving examples of personal wrongs or insults, and not responding with personal vengeance. The principle of lex talionis from Leviticus 24 and Exodus 21 are applied to the civil law that the magistrates had to carry out, and it was to say that justice for crime was proportional.
Jesus did not say "you have read that it was written..." but "you have heard it said". What Jesus was doing, then, was not rebuking the law that was written down, but rebuking the misuse of the law as applied by the Pharisees, who apparently taught it was OK to get personal revenge so long as it was proportional. Jesus was saying that personal vengeance should not occur at all, but to let God get vengeance on personal enemies or those who personally hurt us, which fits with Jesus' continuation of the sermon on the mount with how to treat our enemies.
So no, Jesus wasn't rebuking the law.
quote:You explained your ignorance perfectly fine. It's not that I don't understand, but that you don't know the law.
It was possible for the woman to be caught in adultery while the man wasn’t. If the man doesn’t know she is married or betrothed, he can be innocent while she is guilty. I thought I explained this already.
Adultery was defined by the act alone, any knowledge was not a prerequisite for guilt. The Israelites did have a concept of guilt of ignorance and even had sacrifices for it (Lev. 5:17-19), so it wasn't as if they just didn't know better. The law doesn't state knowledge as required, but only "If a man commits adultery with the wife of his neighbor, both the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death." In this verse, it only acknowledges that one of the parties was married, and yet both are said to have committed adultery. Knowledge is not specified.
So again, your what-ifs are without merit. The law required both the man and the woman to be put to death, and no man was brought before Jesus. That was a violation of the law, and Jesus upheld the law.
quote:There is no speculation needed on my part. In order for a woman to commit adultery, she had to have sex with another person. That's definitional to what adultery is: sexual intercourse with another person, when at least one of those persons was married. She couldn't have been caught in the act of adultery if there wasn't another person with her, engaging in sexual intercourse.
No, you piece of shite. You were the one originally speculating by claiming there was a guilty male party when it doesn’t say any such thing. You are the speculator.
Seriously, it's not that hard to understand, even for someone as willfully ignorant as yourself. Your ignorance of the Bible is not spilling over into basic concepts of logic.
quote:Jesus recognized that there were works of necessity and works of mercy that were allowed under the Old Testament law, and He was applying those to His own situation. He didn't break the law at all.
Jesus permitted work on the sabbath. He healed the sick (worked) on the sabbath. He said the kosher laws are bullshite and that there are no unclean foods. He rebuked the law.
Regarding kosher foods: Jesus was never recorded as breaking any dietary laws, and on the contrary, He is said to have kept the law perfectly. What He did do was pronounce that all food was clean and that no one was defiled (made unclean) by eating any food. It wasn't a statement rebuking the law, but announcing its fulfillment. The ceremonial laws (which the dietary laws were part of) were coming to an end with the Jesus' death and resurrection, and the gospel going to all nations. The laws that set the people of Israel apart from the other nations or were pointing to Christ for the cleansing of sin were being fulfilled and were no longer needed. Jesus was announcing it, but He didn't rebuke the law as bad. Again, He said He came to fulfill the law, not abolish it.
Your view also ignores the context that Jesus was teaching this in response to the Pharisees condemning His disciples not washing their hands before eating, which was their man-made tradition. Jesus was condemning their traditions that made void the law.
quote:Not contradictory at all. Your ignorance does not settle things.
ETA: and the beauty is that while he rebuked the law, he also upheld the law and told his followers the only way to have eternal life is to keep the law to every dot and tittle of the law but don’t stop there - keep it in spirit in addition to the letter of the law. Like just about everything in the bible, there are contradictory statements.
Jesus commanded obedience to the law, but not because we are saved by the law. Jesus responded to questions of salvation over and over again by saying to believe in Him. Faith saves, but we are saved unto obedience, which is what Paul explained.
Posted on 10/3/26 at 6:27 pm to Squirrelmeister
quote:Again, all you've got is insults. Call me a liar and say everything I say is garbage. It's all you've got. You don't even have a basis to condemn killing children, because your irrational worldview only allows you to think it's icky, yourself, but not to judge others in any meaningful sense.
You could have defended yourself saying “I would never promote the killing of innocent babies”. But that would be a lie.
But yes, I can certainly say "I would never promote the killing of innocent babies". It's why I'm against abortion.
Posted on 10/3/26 at 6:50 pm to yakster
quote:
God told him not to take the census. David took a census. It’s not that hard.
Bro, read what 2 Samuel 24 states:
quote:
1Again the anger of the LORD was kindled against Israel, and he incited David against them, saying, “Go, number Israel and Judah.”
You must be high or retarded. I don’t know how else you can say God told David not to take a census when it literally states God told David “Go, number Israel and Judah.”
But I’ve already given you that out and wasn’t trying to get you to comment on the 70,000 Israelites unfairly killed. Assume for a second David really did sin. So what? That is David’s sin. Now explain why brutally killing 70,000 innocent Israelites was “good”, moral, just, and consistently with objective morality and a divine loving nature. You can’t do it and you won’t do it.
quote:
He is not bound yours or my thinking or sense of morality
Others argue this all time time. God can’t commit evil, so when he does commit evil, it’s not evil.
quote:
You can twist things around to fit your narrative but that’s all you will ever have
Nope, I’m not twisting. I’m showing you your God committing evil atrocities and you say God’s morality is not bound to our sense of what is right and wrong. You’re twisting, not me.
quote:
He is holy and loving and has my best interest in mind.
Was it in the best interest of Achan’s innocent sons and daughters that they be brutally stoned to death for their father stealing some trinkets belonging to no one?
Posted on 10/3/26 at 6:52 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
But yes, I can certainly say "I would never promote the killing of innocent babies".
Well that’s a lie. You previously have argued more times than I can count that killing innocent babies is good and morally acceptable when their parents worship other deities or idols.
Posted on 10/3/26 at 7:12 pm to Squirrelmeister
quote:It's not a lie. You should be more thoughtful with how you word your questions.
Well that’s a lie.
quote:I have not. I disagree with your usage of the word "innocent". God knows who is truly innocent and who is not, and since all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and all people are guilty before God and deserve death and hell, then no one is truly "innocent" in God's eyes, not even children.
You previously have argued more times than I can count that killing innocent babies is good and morally acceptable when their parents worship other deities or idols.
With that said, I would never promote killing truly innocent people, from the human perspective. That speaks not to sin, but to crime. Humans have no right to murder the innocent, nor to take any life outside the bounds that God places on us. God has the prerogative to do with His creations as He wills, and He can use human agents to accomplish that, but since God doesn't do that any longer (meaning, He doesn't speak directly and audibly to prophets and command them to do things), there will be no repeat of the conquering of Israel like in the Old Testament. Therefore, I would not support anyone who claimed that God told them to kill children.
Posted on 10/3/26 at 7:22 pm to BrodyDad
The debacle was caused by inept medical attendants.
Posted on 10/3/26 at 7:24 pm to BrodyDad
Or maybe you are 100% wrong and God allows for human free will and human error. Just something to consider
Posted on 10/3/26 at 11:29 pm to BrodyDad
Gods will to make that bitch suffer more.
Eye for an eye.
Eye for an eye.
Posted on 10/4/26 at 9:44 am to FooManChoo
quote:
I have not. I disagree with your usage of the word "innocent". God knows who is truly innocent and who is not, and since all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and all people are guilty before God and deserve death and hell, then no one is truly "innocent" in God's eyes, not even children.
You are one sick frick, Foo.
It’s your kind of mentality with psychotic delusions that can lead people to murder their own children.
Posted on 10/5/26 at 3:40 am to Squirrelmeister
quote:Yet again, you are merely sharing your personal opinion and not making an objective judgement, because your worldview renders you incapable of doing so. All your atheism allows for is personal, subjective opinions and preferences. You think I'm sick, but I think you're sick for rejecting your Creator. I don't care what you think; your worldview makes you irrational.
You are one sick frick, Foo.
quote:You must not be paying attention, then.
It’s your kind of mentality with psychotic delusions that can lead people to murder their own children.
Nothing I've said or believe makes it OK for people to murder their own children. I've condemned murder of children and I'll do so again. God says that murder is against the moral law (6th commandment), and murdering children is breaking the law.
No matter how much you twist the truth like your father, Satan, you are still teaching lies.
Posted on 10/5/26 at 12:54 pm to Squirrelmeister
Apparently 1Chronicles 1:21 better tells us who caused David to take the census. But since you don’t believe in God, you don’t believe in the devil either, right?
And if you don’t believe in God, why do you spend so much time studying scripture?You are arguing about something that’s not there?
Who’s high?
And if you don’t believe in God, why do you spend so much time studying scripture?You are arguing about something that’s not there?
Who’s high?
Posted on 10/5/26 at 4:27 pm to yakster
quote:
Apparently 1Chronicles 1:21 better tells us who caused David to take the census. But since you don’t believe in God, you don’t believe in the devil either, right?
I’ll take all your non-answers as you just not having any rational answer. At least you responded to this particular thing. You believe there is a malevolent deity you call “Satan” (proper noun) or “the devil”. So you understand that 2 Samuel literally says Yahweh incited David. And you understand 1 Chronicles literally says Satan incited David. So then you cherry pick - throwing 2 Samuel in the trash - in favor for the contradictory verse you like better. It’s irrational.
But in Judaism there is no contradiction. Just as in the book of Job, they believe 2 Samuel and 1 Chronicles are complementary because they believe Yahweh incited David by sending “a satan” to do his dirty work. So if you asked a modern day Jew, he would tell you Yahweh incited David through a satan.
You’re right in that I do not believe there is a real Yahweh nor a real malevolent supernatural evil deity.
quote:
And if you don’t believe in God, why do you spend so much time studying scripture?
To help people break free from their delusions. People deserve to know the truth of their reality. The more people understand reality - the better we will be as a society.
I’m still hoping at some point you will tell me how those 70,000 Israelites and Achan’s children deserved to be massacred and brutally killed.
Page 7 of 10
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News