re: This is what we are in for... It's time to stand the frick up. These people are sick!

Fat bitch goes after elderly couple bc there’s no fear of retaliation. Sorry bitch stands by and lets her act like that then leaves with her. fricking pathetic

I think she is certified crazy. She just doesn't realize that she is the problem.

quote:

---

You and your ilk can start by showing these people the evidence that your belief system is true.

---

No Hoss.
You are the one making a definitive claim here.
You're really going to step on this same dogpile?
Really?

Okay, here we go again ...
You claim to be about truth and fact.
He claims to be about faith and belief.

Yet here you are, once more, asserting "facts" about nonfalsifiable elements.
That is neither scientific, nor intelligent.

quote:

---

Your omnipotent omniscient deity didn’t foresee the need or have the capacity

---

That's your assertion, nitwit. Prove it.

Déjà vu.

quote:

---

I’m sure you won’t understand

---

Squirrelmeister, you've been duplicitous when speaking about the evidence for God and the existence of God. Does God exist? How do you know the Bible isn’t divinely inspired?

On the issue of YHWH being immoral, a good resource is Copan's "Is God a Moral Monster?"

God warned the Amalekites and the Midianites to stop attacking the Israelites. When they didn't stop, God authorized their consequential punishment. Does God not have the right to do that? (Romans 9:21)

As for the issue of women, there are Bible verses demonstrating that women had unprecedented rights in the ancient world (owning land, inheritance, testimony, leadership). Does YHWH get credit for that?

On the issue of slavery, you asked why the Bible can't simply say "do not own another human for it is immoral." You fail to distinguish between indentured servitude and chattel slavery. While the former was not completely denounced, there were stipulations as to how indentured servants should be treated, i.e. they had “rights.” The Bible does not condone chattel slavery. Even enemies captured in battle had rights amongst the Israelites.

You seem fixated on the idolatry of the Israelites and insinuate that they were just as polytheistic as their pagan neighbors. If that was the case, then why were prophets sent to warn the people that if they did not cease their idolatry, there would be consequences? The accurate characterization is that the Israelites were thoroughgoing monotheists who occasionally slipped into idolatry. Manasseh, the most wicked of all Israelite kings, was the main perpetrator but Josiah removed the Asherah pole and destroyed other pagan cult objects in the temple as part of religious reforms. If they were truly polytheistic or pagan, then why did the Israelites continually turn from those ways back to monotheism? Why were the Jews so opposed to the Samaritans? What about the reforms of Hezekiah?

You mentioned Habakkuk 3:5. Deber and Resheph are, in a sense, loan words. They do not indicate inherent polytheism or paganism among Israel. “Plague” (deber) is often mentioned in the Old Testament as a weapon the Lord uses against his enemies (cf. Exod 5:3; 9:15; Lev 26:25; Num 14:12; Deut 28:21; 2 Sam 24:15; Jer 14:12) as well as “pestilence” (rešep; Deut 32:24). Moreover, progress in establishing the role of rešep in Israelite thought is hampered by the fact that no rešep myth (story) has survived from antiquity. So you’re saying that despite the lack of etymology tying the word to paganism, when the Jews use that word metaphorically, that’s not really what they mean. They actually mean this other thing (paganism) that there’s no evidence of. How is that not gaslighting?

You said “how there is no god beside him (Isaiah). Those are boasts of incomparability, not denials of existence.” The “gods” existed in that the people occasionally turned to them in idolatry but that does not mean they exist in a visceral, ontological sense. And yes, they are also incomparable to YHWH. When the biblical authors say that God is a jealous God, the reference is to the allegiance of the people’s hearts. It’s not an anthropological commentary on the pantheon of mythical gods.

What’s even more confusing is your comment that “Most of the Bible authors are all about Yahweh-exclusivity.” Which is it – the Israelites were polytheists or monotheists?

“If every idol worshipping people deserves to be destroyed and their virgins raped, then so did Israel.” This is a strawman. The “idol worshipping people” were warned of the consequences for their idolatry. Second, there is no command in the Bible to rape someone. You also said “Those virgin girls didn’t want to have sex with their captors who killed their families.” Prove it. You’re not a mind reader. There were people who willingly converted to Judaism. How do you know these particular people weren’t in that category? You don’t.

You stated that “If at some point an action is morally acceptable and at other times (divine command or otherwise) the same action is not acceptable, then it is not objective.” This is a fundamental misunderstanding of morality. If you kill an animal for food or to control the population, that is not immoral. If you wantonly kill animals for no good reason, that could be considered immoral. They both have in common the act of killing an animal.

How would you even know what is moral or immoral? Does morality exist?

In regards to creation, you said “Muslims and Hindus and many other religions try to use that same worn out argument in support of their deities.” Islam is an Abrahamic religion so they share the creation story with Christianity and Judaism. Hindus don’t have a single creation narrative meaning, some of them share a similar creation narrative with Christianity. For those that don’t, to which do you refer? Gautama Buddha was notoriously silent on the issue of creation. Greek pagan creation stories tend to focus more on the mythological deities than they do the actual cosmos. The cosmos is mostly a by-product of the actions/conflicts of the gods. The biblical creation story provides an explanation for why/how things came in to being that is existentially cogent.

You made some specific biblical claims that need to be corrected.
• “he was an angel but was highly exalted above the other angels after he was killed in heaven and resurrected and became God’s high priest Melchizedek forever.” Jesus is not an angel nor was he killed in heaven.
• “‘Jesus is Kyrios’ and Jesus is ‘the son of the Theon’. The reason you won’t find one mention of Jesus being ‘son of the Lord’ is because Jesus is Yahweh, son of El Elyon.” This characterization doesn’t make sense. Perhaps you could elaborate. Jesus is not YHWH and “El Elyon” is a description of YHWH. Jesus being referred to as the son of God is a moniker referring to the divine aspect of the hypostatic union. Jesus isn’t the “son of the Lord” because Jesus IS kyrios.
• “Yahweh is an angel in pre-Christian Jewish scriptures that didn’t make the Roman canon.” Perhaps you could provide some substantiation for this?
• “Hebrews chapter 1 refers to Jesus as an angel.” Which verses?
• You referenced prototokos to mean that Jesus was originally thought of as a created being. From your own citation to Strong’s: “First literally means ‘firstborn’ (so most translations; NEB, Goodspeed, JB “eldest”). In light of the Jewish use of this word, its primary component of meaning is that of priority (“first place”) rather than of age (“firstborn”). In fact, it is quite possible that in New Testament times this word had come merely to mean ‘first.’” Additionally, the term "prototokos" is used in the New Testament to denote the firstborn child in a family, emphasizing preeminence and priority in both birth order and status. In a theological context, it is often used to describe Jesus Christ, highlighting His supremacy and unique position in creation and redemption. In ancient Jewish and Greco-Roman cultures, the firstborn son held a place of special honor and responsibility. He was often the primary heir and held a leadership role within the family. This cultural understanding is reflected in the biblical use of "prototokos," where it signifies not only chronological birth order but also a position of authority and privilege.
• “Most church fathers wrote of Jesus as the first thing God created.” Citations?

“‘Jesus’ is a fictive character in ancient myth.” The empty tomb is the best attested event from antiquity. That seems hard to believe for a “fictive character.” We have exponentially more attestation of the empty tomb than pretty much everything from antiquity that I would imagine you take for granted as true.

quote:

---

Some unhinged person starts yelling at my wife like that it would take a miracle for me not to knock a bitch out

---

It would be a miracle for me as a bystander to not get involved and tell that count and her boyfriend to frick off.

quote:

---

quote:
This is what we are in for...

That is certainly true for most. You have the right to wear that hat publicly and no one should say anything about it.

But, wearing that hat, you have to know that people will be triggered by it, and you are assuredly aware that those triggered people are fully programmed by a media and a mainstream pop culture that has molded them for decades.

---

Yup. And this is the only reason, as much as I would sometimes like to that I don't wear pro-Trump stuff out in public... because I will 100% go to jail the second some unhinged lib starts talking shite. I hope I never even have to witness it happening to someone else in person, because I won't be able to sit back watch it without getting involved.

I am done with these TDS unhinged pricks.

quote:

---

Maybe you are stupid or something or have me confused with someone else. I am not a part of any religion, and I am a constitutional conservative.

---

Here we go... another, "I'm totally a conservative but..." TDS nerd who can't help but defend unhinged liberals and leftist insanity... but he's totes a conservative, y'all!

Right of Revolution is imperative to get all Demons out of here!