I'm back. Did you miss me?

Author: Tradesecret ,

Posts

Total: 61
Bones
Bones's avatar
Debates: 23
Posts: 665
3
5
7
Bones's avatar
Bones
3
5
7
--> @Tradesecret
It's not western logic - logic is logic. Either 

  • you author your actions. 
  • you don't. 
There's no third option, it's a true dichotomy rendered valid by the law of excluded middle.  
Yes. Western Logic.  I am surprised you are rejecting Eastern logic.   I don't have to and I am not going to. 
So do you ignore the Law of Non-Contradiction? The Law of Identity?  

I don't agree that to accept p1 you must also accept p2. 
Well I don't know how to explain it then. If something is good, suggests that being "gooder" is logically incoherent, for if something "gooder" were possible, then that "gooder" would be the standard for good. 
Use a different word then. gooder is not an English word anyway.  good better best.  something that can good but not gooder.  but it can be better. 
p1. Humans were made morally perfect. 
p2. Therefore it is inconceivable that humans could have been made more morally better. 
p3. A human who is able to contend morally reprehensible temptations is "morally better" than a human who cannot contend morally reprehensible temptations. 
p4. Humans (Adam & Eve) did not contend morally reprehensible temptations (the serpent)
c1. Therefore it is conceivable that there is a "morally better" human that could exist. 
Ergo. A contradiction arises between p1 and c1. 

Resisting evil is a good thing, surely? If a person is unable to resist evil, the question is why?
It would be because they couldn't do what a more moral man would do, that is, resist the evil. 
Are you talking about character or something else? A quality of intelligence, culture, gender etc?  Prince Andrew might never put elbows on the table, but I wouldn't want him around my kids. Hitler was very intelligent apparently as is Trump, but both of them have significant ethical compasses. 
I'm sorry what is the point of that digression? I was making a very simple point, that is, if you are unable to resist some evil, you lack some essence that someone who could resist it possess.

If the reason why the person cannot resist evil is justified then surely that does not make them worse than the person who resists evil?
If the reason to resist evil is justified, then the act of doing it isn't evil, so it's excluded from the conversation. 
Let me think about that.  I am not sure we are talking about the same thing here - justified. If an act is justified does that mean the act is not evil? 
Give me an example of something which is morally justified but still evil.

God does not create sinning people. God created  people without sin.  People sinned.
p1. People sin because they possess a desire to sin. 
p2. Desires are manifested from the brain. 
p3. God created brains. 
c1. God created people's desire to sin
People sin for all sorts of reasons.  Sometimes it is an act out of a desire. Sometimes it is an omission out of thoughtlessness.  Desire is not the common factor. 
Ok, but would you agree that the syllogism is true if I added, on balance, in front of each statement? You would agree that most evils are a result of a desire to do something? 

I am not sure what the question of benefit is trying to ascertain?  Can you think of any benefit that would satisfy you? I doubt it. 
I can't see any benefit to why God created sin, and that is precisely the problem. 
God did not create sin.  Sin is not a thing that can be created. 
It is. Sin is a result of the actualisation of some desires. Those desires were created by God. 

What is the point of what? The primary purpose of life is to worship God and glorify him forever.  The point is not about us - it is about God. 
What's the point? Well literally the eradication of all sin whilst maintaining the fruits of life? We can still praise God if we're all like Jesus. 
This is why Jesus died on the cross. To eradicate sin. 
You ignored the original point. Why can't God create everyone like he created Jesus. What harm would there be? 

I'm sure I have answered that question.  I take the view that murder is morally unacceptable.  The 6th commandment is you shall not murder.   Hence it is neither acceptable or obligatory. 
But God created a world in which, as you stated, is the best possible world, which entails that every occurence is also the best possible of all outcomes. 
I am still missing your point here.   Of all the possible worlds, that could have been made, our world at this time, in its condition - on its way to becoming a new heaven and earth is the only one God chose to make.  God ordains the ends and the means.   Knowing this does not imply that everything that happens in our world is necessarily the best possible of all outcomes.   
You literally said "Out of the possible worlds that could have been created - this is the best possible one"

would you have preferred that God simply made us robots without a free will and just to do perfect.  The problem with robots is that they can't love freely. 
There is NO WAY you're using the free will defence to defend sins. The entire point of my argument is that we can be sinless and free at the same time. You can still love freely even if you don't possess the desire to sin. 
I know what your argument is - or well I am trying to understand it. I don't agree with it so far.   The New Heaven is the only place where we will be sinless and free at the same time. \
p1. God is that who can actualise any possible world. (True via tautology. God is, by definition, that who can do all that is possible [omnipotence])
p2. New Heaven is a possible world (true because you said. It's literally the end goal for humanity so it must be possible)
c1. Therefore, God could have created New Heaven, without the need for preceding worlds

Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 2,601
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
--> @Bones

So do you ignore the Law of Non-Contradiction? The Law of Identity?  
No, not at all. I am just not slavishly blind to it that I don't see other methods of logic.  Western logic is powerful but it is not infallible.  It falls down at different levels.  A useful tool, but not the only tool in the logic bag. 
Use a different word then. gooder is not an English word anyway.  good better best.  something that can good but not gooder.  but it can be better. 
p1. Humans were made morally perfect. 
p2. Therefore it is inconceivable that humans could have been made more morally better. 
p3. A human who is able to contend morally reprehensible temptations is "morally better" than a human who cannot contend morally reprehensible temptations. 
p4. Humans (Adam & Eve) did not contend morally reprehensible temptations (the serpent)
c1. Therefore it is conceivable that there is a "morally better" human that could exist. 
Ergo. A contradiction arises between p1 and c1. 
p.1 If you are saying that they are made without sin.  Yes I would agree. 
p.2 If you are saying that it makes no sense that a human could be made even more so "without sin", then I guess that makes sense.  It seems to be that p1 and p2 are essentially the same thing.  Either a human is made with out sin or with sin.   It is like saying this is pure white.  It is inconceivable that anything could be even more pure white. 
p.3 You need to actually justify that assertion.   I don't accept at face value that just because someone resists temptation that this makes someone morally better. It may be true or not. It may be true sometimes and sometimes not. 
p.4 This is true. 
c.1 can only follow if there can properly distinguish between p1 and p 2 and you are able to justify p 3. 
Hence - your assertion that a contradiction arises is not yet proved. 

Resisting evil is a good thing, surely? If a person is unable to resist evil, the question is why?
It would be because they couldn't do what a more moral man would do, that is, resist the evil. 
Are you talking about character or something else? A quality of intelligence, culture, gender etc?  Prince Andrew might never put elbows on the table, but I wouldn't want him around my kids. Hitler was very intelligent apparently as is Trump, but both of them have significant ethical compasses. 
I'm sorry what is the point of that digression? I was making a very simple point, that is, if you are unable to resist some evil, you lack some essence that someone who could resist it possess.
the point is you have not defined evil.   What you think is evil might be different to what Hitler thinks is evil.  If your point is that a morally deficient persons lacks some essence, then you need to say that more clearly.  What is this essence you are talking about? 
If the reason why the person cannot resist evil is justified then surely that does not make them worse than the person who resists evil?
If the reason to resist evil is justified, then the act of doing it isn't evil, so it's excluded from the conversation. 
Let me think about that.  I am not sure we are talking about the same thing here - justified. If an act is justified does that mean the act is not evil? 
Give me an example of something which is morally justified but still evil.
I didn't use the word "morally", I just said justified.   but a person could justify stealing a loaf of bread to feed her children.  A government could morally justify destroying a whole city to save a whole country.  These are utilitarian outcomes - and justifiable although I think personally the second one is not morally justified. The first one - depending upon the circumstances.   the problem for you - which you need to be able to explain - is whether evil is objective or subjective and furthermore - what determines what is morally justified or not?  What is the measure of morally justified?



People sin for all sorts of reasons.  Sometimes it is an act out of a desire. Sometimes it is an omission out of thoughtlessness.  Desire is not the common factor. 
Ok, but would you agree that the syllogism is true if I added, on balance, in front of each statement? You would agree that most evils are a result of a desire to do something? 
no I am not in agreement.  Sin for me - is both the action and the omission. I actually think most people sin more by not doing what they should be doing as opposed to committing direct sins.  For me - the 2 commands are love God and love others.   People most often fall down loving others by failing to do stuff - not by punching them in the nose.   The Failure to something is not normally desire, but opportunity, neglect, selfish behaviour, recklessness, thoughlessness. Etc. 

Putting "on balance" in the front is not going to do it. 

I am not sure what the question of benefit is trying to ascertain?  Can you think of any benefit that would satisfy you? I doubt it. 
I can't see any benefit to why God created sin, and that is precisely the problem. 
God did not create sin.  Sin is not a thing that can be created. 
It is. Sin is a result of the actualisation of some desires. Those desires were created by God. 
No - not correct.  Sin is an action or an omission.  It is a falling short of doing the right thing.   God does not create a desire to sin.   


What is the point of what? The primary purpose of life is to worship God and glorify him forever.  The point is not about us - it is about God. 
What's the point? Well literally the eradication of all sin whilst maintaining the fruits of life? We can still praise God if we're all like Jesus. 
This is why Jesus died on the cross. To eradicate sin. 
You ignored the original point. Why can't God create everyone like he created Jesus. What harm would there be? 
In the first place - Jesus is God, so it is impossible to create God. God is eternal. In the second place, God did make humans already without sin.  You tell me whether there was any harm in making them - 


I am still missing your point here.   Of all the possible worlds, that could have been made, our world at this time, in its condition - on its way to becoming a new heaven and earth is the only one God chose to make.  God ordains the ends and the means.   Knowing this does not imply that everything that happens in our world is necessarily the best possible of all outcomes.   
You literally said "Out of the possible worlds that could have been created - this is the best possible one"
Yes, I did.  And I hold to that.  What I am saying is that this does not mean that everything is obligatory. 


p1. God is that who can actualise any possible world. (True via tautology. God is, by definition, that who can do all that is possible [omnipotence])
p2. New Heaven is a possible world (true because you said. It's literally the end goal for humanity so it must be possible)
c1. Therefore, God could have created New Heaven, without the need for preceding worlds
Ok. so where does that leave us?  God can do anything that is possible.  Although I would also say that omnipotence also means God can do everything that is possible and what ever he desires to do.  

The fact is - God chose this world - in its current state.  That is the reality.  He must have had his reasons.  Therefore your c1 is false - since there was a need. 

I think there are many explanations in the bible as to why.  Many of those are to do with Jesus.  Many of those are to do with his grace and love for this world and his Son.   

c1 - contains the word need which is not part of the premises.  



BrotherD.Thomas
BrotherD.Thomas's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 293
1
2
6
BrotherD.Thomas's avatar
BrotherD.Thomas
1
2
6
--> @Tradesecret


.
MISS TRADESECRET, whose gender went from a “MAN TO A WOMAN,” and then to “OTHER,” then went to her being 53 years old, then 12 years old, then changed to being 14 years old, Debate Runaway on Jesus' true MO,  Bible denier of Jesus being God in the OT, the runaway to what division of Christianity she follows, the pseudo-christian that has committed the Unpardonable Sin, the number 1 Bible ignorant fool regarding the Noah's Ark narrative, SHE SAYS THAT OFFSPRING THAT CURSE THEIR PARENTS SHOULD BE KILLED, states there is FICTION within the scriptures, and is guilty of Revelation 22:18-19, 2 Timothy 4:3, and 1 Timothy 2:12. She obviously had ungodly Gender Reassignment Surgery, Satanic Bible Rewriter, she goes against Jesus in not helping the poor, teaches Christianity at Universities in a “blind leading the blind” scenario, and is a False Prophet, says that Jesus is rational when He commits abortions and makes His creation eat their children, and that Jesus is rational when He allows innocent babies to be smashed upon the rocks, will not debate me on the Trinity Doctrine or the Virgin Birth, has a myriad of EXCUSES not to answer your questions, and she is "AN ADMITTED SEXUAL DEVIANT!"


YOUR QUOTE IN POST #54 THAT IS DECEIVING AS USUAL:  “I haven't taken off before - to ever do homework for you old boy.  I actually can't think of anything you have EVER said that has made me even consider doing some extra reading.”  

Dear, unfortunately for you within this forum, you continue to RUN AWAY from formal debate with me because you are to SCARED because I will explicitly and truly show the membership in just how Bible stupid you really are, as shown in the following links:

https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/7337-how-do-you-know-the-bible-is-true?page=17&post_number=405

https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/7337-how-do-you-know-the-bible-is-true?page=18&post_number=440 

https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/7337-how-do-you-know-the-bible-is-true?page=20&post_number=478

https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/7473-contrary-to?page=2&post_number=27

https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/7473-contrary-to?page=2&post_number=28



At your embarrassment again, of what's new, nothing, the following are recent posts to you by me that you continue to RUN AWAY from in front of the membership and Jesus (Hebrews 4:13) because your Biblical ignorance cannot save you in "trying" to respond to them:

Running away 10 days and counting: https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/7634-i-m-back-did-you-miss-me?page=1&post_number=11

Running away 19 days and counting:  https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/7587-atheists-are-cowards?page=7&post_number=159

Running away 32 days and counting:  https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/7337-how-do-you-know-the-bible-is-true?page=20&post_number=492

Running away 32 days and counting: https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/7337-how-do-you-know-the-bible-is-true?page=20&post_number=485

Running away 36 days and counting: https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/7337-how-do-you-know-the-bible-is-true?page=20&post_number=486

Running away 36 days and counting: https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/7337-how-do-you-know-the-bible-is-true?page=19&post_number=472

Running away 26 days and counting: https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/7337-how-do-you-know-the-bible-is-true?page=20&post_number=492

Running away 26 days and counting: https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/7337-how-do-you-know-the-bible-is-true?page=20&post_number=491

Running away 30 days and counting: https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/7337-how-do-you-know-the-bible-is-true?page=20&post_number=486

Running away 30 days and  counting: https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/7337-how-do-you-know-the-bible-is-true?page=20&post_number=485


NEXT PSEUDO-CHRISTIAN WOMAN LIKE MISS TRADESECRET THAT HAS TO RUN AWAY FROM JESUS' INSPIRED WORDS BECAUSE OF HER OVERWHELMING BIBLE STUPIDITY, WILL BE ...?

.
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 2,601
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
--> @BrotherD.Thomas
You do realize don't you?  I don't run away from your posts.  I keep coming back and "let the record show", I continue to set up topics so that we might discuss any real theological questions you might have.    I am not interested in answering your lies and your intentional slurs on me.  If I choose not to answer those questions - it is not a question of running, it is an issue of "it's not worth it". and I don't give a toss about your stupid ideas.

Looking at your post above - I didn't even once go to a page linked.  I could care less. 

I have started two posts for you to contribute and so far you have given nothing but weak nonsense. Why would I bother going to any other link when you can't even bother with these two?
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 19
Posts: 7,112
3
3
4
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
4
--> @Tradesecret
A straightforward couple of questions.

A. What exactly is sin?

B. How and why was/were such conclusions decided upon?
Bones
Bones's avatar
Debates: 23
Posts: 665
3
5
7
Bones's avatar
Bones
3
5
7
--> @Tradesecret
So do you ignore the Law of Non-Contradiction? The Law of Identity?  
No, not at all. I am just not slavishly blind to it that I don't see other methods of logic.  Western logic is powerful but it is not infallible.  It falls down at different levels.  A useful tool, but not the only tool in the logic bag. 
So you accept some, but the excluded middle just didn't make the cut? 

For reference, the following is the syllogism.

p1. Humans were made morally perfect. 
p2. Therefore it is inconceivable that humans could have been made more morally better. 
p3. A human who is able to contend morally reprehensible temptations is "morally better" than a human who cannot contend morally reprehensible temptations. 
p4. Humans (Adam & Eve) did not contend morally reprehensible temptations (the serpent)
c1. Therefore it is conceivable that there is a "morally better" human that could exist. 
Ergo. A contradiction arises between p1 and c1. 

p.1 If you are saying that they are made without sin.  Yes I would agree. 
I'm making a much more specific claim. I am claiming God made them good to a degree where making them more morally good would be impossible. 

p.2 If you are saying that it makes no sense that a human could be made even more so "without sin", then I guess that makes sense. 

p.3 You need to actually justify that assertion.   I don't accept at face value that just because someone resists temptation that this makes someone morally better. It may be true or not. It may be true sometimes and sometimes not. 
The premise is literally "if you are more moral, you are more moral. If you are not, than you are not".

Resisting evil is a good thing, surely? If a person is unable to resist evil, the question is why?
It would be because they couldn't do what a more moral man would do, that is, resist the evil. 
Are you talking about character or something else? A quality of intelligence, culture, gender etc?  Prince Andrew might never put elbows on the table, but I wouldn't want him around my kids. Hitler was very intelligent apparently as is Trump, but both of them have significant ethical compasses. 
I'm sorry what is the point of that digression? I was making a very simple point, that is, if you are unable to resist some evil, you lack some essence that someone who could resist it possess.
the point is you have not defined evil.   
That which ought not be done. Is it true then that  if you are unable to resist some evil, you lack some essence that someone who could resist it possess.

If the reason why the person cannot resist evil is justified then surely that does not make them worse than the person who resists evil?
If the reason to resist evil is justified, then the act of doing it isn't evil, so it's excluded from the conversation. 
Let me think about that.  I am not sure we are talking about the same thing here - justified. If an act is justified does that mean the act is not evil? 
Give me an example of something which is morally justified but still evil.
I didn't use the word "morally", I just said justified.   but a person could justify stealing a loaf of bread to feed her children. 
That's not evil then is it. If it is the cse that someone ought steal a loaf of bread to save her child, then it can't be evil, for if it were evil, then the person ought not have done it. 




People sin for all sorts of reasons.  Sometimes it is an act out of a desire. Sometimes it is an omission out of thoughtlessness.  Desire is not the common factor. 
Ok, but would you agree that the syllogism is true if I added, on balance, in front of each statement? You would agree that most evils are a result of a desire to do something? 
no I am not in agreement.  Sin for me - is both the action and the omission. I actually think most people sin more by not doing what they should be doing as opposed to committing direct sins.  For me - the 2 commands are love God and love others.   People most often fall down loving others by failing to do stuff - not by punching them in the nose.   The Failure to something is not normally desire, but opportunity, neglect, selfish behaviour, recklessness, thoughlessness. Etc. 

Putting "on balance" in the front is not going to do it. 
Ok, so the nature of sin is that either 

  • You do it by your desire, that is, you will it to happen. 
  • You do not do it by your desire, that is, you do not will it to happen. 
On balance, which do you think accounts more for human sin. 





I am not sure what the question of benefit is trying to ascertain?  Can you think of any benefit that would satisfy you? I doubt it. 
I can't see any benefit to why God created sin, and that is precisely the problem. 
God did not create sin.  Sin is not a thing that can be created. 
It is. Sin is a result of the actualisation of some desires. Those desires were created by God. 
No - not correct.  Sin is an action or an omission.  It is a falling short of doing the right thing.   God does not create a desire to sin.   
But "falling short of God" requires certain actions, the least that is required for sin is at least some movement. So that actualization of that movement, which is sinful, is a result of a desire to actualise that action, which is a result of God creating people in a way which they desire to actualize sinful desires. 


What is the point of what? The primary purpose of life is to worship God and glorify him forever.  The point is not about us - it is about God. 
What's the point? Well literally the eradication of all sin whilst maintaining the fruits of life? We can still praise God if we're all like Jesus. 
This is why Jesus died on the cross. To eradicate sin. 
You ignored the original point. Why can't God create everyone like he created Jesus. What harm would there be? 
In the first place - Jesus is God, so it is impossible to create God. God is eternal.
But Jesus had a physical form. He bled and he sweat and presumably he felt pain, unless he lied to us. So why not make people like him? Sure, you can take out the eternal part, but just copy the "coding" for which resulted in his "sinlessness" into everyone else. If Jesus is a person who is possible (his apparent existence proves that) then God could have just created more people like him. 


I am still missing your point here.   Of all the possible worlds, that could have been made, our world at this time, in its condition - on its way to becoming a new heaven and earth is the only one God chose to make.  God ordains the ends and the means.   Knowing this does not imply that everything that happens in our world is necessarily the best possible of all outcomes.   
You literally said "Out of the possible worlds that could have been created - this is the best possible one"
Yes, I did.  And I hold to that.  What I am saying is that this does not mean that everything is obligatory. 
But if you said it's the best possible world, then every action which occurs is an enhancement of our "best possible world". So that means when Hitler killed the Jews, that was apart of the "best possible world". If you say that "Hitler shouldn't have killed the Jews", then you would be proposing a possible world in which is better than ours, that is, a world in which Hitler did not do what he did. 

p1. God is that who can actualise any possible world. (True via tautology. God is, by definition, that who can do all that is possible [omnipotence])
p2. New Heaven is a possible world (true because you said. It's literally the end goal for humanity so it must be possible)
c1. Therefore, God could have created New Heaven, without the need for preceding worlds
Ok. so where does that leave us?
God could have created New Heaven and skipped all of our suffering. Which premise do you directly contend. 
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 2,601
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
--> @zedvictor4
A straightforward couple of questions.

A. What exactly is sin?

B. How and why was/were such conclusions decided upon?
Good questions Zed.  

Sin is a religious term.  It is not a secular term and from a secular or non-religious point of view - the word sin is nothing worth worrying about - because firstly there is no god and secondly,  it is all about controlling people by guilt manipulation. 

Sin in the Bible - is an offence against God.   It is a transgression of His law.  It is described as "falling short" of God's mark.  Hence, why God cannot sin because God can never fall short of himself.  

The bible describes sin in terms of direct actions and omission - and in terms of indirect actions and omissions. It talks of reckless sin and of unintentional sin. Hence it is quite different in nature to just breaking the law - as humans understand - since human laws as a general rule have an intention element.  

If we were to consider the 10 commandments.  The 6th commandment is you shall not murder.  This has both negative and positive character to it. Firstly, the negative - you shall not murder someone.  A direct action is to kill someone.  An indirect action flowing on from this - is to assault someone, or to threaten someone or to even use abusive words - you are an idiot.  These all break the 6th commandment. 

Yet, it also has some acts by omission. Not looking after your children by neglect. Not teaching your kids not to be violent or to swear at people. Choosing to look the other way when someone is doing these things.  Failing to rally against abortion is an omission.  Condoning abortion or even professional matches. One might even argue that attending at a full contact sporting match is a condoning of murder, since it encourages assault. 

Similarly not discipling your children - when they hurt someone or call them a name.  Watching violent films - is condoning violent behavior.  

All of these things fail to live up to the standard of do not kill.  

As you can see - everyone has broken this 6th commandment.  Sin is pervasive. Sin is overlooked - condoned, mocked. 


zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 19
Posts: 7,112
3
3
4
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
4
--> @Tradesecret
Well...As ever Trade I don't see a GODS definition of sin.

Only your reinterpretation of an archaic human concept, relative to an archaic human concept.



So how do you interpret the concept of original sin and the fall of man?

It is somewhat contradictory when Adam was made in a GODS image, is it not?


As I see it biblical sin is all about the onset of intellectual overthink, and the consequent onset of human physical inhibitions.


As for the Commandments:

We have no way of knowing what more recent interpretations of some sort of code of conduct originally relate to. But they certainly have a an air of human style social authoritarianism about them. I see nothing GODLY in them. They are all about human conduct and the violation of human authority.

Unless GOD is extremely selfish and authoritarian of course......After all, we are made in his own image.....So to put it crudely, God is an arsehole and therefore so will we inevitably be.


And we have been genetically programmed to die, by GOD, which therefore in your eyes is murder. A contradictory GOD it would seem.

Deb-8-a-bull
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,722
3
2
3
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Deb-8-a-bull
3
2
3

A person Can commit a biblical sin.  
However.  
If a Sin can be so called  " removed "  then a sin is not what i think it is.  

If a sin can be removed. 
A Sin must be like a growth. Im guessing.  


Pinocchio  
BrotherD.Thomas
BrotherD.Thomas's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 293
1
2
6
BrotherD.Thomas's avatar
BrotherD.Thomas
1
2
6


THURSDAY, JUNE 23, 2022


!!!!!!!!!   UPDATE ON MISS TRADESECRET’S COMICAL AND LAME EXCUSES TO RUN AWAY FROM YOUR LOGICAL BIBLICAL QUESTIONS PRESENTED TO HER BECAUSE SHE CAN’T ADDRESS THEM AND REMAIN INTELLIGENT LOOKING IN THE AFTERMATH, “OTHER THAN TO RUN AWAY FROM THEM AS SHOWN BY THE FOLLOWING DOCUMENTED EXAMPLES”   !!!!!!!!!!



MISS TRADESECRET RUNAWAY EXCUSE #1: Tradesecret will call you a “bully,” for making her the Bible fool, or for asking questions that she could not answer, even though the questions asked were logically valid and biblically axiomatic!

MISS TRADESECRET RUNAWAY EXCUSE #2: Tradesecret will accuse you of “stalking” her if you repeat more than once why Tradesecret hasn’t addressed your questions in the first place! 

MISS TRADESECRET RUNAWAY EXCUSE #3: Tradesecret will use the ruse of “attacking them personally,” by name calling, which has nothing to do with the questions asked to her. Where the irony is she performs this act as well. Can Tradesecret spell H-Y-P-O-C-R-I-T-E?  Sure she can.

MISS TRADESECRET RUNAWAY EXCUSE #4: she will just go “SILENT” to your questions in the hopes that you will forget about the fact that you presented them to her in the first place!  

MISS TRADESECRET RUNAWAY EXCUSE #5:  she will give you “cutesy” excuses and images to try and take your mind off of the FACT that she is running away again from your valid axiomatic biblical questions! Child-like, but what did we expect. :(

MISS TRADESECRET RUNAWAY EXCUSE #6: Now if you want to make her the continued Bible fool, she “may” answer you if your question or statement to her is “properly presented to her!“ LOL!

MISS TRADESECRET RUNAWAY EXCUSE #7:  She will tell you that you are not interpreting the scripture correctly, even though it is LITERAL in nature. She disagrees with the literal presentation of any passage or narrative that embarrasses her, then she will come up with another ungodly "convenient interpretation" of said verse to make you wrong!
  
MISS TRADESECRET RUNAWAY EXCUSE #8:  She will tell you that what you have found regarding her ungodly and despicable nature is because you have "hacked" into her DA account, and changed her posts to disgusting posts to further embarrass her! Priceless runaway tactic.

MISS TRADESECRET EXCUSE #9: She will divert the attention away from her in failing to prove her point by calling you a “creepy old man or a dunce.”

MISS TRADESECRET EXCUSE #10”:  She will use the term that you “Distract and Attack” to save her from further embarrassment to her outright Bible stupidity and ignorance that has no bounds!

MISS TRADESECRET EXCUSE #11: She will say that she is not answering personal questions even though she at times presents personal things of hers in her posts, like showing us she is an admitted SEXUAL DEVIANT!  https://www.imagebam.com/view/MEBCZRV

MISS TRADESECRET EXCUSE #12:  When you challenge her to a debate like I did, she will  tell you that you argue like a 12 year old girl or boy and have not matured enough, therefore she will RUN away from debating you, because in essence, she can't debate you in the first place!

MISS TRADESECRET EXCUSE #13:  She will tell you that you don’t have a brain and that you are a fake, and you don’t have the background to discuss religion with her. 

MISS TRADESECRET EXCUSE #14:  She will tell you that you look “dumb” and that you couldn’t really grasp the subject matter, therefore she will RUN AWAY from your posst to her and hide. 

MISS TRADESECRET EXCUSE #15:  Zeus forbid if you are an Atheist who outright owns her Bible stupidity, because she'll send up a smoke screen to prevent the Atheist from further embarrassing her regarding the Bible, she will call you names and blanket unwarranted claims about your denying any God.

MISS TRADESECRET EXCUSE #16:  Her computer tells her that she should not open up webpage links it does not recognize that you have posted to her, therefore releasing her from further biblical embarrassment!  LOL!

MISS TRADESECRET EXCUSE #17:  If you make a derogatory comment to her it is enough for her to not address your question, BUT, she makes these same remarks to other members, can we say HYPOCRITE, sure we can!

MISS TRADESECRET EXCUSE #18: She will call your posts to her as LIES, therefore there is no need for her to discuss your posts, yes, this is true! Can we call Miss Tradesecret the habitual RUNAWAY? Sure we can! 

MISS TRADESECRET EXCUSE #19:  She will tell you that your posts are “not worth it” to respond too, in once again showing her outright Bible ignorance to run away from them!

MISS TRADESECRET EXCUSE #20:  She will tell you that she doesn’t give a “toss” about your stupid ideas of a post you’ve directed to her, again, in running away from it as usual.

MISS TRADESECRET EXCUSE #21:  When she opens a previous link that was directed to her, and after opening it and it showed her that she was wrong in her perceived biblical knowledge, she will tell you that she DID NOT open said post because she could care less in what you proposed!  LOL

MISS TRADESECRET EXCUSE #22:  She will tell you that you don’t have enough “integrity” to take her time in debating you or answer your questions as a little crybaby!

MISS TRADESECRET EXCUSE #23: If she knows you will easily “own her Bible stupidity,” and allegedly you are using a fake personna, she will not debate you or answer your questions, other than to run away and HIDE from them! 

MISS TRADESECRET EXCUSE #24: She will answer questions that she wants to answer, and not other questions that makes her the Bible fool! 



We can only assume that poor ol’ Miss Tradesecret, in being the #1 Bible stupid runaway fool of this forum, at one point will have so many excuses piled up not to address questions posed to her, that she will not be able to be in this forum anymore because the MANY EXCUSES that she has will cause her to be SILENT!  LOL!


Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 2,601
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
--> @BrotherD.Thomas
See my response on the Trinity topic.