Castin

IT'S THE FUCKING **CENTRISTS** WHO TRUST "GLOBAL CORPORATIONS".

I take the view that this is because they - like you - and the Baptist church have a faulty view of authority. And of legitimacy.  You misunderstand the gospels and the Word of God and you are all too arrogant to consider that real power comes in humility, like the Lord Jesus Christ when he left his throne in heaven to become a man.  

We are not to lord it over others.  That is the way of the Catholic church and the way of the Baptists - and from what I read of your church, it is the same with your lot. You have forsaken humility in favor of authority in a top down system. 

Jesus led as a servant. That is his system of leadership.  Not arrogance. Not isolating people. Not telling others that they are not legitimate followers. He - simply said - "follow me".  And so far as his people follow him, they will be on a much safer path of assurance than all the trappings of tradition and religion that many churches around the world want to put onto them.  

Lol. We've seen it more recently right here in this Kingdom Castin. Remember this?

https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/3621-moderation-notice-religion?page=1&post_number=20

Related to the OP, Speedrace and I have made the decision to begin locking new threads created by already banned users. This is in accordance with the CoC as per the invented actions clause.

- Ragnar

When and where have we seen this before?

The Bible says a murderer must be put to death. They don't get a "kill a goat"

Take it as you will, but it was slight sarcasm.  What does it say about the rapist murderer that repents!!!??

A man was  tortured and killed for the sins of others wasn't he?  He paid with blood didn't he , if the scriptures are to be believed?  And now there are many murdering rapists in his heavenly paradise. If you believe these scriptures as they have come down to us?

 Why is that Christians are too stupid to even recognise, for themselves, the further implications. 

Weather I accepted this "offer" or not, I also have to accept that I am responsible for the every single vicious lash of the brutal flogging, and the mocking and  every strike of every nail being driven home into the flesh of another human being during  the crucifixion. In which I had absolutely nothing to do with, and no say. I have to also agree that every time I decline this responsibility by something I may say or action I take, that I intensify the agony of it all. 

I am also required to believe that all of this pain, suffering, torture and agony was absolutely necessary in order to compensate for some earlier sin/crime in which I also played no part in.- the sin of Adam. I could expand further but I don't think that I have to .  Do you not see how this is all beginning to come across?

Atheist realtors don't believe in non-falsifiable real estate claims.

I don't think atheist realty sucks, I think we're very honest realtors.

Okay I got you now because I should say reality rite. Realty is a very noble and tuff profession but your having to admit that your not going to sell the sausage because you have to sell the sizzle and the sizzle is the x faktor rite.

I'm not sure that one can say that sacrifice as atonement was there from the beginning. No one uses sacrifice to deal with sin issues until the book of Exodus.

Building on to the idea that anything that can be a sacrifice for the sake of atonement would include calling Jesus the "meal offering" of God because flour is used by the poorest instead of birds. And this would limit Jesus' atoning powers to only those sins which sacrifice is involved in atonement for.

What a lot of people don't know, even some Christians, is that we do die for our sins. When we give ourselves to Jesus, the first thing He does is hide our lives/ soul inside Him and we die with Him on the cross, paying for our sin the way God said we would. (The soul that sins shall die)

Jesus then recreates us and we share in His resurrection. This is where the phrase "born again" comes from. The bible says even the righteous shall be save as if by fire. You see, Jesus was not saving us from the small transition we call death, but from the real death. The 2nd death. So we do die. We do pay. But we are resurrected with Jesus.

The animal sacrifices in the OT were a sort of a forshadowing of what Jesus would do for us. It was also for the people at the time because shame and guilt harm people mentally. A lot of times, God institutes things because of our frailties, not because He needs them.

But if I had been stupid and unheeding of warnings and fallen into, say, an active volcano, and later regaining consciousness found that someone had sacrificed his life to get me out, knowing He would die in the process, I would be sad that He died, but I would think what He voluntarily did was selfless, noble, and heroic. His sacrifice would not disgust me even if I had had the choice before he did it and old Him not to.

Now if someone was forced to die for me, not by his own choice, that would disgust me. But that is not what happened with Jesus. He is a hero in the truest definition of the word.

He, a great and righteous  King, died to save me, a wretched sinful nobody. He did not have to, and I could never repay Him. It is a miracle of selfless love and mercy. I love Him because He first loved me.

What does the word wylted even mean though? Is it supposed to be a play on the word wilted in some way?

I believe that if you look in the bible, you will see both that individuals are held to account for their own sins, and that they can perform certain measures of atonement and earn forgiveness for certain sins by being willing to lose something -- that might be losing a measure of health (by receiving lashings), a measure of money (by paying a fine) or by losing physical goods, by the sacrificing of an animal or grain product. These sacrifices, these losses are a punishment in a sense, and also a reminder of subservience -- we give to God when we have acted against God (the Hebrew is "korban" which means "being brought closer" -- the act of giving of the self to God brings us closer to obedience and shows a contrite nature).

But again, this is only to earn atonement for certain types of sins, and it requires very specific sacrifices -- part of the process is following directions.

 Why all the nonsense of atonement and  killing animals for "sin" in the first place ? 

Why is it  that the all powerful god cannot simply say you are forgiven and I shouldn't have punished all of mankind forever for  what someone else did a billion years ago?

 How does killing a goat for instance  excuse someone that has raped and murderer someones daughter?  Why should such an animal have a place in a "heavenly paradise"? 

The reason why God doesn't "ask" us (lol) if we want such an option is because God wants it to be a gift, knowing that we as frail humans making stupid decisions are also in many ways stupid so we should really never have to be fully accountable for ALL the things we do forever, and so God provides a safety net if we wish to abide in it and use it. Many times we make mistakes and do stupid crap because we are just limited in the way we think and eventually we may change, and God understands that which is why grace exists. Any atonement is simply grace which presents itself in the form of forgiveness which simply passes your guilt to another place.

You're very bright Castin, which is why I always admire you.

I could post some of your past comments that would make Jesus seem mild by comparison if I took away all the context.

And he also says "blessed are the peacemakers" and "love thine enemy" and "turn the other cheek" and "all who live by the sword will die by the sword." The dude could vacillate between harsh and hippie.

 Well when we consider what ancient Palestine was like under Roman rule(read Josephus).  I am sure I would be saying one thing in the open and another behind their backs. When Jesus said "render unto Caesar" it must have sent the Galilean zealots into a frenzy. Their hatred of Rome and anything Roman is well documented and to pay tax to Rome was anathema to these cut-throat assassins. 

Taken as a whole, Jesus seems to be saying that even though peace is the intent,

I think he was giving the  diplomatic approach a chance. And had an army on standby. And he got cut down before he had a chance to use it.  Just like the Baptist.  This of course didn't save Jerusalem or the temple. The Romans finally had enough of the infighting of the many different sects and all hell broke lose.

his message will inevitably bring mixed and controversial reactions,

Indeed the mixed massages come thick and fast in these scriptures. Jesus did a lot in secret and was visited after dark  in secrete by members of the council. One can only image these rich men were  supporting and funding his cause..  and who can forget that he spoke one thing to the commoners and another "for those with ears".

potentially dividing households and turning children against their traditionalist Jewish parents.

Yes this is what rebellion causes. When one wants to change or upset the status quo. It also happens every time we approach an new age. Jesus and  his disciples  discussed the end of the age and the new age to come a few times. I believe this played a large part in Jesus'cause. and his claim to the throne.

And in the case where a person must choose between Jesus's message and their family, it is imperative that they choose his message.

It is never made clear what  Jesus the Jew's  message really was. But  two claims he makes stand out from all of the rest don't they.

Matthew 10:34

 “Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword"

Matthew 15:24   "I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel."

Nowhere will we find a single reference where Jesus admits to his inner circle of coming to specifically do die for their sins. There are a few verses that could be crowbarred into suggesting that he did as much, such  as John 3:16,  but it will be a struggle to squeeze these words into the mouth of Jesus and sins are not even mentioned, only belief. 

The bible seems to suggest we alone are responsible. Deuteronomy11:16 “ take heed of yourself”.

Genesis4; 9  “Where is Abel your brother?”

He said, “I do not know. Am I my brother's keeper?

“Am I my brother's keeper?”

Is this to say that I am not responsible for anyone but myself, my actions and my own behaviour?

No atheist sees a baby and thinks "ANOTHER MEMBER OF OUR CABAL IS BORN! HAIL YE PHYSICS AND SCIENCE!"

I seem to recall he was in the penalty box for six months. 

I could say the same thing to you!  You're one of the reasons I did decide to post again. I have not been disappointed.

He mentioned he will eventually cancel his cell service,

Well his battery hasn't worn down yet   . This thread was started -  I am about to become a monk -  29 days ago

And he's going strong  the last time I checked , this morning

#139

The Orthodox Church itself rejects your conception of the church. Also, we reject the claim that the church is a denomination. This type of ecclessiology only serves to justify the existence of protestant sects that are detached from the church.

The ancient and venerable Saint Basil the great has this to say about your baptism...

"...they who were broken off had become laymen, and, because they are no longer able to confer on others that grace of the Holy Spirit from which they themselves are fallen away, they had no authority either to baptize or to ordain."

Now, it is the position of the church that under certain circumstances a bishop may make acceptable a baptism done by heretics, but this can only be done on entering the church and receiving chrismation. Apart from the church, there is no baptism.

A more recent Orthodox saint, Hilarion Troitsky writes, “Outside of her, whatever is called ‘Church’ is a congregation of heretics that have lost the one faith in the one Lord and consequently the baptism which is performed by them is not the Christian baptism.”

Even in the acts of the apostles we see that after Philip the deacon baptized the Samarians, it was still necessary for a bishop, priest, or in this case an apostle to come give the gift of The Holy Spirit.

"...when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women... Now when the apostles which were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John: Who, when they were come down, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Ghost: (For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.) Then laid they their hands on them, and they received the Holy Ghost."

As St Basil up there said, those who are not with the church cannot be priests, they are laymen. Laymen cannot administer the sacrament of the seal of The Holy Spirit.

St Gregory the dialogist writes...

"And indeed we have learnt from the ancient institution of the Fathers that whosoever among heretics are baptized in the name of the Trinity, when they return to holy Church, may be recalled to the bosom of mother Church either by unction of chrism, or by imposition of hands, or by profession of the faith only. Hence the West reconciles Arians to the holy Catholic Church by imposition of hands, but the East by the unction of holy chrism."

St Leo the great writes...

"For it is the unity as such of ecclesiastical society that avails unto salvation, so that a man is not saved by Baptism to whom it was not given in that place where it is needful that it be given."

The point is, you may think you were baptised, and you may think you received The Holy Spirit, but the church has taught since the beginning that these things are not done independently of the church. The fathers of the church did not have the same understanding of ecclessiology that you do.

An attack on a person rather than their arguments.

I agree.

In other words, foul play in a debate environment.

How is this "attack on a person rather than their arguments" specific to "a debate environment"?

I mean, if, hypothetically, someone called another member a "conspiracy theorist" or "a complete idiot" in the forums (and not in the "debate" section of this esteemed website) wouldn't that still be considered an ad hominem attack?

Not "a questioning of the credibility of a source of information." In other words, fair play in a journalistic, scholastic, or scientific environment.

Attacking a person, rather than their arguments, would seem to fit the definition of an ad hominem attack in ANY setting.

Even if you find a person questionable, there is always the option of analyzing his methodology and the source of his claims over choosing to analyze the man alone. We don't have the technology to know the intentions of people, but we do have a scientific process for data collection.

I don't think it's an ad hominem attack to ask "Is this a credible source of information?"

Depends on how you go about it, but dismissing claims on the pedigree of the source invariable leads to argument from authority type fallacies.

I don't think it's an ad hominem attack to ask "Is this a credible source of information?" That is a necessary question in the detection of misinformation and propaganda. Step one should be consider the source, step two should be consider the content.

The idea of "consider the source" is 100% "to the person" and not "to the claim".

This is the very definition of "ad hominem attack".

Please present your personally preferred definition of "ad hominem attack".

Voting for a third party (or unaffiliated individuals) at least signals that you are capable of voting and NOT simply oblivious to the rampant corruption in the current system.

RCV FTW!

And yes, that means the republicans will win.

  Thanks for your response, Castin.  I didn't mean to indicate I took offense and I apologize for the misunderstanding.  I just wanted to distance myself from the idea of executing innocent people as no one wants that.

I don't think we're separated all that far in ours opinions on this subject.

Don't forget to include in your calculus of possible outcomes, not only wrongful executions and the number of convicts escaping from prison but, any people killed by convicted killers both within and outside prison.  That is, regarding your statement, "...even one innocent person could be put to death, I am left with the question: Is it worth it to kill guilty people if it will also kill innocent people ?" while that would be horrible, what if one person were killed by a convict when we could have prevented an innocent's subsequent death by permanently eliminating the threat from the time of the conviction ?  ..And please don't forget killings inside prison, hospitals and court facilities.  You tend to gloss over those when you speak of only escapees and those let out improperly.

  You say : "I can't imagine that our accuracy will ever be perfect," with regard to assuring the guilt of all capital criminals but, we don't have to be perfect.  Naturally, we can and should only execute the criminals we know are guilty.  If, later, we find evidence that assures their guilt, we should carry out the execution at that time for the safety of the Community.

  It's difficult to know how to think about your last statistic.  "Only 13% of death row exonerations since 1973 (18 of 142) resulted from postconviction DNA testing,"  When you think about it, that means 87% were exonerated by other reliable means.  What if we were to employ those other means, plus DNA testing, in the investigation process rather than after trial ?  Indeed, that's what's happening now.  The new technologies, including DNA, and forensic methods, such as those advocated by the John Howard Society,  are being used early in the process, and can determine absolute guilt.  ..And, I can't stress this strongly enough, those who are not absolutely guilty should not be executed.

  Let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater, so to speak.  We have a method that know will prevent proven killers from ever killing anyone ever again.  Just because we can't be certain of guilt in all cases.  Let's protect the safety of the Community as best we can by executing those whom we know are guilty.

When examining statistics of wrongful convictions, it would be inaccurate to only consider past convictions where modern forensic technology was not available at the time.  Forensic technologies and investigation methods are improving and becoming more accurate all the time.  What would really be more telling of the truth would be to use current and future convictions, when modern criminology is in play, to determine the rate of wrongful convictions.  Of course, that is impossible, but it's inaccurate and misleading to only consider past statistics.

• "It is possible that the death-sentencing rate of innocent defendants has changed over time. No specific evidence points in that direction, but the number and the distribution of death sentences have changed dramatically in the past 15 y. One change, however, is unlikely to have much impact: the advent of DNA identification technology. DNA evidence is useful primarily in rape rather than homicide investigations. Only 13% of death row exonerations since 1973 (18 of 142) resulted from postconviction DNA testing, so the availability of preconviction testing will have at most a modest effect on that rate."
  

The real question is, if you saw that Duck at a Trump rally, would you pet it, or run in fear?

I would give you milk and cookies and a duck to pet from time to time.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Da8ZhKcNKQ

Trump did it.