SirAnonymous

Ya, we are finally seeing more and more of that now. I’m pretty sure you were once a Trumper, but now that he’s selling baseball cards and has transformed into a perennial defendant, people are saying they never supported or voted for him.

So you have to go back at least to the early 1900s. What do you think about the Republican Party’s embarrassing knee bend to Trump?

I don’t think they will live it down for some time. That’s why Nikki Haley and Pence and Pompeo are non-starters for President.

His profile says he’s conservative, and religious, lol.

SA is a right wing conservative.

I don’t believe you.

 You’ve never made a comment about Trump being fat

or balding

with a ridiculous comb over either right?

Because it gets under their skin genius.

I see from your profile you are a child of god. Did god tell you to support Donald Trump?

Is Trump the rudest President we have ever had?

Hmm, I don’t know why you are pretending to be Tucker Carlson here. You’re just confused and need a simple clarification.

Have you ever called someone shorty? I bet you have.

Now people have no control over their height (or weight we are now learning) but those terms are used often as an insult. Why do you suppose that is, Tucker?

 But surely you would agree white trash people like Wylted have not been held back by systemic racism.

Hey genius, the OP is the one who used trannie in the title of this post. You should probably be more worried about that than defending the DEPLORABLES on this site.

Right, being ignorant is a choice. Being poor, according to conservatives is also a choice. I agree with you there are circumstances that make it difficult to break out of poverty.

That’s like asking if ignorant is an insult. Nobody wants to be poor. 

Do you think “trannie” is an insult?

You can’t tell me you are not familiar with the term white trash, aka trailer trash, aka redneck.

I insulted you for being poor, stupid white trash.

 like Gay Parrot and several others on this site.

Harris vs some clean-cut Republican a bit like Mitt Romney sort of character that doesn't push the boat.

pleasing to Conservatives.

• More fair and balanced vote moderation
  
• Dispensing with certain well-known pests who should have been banned ages ago
  
• Clearer rules of what constitutes targeted harassment
  
• Adding more checks and balances to the power granted to individual moderators
  
• Adding the office of Vice President (unless that was already added. I can't find the rules for the campaign)
  
• Adding the office of Site Engagement Coordinator
  
• Adding the office of Social Media Manager
  
• Adding the office of Disinformation Corrector
  
• Placing more limits on the propagation of misinformation, including:
  
• Warning members who share disinformation
  
• Placing notices below posts containing disinformation
  
• Moderation penalties for repeat offenders
  
• Investigations into the treatment of Vici and Bones
  
• Investigations into Wylted's corrupt offers of gift cards in exchange for votes
  
• Investigations into prior vote moderation practices
  
• Giving new users green coins to encourage involvement
  
• Introducing an optional verification system and blue check to users who pay $3.14 a month
  
• Banning people who track my Illuminati travels
  
• Building a firewall to keep out Canadian users
  
• Giving everyone one million elo points
  

Options one and two are directly Christian principles: ask for forgiveness and you're forgiven without condition (isn't this the Jesus promise?) and obviously Hell. THe middle one is closer to just, but it's a principle that a vast, vast majority of humans would adhere to, and Christianity is a worldwide minority. That would mean the middle option can be arrived at independent of a judeochristian principle. 

These are all pretty minor offenses, and while I'd not be pleased and certainly would consider consequences, especially as these are fairly vague descriptions. If I knew before my child was born that they would grow up to be a mass murderer, then still had the child, ultimately, I am responsible for all of the murders that child commits, because I could have decided not to have a child. Since no parent knows for sure what sort of good or evil their child will get up to, it's not really an apt comparison. Also, none of the wrongs you put up there would warrant a torture chamber, we agree?

I don't believe morality is objective, and I don't think you do either.

Morality is and always has been subjective. For example, at one time it was okay to sell your daughter as a sex slave, and now we see this practice as abhorrent. It was at one time widely accepted as "okay" to beat another person's child (corporal punishment at school is only one example). Now it isn't. In some places, the death penalty is viewed as totally wrong. In others, it's commonly prescribed in many societies.

I can therefore say I wouldn't take my moral standards from a book from however many thousands of years ago

For me, it is absolutely immoral, for example, to punish someone who isn't guilty of a crime that I know someone else committed. 

I would also maintain that this scenario is not analogous to the options presented under Christianity.

How so? 

So, if you don't know what the program will do, and it does something you didn't expect it to, you'd still be mad at the program itself, and not the programmer? You'd not go back and try to fix the code line that needed a tweak to perform better? 

(not the god in the bible, because there are outcomes he doesn't expect in the text)

Does your version of god have a plan in place for every person? Or is he just kind of observing and reacting to what people do? In other words is god ever surprised?

In the case of running a program with an error, that is true, because the program can only do what I tell it. In the case of an omniscient God creating beings with free will, that is not true. God's knowledge does not cause them to make the choice. Their choice causes God to have the knowledge.

Your knowledge that it WOULD (not could) do something wrong means that it didn't freely choose.

Can you give me an idea of what "wrong" looks like in this context? I never got mad at, say, getting the answer to a math problem wrong, I'm sure that's not what you mean, I'd just like you to define it so I can respond accurately. Give me an example.

Let's say you have a son who crashes your car after borrowing it without permission, and thankfully no one, including him, is hurt. You have three choices for punishment:

• Ignore it so long as he says "sorry"
  
• Make him work off the bill to repair the damage to the car, and severely restrict his privileges until such time as it's paid off (no phone, no driving, no access to friends, etc, commonly known as "grounding")
  
• Send him to a torture chamber from which there is no escape including death
  

Which punishment would you choose?

Great! So now, what if when you programmed it this way, you KNEW it would do something you didn't want it to? Not guessed, but knew absolutely, would you be mad at the program?

If you wrote a computer program knowing that you'd written into it the ability to (and desire to) do something you didn't design it to do, would you then be mad at the computer program? 

Why would god want to take "the long way" to a good thing?

Satan is a she, logically, naturally and in the Vatican art.

Did you look at the Expulsion painting?

If those are a man's breasts to your eyes, get some glasses.

Here are the quotes that prove our friend either does not know the bible or is a liar.

Satan was created by God. What for? The Bible doesn't say.

What do you think?

• Did god know that once he gave humans free will, they'd choose to sin? 
  

God is omniscient, so yes.

So then why did he give us free will if he knew we'd sin and he was going to get super mad about it?

Strange that you know so much about God, yet hide behind the bible on questions.

Did God create Satan to help him or hinder him?

Is she the Loyal Opposition or evil?

• If not to cause sin, what was Satan created for, and by whom?
  

• Did god know that once he gave humans free will, they'd choose to sin? 
  

What does true mean to you here?

True that Christianity is a immoral religion?

True that universalism is the way to think?

Do you think A & E should have remained ignorant of all knowledge, even reproduction and knowing they were naked?

You do recognize that the tree of knowledge is the tree of all possible knowledge. Right?

Do you think Adam did the right thing?

If not, why do you Christians sing of Adam's sin being a happy fault and necessary to God's plan?

As to Satan being male, go check the Vatican Expulsion painting.

If you think those breasts on Satan belong on a man. do not return.

It is a fact that "homosexuality" was not in the Bible until 1946. That much is objectively true.

Arsenokoitēs (αρσενοκοίτης) is a Greek word found in the New Testament, specifically in some verses that are generally considered a prohibition against homosexuality. It is a portmanteau of arsen, one of the Greek words for male, and koite, the Greek word for bed, echoing the phrasing of the Septuagint rendering of Leviticus 18:22.[1]
The verses in question are in 1 Corinthians and 1 Timothy, both thought to be part of Paul's writings (although there is some debate about this in the case of Timothy - see 'Forgery' below). In context, the lines say "Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived ; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor malebedders..."[2] and "and immoral men and malebedders and kidnappers and liars and perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound teaching..."[3]
Arsenokoites is extremely rare in ancient Greek - so rare, there is no other extant use predating or contemporary to the Bible (a linguistic phenomenon known as a hapax legomenon). Philo is often claimed to have used it around 35 CE.[4][5] Some believe the claim to be false.[6] The context in which it is used in Corinthians suggests that it is the dominant partner of a homosexual relationship[7] (of one who assumes the dominant role in same-sex activity, opp. μαλακός)[8]. Some liberal Christians insist it refers specifically to pimps or pederasts, but there's no more evidence to support this meaning than any other.

What are the chances of the Republicans condemning Trump? 

The South seceded because the anti slavery candidate won.

And there were Democrats in the North.

There’s no question the Democrats led the effort for Civil rights. 

You are saying that humans planned their own fall.

Was Satan, the female who made us fall, not created to do that perfect sin creating thing in your God's plan?

Or was the initiation of sin all Yahweh? 

It is the believers who would divide and hate much of that perfection.

They pray for Jesus and his own inquisition and mass murdering.

Immoral leadership.

As we speak, they have their vile churches preach for the inequality of souls, based on what the body does.

Even, according to their belief system, the bodies are doing what their God given souls and God created them to do.

All who are not universalists are denying their own God's ability to create perfection.

They have no real faith in their God and cannot argue his way.

In fairness, the Bible didn't prohibit homosexuality until 1946 with the RSV translation. "Biblical" condemnation of LGBTQ is a modern invention. Its not hate because, you know, it's in 'the word of the Lord' (just ignore the fact that we put it there).