YouFound_Lxam

If logic is not applicable to God, then he is illogical. 

I was a Christian for many decades. One of the reasons I deconverted had to do with 'answers from God'. Our church was trying to decide what to do with our school. Church members felt God was guiding them, but our answers didn't match. 

"Ask God" doesn't carry a lot of weight with me. I no longer confuse my inner monologue as a dialogue.

One cannot be fully human and fully God when the nature of god is defined as infinite, perfect and human nature is finite, flawed. Suffice to say, one cannot be infinite and finite or perfect and imperfect at the same time. That is a logical impossibility.

Ok, so how do you know he was right?

THen why did Martin Luther have to take such drastic steps? And how do you know where the "minute detail" line is vis a vis eternal punishment or reward? Bible's got a ton of rules in it, like do you still go to hell for working on Sunday?

Okay, I'm confused again. Is god's word morality? If so, then you don't line up basic morality to anything at all, it's just god's word, full stop, no? It sounds like you're saying "I look at 'basic morality' and say 'that's probably what god meant,'" and not "This is what god said, and therefore it's moral, and I have to follow that."

Right, but it's the same book that the people who, according to you, followed the corrupt version, right? It hasn't been materially revised. I'm just asking for one of two specific answers: Why were they wrong? or Why are you right?

But, this isn't what you're saying earlier: some Christians thought they were being good Christians by following the bible, and you say they weren't, that they were following a corrupt version of Christianity, informed by apparently incorrect interpretations of the bible. 

 All I'm asking is what steps are you taking to ensure you're not following a corrupt version, since you ("good Christian") and they ("bad Christians") share the exact same level of certitude in your conviction. I figure there must be a distinguishing factor between the two. 

Tell me, how did countries turn Christian?

Sure. As the video illustrates the views of anti-racists, it simultaneously supports what I have been telling you as well. I’m not arguing with you, fyi. I’m simply informing you about anti racist ideology.

So if nominally all Christians today would say that their Christianity is founded in truth and they're following the bible, and the people who were involved in things like eliminating pagans were also certain they were following the truth and the bible, then how can one ensure that the current version of Christianity is not corrupt and likely to lead to suboptimal outcomes? Just to help so you're not trying to speak for anyone else, can you tell me specifically how you are sure that your version, the non-denominational version (which is itself one of hundreds of denominations of Christianity) is NOT corrupt. What about yours makes yours "better" or "truer", that I can see and say "yes, that makes sense."

It doesn't really make sense why a perfect being can't mingle with the less-than-perfect beings. Would Yahweh become imperfect by proximity or temptation? Is sacrificing a son really something a perfect being would do? After Jesus walked among sinners, wouldn't he have been tainted and barred from heaven as well?

Do you think it's fair to say that most if not all Christians today,  when asked, would say they're following the word of god via the bible and various teachings?

But that's not what they thought at the time, right? In other words, they probably ALSO thought this version of Christianity was "imbedded in truth", which is a bit of a confusing phrase, I think you mean founded in. But more importantly, how do you know the version you're following is in fact the one that's founded on truth? What makes yours right, and, say, an Episcopalian or Catholic tradition NOT true?

Christianity single-handedly almost wiped out the pagan religions of eastern and western Europe

Guys act "feminine" all the time, yes, even old European monarchs. You don't care, do you?

Christians love going after other religions and wiping them out. This is why Christians are always calling things they hate a "religion".

Just like straight men tend to be attracted to a certain type of woman gay men are attracted to certain type of men. Gay men want to have sex with men because they have penises not because they're feminine or masculine. Just like lesbians are attracted to each other because they don't have penises.

If you think about it Jesus seemed a bit gay. He liked to spend a lot of time around men and he’s often portrayed as having long hair. 

Addressed in post 7. Virtually nothing disproves white supremacy. Try asking an anti-racist “How could white supremacy be falsified” or “If white supremacy were to end, how would you know?”

The point of this discussion is to debate its principals. Your entire case to this point is to argue that the left is violating free speech which leads to the conclusion that the left is willing to do away with the constitution. But what you are calling free speech is not constitutional, at all. So your conclusion isn’t just erroneous, it’s completely backwards. It’s the right that has demonstrated a disregard for the actual principals of the constitution, so if anything it’s the right that should be the concern.

It means no one individual or entity is silencing you. Facebook does not get to decide whether you have a platform on Twitter.

If no one out there wants to hear what you have to say, then that is a decision made by society itself. And guess what… society does get to choose. That’s what free speech means, because if everyone has the right to free speech then everyone gets a say in what speech they consider acceptable. Everyone gets a say in whether they want to be subjected to your views. And if everyone decides they do not want to hear what you have to say, then you still get to say it, but no one has to listen. No one has to read it. No one has to hear it. That’s a collective choice everyone has.

Once again; society does not owe you a platform. What is so difficult about this?

Provide one example of the government “using the media” to silence opposing views.

Name one thing that's illegal that people actually don't engage in because of that. Prisons are full of people who break laws. From minor traffic infractions, to taxes, through a variety of misdemeanors and felonies up to murder. Abortion was illegal before Roe v Wade and people still did them. Whether on their own or through doctors. To say because something is illegal nobody will engage in it is the most childish view of the world I've ever heard. You really need to admit you just hate women you fucking can't stand that they have a right to their own decision making. You have on numerous occasions excuse the male behavior in this whole equation. You have made it illegal for women and doctors to engage in the activity with while giving men a pass. You're not even willing to allow women to take a pill the day after they have sex so that they don't have the egg attached and get pregnant. You are a woman hating pig.

I’ve proven you wrong here in the forum. There is no need to repeat myself  on the debate side. On the abortion issue you lose. Same as others have proven you wrong on the religious topics you brought up too. Those are two areas you simply have a lot to learn. 

As for other topics, you appear to be holding your own. But when it comes to abortion and religion. You couldn’t carry a bedpan of piss without spilling it. So jsut give it a rest, youngling. 

“Nature” doesn’t intend anything, it just is.

And death isn’t an error, it’s a natural process.

The same goes for birth control. It’s all convenient.

They both knew the risks and they both chose to murder.  ‘deciding to Let the baby go.’ Is that what you call it when it’s convenient. 

Christianity is the acceptance that certain comparatively recent middle Eastern fantasy tales explain the GOD concept.

Which they don't. They are just very naive and exaggerated  stories about human beings.

God knew how everything would play out before he created the universe. there are countless problems with the biblical narrative when God’s eternal, omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent.

Sexual education isn't just about the mechanics of pregnancy. It's about safe sexual practices in general.

This doesn't explain much to me. 

Why don't you start by "explaining"  to me why god created anything in the first place?  See where we go from there.

Did God know that Adam and Eve were going to sin?

If so, does this imply they had no free will in their choice?

How could Adam and Eve known that eating the fruit was wrong if they had no knowledge of good and evil?

Do you know anything about history? Death has always been a part of being pregnant. I’m sure they knew the risks back then too.

Because you’re letting a mother murder her baby when she should know the risks.

Ha ha ha ha!! Hey, dumbass. We have been over this before and I’ve proven you wrong time and  time again. When will you ever learn, child!!! 

She chose to have sex though. She should be willing to die to birth a baby. 

You’re the one that’s arguing for convenience.

Are you looking for dating tips?

Andrew Tate acts pretty masculine, so does vin diesel. Lots of examples of masculine gay men. 

It's a big deal, you guys can celebrate twice.

Even if she new the risks of having sex?

It is circumstantial. You just said it would be the mothers choice to murder a baby.

Secondly, I would say that came down to who I was with to my knowledge the issue never came up. I certainly wasn't aware of it as a child. If I was with my grandparents then they had complete authority, with my aunts the same or with my parents. It never became an issue because there was trust in the family. My parents never restricted what any of my family could say or do with me. They never had to, because they knew the family could be trusted with my care. (As I got older I don't think my mother was too happy about her mum's spiritualism, but that was something I was surprised to realise in discussion with my mother as an adult)

Firstly, you never answered my question, what happens when the mother and father have different beliefs or principles? This was certainly the case with my parents. Doesn't this lead to as confused a child? Why does a third person change that?

I’m not endorsing anti-racist ideology; I’m telling you how this tragedy does not contradict anti-racist ideology and its concept of white supremacy.

 The police uniform is but one of the manifestations of white supremacy.

In anti-racist ideology, this tragedy isn’t black on black; it’s blue on black. The police uniform is but one of the manifestations of white supremacy. White people are not even required for white supremacy to function.

When the viable fetus is birthed. 

You make things illegal to try and prevent people doing them. It doesn't always work. Prohibition is evidence of this.

And how accurate were these numbers in regards to illegal abortions in Texas? How many abortions happen that never get added to the published tallies?

I asked about life rather than if it was a human being. To elaborate on the position. When is the embryo alive and more pressingly when does personhood start?

I'm under no obligation to do so. You made the statement.

This was your assertion. The mention to Prohibition directly contradicts this. If you wish to assert that making abortions illegal would lower the abortion rate then you're welcome to prove that assertion. I'm not convinced and I outright disagree with your claim that making something illegal makes instances of that thing go down.

Got any way of supporting this with facts and evidence? Or is it simply your opinion?