Total posts: 2,082
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Your statement implies you think children should be kept away from gay people, full stop, is that accurate?
"Since most of the clergy is gay" is what you wrote. This would make the "gay" part the important bit. Unsurprisingly, this ignores how many girls have been abused by clergy, and not just women clergy.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
Then what's the point of a Drag Show?
To demonstrate that no matter how someone identifies their own gender, they are not an inherent threat to anyone or anything, they don't impinge on society in some way, they're not to be feared, they're just people like everyone else. The idea is not TOLERANCE, it's ACCEPTANCE. This country is about your freedom to do as you please, provided "as you please" doesn't illegally encroach on "as I please." If that "as you please" included identifying and living your life as a gender other than the one you were born with, then who cares, literally, at all. Demonstrating this to children helps them understand that a person = a person. It's not to show your butthole to a child or somehow "pedophilia" which is a category error. A show is a show. A "philia" is an affinity or desire or compulsion.
I promise you, though, per capita more children have been abused by clergy in the last year than have been abused at drag shows in the last hundred. Do you also get equally disgusted by priests and churches? Should we, as a society, ban children from going to church, because of how much abuse, DOCUMENTED and legally adjudicated, there has been over the last let's just take 50 years?
Created:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
Because I have faith. And I have experienced God's presence. Can you prove God doesn't exist? No, no you can't. I can ask the same question.
Can you prove that I don't ride an invisible rhino to work? Basing your belief on your belief seems an unlikely path to truth.
Created:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
People perceive things in different ways, but it doesn't make those perceptions right.
Very true. How are you reasonably certain that yours are right and mine are wrong? Or, do you simply concede that your perception is as likely to be errant as the next guy's and move on?
Created:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
if there were actual evidence, then we wouldn't need faith, proving the bible to be false.
This is some serious mental gymnastics: if any supernatural claim in the bible could be proven factual, it would somehow...invalidate the bible...?
Who says there's nothing new to say on this topic, I guess.
Can you talk about some "things" that "point to" the "idea of God / Jesus"?
Created:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
He's asking which version OF CHRISTIANITY, not reality.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
So you're admitting the legitimacy of Christianity, by comparing it to the moon?
Mmmm, close...I'm saying the moon and Christianity share similar levels of global exposure, and do not seem to need additional "awareness" to the tune of 7M dollars.
There aren't any different versions, just different denominations.What don't you understand about this?
Well, I don't understand your interpretation of the verse, considering I've always heard it used when trying to inspire Christians to actually DO stuff and not just claim to be Christians. You need faith AND WORKS, according to the many interpretations of this verse I've heard. Yours is the one that's different, I'm wondering why, and why anyone should share your understanding, I'm waiting for you to help explain it.
Also I don't understand why there are denominations.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Do you think it's ok to have female stripper story hour?
Please elucidate the educational value and we can discuss, but if the implication is that a stripper gets naked while telling stories to children, then no, and no one thinks so. Working up a straw man, I see.
Created:
-->
@n8nrgim
Eh, not really. This has been done in at least one other thread that you yourself started, I believe.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
Have you been to an actual drag show?
Created:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
Exactly my point. How is he going to condemn the Bible when he doesn't even understand it. I am have, and still am studying it. I understand some, but still not all.
So how do you know he's wrong? In other words, how do you condemn his position as incorrect when you raise the same objection? Seems like he's studied it quite a bit to me. Maybe he even speaks Hebrew, which would definitely put him closer to the orignial text than a translated manuscript that you picked on personal preference. A preference, by the way, which rests largely on the words that you are reading, and not on accuracy.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
Tell that to this new generation that is learning things all online these days.
"Online" = "The Media"?
I did tell this new generation. You're the new generation. What are you talking about, what am I going to do about people using the greatest information tool humanity has ever known?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
AGAIN, I am calling out BOTH sides of the political isle
I know you're still in school, but jesus christ man, it's an AISLE. You've done it twice.
And when CNN "accidentally cuts out" every time Christianity is brought up.
Yes, Christianity, the largest religion in America, the cards are really stacked against it.
And whos gonna teach you that?The media?See the problem here?
"The media" is not a teaching tool. Critical thinking is critical thinking, I hope your school offers a course on it. Not a coarse.
Created:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
How do you know what the Bible meant.
What's your answer to this question that would be substantively different than his answer?
In every version of the Bible, the mention of Mary being a virgin is in it. It might not be on the exact same scripture, but they do say it.
Well, not in the original Hebrew text one. Rosends points it out above.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
"Sending" and "taking" are not the same thing, but okay.
Does anyone have sex with the 8 year old at the show? Does anyone jerk off at the show? Are the children made to blow each other?
If the answer to any of these is no, then no, it's not the same. Pedophilia has nothing inherently to do with drag shows and vice versa.
Created:
Posted in:
"Sending" as opposed to "taking them"?
What definition of pedophilia are you using? How old are the kids being sent to these shows?
Created:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
Ok, so which version of the bible is the right version to use? How does one decide?
Was Jesus's mom a virgin until Jesus (who is Immanuel?) was born?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
Why Christianity specifically?
Because it struck me as odd, I've never seen a commercial for the biggest religion on earth (a claim many Christians make). It's like making a commercial for the moon. I guess I'm alone in thinking that there are more Jesus-y ways to spend 7M dollars, and that it doesn't seem likely to me at all that there's any return on investment here for Jesus. I don't think there's a large population of near-Christians who are watching the superbowl and this ad puts them over the top. How many could there be? 500? 1000?
Will the ad be for the right version of Christianity, do you think? how will you know? How can I know?
So, how do I know your interpretation of the Matthew verse is correct, and not what so many experts have said (that it means you can't get in on faith and faith alone, that you need to have acts too)? Seems a pretty big bet, given the stakes, no?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
I'm in no way threatened by whatever this ad campaign is for, but thanks for your concern. I'm curious as to why Christians think it'd be necessary, given the scope of god's alleged powers and the amount of money involved that could go to more nominally Christian pursuits.
So, Gay...ever tried it? is fine, but Christian...ever tried it? is apparently not?
Huh? There's no commercial for being gay.
But even Coca Cola commercials are the same way.
Fair point, but this is in an effort to gain an advantage on their competitors.
Created:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
One of the women is a virgin, the other is a young woman. A young woman giving birth is in no way news, it's been going on a while. A virgin giving birth without having sex is quite another matter. How can you not see the difference? It seems intellectually dishonest of you to pretend they're the same thing.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
Apologies, it wasn't Timothy, it's Matthew 7:16.
I could ask the same question, in why other movements like the LGBTQ+ movement has advertisements in events like this. Shouldn't they be helping the kids who are "confused" and need gender reassignment surgery?
I do not know what you're talking about, and I bet neither do you. Pretty sure the movement you're so obsessed with is not planning a superbowl commercial that basically says "Gay...ever tried it?"
It's interesting that you think a TV commercial that lasts 30 seconds, for a product literally everyone in this country has heard of, a massive number of people already believe in, would be somehow more practical than taking $6M to some community service. I guess we agree to disagree, I'd rather give someone a meal than say "Hey, ever heard of this guy literally everyone's heard of?"
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
Why are you saying it like its a threat to humanity?
I'm not saying it like it's a threat to humanity, I'm just curious why the use of funds to advertise for JEsus when (a) everyone's heard of Jesus and (b) that money can be put to use in soup kitchens or homeless shelters, I mean it's a superbowl ad. It's not 5M$. It's nine figures.
We don't get to God, by works (doing things to show our love) but by faith
Did you ever come up with your interpretation of TImothy 7:16, by your works shall ye be known? Because faith alone isn't enough according to a LOT of Christians. Of course, to the same amount it IS enough. If only there was a way to know which side is right!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
So you think there's a large population of people who haven't heard of Jesus that are watching the superbowl?
And my question was why does god need anyone to demonstrate their love for him, essentially, but we can skip it, there's no sensible answer.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
He is omnipotent, so yea, he does.
So then why does he need someone to demonstrate if their love is "true" or not? Couldn't he already know?
Does god need the advertisement? Was it part of his plan, do you think? It just strikes me as strange I guess.
I didn't mention missionary work, not sure what that's for.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
Does god know if your love for him is true or not even before you're born?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
So you think it's to raise awareness of Christianity? Who's trying to 'cancel' Christianity? Just seems a strange tactic when there are so many Christians already, and it's not like no one's heard of Jesus by now.
One might say couldn't Jesus save these folks the money and just, you know, appear to everyone like we've all heard he's going to? It's kinda like the tithe thing, if it's that important wouldn't Jesus have direct deposit, just take it right off the top?
Created:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
Martin Luther looked at a book with no contradictions to its teaching, and called out the contradictions to that book from the church and exposed them.
Yes, but how do you know what he was 'calling out' was correct? And if it was correct, why are there post-Luther denominations and disagreements (Calvin, for example) in the same religion?
The different interpretations that are different, from other believers that still line up with the bible, are perfectly fine.
How do you determine if the interpretation of the believers lines up with the bible, and more to the point, these believers all believe the same thing about you: they're right and YOU'RE wrong. What is the disconnect here?
No I said minute details, that don't contradict the bible don't matter.
Can you give me an example of one that doesn't matter, as opposed to one that does? I presume there's a difference.
Contradiction or defiance of Gods word is what causes the problem.
Well, so say you, but others have exactly the same faith that they're right. Some of them aren't even Christians. How can we sort this out?
If there is someone who is claiming that they are Christian, and they say," don't think anything you do at all matters, and you're either in or out of heaven when you're born, predetermined." then they are not Christians.
Actually they're Calvinists. And plenty of new evangelical Christians subscribe to the "once saved always saved" philosophy, that says once you've accepted Jesus into your heart you're going to heaven, doesn't matter if you decide to take the lord's name in vain after that. Soooooo...who's right and how do I know?
There are no different versions of Christianity, only one. The only differences between the denominations, is that they have differences between little minute details that don't contradict or go against Gods word.
Ok, so there's no differences between the DIFFERENT denominations I guess. Well, then what do you think these denominations are meant to accomplish? BEcause I know Christians personally who will tell you that Catholics are wrong and are at grave risk for eternal peril because of it. If it doesn't matter, then why do people go to churches at all?
Could I get the verse of that by chance? I need context for it.
Matthew 7:16-20. It's part of the sermon on the mount, and is often interpreted as "you will be known as a Christian because of the things you do and say." BEfore you tell me that's incorrect interpretation, please provide substantiation to that end. As I recall, Martin Luther wasn't big on having the preisthood be the single authority on the word of god, and that regular people are able to read it and interpret it without that 'layer' between them and the almighty, so it should be pretty clear.
Created:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
Ok, so how do you know he was right?....because when he read the bible, and saw that it didn't line up with what the preachers were preaching, then he called them out.
Yes, you mentioned this, which is why I asked the question, which your response doesn't answer. How do you know what HE saw in the bible was right? You already said there's a lot of different interpretations of the bible (all those denominations, for one), but not all of them (perhaps most of them) are wrong and potentially dangerous, corrupt. So what makes someone sure that Martin Luther was right? If he was, wouldn't there only be, arguably, Catholicism and LUTHERANISM? That there isn't means that others see what Martin Luther did or said and decided "That's not quite right, I mean it's closer, but not quite. I'll start a denomination that solves this, then I'll be right." I ask again, what makes you sure that interpretation is right and not corrupt?
Also I would recommend reading the bible before making assumptions like that.
That the bible is replete with rules is not an assumption, and I've read it. My question on the minute details isn't about Martin Luther though, you said the minute details don't really matter:
it doesn't matter the little minute details that you choose to believe, as long as it lines up with the main truth.
My question here is where does the line go from 'little detail' to 'major problem,' like if you don't follow say 3 of the 10 commandments, is that too many? How do you know it doesn't matter, is my question. Some versions of Christianity don't think anything you do at all matters, and you're either in or out of heaven when you're born, predetermined. Why are they wrong?
Our belief is not based on works or actions.
So you're not a big believer in "by your fruits shall ye be known?" Is that me interpreting it wrong?
Created:
Martin Luther, read the bible, realized that what the church was preaching was against the bible,
Ok, so how do you know he was right?
As long as you have the basic belief of Christianity, it doesn't matter the little minute details that you choose to believe, as long as it lines up with the main truth.
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?
Following Gods word, and lining it up to basic morality.
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."
Created:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
I know the Bible isn't corrupt, because there are no contradictions in the Bible.
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?
The different denominations of Christianity are not wrong. The different denominations are there to represent the different ways people express Gods word and how they interoperate the Bible.
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.
Created:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
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."
Created:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
Because non-denominational Christians like myself use the word of God (the Bible) to guide us through life, and Gods teachings.
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?
Created:
Posted in:
So during the football games, I've seen a number of ads for some organization that's apparently advertising for Jesus. My question to Christians, why, in your view, do people spend ad dollars to advertise for Jesus? Simple question.
Created:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
This was a corrupt version of Christianity, that wasn't imbedded in truth
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?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
This is strictly for hamburgers, I guess? Or do you have an idea how to make a chicken into 0.5% plant based?
Created:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
And to suggest you need 200 years to determine the impact of any given economic policy is just ludicrous.
Seriously. And good luck finding a voter who would ever think "Yeah, but what does this mean for my kitchen table in 200 years?"
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
It would be like searching for the Devil in the Vatican.
I'm not sure this is the best comp, given both the opulence of the place itself and its insane amount of money (not what anyone in the bible preached about, accumulating wealth was anathema to the heroes of the tale), not to mention the nefarious history of the Catholic church and how many child molesters they've sheltered and promoted over the years. Kinda feel like if he existed, that'd probably be a good place to start, this giant golden palace that serves as a den of child molesters and their enablers!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Which has nothing to do with the forced expatriation of Americans who don't toe some line on Cuba. There's nothing about saving democracy in it. Why don't you start the topic you want to talk about? Or, alternatively, if we all collectively admit you're way smarter than everyone here, and only you and your squad of internet avengers can see the REAL problems, while the rest of us sheeple do the bidding of The Man, would you be satisfied enough to disappear? Pretty sure that's all you really want, to be recognized as some sagacious wit whose genius has been largely unrecognized, right? You're not a problem solver, and you're not super good at making an argument, so would that long sought validation be sufficient?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Just so I'm clear, you are not proposing a solution or making an argument pertinent to the topic at hand, you'd just rather post links and complain either implicitly (as here) or explicitly, that's the aim, right?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
the Cubans that move here would assilimination and learn English.
Irony alert.
And are you really for forced relocation of Americans based on what, a committee (comprised of: TBD)'s assessment of your ideology? Can you please illuminate the zeal with which one can 'defend' Cuba without getting forcibly relocated? What's the due process look like? Or are we just scrapping all American ideals and deciding "You liked a pro-Cuba post on facebook you faggity commy lib, hope you enjoy toiling on old cars and rolling cigars" is our overall domestic policy?
Honestly, sometimes I read things and think "How did this person answer "Yes" to the "are you sure" prompt after re-reading what they wrote?" Your post is one of those times. Remember, you don't HAVE to share every quarter baked idea with the universe, it's okay to let them sit for a while.
Edit: I'm curious what country you think all of the anti-democracy conservatives should be forced to go live in.
Created:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
Can you tell me more specifically what the "agenda" is? Because literally no gay person I know says "We need to get more sex toys into the hands of children, let's get together and work on that." Also, please specify what you mean by "sexualizing our kids."
I'm all for pulling pornorgraphic content from school libraries, and banning the bible from same on those grounds.
Is the prosthetic thing the reason for your objection? Let's imagine for a moment that the woman's ginormous boobs are REAL, not prosthetic. How would you address this issue, is it an attire issue? What if she just had a really like BEYONCE + JLO level ass and she just couldn't get professional slacks that didn't show off her wonderful figure? Should they have to change professions?
You're pointing out positions that most people would disagree with, or at least writing your headlines this way, for a reason I can't understand. The LGTBQ+ agenda, such as it is, is that they want equal rights and to be treated the same as straight couples. I don't know why that would make you uncomfortable, it has nothing to do with you. Shouldn't you be in school, you know, playing with a sex toy the state issued you while you thumb through the rampant pornos in your school library?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
I would try hard to resist the urge to abuse the privilege modern society bestows upon me due to my skin color.
Can you expound on this, specifically?
Created:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
If anyone is free to be anything they wanted to be, then what is stopping the government from using that to their advantage, to take advantage of the American people's freedom and rights.Society is threatened. Society is based in language. If we can just change language at will, then what is stopping people from changing.... oh idk, the US constitution? Then all of the rules and laws that the most successful country has run on to become successful, could be changed completely to something that could destroy what we have.
Can you please draw me the straight line from "the definition of woman in the Cambridge dictionary" to "the entire American way of life unravels"? Take advantage of freedom and rights in what SPECIFIC way? Where has this happened and how?
Society isn't based on language. And you realize every single Supreme Court decision is literally based on a handful of people's interpretation of language? This is how we ended up with corporations being treated as individuals and dark money in elections.
he movement itself, and the government pushing it through the media, does scare me, because it is causing the indoctrination of children, and hurting the new generation specifically. The new definition of woman comes mostly from the LGBTQ+ movement.
"Indoctrination," can you please define what it is specifically you're worried about children learning?
They deny all of the people who have transitioned, and have warned people to stop.They deny the level of sexualization of kids in school.They deny gender transition surgery to be irreversible.They deny all of the evil things that the left has done to push this agenda.
I don't deny a small fraction of those who've undergone a transition regret it down the road, but that could be said also of people who've gotten breast implants, butt implants, or lip fillers. What agenda is it that these people are indoctrinating our children with, and do you rail similarly against them? Furthermore, do you not believe that a person's body (an adult) is their own to treat as they please, or should government actively get involved with elective surgery decisions? Do you recognize that some people find a tremendous amount of relief and happiness post transition (many more than regret it)?
What does "level of sexualization" mean, before I can address it.
"Pushing this agenda" refers to what? Is the government telling everyone to get gender reassignment surgeries? Or the left?
Created:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
And if we are just changing language at will, then what is to stop others for changing it for their benefit in a not so nice way?
Please provide an example of such a potential hazard, like a practical one that might be next if we decide that a person can call themselves a man or woman according to their own preference. What happens that ruins or even affects your day to day? What is threatened? What thread in the very fabric of a civil society unravels? No one is telling YOU you have to identify in any way, you're free to be whatever you think you are.
I don't feel offended by this in any way, but I'm pretty sure all of the sane women out there are very offended with this new update, and they should be.
Well, you do feel some sort of way about it, you stated a topic, so if it isn't offended, it sounds more like you're afraid. My wife is sane and doesn't give a shit what anyone else identifies as. Can you offer anything I can tell her to convince her she should be offended or terrified?
I swear, the obsession on the right with genitals is just straight bizarre. Particularly with children's genitals. Every accusation is truly a confession, they say!
Created:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
I have to echo Double R here...so what? Like what about the way this word is defined changes your day to day life in such a way that it generates some sort of offended feeling inside you? I presume there's a corresponding definition of the word "man", yet somehow I don't give a shit. And whoever you think "THEY" are (illuminati? jews? who is this nefarious conglomerate?), the dictionary doesn't come up with definitions and impose them, it merely catalogues the ways words are used at a given point in time. It's descriptive, not prescriptive.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
Well, I did graduate from Harvard and MIT. My thinking is along the lines of Stephen Hawking.
Hey, nice! Then you know what plagiarism is, right?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
The only way this is possible is if there is more mass in the outer parts of galaxies than we can observe. The fact that we are unable to see this mass, because it is not emitting light, suggests the presence of dark matter.
Again I know what you're saying, but a theist is very likely to respond to this the same way you or I might respond to the explanation for the unconventional behavior of the galaxies if it were posited thus:
Scientists discovered that the stars were not behaving in the way anticipated. They found that the stars farther away from the center were moving much faster than predicted. The only way this is possible is if there is more mass in the outer parts of galaxies than we can observe. The fact that we are unable to see this mass, because it is not emitting light, suggests the presence of god, holding it together via divine will.
If we can't see it and we don't have any way to really confirm it, we can only theorize about it, then I have to follow my conviction that the time to believe in something is when there's good evidence to support it, not before. For me, that means I can't say 'dark matter definitely exists.' Though the dark matter theories are supported by evidence, they are not in any way enough to change someone's pre-determined stance on the matter.
Also, please cite the source of your post, just to avoid the appearance of trying to be an authority on something. https://kids.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/frym.2021.576034
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
That argument requires a level of understanding of gravitational theory that's pretty uncommon in order for it to be compelling, though, to be fair. I don't have it and while I wikipedia'd dark matter to see what it was about, I didn't bother with it because the proper explanation of the underlying theories takes too long and won't move anyone, besides it's immaterial to the OP. :)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SirAnonymous
Change in human opinions of morality has nothing to do with whether there is an objective standard. Morality is not rooted in humans.
Please demonstrate your evidence to this end. If morality is not rooted in humans, then what is it rooted in?
If there is an objective standard for morality, then it wouldn't change, so why does the age matter?
Please show me the objective standard for morality and I can answer. Don't assert it, though, I'm asking you to point me to it so I can ask my moral questions of this standard and get my definitive, inarguable (because it is objective) answers.
The punishment for sin has been paid by God's Son... And if the prisoner says, "I don't believe the judge and his pardon exist", will he be set free?
So, Jesus was not guilty of any sins, and every other person on earth was, because of Adam, right? If Jesus isn't guilty, Adam was, and the entire world population (or, local Hebrews, YMMV) are sinners, morality would dictate the punishment falls on...the only guy who isn't guilty and that somehow absolves everyone ever? I'm sorry, can you please walk me through the morality of this decision? If a judge decides you're guilty of a crime in a court of law, and decides to punish a person you've never met before, is that just and moral? And the answer to the question is yes, if he's pardoned, he will be set free even if he doesn't believe the pardon or the judge exists.
Everyone is offered a pardon for what they've done.
Isn't everyone offered a pardon for what ADAM did?
I don't think He is ever surprised.
Ok, so if he's never surprised, he has a plan, is that fair to say? And everything goes according to it, we cannot act outside of the will of god, is that also fair to say?
Created: