Monday, February 19, 2018

Dr. Tony Evans: "The Cause & Effect Relationship"


You might also read our article:  



20 comments:

  1. R SILLY, or whoever you are...get a LIFE, hopefully in Jesus and take your BOGUS repetitive and already refuted arguments somewhere to someone that knows no better...You're is UTTER garbage and unworthy of any study...such a crock of garbage it's pathetic!!!!!!

    Thank you!!!

    ReplyDelete
  2. Here is a small example of what I mean, and BTW R STUPID...I deleted you bogus comments because they are not on topic in any of the posts...you want to argue atheism and why your worldview is GARBAGE, then place the commentary in an atheistic post or a post dealing with atheism...But as stated here is one perverted and out of context supposed declaration that you make against GOd, someone that you don't believe in (isn't that psychotic? To argue against something that isn't real to you?), and his believers...Anyway You said:

    Which according to Gods inerrant and holy word is a source of happiness
    A. Smashing babies against rocks
    B. Reading the bible to blind senior citizens
    C. Donating money to the local orphanage
    D. Feeding the hungry

    The correct answer is A. Psalm 137:9:

    “Happy is the one who seizes your infants and dashes them against the rocks.” Hallelujah. Praise his name.

    According to the Bible, it is Satan who tells men to go through a city and indiscriminately kill people without showing compassion.


    Now, either you didn't pass the "Reading is essential" class or forgot your "reading for dummies" book at Kinkos, either way the whole Psalm is about the atrocities of the Babylonians against a nation of people they turned into slaves and demanded them to be happy...See it was the slave master, the Babylonians, who had already raped the women, castrated the boys, abused and killed the men, ripping families apart that were task masters demanding their captors, the Jews, to do a sing and dance while they were in captivity to make them feel good...In the writers despair, he wishes evil upon his captors, including saying that people who would kill their children would be doing the world a favor, at least their evil would be cut off....

    Now maybe in the infinite lunacy of your worldview, you wish Hitler the best and wish that he faces no penalty except for death in some bunker...In fact his actions are equally worthy of reward as any action or the action of any other...That's what you believe...that there is NO justice....There is no reward for doing good and no penalty for doing evil other than what is exacted by men and mankind...

    Well, your's is UTTER FILTH and plain GARBAGE that is unworthy of a sentient mind...YOU OBVIOUSLY have no mind!!! On in Christ can the captor/victim wish well on the abuser. Psalms 137:9 is to show US, why we NEED JESUS...because we would breath fire on our enemies without HIM in our lives, But Jesus says, love your enemies!!!!

    So, you have no clue what the scripture is even there for yet alone the understanding of the narrative...so PLEASE...get lost, until you become somewhat rational...then I MIGHT have some more interraction with you. Until then...Your Name is R. and you R SILLY!!!!


    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Jesus says love your enemies or he'll torture you forever!!!!!

      hy·poc·ri·sy
      həˈpäkrəsē/Submit
      noun
      noun: hypocrisy; plural noun: hypocrisies
      the practice of claiming to have moral standards or beliefs to which one's own behavior does not conform; pretense.
      synonyms: dissimulation, false virtue, cant, posturing, affectation, speciousness, empty talk, insincerity, falseness, deceit, dishonesty, mendacity, pretense, duplicity;

      Delete
  3. I see you picked the low hanging fruit. The one about god giving instructions on how to make captive women sex slaves and the fact that he never unambiguously forbade rape like he did wearing clothes made of mixed fabrics was just too much for you.

    Yeah that would be a good answer.....except for 1 thing.....god ordered the slaughter of babies all of the time. It wasn't as if that was the only time something like that was mentioned. It was all of the time! So something like that was indeed apart of the bible god's character. And if you'll notice, it isn't Satan doing this or ordering this, it's god, supposedly the good one. In the inerrant word of god, I defy you to find me even half as many passages of Satan either killing, ordering to be killed or inspiring the amount of killings that god does. You can't because they don't exist.

    I see you deleted the rest, obviously because you couldn't refute them without making up some sort of context.

    Just answer these 2 questions for me please:

    1. If I told my wife/girlfriend that the way to show her love is to unquestionably obey me and do anything I tell her, no matter how nonsensical I would reward her by allowing her to worship me and be in the same room as me, but if she disobeyed me, I'd mercilessly torture her, what would you think of me? Would you use words like kind, benevolent and just to describe me? Remember, my wife has freewill and I forewarned her that I would torture her if she disobeyed me, so if she disobeys and I torture her, it's her fault see. I have no choice. The option of NOT torturing her doesn't exist because she disobeyed, by her own freewill and since I said I would torture her, I have to do it. Otherwise, there might be rumblings that I might be a liar and who wants that???

    2. If a dictator claimed he loved his subjects as his own children, but threatened to make them eat their own children if they disobeyed, would you describe this dictator as all loving? Why or why not? What if he had people killed for complaining about not having adequate food and water? What if he killed more people for complaining about his killings? Would you think he was fair, merciful and just?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. First you're laughable, and it is funny!!!! You, more than likely affirm pro-choice and have the NERVE to speak of hypocrisy???? Isn't that a BLIP????

      And Yes, I will continue to delete idiotic ramblings and commentary that has nothing to do with anything...I am accommodating you here because what you are suggesting is "somewhat" to the point.

      You ask, not just ONE question but 2 attempting to "put me to open shame" and cry and fold up my bible claiming that GOd is no good....As I said LAUGHABLE...Let's deal with your so called irrefutable questions/statements...

      1- Talk about "obedience" of your wife/girlfriend(Do you know what she is to you, or maybe that reveals a deeper issue, not to mention by the way, that she is not GOd, but another person like you and me...well not like you I hope!!!) And demanding her to "worship" you...

      FORGET IT...I quit reading the question at that point because it's so RIDICULOUSLY STUPID and incoherent that it makes it impossible to even understand yet alone answer...My question regarding this question is since when would another human demand that another human worship them? Then why would that worship be limited to a woman? You are somewhat of a misogynist or at least so it appears...So the question is incoherent to begin with and full of issues...You didn't create your girlfriend, although I suspect that you just may have BLOWN HER UP....At either rate, you still didn't create her/it/wife/pet rock or whatever you do...So on to NEXT "QUESTION":

      2- A "dictator" loved his subjects as his own children??? Is that even possible...then "threatens" to make them eat their children if they disobeyed, I guess I would have to wonder, is this a cannibalistic society of what??? Then would they be hickory smoked or mesquite??? The object of the question is would I think that is "fair" or "just"...Well, if we're cannibals, maybe! I may feel that all other children but mine are ripe and tasty...So much would depend upon perspective and the condition of the heart now wouldn't it?

      At either rate, your SLOPPY ATTEMPT to link either of these "supposed scenarios" to God and or those that follow him are shoddy at best.

      There is NO RECORDED history or any support for child eating...In fact there is ample support for the fact that God told his people not to do as the 'HEATHEN" (I'm nearly sure you've been called that more than a few times) By not allowing them to experience youth infanticide by being offered to Molech, Baal, Ashtoreth or Astarte, all of which included blood sacrifice of children in worship... Lev. 18:21 ~ You shall not give any of your children to offer them to Molech, and so profane the name of your God: I am the LORD. Then nearly what, 1000 years later Jeremiah states: Jer. 19:5~ and have built the high places of Baal to burn their sons in the fire as burnt offerings to Baal, which I did not command or decree, nor did it come into my mind

      What this reveals is that folk were heard hearted and hard headed and needed a savior to be saved from themselves. That's what all this proves...

      Then Jesus reveals GOd's nature quite wonderfully, although you're lost on that one, Matt. 19:4 ~ but Jesus said, “Let the little children come to me and do not hinder them, for to such belongs the kingdom of heaven.”

      So your little contrived questions/statements don;t really accomplish what you think they do. They really reveal man's stubbornness and unwillingness to listen to and follow truth and right...

      So tell me, should anyone be rewarded or honored for NOT following good instructions or doing the right thing? Since we're in dialogue here and my question is at least coherent, please answer that one for me.


      Delete
    2. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    3. Yahweh speaking in the first person

      Jer. 19:9 I will make them eat the flesh of their sons and daughters, and they will eat one another's flesh during the stress of the siege imposed on them by the enemies who seek their lives.

      Ezek. 5:10 Therefore in your midst fathers will eat their children, and children will eat their fathers. I will inflict punishment on you and will scatter all your survivors to the winds.

      Lev. 26:29 You will eat the flesh of your sons and the flesh of your daughters.

      At best, god repeatedly threatens to make people eat their children, even if he doesn't actually do it. But it is a credible threat coming from a super powered being.

      And of course you won't answer my HYPOTHETICAL questions because you know where I'm going with it.You'd consider me sadistic and immoral if I or any other human being did that, but god does it and it's ok? If a human dictator behaved in the way god did, you'd think he was evil. If I tortured my girlfriend for not obeying me and rewarded her obedience with allowing her to sit in the same room as me and worship me, you'd think I was psychotic.

      Yet that's exactly what god does. A lucky few will be taken to heaven where their job will be to eternally worship him day in and day out while everyone else is tortured for eternity. Even the most sadistic human couldn't possibly torture or force someone to worship him for eternity.

      And please, let not act as if god never approved of child murder. He sends 2 bears to kill 42 kids for calling a prophet baldy. And I know, the typical apologetic turns the little boys into 6' tall teenagers wielding bats, chains and bricks chasing Elisha down. The text clearly says they were little boys not dangerous young adults who wanted to physically harm him. And even if it were adults calling someone baldy, is being torn apart by bears an appropiate punishment?

      2:23 And he went up from thence unto Bethel: and as he was going up by the way, there came forth little children out of the city, and mocked him, and said unto him, Go up, thou bald head; go up, thou bald head.
      2:24 And he turned back, and looked on them, and cursed them in the name of the LORD. And there came forth two she bears out of the wood, and tare forty and two children of them.

      Delete
    4. You said: "And of course you won't answer my HYPOTHETICA"L questions because you know where I'm going with it

      No, you're going nowhere with it...It is not coherent...You didn't create your girlfriend/wife, neither do you command your girlfriend/wife/blowup doll (maybe the later you do) but anyway, it makes no sense!!!

      Now if you create something and it doesn't act or perform as you have programmed it to, then don't you either fix it, or create a new model? See, your question assumes you are divine and have a divine relationship with your girlfriend/wife whatever...that is an incorrect relationship and therefore your question is moot and is not a statement that can be comprehended...

      Now, let's say that you are God, and you created a women to have sex with you or what you call "worship" you, as you suggested, and she doesn't follow her program, what would you do?

      In fact get rid of all the perverted suggestions here...if you program a computer and it doesn't perform as you've programmed it, do you just leave it alone or do you fix it or find a fix, even reprogram it??? God tortured NO ONE and I doubt that you would torture your computer or blow up doll, although it sounds like you may do the latter...

      Now, a person for example, since he or she has libertarian free will, Which is something that even the best materialistic scientists and physicists disagree about, exercises that free will to say, "I DON'T WANT ANYTHING TO DO WITH GOD" and God has said, to have nothing to do with me will lead to "torment" not torture as you say, then WHY would that person be upset when God allows them to experience what they wish???

      You "say" you don;t want God forcing you to do anything...but what you are actually saying is that at the same time you want God to ENDORSE your choice by creating a special place for you and making himself a liar...We'll GOd will not lie!!!

      YOU are the one who said, you don't want him, then why would he force you to be saved and with him???

      So far as the Bear story...you have no clue and I'm tired...But my question is, do you think that bad choices, decisions and behavior should receive good rewards? If so, why be good at all?

      Delete
    5. God threatens to torture people eternally in hell if they are disobedient or don't believe, get a clue. He plainly says he'll cast people into a lake of fire so they'll burn alive forever without being able to die. This is in your scripture!!! This isn't just some ominous "separation from god". Does your book say or not say that people will be "cast into a lake of fire"??? Even if I didn't "want to be with him" why is the only alternative to be tortured by being burned alive. This is what it's like to be burned alive and this is what your loving god is proposing to do to the majority of humanity, except they won't die, they'll perpetually burn.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ta8Om5lfOeQ

      So even if someone "chooses not to be with god" why can't I choose that without being tortured for eternity? And why do those who "choose to be with god" have to perpetually worship him day in and day out for eternity?

      Delete
  4. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I like how you take these verses

      Matt. 19:4 ~ but Jesus said, “Let the little children come to me and do not hinder them, for to such belongs the kingdom of heaven.

      Lev. 18:21 ~ You shall not give any of your children to offer them to Molech, and so profane the name of your God: I am the LORD.

      As meaning exactly what they say on the page.No talk about "out of context" if I interpret those verses exactly as they are written on the page.

      But if I interpret these verses exactly as they are written on the page, then it's "out of context".

      Jer. 19:9 I will make them eat the flesh of their sons and daughters, and they will eat one another's flesh during the stress of the siege imposed on them by the enemies who seek their lives.

      Hosea 13:16 (God obviously IS pro choice)
      16 The people of Samaria must bear their guilt,
      because they have rebelled against their God.
      They will fall by the sword;
      their little ones will be dashed to the ground,
      their pregnant women ripped open.”

      1 Samuel 15:3 Another god commanded genocide
      3 Now go and attack Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and do not spare them. But kill both man and woman, infant and nursing child, ox and sheep, camel and donkey

      2 Kings 15:16 (God does nothing to stop it, unlike when people looked into the ark, god was on it then)
      16 At that time Menahem, starting out from Tirzah, attacked Tiphsah and everyone in the city and its vicinity, because they refused to open their gates. He sacked Tiphsah and ripped open all the pregnant women.

      Delete
  5. R Stupid,

    You are a BUCKSHOT atheist and what has to be done is to slow you down and deal with one issue at a time. I know you don't like this, because: that means you will be forced to assert your assertions.

    First, the bible records a lot of things and events. It is a book of history. It also records divine commands and consequences of failure as well as rewards for those who follow...Since you are good at mentioning the consequences of failure, moreso than the rewards of following, and you think that each scripture is reconciled the same because you also believe they were written at the same times in history, that is your first mistake....

    For example, Jer. 9:19...You say that is proof o God's lust for the blood of children...OK, What was Jeremiah referring to? (Why must we do a bible study with every atheist that thinks he has found something that millions of people didn't know over the years??? Shhheeesh!!!)

    After YEARS of abundant blessings and being a solid nation among nations and being told what not to do, for generations Israel violated God's commands and spit in his face. They did just what they were told not to do, which included abusing children, killing them and doing their own thing...that was their lust...How do I know because what you evidently don't read or can't read means something...something like CONTEXT...What God saw was this:

    Jer. 9:4 ~5 4-Because they have forsaken me, and have estranged this place, and have burned incense in it unto other gods, whom neither they nor their fathers have known, nor the kings of Judah, and have filled this place with the blood of innocents; 5-They have built also the high places of Baal, to burn their sons with fire for burnt offerings unto Baal, which I commanded not, nor spake it, neither came it into my mind:

    In other words, you like the blood of innocents..when your judgment comes those who dominate you will eat the blood of the innocents...This metaphorical language as we don't see any evidence that the Babylonians were cannibals or ate their children or any children for that matter. Although they did not regard life at all, and were even worse than those who originally occupied the land...

    Of course Hosea prophesied contemporaneously with Jeremiah, so why would his message be different??? Because the people had rebelled, the enemies came in and did what they would do, whether metaphorically or actually, the future of the nation would be dashed. The fruit of the womb would be disregarded by those that judged Israel...

    PRETTY SIMPLE TO UNDERSTAND!!!! So what is it? It is the pronouncement of judgement after years, hundreds if not thousands of years of being told to get right...

    Now, what is better...the ability to continue in evil without consequence, or to end evil by consequence and judgement?

    Answer that as I'll not allow another silly convoluted commentary to come through without you actually responding to an argument for a change...

    ReplyDelete
  6. Robert, (is your middle name Sylvester?) you deleted your commentary, but I actually liked this one:

    Who said I'm an atheist, I just quoted the bible, that's all. The bible says what it says whether I'm an atheist or not. Yeah, after slaughtering the girls families, I'm pretty sure that they had a choice in the marriage....it wasn't a "will you marry me" it was more like "marry me or die"! You really think they wanted to marry the men who just massacred all of their friends and relatives with swords, knives and spears? What do you think would've happened if the girl refused to marry him and refused to have sex with him? Her moments on this earth would've been numbered.

    You can delete my comments all you like but we both know the truth and we both know what the bible says. If it were Satan commanding and approving of these things, you'd use those verses as proof he as evil....but since it's god it just causes so much cognitive dissonance that it makes you mad when someone points it out!


    Like you said, whether and atheist or not, you certainly can't read and you make great leaps of conjecture and have no clue of the culture in which these people lived. It would have been worse for women to be left without the protection of a man or family. A women on her own had what would have been called no "covering" and would certainly be abused, misused and killed.

    The scripture you quoted made the man not only take care of her, by shaving her head (so it could now grow with care) pare her nails, which means to give her a manicure or to make her look nice, but also to give her RIGHTS to do as she saw fit with her future...no rape or kill her...See you have to have guidance to read that text and get it wrong and most illiterate GOd and bible haters, who claim to be reading it, are not reading it...They are placing their thoughts on the text claiming that the man is somehow carrying off the woman on his shoulders as some kind of spoil and is placing her in a cage for his perverted midnight runs or peeing sessions...THAT IS NOT what the scripture says and or teaches to do...

    So yea, you quoting, but you have no clue and your handlers, with all that weed you been smoking, have led you wrong and astray...

    Then you "assume" that if the women resisted she would be dealt with unfairly or abusively...That may be what you do when they want to leave that compound, but that is not what the text says...the text says...

    Deut 21:14 ~ And it shall be, if thou have no delight in her, then thou shalt let her go whither she will; but thou shalt not sell her at all for money, thou shalt not make merchandise of her, because thou hast humbled her.

    IF you don't get along and she doesn't want you, (LET HER OUT OF THE HOUSE AND SEND HER HOME-ooh wait) Then she can leave, but she is not to be sold...kinda DEBUNKS that slave argument doesn't it? You will not embarrass her among people because you have "humbled her" or made her to be shamed as a divorcee.

    In other words treat her with respect, not FORCE her to do anything including having sex or get peed on, or be tied up for money or anything else...

    How's that ROBERT???

    ReplyDelete
  7. *Like you said, whether and atheist or not, you certainly can't read and you make great leaps of conjecture and have no clue of the culture in which these people lived. It would have been worse for women to be left without the protection of a man or family. A women on her own had what would have been called no "covering" and would certainly be abused, misused and killed. *

    Problem is, you're putting constraints on an all powerful and all knowing diety. If this is the best solution an all knowing and all powerful diety can come up with, he obviously isn't such. And why does he have to follow the rules of whatever culture that happens to be in that time period? Gay marriage is more or less part of modern day western culture, yet according to fundamentalist christians, god isn't in a hurry to bend over backwards to accomodate that cultural norm. One hundred and fifty plus years ago, slavery was part of the culture, was god in agreement with that (well, actually according to the bible yes) I know you'll say he wasn't.

    *but also to give her RIGHTS to do as she saw fit with her future*

    BS! Show where it even implies that!

    *They are placing their thoughts on the text claiming that the man is somehow carrying off the woman on his shoulders as some kind of spoil and is placing her in a cage for his perverted midnight runs or peeing sessions*

    That's exactly what it's saying. We both know that she could not just refuse. She had to do what she was told or die. For all practical purposes, she was a sex slave. The only rule put on it was that if the man got tired of her, he couldn't sell her as a slave and he had to make sure she was clothed and fed, which considering the circumstances, is the least he could do.

    *IF you don't get along and she doesn't want you, (LET HER OUT OF THE HOUSE AND SEND HER HOME-ooh wait) Then she can leave, but she is not to be sold...kinda DEBUNKS that slave argument doesn't it? You will not embarrass her among people because you have "humbled her" or made her to be shamed as a divorcee*

    Nice try. The text plainly says if HE DOESN'T LIKE HER then he has to let her go and not sell her as a slave. Because thou hath humbled her means because he had sex with her and considering that she was captured in war, it's safe to say the sex was nonconsensual. Sure, it may have later became consensual and she may have later grew to love her captor. I see you mentioned Stockholm Syndrome above and this is exactly that. Let's not pretend that after the Israelite soldier just beheaded her entire family and stabbed her elderly grandmother to death with a spear that while covered in the blood of her family, he suddenly became a gentleman and courted her and took her on dates. More like he slaughtered her family and marched her away with a sword to her back while she was in utter terror.

    I know the coginitive dissonance is a bit much for you. If these exact same verses were in say the Quran, you'd have no problem taking them as they mean on the page. If they were in the bible, except these were the words of the devil, you'd have no problem taking it as it's written on the page. You can't reconcile the fact that your loving god actually ordered this.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. OK, Kelly, you can't ignore the text and make it say what you want it to say and assume it says what you want to see...For instance, you , like most atheists (and that's why I call you an atheist, you been on too many error filled websites and are drunk with their coffee) think that "because he hat humbled her" means that because he had sex with or specifically raped her.

      Well, that expression is used 83 times in the Old Testament. It means afflicted, bring low, make ashame, etc, but only ONE time does any of that has to do with a sexual act. That is in Genesis 34:2. and 2 Sam. 13:14. Genesis says When Shechem, "saw" Dinah, the bible says he "took her" and "lay with her and defiled her" and 2 Sam 13:14 is dealing with Amnon and his half sister Tamar which he "forced her and lay with her"...

      Now, the point I am making is that in both cases, the context is abundantly clear. Rape is what the perverts did. The context makes it abundantly clear.

      Now, you look at Deut. and you "believe" that GOd is telling these men that are preparing to rape a woman to clean her up and give her rights???

      Like I called you before...R...STUPID!!! That is a LEAP of fancy, because the text doesn't suggest and or allude to it, and we see evidence that if it was suggesting that the man had raped her, it would say so plainly.

      Place it in context...as you CORRECTLY STATED, the woman's family and husband has just been killed in battle. They, if she has children., are now exposed to rape and whatever could possibly happen. God tells these men, IF they want one to MARRY...not to lock up in their house and get their rocks off on, but that they could marry one, BUT under certain circumstances. First, she has to like the arrangement or see a benefit in it. If she doesn't guess what, HER choice is respected! She is not simply beat down and forced into liking a situation because she is a "subject" as you suggest.

      A "slave" would be sold. A "slave" it wouldn't matter what she liked, she couldn't voice her opinion. In this case her "opinion" could make him find "no delight in her"...So it is not a sexual connotation. You IMPOSE that on the text as most misguided individuals do who have a problem with God's character. That is demonically inspired, not intellectually inspired.

      Further, this isn't The Bachelor!!! He can't just go through women like eating watermelons and spittin' out the seeds. As stated, I contend the ONLY reason that you suggest what you do is because you don't have any confidence in the nature of God and that is evidenced by the other commentary regarding hell...Which I will go over in another comment.

      Delete
  8. Of course you put up all of that but won't let me post responses, go figure....you're responses are just ways to resolve your cognitive dissonace and stay in your echo chamber.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I got you just give it some time...had to slow you down, you a little chatty or at least full of misinformation

      Delete
  9. Now, so far as hell, you said this in a comment you deleted:

    "So even if someone "chooses not to be with god" why can't I choose that without being tortured for eternity? And why do those who "choose to be with god" have to perpetually worship him day in and day out for eternity?"

    First,get this, PEOPLE CHOOSE hell. God DOES NOT choose people for hell!!!

    Now I know there is a system of belief that teaches that, but it can easily be refuted, with "whosoever will, let him come" (I won't go into that, but let's deal with your commentary...

    To the point, when and in what universe do you EVER get to choose your own penalty for negative actions?

    You know why I like the concept of hell and eternal torment?...HITLER...STAHLIN...POL POT...JIM JONES...and the list goes on. These men and other like them will FOREVER pay for the garbage they did in killing and messing up people, and families. They starved the people under them, killed them and they died...

    If there is no God and hell is not real, guess what? They have actually been REWARDED in a sense for what they did. They never have to face justice and or pay for it. That's why it is important for you to get right and restore those girls to their families...there will be a PAYMENT made one day and that will not be based on something like you just saying no to God...Saying no to God is saying yes to sin and evil...Unfortunately, it comes with the shoe...you and I can't separate it because we have no intrinsic goodness that deserves life!!!

    If you are inherently good, then you have no flaws or faults. I believe I could successfully argue that point about inherit goodness. What you seek to do is assert that you are inherently good and simply are making a choice to reject GOd therefore you are doing nothing that deserves hell, but that is not factual...That DAY you rejected God, you got into all kinds of perversions, drugs, sex, peeing on girls...all that...NONE of us have in inherent goodness!!!!

    So your question, I understand...we're not talking about stealing biscuits or even steaks because you're hungry...We are talking about a lifestyle choice to REJECT GOd and yes the consequences are outlined on what the punishment is for that.

    Now, what would be a deal breaker, if no punishment was outlined, and then, later, after you have done it, you found out there was a punishment. That would not be fair. But if the law tells me that I will be locked up in jail for life or put to death for murder, then why do I complain when and if I commit murder that the punishment isn't fair???

    That's not rational or even reasonable...that's "punkism" Punkism is when a person does something that they know full and well has a penalty associated with it, but complain about the penalty after the fact...Like the old Baretta song said, "Don't do the crime if you can't do the time!"

    Yes, even saying " I don't want God" (not just saying it but living it) has eternal consequences...Stand for for that instead of wanting to be your own God telling God how to punish you...What if Hitler and friends did that? They would all get away and even be rewarded for their evil...yet you "complain" about evil...

    That is called hypocrisy!!!!

    ReplyDelete
  10. Further, on this "cognitive dissonance" tip that you brought up...if that is defined as having inconsistent thoughts as compared to actions, I find it hard to believe that you can think that saying you reject GOd and that you are good without God or the bible, can be supported by any evidence with the trail of perversions that lies in your wake.

    Here, folk accusing you or brainwashing, locking up young girls as sex slaves, "allegedly" druggin them out of their mind (while you contend they are doing what they "want" to do and that they are "grown") and assume that even the inference of any of that is "good" or makes you look good...I mean to me, THAT is cognitive dissonance!!!

    So for me to understand the bible shows insightfulness...to overlook those actions, the one's I've outlined here and more, is not only dissonance, buy absurdly evil!

    ReplyDelete
  11. BTW, I love your song, "Look to you" that Whitney sang...Curious, when did you write that song, before or after the accusations against you? I really don't know, but I've always wondered...please provide some input...

    ReplyDelete

I've switched to real time comments for most posts. Refresh your screen if you post and do not see it right away. Please send me an email if you try to post a comment and cannot do so. Dunamis1@netzero.com. Thanks.