PLEASE MAKE
SURE TO
FOLLOW THE
RULES!
RULES
This is the
Kill Em
With
Kindness
Forum!
PLEASE MAKE
SURE TO
FOLLOW THE
RULES!
RULES
This is the
Kill Em
With
Kindness
Forum!
PLEASE MAKE
SURE TO
FOLLOW THE
RULES!
This is the
Kill Em
With
Kindness
Forum!
RULES
PLEASE MAKE
SURE TO
FOLLOW THE
RULES!
This is the
Kill Em
With
Kindness
Forum!
PLEASE MAKE
SURE TO
FOLLOW THE
RULES!
RULES
This is the
Kill Em
With
Kindness
Forum!
PLEASE MAKE
SURE TO
FOLLOW THE
RULES!
Offline 
all are very likely to be after the fall of the temple in jeruseulm: 
Does god have genitals and if so, why?
No. (Jhn 4:24) Next.
Then how did he rape Mary?
When I kill my newborn children, to assure that they never have the chance to get themselves condemned to hell (I love them to much to allow them the opportunity to make mistakes that could cause them to burn for eternity, and there death is a small sacrifice as compared to the joy they will experience with their arrival in heaven), does that make me more holy than Jesus. He helped people get to heaven but knew that on his death he was going to get to go to a magic super happy land, whereas I, in my selfless way, am assuring my children a place in heaven while condemning myself to eternal suffering.
Signed,
Bloody with love
“Philosophers have argued for centuries about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, but materialists have always known it depends on whether they are jitterbugging or dancing cheek to cheek" -- Tom Robbins
He didn't. She was still a virgin after the Holy Spirit created the necessary atoms and molecules and dna needed to fertilize the egg inside her. (concieved does not equal sex/rape etc) Matt 1:20
/usr/bin/intelligence | awk '$1 == logic||reason{respond}' 理智
Re: Bloody with Love:
No. It does not make you more holy (the authority to take life rests with the creator of life or his appointed subordinates - as outlined in the manual) Teach your children the Bible and give them the choice of free will that God gave you. It's less bloody.
BTW: Jesus went to Hell after his crucifixion (speaking engagement --I Pe 3:19)
/usr/bin/intelligence | awk '$1 == logic||reason{respond}' 理智
I have no control over what my children will do in their adult life no matter what I teach them. They are separate entities. It is best to be sure they go to heaven. How uncaring would I have to be to allow even the slightest possibility that they would suffer for eternity. That's a long time you know. Like forever times forever... squared even. Sure I will have to suffer eternally, but I love them enough to shoulder burden. Saint Vessel, they will call me.
BTW: Yeah, Jesus went to hell after his crucifixion in the same way I go to Atlanta everytime I fly to the northeast. Anyone can handle a layover when the destination is going to be so much fun.
Besides, that crucifixion thing is so overblown. Its not a sacrifice. It was a path to a desired end. That isn't sacrifice, its travel. Its holiday.
“Philosophers have argued for centuries about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, but materialists have always known it depends on whether they are jitterbugging or dancing cheek to cheek" -- Tom Robbins
"How uncaring would I have to be to allow even the slightest possibility"
It's not your choice unfortunately. You can't choose which rules you want to follow (love & protect your children) and which ones are optional (do not murder) -- They are not "yours" anyway. Their genetic code was passed to them from you, but their soul(s) were created by God for a purpose - and your genetic code really isn't yours either... it was a gift from your parents who got it from...............adam....who got it from the Author.
/usr/bin/intelligence | awk '$1 == logic||reason{respond}' 理智
New question. (I'll let the last one go for now). Did Eve have sex with Cain in order to multiply? And if not, how did the population grow?
I'm assuming you are a xtian. If so I have one very large question for you. You believe in god, and have called dibs on the burden of proof apparently. Well then, provide the proof, logically and rationally valid proof. I hope that you will realize that this requires you to actually provide proof in favor of your chosen position. Don't attempt to disprove evolution, because unless you happen to have an advanced degree in some biological field it won't turn out well. Anyway disproving evolution (which you won't be able to do) will not prove your point. Please just submit your proof for the existence of god, and no creation does not prove existence.
No Gods, Know Peace.
dibs meant your side has the burden of proof (disproving accepted precedents from the beginning of recorded time)
However: God exists, He is IN me! He lives in me and all Christians that have accepted His grace through faith. You can't tell me that He's not living in me - you have no evidence! I do. I've seen me before and after.
/usr/bin/intelligence | awk '$1 == logic||reason{respond}' 理智
Actually, it is my choice. They are newborn infants so I am sure they will go to heaven. God does admit newborns who have not even lived enough life to have a cognizant thought, much less sin, doesn't he?
I have the power to kill them.
I have the will and I accept the consequences.
Looks to be my choice and quite a noble act.
I don't care about following the rules. I completely expect to go to hell for killing them. That doesn't mean it isn't the ultimate altruistic act. I will give eternity, suffer beyond human comprehension, to ensure them not having to take a chance at missing out on heaven and suffering that fate. What could possibly be more altruistic?
Well, if I kill them, obviously god created their souls so that their bodies could be killed by me and they could go to heaven, since he knew when he created them that it would happen, right? It seems that must be their purpopse, to be killed as newborns. And my purpose must be to be the ultimate example of selflessness.
“Philosophers have argued for centuries about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, but materialists have always known it depends on whether they are jitterbugging or dancing cheek to cheek" -- Tom Robbins
No Gods, Know Peace.
no - it isn't. The Bible says do not do it.
Power is not Authority - you have not been granted the authority to kill anyone.
irrelevant really.
no. see above. Not your choice.
oh. OK. let's move on. Can't really argue that logic.
God will accomplish His will and purpose regardless of what authority you take upon yourself and what commands you pick and choose. He has given you free-will to do and make choices. He can pick up any pieces of lives that you shatter and still accomplish His purpose. But He does not wish for you to murder your children - but is so powerful as to be able to accomplish His plan with your abuse of free-will in stride.
/usr/bin/intelligence | awk '$1 == logic||reason{respond}' 理智
Most likely not with Cain - as he was banished after murdering his brother, but more likely one of her other sons (Seth) or grandsons that followed. (All of this being before the genetic code was corrupted by disease and sin prompting God to tell Moses to include the prohibitions regarding procreation with near relatives )
/usr/bin/intelligence | awk '$1 == logic||reason{respond}' 理智
See this is another one of those things that require proof. Just because you said it doesn't make it so. ad hoc rationalizations do not constitute proof. And since this isn't even in the bible, you can't even use that as supposed "proof"
if you say this is in the bible, I'll ask you for the chapter and verse where anyone uses the words "deoxyribonucleic acid".
No Gods, Know Peace.
Also, I'm still waiting on your proof requested from the previous post. Not getting annoyed or testy or anything, Just trying to get an answer.
No Gods, Know Peace.
what evidence do you have for this?
Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server which houses Celebrity Atheists.
Yeah..that's why I didn't add the "on the" in the statement. I coulda said "Dibs! {Your side gets the} burden of proof" But I just figured (and I'm seeing now that I shouldn't have) that you'd just assume I'd want *you* to have the burden of proof. Sorry. So... "Dibs! Your side has the burden of proof" OK. Moving on.
I don't think that's how it works if (*IF*) it's common knowledge that you have brown hair - the naysayer has the burden of proof - why should you have to prove you have brown hair if everyone has accepted for thousands of years that you do indeed have brown hair? It's on the challenger. The Bible (starting in 1700 B.C or so with the Law) has been commonly accepted as true by mankind for MUCH longer than people have been saying it now *isn't* true.
Well that won't work... PET/CAT/MRI's don't show the dreams and aspirations that I also have inside me or that cool batman sequence that I imagined a few years back - The scans can't show the emotional scars that I have from not being able to get those cool Vans slip-ons when I was 10 and mom said "no." The scans also can't show the love I have for my kids - You telling me those things don't exist because they don't show up on a CAT scan?? In a court -an eye-witness is proof enough. Someone saying something is so, or something happened. Think... Jean-Luc Picard in "All Good Things..." even Data understood that Captain Picard's 'time shifting' claim should be accepted until disproved - and that claim was OUTRAGEOUS! (time shifting between alternate and disperate time lines!!! The nerve of that captain!) DISPROVE that God exists. Countless millions throughout history have testified to the fact that He does indeed exist and have witnessed healings and miracles (500 people alone saw the risen Christ at once a few days after He rose!) and other divine forms of intervention. To lump us all in some "mass-shared-delusion" category is illogical. Logically - our claims of God inhabiting us (as Christians) should be accepted by you until disproven.
/usr/bin/intelligence | awk '$1 == logic||reason{respond}' 理智
unixrab,
I'm glad you are here, my question is relating to the bible and here it is.
It is said that Jesus belonged to the order of Melchisedec. I also believe if I can remember my bible, that Melchisedec appear to Abraham and was offered the first tithed. Now it is said this about Melchisedec:
" For this Melchisedec, king of Salem, priest of the most high God, who met Abraham returning from the slaughter of the kings and blessed him, to whom also Abraham gave the tenth part of all, being by interpretation, king of righteousness, after that also king of Salem, which means king of peace, without father, without mother, having neither beginning of days nor end of life; but made like unto the son of God abideth a priest continually." (Heb.7:1-3)
The passage implies that Melchisedec is immortal and was never created. Giving him almost the same attributes as God. So my question is who is Melchisedec and how can he have not been created?
It's only fairly recent where people have started asking questions like "Who wrote the bible". Also once Christianity came into power for anyone to question it would have been met with a charge of heresy.
Only if its a first hand account. What is known of the bible is that it was written well after the death of Jesus and his contemporaries.
It's logical. Adam and Eve lived for several hundred years - and had multiple children, this is documented. (Gen 5:4) Population of the Earth is a fact, it wasn't magic. One can then make deductions on the strength of their DNA and the protection of the pre-flood canopy. (knowing what we know today - about aging and the free-radical damage of our code)
Psalm 139:16 talks about our "substance" and the plan book where all the code was written and then fashioned.
/usr/bin/intelligence | awk '$1 == logic||reason{respond}' 理智
Pretty sure that Melchizedek was Shem - plot out the years he lived (Gen 11:11 and so on) over-against Abraham's life and you'll see. The implication may be that he is "immortal" but I believe it refers to the fact that no one on earth was as long lived as he was... he was that "crazy old jedi" living in the desert that everyone knew about, but no one knew who he was or where he came from.
**HOWEVER** it's not beyond the pale that Melchizedek was simply a pre-incarnate appearance of the Lord Jesus Christ. (like he appeared many other times in the Old Testament before the incarnation
HTH
/usr/bin/intelligence | awk '$1 == logic||reason{respond}' 理智
Well yeah...but when the court reporter takes down the testimony and writes it into the record - the transcript is enough. Matthew was an eye-witness and wrote down his testimony, so were Mark & John - even the Apostle Paul eye-witnessed the risen Christ and wrote it down. If the written testimony means nothing because the witness testified and then died... a few years from now... what will become of the cases tried in court? They aren't true because someone questions the transcript and that witness is no longer around to re-witness?
/usr/bin/intelligence | awk '$1 == logic||reason{respond}' 理智
He clearly wasn't Shem. You failed to address the fact that he "having neither beginning of days, nor end of life", Shem was born. Melchisedec was never born, he never had a beginning. And he couldn't be Jesus because Jesus belong to the Priestly Order of Melchisedec. It also says that Melchisedec is the preist to God. So I am wondering how can Melchisedec have always existed such as God?
Um. OK. But Shem was around (still alive at this time) .
Why is that? God started (implemented) both the priestly lines - I didn't see that rule anywhere that if you appear under the name Melchizedek, King of Peace - you can't be incarnated a few thousand years later under the order that you yourself initiated in pre-incarnate form? Where's that at?
/usr/bin/intelligence | awk '$1 == logic||reason{respond}' 理智
The question always goes back to do we know for certain that those accounts were written by the disciples. Even among scholars there is a contention on exactly who wrote those accounts. I'm not sure what evidence exist for either assertions.
So you are holding essentially that Melchisedek is God but just in another form like Jesus, The Holy Spirt, ect?
EDIT:
One thing I'd like to add is that how could it be Shem, considering we know his geneology and in the bible it clearly states we not know of Melchisedek's?
Matt 1:20 - 25
/usr/bin/intelligence | awk '$1 == logic||reason{respond}' 理智
It's not **unreasonable** to take the eye-witness accounts of Matthew and John and Mark at face value being examined so many times through the years and not having found DEFINITIVE proof of forgery. This is what I'm talking about with the burden of proof. There's no reason to disbelieve Matthew -- as of now.
/usr/bin/intelligence | awk '$1 == logic||reason{respond}' 理智
No, not exactly. The second person of the Godhead, known to most as Jesus, the Son of God, made several pre-incarnate appearances prior to his birth in Israel. Jesus did not pop into existence in Bethlehem, He's always been. These appearences prior to his incarnation are known as Theophanies...
/usr/bin/intelligence | awk '$1 == logic||reason{respond}' 理智
Oh.. I don't know that it definitely was Shem...it's just another theory - in that - if that passage about Melchizedek figurative. **I** think it was Shem, just because by that time no one would have known who the heck he was, some 600 year old guy living inj/around (future) Jerusalem. But (and if) that passage is literal - then the only person that could fit the bill would be Christ pre-incarnate.
I would be OK with either.
/usr/bin/intelligence | awk '$1 == logic||reason{respond}' 理智
Where is it actually stated what the nature of hell is? Eternal torment and all that crap.
Does man have freewill in your god story? If so, then it is my choice, whether it is condoned or not by the bible. You can continue to say "no", but until you explain why, it is just a childish example of sticking your fingers in your ears and going "na,na,na".
Not having authority does not make it a non-altruistic act. If I was in a concentration camp and sacrificed myself to help people escape, this would be a selfless altruistic act even though Hitler did not grant me the authority to do so.
Not irrelevant at all. I am making a conscious decision, understanding the consequences and murdering my children because I love them and because I am that selfless.
It is made obvious that you can't argue with any logic by the fact that you leave the opening sentence and snip the point I was making.
I never said he wished for me to murder my children, but if he is truly omniscient then he must have known I would murder them and yet he created their little souls anyway.
“Philosophers have argued for centuries about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, but materialists have always known it depends on whether they are jitterbugging or dancing cheek to cheek" -- Tom Robbins
Mark. Chapter 9: 44-48 talks about the fire never being quenched. But Revelation 20:10 is the quentessential one. " And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever. "
/usr/bin/intelligence | awk '$1 == logic||reason{respond}' 理智
You're making this up as you go along. Exactly what part of the bible mentions electrons, protons and neutrons? Can you demonstrate and falsify this making of atoms that got a 9-14 year old girl pregnant? "God did it" doesnt wash with us bud. BTW, You think it's ok for a girl that young to get pregnant?
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
Well I'm not trying to say "na na na" - I mean you don't have the right to make that choice - it's not given to you by the Bible or the Government. On the multiple choice list of parental responsibilities - murder isn't one of them. You can still do it (free will).
Yes. But not mercy-killing the other prisoners.
"The only winning move is not to play." Murder is not the manifestation of Love or selflessness. In this increasingly hypothetical debate, I'd say don't have kids in the first place (that would be the ultimate selfless act), and if you do have kids, do not murder them out of your "love" for them, but take the slightly harder road of 'training up your child in the way they should go' and trust the God that you want to pre-maturely send them to, to do His will with their lives and souls.
{quote=unixrab]oh. OK. let's move on. Can't really argue that logic.
Ouch. OK.
God will accomplish His will and purpose regardless of what authority you take upon yourself and what commands you pick and choose. He has given you free-will to do and make choices. He can pick up any pieces of lives that you shatter and still accomplish His purpose. But He does not wish for you to murder your children - but is so powerful as to be able to accomplish His plan with your abuse of free-will in stride.
I never said he wished for me to murder my children, but if he is truly omniscient then he must have known I would murder them and yet he created their little souls anyway.
Foreknowledge is not the same thing as fate or fatalism. That He knows what you are going to do, does not make you do it. You still have a choice that He allows you to have in real-time so that your free-will is intact when you face Judgement for the killings.
/usr/bin/intelligence | awk '$1 == logic||reason{respond}' 理智