#Is atheism a strong belief?
1 messages Β· Page 2 of 1
Fossils are just different animals, an evolutionary story attempts to connect them, but there's no reason why you wouldn't think that they are just different animals
so different animals existed in the past?
Yeah
Animals go extinct all the time
Only recently have we started considering species endangered to prevent them from going extinct
well it's unlikely that we are just the only ones left since there are no human fossils from like 500 milion years ago
so how did we come to be?
scientists have a pretty good idea of why we exist now and why we didn't exist back then
Fossilization is an extremely rare process
okay then how so that when we did find human fossils they looked different
Which human fossils are you referring to
homo erectus for example?
Are you asking why some people look different than others?
there is no single difference in modern humans that would correspond to the differences found between homo sapiens and homo erectus
that means that we didn't exist the same way back then
I don't understand what you're saying
well quite simply we didn't exist as the same humans back then
btw just to add something to this, radiocarbon dating can arguably be very inaccurate because it relies on certain presuppositions we don't have actual evidence for
yeah you're just listening to christian talking points
How were we different
no i came to that conclusion myself
about this different
I can do the picture too, it doesn't change anything
A different head shape doesn't mean someone is less evolved
so homo erectus and homo sapiens lived together?
why do we find homo erectus fossils but not homo sapiens fossils
you can't argue carbon dating because soil layers exists
so the oldest dates that can be reliably measured by this process date to approximately 50,000 years ago
- the wikipedia article for it
Do you know how many homo erectus fossils there are
genuinely this dave guy just says things
so it is reliable up to the point where it isn't? that wasn't your point
that was my point
you stated that it can be inaccurate. It is accurate when used correctly
hundreds?
under certain conditions (dates older than 50k years) it can be inaccurate
And how many homo erectus lived?
I don't know
Google tells me hundreds of thousands
yeah that seems to be possible
If we assume that's reliable, that would be less than 1%
That's why we haven't found human fossils
Fossilization is a very rare process
why don't we find even a couple of homo sapiens fossils that would be pointing to both of those species living at the same time
why is it that all evidence points to homo sapiens living further in time than homo erectus
that's just the most rational thing to believe
Do you know how dating for fossils is done?
we probably don't need to use chemical or physical dating
Which dating method do you prefer
well we could just map out how deep all the fossils were found, and I bet all homo sapiens fossils are found to be less buried
ancient buildings are already buried, and that is just a span of a few thousands years
fossils get buried too
the ancient greek ruins are buried deeper than medieval ruins, soo
Do you honestly believe that the deeper a fossil is, the older it is?
isn't that rational to believe? we observe that older things are deeper in the ground
do you think coal and other minerals are not old?
Nah geological formations can happen extremely rapidly in specific areas through natural disasters
well the general pattern we observe is basically that
do you think it's irrational to think that human species changed now?
No I think we can observe that the human species did change over time
so we did do something that can be called evolution
Is inbreeding evolution?
who did we inbreed with?
and why would we survive if we inbreed to the point where we changed our whole skeletal structure?
inbreeding isn't healthy for a species
unless you want to claim it was beneficial
I can do this whole induction reasoning with simple evidence to form these conclusions, there are people who dedicate their whole life to studying these things
and they do a good job of explaining the world through naturalistic laws
I don't
I don't have any reasons to believe in anything more than the natural world
Yeah that's why we live shorter lives than we did before inbreeding
In the bible people live hundreds of years
We're lucky to get 100
if we died even more often there would be more likely fossils
How
well because there would be more dead bodies?
more chances for fossilization to happen basically
I don't understand what you're saying
In the bible, people lived hundreds of years longer than people do today
everyone after the reformation
They'd be dying less in the past, not more
And the apostles and Jesus π£οΈ
no...
they do not...
tbf you might mean something different when you say it but one of the most common views of it is that the Father damned the Son and i just don't vibe with that personally
Penal substitutionary atonement means Jesus paying your sin debt on your behalf
It is literally the gospel
what specifically does that mean tho
like what do you mean by that when you say that
did the Father damn the Son?
It depends on which sense you're referring to
I do not believe there is biblical evidence of Jesus getting tortured in Hell by demons
Some people have taught that
The scriptures more clearly indicate that God's wrath is poured out on Jesus on the cross itself, rather than a 3 day and 3 night period in Hell
my other problem is that it also kind of denies God's forgiveness
It doesn't, most christians don't understand what biblical forgiveness is
i have to check what i've heard people say about it to remember
Biblical forgiveness is described the same as debt forgiveness.
John steals $400 dollars from Jacob.
The Court weighs in on the case, and says that John owes Jacob that $400 back
Jacob decides to forgive John and tells him that he no longer needs to pay the money
That does not magically bring $400 back. Now Jacob instead has to get his money back himself
That's how sin works, God can't erase sin, it needs to be paid for
If God did erase sin, it would compromise his justice.
A judge that says to criminals "You're free to go" is not a good judge
sin isn't something that influences God tho
sin is something that influences us
and the people around us
It very clearly does though
wdym
God experiences all kinds of negative emotions in reaction to sin
Sin makes God angry and sometimes it even says regretful
God is personally hurt when we sin
The Bible compares it to a husband who's wife regularly cheats on him
iirc the classically reformed position is that the Son experienced spiritual death
assuming it's just in the span of the last thousands of years, that's just easy to debunk by archeological studies
Can you show me how?
I don't know if that's what the bible teaches so I won't comment
im sure that's pretty easy to research
iirc spiritual death means separation of the soul from God
which in this case leads to heresy
If you can show me some proof I'd love to look at it
cuz you have to choose between nestorianism and arianism
This is very possible
How so
because Christ is God
Oh I see
so if His soul is separated from God then either He isn't God or there are two persons in Christ
It wouldn't be seperation from God then, it would be seperated from the other godhead
but that would split the Trinity
Yes I don't think that would contradict scripture. I'm saying it's possible
ouch
Which verse would contradict that?
All I've said is that I'm open to the idea, haven't looked much into it
π
the shema for one
deuteronomy 6:4
4 βHear, O Israel: [a]The Lord our God, the Lord is one!
Why does Jesus say "Matthew 27:46 ESV
[46] And about the ninth hour Jesus cried out with a loud voice, saying, βEli, Eli, lema sabachthani?β that is, βMy God, my God, why have you forsaken me?β
Genuine question
He is quoting a Psalm
Jesus is literally dying and he goes "MAN remember this one psalm from a thousand years ago"
I thought, reading it, its showing us that while Jesus is still quoting scripture, showing in that how He is aware of the Biblical teachings and what quoting that verse suggests about His situation
Like
What is it suggesting
By Jesus choosing that Psalm
Because it is intentional
But i wonder why
Like Jesus is not being seperated from his divine nature I think that is very clear
But part of the Hell punishment is seperation from the good attributes of the father
it's a prefiguring of the crucifixion
But in His divinity He takes upon Himself all of sin
Why would the crucifixion talk about being forsaken??
15
I am poured out like water,
And all my bones are shattered;
My heart is like wax, melting into my stomach.
16
My strength is dried up like an earthen vessel;
My tongue cleaves to my throat;
And You led me into the dust of death.
Its like how hell is not a seperation from God but the abscense of the good of God
TRUTH!!!
That's cool
it could but that's how psalms were quoted back in the day
you didn't do it by chapter number
but by quoting the beginning
Okay but like if the psalm about crucixion is using the word "forsaken" then that's gotta be at least a little notable, no?
It's like I say "The sky has clouds in it" and you go "NO the sky is blue!" The sky being blue is completely unrelated to whether or not it has clouds
Yes the sky is both blue and has clouds, putting them both together gives you a fuller picture about what the sky is, but the conversation is about clouds
i guess
i do think there's a specific meaning to it but i don't think it's what PSA says it is
PSA is the very clear teaching of scripture
they share one essence
how could they be separated
agree to disagree i suppose
The divinity isn't being seperated, as GS points out
You're putting human limitations to God
It wouldn't be a change in divinity, it would be a change in relationship
no
To say God is limited in paying for all of sin while still existing as God is limiting God
not what i'm saying
What are you saying
i'm saying that saying Christ was separated from the Father is wrong
That's not what we're saying either
That is kind of what I'm saying
At least in good relationship
Not from like the divine nature
But like in the same way that sinners are percieved in Hell
God isn't absent in Hell
God is doing the punishment
i much prefer our model of redemptive atonement (i think it's correct to call it that? not sure)
tbf i think we also say that there is no perfect model
What is different in your perspective of what salvation is compared to ours
There is a perfect model because jesus is perfect
π€‘π€‘π€‘
This is correct just incomplete
no perfect model of atonement, like, human explanation of what happened (kinda?)
I think Jesus becoming sin as the scriptures teach is the best model
sin is a lack
Christ does not become lacking
He is God
that passage is better seen as Christ becoming a sin offering
"The [One] not having known sin, for us sin He made, so that we might become [the] righteousness of God in Him." is the direct greek to english
it's a play on words in a sense
the apostles, being also former old testament jews, spoke hebrew
in hebrew, the word for sin can also mean sin offering
It's not written in hebrew, it's written in greek
yes i know this
That's a different language
it's a bilingual "play on words"
Dude if you reject the meaning of that the text says and insist that instead we should interpret the text in a language it isn't written in, you're not being honest with the source material
i'm being very honest with the source material
especially considering an impossibility of the contrary
An impossibity that the meaning is contained within the language it is written in???
He's not becoming lack, he's bearing our sin in the perfect act of selfless love
What do you mean
That's what the verse clearly says as long as you don't translate into hebrew before translating it into english
" For He made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us"
Yeah
made Him [..] to be sin
Yes
God does not become lack
Yes
so...
Lacking in something isn't sinning
the very concept of sin is missing the mark
Jesus does not become "missing the mark"
otherwise all of us who believe in Him believe in missing the mark
transitive property and stuff
that's what i'm asking you lol
It's talking about a legal sense where all of our debt is credited to him, not that Jesus is transgressing against the law in that moment
that is reading a lot more into it
can He then become the very concept of sin?
Legally yes
p1: in this position Christ becomes the very concept of sin
p2: we have faith in Christ
conclusion: in this position, our faith is in the very concept of sin
like
"It is finished" is a legal term that means "Paid in full"
Jesus' last words on the cross was a debt term
do you have a source for that or anything
What source would you find credible
If I send you anything you'll dismiss it as protestant
hmm depends on the context of what this would be
like is this a hebrew term, aramaic, greek?
why would God have to pay God
that just seems silly to me
The sources that I'm looking at says hebrew 1st century
not very just either
like you can't just walk into court and say "dude just put me in jail instead"
Yeah but a judge who wrote all the laws can do it to himself
The crime is still paid for and it is an act of love from the person who created the system to begin with
if someone beats me up
do i have to punish someone
or can i just say dang dude ok but i forgive you
this just seems like you're tying God's hand for no reason
If someone beats you up, you don't necissarily have to punish someone but there should be a punishment so the behavior doesn't continue
Here wanna hop in a voice call my hands hurt from typing
alright i'll be there in a minute
Bathroom give me a minute too
After looking at the historical record for this, it seems like the legal documents are more likely interpreted as "Paid as taxes." The Bible does clearly teach PSA, but I will not be using this specific example, because it doesn't seem like this is what Jesus is trying to cite, it's more of just a happy coincidence
So God the Father damned the Son? How can the Trinity (one God) split metaphysically?
Because it would be the relationship, not the divine nature
Whats the relationship
Define relationship
Atheism isn't bealife
what π
Atheism isn't bealife
dude i belinved in that, so i dont understand π
Huh
if you think its true then its a bealife right?
Huh
No
How csn you bealive to not bealive ING someehib
its uhhh kinda like if i belive there is a lack of evedence, like no proof
like that
Aren't
Belaif eis like avrive bealiving soemthing
And atheism
Ntk bewlifng
Like idk
Or maybe it is bealive
Like bealiving god doesn't exist
Bue what is string bealife
Strong
its like the belife that we come from animals? and uhh there is no gpd? but people who
Huh
like
Yeh
so that would maen if thewy do beliv in god thir aggnostic
Huh
Edym by that
Yes ik
so that would maen if thewy do beliv there could be a god thir aggnostic* fix misstake
Like yes if someoone think god csn exist they are agonisicj pretty sure
yes
i guess i was aggnostic and athesit
i belived anything and evrything can and could exist
so i though we could be living in a simulation
Hm
Thats silly
Cuz none comouter can headle thid collision and graphics
And stuff
Yk like evry atom collide
but what if it was a super powerfull computer like the Matrix movie
Still
None comoute im sur ecnay shendle it
Not even int heory
i luvs bibisi azn dis iz ow i rite o algx
Are we talking about Benjamin nethanyahuu
How is it that you though about a jew and suddenly you wrote perfect english?
LOL
When i hear about big yahu in lock in
Checks out
pretty sure some computer can handle a universe in theory but surely not our regular kind of computers
there was like a paper recently on why our universe can't be a simulation
suffice to say i didn't read it
Odk ehat about cooling it would be very heated
have you hird of a quantom computer?
Yes but why would anyone do that have quantum conputere and stuff just for us do stiff in simulation
Hight risk low reward
they could be bord or somthing idk
i have no proof for it
its just a though experement
Imagine being bored and do ts
lol
Idk for what
Probably same reason why a lot of things happen
No Reason
Like it's kinda possible
i said itd required a computer that would be much more efficient than our typical computers
so cooling wont be a primary problem tbh
for fun
this evolutionary talk makes me think of the hoatzin
i remember reading an article on how the hoatzin is an arguement against the evolutionary theory, but i cannot seem to remember what they said
maybe ill find it later
i didnt read everything in this thread but ill say what i can about the topics here:
To the title:
No. Atheism is by definition the lack of belief in the existence of any god.
As for all the evolution stuff, id say for me its just common sense. Living things that suck at staying alive die so the next generation is the children of the ones who survived. The next generation is similiar to the previous which you can observe practically by looking at you and your biological parents. I honestly dont understand how someone could not accept evolution as an existing phenomenon.
People here dont believe in evolution as a billion year concept
That is not to say we dont believe in adaptation
Evolution goes against like the core of Christianity if you take it to its logical conclusion and the implications undermine it too drastically for most of us to believe in it being a billion year process
But yes we do believe in adaptation of course
the reson why i stoped exepting it is there was a lack of any evadencew of evolotion
i would belive in it if ther was evedence but i could not find any
also thank you for giving a propper defination, i though it was a belife because we would belive we come from animals? i hope that makes sence!
Hi kribble
Actually humans ARE still animals. Just the most advanced species that could do all of this stuff like writing and online forums.
Yes
Hello definitely pim
What about pink mario birthday
Disgusting
Uh oh
HI π
the wright online forms really got me lol
i dont understand π
no
oh yeah i forgot to ask what evadence u use?
Wdym?
I honestly get everything from the back of my head so really just stuff ive seen on the internet
Yes
we're not just animals
Well there is a lot of ways to classify humans but a very general one is as animals
Yes
Me when i say truth
Im not arguing that humans arent special
We definietly are special
Even from an atheistic perspective
I think weiner dogs more special
Look at my
Cutie
Mouth.
yes! i understand that, but why do you choose to believe in atheism? like what convinces you to trust in it?
π€―
Its not something that convinces me, its the lack of
I have nothing that has convinced me of christianism being real
No miracles
No "calling"
Nothing
And I'm not interested in it either
Nor I agree with the teachings
I find abrahamic mythology cool but
Thats kind of it
And even if there was
I would still not be a christian
I dont agree with the values, teachings, etc
which teachings do you not agree with? is it the a man shall not sleep with another man?
How did you guess?
And the SA rules
(A woman must marry her abuser)
Im a psycic
what???? 
And the heavy like
where? dose it say tha???
Christianism really pushes this like
Hows it called
Like baggage
Or
Idk how to explain it
r u thinking of the word agenda
But "you have to stay with ur family no matter what"
Or "you must listen to your father no matter what"
I know which verse you're talking about and it doesn't say that
Like family CAN suck
Not true Jesus himself says He comes not to bring peace between families but a sword of seperation
And be evil sometimes
It also doesn't say that
ohhhhhhhhh
kinda does?
π¨π¨π¨π¨π¨
It doesn't
That's what I was taught by my christian parents
They were lying to you
^^
i though it did?
It doesnt
hmmm
People lie a lot
Deuteronomy 22:28-29.
or miss understand or misstold
Most christians are not really christians theyre just hateful people
Old covenant
Good thing we are under a new one
π
Nope it says listen to and obey your parents AS LONG AS it doesn't contradict the will of God. It isn't the will of God for anyone to be abused
28 If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, 29 he shall pay her father fifty shekels[a] of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.
yes thats wgat io mean out of context
did oi say out ofcontext?
Which also makes her stuck in the marriage against her will
i diont thin k id did
O we did a deep dive on this
This verse is missing context
But anyways, the point is, nothing is gonna make me christian, and im very happy as an atheist
And I found a religion I liked afterwards
The Bible says that the abuser is to be killed unless the father wants them to be married, in which case they'd be wed
A atheistic religion but you know
If the father doesn't approve of marrying them, the guy is to be killed
Also wasnt the word for assault not actually assault or am i misremembering
Thats only when a married woman is sa'd, not an unmarried one
i read it!
erm
how do i explain?
give sec plsd π
They're still only wed with the father's approval
Deuteronomy 22:25
I personally find the condition misogynistic
So yeah
Sorry but dont agree
Okay are you arguing a different point now? I don't understand
I dont believe in honoring an abusive/deadbeat parent sorry
Wdym?
The marriage only happens with the father's approval
Ok? I find that misogynistic
The victim doesnt even get a say in this so
It Means to lie down or (sleeeeep with) but in this context he is Doing the bad word thing π
Okay so saying "The bible says a woman is required to marry her abuser" is wrong
No, I think that what the bible said, was wrong
The actual word is "siezes" which doesn't necissarily mean that there isn't consent
Honoring means someone being able to look at you and say "wow your parents did something right because you are doing so well in life" sure you can correct after them and say, my parents were full of crap, but like people looking at you and seeing youre doing good for yourself (or thats how i see honor)
so in this verse 22:25 they are talking about the bad word thing... but sence he does that he will be put to death
Not really but I respect your view
That is literally what it means
?
That's what honoring your parents means
Im sorry I dont think you understand me
Okay
I never said it wasnt, I said I didn't agree with it
Okay then you don't agree with the bible
Where do you get your standard of truth from?
Yeah
Myself
So it's impossible for you to be wrong?
I dont really speak with my parents even as a Christian but i honor them by living a decent life and people saying like "wow your parents did something right with you!"
Not really
I'm only human after all
So then your standard of truth can't be itself, can it?
Why not
I WAS JUST SINGING THIS SONG!
LOL
Because if you're wrong then you aren't the standard of truth
I mean nobody is, we all make mistakes
So
And I dont believe in god, I cant see him as a standard of truth either
So
So then you must point to something outside of yourself to decide what truth is
If you can be wrong, there should be something more than just you
I mustn't do anything, I just live my life without having to abide to someone I can't see
It feels so trapping to be forced to do that
And I'm happy in my freedom
Believing in truth is trapping you?
A subjective truth
Your gods standards arent the same as other religions
So
Okay so if I believe the earth is flat does that make it true?
You're comparing a matter of opinions to a matter of facts
???
You cannot compare scientific evidence questions to moral and social questions
Lemme explain this better to you
You compared a multiple choice question to a yes or no question
?????
Truth IS an opinion because it is subjective and not everyone believes in the same "truth"
So if I believe the earth is flat, does that make it true?
And no, the earth isnt flat because there's scientific evidence that it isn't
There's no scientific evidence that god ever existed or exists
What is science
Yes, do you?
i belived the earth is flat π₯ 
Did you miss some school grades?
No, I'm not that smart unfortunately
i know right π
Can you tell me what science is and what it measures
Do you know what "miss" is?
Can you use science to prove the existance of abraham lincoln
Yes there's photo evidence, theres dna evidence, there's a corpse
Where is jesus corpse?
Or his dna?
Or his photo?
Is that science?
What part of the scientific method is looking at a photo
we have eye witnesses, 4 inside the bible, and 2 outside of it, wich is insane for the person to have at that time
500+*

Yeah, which are all dead
Everyone who witnessed abraham lincoln are all dead...
Do you think jimmy carter existed? Hes dead so idk if he really did
Tell me does a science fiction book prove that what is being told exists?
Was napolean real???
Like i dont know
Stranger things
You see demogorgon on the screen
Does that make it real?
I don't relly understand what you mean by that? sorry π₯ are you willing to explain in another way for me to understand?
Or that stranger things happened?
The eye witnesses are all dead and we have to way of confirming them
Yes, there's napoleons dna, napoleons private parts which were auctioned, there's thousands of eye witnesses, there's records, etc etc
We have no dna of jesus
We have no skeleton or anything left of him
All we have is a book
wowwwwww! also thats kinda strange to do somone 
Yeah cause he kinda rose from the dead
Don't ask me it happened in like the victorian era or something i dont remember
he has a point ther 
Right cuz humans just tend to revive and leave no trace behind
They don't. That's why it's a miracle
yupp that checks out they did do a lot of stuff like that back then π
Yeah has it happened again?
It did
Like did someone else just revive after 3 days of being dead untouched and not rotten
Yeah
And then just dissapeared
Lazarus
That's what im referencing
Ok lemme be more direct
Has any records shown of this happening OUTSIDE the bible
Something that would make it atleast possible somehow
no? if there is any i dont know about it
Exactly
Im sorry but a story cannot prove itself to be real
The bible is a compendium of works talking about it
Like its like saying little red riding hood happened cuz it said so in a book
That's like throwing out an entire library as evidence because i's all in the same library
Still, a book
The bible is 66 books written by over 40 authors
but what about the eye witnesses outside of the bible?
No its like saying the greek mythology stories actually happened because its on a greek mythology book compilation
Does greek mythology have eyewittness accounts?
And a lot of works regarding jesus of the ancient times were disqualified by the own church as being "fake", so how many else wouldn't be
Yes, the side characters saw it happen
Yeah cause people tried to jump onto it
Just like how the apostles saw it
Who
Therefore it must be true no?
Which side characters
of the story, lets use our brain rq buddy
a eyewitness INSIDE a story does not prove itself to be real
Who
because said eyewitness can also be fictious
Did Zeus write greek mythology???
again a story cant prove itself to be true
who knows?
maybe
we'll never know
cuz we cant see zeus
we cant hear zeus
we cant touch zeus
we cant smell zeus
and you know who else we cant do said things either?
its called sarcasm
Okay but paul did write some books in the bible
ok?
oh right i got a question
hi so why doesnt god stop children from being assaulted by pastors or priests
So it's a little different when the eyewitnesses themselves are writing what they saw under threat of being killed
its happening on god's temple, no?
No
like shouldnt he care?
The catholic church isn't God's temple LOL
oh so the church isnt god's temple?
I included pastors
the catholic isnt with god π₯ 
100% correct
hi read the message rq
The church is NOT God's temple. The Bible NEVER teaches that, and teaches explicitly the opposite
ok... so because it isnt on god's temple god doesnt gaf about people being assaulted?
what do you mean by temple then?
it's so interesting you focused on the temple part and not the assault part
i feel like that says a lot about you both
You said it was happening in God's temple
I was correcting you
???
and completely ignored the actual question
yeah that says a lot about you
.
Are you asking me "If God good why do bad happen"
ok caveman speech
but sure
if thats the way you understand better
be my guest
Dont accuse my literal husband of not caring about assault when he is married to me who is a victim of r4pe that is incredibly rude
why didnt he save you from that then?
Just cause he isnt answering questions like you want doesnt mean he doesnt care
isnt it cruel he let you got through that?
Its not Gods fault my abuser did a bad thing to me
Okay yeah bad things happen because free will is a greater good than the bad that sin brings
but why didnt he do anything to stop it?
Thats like blaming my great grandma because i decided to kill someone
god can do miracles
So that the glory of God might be manifest through it
why didnt he just stop it from happening?
Why are you taking away the fact that the action was done by someone through their free will
The r4pist should be punished not God
Hey wanna enter a vc I fell like you aren't understanding with text
so like he used a traumatic event to show off his grace?
when he could have stopped it?
Do you wanna enter a vc
I never said the person wasnt at fault, im asking you why didnt god stop you from getting r4ped?
Do you wanna enter a vc
Crazy question
no, sorry, thank you
if he did stop anything bad there would be no free will
I was just mentioning it because YOU were accusing my husband of something extremely vile
I didnt mention it so i could relive it
Thanks tho
accused him of what?
Not caring about abuse
but he doesnt do anything about it
how does he care if he doesnt do anything about it?
Then I don't really see any point in continuing a conversation. You claim to be "free" but are still so consumed by hatred to argue with christians online and make accusations against my wife who expereinced sexual assault and then refuse to talk to me in an enviroment where we're forced to listen to eachother
My husband cant stop it cause it already happened (?)
It seems like you don't care about truth and instead just want to hate people
if you dont help your son in any way, ignore his pleas or dont come to his rescue
do you really love and care for ur son?
I did get out of it because of Christ
isnt it cruel he let you go through that in the first place tho?
No
sure, be my guest
He didnt do that to me
suffering shapes us refines us and creates perseverance
but he let you go through it, when he could have stopped it
Okay, would you like to enter a vc?
He didnt do it to me
no, sorry
that is not what im asking or talking about
he didnt do it
but he let it happen
Thats what youre getting at
he could have killed the r4pist
made him go somewhere else
blocked his way
but he didnt
Its not Gods responsibility to end evil because the last time He did like almost everyone on earth died
he let it happen
its not god's responsability to look after is creations they loves so much?
I still lived to share Gods love
To undersand the answer to your question I think you need to understand the message of the bible as a whole and if you want to attack each individual point without putting it all together, you will never find the truth you seek
or lack of, towards you, atleast
?????
I want to give you the answer, I really do, but you need to put yourself in a position of listening first
I love being the victim of your targeted harassment thanks
If you want to ask a question, you need to ask that question seeking a real answer, instead of just asking to push an agenda
if i let someone i "love", go through horrible stuff when i could have stopped it
Do you want to find truth or do you want to yell at people in text chat?
π²
i feel like i wouldnt love that person actually
What's your goal, why are you here?
i'm so sorry, you brought it up so i thought you were more open to discuss it
my apologies
Because you were accusing my partner of not caring about something im a victim of
I wasnt inviting you to ask me extensively about it
im sorry are you talking about C or god?
i wasnt talking about ur husband?
i was talking about god
like i never accused C of anything
nor was talking about him
^^
^^
when did i accuse him of anything?
^^
i dont see no "CSporidium doesnt care about..."
"You ignoted the assault part"
"That says a lot about you"
What other conclusion can i draw bro
I dont know, but you cant say i accused someone of anything over your own conclusion
Sorry
Also idk why ur husband its so obsessed with trying to vc me
Because he wants to have a better conversation
Because it invites an enviroment where we listen more and we don't ask questions in order to try to tear eachother down
there is often missunderstanding with text π
Btw sorry for the personal question, are you comfortable with the fact your husband is a fan, is in a server and is wearing the name of a misogynistic podcaster in his profile publicly?
Im sorry whats that?
You dont know anything about the people you dislike ig
Im sorry im not american nor my first language is english
I work for charlie kirk
So idk what your talking about
His organization
Ohh
You said you didnt understand
Self hatred I guess
Yeah idk what tpusa is
In a vc alone with you I would feel the same way as if I was locked in a room with a prisioner
It's an open vc anyone can join
And ill let you know ive never been more loved by a man than i have been with cs, and if we ever had daughters i can 100% trust thst he would be the best father to women that i could ever ask for
Wouldn't make me feel any better honestly
He is the opposite of a mysogynist
It seems like you have a lot of hate in your heart that Jesus can help with
Good for you girl, idk why ur telling me this but pop off
Clock it i guess
If we had sons, I'd be a deadbeat though
I was beaten by my christian parents please do not preach to me
They weren't following God
Oh wow thats so funny, joking about being a deadbeat... haha...
???
Its joke cause i said hed be a good dad to girls
And its funny cause i didnt mention boys
Oddly specific but sure
Im sorry wasnt this an atheism discussion
Well you brought up misogyny
Lile not to be rude, I do not wanna listen to ur personal life
Have fun
Uh huh
So she only came here to talk about herself great
Love her confidence
Bet she'd announce her wedding at someone else's babyshower, too
@kindred ether you wanna continue?
yes!
Where were we before honeymoon couple decided to make this about themselves again?
Deuteronomy 22:27?
Oh yeah
You make personal accusations then you immediately back up when you realize that your personal accusations don't hold up. You are a hateful person, please follow Jesus
Again, please do not preach to me
I am not becoming a Christian any time soon
Sorry
Yeah we can tell
Yes thats what i did
Yeah and don't make baseless and hateful accusations
Do you go to birthdays to announce you're pregnant?
Lol wha
You seem like the type of woman to do that
Can you like elaborate on this verse I genuinely not understand it
I dont let people talk badly about people i love without me saying something about it
Is that bad to do
Yeah yesh are you done
i didnt at first but now i think i do?
Yesh yesh stop being so hateful and embrace love
God loves you
Go on
God is blocked and can keep his love to himself, thank you
Shes probably blonde or has her ends bleached and he probably has a beard and is bald
I can already imagine
Im mexican
And TPUSA, self hatred much?
You like accusations a lot i guess
@kindred ether can u elaborate on the verse please
yes
You are a mexican working for an organization that supports deporting your own people
"What conclusion am I supposed to get from that"
Thanks for assuming all mexicans are illegal immigrants who dont know how to fill out paperwork or follow the law
^^^
THAT is racist
I'm literally Hispanic
Ok you can be racist against your own
anyways
Thats possible
Found it! :D
Oh of course hispanics can't be racist let's make a claim about an entire race that's not what racism is or anything
That's like saying a black person saying the n word is racist towards black people
Omg just go dm your husband "i miss you kitten" or whatever
Hes right in front of me
We're trynna have a discussion here
Yeah thats who im talking to rn
Yet you're still trynna make this abt urself
Like genuinely dont you have work to do?
Paperwork?
You keep commenting so i keep responding :P
I wouldnt touch him with a 10 foot pole sorry
Yes, Im very slow with typeing and words so it kinda takes me a while to descrabe things :P
We can see that
I understand, take your time ππ
Very clearly
It takes him a lot of time to think thats ok, at least hes putting in effort to share his thoughts
I have friends !!
so the word they use in "Deuteronomy 22:28"
What happened to 22:27
I think it was a typeo?
oh yes
it is the same verse
25But if out in the country a man happens to meet a young woman pledged to be married and rapes her, only the man who has done this shall die. 26Do nothing to the woman; she has committed no sin deserving death. This case is like that of someone who attacks and murders a neighbor, 27for the man found the young woman out in the country, and though the betrothed woman screamed, there was no one to rescue her.
So this is Descrabing the woman not wantting to do it, so the man shall die
Butttttt
in Deuteronomy 22:28
the one we was tlaking about is the one we was talking about
28If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, 29he shall pay her father fifty shekels c of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.
This is 28/
This is like
Horrible
Even though its presented as "protecting the victim"
So i looked at the hebrew
Like all this is doing is making the victim be stuck w the abuser forever
The NIV is a very bad translation
Because they bad becuase they add stuff
they add stuff so its bad
the word they used was
To sleep with
they used the wrong word in this context
In the context the woman agrees to be with him
If that makes sense
???
Like that implies consent but the whole thing is supposed to be about abuse
Like what is it then?
Also if its consensual why would the woman "scream but no one heard to rescue her"???
Nope
It says in that instance the man is to be put to death
the first one is describing a woman who does not want to sleep with the man
and the 2nd is describing a woman who wants to sleep with a man
In the first one the man must be put to death
but the 2nd the woman must merry him
Ohhh i forgot to talk about that one mb
Where does the second one start and end
The 2nd starts at 28, and ends at 29
Like reading both 28 and 29
not read 28 and end at 29
"For he has violated her"
if that make snce
If it wasnt consensual it wouldnt be described as "Violated"
yes
thats in the NVI
wich is a bad translation
a better one is esv or kjv
Here is the ESV!
25βBut if in the open country a man meets a young woman who is betrothed, and the man seizes her and lies with her, then only the man who lay with her shall die. 26But you shall do nothing to the young woman; she has committed no offense punishable by death. For this case is like that of a man attacking and murdering his neighbor, 27because he met her in the open country, and though the betrothed young woman cried for help there was no one to rescue her.
and the 2nd where she agrees to be with him
28βIf a man meets a virgin who is not betrothed, and seizes her and lies with her, and they are found, 29then the man who lay with her shall give to the father of the young woman fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife, because he has violated her. He may not divorce her all his days.
It still says "violated"
"Violated" (past tense of violate) means to have broken, disregarded, or infringed upon a law, rule, agreement, or promise. It signifies a flagrant breach of standards, or, when applied to people or spaces, it refers to treating them with disrespect, invading privacy, or causing physical/sexual harm.
The second one is not consensual
Its still SA
If it was consensual it would say "violated"
Violate also means to have been slept with in like a bad way, how do i explain?