Rock Beyond Belief

[SweetDee 0]

So, a line of thought that went through my head as I was driving to my fave tranny spot goes something like this: Biblically, recompense for sin must be. Sin=punishment. That statement in itself is so wide open it makes your head spin, much like a quality tranny. But, what punishment, and for what sins? Some of you want to focus on baby rape like it's the be all and end all of sin, (I tend to think dead baby rape is much worse) that being said, biblically, baby rape is going to possibly eventually happen when one follows certain paths of self-indulgence. As much as we can we try and make this society where pretty much anything goes without consequence, but what I was thinking is what we would think of as consequence may not be to a God. Meaning, somebody starts just one hit of X. Then, let's try some coke, ohh, that's nice. How about some Heroine? Maybe some crack? Loses his job, friends don't intervene or don't really care, family doesn't know what to do or may not even give a shit, society at large turns a blind eye, even glorifies it as entertainment, high as **** one day, dick gets hard, hey, look, a warm body. Obviously drugs don't always lead to this, and I can imagine all sorts of scenarios lead to eventual baby rape, but, all would be the result of some other sins along the path, and not necessarily just that one persons sins, but a multitude of peoples. From the angle that a bible believing person takes this makes total sense. It also is not all that relevant, when you factor in the idea that the baby is just one of many who have been affected by this heinous person in some way. The baby now is suffering the consequence of the sins of many, and I think biblically that would absolutely have to be, otherwise, why not just do whatever your heart desires?

[SuitedAces21 2,722]

So, a line of thought that went through my head as I was driving to my fave tranny spot goes something like this: Biblically, recompense for sin must be. Sin=punishment. That statement in itself is so wide open it makes your head spin, much like a quality tranny. But, what punishment, and for what sins? Some of you want to focus on baby rape like it's the be all and end all of sin, (I tend to think dead baby rape is much worse) that being said, biblically, baby rape is going to possibly eventually happen when one follows certain paths of self-indulgence. As much as we can we try and make this society where pretty much anything goes without consequence, but what I was thinking is what we would think of as consequence may not be to a God. Meaning, somebody starts just one hit of X. Then, let's try some coke, ohh, that's nice. How about some Heroine? Maybe some crack? Loses his job, friends don't intervene or don't really care, family doesn't know what to do or may not even give a shit, society at large turns a blind eye, even glorifies it as entertainment, high as **** one day, dick gets hard, hey, look, a warm body. Obviously drugs don't always lead to this, and I can imagine all sorts of scenarios lead to eventual baby rape, but, all would be the result of some other sins along the path, and not necessarily just that one persons sins, but a multitude of peoples. From the angle that a bible believing person takes this makes total sense. It also is not all that relevant, when you factor in the idea that the baby is just one of many who have been affected by this heinous person in some way. The baby now is suffering the consequence of the sins of many, and I think biblically that would absolutely have to be, otherwise, why not just do whatever your heart desires?

This makes absolutely no sense. You've said nothing of value. So go ahead and stamp your damn form, sonny, and stop wasting my time.

[Spademan 94]

Spademan owning the world's largest dick

Window peeping leads to restraining orders, pervert. Orders of restraint.

[vbnautilus 48]

So, a line of thought that went through my head

A line -- you mean like this?

[Roll the Bones 74]

A line -- you mean like this?

Haha, haven't spit at the monitor in a long while.

[SweetDee 0]

A line -- you mean like this?

This was good.Okay, I will streamline it for you. Biblically, the wages of sin is death, right? Sin=bad things happening. Raping babies is not something that you wake up one day and just do, there is a path taken to it, littered with sins, not just your sin but others sin as well. What I proposed is that in order for God to be honest/consistent, the baby rape would be a necessary happening. If it did not happen, and instead after taking the path to baby rape you found instead, say, a longing to ingest lots of cotton candy, God would be a liar.

[vbnautilus 48]

BigD, you know the pic I'm looking for.

[Skeleton Jelly 2]

[Balloon guy 158]

Sweet is right, it's just you guys are basically taking a position contrary to your own world views and having a hard time understanding what Sweet is saying.You guys are assuming that the baby rapist was created recently.Sweet is trying to get you to understand that he evolved.That the steps necessary to get from guy who pays his taxes and likes The Ink Spots to a BR is a series of small changes over time.I get you Sweet, you are right.

[Skeleton Jelly 2]

That the steps necessary to get from guy who pays his taxes and likes The Ink Spots to a BR is a series of small changes over time.

Yeah, you can't really expect God to fully understand that many small changes.

[Balloon guy 158]

Yeah, you can't really expect God to fully understand that many small changes.

If I didn't care more than words can sayIf I didn't care would I feel this way?If this isn't love then why do I thrill?And what makes my head go 'round and 'roundWhile my heart stands still?If I didn't care would it be the same?Would my ev'ry prayer begin and end with just your name?And would I be sure that this is love beyond compare?Would all this be true if I didn't care for you?

[Spademan 94]

Sweet is right

No he isn't.

you guys are basically taking a position contrary to your own world views

I can only speak for myself, but, no I'm not. I don't even know what this is referring to or what it means, really. It's just a bald statement, devoid of meaning. No context, no example, no argument. Just a statement. In the vacuum you've placed it, I am certainly not guilty of it.

and having a hard time understanding what Sweet is saying.

I am. This is true. This isn't, however, a result of me "taking a position contrary to my own world views". The reason I have a hard time understanding what sweet is saying is that sweet types out garbled sentences into giant block paragraphs. These paragraphs have no flow of reasoning. The claims within are difficult to parse. I'm confident I could, with considerable effort put into understanding them, cut out the non-pertinent material and translate his posts into three sentences and convey the meaning of the entire mess.

You guys are assuming that the baby rapist was created recently.

No, I'm not. This, again, is a bald statement. The only thing "created recently" in the whole discussion is the baby. You know. The baby that didn't "sin=punishment and it accumulates over time and irrelevant irrelevant irrelevant...".

Sweet is trying to get you to understand that he evolved.

That seemed to be one of his points, as far as I can tell. If only it were germane to the discussion.

That the steps necessary to get from guy who pays his taxes and likes The Ink Spots to a BR is a series of small changes over time.

I'd bring up psychopaths, sociopaths, brain damage, trauma and a number of other things which would throw your statement of necessity into question. However, the BR slowly or suddenly turning into a BR is entirely irrelevant to the issue, so I won't. The baby gets raped either way.

I get you Sweet, you are right.

I don't normally break down your posts in the religious forum because they are so often, line for line, so wrong that it is time consuming and futile. Whether trolling or not, your style is effectively a Gish Gallop. (The Gish Gallop is an informal name for a rhetorical technique in debates that involves drowning the opponent in half-truths, lies, straw men, and bullshit to such a degree that the opponent cannot possibly answer every falsehood that has been raised, usually resulting in many involuntary twitches in frustration as the opponent struggles to decide where to start. It is named after creationism activist and professional debater Duane Gish.)

[BaseJester 1]

Sweet is right, it's just you guys are basically taking a position contrary to your own world views and having a hard time understanding what Sweet is saying.You guys are assuming that the baby rapist was created recently.Sweet is trying to get you to understand that he evolved.

http://www.fullcontactpoker.com/poker-foru...t&p=3347607

[SweetDee 0]

What part of sin equals bad is so tough to grasp?For the record, I am not taking a stance on whether or not the Tsunami had anything to do with God, just looking at the biblical version of things. Biblically, the wages of sin is death, and the "wages" doesn't discriminate, it effects all of us. Young, old, rich, poor, doesn't matter, the wages are the result of our actions. So, yes, even the much ballyhooed baby gets the shaft at some point but that's not Gods doing, that's ours, and it's necessary or Gods a liar.What's interesting to me is no one has even brought up Satans biblical role in this. To me that's a huge hole in this discussion.I will try and shorten my paragraphs and clean things up. I tend to try and type as fast as I think and I can see how its a mess.

[Spademan 94]

What part of sin equals bad is so tough to grasp?

This obvious point isn't difficult to grasp. It was the surrounding word soup of fail that accounted for the problem.

I will try and shorten my paragraphs and clean things up. I tend to try and type as fast as I think and I can see how its a mess.

It would be appreciated and make you more of a relevant contribution to the discussion. This post is already a marked improvement.

So, yes, even the much ballyhooed baby gets the shaft

I'm skeptical you meant the double entandre here, but either way, I found it sufficiently offensive to illicit a chuckle.On an only slightly unrelated note, I didn't give any love to VB's arrow. Got a chuckle.

[Spademan 94]

My problem is that you guys seem to be boxing God in. I don't see how you can know so confidently what a hypothetical God's plans are.

I just remembered I was going to respond to this. Then I had to look for it. Annoying.This is what you are willfully, or are blindly, ignoring:This quote is exactly the same as, "My problem is that you guys seem to be boxing Tooth Fairy in. I don't see how you can know so confidently what a hypothetical Tooth Fairy's plans are."Some random supernatural, spectacular, magical conception of man... some concept that has no traffic with the observed universe... is fucking irrelevant to me dude. Could there be an invisible being out there that is strangely obsessed with teeth? Yes. Could this invisible being have created the universe as we know it? Yes. Could teeth be the most important and vital thing in the universe and some invisible being knows this fact and I don't know because my lolhumanlogic is not capable of realizing? Yes. Your "God" having a magical and awesome understanding of the universe that trumps my disgust at a baby being raped is possible. Can't disagree with you on that issue.The problem - aside from falling to parsimony, which is big, but the much bigger and dangerous issue is - the problem with your fucking stupid ass belief in belief is that it leads to.... by FUCKING NECESSITY dude... morality and reality being completely meaningless unless provided to you by a text/holy man who has been blessed with revelation via an invisible and majestic being in the sky. Raping babies is good or bad?According to your argument from ignorance claim concerning an invisible wizard the answer is: only the god of Abraham knows. Raping babies is the equivalent of not raping babies. Since we can not know. This fails on even a pragmatic level. Fucking use your brain, dude.

[brvheart 1,752]

I think you're mixing a couple posters together. I didn't say anything about raping babies.. did I? I don't even know why everyone is talking about baby rape.

[vbnautilus 48]

I think you're mixing a couple posters together. I didn't say anything about raping babies.. did I? I don't even know why everyone is talking about baby rape.

Nobody does. Not even Sweet Dee.

[Spademan 94]

I think you're mixing a couple posters together. I didn't say anything about raping babies.. did I? I don't even know why everyone is talking about baby rape.

I'm not mixing anyone together.Meh, I really thought you were following the discussion more capably. The beliefs you purport lead directly into the baby rape conclusion via reductio ad absurdum.You must not have read the links I provided, or didn't make a real effort to understand them as you read, or, at the most depressing end of the scale, are incapable of understanding them.Ugh, so distressing. Almost makes me want to give up putting effort into this thread.

Nobody does. Not even Sweet Dee.

I assume you're joking but I want to explain to those who may be offended or miss the point why "baby rape" is being used.When you point out the failure in someone's logic, one of the most effective (rhetorically and logically) techniques is to take their logic down a logical progression that ends with the most offensive, or absurd, conclusion it by necessity leads.Baby rape is about the worst thing I can conceive. Brv's claims or "possibilities" lead to baby rape being, at worst, good, and at its very best, neutral or "unknown", in terms of morality.

[Spademan 94]

I think you're mixing a couple posters together. I didn't say anything about raping babies.. did I? I don't even know why everyone is talking about baby rape.

Also, aside from your failure to understand how "baby rape" relates to your stupid "hypothetical" god concept, please understand that I note your absolute unwillingness and inability to respond to the most damning and difficult parts of my argument.Supernatural and invisible things, God and Tooth fairy for example, having the same qualities? Ignored.Critical thought not being engaged? Ignored.Parsimony? Ignored.I had a number of "X? Ignored." left to give, but I'm fucking bored. I'm back into "you're an idiot" mode.You're an idiot.

[Skeleton Jelly 2]

(The Gish Gallop is an informal name for a rhetorical technique in debates that involves drowning the opponent in half-truths, lies, straw men, and bullshit to such a degree that the opponent cannot possibly answer every falsehood that has been raised, usually resulting in many involuntary twitches in frustration as the opponent struggles to decide where to start. It is named after creationism activist and professional debater Duane Gish.)

How informal is it? Is it something that you came up with or...wait, I'll just google...ok, it's a real thing. And it's awesome. I learn a lot from Spade's posts.

[DinkDonk 1]

There isn't a good enough facepalm picture for me to adequately express how I feel about your post.

I love this post.

[Mercury69 3]

[vbnautilus 48]

I assume you're joking but I want to explain to those who may be offended or miss the point why "baby rape" is being used.When you point out the failure in someone's logic, one of the most effective (rhetorically and logically) techniques is to take their logic down a logical progression that ends with the most offensive, or absurd, conclusion it by necessity leads.Baby rape is about the worst thing I can conceive. Brv's claims or "possibilities" lead to baby rape being, at worst, good, and at its very best, neutral or "unknown", in terms of morality.

Maybe I've lost the thread here, but it seems to me you are mischaracterizing their position somewhat.Their god has given them a moral code which they are expected to live by. This moral code includes rules that make it pretty clear that raping babies is bad. However, they are not supposed to use this moral code to evaluate god's own actions. It only governs the actions of humans. God can go ahead and wipe out thousands of people (or, by reductio, rape lots of babies) if he deems it necessary for his master plan. Morality doesn't apply to god because morality is the system by which god judges our actions -- and not the other way around.( Of course forbidding us from evaluating god is just another method by which this belief system disarms the reasoning parts of people's minds which would otherwise reject it. It's almost like AIDS - it goes for the immune system itself. )

[Balloon guy 158]

Maybe I've lost the thread here, but it seems to me you are mischaracterizing their position somewhat.Their god has given them a moral code which they are expected to live by. This moral code includes rules that make it pretty clear that raping babies is bad. However, they are not supposed to use this moral code to evaluate god's own actions. It only governs the actions of humans. God can go ahead and wipe out thousands of people (or, by reductio, rape lots of babies) if he deems it necessary for his master plan. Morality doesn't apply to god because morality is the system by which god judges our actions -- and not the other way around.( Of course forbidding us from evaluating god is just another method by which this belief system disarms the reasoning parts of people's minds which would otherwise reject it. It's almost like AIDS - it goes for the immune system itself. )

Is the Creator of morality bound by His creation?And is He bound in the same space/time that His creation is stuck in when determining His actions?And would He be required to explain His perspective every time He carries out an action His creation doesn't understand?And finally is it possible to create physical laws like the ones that govern weather, and set them in motion, with the intention of wanting weather to happen for obvious reasons, but knowing that actions of others may result in those laws becoming deadly? ( Algore causing global warming that gave us Katrina. )