Science is best supported by?

@moonbus said
O, but we do know what he thinks of everyone, he's said so enough times. We're all damned sinners.

Are we also damned through association?

@ghost-of-a-duke said
I employ 12 trustworthy gardeners.

I had my post removed so I will re-word it.

Would you hire fmf and gooster? 🙂

-VR

@ghost-of-a-duke said
Hoe hoe hoe.

Please let me use one of those, as my hands are getting roughed up from all the weeding by hand....the heavy hand of the Lord of the Garden. The one West of Eden. In Chicago, which lies far to your West, we have a road that belongs to Eden, The Eden's Expressway, aka, I-94. Unfortunately it also leads to Detroit, which some consider as a hell of a city. We also have a Chicago Album with a cover showing a nice little, and recently watered, garden.

The reason I mention it, is because I was just listening to the album, as I type my senseless posts, to confuse and confound divegeester, primarily. Secondly is meant for FMF, to disguise the banter. The album is, The Very Best of Chicago: Only the Beginning. But there's no hoe in the cover picture. That's why I need one.

“The hand of the LORD was heavy against” them (1 Sam. 5:6). Indeed, the God Yahweh is a terrible God—i.e., His perfect ways bring terror and fear to His enemies. He terrified the Philistines, delivering immediate retribution so that they were able to realize a cause and effect in their actions.

YouTube&list=OLAK5uy_n6tXxsKW0KFKTYM0M49kZN2rA-4BP9tEE&index=2

@kellyjay said
Yes, but that everyone also includes me so it isn't like I'm looking down on anyone from my high horse as a few here do to me.

https://youtu.be/GTzehZUfn6I

I don't think it's a question of anyone 'looking down' on anyone else. Nobody here cares what you believe, all that anyone here (and certainly I) have asked you to do is to justify or defend your stated 'facts' , which are not facts, of course, such as 'God created everything.' or 'We are all going to hell.' Whenever the obvious contradictions in your beliefs are raised, you simply ignore them; if you're looking for a bit more respect, either stop stating your beliefs as facts, or be prepared to answer or at least address the difficult questions.

By the way, I haven't looked at your 'youtube' thing, I'm only replying to your words.

@indonesia-phil said
I don't think it's a question of anyone 'looking down' on anyone else. Nobody here cares what you believe, all that anyone here (and certainly I) have asked you to do is to justify or defend your stated 'facts' , which are not facts, of course, such as 'God created everything.' or 'We are all going to hell.' Whenever the obvious contradictions in your beliefs are raise ...[text shortened]... questions.

By the way, I haven't looked at your 'youtube' thing, I'm only replying to your words.

It was just a song

@indonesia-phil said
I don't think it's a question of anyone 'looking down' on anyone else. Nobody here cares what you believe, all that anyone here (and certainly I) have asked you to do is to justify or defend your stated 'facts' , which are not facts, of course, such as 'God created everything.' or 'We are all going to hell.' Whenever the obvious contradictions in your beliefs are raise ...[text shortened]... questions.

By the way, I haven't looked at your 'youtube' thing, I'm only replying to your words.

You’re wasting your time; you’ll get more sense out of KellyJay.

@indonesia-phil said
I don't think it's a question of anyone 'looking down' on anyone else. Nobody here cares what you believe, all that anyone here (and certainly I) have asked you to do is to justify or defend your stated 'facts' , which are not facts, of course, such as 'God created everything.' or 'We are all going to hell.' Whenever the obvious contradictions in your beliefs are raise ...[text shortened]... questions.

By the way, I haven't looked at your 'youtube' thing, I'm only replying to your words.

What facts do you have to support your views on the beginning? I've stated why I believe what I do numerous times and typically from you all I get is a question about a snake, you don't engage in discussions about information, you bring up the snake and go quiet.

@kellyjay said
What facts do you have to support your views on the beginning?

What “facts” do us Christians have?

@kellyjay said
What facts do you have to support your views on the beginning? I've stated why I believe what I do numerous times and typically from you all I get is a question about a snake, you don't engage in discussions about information, you bring up the snake and go quiet.

You sound a bit like you are trying to look down at Indonesia Phil from your high horse.

@pettytalk said
Are we also damned through association?

We are damned by our very nature. That’s what KJ says. It also happens to be mainstream Church doctrine, since Augustine.

@divegeester said
What “facts” do us Christians have?

What facts do we Christians have ?


Courtesy of the grammar gestapo.

@moonbus said
We are damned by our very nature. That’s what KJ says. It also happens to be mainstream Church doctrine, since Augustine.

It’s been the doctrine since the fall of man, you could easily refute it just show a good person who never does anything contrary to righteousness and goodness.

@moonbus said
We are damned by our very nature. That’s what KJ says. It also happens to be mainstream Church doctrine, since Augustine.

Seriously, I was asking only facetiously, in order to put my mind at rest on whether or not I'm considered damned by KJ, merely for my association (membership) in our damned club, the Ghost Chamber. It had already become evident to me how KJ classes who is or isn't damned.

Personally, to class myself, and others, I would class KJ with unmovable mountains. I'm asking for admission into the club of fools. The damned fools who repeatedly, time after time, attempt to move unmovable mountains. After so many attempts by so many people, and for so many years, when does anyone say, that's enough? Never say never?

They say that a skeptic can be moved by persuasion, besides tangible evidence and miracles. But how do we move objects which have developed very deep roots? First we need to dig around the roots, and then exposing them to the light of persuasion? It may be a miracle, if we can. This is valid for any object/subject of discussion worthy of a debate, for moving purposes. And what is that which is deemed worthy? Damned, if I know.

Damned when saying never, and damned when saying always? Perhaps there is something which can be used to help us move KJ away from his deep and wide-rooted damned idea. It's a worthy effort, if it helps in the removal of the tares before it's time for the harvest. If the tares can be gently, but firmly, moved outside the field to be harvested, then those tares need not be separated from the grain, bundled together, and then burned. This is valid in the field of play, too.

We need not use Augustine as a time marker, Saint....Augustine, to shake up mainstream Church doctrine, to find the root cause for the damned cause of the mainstream thinking. Like all flowing streams, we must locate the headwaters, the main source causing the flow of this stream of damnation. By finding the source, and then following the fresh stream all the way to where it lets off into the salty sea, we can also see why and how the delta was formed. All the many divisions and separations of the main stream of Christianity.

Perhaps we can also, by tracing the path, account for all the losses along the way, and see if it's only a natural loss, an architectural design flaw, bad engineering supervision, construction errors, or applied labor flaws. Or the losses are being caused by thieves, who are intentional siphoning from the stream. It can be one, some, or even all causes for the loss and the lost. Perhaps by tracing our roots we may also discover why Christianity is only the majority "religion", and not the ONLY religion? One for all, and all for one.

And where do we begin our search for the mainstream doctrine? Where else? At the beginning, naturally! The nature of humans who are inherently flawed and inclined towards sin due to the disobedience, as the story goes, the current mainstream goes flowing along.

I'm surprised that Hollywood did not consider making an, Indiana Jones: And The Search For The Roots Of Damnation.

@kellyjay said
It’s been the doctrine since the fall of man, you could easily refute it just show a good person who never does anything contrary to righteousness and goodness.

It is not necessary to produce an example of a person who never did or thought anything less than perfectly good and righteous in order to refute the toxic doctrine that man is by nature evil. It is refuted by Kant's observation that "ought implies can." If it is impossible to do (or be) something, then it cannot be morally obligatory to do (or become) that.

See also:

“No one deserves to be praised for goodness unless he is strong enough to be bad, for any other goodness is usually merely inertia or lack of will-power”
― Francois de La Rochefoucauld

@moonbus said
It is not necessary to produce an example of a person who never did or thought anything less than perfectly good and righteous in order to refute the toxic doctrine that man is by nature evil. It is refuted by Kant's observation that "ought implies can." If it is impossible to do (or be) something, then it cannot be morally obligatory to do (or become) that.

See also:

...[text shortened]... any other goodness is usually merely inertia or lack of will-power”
― Francois de La Rochefoucauld

The fact you can and don’t removes your excuse. Knowing we don’t because our hearts are corrupt and refuse to go to the One who saves, redeems, and sanctifies is also on us.

Each time we could have told the complete truth and didn’t shows us our errors. Each time we do what we should have because the cost was too much if we were caught, we show we can do what we ought. When we think our desire or pleasure is worth the chance, we show what we are.