Topic: Pope Francis rescued by firefighters.
Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U started this discussion 6 years ago #91,057
Join me please in a prayer of thanks for His Holiness' safe rescue.
https://edition.cnn.com/2019/09/01/europe/pope-francis-elevator-intl-scli/index.html
https://edition.cnn.com/2019/09/01/europe/pope-francis-elevator-intl-scli/index.html
Syntax joined in and replied with this 6 years ago, 1 hour later[^] [v] #1,036,019
1 hour ago? LoL ok you need a reply to this er strange request in topic
Safe rescue LOL - So this do nothing Pope can continue to do nothing of value. For instance I give you a Cardinal
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2019/02/sean-omalley-pope-francis-catholic-church-sex-abuse/582658/
*Oh well it goes on and on re: The pope “was convinced to do it another way,” “We’re still waiting for the procedures to be clearly articulated.”
Pope did cum out with a few words in a Blow Job about how the Church must do something and that was months ago - The Church is doing something by continuing to lose court cases when they hire attorney's to protect the Pope n Church as they continue to pay out Billions of Bucks to victims and families of victims of the Pedophile
Catholic Church. That is the name the Press of the world gives to this Christian cough cough Church.
Safe rescue LOL - So this do nothing Pope can continue to do nothing of value. For instance I give you a Cardinal
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2019/02/sean-omalley-pope-francis-catholic-church-sex-abuse/582658/
In an interview on a recent cold morning in Boston, the cardinal spoke about the progress he believes the Church, and Pope Francis, have made in recent years, and what’s still lacking. He detailed his proposal to establish Vatican tribunals to deal with bishops accused of wrongdoing—one of the major problems the Church has yet to address.
The pope “was convinced to do it another way,” O’Malley said. “We’re still waiting for the procedures to be clearly articulated.” He often described problems in the Church passively, without directly assigning agency or fault. For example:
American bishops have asked the Vatican for an investigation into Theodore McCarrick, the former cardinal who was consistently elevated despite widely acknowledged rumors of sexual misconduct, until he was removed from ministry last summer. After months of requests, an investigation appears to be under way. “Certainly, many of us have personally expressed to the Holy Father and the secretary of state the need to do something quickly,”
O’Malley said. “I keep getting assurances. But we’re waiting for the documents to be produced.”
Wayyyy 2much to CopyPasta beyond this *However
The pope “was convinced to do it another way,” O’Malley said. “We’re still waiting for the procedures to be clearly articulated.” He often described problems in the Church passively, without directly assigning agency or fault. For example:
American bishops have asked the Vatican for an investigation into Theodore McCarrick, the former cardinal who was consistently elevated despite widely acknowledged rumors of sexual misconduct, until he was removed from ministry last summer. After months of requests, an investigation appears to be under way. “Certainly, many of us have personally expressed to the Holy Father and the secretary of state the need to do something quickly,”
O’Malley said. “I keep getting assurances. But we’re waiting for the documents to be produced.”
Wayyyy 2much to CopyPasta beyond this *However
*Oh well it goes on and on re: The pope “was convinced to do it another way,” “We’re still waiting for the procedures to be clearly articulated.”
Pope did cum out with a few words in a Blow Job about how the Church must do something and that was months ago - The Church is doing something by continuing to lose court cases when they hire attorney's to protect the Pope n Church as they continue to pay out Billions of Bucks to victims and families of victims of the Pedophile
Catholic Church. That is the name the Press of the world gives to this Christian cough cough Church.
(Edited 1 minute later.)
Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U (OP) replied with this 6 years ago, 14 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,036,021
@previous (Syntax)
> Christian cough cough Church.
You seem ill, my aged friend. Would you like me to pray for you?
> Christian cough cough Church.
You seem ill, my aged friend. Would you like me to pray for you?
Syntax replied with this 6 years ago, 8 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,036,023
@previous (Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U)
Not ill just need more sleep
Cough Cough is my ill respect for the Catholic Church, as it's currently constituted/structured - It is the ideal Church for Pedophiles for sure and for those who run that Church. Good to see Diocese going bankrupt as all fuck- Some closing down and many Churches being sold for the cash to pay victims of Pedo's.
Not ill just need more sleep
Cough Cough is my ill respect for the Catholic Church, as it's currently constituted/structured - It is the ideal Church for Pedophiles for sure and for those who run that Church. Good to see Diocese going bankrupt as all fuck- Some closing down and many Churches being sold for the cash to pay victims of Pedo's.
Anonymous C joined in and replied with this 6 years ago, 29 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,036,031
Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U (OP) replied with this 6 years ago, 1 hour later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,036,043
@1,036,023 (Syntax)
> It is the ideal Church for Pedophiles for sure and for those who run that Church.
Few other institutions do more to protect children around the world than the Catholic Church.
> many Churches being sold for the cash to pay victims of Pedo's.
Let me take a wild guess here. If I told you to provide evidence for this absurd statement, you'll suddenly have one of those "urgent meetings" you always seem to need to run off to whenever anyone challenges your nonsense claims.
> It is the ideal Church for Pedophiles for sure and for those who run that Church.
Few other institutions do more to protect children around the world than the Catholic Church.
> many Churches being sold for the cash to pay victims of Pedo's.
Let me take a wild guess here. If I told you to provide evidence for this absurd statement, you'll suddenly have one of those "urgent meetings" you always seem to need to run off to whenever anyone challenges your nonsense claims.
Meta !Sober//iZs joined in and replied with this 6 years ago, 10 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,036,046
It would seem like an omnipotent omniscient god would do a better job of rescuing than some faggots with a ladder truck ?
Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U (OP) replied with this 6 years ago, 3 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,036,049
@previous (Meta !Sober//iZs)
What would be the point of human existence if God fulfilled all tasks Himself?
What would be the point of human existence if God fulfilled all tasks Himself?
toni !RwordOooFE joined in and replied with this 6 years ago, 5 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,036,050
Bilbo !RwordOooFE joined in and replied with this 6 years ago, 18 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,036,056
Anonymous C replied with this 6 years ago, 2 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,036,057
@1,036,043 (Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U)
> All other institutions do more to protect children around the world than the Catholic Church.
Nice admittance!
> All other institutions do more to protect children around the world than the Catholic Church.
Nice admittance!
Anonymous G joined in and replied with this 6 years ago, 3 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,036,060
@1,036,056 (Bilbo !RwordOooFE)
But why would you worship someone who shows up and breaks your elevator?
But why would you worship someone who shows up and breaks your elevator?
Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U (OP) replied with this 6 years ago, 4 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,036,062
@1,036,057 (C)
> >All other institutions do more to protect children around the world than the Catholic Church.
>
> Nice admittance!
The word you wanted to use is 'admission'. Admittance means the act of entering somewhere. If you're going to alter people's posts to make a point you'll find you look far less of a berk if you do it with a half-decent command of the English language.
Bless you my child.
> >All other institutions do more to protect children around the world than the Catholic Church.
>
> Nice admittance!
The word you wanted to use is 'admission'. Admittance means the act of entering somewhere. If you're going to alter people's posts to make a point you'll find you look far less of a berk if you do it with a half-decent command of the English language.
Bless you my child.
Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U (OP) double-posted this 6 years ago, 1 minute later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,036,063
@1,036,050 (toni !RwordOooFE)
> uh, to worship the Lord, duh
'Worshipping' a deity who places no need to take an active and responsible part in His creation would be mindless.
> uh, to worship the Lord, duh
'Worshipping' a deity who places no need to take an active and responsible part in His creation would be mindless.
Bilbo !RwordOooFE replied with this 6 years ago, 1 minute later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,036,064
@previous (Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U)
That's exactly what we were before we partook of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil.
That's exactly what we were before we partook of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil.
Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U (OP) replied with this 6 years ago, 31 seconds later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,036,065
@1,036,060 (G)
> But why would you worship someone who shows up and breaks your elevator?
Typical humans - always blaming God for their own mistakes.
> But why would you worship someone who shows up and breaks your elevator?
Typical humans - always blaming God for their own mistakes.
toni !RwordOooFE replied with this 6 years ago, 1 minute later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,036,066
@1,036,063 (Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U)
but isn't that how heaven is described? worshipping the Lord for eternity?? not wanting? isn't that a perfect existence, to be in the presence of and exalting the LORD who is merciful and cares for all?? for eternity???? i always thought the Lord would have to be pretty shallow to say some of that shit... some nerve.......
but isn't that how heaven is described? worshipping the Lord for eternity?? not wanting? isn't that a perfect existence, to be in the presence of and exalting the LORD who is merciful and cares for all?? for eternity???? i always thought the Lord would have to be pretty shallow to say some of that shit... some nerve.......
Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U (OP) replied with this 6 years ago, 1 minute later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,036,067
@1,036,064 (Bilbo !RwordOooFE)
> That's exactly what we were before we partook of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil.
You need to re-read Genesis. Adam and Eve took an active part in God's creation. Indeed their relationship to God was far more 'equal' than ours and 'blind worship' is decidedly not what they did in their pre-fallen state.
> That's exactly what we were before we partook of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil.
You need to re-read Genesis. Adam and Eve took an active part in God's creation. Indeed their relationship to God was far more 'equal' than ours and 'blind worship' is decidedly not what they did in their pre-fallen state.
Anonymous G replied with this 6 years ago, 2 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,036,068
@1,036,065 (Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U)
> blaming God for their own mistakes.
Why say a prayer of thanks for his rescue then? If you're credit God for human actions, why not do it consistently?
> blaming God for their own mistakes.
Why say a prayer of thanks for his rescue then? If you're credit God for human actions, why not do it consistently?
Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U (OP) replied with this 6 years ago, 16 seconds later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,036,069
@1,036,066 (toni !RwordOooFE)
> but isn't that how heaven is described? worshipping the Lord for eternity??
No.
> not wanting? isn't that a perfect existence, to be in the presence of and exalting the LORD who is merciful and cares for all?? for eternity????
I need to ask at this point - have you read the Bible? Because your understanding of this theme seems like it's from some local TV evangelist hack.
> i always thought the Lord would have to be pretty shallow to say some of that sh*t... some nerve.......
To say what sh*t?
> but isn't that how heaven is described? worshipping the Lord for eternity??
No.
> not wanting? isn't that a perfect existence, to be in the presence of and exalting the LORD who is merciful and cares for all?? for eternity????
I need to ask at this point - have you read the Bible? Because your understanding of this theme seems like it's from some local TV evangelist hack.
> i always thought the Lord would have to be pretty shallow to say some of that sh*t... some nerve.......
To say what sh*t?
Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U (OP) double-posted this 6 years ago, 2 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,036,070
@1,036,068 (G)
> > blaming God for their own mistakes.
> Why say a prayer of thanks for his rescue then?
For creating brave and competent firefighters.
> If you're credit God for human actions, why not do it consistently?
Have you ever congratulated a parent for their child's success? Do you see where I'm going with this or do I really need to continue?
> > blaming God for their own mistakes.
> Why say a prayer of thanks for his rescue then?
For creating brave and competent firefighters.
> If you're credit God for human actions, why not do it consistently?
Have you ever congratulated a parent for their child's success? Do you see where I'm going with this or do I really need to continue?
toni !RwordOooFE replied with this 6 years ago, 2 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,036,072
toni !RwordOooFE double-posted this 6 years ago, 14 seconds later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,036,073
Anonymous G replied with this 6 years ago, 2 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,036,074
@1,036,070 (Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U)
> Do you see where I'm going with this or do I really need to continue?
I do. You're cherry picking. I don't know that I could be comfortable living a life that is that intellectually dishonest.
> Do you see where I'm going with this or do I really need to continue?
I do. You're cherry picking. I don't know that I could be comfortable living a life that is that intellectually dishonest.
Syntax replied with this 6 years ago, 45 seconds later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,036,075
@1,036,043 (Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U)
No meetings but people to meet and play with on this fyne Sun Afternoon BUT First going for one more HELL OF A Work out at 24/hr fitness. Going to see if I can break by all time record - Have three days in row and now going for MORE MORE - Endorphin levels are beyond Fantastic as result.
So just a QUICK bit of reading about Church going BankRupture AND LOOK at how fresh this date is for 2019 TGComix ur going to love this one
https://cruxnow.com/church-in-the-usa/2019/06/22/395-claims-filed-in-church-bankruptcy-case/
Now watch TG-Comix Merrin play deflection deny and change some text as only a crooked corrupt role playing Priest wood do.
No meetings but people to meet and play with on this fyne Sun Afternoon BUT First going for one more HELL OF A Work out at 24/hr fitness. Going to see if I can break by all time record - Have three days in row and now going for MORE MORE - Endorphin levels are beyond Fantastic as result.
So just a QUICK bit of reading about Church going BankRupture AND LOOK at how fresh this date is for 2019 TGComix ur going to love this one
https://cruxnow.com/church-in-the-usa/2019/06/22/395-claims-filed-in-church-bankruptcy-case/
ALBUQUERQUE, New Mexico - Nearly 400 claims have been filed against New Mexico’s largest and oldest Roman Catholic diocese as part of a pending bankruptcy case that stems from the clergy sex abuse scandal, church officials announced Friday.
The Archdiocese of Santa Fe reported that 395 people filed claims against the Church as of the June 17 2019, deadline. That included 374 claims involving sex abuse. The remaining 21 were related to other grievances.
The archdiocese shocked parishioners across much of New Mexico when it filed for Chapter 11 reorganization last year,
'''Joining nearly two dozen other dioceses around the United States that have been struggling with the fallout from the abuse scandal.'''
Editor's note: Two Dozen Dioceses and this is ONLY for One court case in One State of USA - Does not include the rest of Planet Earth like Australia and so many other places The Catholic Church is going into BankRuptcy/Rupture No doubt Troll TG-Comix will ask for examples of the Other places on planet where this occurs, because as a Catholic he must be deaf dumb and blind - Hey good Troll action on Role Playing Priest
“We are hopeful that mediation among the survivors’ committee, insurers, archdiocese and other parties will result in a consensus to provide as equitable a resolution for each and every claimant,” the archdiocese said in a statement issued Friday.
New Mexico has a long history with clergy sex abuse because many priests from around the country were sent to the state to get treatment for pedophilia.
Church documents as well as legal filings and victim testimony indicate the priests were later assigned to parishes and schools across the state
Editor’s Note: Amazing how the Catholic Church thinks treatment for pedophilia works more better by sending the Pedo Priests back to the very same place where they have access to very young children. That is indeed a Lawyers Dream come true.
The Archdiocese of Santa Fe reported that 395 people filed claims against the Church as of the June 17 2019, deadline. That included 374 claims involving sex abuse. The remaining 21 were related to other grievances.
The archdiocese shocked parishioners across much of New Mexico when it filed for Chapter 11 reorganization last year,
'''Joining nearly two dozen other dioceses around the United States that have been struggling with the fallout from the abuse scandal.'''
Editor's note: Two Dozen Dioceses and this is ONLY for One court case in One State of USA - Does not include the rest of Planet Earth like Australia and so many other places The Catholic Church is going into BankRuptcy/Rupture No doubt Troll TG-Comix will ask for examples of the Other places on planet where this occurs, because as a Catholic he must be deaf dumb and blind - Hey good Troll action on Role Playing Priest
“We are hopeful that mediation among the survivors’ committee, insurers, archdiocese and other parties will result in a consensus to provide as equitable a resolution for each and every claimant,” the archdiocese said in a statement issued Friday.
New Mexico has a long history with clergy sex abuse because many priests from around the country were sent to the state to get treatment for pedophilia.
Church documents as well as legal filings and victim testimony indicate the priests were later assigned to parishes and schools across the state
Editor’s Note: Amazing how the Catholic Church thinks treatment for pedophilia works more better by sending the Pedo Priests back to the very same place where they have access to very young children. That is indeed a Lawyers Dream come true.
Now watch TG-Comix Merrin play deflection deny and change some text as only a crooked corrupt role playing Priest wood do.
(Edited 4 minutes later.)
Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U (OP) replied with this 6 years ago, 4 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,036,076
@1,036,072 (toni !RwordOooFE)
> wow you're Mean for a priest smh father
"Mean"? I simply asked you to say what "sh*t" you are referring to that you think God says. These are complex themes for adults, it's not a time to be hyper-sensitive.
> wow you're Mean for a priest smh father
"Mean"? I simply asked you to say what "sh*t" you are referring to that you think God says. These are complex themes for adults, it's not a time to be hyper-sensitive.
Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U (OP) double-posted this 6 years ago, 40 seconds later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,036,077
@1,036,074 (G)
> > Do you see where I'm going with this or do I really need to continue?
> I do. You're cherry picking.
So we can now add "cherry picking" to the list of terms you are incorrectly using.
> > Do you see where I'm going with this or do I really need to continue?
> I do. You're cherry picking.
So we can now add "cherry picking" to the list of terms you are incorrectly using.
Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U (OP) triple-posted this 6 years ago, 4 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,036,079
@1,036,075 (Syntax)
> No meetings but people to meet and play with on this fyne Sun Afternoon BUT First going for one more HELL OF A Work out at 24/hr fitness. Going to see if I can break by all time record - Have three days in row and now going for MORE MORE - Endorphin levels are beyond Fantastic as result.
>
> So just a QUICK bit of reading about Church going BankRupture AND LOOK at how fresh this date is for 2019 TGComix ur going to love this one
> https://cruxnow.com/church-in-the-usa/2019/06/22/395-claims-filed-in-church-bankruptcy-case/
>
>
>
> Now watch TG-Comix Merrin play deflection deny and change some text as only a crooked corrupt role playing Priest wood do.
I'll ask you again. Please post evidence of your claim that Catholic churches are going bankrupt as a result of "paying cash to victims of pedophiles". You've yet again fallen victim to your habit of frantically Googling things and then posting the first link you find without properly reading it.
> No meetings but people to meet and play with on this fyne Sun Afternoon BUT First going for one more HELL OF A Work out at 24/hr fitness. Going to see if I can break by all time record - Have three days in row and now going for MORE MORE - Endorphin levels are beyond Fantastic as result.
>
> So just a QUICK bit of reading about Church going BankRupture AND LOOK at how fresh this date is for 2019 TGComix ur going to love this one
> https://cruxnow.com/church-in-the-usa/2019/06/22/395-claims-filed-in-church-bankruptcy-case/
>
>
ALBUQUERQUE, New Mexico - Nearly 400 claims have been filed against New Mexico’s largest and oldest Roman Catholic diocese as part of a pending bankruptcy case that stems from the clergy sex abuse scandal, church officials announced Friday.
>
> The Archdiocese of Santa Fe reported that 395 people filed claims against the Church as of the June 17 2019, deadline. That included 374 claims involving sex abuse. The remaining 21 were related to other grievances.
>
> The archdiocese shocked parishioners across much of New Mexico when it filed for Chapter 11 reorganization last year,
>
> '''Joining nearly two dozen other dioceses around the United States that have been struggling with the fallout from the abuse scandal.'''
>
> Editor's note: Two Dozen Dioceses and this is ONLY for One court case in One State of USA - Does not include the rest of Planet Earth like Australia and so many other places The Catholic Church is going into BankRuptcy/Rupture No doubt Troll TG-Comix will ask for examples of the Other places on planet where this occurs, because as a Catholic he must be deaf dumb and blind - Hey good Troll action on Role Playing Priest
>
> “We are hopeful that mediation among the survivors’ committee, insurers, archdiocese and other parties will result in a consensus to provide as equitable a resolution for each and every claimant,” the archdiocese said in a statement issued Friday.
>
> New Mexico has a long history with clergy sex abuse because many priests from around the country were sent to the state to get treatment for pedophilia.
>
> Church documents as well as legal filings and victim testimony indicate the priests were later assigned to parishes and schools across the state
>
> Editor’s Note: Amazing how the Catholic Church thinks treatment for pedophilia works more better by sending the Pedo Priests back to the very same place where they have access to very young children. That is indeed a Lawyers Dream come true.
>
>
> The Archdiocese of Santa Fe reported that 395 people filed claims against the Church as of the June 17 2019, deadline. That included 374 claims involving sex abuse. The remaining 21 were related to other grievances.
>
> The archdiocese shocked parishioners across much of New Mexico when it filed for Chapter 11 reorganization last year,
>
> '''Joining nearly two dozen other dioceses around the United States that have been struggling with the fallout from the abuse scandal.'''
>
> Editor's note: Two Dozen Dioceses and this is ONLY for One court case in One State of USA - Does not include the rest of Planet Earth like Australia and so many other places The Catholic Church is going into BankRuptcy/Rupture No doubt Troll TG-Comix will ask for examples of the Other places on planet where this occurs, because as a Catholic he must be deaf dumb and blind - Hey good Troll action on Role Playing Priest
>
> “We are hopeful that mediation among the survivors’ committee, insurers, archdiocese and other parties will result in a consensus to provide as equitable a resolution for each and every claimant,” the archdiocese said in a statement issued Friday.
>
> New Mexico has a long history with clergy sex abuse because many priests from around the country were sent to the state to get treatment for pedophilia.
>
> Church documents as well as legal filings and victim testimony indicate the priests were later assigned to parishes and schools across the state
>
> Editor’s Note: Amazing how the Catholic Church thinks treatment for pedophilia works more better by sending the Pedo Priests back to the very same place where they have access to very young children. That is indeed a Lawyers Dream come true.
>
>
> Now watch TG-Comix Merrin play deflection deny and change some text as only a crooked corrupt role playing Priest wood do.
I'll ask you again. Please post evidence of your claim that Catholic churches are going bankrupt as a result of "paying cash to victims of pedophiles". You've yet again fallen victim to your habit of frantically Googling things and then posting the first link you find without properly reading it.
Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U (OP) quadruple-posted this 6 years ago, 4 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,036,081
Oh and Syntax - please don't forget to back up your claim that the Minichan moderators have been "letting people know" my location.
https://tinychan.org/topic/53805#reply_569962
Because you know, that's quite a serious claim you've made about them and it's important you don't think there'll be no consequences of making it so long as you do it at a different forum where you think they won't see it.
https://tinychan.org/topic/53805#reply_569962
Because you know, that's quite a serious claim you've made about them and it's important you don't think there'll be no consequences of making it so long as you do it at a different forum where you think they won't see it.
Anonymous H joined in and replied with this 6 years ago, 11 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,036,084
Ionize pedo2merrin
Anonymous G replied with this 6 years ago, 4 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,036,086
@1,036,077 (Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U)
It's absolutely cherry picking. You praise God for the outcomes you like, and blame the rest on something else... human error, sin, the devil, whatever. Apparently God is to be thanked for effecting a timely rescue or brave firefighters being on hand, both things that actual humans did by making choices. What is the standard for seeing the hand of God in human action other than your general approval of that action?
It's absolutely cherry picking. You praise God for the outcomes you like, and blame the rest on something else... human error, sin, the devil, whatever. Apparently God is to be thanked for effecting a timely rescue or brave firefighters being on hand, both things that actual humans did by making choices. What is the standard for seeing the hand of God in human action other than your general approval of that action?
Anonymous H replied with this 6 years ago, 5 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,036,090
Syntax joined in and replied with this 6 years ago, 10 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,036,093
@1,036,081 (Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U)
Typical of you as the Pretend Priest to change what a person says here.
From your own link AND You cited the WRONG part of that link - will give it to u in momento
You said
> "please don't forget to back up your claim that the Minichan moderators have been "letting people know" my location."
And as you can clearly SEE - I SAID
https://tinychan.org/topic/53805#reply_569934
"Guess you were unaware. Naw you were aware because a couple of mods on MC let you know and let others know where you currently reside (General location only) Others have more specific GEOlocation and I am not referring to Mods of MC."
"Others have more specific GEOlocation and I am not referring to Mods of MC."
"Others have more specific GEOlocation and I am not referring to Mods of MC."
You shud apply for a job with Liar & Chief Trump, because Merrin not only are you a Pedophile - You are one hell of a liar and a very very dishonest Person. But no doubt the Catholic Church wood be proud of a Pedophile such as you are.
Now I will give you what you asked for - NEXT
Typical of you as the Pretend Priest to change what a person says here.
From your own link AND You cited the WRONG part of that link - will give it to u in momento
You said
> "please don't forget to back up your claim that the Minichan moderators have been "letting people know" my location."
And as you can clearly SEE - I SAID
https://tinychan.org/topic/53805#reply_569934
"Guess you were unaware. Naw you were aware because a couple of mods on MC let you know and let others know where you currently reside (General location only) Others have more specific GEOlocation and I am not referring to Mods of MC."
"Others have more specific GEOlocation and I am not referring to Mods of MC."
"Others have more specific GEOlocation and I am not referring to Mods of MC."
You shud apply for a job with Liar & Chief Trump, because Merrin not only are you a Pedophile - You are one hell of a liar and a very very dishonest Person. But no doubt the Catholic Church wood be proud of a Pedophile such as you are.
Now I will give you what you asked for - NEXT
(Edited 1 minute later.)
Bilbo !RwordOooFE replied with this 6 years ago, 11 seconds later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,036,094
@1,036,067 (Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U)
Before falling, we had no sin but equally we had no true free choice to worship the lord, which was the consequence of tasting the fruit. It is only when you can know good and evil that you can choose evil.
Before falling, we had no sin but equally we had no true free choice to worship the lord, which was the consequence of tasting the fruit. It is only when you can know good and evil that you can choose evil.
Syntax replied with this 6 years ago, 10 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,036,097
@1,036,079 (Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U)> I'll ask you again. Please post evidence of your claim that Catholic churches are going bankrupt as a result of "paying cash to victims of pedophiles".
Sure they DON'T PAY with Cash - It's a Check of course - For example
https://www.newsweek.com/over-3-billion-paid-lawsuits-catholic-church-over-sex-abuse-claims-1090753
THE CATHOLIC CHURCH HAS PAID NEARLY $4 BILLION OVER SEXUAL ABUSE CLAIMS, GROUP SAYS
non-profit group that tracks allegations of abuse within the Catholic Church said Saturday that the church has paid out nearly $4 billion in lawsuits over allegations of clerical sexual abuse leading back to the 1980s.
BishopAccountability, whose mission is "documenting the abuse crisis in the Roman Catholic Church," according to their website, says that there are also payouts involving over 8,600 cases of assault survivors abused by a member of the clergy dating back to the 1950s.
The largest known payout amounted to over $600 million dollars in 2007, CNN reported on Saturday, issued on behalf of 221 priests and other church employees accused of abusing and victimizing over 500 people.
BishopAccountability maintains a list of every known settlement paid by the Catholic Church to those who have alleged sexual abuse at the hands of clergy and Church affiliates. "We document settlements involving 5,679 persons who allege sexual abuse by Catholic clergy," their website states. "These survivors are only one-third of the 15,235 allegations that the bishops say they have received through 2009, and they are only 5% of the 100,000 U.S. victims."
A grand jury released a document on August 14 that stated more than 300 priests sexually abused children in the state of Pennsylvania. Those accusations are among many global sexual abuse scandals that have come to light within the Catholic Church and its systemic failures to protect children. The Pennsylvania report detailed more than 300 priests that have been accused, credibly, of abusing over 1,000 children over the course of 70 years.
non-profit group that tracks allegations of abuse within the Catholic Church said Saturday that the church has paid out nearly $4 billion in lawsuits over allegations of clerical sexual abuse leading back to the 1980s.
BishopAccountability, whose mission is "documenting the abuse crisis in the Roman Catholic Church," according to their website, says that there are also payouts involving over 8,600 cases of assault survivors abused by a member of the clergy dating back to the 1950s.
The largest known payout amounted to over $600 million dollars in 2007, CNN reported on Saturday, issued on behalf of 221 priests and other church employees accused of abusing and victimizing over 500 people.
BishopAccountability maintains a list of every known settlement paid by the Catholic Church to those who have alleged sexual abuse at the hands of clergy and Church affiliates. "We document settlements involving 5,679 persons who allege sexual abuse by Catholic clergy," their website states. "These survivors are only one-third of the 15,235 allegations that the bishops say they have received through 2009, and they are only 5% of the 100,000 U.S. victims."
A grand jury released a document on August 14 that stated more than 300 priests sexually abused children in the state of Pennsylvania. Those accusations are among many global sexual abuse scandals that have come to light within the Catholic Church and its systemic failures to protect children. The Pennsylvania report detailed more than 300 priests that have been accused, credibly, of abusing over 1,000 children over the course of 70 years.
TG Comix-Merrin you do make a Bad Fake Priest and a known Pedophile as well as just one ordinary Troll
I am showered and shaved and dressed and ready to roll out to the Gym and then to play with friends - May be back many many hours from now but don't count on it
And NOTICE I did not run out on you - No doubt you will nit pick and pretend you did not read the pertinent material. At least the time you spend here is time you do not have for ripping out the Anus of one more child (at this moment in time)
ZoooOOOoooOOOOOOOOooooM-------------------------------------------------------------------->
Anonymous C replied with this 6 years ago, 21 minutes later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,036,100
@previous (Syntax)
> At least the time you spend here is time you do not have for ripping out the Anus of one more child (at this moment in time)
Damlol
Give it a few and TG will play word salad with this one...
> At least the time you spend here is time you do not have for ripping out the Anus of one more child (at this moment in time)
Damlol
Give it a few and TG will play word salad with this one...
Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U (OP) replied with this 6 years ago, 1 hour later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,036,115
@1,036,093 (Syntax)
> Typical of you as the Pretend Priest to change what a person says here.
I haven't changed a single thing. I quoted you exactly and YOU have just re-quoted those words:
> From your own link AND You cited the WRONG part of that link - will give it to u in momento
> You said
> >"please don't forget to back up your claim that the Minichan moderators have been "letting people know" my location."
>
> And as you can clearly SEE - I SAID
> https://tinychan.org/topic/53805#reply_569934
>
> Guess you were unaware. Naw you were aware because a couple of mods on MC let you know and let others know where you currently reside (General location only) Others have more specific GEOlocation and I am not referring to Mods of MC.
Let me walk you through it very, very slowly:
"...a couple of mods on MC let you know and let others know where you currently reside"
Do you see it? It's right there in YOUR OWN QUOTING OF YOUR WORDS. And by the way to the best of my knowledge, no moderator on Minichan has ever "let me know" where I currently reside, because no moderator on Minichan knows it. Why are you focusing on the part about "more specific GEOlocation" (do you have any idea how extraordinarily creepy you are?) you disturbed old stalker, I'm talking about the part where you said the mods here have been announcing to people my "current location".
> You shud apply for a job with Liar & Chief Trump, because Merrin not only are you a Pedophile
Citation needed.
> You are one hell of a liar and a very very dishonest Person.
*sigh* I have quoted YOUR OWN WORDS. You have literally just quoted them back to me. It's no use lashing out at me because you're getting more and more confused in your dotage.
Learn from this, Syntax. That's all. Just learn from it. Stop going onto other boards to make claims about what the moderators of other forums have been doing or telling you. You've already been called out once for hinting on TC that you've been given special 'privileges' on here for giving them money. You like to give the impression you're some kind of trusted source with various mod teams and it's kind of, well, sad.
> Typical of you as the Pretend Priest to change what a person says here.
I haven't changed a single thing. I quoted you exactly and YOU have just re-quoted those words:
> From your own link AND You cited the WRONG part of that link - will give it to u in momento
> You said
> >"please don't forget to back up your claim that the Minichan moderators have been "letting people know" my location."
>
> And as you can clearly SEE - I SAID
> https://tinychan.org/topic/53805#reply_569934
>
> Guess you were unaware. Naw you were aware because a couple of mods on MC let you know and let others know where you currently reside (General location only) Others have more specific GEOlocation and I am not referring to Mods of MC.
Let me walk you through it very, very slowly:
"...a couple of mods on MC let you know and let others know where you currently reside"
Do you see it? It's right there in YOUR OWN QUOTING OF YOUR WORDS. And by the way to the best of my knowledge, no moderator on Minichan has ever "let me know" where I currently reside, because no moderator on Minichan knows it. Why are you focusing on the part about "more specific GEOlocation" (do you have any idea how extraordinarily creepy you are?) you disturbed old stalker, I'm talking about the part where you said the mods here have been announcing to people my "current location".
> You shud apply for a job with Liar & Chief Trump, because Merrin not only are you a Pedophile
Citation needed.
> You are one hell of a liar and a very very dishonest Person.
*sigh* I have quoted YOUR OWN WORDS. You have literally just quoted them back to me. It's no use lashing out at me because you're getting more and more confused in your dotage.
Learn from this, Syntax. That's all. Just learn from it. Stop going onto other boards to make claims about what the moderators of other forums have been doing or telling you. You've already been called out once for hinting on TC that you've been given special 'privileges' on here for giving them money. You like to give the impression you're some kind of trusted source with various mod teams and it's kind of, well, sad.
Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U (OP) double-posted this 6 years ago, 1 minute later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,036,116
@1,036,086 (G)
> It's absolutely cherry picking. You praise God for the outcomes you like, and blame the rest on something else... human error, sin, the devil, whatever. Apparently God is to be thanked for effecting a timely rescue or brave firefighters being on hand, both things that actual humans did by making choices. What is the standard for seeing the hand of God in human action other than your general approval of that action?
God is goodness. Hence, what is good in humanity is from Him. What is evil is the result of having turned away from Him. This is basic Christian theology. You're free to disagree with it, but you should at least understand the idea before doing so.
> It's absolutely cherry picking. You praise God for the outcomes you like, and blame the rest on something else... human error, sin, the devil, whatever. Apparently God is to be thanked for effecting a timely rescue or brave firefighters being on hand, both things that actual humans did by making choices. What is the standard for seeing the hand of God in human action other than your general approval of that action?
God is goodness. Hence, what is good in humanity is from Him. What is evil is the result of having turned away from Him. This is basic Christian theology. You're free to disagree with it, but you should at least understand the idea before doing so.
Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U (OP) triple-posted this 6 years ago, 2 minutes later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,036,117
@1,036,094 (Bilbo !RwordOooFE)
> Before falling, we had no sin but equally we had no true free choice to worship the lord, which was the consequence of tasting the fruit.
I'm not sure I follow you. Are you saying our worship of God is a consequence of the fall?
> It is only when you can know good and evil that you can choose evil.
I agree with this but I don't see how it ties in to the worship of God. Help me understand please.
> Before falling, we had no sin but equally we had no true free choice to worship the lord, which was the consequence of tasting the fruit.
I'm not sure I follow you. Are you saying our worship of God is a consequence of the fall?
> It is only when you can know good and evil that you can choose evil.
I agree with this but I don't see how it ties in to the worship of God. Help me understand please.
Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U (OP) quadruple-posted this 6 years ago, 2 minutes later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,036,119
@1,036,100 (C)
> >At least the time you spend here is time you do not have for ripping out the Anus of one more child (at this moment in time)
>
> Damlol
>
> Give it a few and TG will play word salad with this one...
To be honest I actually find it alternatively sickening and revealing how disturbingly graphic his child rape posts are. Then again, this is a guy who out of nowhere started randomly telling a young girl ("eye candy" one might say) on the internet how to correctly wipe her backside.
> >At least the time you spend here is time you do not have for ripping out the Anus of one more child (at this moment in time)
>
> Damlol
>
> Give it a few and TG will play word salad with this one...
To be honest I actually find it alternatively sickening and revealing how disturbingly graphic his child rape posts are. Then again, this is a guy who out of nowhere started randomly telling a young girl ("eye candy" one might say) on the internet how to correctly wipe her backside.
Anonymous G replied with this 6 years ago, 40 minutes later, 8 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,036,126
@1,036,116 (Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U)
> God is goodness.
Why would anyone pray to an abstract conception of goodness? How would that help anymore than praying to tallness or excitement?
> God is goodness.
Why would anyone pray to an abstract conception of goodness? How would that help anymore than praying to tallness or excitement?
Anonymous C replied with this 6 years ago, 16 minutes later, 8 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,036,128
@1,036,119 (Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U)
> To be honest I actually find it alternatively sickening
Then why do you continue to do it?
> To be honest I actually find it alternatively sickening
Then why do you continue to do it?
Anonymous J joined in and replied with this 6 years ago, 8 hours later, 17 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,036,219
OPenis>
> God is goodness.
Indeed you so called God was present and accountable in Germany during WWII. Perhaps your God just need them Jews skin, for Gods lampshades.
Forgot you have images turned off because a Priest fears images of Auschwitz, because Hitler was a Catholic.
(Edited 3 minutes later.)
Anonymous K joined in and replied with this 6 years ago, 42 minutes later, 17 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,036,230
lol, those cathy~licks.
Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U (OP) replied with this 6 years ago, 1 hour later, 19 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,036,242
@1,036,126 (G)
> > God is goodness.
> Why would anyone pray to an abstract conception of goodness? How would that help anymore than praying to tallness or excitement?
Why do you think God is nothing more than an "abstract concept of goodness"? "God is good" or "God is love" doesn't mean that's all He is, just as (to use your examples) the sentence "Simon is tall" doesn't mean that's all he is, or "hockey is excitement" doesn't mean that's all it is.
> > God is goodness.
> Why would anyone pray to an abstract conception of goodness? How would that help anymore than praying to tallness or excitement?
Why do you think God is nothing more than an "abstract concept of goodness"? "God is good" or "God is love" doesn't mean that's all He is, just as (to use your examples) the sentence "Simon is tall" doesn't mean that's all he is, or "hockey is excitement" doesn't mean that's all it is.
Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U (OP) double-posted this 6 years ago, 4 minutes later, 19 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,036,243
@1,036,219 (J)
> OPenis
> >
> > God is goodness.
>
> Indeed you so called God was present and accountable in Germany during WWII. Perhaps your God just need them Jews skin, for Gods lampshades.
>
> Forgot you have images turned off because a Priest fears images of Auschwitz, because Hitler was a Catholic.
You are again blaming God for man's own failings, which is childish. Take responsibility for your actions.
> OPenis
> >
> > God is goodness.
>
> Indeed you so called God was present and accountable in Germany during WWII. Perhaps your God just need them Jews skin, for Gods lampshades.
>
> Forgot you have images turned off because a Priest fears images of Auschwitz, because Hitler was a Catholic.
You are again blaming God for man's own failings, which is childish. Take responsibility for your actions.
!ZWIJTmuzAk joined in and replied with this 6 years ago, 1 hour later, 21 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,036,266
@previous (Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U)
What is this God good for. What does this God do exactly. The line " Indeed you so called God was present and accountable in Germany during WWII. Perhaps your God just need them Jews skin, for Gods lampshades."
>
Those million of Jews, Communists, Socialists, labour leaders, Gypsies, and homesexuals, were rounded up and put in cages and left to starve or be gassed, with bodies buried in mass graves or cremated. The Pope of the Catholic Church, at that time was complacent and compliant and gave a free pass to Adolf Hitler. Difficult to see where the value of a deity is effective when humans are savage animals. so very often.
What is this God good for. What does this God do exactly. The line " Indeed you so called God was present and accountable in Germany during WWII. Perhaps your God just need them Jews skin, for Gods lampshades."
>
Those million of Jews, Communists, Socialists, labour leaders, Gypsies, and homesexuals, were rounded up and put in cages and left to starve or be gassed, with bodies buried in mass graves or cremated. The Pope of the Catholic Church, at that time was complacent and compliant and gave a free pass to Adolf Hitler. Difficult to see where the value of a deity is effective when humans are savage animals. so very often.
Anonymous K replied with this 6 years ago, 29 minutes later, 21 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,036,268
@previous (!ZWIJTmuzAk)
He wanted them in Israel.
Do you think Israel has room for 6 million more Jews than are there today?
Even a fifth grader could have figured that out.
He wanted them in Israel.
Do you think Israel has room for 6 million more Jews than are there today?
Even a fifth grader could have figured that out.
Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U (OP) replied with this 6 years ago, 2 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,036,312
@1,036,266 (!ZWIJTmuzAk)
> What is this God good for. What does this God do exactly.
"Today I got drunk and crashed my Fiesta into a tree. What is Henry Ford good for?!?"
> Those million of Jews, Communists, Socialists, labour leaders, Gypsies, and homesexuals, were rounded up and put in cages and left to starve or be gassed, with bodies buried in mass graves or cremated.
Indeed, man's inhumanity to man sometimes seems to know no bounds. But again, to blame this on God is childish.
> What is this God good for. What does this God do exactly.
"Today I got drunk and crashed my Fiesta into a tree. What is Henry Ford good for?!?"
> Those million of Jews, Communists, Socialists, labour leaders, Gypsies, and homesexuals, were rounded up and put in cages and left to starve or be gassed, with bodies buried in mass graves or cremated.
Indeed, man's inhumanity to man sometimes seems to know no bounds. But again, to blame this on God is childish.
Anonymous C replied with this 6 years ago, 3 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,036,313
Anonymous M joined in and replied with this 6 years ago, 58 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,036,319
Father Merrin.
What strikes me as the only important question that comes out of this thread is, what is God good for.
You brushed the question aside as if it doesn't matter. I am plainly puzzled by your casual brush aside.
I am troubled by Chiefdoms characteristically have an ideology, precursor to an institutionalized religion, that buttresses the chief’s authority. The chief may either combine the offices of political leader or priest in a single person, or may support a separate group of kleptocrats (that is, priests) whose function is to provide ideological justification for the chiefs.
That is why chiefdoms devote so much collected tribute to constructing temples and other public works, which serve as centers to the official religion and visible signs of the chief’s power.
Besides justifying the transfer of wealth to kleptocrats, institutionalized religion brings two other important benefits to centralized societies. First, shared ideology or religion helps solve the problem of how unrelated individuals are to live together without killing each other — by providing them with a bond not based on kinship.
Second, it gives people a motive, other than genetic self-interest, for sacrificing their lives on behalf of others. At the cost of a few society members who die in battle as soldiers, the whole society becomes much more effective at conquering other societies or resisting attacks.
Easy for me to write yet religion become a part of that kind of world view, and one look at Syria or of Serbia in the past, or what my daily newspaper says; More than 820 million people are hungry globally.
I am troubled by how often I pick up my daily paper and read about one more scandal in the Catholic Church, and all that comes out of the scandals is some settlement, with few of the clergy convicted. Clergy are shuttled off to some other parish to promulgate more of their evil ways.
Merrin, am I to conclude you are not equipped to answer the question, "what is God good for" because I dare imaging how many of those 820 million, can have any faith in any religion making their meager lives proper.
What strikes me as the only important question that comes out of this thread is, what is God good for.
You brushed the question aside as if it doesn't matter. I am plainly puzzled by your casual brush aside.
I am troubled by Chiefdoms characteristically have an ideology, precursor to an institutionalized religion, that buttresses the chief’s authority. The chief may either combine the offices of political leader or priest in a single person, or may support a separate group of kleptocrats (that is, priests) whose function is to provide ideological justification for the chiefs.
That is why chiefdoms devote so much collected tribute to constructing temples and other public works, which serve as centers to the official religion and visible signs of the chief’s power.
Besides justifying the transfer of wealth to kleptocrats, institutionalized religion brings two other important benefits to centralized societies. First, shared ideology or religion helps solve the problem of how unrelated individuals are to live together without killing each other — by providing them with a bond not based on kinship.
Second, it gives people a motive, other than genetic self-interest, for sacrificing their lives on behalf of others. At the cost of a few society members who die in battle as soldiers, the whole society becomes much more effective at conquering other societies or resisting attacks.
Easy for me to write yet religion become a part of that kind of world view, and one look at Syria or of Serbia in the past, or what my daily newspaper says; More than 820 million people are hungry globally.
I am troubled by how often I pick up my daily paper and read about one more scandal in the Catholic Church, and all that comes out of the scandals is some settlement, with few of the clergy convicted. Clergy are shuttled off to some other parish to promulgate more of their evil ways.
Merrin, am I to conclude you are not equipped to answer the question, "what is God good for" because I dare imaging how many of those 820 million, can have any faith in any religion making their meager lives proper.
Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U (OP) replied with this 6 years ago, 51 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,036,334
@previous (M)
> Father Merrin.
> What strikes me as the only important question that comes out of this thread is, what is God good for.
> You brushed the question aside as if it doesn't matter.
I didn't "brush it aside", I answered the question with an analogy. The question is childish. You don't receive everything you ever want in this world despite being given the faculties of reason, compassion and self-awareness, and so you ask "What is God good for?" Humanity has done evil things in the name of religion, so you again ask "What is God good for?" I can only speak for myself in answering your question: God is good for giving me all I need to be a good steward of this beautiful world of ours. If people choose not to use those faculties and instead live a lazy and 'easy' life of hate, bitterness and aggression, it is their choice. But to keep on asking "What is God good for?" is like ignoring the instructions on a new phone and then asking "What were those instructions good for?" when you break it through misuse.
> Father Merrin.
> What strikes me as the only important question that comes out of this thread is, what is God good for.
> You brushed the question aside as if it doesn't matter.
I didn't "brush it aside", I answered the question with an analogy. The question is childish. You don't receive everything you ever want in this world despite being given the faculties of reason, compassion and self-awareness, and so you ask "What is God good for?" Humanity has done evil things in the name of religion, so you again ask "What is God good for?" I can only speak for myself in answering your question: God is good for giving me all I need to be a good steward of this beautiful world of ours. If people choose not to use those faculties and instead live a lazy and 'easy' life of hate, bitterness and aggression, it is their choice. But to keep on asking "What is God good for?" is like ignoring the instructions on a new phone and then asking "What were those instructions good for?" when you break it through misuse.
Bilbo !RwordOooFE replied with this 6 years ago, 1 hour later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,036,345
@1,036,117 (Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U)
> > Before falling, we had no sin but equally we had no true free choice to worship the lord, which was the consequence of tasting the fruit.
>
> I'm not sure I follow you. Are you saying our worship of God is a consequence of the fall?
>
> > It is only when you can know good and evil that you can choose evil.
>
> I agree with this but I don't see how it ties in to the worship of God. Help me understand please.
Okay, first I must address my beliefs about what it means to have eaten of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil.
The first effect was that his soul was corrupted by the sin of disobeying God, and he became separated from God, who had created mankind in his image.
But how did this change manifest? For that we must compare ourselves first to those lesser creatures of which we were appointed master, the animals of the earth.
Let's take a dog, for example. They have intelligence, social skills, society, language, etc. But if two dogs were to fight to the death, would anyone say that the dog chose to do evil? Of course not. Because the dog did not eat the fruit, it has no concept of what evil is. It didn't know any better.
And yet we would know better. We know this due to our rational minds, that murdering a man is evil. That's the difference between us and the animals, that we are able to apply rationality to our own actions.
This being the case, that means that before the fall of man, man was unable to use rationality. This is why they didn't realise they were naked (or why it might be shameful) and why they didn't consider that the serpant may not have been truthful. To Adam and Eve, even the concept of dishonesty was something unimaginable.
What else would be unimaginable to a person who could not apply rationality to their own actions? Which is where my point comes into play... It would not have been possible for pre-fall Adam to deny God, because to do so would not only have required sin but also an application of rationality to himself, that he does not believe in God because X, Y and Z.
Likely this is why God never actually seemed to ask for worship from Adam before the fall. Instead, He walked with him and treated him more like an equal in the garden. You can't choose to worship God if you can't choose not to worship Him too. It's not a choice at all. You just don't know any better.
Worship of God in the Bible started properly when Cain and Abel made the first burnt offerings, done entirely by their own choice and free will.
> > Before falling, we had no sin but equally we had no true free choice to worship the lord, which was the consequence of tasting the fruit.
>
> I'm not sure I follow you. Are you saying our worship of God is a consequence of the fall?
>
> > It is only when you can know good and evil that you can choose evil.
>
> I agree with this but I don't see how it ties in to the worship of God. Help me understand please.
Okay, first I must address my beliefs about what it means to have eaten of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil.
The first effect was that his soul was corrupted by the sin of disobeying God, and he became separated from God, who had created mankind in his image.
But how did this change manifest? For that we must compare ourselves first to those lesser creatures of which we were appointed master, the animals of the earth.
Let's take a dog, for example. They have intelligence, social skills, society, language, etc. But if two dogs were to fight to the death, would anyone say that the dog chose to do evil? Of course not. Because the dog did not eat the fruit, it has no concept of what evil is. It didn't know any better.
And yet we would know better. We know this due to our rational minds, that murdering a man is evil. That's the difference between us and the animals, that we are able to apply rationality to our own actions.
This being the case, that means that before the fall of man, man was unable to use rationality. This is why they didn't realise they were naked (or why it might be shameful) and why they didn't consider that the serpant may not have been truthful. To Adam and Eve, even the concept of dishonesty was something unimaginable.
What else would be unimaginable to a person who could not apply rationality to their own actions? Which is where my point comes into play... It would not have been possible for pre-fall Adam to deny God, because to do so would not only have required sin but also an application of rationality to himself, that he does not believe in God because X, Y and Z.
Likely this is why God never actually seemed to ask for worship from Adam before the fall. Instead, He walked with him and treated him more like an equal in the garden. You can't choose to worship God if you can't choose not to worship Him too. It's not a choice at all. You just don't know any better.
Worship of God in the Bible started properly when Cain and Abel made the first burnt offerings, done entirely by their own choice and free will.
toni !RwordOooFE replied with this 6 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,036,346
ugh my God these threads fuckin suck
Bilbo !RwordOooFE replied with this 6 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,036,349
Anonymous C replied with this 6 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,036,351
Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U (OP) replied with this 6 years ago, 11 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,036,352
@1,036,346 (toni !RwordOooFE)
> ugh my God these threads f*ckin suck
@previous (C)
> > ugh my God these threads f*ckin suck
>
> This
God granted you the gift of freedom of will. I suggest you exercise it and stop clicking on a thread that clearly upsets you.
> ugh my God these threads f*ckin suck
@previous (C)
> > ugh my God these threads f*ckin suck
>
> This
God granted you the gift of freedom of will. I suggest you exercise it and stop clicking on a thread that clearly upsets you.
(Edited 15 seconds later.)
Anonymous G replied with this 6 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,036,353
@1,036,242 (Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U)
> Why do you think God is nothing more than an "abstract concept of goodness"?
You said God is goodness. Hence, what is good in humanity is from Him. Changing what you a call a thing doesn't suddenly turn cherry picking into theology. Anyone can point to things and say, "that's good." This isn't any more meaningful than a five year old sitting around naming all her favorite foods.
Saying "God is good, so good things come from God" is just hopelessly useless and circular. When you try to boil it down to how you explained it, Christian theology becomes a useless layer one could scrape off to simplify matters. I can already identify and praise things I like as good. Why pray at them or invoke God at all? How does that help?
> Why do you think God is nothing more than an "abstract concept of goodness"?
You said God is goodness. Hence, what is good in humanity is from Him. Changing what you a call a thing doesn't suddenly turn cherry picking into theology. Anyone can point to things and say, "that's good." This isn't any more meaningful than a five year old sitting around naming all her favorite foods.
Saying "God is good, so good things come from God" is just hopelessly useless and circular. When you try to boil it down to how you explained it, Christian theology becomes a useless layer one could scrape off to simplify matters. I can already identify and praise things I like as good. Why pray at them or invoke God at all? How does that help?
Anonymous C replied with this 6 years ago, 10 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,036,356
@1,036,352 (Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U)
> God granted you the gift of freedom of will.
So you use this gift of freedom to molest children... Sounds like a Catholic...
> God granted you the gift of freedom of will.
So you use this gift of freedom to molest children... Sounds like a Catholic...
Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U (OP) replied with this 6 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,036,357
@1,036,353 (G)
> > Why do you think God is nothing more than an "abstract concept of goodness"?
> You said God is goodness. Hence, what is good in humanity is from Him. Changing what you a call a thing doesn't suddenly turn cherry picking into theology. Anyone can point to things and say, "that's good."
There is a fundamental difference between "This thing is goodness" and "This thing is good". You are mixing up the two.
> This isn't any more meaningful than a five year old sitting around naming all her favorite foods.
As you are understanding it, yes, this would be your conclusion. Unfortunately, you are understanding it wrong.
> Saying "God is good, so good things come from God" is just hopelessly useless and circular.
Again, God is goodness. Not just 'God is good'. Understood in the correct terms it is not circular, it is perfectly logical.
> When you try to boil it down to how you explained it, Christian theology becomes a useless layer one could scrape off to simplify matters. I can already identify and praise things I like as good.
But it won't follow that those 'good' things are 'goodness' itself.
> Why pray at them or invoke God at all? How does that help?
Help what? What exactly is it you want help with when you pray?
"Beloved, let us love one another, for love is from God, and whoever loves has been born of God and knows God. Anyone who does not love does not know God, because God is love. In this the love of God was made manifest among us, that God sent his only Son into the world, so that we might live through him. In this is love, not that we have loved God but that he loved us and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins. 11 Beloved, if God so loved us, we also ought to love one another" - 1. John 4:7-10
(Be sure to let me know if you would like me to recommend some reading material which discusses this passage. It will help you with your questions)
> > Why do you think God is nothing more than an "abstract concept of goodness"?
> You said God is goodness. Hence, what is good in humanity is from Him. Changing what you a call a thing doesn't suddenly turn cherry picking into theology. Anyone can point to things and say, "that's good."
There is a fundamental difference between "This thing is goodness" and "This thing is good". You are mixing up the two.
> This isn't any more meaningful than a five year old sitting around naming all her favorite foods.
As you are understanding it, yes, this would be your conclusion. Unfortunately, you are understanding it wrong.
> Saying "God is good, so good things come from God" is just hopelessly useless and circular.
Again, God is goodness. Not just 'God is good'. Understood in the correct terms it is not circular, it is perfectly logical.
> When you try to boil it down to how you explained it, Christian theology becomes a useless layer one could scrape off to simplify matters. I can already identify and praise things I like as good.
But it won't follow that those 'good' things are 'goodness' itself.
> Why pray at them or invoke God at all? How does that help?
Help what? What exactly is it you want help with when you pray?
"Beloved, let us love one another, for love is from God, and whoever loves has been born of God and knows God. Anyone who does not love does not know God, because God is love. In this the love of God was made manifest among us, that God sent his only Son into the world, so that we might live through him. In this is love, not that we have loved God but that he loved us and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins. 11 Beloved, if God so loved us, we also ought to love one another" - 1. John 4:7-10
(Be sure to let me know if you would like me to recommend some reading material which discusses this passage. It will help you with your questions)
Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U (OP) double-posted this 6 years ago, 51 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,036,359
@1,036,356 (C)
You're still clicking on a thread that upsets you, I see. Soon you'll no doubt be blaming God for your choice!
You're still clicking on a thread that upsets you, I see. Soon you'll no doubt be blaming God for your choice!
Anonymous G replied with this 6 years ago, 10 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,036,361
@1,036,357 (Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U)
You seem to be really hung up on the difference between the words good and goodness. I don't see how that irons out your problem. Whether you're identifying things that are good or goodness as a general property, you're still just pointing out things you think fit the definition and claiming they are God or thanking God for them or whatever. Your justification for that is that they come from God because God is goodness. You're still running in circles.
You seem to be really hung up on the difference between the words good and goodness. I don't see how that irons out your problem. Whether you're identifying things that are good or goodness as a general property, you're still just pointing out things you think fit the definition and claiming they are God or thanking God for them or whatever. Your justification for that is that they come from God because God is goodness. You're still running in circles.
Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U (OP) replied with this 6 years ago, 14 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,036,363
@previous (G)
> You seem to be really hung up on the difference between the words good and goodness.
Because the difference matters and is the root of your confusion.
> I don't see how that irons out your problem. Whether you're identifying things that are good or goodness as a general property, you're still just pointing out things you think fit the definition and claiming they are God or thanking God for them or whatever.
Christians don't "claim" it. It's stated in the book they hold to be the word of God. If you want to have a separate discussion about whether belief in the Bible is justified, I am ready and willing!
> Your justification for that is that they come from God because God is goodness. You're still running in circles.
Again, if you accept the premise that God is goodness then it is not a circle, it is perfectly logical.
> You seem to be really hung up on the difference between the words good and goodness.
Because the difference matters and is the root of your confusion.
> I don't see how that irons out your problem. Whether you're identifying things that are good or goodness as a general property, you're still just pointing out things you think fit the definition and claiming they are God or thanking God for them or whatever.
Christians don't "claim" it. It's stated in the book they hold to be the word of God. If you want to have a separate discussion about whether belief in the Bible is justified, I am ready and willing!
> Your justification for that is that they come from God because God is goodness. You're still running in circles.
Again, if you accept the premise that God is goodness then it is not a circle, it is perfectly logical.
Anonymous M replied with this 6 years ago, 13 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,036,372
@1,036,334 (Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U)
"The question is childish" Who are you to judge me and my question.
Matthew 7:1 “Judge not, that you be not judged."
James 4:11 "Do not speak evil against one another, brothers. The one who speaks against a brother or judges his brother, speaks evil against the law and judges the law. But if you judge the law, you are not a doer of the law but a judge. There is only one lawgiver and judge, he who is able to save and to destroy. But who are you to judge your neighbor?"
You said " I can only speak for myself in answering your question: God is good for giving me all I need to be a good steward of this beautiful world of ours. If people choose not to use those faculties and instead live a lazy and 'easy' life of hate, bitterness and aggression, it is their choice. But to keep on asking "What is God good for?" is like ignoring the instructions on a new phone and then asking "What were those instructions good for?" when you break it through misuse."
Bloody well fine for you, nor did you address "More than 820 million people are hungry globally." How is God helping them. 'The Lord works in mysterious ways, pastors tell believers who have been shaken by horrors like brain cancer or a tsunami. Faith is a virtue.'
Proud I am not to be among those of any church. Christians telling the hungry, poor and sick, to just have faith in God.
"The question is childish" Who are you to judge me and my question.
Matthew 7:1 “Judge not, that you be not judged."
James 4:11 "Do not speak evil against one another, brothers. The one who speaks against a brother or judges his brother, speaks evil against the law and judges the law. But if you judge the law, you are not a doer of the law but a judge. There is only one lawgiver and judge, he who is able to save and to destroy. But who are you to judge your neighbor?"
You said " I can only speak for myself in answering your question: God is good for giving me all I need to be a good steward of this beautiful world of ours. If people choose not to use those faculties and instead live a lazy and 'easy' life of hate, bitterness and aggression, it is their choice. But to keep on asking "What is God good for?" is like ignoring the instructions on a new phone and then asking "What were those instructions good for?" when you break it through misuse."
Bloody well fine for you, nor did you address "More than 820 million people are hungry globally." How is God helping them. 'The Lord works in mysterious ways, pastors tell believers who have been shaken by horrors like brain cancer or a tsunami. Faith is a virtue.'
Proud I am not to be among those of any church. Christians telling the hungry, poor and sick, to just have faith in God.
Anonymous G replied with this 6 years ago, 17 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,036,385
@1,036,363 (Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U)
> Again, if you accept the premise that God is goodness then it is not a circle, it is perfectly logical.
If you accept the premise X is Y, then identifying Y as X isn't circular. You have to see how deeply unsatisfying that is as an explanation, right?
> Again, if you accept the premise that God is goodness then it is not a circle, it is perfectly logical.
If you accept the premise X is Y, then identifying Y as X isn't circular. You have to see how deeply unsatisfying that is as an explanation, right?
Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U (OP) replied with this 6 years ago, 14 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,036,517
@1,036,372 (M)
> "The question is childish" Who are you to judge me
"Let me never fall into the vulgar mistake of dreaming that I am persecuted whenever I am contradicted" - Ralph Waldo Emerson.
I said the question is childish, not you. 'Attack the argument, not the person'. If you're going to be this sensitive and self-pitying then serious debate may not be for you.
> "The question is childish" Who are you to judge me
"Let me never fall into the vulgar mistake of dreaming that I am persecuted whenever I am contradicted" - Ralph Waldo Emerson.
I said the question is childish, not you. 'Attack the argument, not the person'. If you're going to be this sensitive and self-pitying then serious debate may not be for you.
Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U (OP) double-posted this 6 years ago, 6 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,036,520
@1,036,385 (G)
> > Again, if you accept the premise that God is goodness then it is not a circle, it is perfectly logical.
>
> If you accept the premise X is Y, then identifying Y as X isn't circular.
You're mischaracterising it yet again, this time by removing all nuance and argument by reducing it to inappropriate 'mathematical' terminology. I say again: substitute your 'x' for 'God' and your 'y' for 'goodness'. Then substitute your 'x' for 'God' and your 'y' for 'good'. Now think about the actual concept, the idea, rather than 'mathematics' and tell me if you still don't see the fundamental difference in the idea being expressed.
> You have to see how deeply unsatisfying that is as an explanation, right?
I see how your constant mischaracterisation of the idea being expressed is deeply unsatisfying, yes.
> > Again, if you accept the premise that God is goodness then it is not a circle, it is perfectly logical.
>
> If you accept the premise X is Y, then identifying Y as X isn't circular.
You're mischaracterising it yet again, this time by removing all nuance and argument by reducing it to inappropriate 'mathematical' terminology. I say again: substitute your 'x' for 'God' and your 'y' for 'goodness'. Then substitute your 'x' for 'God' and your 'y' for 'good'. Now think about the actual concept, the idea, rather than 'mathematics' and tell me if you still don't see the fundamental difference in the idea being expressed.
> You have to see how deeply unsatisfying that is as an explanation, right?
I see how your constant mischaracterisation of the idea being expressed is deeply unsatisfying, yes.
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU joined in and replied with this 6 years ago, 35 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,036,527
Ok I haven't read most of this topic and never will. Who won the debate?
toni !RwordOooFE replied with this 6 years ago, 55 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,036,533
Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U (OP) replied with this 6 years ago, 3 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,036,535
Anonymous C replied with this 6 years ago, 18 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,036,545
Anonymous C double-posted this 6 years ago, 32 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,036,547
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 6 years ago, 2 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,036,630
Bilbo !RwordOooFE replied with this 6 years ago, 1 hour later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,036,663
@1,036,527 (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
I did, I so awed father merrin with my theories about the nature of free will and the fall of man that he didn't disagree!
I did, I so awed father merrin with my theories about the nature of free will and the fall of man that he didn't disagree!
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 6 years ago, 1 minute later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,036,665
@previous (Bilbo !RwordOooFE)
Wow, you should consider becoming the pope. I hear the current one can be stopped by something as simple as an elevator. It wouldn't take much to best him in a fight.
Wow, you should consider becoming the pope. I hear the current one can be stopped by something as simple as an elevator. It wouldn't take much to best him in a fight.
Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U (OP) replied with this 6 years ago, 1 hour later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,036,706
toni !RwordOooFE replied with this 6 years ago, 1 hour later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,036,777
Anonymous G replied with this 6 years ago, 6 hours later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,036,877
@1,036,520 (Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U)
> substitute your 'x' for 'God' and your 'y' for 'goodness'.
Yup. That's the problem. When you presuppose X to be Y and then point to Y as X you are just going in circles reasoning from the definition you just decided to assume was true.
You've identified the problem. Congratulations. Now if you're done throwing a fit about definitions, I'm wondering why you do this. Why pick out examples of goodness and then praise God for them? From the outside it looks very much like you are just picking things you approve of and identifying them with God. But saying you do that because you defined it that way isn't anymore satisfying a definition than you saying "because I say so" or "because I assume it's true". It seems like a needless layer of explanation.
My original comment was about the broken elevator. Why credit God with the rescue but not the broken elevator? I doubt you see goodness in a broken elevator, but God isn't just goodness. God does bad stuff to, right? God sends curses against people, floods, plagues, that kind of stuff? How do we know God didn't break the elevator? Or if you do see goodness in the broken elevator why not thank God for that as well?
> substitute your 'x' for 'God' and your 'y' for 'goodness'.
Yup. That's the problem. When you presuppose X to be Y and then point to Y as X you are just going in circles reasoning from the definition you just decided to assume was true.
You've identified the problem. Congratulations. Now if you're done throwing a fit about definitions, I'm wondering why you do this. Why pick out examples of goodness and then praise God for them? From the outside it looks very much like you are just picking things you approve of and identifying them with God. But saying you do that because you defined it that way isn't anymore satisfying a definition than you saying "because I say so" or "because I assume it's true". It seems like a needless layer of explanation.
My original comment was about the broken elevator. Why credit God with the rescue but not the broken elevator? I doubt you see goodness in a broken elevator, but God isn't just goodness. God does bad stuff to, right? God sends curses against people, floods, plagues, that kind of stuff? How do we know God didn't break the elevator? Or if you do see goodness in the broken elevator why not thank God for that as well?
Syntax replied with this 6 years ago, 13 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,036,881
@1,036,665 (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)> Wow, you should consider becoming the pope. I hear the current one can be stopped by something as simple as an elevator. It wouldn't take much to best him in a fight.
Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U (OP) replied with this 6 years ago, 8 hours later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,036,979
@1,036,877 (G)
> > substitute your 'x' for 'God' and your 'y' for 'goodness'.
> Yup. That's the problem. When you presuppose X to be Y and then point to Y as X you are just going in circles reasoning from the definition you just decided to assume was true.
For something like the 3rd time: it is not an 'assumption'.
And this part of the discussion is going nowhere until you realize that your 'mathematical' reduction simply doesn't work here. Paul (X) is tall (Y). Is tall Paul? No. Water (X, as a substitute for the word) is H2O (Y, as a substitute for the compound). Is H20 water? Yes.
> You've identified the problem. Congratulations.
Thanks, now hopefully you'll address it.
> I'm wondering why you do this. Why pick out examples of goodness and then praise God for them?
Where have I done that?
> My original comment was about the broken elevator. Why credit God with the rescue but not the broken elevator?
Where did I "credit God with the rescue"?
> I doubt you see goodness in a broken elevator
Why do you think that? A broken elevator can be a test of our ingenuity and bravery. Food for thought.
> but God isn't just goodness. God does bad stuff to, right?
Wrong.
> God sends curses against people, floods, plagues, that kind of stuff?
You need to read up on the New Covenant.
> How do we know God didn't break the elevator?
We don't. Like I said, He may have been testing the preparedness of the firefighters. He may have been sending a playful message to the Vatican's elevator maintenance people that they need to be more attentive. Maybe He felt the Pope needed an entra 25 minutes to prepare his address to the crowds of St Peter's.
> Or if you do see goodness in the broken elevator why not thank God for that as well?
I thank God for all His deeds.
Have a blessed day my child.
> > substitute your 'x' for 'God' and your 'y' for 'goodness'.
> Yup. That's the problem. When you presuppose X to be Y and then point to Y as X you are just going in circles reasoning from the definition you just decided to assume was true.
For something like the 3rd time: it is not an 'assumption'.
And this part of the discussion is going nowhere until you realize that your 'mathematical' reduction simply doesn't work here. Paul (X) is tall (Y). Is tall Paul? No. Water (X, as a substitute for the word) is H2O (Y, as a substitute for the compound). Is H20 water? Yes.
> You've identified the problem. Congratulations.
Thanks, now hopefully you'll address it.
> I'm wondering why you do this. Why pick out examples of goodness and then praise God for them?
Where have I done that?
> My original comment was about the broken elevator. Why credit God with the rescue but not the broken elevator?
Where did I "credit God with the rescue"?
> I doubt you see goodness in a broken elevator
Why do you think that? A broken elevator can be a test of our ingenuity and bravery. Food for thought.
> but God isn't just goodness. God does bad stuff to, right?
Wrong.
> God sends curses against people, floods, plagues, that kind of stuff?
You need to read up on the New Covenant.
> How do we know God didn't break the elevator?
We don't. Like I said, He may have been testing the preparedness of the firefighters. He may have been sending a playful message to the Vatican's elevator maintenance people that they need to be more attentive. Maybe He felt the Pope needed an entra 25 minutes to prepare his address to the crowds of St Peter's.
> Or if you do see goodness in the broken elevator why not thank God for that as well?
I thank God for all His deeds.
Have a blessed day my child.
Anonymous O joined in and replied with this 6 years ago, 35 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,036,990
@1,036,520 (Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U)
> > If you accept the premise X is Y, then identifying Y as X isn't circular.
> reducing it to inappropriate 'mathematical' terminology.
@previous (Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U)
> your 'mathematical' reduction simply doesn't work here.
Mathematics is the study of numbers. This is a logic statement. I think you meant to say something like, "There you go adding logic into the argument again".
> > If you accept the premise X is Y, then identifying Y as X isn't circular.
> reducing it to inappropriate 'mathematical' terminology.
@previous (Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U)
> your 'mathematical' reduction simply doesn't work here.
Mathematics is the study of numbers. This is a logic statement. I think you meant to say something like, "There you go adding logic into the argument again".
Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U (OP) replied with this 6 years ago, 3 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,036,991
@previous (O)
> > > If you accept the premise X is Y, then identifying Y as X isn't circular.
> > reducing it to inappropriate 'mathematical' terminology.
>
> > your 'mathematical' reduction simply doesn't work here.
>
> Mathematics is the study of numbers.
If you're in 2nd grade, yes. If you're older than about 7, it's somewhat more comprehensive than that.
> I think you meant to say something like, "There you go adding false logic into the argument again".
But yes, I suppose I could have equally just said this.
> > > If you accept the premise X is Y, then identifying Y as X isn't circular.
> > reducing it to inappropriate 'mathematical' terminology.
>
> > your 'mathematical' reduction simply doesn't work here.
>
> Mathematics is the study of numbers.
If you're in 2nd grade, yes. If you're older than about 7, it's somewhat more comprehensive than that.
> I think you meant to say something like, "There you go adding false logic into the argument again".
But yes, I suppose I could have equally just said this.
Anonymous O replied with this 6 years ago, 12 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,036,993
@previous (Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U)
> > Mathematics is the study of numbers.
> If you're in 2nd grade, yes. If you're older than about 7, it's somewhat more comprehensive than that.
Nope, even when you are say Andrew Wiles, it's still all about numbers, be it about quantities, structures, mutations, space or imaginary fields. "If this then that" is a purely logical statement, not a mathematical one.
> > Mathematics is the study of numbers.
> If you're in 2nd grade, yes. If you're older than about 7, it's somewhat more comprehensive than that.
Nope, even when you are say Andrew Wiles, it's still all about numbers, be it about quantities, structures, mutations, space or imaginary fields. "If this then that" is a purely logical statement, not a mathematical one.
Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U (OP) replied with this 6 years ago, 16 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,036,997
@previous (O)
> > > Mathematics is the study of numbers.
> > If you're in 2nd grade, yes. If you're older than about 7, it's somewhat more comprehensive than that.
> Nope, even when you are say Andrew Wiles, it's still all about numbers
Especially if you're Andrew Wiles. His specialism is number theory. Now if you'd selected a professor in mathematical logic, for example...
> > > Mathematics is the study of numbers.
> > If you're in 2nd grade, yes. If you're older than about 7, it's somewhat more comprehensive than that.
> Nope, even when you are say Andrew Wiles, it's still all about numbers
Especially if you're Andrew Wiles. His specialism is number theory. Now if you'd selected a professor in mathematical logic, for example...
Bilbo !RwordOooFE replied with this 6 years ago, 1 hour later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,037,070
If you say X is Y, then it follows to say that Y is X. It becomes circular if you say X is Y because Y is X.
The problem of course is that there is nothing supporting the statement that X is Y, apart from Y is X which relies on the original assertion and does not prove it.
The problem of course is that there is nothing supporting the statement that X is Y, apart from Y is X which relies on the original assertion and does not prove it.
Anonymous O replied with this 6 years ago, 3 hours later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,037,136
@1,036,997 (Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U)
> mathematical logic
No such specialist field - ALL mathematics is logical (but not all logical statements are mathematical). Maths is a subcategory of logic, which is a subcategory of science, which is a subcategory of philosophy. Your religious studies are also a subset of philosophy, though a completely different branch, which is why you are having a hard time trying to combine the two arguments.
> mathematical logic
No such specialist field - ALL mathematics is logical (but not all logical statements are mathematical). Maths is a subcategory of logic, which is a subcategory of science, which is a subcategory of philosophy. Your religious studies are also a subset of philosophy, though a completely different branch, which is why you are having a hard time trying to combine the two arguments.
Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U (OP) replied with this 6 years ago, 34 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,037,139
@previous (O)
> > mathematical logic
> No such specialist field
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_logic
"Mathematical logic is a subfield of mathematics"
Happy to have educated you my child.
> > mathematical logic
> No such specialist field
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_logic
"Mathematical logic is a subfield of mathematics"
Happy to have educated you my child.
Anonymous G replied with this 6 years ago, 10 hours later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,037,248
@1,036,979 (Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U)
> For something like the 3rd time: it is not an 'assumption'.
A presupposition? A belief? Call it whatever you are happy calling it. Call it "Fred" if you like. It doesn't change the problem.
> And this part of the discussion is going nowhere until you realize that your 'mathematical' reduction simply doesn't work here.
This discussion was already nowhere because you seem blind to the circular nature of what you're doing. You seem content picking out things to praise and then believing them to be from God because you defined them that way. I just wonder what joy you get out of it and why the God portion is so important that you're always talking about it. It seems like the same principle would work no matter if it were God or a lucky pair of socks or Glinda the good witch of the north. (or the south if you're fan of the books)
> Where did I "credit God with the rescue"?
You thank God for it in the OP. I would guess you credit God with some hand in it. I suppose you could just be thanking God in your spare time though, so I shouldn't assume.
> You need to read up on the New Covenant.
Was there somewhere God gave up doing bad stuff? I can't be bothered to read everyone's circular opinion about it. I'll wait for the gritty HBO series to come out.
> He may have been testing the preparedness of the firefighters. He may have been sending a playful message to the Vatican's elevator maintenance people that they need to be more attentive. Maybe He felt the Pope needed an entra 25 minutes to prepare his address to the crowds of St Peter's.
This worldview is a problem. It's just inventing reasons you would like to believe. There's no hypothesis testing going on here and there can't ever be any. Maybe God did it just so people would discuss it on the internet. Maybe we could blame Satan if we can't think of any good reasons for God doing it.
I don't think I could live like that. It feels empty.
> For something like the 3rd time: it is not an 'assumption'.
A presupposition? A belief? Call it whatever you are happy calling it. Call it "Fred" if you like. It doesn't change the problem.
> And this part of the discussion is going nowhere until you realize that your 'mathematical' reduction simply doesn't work here.
This discussion was already nowhere because you seem blind to the circular nature of what you're doing. You seem content picking out things to praise and then believing them to be from God because you defined them that way. I just wonder what joy you get out of it and why the God portion is so important that you're always talking about it. It seems like the same principle would work no matter if it were God or a lucky pair of socks or Glinda the good witch of the north. (or the south if you're fan of the books)
> Where did I "credit God with the rescue"?
You thank God for it in the OP. I would guess you credit God with some hand in it. I suppose you could just be thanking God in your spare time though, so I shouldn't assume.
> You need to read up on the New Covenant.
Was there somewhere God gave up doing bad stuff? I can't be bothered to read everyone's circular opinion about it. I'll wait for the gritty HBO series to come out.
> He may have been testing the preparedness of the firefighters. He may have been sending a playful message to the Vatican's elevator maintenance people that they need to be more attentive. Maybe He felt the Pope needed an entra 25 minutes to prepare his address to the crowds of St Peter's.
This worldview is a problem. It's just inventing reasons you would like to believe. There's no hypothesis testing going on here and there can't ever be any. Maybe God did it just so people would discuss it on the internet. Maybe we could blame Satan if we can't think of any good reasons for God doing it.
I don't think I could live like that. It feels empty.
Anonymous O replied with this 6 years ago, 5 hours later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,037,285
@1,037,139 (Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U)
> claim to have a higher degree
> cite Wikipedia
> claim to have educated
smh
> claim to have a higher degree
> cite Wikipedia
> claim to have educated
smh
Anonymous P joined in and replied with this 6 years ago, 4 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,037,286
@previous (O)
But mathematical logic IS a field of mathematics. Sorry bud but you were wrong and Merrin was right here.
But mathematical logic IS a field of mathematics. Sorry bud but you were wrong and Merrin was right here.
Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U (OP) replied with this 6 years ago, 2 hours later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,037,306
@1,037,248 (G)
> > For something like the 3rd time: it is not an 'assumption'.
> A presupposition? A belief? Call it whatever you are happy calling it. Call it "Fred" if you like. It doesn't change the problem.
A tenet.
> >And this part of the discussion is going nowhere until you realize that your 'mathematical' reduction simply doesn't work here.
> This discussion was already nowhere because you seem blind to the circular nature of what you're doing. You seem content picking out things to praise and then believing them to be from God because you defined them that way. I just wonder what joy you get out of it and why the God portion is so important that you're always talking about it. It seems like the same principle would work no matter if it were God or a lucky pair of socks or Glinda the good witch of the north. (or the south if you're fan of the books)
I haven't "cherry picked" anything. This is a thread about the Pope's elevator rescue so I am discussing the elevator rescue.
> > Where did I "credit God with the rescue"?
> You thank God for it in the OP.
No I don't.
> > You need to read up on the New Covenant.
> Was there somewhere God gave up doing bad stuff? I can't be bothered to read everyone's circular opinion about it. I'll wait for the gritty HBO series to come out.
You have no idea what the New Covenant refers to, do you? If you did, you would know that saying "I can't be bothered to read it" is effectively saying "I can't be bothered to read the Bible". Which explains your ignorance of what you're talking about now.
> > He may have been testing the preparedness of the firefighters. He may have been sending a playful message to the Vatican's elevator maintenance people that they need to be more attentive. Maybe He felt the Pope needed an entra 25 minutes to prepare his address to the crowds of St Peter's.
> Maybe God did it just so people would discuss it on the internet.
Now you're starting to understand. I agree, it's possible God did it to get people communicating and discussing His ways.
> Maybe we could blame Satan if we can't think of any good reasons for God doing it.
Certainly food for thought. Satan does operate in this world.
> I don't think I could live like that.
Don't give up. Let me know if you need my guidance.
Have a blessed day!
> > For something like the 3rd time: it is not an 'assumption'.
> A presupposition? A belief? Call it whatever you are happy calling it. Call it "Fred" if you like. It doesn't change the problem.
A tenet.
> >And this part of the discussion is going nowhere until you realize that your 'mathematical' reduction simply doesn't work here.
> This discussion was already nowhere because you seem blind to the circular nature of what you're doing. You seem content picking out things to praise and then believing them to be from God because you defined them that way. I just wonder what joy you get out of it and why the God portion is so important that you're always talking about it. It seems like the same principle would work no matter if it were God or a lucky pair of socks or Glinda the good witch of the north. (or the south if you're fan of the books)
I haven't "cherry picked" anything. This is a thread about the Pope's elevator rescue so I am discussing the elevator rescue.
> > Where did I "credit God with the rescue"?
> You thank God for it in the OP.
No I don't.
> > You need to read up on the New Covenant.
> Was there somewhere God gave up doing bad stuff? I can't be bothered to read everyone's circular opinion about it. I'll wait for the gritty HBO series to come out.
You have no idea what the New Covenant refers to, do you? If you did, you would know that saying "I can't be bothered to read it" is effectively saying "I can't be bothered to read the Bible". Which explains your ignorance of what you're talking about now.
> > He may have been testing the preparedness of the firefighters. He may have been sending a playful message to the Vatican's elevator maintenance people that they need to be more attentive. Maybe He felt the Pope needed an entra 25 minutes to prepare his address to the crowds of St Peter's.
> Maybe God did it just so people would discuss it on the internet.
Now you're starting to understand. I agree, it's possible God did it to get people communicating and discussing His ways.
> Maybe we could blame Satan if we can't think of any good reasons for God doing it.
Certainly food for thought. Satan does operate in this world.
> I don't think I could live like that.
Don't give up. Let me know if you need my guidance.
Have a blessed day!
Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U (OP) double-posted this 6 years ago, 2 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,037,307
@1,037,285 (O)
> > claim to have a higher degree
> > cite Wikipedia
> > claim to have educated
> smh
> makes a factually incorrect statement
> is given proof that he's wrong
> denigrates the source and calls it fake news
> #MAGA, I guess.
> > claim to have a higher degree
> > cite Wikipedia
> > claim to have educated
> smh
> makes a factually incorrect statement
> is given proof that he's wrong
> denigrates the source and calls it fake news
> #MAGA, I guess.
(Edited 31 seconds later.)
Anonymous H replied with this 6 years ago, 5 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,037,308
@previous (Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U)
Yeah, I'm done here guys and girls. It was fun but now it's not. Child abuse is where I draw the line. Bye.
Yeah, I'm done here guys and girls. It was fun but now it's not. Child abuse is where I draw the line. Bye.
Anonymous O replied with this 6 years ago, 2 hours later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,037,343
@1,037,307 (Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U)
> > makes a factually incorrect statement
> > is given proof that he's wrong
> > denigrates the source and calls it fake news
> > #MAGA, I guess.
> realizes he just got trolled
> tries to claw his way out of the situation
> ends up crying himself to sleep again
> you win some you lose some, I guess.
> > makes a factually incorrect statement
> > is given proof that he's wrong
> > denigrates the source and calls it fake news
> > #MAGA, I guess.
> realizes he just got trolled
> tries to claw his way out of the situation
> ends up crying himself to sleep again
> you win some you lose some, I guess.
Anonymous P replied with this 6 years ago, 27 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,037,347
Anonymous O replied with this 6 years ago, 25 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,037,353
Anonymous P replied with this 6 years ago, 15 minutes later, 4 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,037,355
Anonymous O replied with this 6 years ago, 49 seconds later, 4 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,037,356
Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U (OP) replied with this 6 years ago, 29 minutes later, 4 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,037,358
@1,037,308 (H)
> Child abuse is where I draw the line.
Quite right too. There'll be none of that sickening depravity on this forum.
> Child abuse is where I draw the line.
Quite right too. There'll be none of that sickening depravity on this forum.
Anonymous O replied with this 6 years ago, 2 hours later, 4 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,037,399
@previous (Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U)
> There'll be none of that sickening depravity on this forum.
Good news! When will you be leaving us then?
> There'll be none of that sickening depravity on this forum.
Good news! When will you be leaving us then?
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 6 years ago, 13 minutes later, 4 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,037,406
100 get!!!!
Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U (OP) replied with this 6 years ago, 12 minutes later, 4 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,037,417
Anonymous H replied with this 6 years ago, 9 minutes later, 4 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,037,420
@previous (Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U)
Yeah, I'm done here guys and girls. It was fun but now it's not. Child abuse is where I draw the line. Bye.
Yeah, I'm done here guys and girls. It was fun but now it's not. Child abuse is where I draw the line. Bye.
Anonymous G replied with this 6 years ago, 54 minutes later, 4 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,037,440
@1,037,306 (Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U)
> You have no idea what the New Covenant refers to, do you? If you did, you would know that saying "I can't be bothered to read it" is effectively saying "I can't be bothered to read the Bible".
What I have and haven't read isn't really the problem I'm experiencing. The problem is the vast number of interpretations from people, who are all just as convinced as you are, that they have found some meaning in these things they have read but are equally unable to explain what or why it has meaning. I get that this death/sacrifice thing was supposed to be important. Why would you bring that up when I asked if God does bad things though? I don't recall that being part of any interpretation I've ever heard.
> Which explains your ignorance of what you're talking about now.
We're not discussing finer points of theology here, just the logic behind doing things. I just want to know what all the praying is about and why you think it's warranted. You can have all the complicated theological interpretations for it that you like, but you don't seem to have a convincing reason for it that doesn't start by defining the conclusion as the premise.
> Let me know if you need my guidance.
I'm not sure you're really a person capable of guidance.
> You have no idea what the New Covenant refers to, do you? If you did, you would know that saying "I can't be bothered to read it" is effectively saying "I can't be bothered to read the Bible".
What I have and haven't read isn't really the problem I'm experiencing. The problem is the vast number of interpretations from people, who are all just as convinced as you are, that they have found some meaning in these things they have read but are equally unable to explain what or why it has meaning. I get that this death/sacrifice thing was supposed to be important. Why would you bring that up when I asked if God does bad things though? I don't recall that being part of any interpretation I've ever heard.
> Which explains your ignorance of what you're talking about now.
We're not discussing finer points of theology here, just the logic behind doing things. I just want to know what all the praying is about and why you think it's warranted. You can have all the complicated theological interpretations for it that you like, but you don't seem to have a convincing reason for it that doesn't start by defining the conclusion as the premise.
> Let me know if you need my guidance.
I'm not sure you're really a person capable of guidance.
Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U (OP) replied with this 6 years ago, 14 minutes later, 4 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,037,451
@previous (G)
> > You have no idea what the New Covenant refers to, do you? If you did, you would know that saying "I can't be bothered to read it" is effectively saying "I can't be bothered to read the Bible".
> What I have and haven't read isn't really the problem I'm experiencing.
It is, because you're speaking about a subject (the nature of God) without any understanding of this 'God' figure you're writing about.
> The problem is the vast number of interpretations from people, who are all just as convinced as you are, that they have found some meaning in these things they have read but are equally unable to explain what or why it has meaning.
Why do you assume I and others are "unable to explain what or why it has meaning"?
> I get that this death/sacrifice thing was supposed to be important. Why would you bring that up when I asked if God does bad things though?
You're mixing up separate issues here. God does not do bad things. I've been clear on that. Your Old Testament (hence: New Covenant) punishments are 'bad' only in your own non-Christian interpretation.
> I don't recall that being part of any interpretation I've ever heard.
Unsurprising. Again, you seem to have read very, very little on this subject, which is why I have offered to guide you.
> > Which explains your ignorance of what you're talking about now.
> I just want to know what all the praying is about and why you think it's warranted.
What is praying "about"? Communication with God. Why is it warranted? Christ in the Lord's Prayer bids us pray for our daily bread.
> > Let me know if you need my guidance.
> I'm not sure you're really a person capable of guidance.
Au contraire. I'm a priest. I'm here to help and guide you if you need it.
> > You have no idea what the New Covenant refers to, do you? If you did, you would know that saying "I can't be bothered to read it" is effectively saying "I can't be bothered to read the Bible".
> What I have and haven't read isn't really the problem I'm experiencing.
It is, because you're speaking about a subject (the nature of God) without any understanding of this 'God' figure you're writing about.
> The problem is the vast number of interpretations from people, who are all just as convinced as you are, that they have found some meaning in these things they have read but are equally unable to explain what or why it has meaning.
Why do you assume I and others are "unable to explain what or why it has meaning"?
> I get that this death/sacrifice thing was supposed to be important. Why would you bring that up when I asked if God does bad things though?
You're mixing up separate issues here. God does not do bad things. I've been clear on that. Your Old Testament (hence: New Covenant) punishments are 'bad' only in your own non-Christian interpretation.
> I don't recall that being part of any interpretation I've ever heard.
Unsurprising. Again, you seem to have read very, very little on this subject, which is why I have offered to guide you.
> > Which explains your ignorance of what you're talking about now.
> I just want to know what all the praying is about and why you think it's warranted.
What is praying "about"? Communication with God. Why is it warranted? Christ in the Lord's Prayer bids us pray for our daily bread.
> > Let me know if you need my guidance.
> I'm not sure you're really a person capable of guidance.
Au contraire. I'm a priest. I'm here to help and guide you if you need it.
Anonymous H replied with this 6 years ago, 2 minutes later, 4 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,037,455
Father Merrin !u5oFWxmY7U (OP) replied with this 6 years ago, 2 minutes later, 4 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,037,459
@previous (H)
You've forgotten to write something.
(edit: if you posted a picture, I can't see it. I have images disabled)
You've forgotten to write something.
(edit: if you posted a picture, I can't see it. I have images disabled)
(Edited 34 seconds later.)
Anonymous H replied with this 6 years ago, 1 minute later, 4 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,037,460
Anonymous P replied with this 6 years ago, 4 minutes later, 4 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,037,463
@1,037,455 (H)
@previous (H)
Looks like anon H is the autistic madspammer who just got banned from Tinychan for 24 hours.
@previous (H)
Looks like anon H is the autistic madspammer who just got banned from Tinychan for 24 hours.
Anonymous H replied with this 6 years ago, 7 minutes later, 4 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,037,465
@previous (P)
Yeah, I'm done here guys and girls. It was fun but now it's not. Autistic madspamming is where I draw the line. Bye.
Yeah, I'm done here guys and girls. It was fun but now it's not. Autistic madspamming is where I draw the line. Bye.
Anonymous P replied with this 6 years ago, 6 minutes later, 4 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,037,468
Anonymous G replied with this 6 years ago, 13 minutes later, 4 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,037,470
> Why do you assume I and others are "unable to explain what or why it has meaning"?
Did you plan on doing that at some point?
> Au contraire. I'm a priest. I'm here to help and guide you if you need it.
I feel like a you should spend more time explaining the point you are trying to make. It would convince me that you actually had one. So far, you have spent a lot of time complaining that I've mischaracterized things and haven't read enough. I still have no idea why you brought up the new covenant or the lord's prayer. I'm afraid if I keep asking why, then you'll go off about some other tangential thing or pick out a word whose definition you disagree with again. You don't seem like much of a teacher really.
Did you plan on doing that at some point?
> Au contraire. I'm a priest. I'm here to help and guide you if you need it.
I feel like a you should spend more time explaining the point you are trying to make. It would convince me that you actually had one. So far, you have spent a lot of time complaining that I've mischaracterized things and haven't read enough. I still have no idea why you brought up the new covenant or the lord's prayer. I'm afraid if I keep asking why, then you'll go off about some other tangential thing or pick out a word whose definition you disagree with again. You don't seem like much of a teacher really.
Anonymous O replied with this 6 years ago, 10 hours later, 4 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,037,570
@1,037,463 (P)
> Looks like anon H is the autistic madspammer who just got banned from Tinychan for 24 hours.
Lol, and did you also just get banned for 24 hours for being the other autistic madspammer? Almost certainly one of them is a bot, probably deployed by the sysop, and they are just fucking with you.
> Looks like anon H is the autistic madspammer who just got banned from Tinychan for 24 hours.
Lol, and did you also just get banned for 24 hours for being the other autistic madspammer? Almost certainly one of them is a bot, probably deployed by the sysop, and they are just fucking with you.