Religion Simplified

[Daisy]

Like the Amish community in Pennsylvania ?

Shocking documentary exposes incest and abuse in Amish community

'Sins of the Amish' follows four women from different Amish backgrounds as they share their personal stories of sexual abuse and search for justice.

www.dailymail.co.uk

Or Catholic priests abusing children under their care:

Child sex abuse allegations in the Catholic Church doubled in 2018

During the period from July 1, 2017, to June 30, 2018, 1,385 adults came forward with 1,455 allegations of abuse, according to the annual report of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops'.

www.dailymail.co.uk

No...

 

[Rich2018]

No...

Are Amish communities and Catholic priests not people who "live it daily" ?

 

[Daisy]

Are Amish communities and Catholic priests not people who "live it daily" ?

Um no...their actions prove it..."you will know them by their fruits"...

 

[Rich2018]

Um no...their actions prove it..."you will know them by their fruits"...

I'd say the Amish and Catholic priests ***DO*** live every day according to their religion, and like all religious communities, they're hotbeds of sin/abuse.

Are you saying that there are religious communities who're without sin ?
If so, please give a couple of examples.

 

[Daisy]

I'd say the Amish and Catholic priests ***DO*** live every day according to their religion, and like all religious communities, they're hotbeds of sin/abuse.

Are you saying that there are religious communities who're without sin ?
If so, please give a couple of examples.

Of course not, we are all sinners, no matter how hard we try not to be...to sin willfully and deliberately, is a different matter...

 

[Rich2018]

Of course not, we are all sinners, no matter how hard we try not to be...to sin willfully and deliberately, is a different matter...

QED: So even the most devout (eg the Amish and Catholic priests) are capable of gross sin.

 

[Daisy]

QED: So even the most devout (eg the Amish and Catholic priests) are capable of gross sin.

So was David, but he learned his lesson...those who don't cannot be called servants of God...

 

[RAMOSS]

So, you've never read the Bible, even the Hebrew Scriptures/OT...got it...

That, of course, it the logical fallacy of 'ad homien' and 'shifting the burden of proof'. It is also a deflection in showing that you can not back up your claims.

 

[Daisy]

That, of course, it the logical fallacy of 'ad homien' and 'shifting the burden of proof'. It is also a deflection in showing that you can not back up your claims.

And, that of course, is denial of the truth of the scriptures...

 

[Rich2018]

So was David, but he learned his lesson...those who don't cannot be called servants of God...

So abusers are OK, as long as they repent and remain servants of God ?

 

[Daisy]

So abusers are OK, as long as they repent and remain servants of God ?

Repent and turn around/stop committing the sin...the Bible makes that clear...

 

[Rich2018]

Repent and turn around/stop committing the sin...the Bible makes that clear...

So someone who sins, can be forgiven. But if they subsequently commit the same sin, they cannot be ?

 

[Daisy]

So someone who sins, can be forgiven. But if they subsequently commit the same sin, they cannot be ?

That is not what I said...habitual/willful sin is not the same as sinning more than once because of human imperfection...

 

[Rich2018]

That is not what I said...habitual/willful sin is not the same as sinning more than once because of human imperfection...

What sin is not wilful ?
Are you saying that some people don't commit the same sin over and over ?

So an abuser is OK with God so long as he repents.

 

[Daisy]

What sin is not wilful ?
Are you saying that some people don't commit the same sin over and over ?

So an abuser is OK with God so long as he repents.

Paul writes: “If we practice sin willfully after having received the accurate knowledge of the truth, there is no longer any sacrifice for sins left.” (Verse 26) Willful sinners are most reprehensible. Why? First, they do not commit an isolated sin in a moment of weakness—the kind of mistake we all make at times because we are imperfect. They make a practice of sin. Second, their sins are intentional. As The Bible in Basic English puts it, they “do evil on purpose.” Deeply ingrained badness fills their heart. Third, their sins are not the result of ignorance. They have an “accurate knowledge of the truth” about God’s will and ways.

How does God view unrepentant, malicious sinners? “There is no longer any sacrifice for sins left,” says Paul. The sacrifice of Christ—God’s gift to humankind—covers the sins we commit because of our imperfection. (1 John 2:1, 2) But those who practice sin without repentance show that they have no regard for this precious gift. In God’s eyes, they have “trampled upon the Son of God and . . . esteemed as of ordinary value the blood of” Jesus. (Verse 29) By their course, they show contempt for Jesus and treat his blood “as a cheap thing,” as having no more value than that of any imperfect human. (Today’s English Version) Such ingrates are in no position to benefit from Christ’s sacrifice.
https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/2008804

 

[Logicman]

Does this silly meme remind you of anyone?

It reminds me of you skeptics, who claim Jesus was never resurrected, etc., - that resurrections are impossible.

And then when you ask them to substantiate why they claim that, they often claim it's unscientific, but so far they have yet to produce any scientific studies to back up their claims. Just throw a bunch of claims against the wall to see if any of them stick.

Or when 'science guy' Gordy327 demanded empirical evidence for Jesus but when challenged, he couldn't come up with even one example of empirical evidence for any individuals of antiquity. Wheeeee!!

LOL.

 

[Rich2018]

How does God view unrepentant, malicious sinners? “There is no longer any sacrifice for sins left,” says Paul. The sacrifice of Christ—God’s gift to humankind—covers the sins we commit because of our imperfection. (1 John 2:1, 2) But those who practice sin without repentance show that they have no regard for this precious gift. In God’s eyes, they have “trampled upon the Son of God and . . . esteemed as of ordinary value the blood of” Jesus. (Verse 29) By their course, they show contempt for Jesus and treat his blood “as a cheap thing,” as having no more value than that of any imperfect human. (Today’s English Version) Such ingrates are in no position to benefit from Christ’s sacrifice.
https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/2008804

I'm talking about repentant sinners

As demonstrated, even the most devout are capable of sin, and gross sin at that.

 

[Gordy327]

It reminds me of you skeptics, who claim Jesus was never resurrected, etc., - that resurrections are impossible.

And then when you ask them to substantiate why they claim that, they often claim it's unscientific, but so far they have yet to produce any scientific studies to back up their claims. Just throw a bunch of claims against the wall to see if any of them stick.

Or when 'science guy' Gordy327 demanded empirical evidence for Jesus but when challenged, he couldn't come up with even one example of empirical evidence for any individuals of antiquity. Wheeeee!!

LOL.

Why should I come up with evidence when I never made any such claims for anyone, unlike you? You've certainly never backed up any of your claims with empirical evidence! Just cowardly deflections like trying to throw that asinine challenge regarding historical figures back at other who never made claims about them.

 

[Gordy327]

That, of course, it the logical fallacy of 'ad homien' and 'shifting the burden of proof'. It is also a deflection in showing that you can not back up your claims.

That seems to be a common tactic used by certain theists here, especially when their claims are challenged.

 

[Logicman]

Why should I come up with evidence when I never made any such claims for anyone, unlike you? You've certainly never backed up any of your claims with empirical evidence! Just cowardly deflections like trying to throw that asinine challenge regarding historical figures back at other who never made claims about them.

You demanded empirical evidence for Jesus but when challenged, you couldn't come up with even one example of empirical evidence for any individuals of antiquity.

That backfired on you, didn't it? LOL.

 

[Somerville]

You demanded empirical evidence for Jesus but when challenged, you couldn't come up with even one example of empirical evidence for any individuals of antiquity.

That backfired on you, didn't it? LOL.

Nope. Your claims have only shown your basic failure of thought.

 

[RAMOSS]

You demanded empirical evidence for Jesus but when challenged, you couldn't come up with even one example of empirical evidence for any individuals of antiquity.

That backfired on you, didn't it? LOL.

That, of course, is what is known as a 'strawman'. For example, when challenged about the existance of tutankamin, I poitned out his body. When challenged about the existence of Alexander the Great, I pointed out the contemporary indenpendent astronomical diaries. This has happened several times.

SO, you lie.

​

 

[Gordy327]

You demanded empirical evidence for Jesus but when challenged, you couldn't come up with even one example of empirical evidence for any individuals of antiquity.

That backfired on you, didn't it? LOL.

No, I demanded evidence for YOUR CLAIM regarding Jesus. Instead of providing evidence, you cowardly dodged the challenge by throwing back a challenge to a claim I never made. Such debate tactics only demonstrates your dishonesty and inability to answer the challenge to your claim, which also shreds any credibility you may have had.

Nope. Your claims have only shown your basic failure of thought.

Failure in logic too.

That, of course, is what is known as a 'strawman'.

Not to mention a shifting the burden of proof fallacy.

SO, you lie.

Nailed it! I wonder what his Jesus friend would think about that?

 

[Logicman]

That, of course, is what is known as a 'strawman'. For example, when challenged about the existance of tutankamin, I poitned out his body.

Show me the conclusive DNA evidence that's really Tutankhamun instead of someone else they entombed for whatever reason?

See, you think you've made your case. But what I threw back at you is the same kind of thing we constantly get from you, Somerville, Gordy, bomberfox, and that gang of Christ-denying groupies.

So you guys have NOTHING but half-baked hysteria.

 

[RAMOSS]

Show me the conclusive DNA evidence that's really Tutankhamun instead of someone else they entombed for whatever reason?

See, you think you've made your case. But what I threw back at you is the same kind of thing we constantly get from you, Somerville, Gordy, bomberfox, and that gang of Christ-denying groupies.

So you guys have NOTHING but half-baked hysteria.

Then, in addiction to the straw man, and the shifting of burden of proof, you are deign what is known as 'moving goal posts'. It's pretty sad, and the frantic way the argument is being made is very telling. Too bad for you that , indeed that information is available.

Tutankhamen's Familial DNA Tells Tale of Boy Pharaoh's Disease and Incest

New insight into the fragile pharaoh's family tree shows intrafamilial marriage, and royal lives cursed by malarial infections and bodily defects

www.scientificamerican.com