Child Rapist in Heaven

[Celpha Fiael]

You wrote: "The lawyer "advocates" the client, and so they are associates in the trial, regardless of whether or not the lawyer actually shares the client's views verbatim."

They are not associates because the client is paying for the lawyers services. They have a business relationship and the lawyer represents the client. From Dictionary.com:

a person who shares actively in anything as a business, enterprise, or undertaking; partner; colleague; fellow worker: He consulted with his associates before proceeding further.

Where in the world does it say there in that very definition you provided that if someone is paying someone, then the term "associate" can't be used? I'm pretty sure you just proved that you're a dumbass.

(!! The definition even says "in anything as a business" which IS an exchange of money! It seems like he only chose to read the last part of the definition.) :roflmao:

Not only did you get the definition of the word "associate" wrong, but you also change you point of view in the middle of the discussion to fit you agenda/MO. Absurdly, your views of "associate" span from being possessed by the spirit of Satan to sharing only a few ideas in common. Do not realize that you are double-minded?
...
That's an "ad hom," stating the following: "you'll get your panties in a wad over that too." Stop disrespecting other fellow human beings and resorting to pathetic name calling just because you are on the losing end of a discussion. This uncalled for.

:sleep:
Christenstein

Ladies and gentlemen of the jury (that's you reading), note that nowhere in this post, nor in any of Chrsitenstien's oh-so-gripping and wise posts did he EVER answer the one question I had for him, which is what started this completely irrelevant exchange of pedantic semantics. He actually repeated the statement all over again, which is what I have bolded above. A complete waste of time. I rest my case.

 

[Christenstein]

They are not associates because the client is paying for the lawyers services. They have a business relationship and the lawyer represents the client. From Dictionary.com:

a person who shares actively in anything as a business, enterprise, or undertaking; partner; colleague; fellow worker: He consulted with his associates before proceeding further.

Where in the world does it say there in that very definition you provided that if someone is paying someone, then the term "associate" can't be used? I'm pretty sure you just proved that you're a dumbass.

(!! The definition even says "in anything as a business" which IS an exchange of money! It seems like he only chose to read the last part of the definition.) :roflmao:

:roflmao:

Stop quoting the segments of the definition and presenting them out of context. The definition clearly says: a person who shares actively in anything as a business, enterprise, or undertaking; partner; colleague; fellow worker: He consulted with his associates before proceeding further.

I made the words "a person who shares" in bold just in case you missed that part of the definition this turnaround. A consumer and a service provider do not "share" actively in anything as a business. The words "partner," "colleague," and "fellow workers" among many others in the definition should communicate that there is sharing/venture in a bundle legal rights in binding agreements between the associates through regular business activities. The bundle of rights of a service provider and a seller are drastically different and therefore, logical they are not associates because those bundle of rights are not shared - instead, they are conflict of interests.

Ladies and gentlemen of the jury (that's you reading), note that nowhere in this post, nor in any of Chrsitenstien's oh-so-gripping and wise posts did he EVER answer the one question I had for him, which is what started this completely irrelevant exchange of pedantic semantics.

You can't even agree to the facts of what the word "associate" means. If you cannot get over that hurdle, how do you expect discussions to continue? Do you realize that you are dismissing the facts as they are presented to you because you do not want to acknowledge them? How could you honestly and accurately evaluate evidence for the existence and nonexistence of God with this mentality?

He actually repeated the statement all over again, which is what I have bolded above. A complete waste of time. I rest my case.

Celpha keeps on arguing against the facts over and over again, which is insanity - indicative of the blindness that is plaguing his/her mind, heart, and eyes. For Celpha's information, I say the words "I rest my case" probably more times than he/she does and to professionals. Adstar is right when he stated, "[Celpha] is pompous." As words of advice to Celpha, "why don't you check your credit card contract or any other contract with the word "associate" in them and see if the word actually refers to the person/entity receiving the services or a person/entity in business with (sharing in a business with) another person."

RES IPSA LOQUITUR

Christenstein

 

[stephen1992]

he would go to hell becaus ein the bible it says basically waqnting to commit adultery is just as bad as commiting adultery i would imagine the same princible applies

 

[jayleew]

This guy loves children. He fantasizes about sex with them all the time. But he never does anything about it. He never looks at child porn. He never touches a child, etc.
He is a good man and does good things.
He dies and goes to heaven. His idea of paradise is sexually assaulting children.

Does he get to? Can you get kicked out of heaven? Or do you not get to have the paradise you want?

Well, if you believe in heaven and want to know the Christian perspective taught in the Bible, it is written that "...no sin shall enter..."

If there is no sin, then either he doesn't make it in, or the temptations are voided at the door. It says in the Bible that the inhabitants do not have earthly bodies. Everyone is tried by holy fire before entering, and that only what is left enters in.

 

[Orleander]

.... Everyone is tried by holy fire before entering, and that only what is left enters in.

so everybody ends up smelling/looking like pork rinds. nice.
So all the gay people are gonna be 'cured' if they get to heaven. Gluttony a sin? Cuz I think my Mom was kinda hoping she wouldn't have to worry about her weight anymore. oh wait, she's gonna be a pork rind, she will have bigger issues to worry about.

 

[Celpha Fiael]

so everybody ends up smelling/looking like pork rinds. nice.
So all the gay people are gonna be 'cured' if they get to heaven. Gluttony a sin? Cuz I think my Mom was kinda hoping she wouldn't have to worry about her weight anymore. oh wait, she's gonna be a pork rind, she will have bigger issues to worry about.

lol I think it's a spiritual thing...

 

[Orleander]

so its not an actual fire?

 

[Celpha Fiael]

so its not an actual fire?

No it's a metaphorical one that erodes all the dross of sin and disobedience from our souls. I think it comes from an allegory in the OT; God is the sword smith and we are the blade; the smith holds it in the fire which melts away all imperfections. He can tell when the sword is done by looking into it and seeing his reflection.

 

[Orleander]

Its amazing how the Bible says 'fire' but it doesn't really mean 'fire'. So the fire in heaven isn't fire, but the fire in hell really is fire?

 

[Celpha Fiael]

Yeah you would think that God would have chosen a clearer way to impart his truth to his eager creation. Metaphorical spirituality (which many have resorted into due to the ever pressing front of knowledge and scientific evidence exposing a literal translation of the bible as incongruous with sanity) is not the most efficient way, and a God who would endorse that and revelation as the primary stewards of truth wouldn't be a God who was interested in clear communication.

My beliefs I held as a theist went something along these lines: Heaven and Hell are neither physical places or somewhere that is only accessible after your heart stops beating. They simply stated, are states of mind. That fire, that burning of the dross, IS hell; you could be walking down the street physically yet be tormented in your thoughts (a reaction from the involvement of sin); spiritually, you are in hell. This alleviates the problem of God being a sadistic torturer, as his use for hell is temporary and meaningful towards a greater good. It's true that anything of substantial beauty blossoms out of great friction, such as a violently struck string that produces a musical note. God's ultimate plan is to save all and have all in a true state of union with him (heaven), but in order to get there, one must first go through purging flames that test and refine. So there is no real fire, it's all metaphorical.

But of course all those are previous beliefs, ones which I now regard as interesting but inescapably weak.

 

[Photizo]

But of course all those are previous beliefs, ones which I now regard as interesting but inescapably weak.

Agreed...and the ones you now hold are weaker still.

Thus saith the LORD; Cursed be the man that trusteth in man, and maketh flesh his arm, and whose heart departeth from the LORD.

 

[Celpha Fiael]

Agreed...and the ones you now hold are weaker still.

Thus saith the LORD; Cursed be the man that trusteth in man, and maketh flesh his arm, and whose heart departeth from the LORD.

Marvelous Photizo.

 

[jayleew]

so everybody ends up smelling/looking like pork rinds. nice.
So all the gay people are gonna be 'cured' if they get to heaven. Gluttony a sin? Cuz I think my Mom was kinda hoping she wouldn't have to worry about her weight anymore. oh wait, she's gonna be a pork rind, she will have bigger issues to worry about.

lol, sorry Orleander...I used to be a theist and I speak the Christian lingo.

apprently, we get new bodies, so she has nothing to worry about!

wish I could believe the fairy tale.

 

[jayleew]

My beliefs I held as a theist went something along these lines...

Being a past theist like me i'd like to know what you think about this:

If everything that is told to us by a spiritual leader was all half-truth due to his misunderstanding.

And every place where you saw your scriptures be contradicting...or just seem wrong, was just because you didn't understand...and there is no way to understand it in this life...

Is having hope enough to have faith?

Can you have one without the other?

 

[Celpha Fiael]

Being a past theist like me i'd like to know what you think about this:

If everything that is told to us by a spiritual leader was all half-truth due to his misunderstanding.

And every place where you saw your scriptures be contradicting...or just seem wrong, was just because you didn't understand...and there is no way to understand it in this life...

Is having hope enough to have faith?

Can you have one without the other?

I'd be glad to answer although I'm a little unclear on what you are asking. I am getting a little bit of what I think you're talking about, but if you could word it again for me that might help.

 

[jayleew]

I'd be glad to answer although I'm a little unclear on what you are asking. I am getting a little bit of what I think you're talking about, but if you could word it again for me that might help.

Ok...hypothetically, if there was no evidence that there was Oxygen in the air we breath and could not be tested...

Assumption: we hope the next breath we take in contains Oxygen.

Can we have a hope without actually having faith?

I mean if we had no faith, but only hope...might we hold our breath?

Conversely, if we had faith and no hope...what would we be? Complacent? Or, are they necessary in the system of belief?

Are they consequential, relative, or opposite?

 

[Celpha Fiael]

Ok...hypothetically, if there was no evidence that there was Oxygen in the air we breath and could not be tested...

Assumption: we hope the next breath we take in contains Oxygen.

Can we have a hope without actually having faith?

I mean if we had no faith, but only hope...might we hold our breath?

Conversely, if we had faith and no hope...what would we be? Complacent? Or, are they necessary in the system of belief?

Are they consequential, relative, or opposite?

Hope and faith are two concepts that are definitely found hand-in-hand. But this doesn't make them inseparable; hope can exist independent of faith (though I'm not sure the same could be said visa-versa). For example, I could have hope that I wake up on time tomorrow for a morning job, but this doesn't mean I have faith in myself to wake up, nor in the alarm clock for that matter.

In your example of oxygen and our lack of understanding of it, I'd say that the uncertainty we would have about our next inhale containing sufficient oxygen would have to be a necessary speculation. It really wouldn't matter if you had hope or faith or not; if you didn't inhale, you would die for sure. So you may as well inhale.

Really, neither hope or faith are necessary in your example. Just reason.

 

[Adstar]

Ok...hypothetically, if there was no evidence that there was Oxygen in the air we breath and could not be tested...

Assumption: we hope the next breath we take in contains Oxygen.

Can we have a hope without actually having faith?

I mean if we had no faith, but only hope...might we hold our breath?

Conversely, if we had faith and no hope...what would we be? Complacent? Or, are they necessary in the system of belief?

Are they consequential, relative, or opposite?

Faith and Hope comes hand in hand. If you have no faith then you cannot have any hope. One needs to have some trust before one can have hope in the promises of another or in the message being given by another.


All Praise The Ancient Of Days