Does God make mistakes?

[lightgigantic]

LG



I have a different view of the exchange.

When the baby is getting raped it doesn't matter what scriptures you use to try and justify the rape and to apologize for god's actions.

why not?

It's still getting raped, and per Jan god is in control.

At which point you know what you can do with the scriptures.

kind of like holding a software manufacturer culpable for the PM'ing that goes on during an online game
(technically they are controlling it, right?)
:shrug:

And of course the baby doesn't know or understand anything about scripture.

or rape for that matter

 

[lightgigantic]

Then be sure.
I read the thread.


Nope, Jan took it into the realms of stupidity with



Probably the same as mine. I have no interest in Gillingham OR football.

I wasn't doubting your reading
I was doubting your interpretation of it

For instance the rhetorical statement "what does a baby care about the gfc?" is not really on par with "what do I (an adult) care about the gfc"

 

[Dywyddyr]

I wasn't doubting your reading
I was doubting your interpretation of it

Or your interpretation of my interpretation.

Which bit of:

The babe doesn't care, period.

escaped you?

 

[lightgigantic]

Or your interpretation of my interpretation.

Which bit of:

escaped you?

this bit

For instance the rhetorical statement "what does a baby care about the gfc?" is not really on par with "what do I (an adult) care about the gfc"


k?

 

[Dywyddyr]

Yes. For some reason you seem to feel it pertinent to introduce your own interpretation (and the gfc, whatever that is) to query my take on the (unsupported and probably unsupportable) claim that babies don't care at all.

 

[jpappl]

Lg,

“ Originally Posted by jpappl
LG



I have a different view of the exchange.

When the baby is getting raped it doesn't matter what scriptures you use to try and justify the rape and to apologize for god's actions. ”

why not?

Because there is nothing in there that makes it right.

It's still getting raped, and per Jan god is in control.

At which point you know what you can do with the scriptures. ”

kind of like holding a software manufacturer culpable for the PM'ing that goes on during an online game
(technically they are controlling it, right?)

Ah no, we are talking about an omnipotent all powerful god. Not a software company.

And of course the baby doesn't know or understand anything about scripture. ”

or rape for that matter

Doesn't change the fact it was raped does it.

 

[lightgigantic]

Yes. For some reason you seem to feel it pertinent to introduce your own interpretation (and the gfc, whatever that is) to query my take on the (unsupported and probably unsupportable) claim that babies don't care at all.

gfc = global financial crisis

I'm just plainly pointing out how using "care" in the sense of "stimuli" doesn't render "babies don't care about scripture" coherent, so its not clear why you insist on it ... except to bolster your own position of course
:shrug:

 

[lightgigantic]

Lg,



Because there is nothing in there that makes it right.

needless to say, that's debatable ...

Ah no, we are talking about an omnipotent all powerful god. Not a software company.

it appears that we are also talking about a universe that doesn't possess free will either ... which is arguably where your interpretation of the picture offered by scripture diverges ....

Doesn't change the fact it was raped does it.

nor does it change the facts governing the nature of navigating a virtual world
:shrug:

 

[Dywyddyr]

gfc = global financial crisis

Yeah?
Oh well, Google gave me Gillingham Football Club.

I'm just plainly pointing out how using "care" in the sense of "stimuli" doesn't render "babies don't care about scripture" coherent, so its not clear why you insist on it ... except to bolster your own position of course
:shrug:

And I'm just wondering how, or why, you persist in ignoring the fact that I wasn't responding to the comment about scripture at all, but as previously stated more than once the claim that babies don't/ can't care at all.

 

[lightgigantic]

Yeah?
Oh well, Google gave me Gillingham Football Club.


And I'm just wondering how, or why, you persist in ignoring the fact that I wasn't responding to the comment about scripture at all, but as previously stated more than once the claim that babies don't/ can't care at all.

It s more to the point why do you insist on ignoring the fact that it was originally contextualized by the statement "babies don't care about scripture"
:shrug:

 

[jpappl]

LG,

“ Originally Posted by jpappl
Lg,



Because there is nothing in there that makes it right. ”

needless to say, that's debatable ...

Well if it is then provide the support.

Ah no, we are talking about an omnipotent all powerful god. Not a software company. ”

it appears that we are also talking about a universe that doesn't possess free will either ... which is arguably where your interpretation of the picture offered by scripture diverges ....

What part of god is in control escaped you here. It doesn't make any sense that god is in control yet we have freewill.

I don't believe god is in control, whether it created us or not. That makes sense in a world where babies are allowed to be raped. Because god is not in control, people are left to do what they will do, not matter how twisted or perverse and god apparently can do nothing about it.

“ Doesn't change the fact it was raped does it. ”

nor does it change the facts governing the nature of navigating a virtual world

Which has nothing to do with what we are discussing.

 

[Dywyddyr]

It s more to the point why do you insist on ignoring the fact that it was originally contextualized by the statement "babies don't care about scripture"
:shrug:

Wrong.
The phrasing "the baby doesn't care, period" extends the statement to a general one. And is later confirmed by Jan's question

What do babies care about?

and his further question

The baby would be aware of the pain, and most certainly distressed, but is it capable of caring?

Please do try to read the thread.
The "caring (or not) about scripture" was jpappl's comment.

 

[lightgigantic]

Wrong.
The phrasing "the baby doesn't care, period" extends the statement to a general one. And is later confirmed by Jan's question

underline all you want, doesn't change the context of the statement

and his further question

Please do try to read the thread.
The "caring (or not) about scripture" was jpappl's comment.

kind of funny how you can ignore the context in the opening and come back to it at the next paragraph

 

[Dywyddyr]

underline all you want, doesn't change the context of the statement

I see, so the addition of the word "period" doesn't at all imply to you that the "not caring" applies all round and not just to scripture?
Consider:
"Do you want a sandwich to eat?"
"I don't want to eat, period"
So in such a situation you'd you'd continue to offer differing foodstuffs?
Wow... :shrug:
And it wasn't underlined so much as linked to the relevant post.

kind of funny how you can ignore the context in the opening and come back to it at the next paragraph

Kind of funny how you can't see that was merely pointing out to you where the context was given, only to for it to be dismissed by Jan.

 

[lightgigantic]

LG,



Well if it is then provide the support.

it might require that you accept scripture on its own terms if youw ant to talk about the ramifications of the ideas presented

What part of god is in control escaped you here. It doesn't make any sense that god is in control yet we have freewill.

Actually if we didn't have free will it wouldn't make any sense to belabor any moralistic viewpoint, what to speak of one in relation to god.

I don't believe god is in control, whether it created us or not. That makes sense in a world where babies are allowed to be raped. Because god is not in control, people are left to do what they will do, not matter how twisted or perverse and god apparently can do nothing about it.

problem solved if you relegate the off the wall behaviour to a virtual world - especially if the virtual world is designed to bring the off behaviour back off the wall ... all without stomping on one's free will too

Which has nothing to do with what we are discussing.

how a software company controls the virtual world of one of its products (without stomping on free will too mind you) is very pertinent to the discussion

 

[lightgigantic]

I see, so the addition of the word "period" doesn't at all imply to you that the "not caring" applies all round and not just to scripture?
Consider:
"Do you want a sandwich to eat?"
"I don't want to eat, period"
So in such a situation you'd you'd continue to offer differing foodstuffs?
Wow... :shrug:
And it wasn't underlined so much as linked to the relevant post.

now imagine if some fool insisted on using that as an excuse to drive home all or any usages of the word "eat"

eg

• Worry or cause anxiety in a persistent way
• Use*up (resources or materials)
• Cause to deteriorate due to the action of water, air, or an acid

:shrug:

Kind of funny how you can't see that was merely pointing out to you where the context was given, only to for it to be dismissed by Jan.

Quit playing daft.
If you seriously think that he was extending the use to incorporate stimuli, there's no point offering the pretense of inviting you to intelligent discussion.

 

[Dywyddyr]

now imagine if some fool insisted on using that as an excuse to drive home all or any usages of the word "eat"

I see you have problems with English.
I'm done with you.

Quit playing daft.
If you seriously think that he was extending the use to incorporate stimuli, there's no point offering the pretense of inviting you to intelligent discussion.

There was little pretence of such once Jan got involved. Read the questions of his that I quoted.
He was contending that babies don't care.

 

[Alan McDougall]

Where was God in the Holocaust?

 

[jpappl]

LG,

“ Originally Posted by jpappl
LG,



Well if it is then provide the support. ”

it might require that you accept scripture on its own terms if youw ant to talk about the ramifications of the ideas presented

Stalling, just present.

“ What part of god is in control escaped you here. It doesn't make any sense that god is in control yet we have freewill. ”

Actually if we didn't have free will it wouldn't make any sense to belabor any moralistic viewpoint, what to speak of one in relation to god.

Sure, and since we do, God is not in control.

 

[lightgigantic]

LG,



Stalling, just present.

I already have, but for some reason you don't want to entertain virtual programming as a parallel analogy to a world that is controlled yet giving facility to free will

Sure, and since we do, God is not in control.

no more control than a programmer of a virtual world
:shrug: