Brian Williams

Dude, if you can't be bothered to watch my nine part, 1 hour per episode, YouTube series entitled "Me explaining what you couldn't possibly understand otherwise," that devastates all of your arguments, before responding, then clearly you know I'm right.

@NotTheBaptizer I mean I only mentioned it because it's the rest of your post.

@NotTheBaptizer Have you read the OT in order so you get the series of events and not just excerpts theologians picked? Israel's God again and again explains how the tribes badness made God kick their ass with the other army or let them be hungry or sick or slaves. If you read it, you know.

As far as misbehaving children I believe in high expectations, low anger, consequences and a sense of humor. If my kids hit each other we literally (at home or park) sat in a circle and held hands and sang Kumbaya. The kids would laugh. And hit less.

@FFRF An innovation of the OT is blaming worshippers for what went wrong so God isn't obligated to win wars, provide plenty, preserve their country or whatever. Our God brings us plagues, the makes bigger country/army beat us, not their God. People have to be written "bad" for this.

One of the greatest evidences that Game of Thrones is true is this: It doesn't flatter its heroes. Ned Stark is naïve. Jaime pushes a child out a window. Tyrion gets drunk. Theon betrays his family. Jon Snow knows nothing. Daenerys burns a city.

@Lets_Talk_HC I think God makes a lot more sense not omnipotent, doing the best God can, knowing eating the forbidden fruit was a better, awkward, compromise than remaining innocent-animal like. We had to step out of amorality into morality, and it's a pain, but best God could do for us.

If God wanted all of us to stay in the garden, why did he give Adam and Eve a nature in which they would desire to disobey Him? Seems like He wanted them to eat the fruit.

@PetGorilla I looked. No city there now. Checks out.

Mormons claim that the Gulf of America (Mexico?) use to be a giant city that was so righteous, God took it to heaven and filled the space with water! Do you think this is true?

@TheSkepticWiz For Southern Baptists it's this: Drive by churches until we reach pastor we agree with. Stop agreeing? Get new pastor. He then (knowing it works this way) says "God said" what we picked him to say, so it's not on us. God wouldn't works with us, so we went a different way.

@matt_olma This again? I thought the Theology of Autonomous Bootstrap Elevation put this to bed.

The best logical fallacy to give a theist is to say what caused God

@PetGorilla Jesus: "It is written, you are gods." Also Asaph, in Psalms 82. Except there the gods get in trouble for not helping the poor and needy. Which sounds like Jesus explaining how God decides who goes to heaven at the end of Matthew 25.

Satan: "You will become gods." Joseph Smith: "You will become gods."

@bonhoefferchild Yes. Politics-wise I want a party to win. Not keep talking about all the noble things that cost elections. Win. Do something. Don't lose and have no impact. Morally, though, the person who fights for what is right, good, no less, and loses. Morally, though, superior.

1/ The problem with Christians engaging in the political sphere to fulfill their policy lust is that the political world measures a person's worth solely by their effectiveness, by whether they "win." Christ measures each person with a generous scale of infinite inherent value.

Exceptionalism is hard. Seeing our nation's leaders strive for it, have high goals that have costs, for them, for us, and need effort, carry on through failure, to be a worthy country. Sure. Yes. Claiming it's true, you can prove it, then talking about history. Evidence against.

@MBurtwrites Except....hear me out...kind of brilliant. So if I'd written "the rod" on the stair where I made them sit if they hit, said, "time for the rod" when they needed that break, I'd be biblical. Regret now not doing it.

A long-winded meme for a nonsensical argument. #christianparenting #biblicalparenting #spanking

@StandswithGod So God is doomed to eternal destruction? I think God has a particularly heavy burden, far from "free" and defining sin, not just avoiding it, has a heavy cost and accountability whether God, or a human with no God to do that work for them, and no one else to blame it on.

Being your own god only leads to eternal destruction. No matter how "free" you might feel, sin is a liar and a prison masquerading as freedom.

@NathanBozeman2 So preach against it. But I don't trust people trying to make abortion illegal because they sound like the shamers, they vote against the government helping the 90% they don't get around to, while touting their help for the 10%. And they only did that because abortion was legal.

@SoftwareEUG I hate that this was your experience, and I am truly sorry for that, but some Christians having a callous attitude toward mothers is not a reason to allow for (or support) the murder of the unborn.

Meanwhile, in reality, over 40,000 foster children are adopted annually, and the majority of those children are adopted into Christian (& therefore likely pro-life) households. As it turns out, Christians can/do care about foster children AND defend the unborn at the same time.

@stevebward It's not that I see a thing wrong with praying to change your circumstances but people taking credit when they change because of their own prayers, kind of acting like what usually won't change will, if god, and insisting you give God credit for normal cause and effect, weird.

@stevebward I don't think the Bible says otherwise, but kind of weird situation. Good outcome and people take credit, "I was praying." Cruelly push on suffering person that God can disappear things they can't control, that tend to remain. Weird to push God onto someone's medicine working.

Does the Bible ever explicitly state or even imply that your prayer cannot cause God to change your circumstances or that you should not ask God to change your circumstances?

@HPluckrose I'm just not sure why it's a gender specific problem not to zoom the camera in on ass crack. No biggie if it happens to happen but just don't. Common sense to avoid. Reasonable there'd be a guideline to kind of look out for camera position that catches that all day.

No. We are not in Iran. Female athletes' bodies are no more inherently sexual than male athletes'. We should not institute some form of sex-specific modesty veiling via camera angle. This is not respectful of female athletes whose bodies & form are central to their excellence.

@elijahxamor And defending your god you'll dart around saying this thing or that thing, adjusting tweaking, never locked into "4." thousands of years and volumes of [insert denomination] theology trying to fix up the problem of evil, existence of hell, acting like a Creator indicates a god...

@elijahxamor If someone was contesting the answer to 2 + 2 you wouldn't respond because everybody can see and determine that. You're defending something that is whatever shape or answer you choose to give it, possibly always different than every other person conceives it.

There’s an infinite amount of numbers understood by humanity. But dont worry, only 4 is correct to answer 2+2

@ch_elle_ @st_louis_stan Relented. It's silly to go to an event and see the variety of choices allowed, present, represented, knowing full well that whatever organization will relent, as in your example, and deny choices. Why? You're not wrong about what sells, but why do you need the lack of choice?

"because at no point is it suggested that women perform in clothes that aren't one step above underwear" It's been demanded many times. The last time a woman's team decided to forego the rules and wear comfortable clothes instead of what sells tickets/views (and therefore sponsorships), they got fined by their regulating body, who only relented after international derision. nytimes.com/2021/07/20/spo…

This is a very good example of high sexual neuroticism but on an institutional level, you have the implicit idea that male desire is immoral and dirty and dangerous, that it contaminates female dignity, violates them with unconsented-to sexualization, but with the added institutional level that male desire is a moral danger must be managed from the outside, that some sort of external authority, in this case the broadcaster, needs to be tasked with managing the possible sexual perception of female athletes because it's unacceptable and even dangerous that male desire be activated. And you can tell this is female neuroticism because at no point is it suggested that women perform in clothes that aren't one step above underwear - no, it's the dirty men and their horrible sexual leering that taints something innocent with scary and threatening sexuality. So you end up with institutional sexual neuroticism treating male desire as a public risk that must be managed by authority