Godless III - Completing The Trinity

DC47 · Post by **DC47** » Tue Apr 28, 2015 6:26 pm

So true. Should be "Movies based on real after-life."

it may also be that they're taking the smarter side of Pascal's Wager. Most likely the MBAs at corporate have run the discounted cash-flow analysis on heaven-ever-after and have shifted the company's policies accordingly. But I'm sure that they have no problem if others want to take the suckers' end of the bet. You, for example.

Post by **brian** » Tue Apr 28, 2015 6:29 pm

I think Pascal's Wager is bullshit frankly. I'll take the opposite side of it and say that no just or loving god would condemn a moral person to damnation merely for not believing in them.

sancarlos · Post by **sancarlos** » Tue Apr 28, 2015 7:00 pm

First, there is the question of whether God is or is not. But even if one accepts on faith that God is, you wouldn't necessarily win the wager. One has to assume further that God favors your version of belief (Christian, or Muslim, or Jewish, or etc. other), then one has to accept that God accepts your bet, meaning that he even cares and rewards your belief at all (as opposed the scenario at the end of Candide, where the king is noted not to care about the wellbeing of the mice onboard his ship.)

To Pascals point, I always look for reasons to believe. It's tough, because it ultimately comes down to faith, not logic. And we're back to the circular reference...

Jerloma · Post by **Jerloma** » Tue Apr 28, 2015 9:38 pm

I also tend to think it'd be rather insulting to an omniscient being that you could fake it out into thinking that you believe it exists. You can't choose how your brain and senses interpret reality. You can say you believe it and get idiot humans to believe you but how is Joe Skydude not calling your bluff on that shit?

DC47 · Post by **DC47** » Tue Apr 28, 2015 9:44 pm

Maybe He is like any parent. He is at his wits end with all the incessant deviance from His ordained order of things. He's given up on genuine appreciation or understanding. He just wants some MFing compliance -- even if it's faked -- from the idiots he so often regrets creating.

Jerloma · Post by **Jerloma** » Tue Apr 28, 2015 10:00 pm

DC47 wrote:Maybe He is like any parent. He is at his wits end with all the incessant deviance from His ordained order of things. He's given up on genuine appreciation or understanding. He just wants some MFing compliance -- even if it's faked -- from the idiots he so often regrets creating.

I think you've just about perfectly captured the character of the GoA right here. When we finally collectively come to our senses, or perhaps move on to the next death cult, this should be the opening line of His eulogy.

Jerloma · Post by **Jerloma** » Mon May 11, 2015 11:46 am

travzilla · Post by **travzilla** » Mon May 11, 2015 12:40 pm

Wait, so is that like a husband and wife posting about the same crash they were in?
And he's all "brah, awesome" and she's all "ma severed spine"?

That's perfect.

rass · Post by **rass** » Mon May 11, 2015 12:41 pm

Shocked, SHOCKED he didn't mention the designer of his suit jacket.

sancarlos · Post by **sancarlos** » Mon May 11, 2015 2:42 pm

I'm almost surprised that the wife didn't add a comment about what an unsupportive, self-absorbed douche dick is her husband.

Bensell · Post by **Bensell** » Mon May 11, 2015 2:48 pm

sancarlos wrote:I'm almost surprised that the wife didn't add a comment about what an unsupportive, self-absorbed douche dick is her husband.

Because everyone they know already can see that. Seriously, if I were her I'd consider the Lorena Bobbitt treatment for that self-absorbed doucebag.

mister d · Post by **mister d** » Mon May 11, 2015 3:01 pm

Small pics, but I'm pretty sure her profile is the two of them and his profile is him.

The Sybian · Post by **The Sybian** » Mon May 11, 2015 3:19 pm

travzilla wrote:Wait, so is that like a husband and wife posting about the same crash they were in?
And he's all "brah, awesome" and she's all "ma severed spine"?

That's perfect.

Fuck, I can't believe that was real! Reading through the comments, it looks like the good Dr. deleted a lot of comments referring to his expensive items and his materialism. Funny seeing all these people defend him, I wonder how many of them give their money to this guy to buy his expensive stuff. How great is it that he is more concerned with his hair, pen and suit than his wife? And he had several more posts showing off his BRAND NEW Jaguar!

I loved this comment:

My husband was involved in a car accident a little over a year ago where his car flipped and then slid in the snow bank and the back window acted like a shovel and the whole car filled with snow. He didn't realize he was flipped over and had to dig himself out the back window. Thankfully he was just bruised up and had a badly sprained ankle. In the process he lost his magnetic sunglasses for his glasses. We couldn't find them in the car so we figured they were gone. When the snow melted at the site of the accident, we went back and low and behold his sunglasses were on the ground seemingly untouched along with a scarf his parents had given him! Those sunglasses were expensive and we would've never been able to replace them. Our God is great and blesses His children in ways that may seem small to some but huge to others! Praying for continued healing for you and your wife.

It's a miracle! The snow melted and the clip-on sunglasses were still there! God is good. Again, the focus on the expensive sunglasses they would not have been able to replace. I never knew God was so materialistic and looks out for the well being of a Mont Blanc pen.

Jerloma · Post by **Jerloma** » Thu May 14, 2015 3:01 pm

Oh man...this is fantastic. It passed unanimously!

EDIT: Someone has since caught it and it's been amended:

President Obama and the United States Congress should reaffirm our nation’s commitments to promoting and protecting religious freedom around the world and should condemn the killing of increasing number of Christians around the world who are killed because of their faith.

Still sounds like a 4th grader wrote it.

Jerloma · Post by **Jerloma** » Thu May 21, 2015 2:31 pm

This entire site is a goldmine. I don't even know where to begin. Let's start with You Don't Pay For The Milk When You Own The Cow...

One of the problems we face today in the Christian community (but it certainly is not limited to Christians) is that often times, even after we have waited, and “bought the cow” (married our wives), our wives expect us to “buy the milk” as well. I recently wrote a post responding to a Christian teacher’s false belief, that in marriage men do in fact have to “buy the milk”(earn sex), even after “buying the cow”(marrying a woman).

When your wife tells you “If you do ___________ for me, then I will do that for you”, you need to sit down and take out the Word of God. You must see this as God sees it, as an act of rebellion against your authority over her (and her body), and by extension as an act of rebellion against God himself, because he has given her to you. You need to rebuke your wife’s sinful behavior.

I am NOT advocating for a husband to physically force his wife to have sex with him.

But I will say this, despite American laws to the contrary, Biblically speaking, there is no such thing as “marital rape”. In the Scriptures, the only way rape occurs is if a man forces himself on a woman who is not his property (not his wife, or concubine). A man’s wives, his concubines (slave wives taken as captives of war or bought) could be made to have sex with him, no questions asked.

Now the Bible states that if a man did take one of his female slaves, he had to make her at least a slave wife (a concubine), which gave her a certain status above a normal slave. She had the right to be fed, clothed and the right to regular relations with him even he had other wives. She also had to be given the full rights of a daughter, if her father-in-law had purchased her for his son. I realize this entire scenario is appalling to our modern western notions, but I choose to not challenge God’s wisdom in the laws he gave. If you want to argue with God about this at the judgement, be my guest.

What about the aftermath?

This is a form of discipline, and discipline is never pleasant, but all authority figures must discipline those who are under their authority from time to time. Before anyone goes nuts here, I am not talking about physical discipline here, but there are other forms of discipline that are not physical.

After you confront your wife’s rebellion (not only towards God’s command to her, but by extension the authority he has given you) – she is not exactly going to be in the mood, if you know what I mean. It may feel as though you have been unloving to her, but you are in fact loving your wife when you call out her sin, and call her to repentance, just as God calls to all of us.

In what is often called “the love chapter” of Scripture, where love is defined by God’s standards it says this:

“Love finds no joy in unrighteousness but rejoices in the truth.” – I Corinthians 13:6(HCSB)

Your wife’s rebellion against your sexual authority over her body is by definition “unrighteousness”. You would in essence, be “unloving” to your wife, from God’s perspective, if you allowed her sinful attitude to go unchecked.

Can my Christian wife ever say no to my sexual advances?

This is the logical question you as a Christian husband (or engaged man) might ask after everything we have just looked at. The answer to this question is a Christian wife should never give her husband a flat no, BUT she can humbly and gently ask for a delay. There may be legitimate physical or other issues that might prompt your wife to ask you for a delay. But this must be done humbly and respectfully, and always with the attitude in mind that her body does belong to her husband. But a Christian wife should ALWAYS make good on her “rainchecks” with her husband. Also these “delay requests” from wives should be the exception, and not the normal response to a husband’s sexual advances.

This has been part 3 of our series “How to be a godly husband”. In the next parts of this series we will address the topics of “Is a husband selfish for having sex with his wife when she is not the mood?” and “How to handle your wife’s sexual refusal”.

mister d · Post by **mister d** » Thu May 21, 2015 2:43 pm

I bet he's real good at sex.

rass · Post by **rass** » Thu May 21, 2015 2:59 pm

mister d wrote:I bet he's real good at sex.

Well, duh:

But should you still have relations with your wife after such a confrontation?

I believe the answer is yes, if she yields to you (even with the wrong attitude). When I first had to confront my wife with these types of issues, I would confront her, and then just leave the sex to happen another night, because after all, I like most men don’t prefer to have sex with my wife when she acts grumpy about it.

But I realized that the sex still needs to occur, that sex is not about being in the mood, and it is not about feelings, it is about doing what is right. I agree whole heartedly that the best sex a Christian couple can have is when they are spiritually, emotionally and physically connected all at once. But the truth is there will be many times when we don’t have all that in place, but we must still have sex. God wants us to do the right thing, even when we don’t feel like it.

sancarlos · Post by **sancarlos** » Thu May 21, 2015 3:03 pm

I'm still wondering about those "other forms of discipline that are not physical" he uses to get his wife to spread her legs.

The Sybian · Post by **The Sybian** » Thu May 21, 2015 8:23 pm

rass wrote:
mister d wrote:I bet he's real good at sex.
Well, duh:

But should you still have relations with your wife after such a confrontation?

I believe the answer is yes, if she yields to you (even with the wrong attitude). When I first had to confront my wife with these types of issues, I would confront her, and then just leave the sex to happen another night, because after all, I like most men don’t prefer to have sex with my wife when she acts grumpy about it.

But I realized that the sex still needs to occur, that sex is not about being in the mood, and it is not about feelings, it is about doing what is right. I agree whole heartedly that the best sex a Christian couple can have is when they are spiritually, emotionally and physically connected all at once. But the truth is there will be many times when we don’t have all that in place, but we must still have sex. God wants us to do the right thing, even when we don’t feel like it.

Using the God card to rape your wife. Nice. God wants men to fuck women against their will.

rass · Post by **rass** » Thu May 21, 2015 8:58 pm

So, how about the Duggars, huh?

sancarlos · Post by **sancarlos** » Thu May 21, 2015 11:43 pm

rass wrote:So, how about the Duggars, huh?

twitter: Now that Josh Duggar's been named in a sex abuse case, they should probably stop calling the show "19 Kids and Counting"

The Sybian · Post by **The Sybian** » Fri May 22, 2015 8:37 am

sancarlos wrote:
rass wrote:So, how about the Duggars, huh?
twitter: Now that Josh Duggar's been named in a sex abuse case, they should probably stop calling the show "19 Kids and Counting"

Best comment on an article I read was "5 Molestations and Counting."

So now that he admitted to molesting 5 children, including at least one of his sisters, the Family Research Council has to fire him, right? I doubt they will, because The Gays recruiting your children into their nefarious agenda is more dangerous than child molesters. The best part was the mother's statement about how her son molesting his underage daughters was a good thing, as it "brought them closer to God." Isn't that telling the rest of the boys to molest their younger sisters to bring them even closer to God? Josh said something to the effect that it is OK, because Jesus forgave him. And yet these people think Atheists lack morals because they don't fear retribution from God, but Jesus will forgive the most heinous acts if you ask forgiveness. And their is no consequences. Why be moral if Jesus will forgive and forget with no consequences?

DSafetyGuy · Post by **DSafetyGuy** » Fri May 22, 2015 11:35 am

sancarlos wrote:
rass wrote:So, how about the Duggars, huh?
twitter: Now that Josh Duggar's been named in a sex abuse case, they should probably stop calling the show "19 Kids and Counting"

I had to ask my wife if she was going to finally stop watching that show.

And he quit the Family Research Council.

Post by **brian** » Fri May 22, 2015 11:37 am

This is what happens when you treat your vagina like a clown car.

Pruitt · Post by **Pruitt** » Fri May 22, 2015 1:47 pm

He molested his sister?

And Mike Huckabee is defending him.

But if he had molested his sister and supported Obamacare, well that would be a different story.

I hope Mike Huckabee gets hit by a truck.

DSafetyGuy · Post by **DSafetyGuy** » Fri May 22, 2015 8:41 pm

Pruitt wrote:He molested his sister?

And Mike Huckabee is defending him.

But if he had molested his sister and supported Obamacare, well that would be a different story.

I hope Mike Huckabee gets hit by a truck.

Pruitt, your anti-truck policy is unacceptable.

mister d · Post by **mister d** » Fri May 22, 2015 10:14 pm

Pruitt wrote:He molested his sister?

And Mike Huckabee is defending him.

But if he had molested his sister and supported Obamacare, well that would be a different story.

I hope Mike Huckabee gets hit by a truck.

Right? This is so clearly indefensible even Rush thinks Huckabee should cut bait.

Pruitt · Post by **Pruitt** » Sat May 23, 2015 6:23 am

DSafetyGuy wrote:
Pruitt wrote:He molested his sister?

And Mike Huckabee is defending him.

But if he had molested his sister and supported Obamacare, well that would be a different story.

I hope Mike Huckabee gets hit by a truck.
Pruitt, your anti-truck policy is unacceptable.

I don't see trucks mentioned anywhere in the bible. So if they are to be but a vessel for the good works, than so be it.

The Sybian · Post by **The Sybian** » Sat May 23, 2015 7:28 pm

mister d wrote:
Pruitt wrote:He molested his sister?

And Mike Huckabee is defending him.

But if he had molested his sister and supported Obamacare, well that would be a different story.

I hope Mike Huckabee gets hit by a truck.
Right? This is so clearly indefensible even Rush thinks Huckabee should cut bait.

Doubt it. Rush will probably call the sister(s) a slut for having a vagina for Josh to grope.

mister d · Post by **mister d** » Sat May 23, 2015 8:54 pm

"He was called 'The Sister Fingerer' because be used to point at his sisters at the dinner table."

"That's so dumb it must be true!"

rass · Post by **rass** » Mon May 25, 2015 2:48 pm

If you normally avoid Gawker, they are doing a pretty good job covering the Duggars. If nothing else, this write-up on the Quiverfull movement is thread appropriate.

Jerloma · Post by **Jerloma** » Mon May 25, 2015 10:15 pm

I've always hated the idea that the people who take their bible (also known as the only way of knowing their deity) the most literally are the "bad" Christians. It's as if the ability to ignore the sacred commands of your creator makes you a better person. You know why the Christians who take a modern, humanistic approach to their scriptures and dogma are the least threatening? Because it's a shit ideology. People like Jim Bob Duggar aren't bad Christians...they're bad human beings. They're excellent Christians though.

Pruitt · Post by **Pruitt** » Tue May 26, 2015 6:01 am

Jerloma wrote:I've always hated the idea that the people who take their bible (also known as the only way of knowing their deity) the most literally are the "bad" Christians. It's as if the ability to ignore the sacred commands of your creator makes you a better person. You know why the Christians who take a modern, humanistic approach to their scriptures and dogma are the least threatening? Because it's a shit ideology. People like Jim Bob Duggar aren't bad Christians...they're bad human beings. They're excellent Christians though.

Good point - I have known a couple of observant Christians who were absolutely wonderful people who did try to live by the (positive) teachings of their religion. But they were traditional types.

I think one of the unique aspects of American Christianity is the way that theology has been (in many cases) moulded to suit the wants and desires of the congregation. The religion is forced to change to fit the lifestyles of the people and not the other way around.

rass · Post by **rass** » Tue May 26, 2015 11:51 am

Candidate Jim Bob Duggar felt incest should be a capital crime

h/t Gawker (or wherever they got it from)

Jerloma · Post by **Jerloma** » Tue May 26, 2015 12:06 pm

I'm not going to look it up but I'm almost certain that this fucking redneck, troglodyte is a young earth creationist, which means that he thinks we're all the products of one incestuous family.

Pruitt · Post by **Pruitt** » Sat May 30, 2015 5:31 am

Mormons should lay off the O'Douls.

http://www.allaboutmormons.com/Question ... NG_319.php

For what it’s worth, I personally would never drink non-alcoholic beer for the very reasons Pamela cited. Whenever possible, I think it is best to avoid the appearance of evil. We should try to be examples for others.

Jerloma · Post by **Jerloma** » Fri Jun 05, 2015 12:28 pm

Anybody wanna see what a Moldovan Orthodox exorcism looks like? Of course you do.

rass · Post by **rass** » Fri Jun 05, 2015 12:50 pm

Ain't that Moldova.
Little pink churches,
For you and me.

Pruitt · Post by **Pruitt** » Fri Jun 05, 2015 1:51 pm

Love seeing those glimpses of what the 16th century looked like.

DC47 · Post by **DC47** » Sat Jun 06, 2015 10:32 pm