If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Think Progress)   Fox News: We don't report Richard Mourdock's claim that rape pregnancy is a gift from God so you won't decide not to vote for him   (thinkprogress.org) divider line 73
    More: Obvious, Richard Mourdock, Fox News, god, gifts, Senate Candidate, pregnancy  
•       •       •

2439 clicks; posted to Politics » on 25 Oct 2012 at 11:10 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



73 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2012-10-25 10:09:43 AM
Fox News protects a Republican? That's unpossible!
 
2012-10-25 10:14:31 AM

At breakfast stop, me, @sppeoples and @llerer asked Romney repeatedly about Mourdock. He did not respond.

- Sam Youngman (@samyoungman) October 25, 2012


Brave sir Romney.
 
2012-10-25 10:27:11 AM
Rape pregnancy being a gift from God? We need to come up with a term for that.

I know, 'Marry.'

"You've been Marry'd!"
 
2012-10-25 10:33:10 AM
What I want in a commander-in-chief is someone who ignores relevant current topics and viewpoints espoused by leaders of their party.

Kind of funny that only one party seems to be constantly stumblefarking their way into these situations where they say something horrifying and reprehensible. Must be the liberal MSM at work.
 
2012-10-25 10:40:07 AM
I'm with Colbert on this one. "This is also offensive to God. It makes him look like shiatty gift giver." (Pretty close approximation.)
 
2012-10-25 10:46:05 AM

Dusk-You-n-Me: At breakfast stop, me, @sppeoples and @llerer asked Romney repeatedly about Mourdock. He did not respond.- Sam Youngman (@samyoungman) October 25, 2012

Brave sir Romney.


Yes it's early but you owe me a keyboard.
 
2012-10-25 10:50:08 AM

Dusk-You-n-Me: Brave sir Romney


That needs to be a thing.

When pressed for details of his tax plan
He bravely hid behind bird-shirt Ann
 
2012-10-25 10:51:45 AM

Precious Roy's Horse Dividers: Dusk-You-n-Me: Brave sir Romney

That needs to be a thing.

When pressed for details of his tax plan
He bravely hid behind bird-shirt Ann


The brave, brave, brave, brave Sir Romney!
 
2012-10-25 10:54:45 AM

Cythraul: Precious Roy's Horse Dividers: Dusk-You-n-Me: Brave sir Romney

That needs to be a thing.

When pressed for details of his tax plan
He bravely hid behind bird-shirt Ann

The brave, brave, brave, brave Sir Romney!


♫♪♫
He is packing it in and packing it up
And sneaking away and buggering up
And chickening out and pissing off home,
Yes, bravely he is throwing in the sponge...
 
2012-10-25 10:54:57 AM

Every piece of Fox News propaganda starts with:

Here's a story you may not see on the Lamestream Media. What are they hiding?


It's unfair to use it against them.
 
2012-10-25 11:11:40 AM

Makh: I'm with Colbert on this one. "This is also offensive to God. It makes him look like shiatty gift giver." (Pretty close approximation.)


Soooo...abortion is like regifting back to God?
 
2012-10-25 11:12:39 AM
I doubt the people who get their news only from Fox would be in much danger of having their minds changed by this.
 
2012-10-25 11:16:29 AM

Precious Roy's Horse Dividers: Fox News protects a Republican? That's unpossible!


I'm surprised they didn't just put a "-D" next to his name like they usually do when republicans are caught.
 
2012-10-25 11:17:37 AM

TV's Vinnie: Precious Roy's Horse Dividers: Fox News protects a Republican? That's unpossible!

I'm surprised they didn't just put a "-D" next to his name like they usually do when republicans are caught.


They won't do that right before the elections, too many dumbasses will actually remember that D and vote for the other guy, who must be an R.
 
2012-10-25 11:19:10 AM

mainstreet62: TV's Vinnie: Precious Roy's Horse Dividers: Fox News protects a Republican? That's unpossible!

I'm surprised they didn't just put a "-D" next to his name like they usually do when republicans are caught.

They won't do that right before the elections, too many dumbasses will actually remember that D and vote for the other guy, who must be an R.


This. Fox News viewers are far more likely to vote against a candidate for having a -D tag than for being pro-rape.
 
2012-10-25 11:20:07 AM
WHO GIVES A FARK WHAT FAUX NEWS SAYS OR DOES!?
 
2012-10-25 11:20:27 AM
It seems inconsistent to me that people can believe that God can heal cancer, but is unable to stop a rapist. Either believe in a powerful God or don't. Mourdock seems more consistent on this issue than Romney.
 
2012-10-25 11:22:40 AM

Elandriel: What I want in a commander-in-chief is someone who ignores relevant current topics and viewpoints espoused by leaders of their party.

Kind of funny that only one party seems to be constantly stumblefarking their way into these situations where they say something horrifying and reprehensible. Must be the liberal MSM at work.


The topic isn't relevant. In spite of a bunch of stupid rhetoric nothing is happening to abortion. It's legal and that isn't changing. MSM just likes to get the morons whipped up into a frenzy and yes I mean the morons on both sides of the issue. Anything for money.
 
2012-10-25 11:24:09 AM

Spanky_McFarksalot: I doubt the people who get their news only from Fox would be in much danger of having their minds changed by this.


The truly repugnant thought is that with enough of these assholes espousing some variation on this viewpoint that it is legitimately acceptable to at least some fraction of republican voters and Americans in general. There are people who don't have problem with this and they're allowed to vote. As if I didn't hate this country enough before this election cycle.
 
2012-10-25 11:24:27 AM

Ba'boon: It seems inconsistent to me that people can believe that God can heal cancer, but is unable to stop a rapist. Either believe in a powerful God or don't. Mourdock seems more consistent on this issue than Romney.


Only someone who's never read the Bible would think something so ignorant. We're talking about a god that occasionally instructs parents to murder their children and when angered will send a plague killing thousands. No, god is far more likely to send the rapist than to stop him.
 
2012-10-25 11:24:38 AM

bwilson27: WHO GIVES A FARK WHAT FAUX NEWS SAYS OR DOES!?


An appallingly large number of people. Given a choice between getting all my political coverage from Fox news or Adventure Time... Actually, I think that would be awesome, nevermind.
 
2012-10-25 11:25:23 AM

Ba'boon: It seems inconsistent to me that people can believe that God can heal cancer, but is unable to stop a rapist. Either believe in a powerful God or don't. Mourdock seems more consistent on this issue than Romney.


God let it happen because she deserved it. God is vengeful
 
2012-10-25 11:26:16 AM
All this proves is that the LIEberal MSM media is lying by quoting the original statement, and the follow-up statement supporting the original, by this fine, upstanding, pillar of the community. FoxNews doesn't need to stoop so low as to report what the man actually said...twice. That would make them just as bad as the mud-slingers on the left.
 
2012-10-25 11:26:25 AM
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?

If God is willing to give a gift, but not able to get a gift receipt? Then he is not a smart shopper.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is a douchebag.
If he is both able and willing? Then where is my farking gift receipt?
Is he neither able nor willing? They why let god do any of the birthday shopping?
 
2012-10-25 11:27:45 AM
We don't report so you can't decide.
 
2012-10-25 11:30:09 AM

Ba'boon: It seems inconsistent to me that people can believe that God can heal cancer, but is unable to stop a rapist. Either believe in a powerful God or don't. Mourdock seems more consistent on this issue than Romney.


Not really, if you think that God gave their creature free will. Men are supposed to knowingly chose between right and wrong. Giving men free will means accepting that evil can exist on this Earth. Otherwise, we're just a bunch of puppet.
 
2012-10-25 11:31:52 AM

Ba'boon: It seems inconsistent to me that people can believe that God can heal cancer, but is unable to stop a rapist. Either believe in a powerful God or don't. Mourdock seems more consistent on this issue than Romney.


Yeah, there's really two separate theological issues in play here: First, there is the issue of predestination, in this particular case meaning the question of whether or not people's lives are scripted. (The Bible argues both for and against at various times.) The second is one of divine intervention as it pertains to the Problem of Evil: If you believe that God sometimes intervenes in human affairs to prevent evil, then every time God doesn't, that's tantamount to tacit approval.

There's a part of me that's quite tickled to see these particular thorny theological issues getting aired out, since almost every solution to these problems has a downside, various Christian denominations tend to be in strong disagreement over these issues, and as a matter of practice they're usually swept under the rug as quickly as possible. (i.e. "Ultimately, it's a mystery, and we simply have to take God at his word that he's good and knows what he's doing...")
 
2012-10-25 11:39:44 AM

padraig: Ba'boon: It seems inconsistent to me that people can believe that God can heal cancer, but is unable to stop a rapist. Either believe in a powerful God or don't. Mourdock seems more consistent on this issue than Romney.

Not really, if you think that God gave their creature free will. Men are supposed to knowingly chose between right and wrong. Giving men free will means accepting that evil can exist on this Earth. Otherwise, we're just a bunch of puppet.


That doesn't really hold water. Evil can exist without evil acts being successfully carried out - for instance, attempted murder is still evil even if it fails spectacularly and the intended victim doesn't get a scratch. So, what's stopping this deity from preventing all evil plans (like rape) from coming to fruition?
 
2012-10-25 11:40:24 AM

the_geek: Elandriel: What I want in a commander-in-chief is someone who ignores relevant current topics and viewpoints espoused by leaders of their party.

Kind of funny that only one party seems to be constantly stumblefarking their way into these situations where they say something horrifying and reprehensible. Must be the liberal MSM at work.

The topic isn't relevant. In spite of a bunch of stupid rhetoric nothing is happening to abortion. It's legal and that isn't changing. MSM just likes to get the morons whipped up into a frenzy and yes I mean the morons on both sides of the issue. Anything for money.


Yeah, everyone is just dreaming up the fact that the fact that legislation restricting abortion is being passed (not just proposed but passed) at a record rate and that every other week we get a new candid opinion about rape by the same political party.

Oh, wait.
cdn.theatlanticwire.com
 
2012-10-25 11:42:26 AM

the_geek: The topic isn't relevant. In spite of a bunch of stupid rhetoric nothing is happening to abortion. It's legal and that isn't changing. MSM just likes to get the morons whipped up into a frenzy and yes I mean the morons on both sides of the issue. Anything for money.




Have you seen the scores of anti-abortion and anti-contraceptive legislation proposed in the last several years? This is precisely the result of Tea Party power, now with more obstructionist goodness.

This was supposed to be the GOP distraction issue to get all the low-information, religious, fly-over states votes. It was the political function of the abortion debate to pander to voters. The GOP never intended that a constitutional right would be continually under fire, beaten down and weathered away. It bit them in the ass, will lose them seats in Congress and they still don't even know how to distance themselves from it, because they won't grow a backbone and disavow this bullshiat.

This is a huge issue if you have a uterus, have a child with a uterus, have a wife with a uterus. It's an economic issue for families and the country alike and it's a matter of civil rights as well.

I'd call the danger of losing your right to have sex without fear of conception pretty farking relevant.
 
2012-10-25 11:43:41 AM

padraig: Not really, if you think that God gave their creature free will. Men are supposed to knowingly chose between right and wrong. Giving men free will means accepting that evil can exist on this Earth. Otherwise, we're just a bunch of puppet.


But who created evil in the first place? If everything stems from God, then he's responsible for creating evil. If he didn't like evil, he could have simply made us without the mental capacity to do evil acts.
 
2012-10-25 11:47:10 AM

Precious Roy's Horse Dividers: Fox News protects a Republican? That's unpossible!


2.bp.blogspot.com
 
2012-10-25 11:47:33 AM

KwameKilstrawberry: This was supposed to be the GOP distraction issue to get all the low-information, religious, fly-over states votes. It was the political function of the abortion debate to pander to voters. The GOP never intended that a constitutional right would be continually under fire, beaten down and weathered away. It bit them in the ass, will lose them seats in Congress and they still don't even know how to distance themselves from it, because they won't grow a backbone and disavow this bullshiat.


Ahhhh, but in about 15 years or so, if they're successful a new right-wing talking point will be born... all of those unwanted kids will form a new criminal class so that someone has to get "tough" on crime.

There's a pretty strong causative case to me made that the huge dip in crime about 15 or so years after Roe vs Wade might have more than a little something to do with the fact that people born into socio-economic conditions likely to lead people to violent crime weren't born in as great numbers as prior to Roe.
 
2012-10-25 11:52:40 AM

padraig: Not really, if you think that God gave their creature free will. Men are supposed to knowingly chose between right and wrong. Giving men free will means accepting that evil can exist on this Earth. Otherwise, we're just a bunch of puppet.


Where in the Bible can I find this?
 
2012-10-25 11:56:25 AM

Precious Roy's Horse Dividers: Dusk-You-n-Me: Brave sir Romney

That needs to be a thing.

When pressed for details of his tax plan
He bravely hid behind bird-shirt Ann


Oh that is lovely.
 
2012-10-25 11:56:32 AM

the_geek: The topic isn't relevant. In spite of a bunch of stupid rhetoric nothing is happening to abortion. It's legal and that isn't changing. MSM just likes to get the morons whipped up into a frenzy and yes I mean the morons on both sides of the issue. Anything for money.


Major members of one of the two dominant political parties in one of the most powerful countries on earth have made this part of not only their political party platform, but daily views and methods of governance, as evidenced by at least 2 other quotes of your post in this thread.

It is pretty damn relevant.
 
2012-10-25 11:58:17 AM
The thing is, it is a key element of the GOP platform that even they no is so repulsive that the vast majority despises them about it.......yet they keep farking the dog and won't remove it as one of their primary legislative goals.

When you are so vile that you can't admit it to yourself....you must be a conservative Republican.
 
2012-10-25 12:02:25 PM

Mercutio74: padraig: Not really, if you think that God gave their creature free will. Men are supposed to knowingly chose between right and wrong. Giving men free will means accepting that evil can exist on this Earth. Otherwise, we're just a bunch of puppet.

But who created evil in the first place? If everything stems from God, then he's responsible for creating evil. If he didn't like evil, he could have simply made us without the mental capacity to do evil acts.


This is called the Problem of Evil, a well-discussed question in philosophy. The idea is that God cannot be, by simple observation, all omnipotent, omniscient, and benevolent.

The gist of it goes like this:

Evil exists. Therefore:

She can stop evil, wants to stop evil, but can't see all evil (not omnisciencient)
She can see all evil, wants to stop evil, but doesn't have the power to stop all evil. (not omnipotent)
She can both see and stop whatever evil she wants, but chooses not to. (not benevolent)

The supposed loophole from the theologians perspective is that suffering isn't actually evil, but part of "god's plan". But it doesn't hold up under scrutiny. For example, if 6m jews dying during WWII were evil, but can be exused because it was gods plan to teach humanity a lesson (say, about tolerance and genocide), then wouldn't 5.9 million have done the trick? 5.8?

If so, does this mean that god doesn't exist, is a dick, or just doesn't give a shiat? Those appear to be the remaining choices.
 
2012-10-25 12:05:02 PM
In the end the Party would announce that two and two made five, and you would have to believe it. It was inevitable that they should make that claim sooner or later: the logic of their position demanded it. Not merely the validity of experience, but the very existence of external reality, was tacitly denied by their philosophy. The heresy of heresies was common sense. And what was terrifying was not that they would kill you for thinking otherwise, but that they might be right. For, after all, how do we know that two and two make four? Or that the force of gravity works? Or that the past is unchangeable? If both the past and the external world exist only in the mind, and if the mind itself is controllable-what then?

-- Nineteen Eighty Four, by George Orwell.
 
2012-10-25 12:05:28 PM
Anyone who thinks Fox News is actually news isn't going to vote for Obama anyways.
 
2012-10-25 12:06:12 PM
 
2012-10-25 12:06:20 PM
Without Mourdock, the chance of Republicans reaching 50 Senate seats is nigh-nonexistant. The funny thing is that Republicans would have a lock on this seat if they didn't decide to primary Dick Lugar. Nope; Lugar had the audacity to suggest that making sure that we were able to continue to keep Russia's nuclear capabilities under control and prevent proliferation of nuclear materials to outside groups was more important than giving Obama a foreign policy victory (that Obama isn't even running on.)

You were so pissed you didn't get to accuse the president of letting our ability to monitor the Ruskies this election and that Lugar publicly shamed Jon Kyl (for negotiating an agreement with the President and then still attempting to vote the bill down after Obama gave Kyl the funding he said was required to get his support) that you decided to throw away a safe Senate seat to teach him a lesson.
 
2012-10-25 12:06:49 PM

Ilmarinen: padraig: Not really, if you think that God gave their creature free will. Men are supposed to knowingly chose between right and wrong. Giving men free will means accepting that evil can exist on this Earth. Otherwise, we're just a bunch of puppet.

Where in the Bible can I find this?


I think the general idea is the piggy back it on to the idea that eating a specific kind of fruit gives you knowledge of good an evil.
 
2012-10-25 12:07:59 PM

Dusk-You-n-Me: At breakfast stop, me, @sppeoples and @llerer asked Romney repeatedly about Mourdock. He did not respond.- Sam Youngman (@samyoungman) October 25, 2012

Brave sir Romney.


Brave Sir Romney ran away.
("No!")
Bravely ran away away.
("I didn't!")
When RapeTalk reared it's ugly head, He bravely sprayed skin tan and fled.
("no!")
Yes, brave Sir Romney turned about
("I didn't!")
And gallantly let his spokesman spout. ****Bravely**** taking....
("I never did!")
.....to his feet,
He beat a very brave retreat.
("all lies!")
Bravest of the braaaave, Sir Romney!
("I never!")
 
2012-10-25 12:10:05 PM

Citrate1007: Anyone who thinks Fox News is actually news isn't going to vote for Obama anyways.


I get so disappointed in people when I find out that they earnestly watch FOX. That tells you a lot about a person, and none of it good.
 
2012-10-25 12:20:28 PM
We need to go back in time and give the Romans more lions.
 
2012-10-25 12:21:15 PM

unyon: The supposed loophole from the theologians perspective is that suffering isn't actually evil, but part of "god's plan". But it doesn't hold up under scrutiny. For example, if 6m jews dying during WWII were evil, but can be exused because it was gods plan to teach humanity a lesson (say, about tolerance and genocide), then wouldn't 5.9 million have done the trick? 5.8?


In that case, one would have to assume that humanity gaining an understanding of reproductive processes and therefore our contraception / abortion knowledge and abilities must be part of God's Plantm for us too.
 
2012-10-25 12:22:39 PM

Snapper Carr: God Distances Self from Christian Right


Good stuff. Can always count on the Onion
 
2012-10-25 12:22:53 PM

bwilson27: WHO GIVES A FARK WHAT FAUX NEWS SAYS OR DOES!?


Hundreds of thousands of people who use it as their only source of news then go vote.

The rest of us, who have to live with the decisions made by politicians elected by those people.
 
2012-10-25 12:23:05 PM
Republicans desperately need this Senate seat. Fox will do anything they can to make sure a republican wins. Even though the Democrat running is also very prolife and pretty conservitive, people will vote for Mourdock just because there is an R by his name. Im doing my best to spread the word that Mourdocks scum, but I live n a very red area of Indiana (southern).
 
2012-10-25 12:25:23 PM

THX 1138: unyon: The supposed loophole from the theologians perspective is that suffering isn't actually evil, but part of "god's plan". But it doesn't hold up under scrutiny. For example, if 6m jews dying during WWII were evil, but can be exused because it was gods plan to teach humanity a lesson (say, about tolerance and genocide), then wouldn't 5.9 million have done the trick? 5.8?

In that case, one would have to assume that humanity gaining an understanding of reproductive processes and therefore our contraception / abortion knowledge and abilities must be part of God's Plantm for us too.


Or this God could just, you know, make us understand without all the killing and the dying.

I mean, I really don't want to have to go to heaven and kiss this guy's ass for how great a plan he's got. It's actually pretty shiatty, and any mid-level manager could have done better.
 
2012-10-25 12:28:46 PM

Mercutio74: Ahhhh, but in about 15 years or so, if they're successful a new right-wing talking point will be born... all of those unwanted kids will form a new criminal class so that someone has to get "tough" on crime build for-profit prisons.



Couldn't decide whether to strike or caret it. But, yeah.

Just like the GOP/TP to create a crisis from which their puppetmasters can benefit in the future. You gotta admit, they've got that long-range planning thing down.
 
2012-10-25 12:29:46 PM

historycat: We don't report so you can't decide.


Fox used up all their space reporting minute-by-minute minute analysis of all the lies the Obama Administration told about the Benghazi attack.

There wasn't any room left for a non-story about Mourdock.
 
2012-10-25 12:40:35 PM

born_yesterday: Or this God could just, you know, make us understand without all the killing and the dying.


And just to build off of this (and to pre-empt the inevitable "But God wouldn't make people think anything...free WIIIILLLL!!!!"), read Exodus some time. You know why the Pharaoh refused to let Moses' people go? Because God made him. God wanted to break out with the 10 plagues to show everyone how powerful he was, and couldn't take the chance that Moses might actually talk the Pharaoh into letting the Jews go, so God "hardened the Pharaoh's heart" and then used that as an excuse for each of the plagues.

Moses: Let my people go!
Pharaoh puppet with God's hand up his ass: No!
*plague of blood*

Moses
: Let my people go!
Pharaoh puppet with God's hand up his ass: No!
*plague of frogs*

Moses
: Let my people go!
Pharaoh puppet with God's hand up his ass: No!
*plague of lice*

Moses
: Let my people go!
Pharaoh puppet with God's hand up his ass: No!
*plague of flies*

Moses
: Let my people go!
Pharaoh puppet with God's hand up his ass: No!
*plague of pestilence*

Moses
: Let my people go!
Pharaoh puppet with God's hand up his ass: No!
*plague of boils*

Moses
: Let my people go!
Pharaoh puppet with God's hand up his ass: No!
*plague of hail*

Moses
: Let my people go!
Pharaoh puppet with God's hand up his ass: No!
*plague of locusts*

Moses
: Let my people go!
Pharaoh puppet with God's hand up his ass: No!
*plague of darkness*

Moses
: Let my people go!
Pharaoh puppet with God's hand up his ass: No!
*plague of killing teh babbys*

Moses
: Let my people go!
Pharaoh: Please, for the love of all that's holy, you and your people GTFO! *curls up in fetal position, sobbing* 
 
2012-10-25 12:41:34 PM

Mercutio74: Ilmarinen: padraig: Not really, if you think that God gave their creature free will. Men are supposed to knowingly chose between right and wrong. Giving men free will means accepting that evil can exist on this Earth. Otherwise, we're just a bunch of puppet.

Where in the Bible can I find this?

I think the general idea is the piggy back it on to the idea that eating a specific kind of fruit gives you knowledge of good an evil.


If that's all they got, it isn't very convincing. Especially if you read Romans 9:

17 For Scripture says to Pharaoh: "I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth." 18 Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden.
 
2012-10-25 12:42:53 PM
Teufelaffe, High five!
 
2012-10-25 12:44:16 PM

unyon: The supposed loophole from the theologians perspective is that suffering isn't actually evil, but part of "god's plan".


The problem with that particular defense is that they typically go in assuming what you've already stated:

unyon: Evil exists


Denying the existence of evil is problematic because most of Christian theology is predicated on the idea that "Good" and "Evil" are distinct and easily identified. Alternatively, re-defining "Good" and "Evil" tends to result in massive equivocation, and renders the terms as being so far removed from their typical usage as to be useless. Saying "God is Good" could really mean "God may kill your family, burn down your house, and inflict you with a disfiguring illness to win a bet with the Devil, but God's still 'Good' in a transcendent, ineffable sense, and so whatever he does is 'Good' by definition."

Interestingly enough, one of my "favorite" defenses against the problem of evil is to claim that since Good cannot exist without God, an atheist assumes the existence of God by asking how God and evil can co-exist. (I haven't seen this one dragged out on Fark yet since Mourdock made his comments.) This particular defense is so bugfark incoherent on every level I'm shocked that it gets the time of day, but there's quite a number of "star" Christian apologists who use this as their go-to theodicy. (William Lane Craig springs to mind.)
 
2012-10-25 12:46:45 PM

Ilmarinen: Mercutio74: Ilmarinen: padraig: Not really, if you think that God gave their creature free will. Men are supposed to knowingly chose between right and wrong. Giving men free will means accepting that evil can exist on this Earth. Otherwise, we're just a bunch of puppet.

Where in the Bible can I find this?

I think the general idea is the piggy back it on to the idea that eating a specific kind of fruit gives you knowledge of good an evil.

If that's all they got, it isn't very convincing. Especially if you read Romans 9:

17 For Scripture says to Pharaoh: "I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth." 18 Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden.


The whole free will thing is a bit of a controversy. Some parts of the bible that talk about man having certain choices seem to support the idea of free will in humans, while other parts (sins of the fathers, for instance) support the idea that man has no free will. I know, it's crazy to suggest that the bible is a self-contradictory collection of writings that have been (mis)translated multiple times over the past 10 score years or so, right?
 
2012-10-25 12:48:33 PM
This is an October surprise.
 
2012-10-25 12:49:00 PM

padraig: Not really, if you think that God gave their creature free will. Men are supposed to knowingly chose between right and wrong. Giving men free will means accepting that evil can exist on this Earth. Otherwise, we're just a bunch of puppet.


You cannot claim free will exists while saying everything, or even a large number of things that happen in the world are god's will. If we have free will and our choices define us, then why is it god's will for a woman to be raped and have a baby?
 
2012-10-25 01:00:22 PM

Precious Roy's Horse Dividers: Fox News protects a Republican? That's unpossible!


So unpossible that if it can absolutely no longer be ignored, Mourdock will magically become a Democrat.
 
2012-10-25 01:04:23 PM
It's interesting how one of the strongest "anti-abortion" scripture passages is also one of the strongest "there ain't no such thing as a free will" passages. (Open to interpretation on both fronts, of course.

Psalm 139:13-16
13 For you created my inmost being;
you knit me together in my mother's womb.
14 I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made;
your works are wonderful,
I know that full well.
15 My frame was not hidden from you
when I was made in the secret place,
when I was woven together in the depths of the earth.
16 Your eyes saw my unformed body;
all the days ordained for me were written in your book
before one of them came to be.
 
2012-10-25 01:08:36 PM
Sorry, I'm in a bevets mood:

Ephesians 1:11 "In him we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to the purpose of him who works all things according to the counsel of his will."

Lamentations 3:37-38 "Who can speak and have it happen if the Lord has not decreed it? Is it not from the mouth of the Most High that both calamities and good things come?"

James 4:13-15 "Now listen, you who say, "Today or tomorrow we will go to this or that city, spend a year there, carry on business and make money." Why, you do not even know what will happen tomorrow. What is your life? You are a mist that appears for a little while and then vanishes. Instead, you ought to say, "If it is the Lord's will, we will live and do this or that."

Psalm 139:16 "Your eyes saw my unformed body. All the days ordained for me were written in your book before one of them came to be."

Matthew 10:29-30 "Are not two sparrows sold for a penny? Yet not one of them will fall to the ground apart from the will of your Father. And even the very hairs of your head are all numbered."

Proverbs 16:33 "The lot is cast into the lap, but its every decision is from the LORD."
 
2012-10-25 01:16:30 PM
For a party so fired-up against Sharia law they do seemed to be pushing hard to adopt most of their principles into law.
 
2012-10-25 01:18:14 PM
mediamatters.org
 
2012-10-25 01:33:56 PM

unyon: Mercutio74: padraig: Not really, if you think that God gave their creature free will. Men are supposed to knowingly chose between right and wrong. Giving men free will means accepting that evil can exist on this Earth. Otherwise, we're just a bunch of puppet.

But who created evil in the first place? If everything stems from God, then he's responsible for creating evil. If he didn't like evil, he could have simply made us without the mental capacity to do evil acts.

This is called the Problem of Evil, a well-discussed question in philosophy. The idea is that God cannot be, by simple observation, all omnipotent, omniscient, and benevolent.

The gist of it goes like this:

Evil exists. Therefore:

She can stop evil, wants to stop evil, but can't see all evil (not omnisciencient)
She can see all evil, wants to stop evil, but doesn't have the power to stop all evil. (not omnipotent)
She can both see and stop whatever evil she wants, but chooses not to. (not benevolent)

The supposed loophole from the theologians perspective is that suffering isn't actually evil, but part of "god's plan". But it doesn't hold up under scrutiny. For example, if 6m jews dying during WWII were evil, but can be exused because it was gods plan to teach humanity a lesson (say, about tolerance and genocide), then wouldn't 5.9 million have done the trick? 5.8?

If so, does this mean that god doesn't exist, is a dick, or just doesn't give a shiat? Those appear to be the remaining choices.


Well, keep in mind that God being both omnipotent and omniscient is contradictory and logically impossible on the face of it, even without bringing in the Problem of Evil!

If God is omniscient, then He knows everything, past, present, and future. He knows the end from the beginning. This means that, ∞ eons before He ever said, ‶Let there be light,", He already knew everything that would ever happen! With 100% certainty!

You′ve watched Star Wars V: The Empire Strikes Back many times, right? When watching it again, you can practically quote all the dialog the characters will say before they say it. You know what they will do. You can yell at the screen all you want, warning Han Solo not to trust Lando Calrissian, that Lando will betray him to Darth Vader who will have him frozen in carbonite and delivered to Jabba the Hutt. You can beg Lando not to trust Vader, that Vader will alter the deal and betray his former friend and comrade. But they won′t listen. They′ll do exactly what you know that they′ll do. They have no actual free will. You know what they will do, even though you′re not George Lucas, nor the actors. You don′t control the characters in any way. But you still know what they will do, and no matter how many times you replay those scenes, they will not change what they say and do in the slightest.

This is just part of what being omniscient means, and why free will is impossible for anyone if any being anywhere is truly omniscient, even if the omniscient being doesn′t actually control what everyone else does.

Consider this: inhale. Take a breath. Now, let′s track just one molecule of oxygen that you just inhaled. It went down past your larynx and into your trachea, down to where it branches off into the two main bronchii. Which bronchus did it go into? Left or right? Once there, it enters the lung proper, either left or right, and passes through further branching bronchial tubes leading to different lobes of that particular lung. In that particular lobe and sub-lobe, it eventually reaches a particular bronchiole that ends in a particular aveolus (air sac). From there it floats to the aveolus wall, where pressure drives it via osmosis through the thin wall of the pulmonary capillaries that surround that aveolus. Which capillary did it osmose through? Once in the bloodstream, it will hopefully find a hemoglobin molecule attachment site to attach to on a particular red corpuscle. Which corpuscle, and which hemoglobin molecule in it, and which attachment site on that molecule?

The now oxygenated red corpuscle travels with billions of others back through larger and larger pulmonary veins to the left atrium of the heart, then gets forcibly pumped into the left ventricle, then pumped out through either a coronary artery (which one?) to feed the heart itself, or through the aorta and heads either up or down through branching arteries, and winds up somewhere else in the body: maybe through the left or right carotid arteries into the brain or eyes or ears or other parts of the head, or to any of the myriad organs in the torso, or perhaps to a muscle or bone or skin or nerve or other tissue cell. But sooner or later it reaches a cell, and the oxygen molecule is unloaded from the hemoglobin and enters a particular cell, where it participates in cellular metabolism, oxygenating cellular fuel in the ADP→ATP reactions that fuel the cell, or perhaps participates in one of the many other things we need oxygen for. Which body part? Which organ? Which cell? Which molecule in that cell?

Now here&rsquos; the kicker: if God is truly omniscient, then He already knew the answers to all of those questions ∞ eons before He ever said, ‶Let there be light"! And not just for that one molecule, but for every O&sub2; molecule that you inhaled in that same breath, and that you ever inhaled, and that you ever will inhale! And not just for you, but for all other humans and breathing living things, and any others that use oxygen in any way − and any other molecules that participate in their bodies in any way! If there is now, ever was, or ever will be life on other worlds in this vast universe, the same would apply to all living things on them as well!

That's what ‶omniscient" means! Not just molecules, but despite the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle which flatly makes this impossible, He knew the exact position and velocity of every particle in the Universe at every Planck time unit in time, again ∞ eons before He ever said, ‶Let there be light"!

This means that nothing can possibly happen which He did not foresee ∞ eons ago. Nobody can do anything that He did not know ∞ eons previously that they would do. Nobody. Not even He Himself! If He can do anything that He did not foresee Himself doing, then He is not truly omniscient!

But that would mean that there is something that He cannot do (namely, anything that He had not foreseen), and that would mean that He is not truly omnipotent!

Actually, it′d be worse than that: remember how I said that if any being is truly omniscient, then Free Will is utterly impossible for anyone?

That includes God Himself!! Not even He can have Free Will if He′s truly omniscient ― not without losing His omniscience by doing, saying, or even thinking something that He did not foresee Himself doing, saying, or thinking!
 
2012-10-25 01:43:46 PM

bwilson27: WHO GIVES A FARK WHAT FAUX NEWS SAYS OR DOES!?


I, for one, believe it's important to be kept aware of what a substantial portion of our fellow citizens of voting age consider to be a reliable source of news is telling them.

Or as my Dad always sayd, "I always like to know what the enemy is up to". Except he's saying that from the other side of the fence.
 
2012-10-25 02:26:32 PM
Fair and Balanced
 
2012-10-25 02:30:59 PM

sprawl15: Makh: I'm with Colbert on this one. "This is also offensive to God. It makes him look like shiatty gift giver." (Pretty close approximation.)

Soooo...abortion is like regifting back to God?


A+ I lol'd
 
2012-10-25 02:39:59 PM
"Know your enemies" is just wuss for "I getting trolled".
 
2012-10-25 03:41:55 PM
The Republican Party Rape Advisory Chart

img44.imagehaven.net ">  Click to enlarge.
 
2012-10-25 05:35:57 PM

gameshowhost: Cythraul: Precious Roy's Horse Dividers: Dusk-You-n-Me: Brave sir Romney

That needs to be a thing.

When pressed for details of his tax plan
He bravely hid behind bird-shirt Ann

The brave, brave, brave, brave Sir Romney!

♫♪♫
He is packing it in and packing it up
And sneaking away and buggering up
And chickening out and pissing off home,
Yes, bravely he is throwing in the sponge...


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BZwuTo7zKM8#t=0m16s

Bravely bold Sir Romney
Felt he was taxed a lot
He would fix the deficit
Oh brave Sir Romney
He was not at all afraid
To be taxed in nasty ways
Brave, brave, brave, brave Sir Romney

He was not in the least bit scared
To release his tax returns
Or to have his dividends
Taxed the same as income
To show the IRS
All his money socked away
In the Swiss and Cayman banks
Brave Sir Romney
 
2012-10-26 05:57:59 AM

Mercutio74: padraig: Not really, if you think that God gave their creature free will. Men are supposed to knowingly chose between right and wrong. Giving men free will means accepting that evil can exist on this Earth. Otherwise, we're just a bunch of puppet.

But who created evil in the first place? If everything stems from God, then he's responsible for creating evil. If he didn't like evil, he could have simply made us without the mental capacity to do evil acts.


IF he had done so, then we wouldn't have free will.

And anyway, it's not like theodicy (the study of the problem of evil and God) has not been studied thoroughly before. There are lots of theories, most of them that makes a lot of sense.
 
Displayed 73 of 73 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report