Let us remember the torture and rape of Dr. Aafia Siddiqui

[ClaytonB]

There is no middle ground with Jesus Christ; those who are not against Him are on His side, but likewise, those who are not with Him are against Him, and those who do not help Him gather are like Satan the wolf, that catches and scatters the sheep, and seeks to kill and destroy them. (Matthew 12:30)

Correct.

GWB is practically as antichrist as a civil government official could possibly be, so it's indicative of how poorly you comprehend the Gospel you are intending to criticize, that you imagine GWB is a representative of the teachings of Jesus when practically everything he did while in office was in direct opposition to them.

As for the rest of the verbal filth you're spewing, that's all on you. Maybe see about getting help... seems to be an emotional problem if you're investing that emotional energy into a being that you see as entirely fictional...

 

[TheTexan]

Correct.

GWB is practically as antichrist as a civil government official could possibly be, so it's indicative of how poorly you comprehend the Gospel you are intending to criticize, that you imagine GWB is a representative of the teachings of Jesus when practically everything he did while in office was in direct opposition to them.

As for the rest of the verbal filth you're spewing, that's all on you. Maybe see about getting help... seems to be an emotional problem if you're investing that emotional energy into a being that you see as entirely fictional...

That's really my only solace. That this asshole is fictional.

Honestly, I'm less disappointed in God and more disappointed in you. Your entire religion is about subjecting me to God's slavery.

I don't know who is worse, the tyrants who enslave me on this mortal earth, or you, who somehow one-ups them by seeking to enslave me for all of eternity.

Apparently being subjected to slavery is just a 1+1=2 of the universe.

 

[ClaytonB]

Honestly, I'm less disappointed in God and more disappointed in you. Your entire religion is about subjecting me to God's slavery.

I don't know who is worse, the tyrants who enslave me on this mortal earth, or you, who somehow one-ups them by seeking to enslave me for all of eternity.

Apparently being subjected to slavery is just a 1+1=2 of the universe.

I'm reminded of a news story related to me some time ago. A woman was choking in a restaurant. One of the waiters had learned CPR and had learned how to perform the Heimlich maneuver. He stood the woman up, put his arms in position and performed the maneuver to unlodge the food, rescuing her from choking to death. Some time later, the woman sued the man who had performed the maneuver under the claim that she had not consented to have him perform that maneuver and she was owed money for damages, blah blah blah. This story makes as much sense as the absurd claim that Jesus dying on the cross to save you from death and hell is somehow "enslaving" you. It's just the most ridiculous thing ever. But you seem to sincerely see the world that way and it is a sad thing to see. Be as disappointed as you like, 2+2 will indeed go on being 4 no matter whether you consider that slavery or not. The Savior's hand is extended to pluck you from the ocean in which you are presently drowning. If you refuse it because that is some kind of patriarchal oppression or "slavery", well, it's a sad thing to see. The Gospel is not easy, but it is simple: Repent of your sins and believe in Jesus or perish. It is the same message from God to all alike.

 

[TheTexan]

I'm reminded of a news story related to me some time ago. A woman was choking in a restaurant. One of the waiters had learned CPR and had learned how to perform the Heimlich maneuver. He stood the woman up, put his arms in position and performed the maneuver to unlodge the food, rescuing her from choking to death. Some time later, the woman sued the man who had performed the maneuver under the claim that she had not consented to have him perform that maneuver and she was owed money for damages, blah blah blah. This story makes as much sense as the absurd claim that Jesus dying on the cross to save you from death and hell is somehow "enslaving" you. It's just the most ridiculous thing ever. But you seem to sincerely see the world that way and it is a sad thing to see. Be as disappointed as you like, 2+2 will indeed go on being 4 no matter whether you consider that slavery or not. The Savior's hand is extended to pluck you from the ocean in which you are presently drowning. If you refuse it because that is some kind of patriarchal oppression or "slavery", well, it's a sad thing to see. The Gospel is not easy, but it is simple: Repent of your sins and believe in Jesus or perish. It is the same message from God to all alike.

Help me understand how it's not slavery.

This is what I understand:
1) God is sovereign in his kingdom
2) God is all powerful
3) Anyone who is not in his kingdom is automatically an enemy
4) God forces people not in his kingdom to lay down their arms and kneel
5) There is no way to escape this or "opt out"

What logically follows is the below conclusion:
1) God is sovereign and he tolerates no sovereignty except his own
2) God is the ruler of all

"Slavery" is defined by having a ruler and being forced to comply with that ruler's edicts. Which is exactly what is happening above.

So how exactly is it not slavery? The honest answer as far as I can tell, would be that it's benevolent slavery. If it's the best available option because of the realities of the afterlife then just be real with me. Don't sugar coat it. I just want the truth. Maybe that I could understand.

But everyone being forced to live under God's absolute unquestionable rule, sure as shit sounds a lot like slavery.

 

[ClaytonB]

Help me understand how it's not slavery.

First of all, the word "slavery" refers to a human practice of men enslaving other men. When I feed a wolf and domesticate him, that is not "slavery". I have control over the wolf once he is domesticated, but it is not my "slave". Slavery is immoral because it is violence; it is violence because it is a desecration of the image of God in man. God created man to worship (bow down to) God, not to bow down to one another; slavery is idolatry enforced by violence. All forms of human rule outside of the kingdom of God are slavery, idolatry and blasphemy because they are based on using violence to desecrate the image of God in man. In short, all forms of rule outside of God's kingdom are slavery, and they are Sodom in disguise.

God's kingdom, by contrast, is the opposite of Sodom. God did not make Adam bow down to any other man, instead, he made Adam and Eve co-regents of the entire earthly creation (Gen. 1:26-28). He crowned them with dignity and honor, a dignity that none of us in this fallen world have ever experienced or known. So, your chafing against the supposed indignity of God putting his creation back in its right order because it's somehow "enslaving" you is more ridiculous than the Heimlich maneuver lawsuit. Salvation is God rescuing us from actual slavery and putting us back in our original dignity, which you want to call slavery. OK then.

This is what I understand:
1) God is sovereign in his kingdom
2) God is all powerful
3) Anyone who is not in his kingdom is automatically an enemy
4) God forces people not in his kingdom to lay down their arms and kneel
5) There is no way to escape this or "opt out"

Surprisingly, you got those all correct. Note that point 4 is a future event prophesied in Philippians 2... those of us who believe now, do so voluntarily, without coercion or compulsion by God. And that's the point, the Gospel call works on the heart of those that God has chosen to save to effect in them a change of heart so that they can believe the Gospel, rather than remaining trapped in the devil's cosmic rebellion. This world is the ultimate form of Stockholm syndrome. The people that God is trying to save from slavery and death are the biggest apologists for that very system of slavery and death in which they are imprisoned. It's like trying to save people from Auschwitz but they all truly believe in nazism and don't want to leave.

What logically follows is the below conclusion:
1) God is sovereign and he tolerates no sovereignty except his own
2) God is the ruler of all

1 does not follow. God delegated sovereign rule over the earthly creation to Adam and Eve in Gen. 1:26-28. Sovereignty just refers to supremacy -- God is supreme over all, and Scripture explains to us that he delegates supreme power to his creatures over various parts of his creation. Adam and Eve were rulers of the earthly creatures, they had delegated sovereign authority from God, no one was higher than them. This is why Adam's act of disobedience is so serious... when he disobeyed, the creatures under Adam were without remedy until God intervened... Adam had the power of God relative to them. They were helpless and when he disobeyed, they became slaves (since we're discussing everything in terms of slavery).

"Slavery" is defined by having a ruler and being forced to comply with that ruler's edicts. Which is exactly what is happening above.

Your inferences are incorrect.

So how exactly is it not slavery? The honest answer as far as I can tell, would be that it's benevolent slavery. If it's the best available option because of the realities of the afterlife then just be real with me. Don't sugar coat it. I just want the truth. Maybe that I could understand.

The phrase "slaves of Christ" (Eph 6:6) is used in Scripture but it doesn't mean what you are trying to strawman here. As earthly creatures, we are basically powerless relative to the heavenly realm. This used to be commonly understood until about the time of the Enlightenment, when Western humanity became filled adolescent pride. Ancient mythology is chock full of stories of men who became ego-filled and tried to defy the gods or act as if they were themselves a god, and were hurled down into hellfire by the gods for their arrogance. So, as a matter of ontology, men are like animals relative to the heavenly realm, we are as helpless in respect to the heavenly realm as an animal is to the baits, traps, ambushes and weapons of the hunter. So if you're sincere in wanting it straight, there you go, you are like an animal of instinct relative to the beings in the heavenly realm (2 Pet. 2:12, Matt. 26:41, Isa. 40:6,7, 55:8,9, Psa. 78:39, Job 38-41, etc. etc.) Satan was a heavenly creature, and his henchmen still hiding among the angels are heavenly creatures... relative to them, you are a rat in a maze, an ant in a terrarium. You can remain in that condition, or you can let God explain to you the truth in his Word and show you the way out. God is as much greater than the heavenly creatures as they are than you and me, so he has both the willingness and the ability to help us escape this terrible place of imprisonment in slavery and death (Heb. 2:14,15, Gal. 4:8, Deut. 5:15, etc. etc.)

But everyone being forced to live under God's absolute unquestionable rule, sure as shit sounds a lot like slavery.

"Everyone being forced to live under [mathematics'] unquestionable rule, that sure sounds like slavery."

God is supreme because that is the structure of the Cosmos. Every other idea of the Cosmos is hell, just as any other idea of 2+2=4 than that it is true, leads to an explosion of contradictions. God must be supreme in order for you to draw breath; in order for you to have a heartbeat; in order for you to be whole and not diseased; in order for you to be at peace, and not under torment both spiritual and bodily (Matt. 10:28). In order for you to be free in any sense of that word, God must be supreme. This is not just a religious "claim", it's an ontological absolute. There is no other way the Cosmos can even exist, than that God is supreme. They are of a piece.

Those who oppose God's supremacy not only oppose him, they oppose all of God's works, including his creation, and all his creatures, both heavenly and earthly. To refuse to bow and worship God, to proclaim his supremacy, is one and the same as omnicidal hatred, it is universal misanthropy and the will to mass-murder. I don't mean that you are a mass-murderer, but you are on a path whose terminus is that, and you have even shown hints of it in this thread, when you say that you will go to war with God while burning in hell, rather than worship him. That is luciferian pride speaking through you and I pray that God delivers you from it, which he can. All that is life and goodness dwells in God. All that is innocent and pure is in him. Freedom is of God alone, and is the goal and purpose of the Gospel, John 8:36, Gal. 5:1, etc.[1] Every portrait of the Good, the True and the Beautiful that you were given in life, came from God. And the will to attack God is the will to destroy those things, of which God is the eternal defender. And yes, there is no "third option" just as there is no "third option" between the claim that 2+2=4 being either true or false. It just is either true or false, pick a lane. That's how truth works. That's how ontology works.

[1] -- see also Rom 6:6,17,20, 7:14, 8:15, 1Co 7:22,23, 9:19, 12:13, Gal 2:4, 3:28, 4:7-9,31, 5:1, Col 3:11, 1Ti 1:10, Titus 3:3, Heb 2:14,15, 2Pe 2:19, Rev 18:13

 

[TheTexan]

First of all, the word "slavery" refers to a human practice of men enslaving other men. When I feed a wolf and domesticate him, that is not "slavery". I have control over the wolf once he is domesticated, but it is not my "slave". Slavery is immoral because it is violence; it is violence because it is a desecration of the image of God in man. God created man to worship (bow down to) God, not to bow down to one another; slavery is idolatry enforced by violence. All forms of human rule outside of the kingdom of God are slavery, idolatry and blasphemy because they are based on using violence to desecrate the image of God in man. In short, all forms of rule outside of God's kingdom are slavery, and they are Sodom in disguise.

Slavery is a creature with free will using force to deprive another creature of free will. If a dog has free will, and you domesticate it, that's not slavery. If a dog has free will, and you put it on a leash, put it in a cage, or otherwise restrict it from leaving, then yea - that's slavery. If dogs don't have free will, then none of its slavery and you can do whatever I guess. Then sure, eat the dogs, eat the cats. But if they have free will that changes the equation.

God's kingdom, by contrast, is the opposite of Sodom. God did not make Adam bow down to any other man, instead, he made Adam and Eve co-regents of the entire earthly creation (Gen. 1:26-28). He crowned them with dignity and honor, a dignity that none of us in this fallen world have ever experienced or known. So, your chafing against the supposed indignity of God putting his creation back in its right order because it's somehow "enslaving" you is more ridiculous than the Heimlich maneuver lawsuit. Salvation is God rescuing us from actual slavery and putting us back in our original dignity, which you want to call slavery. OK then.

I don't care about dignity, I care about sovereignty. If you're using those two words interchangeably, then you're raising separate questions with that explanation. But as I'm not sure exactly what you mean by dignity, I'll hold my questions on that.

Surprisingly, you got those all correct. Note that point 4 is a future event prophesied in Philippians 2... those of us who believe now, do so voluntarily, without coercion or compulsion by God. And that's the point, the Gospel call works on the heart of those that God has chosen to save to effect in them a change of heart so that they can believe the Gospel, rather than remaining trapped in the devil's cosmic rebellion. This world is the ultimate form of Stockholm syndrome. The people that God is trying to save from slavery and death are the biggest apologists for that very system of slavery and death in which they are imprisoned. It's like trying to save people from Auschwitz but they all truly believe in nazism and don't want to leave.

I'm not clear on what you're trying to say here. Are you saying that people will eventually voluntarily kneel? Previously you said that hell was eternal because people don't change their minds.

The more common interpretation of Phillippians 2 is that people will be compelled to kneel. Whether that happens now, or later, it's still slavery. And the fact that it hasn't happened yet, isn't really an excuse.

Which is your view, and how do you explain the discrepancy?

1 does not follow. God delegated sovereign rule over the earthly creation to Adam and Eve in Gen. 1:26-28.

God says he delegates authority over the animals in Gen 1:26-28. Not necessarily authority over man. Other passages suggest that God is the sole authority over men: Psalm 103:19, 1Tim 6:15, 1 Corinthians 15:28, Daniel 4:35. Then there's also God meddling with Kings on earth Proverbs 8:15-16.

How can man be sovereign over earth while at the same time, God is giving his decrees to Kings and Queens?

The phrase "slaves of Christ" (Eph 6:6) is used in Scripture but it doesn't mean what you are trying to strawman here. As earthly creatures, we are basically powerless relative to the heavenly realm. This used to be commonly understood until about the time of the Enlightenment, when Western humanity became filled adolescent pride. Ancient mythology is chock full of stories of men who became ego-filled and tried to defy the gods or act as if they were themselves a god, and were hurled down into hellfire by the gods for their arrogance. So, as a matter of ontology, men are like animals relative to the heavenly realm, we are as helpless in respect to the heavenly realm as an animal is to the baits, traps, ambushes and weapons of the hunter. So if you're sincere in wanting it straight, there you go, you are like an animal of instinct relative to the beings in the heavenly realm (2 Pet. 2:12, Matt. 26:41, Isa. 40:6,7, 55:8,9, Psa. 78:39, Job 38-41, etc. etc.) Satan was a heavenly creature, and his henchmen still hiding among the angels are heavenly creatures... relative to them, you are a rat in a maze, an ant in a terrarium. You can remain in that condition, or you can let God explain to you the truth in his Word and show you the way out. God is as much greater than the heavenly creatures as they are than you and me, so he has both the willingness and the ability to help us escape this terrible place of imprisonment in slavery and death (Heb. 2:14,15, Gal. 4:8, Deut. 5:15, etc. etc.)

Yea I'm not too worried about the use of "slaves of Christ" in the scripture. It's a metaphor. What I'm more worried about, is if God intends to "free me from slavery" by making me kneel. (Like how Abraham Lincoln "freed us from slavery", yea ok sure)

Those who seek to enslave us are not usually so direct about their intentions, so I am sure "slaves of Christ" is not meant to be taken literally.

"Everyone being forced to live under [mathematics'] unquestionable rule, that sure sounds like slavery."

Last I checked, mathematics never used force to compel me to kneel. Mathematics doesn't have free will so by definition it can't enslave anything.

It's like if a tree falls over and traps me under its weight, I'm not enslaved by that tree, because that tree has no free will. It has no idea what it's doing.

If you're saying God is purely a math equation, then it means it doesn't have free will, well, that changes this discussion substantially. For starters, if God is purely a math equation, then it's not able to delegate sovereignty to anything or anyone because it doesn't even have free will of its own.

But if God does have free will, and he uses that free will to force me to live under his unquestionable rule, yea - that's slavery.

God is supreme because that is the structure of the Cosmos. Every other idea of the Cosmos is hell, just as any other idea of 2+2=4 than that it is true, leads to an explosion of contradictions. God must be supreme in order for you to draw breath; in order for you to have a heartbeat; in order for you to be whole and not diseased; in order for you to be at peace, and not under torment both spiritual and bodily (Matt. 10:28). In order for you to be free in any sense of that word, God must be supreme. This is not just a religious "claim", it's an ontological absolute. There is no other way the Cosmos can even exist, than that God is supreme. They are of a piece.

I'm fine with God being supreme. If he leaves me alone to my own devices, I have no problem with him. But if he forces his will over me in any way that is not mathematically required, then we've got a problem.

I don't mean that you are a mass-murderer, but you are on a path whose terminus is that, and you have even shown hints of it in this thread, when you say that you will go to war with God while burning in hell, rather than worship him.

Yea, I'll go to war with God if he declares war on me by trying to make me kneel. The only other reason I'd go to war with God would be to seek reparative justice. And by that I mean, if it's within his power, I would demand that he restore me to the state I was in before he created me. And if that's not within his power, or if he wasn't actually responsible for my creation, then fine I can accept that.

Otherwise if he leaves me to my own devices, then yea I'm content with trying to carve out a peaceful miserable life in hell, just as I'm content with trying to carve out a peaceful miserable life on earth. I don't need to be in God's kingdom and if he leaves me alone then I'll leave him alone.

How does that make me a mass murderer?

How does that make me prideful?

I just want God to leave me alone, to just let me live in my pit of vile and sin.

I like greed, I like lust, I like sloth, I like gluttony.

If that makes me "evil", then I guess I just want to be evil.

 

[ClaytonB]

Slavery is a creature with free will using force to deprive another creature of free will. If a dog has free will, and you domesticate it, that's not slavery. If a dog has free will, and you put it on a leash, put it in a cage, or otherwise restrict it from leaving, then yea - that's slavery. If dogs don't have free will, then none of its slavery and you can do whatever I guess. Then sure, eat the dogs, eat the cats. But if they have free will that changes the equation.

I have no idea if animals have "free will" or not, but they certainly don't have the capacity to make deliberative choices in the sense that humans do.

The reason that domesticing an animal is not "slavery" is because domestication is suitable to the animal's nature. It is not suitable to enslave a human being because it is blasphemy against God.

I don't care about dignity, I care about sovereignty. If you're using those two words interchangeably, then you're raising separate questions with that explanation. But as I'm not sure exactly what you mean by dignity, I'll hold my questions on that.

Dignity and sovereignty are not the same. Man is not sovereign in respect to God. God is sovereign over all, which is the same as saying that God is supreme over all (John 10:29)

I'm not clear on what you're trying to say here. Are you saying that people will eventually voluntarily kneel? Previously you said that hell was eternal because people don't change their minds.

Everyone will kneel. Today, only those kneel who do so willingly. We know that not everyone will willingly bow (Scripture says so), so the current condition will change some time in the future. Everyone will bow before Jesus, no exceptions.

The more common interpretation of Phillippians 2 is that people will be compelled to kneel.

In future, yes. It's the only possible reading of the text.

Whether that happens now, or later, it's still slavery. And the fact that it hasn't happened yet, isn't really an excuse.

Not saying it's an excuse. Rather, you have the opportunity to willingly bow, now. That opportunity window is coming to a close at some point in the future, at a time unknown to us, but known to God.

Which is your view, and how do you explain the discrepancy?

There is no discrepancy. If you want to call God's supremacy, in itself, "slavery", I don't know what to say to you. You are supreme in respect to an animal, does your mere existence somehow magically "enslave" the animal? Obviously not. Even if you believe you should respect an animal's "choices", insofar as we can perceive them, and you try not to interfere with animals, you are still supreme in respect to the animals because you have the capacity to dominate them (weapons, traps, cages, etc.) In the same way, God's supremacy is a fact of his being... he just is supreme over all, he is greater than all. He is supreme over you whether or not he "interferes" with your "free will".

God says he delegates authority over the animals in Gen 1:26-28. Not necessarily authority over man.

I don't understand what you seem to be trying to clarify -- that's exactly what I said above, go re-read for comprehension.

Other passages suggest that God is the sole authority over men

Yes, God is the sole authority over all creation. Somehow, I get the feeling I'm arguing with chatbot copy-pasta...

Then there's also God meddling with Kings on earth Proverbs 8:15-16.

See again Dan. 4:35. God does whatever he wants. That follows from the whole supreme thing.

How can man be sovereign over earth while at the same time, God is giving his decrees to Kings and Queens?

Once again, you are conflating pre-lapsarian and post-lapsarian orders. In the pre-lapsarian order, no man bowed to any other man. God delegated rule over the earthly creatures to Adam and Eve (co-regency). You do understand the meaning of the word "delegate"? When someone who has authority delegates some part of that authority to another person, such as when a king deputizes an ambassador for some task or goal, that is called delegation. God has power over all of heaven and earth and the underworld. In Eden, he delegated the rule over the earthly creatures to Adam and Eve. After the fall, the situation is more complicated because Adam, Eve and the Serpent inverted God's good order. God instituted a temporary order after the fall and that is the order we currently live under.

What I'm more worried about, is if God intends to "free me from slavery" by making me kneel.

Who is making anyone kneel? All who believe in Jesus kneel before him freely.

Last I checked, mathematics never used force to compel me to kneel. Mathematics doesn't have free will so by definition it can't enslave anything.

The metaphor is that mathematics is unalterable, it just is what it is. In the same way God's being is unalterable, it just is what it is. Complaining about something in God's being that you don't like, is like bitching about 2+2 summing to 4. Grow up and get over it.

It's like if a tree falls over and traps me under its weight, I'm not enslaved by that tree, because that tree has no free will. It has no idea what it's doing.

There you go, God is like that tree, except he's aware of what he's doing. However, because God's decrees are perfect, the only way he could do something other than what he's doing, is to be less than perfect. Therefore, God's decrees are unalterable and unarguable, just as the tree pinning you to the ground. It just is so, and the most we can do is cope with it and try our best to understand it, as far as we are able.

If you're saying God is purely a math equation

I am not. I am saying that God's being is perfect and unalterable in the same kind of way that a true math equation is perfect and unalterable. You cannot alter the statement 2+2=4 to something other than 4, without introducing a contradiction. In the same way, God's being and decree could not be altered, even if he wanted to, because he would thereby make himself less than absolute perfection. This is theology 101 -- "God is that being than which none greater can be conceived." -- Anselm.

But if God does have free will, and he uses that free will to force me to live under his unquestionable rule, yea - that's slavery.

Except nobody who believes the Gospel feels this way... so that's like billions and billions of people... versus you. What are these billions of believers overlooking? Clearly, there is something very basic that you have understood but which has escaped the rest of us... please share it.

I'm fine with God being supreme. If he leaves me alone to my own devices, I have no problem with him.

OK, sure, so what you really value is your peace and freedom. The whole point of the Gospel is to secure our freedom (John 8:36, Gal. 5:1) and to give us God's peace (Gal. 5:22,23, John 14:27).

But if he forces his will over me in any way that is not mathematically required, then we've got a problem.

Here you've conceded the point -- "that is not mathematically required". God is so fanatically committed to justice that he sacrificed his own Son to make salvation possible. That is the most radical conceivable commitment to justice and righteousness, so radical that the mere act of him doing it causes people to feel skeptical about it. How could anyone be that mad?? But God's commitment to his holiness, justice and righteousness is beyond madness, and he has manifested this commitment in the Gospel. Nobody cares more about freedom in the sense of the freedom to act righteously, than God does.

Yea, I'll go to war with God if he declares war on me by trying to make me kneel.

But you've tipped your hand below... this really isn't about freedom, it's about sin. You will not give up sin, so that is why you have to go to war with God. Which is basically the entire story of the Bible from Genesis 3 forward.

The only other reason I'd go to war with God would be to seek reparative justice. And by that I mean, if it's within his power, I would demand that he restore me to the state I was in before he created me. And if that's not within his power, or if he wasn't actually responsible for my creation, then fine I can accept that.

Not to be rude, but these are the ravings of someone who has no idea what he is speaking about.

How does that make me a mass murderer?

Because the only thing that keeps you from falling into the most vicious form of evil, is whatever grace that God continues to show to you. Refusing to submit to God (which is tantamount to rebelling against him and going to war with him) is to reject God's grace, thus choosing universal violence and hostility.

I just want God to leave me alone, to just let me live in my pit of vile and sin.

I like greed, I like lust, I like sloth, I like gluttony.

If that makes me "evil", then I guess I just want to be evil.

Here, we have the confession. This is what the debate is really about. Greed, lust, sloth, gluttony... these are not "neutral", these are hostile. These are the opposite of Love your neighbor as you love yourself, which summarizes the law of God (Matt. 22:39,40).

 

[TheTexan]

Everyone will kneel. Today, only those kneel who do so willingly. We know that not everyone will willingly bow (Scripture says so), so the current condition will change some time in the future. Everyone will bow before Jesus, no exceptions.

In future, yes. It's the only possible reading of the text.

Not saying it's an excuse. Rather, you have the opportunity to willingly bow, now. That opportunity window is coming to a close at some point in the future, at a time unknown to us, but known to God.

Thanks for the clarification.

I will be compelled to kneel before God, because God is good, and forcing me to comply with his edicts is Good.

Me, trying to live my life in peace, the way I want to live it, and just to be left alone, is evil.

You're evil. And your god is evil. Fuck you both.

 

[ClaytonB]

Another one bites the Ignore List

 

[ClaytonB]

Here's a great summary:

 

[acptulsa]

The only other reason I'd go to war with God would be to seek reparative justice. And by that I mean, if it's within his power, I would demand that he restore me to the state I was in before he created me.

You don't need God for that. Any murderer or any cop could do it.

You only need a good carpenter to build a house, not to destroy one.

 

[TheTexan]

You don't need God for that. Any murderer or any cop could do it.

You only need a good carpenter to build a house, not to destroy one.

Cops can murder me in the afterlife and I'll cease to exist?

Learn something new everyday.

 

[acptulsa]

afterlife

Oh, you were talking about that, weren't you?

Well, Clayton seems to believe Dante, but I prefer the Bible. I don't worry about everlasting fire.

 

[unknown]

WTF?

 

[ClaytonB]

WTF?

WTF in respect to what was done to Dr. Aafia? Or the thread? Or something else?

 

[ClaytonB]

"Scores of witnesses" that Aafia was in US custody between 2005 and 2008:

 

[jmdrake]

Well, Clayton seems to believe Dante, but I prefer the Bible. I don't worry about everlasting fire.

100% correct.

WTF?

LOL

It's hard to tell when @TheTexan is being serious or sarcastic. In this thread he has a point. I hadn't heard of this woman before now, but a quick web search show's they've now unsealed the complaint against her:

Loading…

www.justice.gov

Maybe it's all BS. But...why? Why was she singled out to be tracked down and rounded up in a foreign country with charges that she was carrying around chemical and biological agents and that she picked up an M-4 rifle and tried to shoot someone? I guess all of this is laid out in the hours of video. This isn't like Anwar Al Awlaki where they put him on a kill list because they didn't like his sermons and then claimed they had "actionable intelligence" against him, but to this day never said what that was. Again, it could all be BS. But I know why the government hated Anwar and I can say that in one sentence. I'm not sure the alleged one sentence reason why the government hates Aafia.

Correct.

GWB is practically as antichrist as a civil government official could possibly be, so it's indicative of how poorly you comprehend the Gospel you are intending to criticize, that you imagine GWB is a representative of the teachings of Jesus when practically everything he did while in office was in direct opposition to them.

As for the rest of the verbal filth you're spewing, that's all on you. Maybe see about getting help... seems to be an emotional problem if you're investing that emotional energy into a being that you see as entirely fictional...

It's comical that anybody can think GWB is an antichrist, but give Donald Trump, a man who said he's never asked God for forgiveness, a pass.

 

[ClaytonB]

The reasons the US has thrown Aafia into the Chateau d'If are not complicated at all:

- Under torture, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed named Aafia Siddiqui among many others. Like most of those names, she was guilty of nothing more than her name being known by KSM who was singing like a bird to try to make the torture stop.

- Once she was named by KSM, she was cast by the CIA as a dangerous, highly US-educated jihadi who could be doing things like (pure speculation) like manufacture nerve-agents. Her Western news moniker became "Lady Al-Qaeda."

- To help frame her in this way, news reports consistently described Aafia as a neuroscientist, a smear that is still repeated to this day, see the recent news clipping below. In fact, Siddiqui's doctoral dissertation is in educational development. Part of her degree is about the overlap of education and neuroscience, but "neuroscientist" works much better for the US frame-up that she was developing nerve-agents.

- When Siddiqui was initially arrested in 2005 -- either by the ISI or CIA, or a team consisting of both -- she was traveling in a taxi with her children to the airport. She was separated from her 3 children who (barring one encounter) she would never see again to this day.

- The US categorically denies that Siddiqui was ever in US custody from 2005 to 2008. That is because most of the worst crimes committed against Dr. Siddqui occurred during this time. In fact, lawyer Clive Smith has identified and interviewed "scores of witnesses" -- no doubt reliable, given the quality of his work -- that the US was indeed holding Siddiqui in one or more black sites during that period.

- After years of kidnapping, torture and rape at the hands of -- at least -- US-supervised ISI or other intelligence (if not the CIA themselves), Dr. Siddiqui was arrested again (after being supposedly set free in a frame-up attempt to get her killed) and, while in custody of foreign police, she is accused by US FBI agents who had come to take custody of her, of attempting to escape police custody in the presence of the FBI. They claim that Siddiqui somehow snatched one of their firearms and was pointing it at them, so they fired and shot her twice in the stomach. Dr. Siddiqui denies this story and specifically denies that she ever snatched or held any firearm.

- Incredibly, Dr. Siddiqui survived this ordeal. She was transported to the US and "tried" in a US kangaroo court (US Federal court in Manhattan) for "terrorists" and sentenced to 86 years in Federal prison, that is, she was sentenced to death for attempting to escape ISI custody, the very people who had been raping and torturing her for years.

- Dr. Siddiqui is now incarcerated in FMC Carswell where she has been subjected to unimaginable abuse, including physical violence against her person, and sexual assault or rape. She has not seen her children, two of whom are grown adults adopted out by the US government, and one of whom is completely unaccounted for and presumed dead.

- There is no mystery here for anyone willing to invest even just an hour or two digging into the hurricane of false claims against Dr. Siddiqui by the US Government: they botched her arrest (or the ISI botched it under watch of US intelligence); she was held without charge by the US at one or more US black sites, and falsely smeared in the US media (to this day) as "Lady Al-Qaeda", without any trial or evidence to legal standard; multiple attempts were made to frame Dr. Siddiqui as a terrorist, including one plot to have her murdered by the Afghan police under false pretenses; throughout the duration until the US admitted taking her into custody in 2008, she was subjected to criminal mistreatment, including torture and rape, either directly at the hands of US intelligence, or supervised by them; her repatriation back to the US was botched by the FBI and they ended shooting her twice in the stomach and then lied about it (there is video evidence that proves they lied); finally, to cover this all up and wrap it up with a bow, a US kangaroo court charged and convicted the half-pint Dr. Aafia Siddiqui with assaulting a US military officer and sentenced her to 86 years in Federal prison so that she will go to the grave with her knowledge of the endless litany of US and US-ally crimes committed against her over the course of these 20 years; after her name had become widely known in Pakistan, the public support for her was obviously unanimous but many of the crimes committed against her were committed by agents of Musharraf. If she were repatriated to Pakistan at that time, she would have immediately disappeared and been killed to prevent embarrassment of Musharraf. The US knew this and chose to keep her here to prevent that scenario, but has been the agent of fresh crimes committed against her at FMC Carswell, which they now seek to cover up in addition to all the previous coverups of US, ISI and other military / intelligence agency crimes.

But yeah, go ahead and keep your heads buried in the sand. I'm sure you'll sleep soundly at night knowing that the US Government is the global paragon of moral virtue and cannot be guilty of such crimes.

 

[jmdrake]

The reasons the US has thrown Aafia into the Chateau d'If are not complicated at all:

- Under torture, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed named Aafia Siddiqui among many others. Like most of those names, she was guilty of nothing more than her name being known by KSM who was singing like a bird to try to make the torture stop.

- Once she was named by KSM, she was cast by the CIA as a dangerous, highly US-educated jihadi who could be doing things like (pure speculation) like manufacture nerve-agents. Her Western news moniker became "Lady Al-Qaeda."

Okay. Part of that makes sense. KSM did make a lot of crap up while being tortured. Why did Dr. Siddiqui come up on his radar?

- To help frame her in this way, news reports consistently described Aafia as a neuroscientist, a smear that is still repeated to this day, see the recent news clipping below. In fact, Siddiqui's doctoral dissertation is in educational development. Part of her degree is about the overlap of education and neuroscience, but "neuroscientist" works much better for the US frame-up that she was developing nerve-agents.

I'm not sure how that's a "smear" nor how it is inaccurate. Her undergraduate degree was in biology, and everything that I can find, including from websites that support her, such as Amnesty international and aaifa.org, describe her as a neuroscientist.

The Aafia Foundation - Dr. Aafia Siddiqui

Who is Dr. Aafia Siddiqui… And Why Should We Care?

www.aafia.org

https://www.amnesty.org/fr/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/amr510042010en.pdf

- When Siddiqui was initially arrested in 2005 -- either by the ISI or CIA, or a team consisting of both -- she was traveling in a taxi with her children to the airport. She was separated from her 3 children who (barring one encounter) she would never see again to this day.

- The US categorically denies that Siddiqui was ever in US custody from 2005 to 2008. That is because most of the worst crimes committed against Dr. Siddqui occurred during this time. In fact, lawyer Clive Smith has identified and interviewed "scores of witnesses" -- no doubt reliable, given the quality of his work -- that the US was indeed holding Siddiqui in one or more black sites during that period.

FTR the CIA absolutely outsourced "black sites" to foreign countries. A good book on this is Ghost Plane by Stephen Grey. One of the unfortunates in that book is a Canadian Muslim who's only "crime" was being seen coming out of a mosque with a suspected terrorist. He was kidnapped by the CIA and sent to Syria where Assad's goons tortured him by using a razor blade on his privates. He was eventually released by the advocacy of the Swedish embassy.

Amazon.com: Ghost Plane: The True Story of the CIA Rendition and Torture Program: 9780312360245: Grey, Stephen: Books

Amazon.com: Ghost Plane: The True Story of the CIA Rendition and Torture Program: 9780312360245: Grey, Stephen: Books

www.amazon.com

- After years of kidnapping, torture and rape at the hands of -- at least -- US-supervised ISI or other intelligence (if not the CIA themselves), Dr. Siddiqui was arrested again (after being supposedly set free in a frame-up attempt to get her killed) and, while in custody of foreign police, she is accused by US FBI agents who had come to take custody of her, of attempting to escape police custody in the presence of the FBI. They claim that Siddiqui somehow snatched one of their firearms and was pointing it at them, so they fired and shot her twice in the stomach. Dr. Siddiqui denies this story and specifically denies that she ever snatched or held any firearm.

- Incredibly, Dr. Siddiqui survived this ordeal. She was transported to the US and "tried" in a US kangaroo court (US Federal court in Manhattan) for "terrorists" and sentenced to 86 years in Federal prison, that is, she was sentenced to death for attempting to escape ISI custody, the very people who had been raping and torturing her for years.

- Dr. Siddiqui is now incarcerated in FMC Carswell where she has been subjected to unimaginable abuse, including physical violence against her person, and sexual assault or rape. She has not seen her children, two of whom are grown adults adopted out by the US government, and one of whom is completely unaccounted for and presumed dead.

- There is no mystery here for anyone willing to invest even just an hour or two digging into the hurricane of false claims against Dr. Siddiqui by the US Government: they botched her arrest (or the ISI botched it under watch of US intelligence); she was held without charge by the US at one or more US black sites, and falsely smeared in the US media (to this day) as "Lady Al-Qaeda", without any trial or evidence to legal standard; multiple attempts were made to frame Dr. Siddiqui as a terrorist, including one plot to have her murdered by the Afghan police under false pretenses; throughout the duration until the US admitted taking her into custody in 2008, she was subjected to criminal mistreatment, including torture and rape, either directly at the hands of US intelligence, or supervised by them; her repatriation back to the US was botched by the FBI and they ended shooting her twice in the stomach and then lied about it (there is video evidence that proves they lied); finally, to cover this all up and wrap it up with a bow, a US kangaroo court charged and convicted the half-pint Dr. Aafia Siddiqui with assaulting a US military officer and sentenced her to 86 years in Federal prison so that she will go to the grave with her knowledge of the endless litany of US and US-ally crimes committed against her over the course of these 20 years; after her name had become widely known in Pakistan, the public support for her was obviously unanimous but many of the crimes committed against her were committed by agents of Musharraf. If she were repatriated to Pakistan at that time, she would have immediately disappeared and been killed to prevent embarrassment of Musharraf. The US knew this and chose to keep her here to prevent that scenario, but has been the agent of fresh crimes committed against her at FMC Carswell, which they now seek to cover up in addition to all the previous coverups of US, ISI and other military / intelligence agency crimes.

But yeah, go ahead and keep your heads buried in the sand. I'm sure you'll sleep soundly at night knowing that the US Government is the global paragon of moral virtue and cannot be guilty of such crimes.

Okay. Well thank you for bringing her case forward.

 

[ClaytonB]

To be clear to RPF participants, @jmdrake is on ignore for insulting me in the most vicious manner possible. He is welcome to PM me and reconcile/apologize. This post is not a reply to that individual, this is clarifying information for other readers of this thread to prevent confusion.

It doesn't matter why Siddiqui was mentioned by KSM. High-level terrorists obviously have many legitimate/non-terrorist connections.

Sites sympathetic to Dr. Siddiqui often use the term "neuroscientist" out of respect to her superb achievement in the US education system, receiving a doctorate degree in educational development. Dr. Siddiqui's actual dissertation, and her primary interest in her degree, was in CHILD DEVELOPMENT. Her degree in biology and other education in neuroscience was in SUPPORT of her work on child development (education), and her life goal was to apply her skills to improving children's education in Pakistan -- not to develop nerve-agents for Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. The US intel establishment and their mouth-puppets in the MSM always elide these clarifying details and use the term "neuroscientist" as a smear, just like "Lady Al-Qaeda", "ISIS heroine" and many more. This obvious intelligence-agency smear website is chock full of these disgusting tabloid monikers deployed against half-pint Dr. Aafia Siddiqui. The very act of the US Establishment weaponizing its entire propaganda apparatus against Dr. Siddiqui is a self-indictment.

It doesn't matter how the CIA spirited people into holes in the ground (in Somalia, literally just holes in the ground) where they would then be tortured with medieval abandon under the tutelage of School-of-the-Americas-trained CIA officers. The legal pretexts are all 100% plain-faced bullshit. These are just criminal acts performed with nation-state funding and logistics, nothing more, nothing less.