Jump to content


Guys Forum Access (Ages 16+)
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Ananas

  • Rank
    Accomplished Poster
  • Birthday 06/16/1993

Profile Information

  • Gender

Additional Information

  • Location
    Great White North, Ohio, United States
  • Interests
    I enjoy playing music (guitar and piano mostly), running and soccer, and often enjoy nature and hiking.
  • Occupation

Recent Profile Visitors

1,506 profile views
  1. Ananas

    Will of God

    No thanks, I think I'll pass.
  2. Ananas


    Kinda. I'd say most were okay with waterboarding (and perhaps even more inhuman practices) but just didn't want to sound entirely evil, whereas Trump wants to like, light people on fire 'n stuff...or something, I don't wanna know. Trump: "I would bring back waterboarding and I’d bring back a hell of a lot worse than waterboarding." Cruz: “Torture is wrong, unambiguously,” but also "I would not bring it back in any sort of widespread use. And indeed, I joined with Senator McCain in legislation that would prohibit line officers from employing it because I think bad things happen when enhanced interrogation is employed at lower levels. But when it comes to keeping this country safe, the commander in chief has inherent constitutional authority to keep this country safe. And so, if it were necessary to, say, prevent a city from facing an imminent terrorist attack, you can rest assured that as commander in chief, I would use whatever enhanced interrogation methods we could to keep this country safe." Bush gave ambiguous non-answers: “I don’t want to make a definitive, blanket kind of statement — this is something I’m not struggling with” and "No, no, I wouldn’t [overturn bans on waterboarding]. No, I wouldn’t. And it was used sparingly, Congress has changed the laws and I — and I think where we stand is the appropriate place. But what we need to do is to make sure that we expand our intelligence capabilities." Rubio: "Well, when people talk about interrogating terrorists, they’re acting like this is some sort of law enforcement function. Law enforcement is about gathering evidence to take someone to trial, and convict them. Anti-terrorism is about finding out information to prevent a future attack so the same tactics do not apply." and “If we capture any of them alive, they are getting a one-way ticket to Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, and we are going to find out everything they know” Carson: “There’s no such thing as political correctness when you’re fighting an enemy who wants to destroy you.” Christie: “We should do whatever we need to do to get actionable intelligence that’s within the Constitution” along with “I don't believe so.” - as a response to whether waterboarding constitutes torture. Even Clinton has mentioned she'd make a way for ambiguously titled "torture" in the most extreme circumstances. Article Debate Transcript
  3. Ananas

    The God that did nothing

    Also, whenever I hear (or ask) that question, what comes to mind is this (I meant to post it before, but forgot to look it up it earlier ) (Those with weaker stomachs who don't like reading about Nazi death-camp atrocities might not want to read) - Elie Wiesel, Night
  4. That's it, I'm converting! I also like the ambiguity of how it shows "Cato: formerly known as afriendlyatheist" ARE YOU IMPLYING SOMETHING?
  5. I don't think I could have asked for a better response. lol
  6. Ananas

    The God that did nothing

    To say the Bible is inspired isn't necessarily an endorsement that the Hebrews were perfectly reflective of God's will (granted, the text might heavily imply such, but of course the people who wrote the book are going to write that God was on their side ). Which is to say that historical exegesis is essential: understanding the narrative and audience is the only reasonable way to approach such a text. It is naive to expect it to have clear and obvious meaning to a culture thousands of years away. (Now most people seem to disagree with me here, but I think the only proper hermeneutic starts with God actually being good...but I guess that makes me heretical). As for miracles, my full response would go far off-topic lol But the gist is that to view God's working in the world as interventionist or coercive or overturning the natural order that God had instituted is actually a more weak god than what I suggest, which is a god that is able to do things right the first time and not have to run around fixing mistakes all the time. (There's way more I could say and this kinda mischaracterizes my thoughts, but it is the most direct way to answer the question.) And then there's faith, which seems to be typically explained as thinking counter to what's reasonable - and that might partly be accurate but not in the way I've often heard it. I prefer an existential rendering of faith, where faith is a response to the absurdity of existence.
  7. Ananas


    To be fair, so do most of the Republican candidates...
  8. Ananas

    The God that did nothing

    Perhaps not every story in the Bible is an absolute, straight-forward tale about the character of God. Perhaps miracles aren't supernatural interventions. Perhaps faith is less about ignoring the present reality and more about being fully confronted by it and participating in it.
  9. Ananas

    The God that did nothing

    Maybe that's just a poor understanding of God. (One that you are right to reject. But perhaps there is a better way to understand God.)
  10. All the atheists here: "now you understand!"
  11. To be fair, they'll ask you to leave any class if you show up without wearing pants.
  12. Ananas


    Welcome to the club!
  13. Ananas

    God saved me.

    One time a buddy of mine tripped and tumbled all the way down his basement stairs with a full glass of iced tea. Did not spill a single drop. His god beats your god. Sorry.
  14. Ananas

    Annihalationism/ is hell really eternal?

    Shhhhhhhh, feed ye not the trolls.
  15. Ananas

    Annihalationism/ is hell really eternal?

    Yep, I'm sure people are just lining up at the gates of Hell to eternally refuse the absolute source of life and joy. Because that's just the sensible thing to do. Nobody reasonably informed, in the right state-of-mind, who has actually experienced goodness would willingly refuse it eternally. So either God is unable to help, or just plain doesn't help those who lack the capacity to make a really easy decision! This would be entirely reasonable if the game wasn't rigged. If God makes the rules so that people will fail (resist grace, etc.) then He is not to be considered loving. Either there is something superior to God: something that makes God color inside the lines, or God isn't actually loving. (Or an eternal hell isn't a thing, because God's absolute goodness is absolutely effective at drawing all creation into it.) EDIT: Sorry if that comes across as hostile. I do appreciate your perspective, I just can't buy it. Any hostility that leaks through isn't directed at you.