hyokkim · p/freethinkers · 7/20/2026, 12:31:16 PM

Some people who like dogs.......

121 bumps

38 comments

Comments

sonatime · 7/20/2026, 8:45:56 PM · permalink

43 bumps

sonatime · 7/20/2026, 8:56:11 PM · permalink

22 bumps

hyokkim · 7/20/2026, 11:55:06 PM · permalink

14 bumps

sonatime · 7/21/2026, 2:41:47 AM · permalink

12 bumps

hyokkim · 7/21/2026, 5:12:21 AM · permalink

10 bumps

sonatime · 7/21/2026, 5:44:34 AM · permalink

8 bumps

hyokkim · 7/21/2026, 11:12:07 AM · permalink

7 bumps

sonatime · 7/22/2026, 1:15:44 AM · permalink

5 bumps

hyokkim · 7/22/2026, 9:06:47 AM · permalink

4 bumps

sonatime · 7/23/2026, 2:46:12 AM · permalink

2 bumps

hyokkim · 7/23/2026, 7:07:42 AM · permalink

''That an all-knowing God doesn’t exist?

That free will doesn’t exist?''  
  
There is no free will, under the omniscient God.  
  
''Or that you actually make real choices and have to own them?''  
  
Under omniscient God, the choices had already been made a long ago, long before you are even born.    God already knows whether you will be saved or not before you are even born: He doesn't need to strengthen your 'faith' in Him, to save you; either you had already been saved or damned before you were even born.  
  
This is not a free will on the part of humans, but only an illusion of free will; you think you're making a choice based on free will, but God already knows what choices you will be making before you are even born, before you have chances to practice 'free will'.     
  
''What if humanity’s relationship with God was severed long ago, yet He still allows us to rebuild it, even using our knowledge of good and evil to get our attention? ''  
  
Do you think He already knows whether you will be saved or not?   If He does, then when do you think He found out?     Before you are born, or after you have made your choices based on 'free will'?  
  
Omniscient God, by definition, already knows what choices you will be making before you are born, before you have your chances to practice 'free will'.   So, the Calvinists were/are right; one is saved not by faith in Him, but by His grace.  
  
God already had decided long before you are even born whether you will be saved or not; you making your 'choice', based on 'free will' are delusions on your part, mere formality on the part of God.  
  
''Or maybe the real issue is not wanting to accept any responsibility for it.''  
  
You do not believe in omniscient God; you believe in 'free will'.   He already knows whether you will be saved or not before you are even born, before you even had a chance to make 'choices' based on 'free will'.   If you believe it's the choice you make based on 'free will' for faith in Him that will save you, then not only you no longer believe in Him, but are actually claiming He is not omniscient, committing a blasphemy.  
  
One is saved by His grace, not choices one makes based on 'free will' under the idea of omniscient God.

1 bump

hyokkim · 7/20/2026, 11:52:38 PM · permalink

18 bumps

sonatime · 7/21/2026, 2:55:37 AM · permalink

16 bumps

hyokkim · 7/21/2026, 5:09:12 AM · permalink

14 bumps

sonatime · 7/21/2026, 6:05:27 AM · permalink

12 bumps

hyokkim · 7/21/2026, 11:10:06 AM · permalink

10 bumps

sonatime · 7/22/2026, 2:21:14 AM · permalink

8 bumps

hyokkim · 7/22/2026, 8:57:36 AM · permalink

''Most animals run on instinct, not spite. A bear or aggressive dog isn’t being “evil”, it’s just behaving according to its programming.''  
  
I understand that, but it doesn't mean I have to give them all the chances I can afford for them to maul/kill me.   After the implosion, I won't; I will exterminate them within my neighborhood; I will shoot them on sight.   If they don't want to die, they can leave my neighborhood.     
  
https://www.ammoland.com/2026/07/glenn-villeneuve-20-wolves-alaska-30-06/  
  
''As for dogs vs livestock: the difference isn’t “they’re cute.” It’s that dogs have been selectively bred for thousands of years to bond with and work alongside humans. That bond is real, even if imperfect. Yes, some dogs still show strong instincts, including tragic ones, but that doesn’t erase the thousands of working and companion relationships that function well.

Calling it hypocrisy to eat cows but not dogs is fair to debate, but it doesn’t cancel the fact that some animals can form genuine cross-species bonds because they were selectively bred for that purpose, while others were not.''  
  
Yes, however, till very recently, aggressive dogs had been curled, till at least 30s in U.S. till 70s in ROK.   Now, no curling is allowed due to doggie crazies, who have been brainwashed by Disney.     
  
I have no problem with dogs, just nasty ones.   All nasty dogs should be killed asap and not allowed to breed.  Nasty dogs cannot be retrained, and will pass on those nasty genes to the next gen; why now we have epidemic of pitbull mauling in U.S. starting from 80s.  
  
It's just going to get worse, and a lot worse after the implosion, since nasty pitbulls are far more likely to survive than nice dogs, including some nice pitbulls.   Nasty pitbulls bred by natural selection to prey on humans from puppyhood.     
  
Not all dogs are nice; whether nasty dog is malicious or not is immaterial.   What is material is that they enjoy killing other animals, especially weaker ones for fun, not even out of survival.  
  
Nasty dogs should not be allowed to live; they should be exterminated.   Are you implying they should be allowed to live and breed, and create more nasty dogs, just because they are not 'malicious'?  
  
We have far more serious problem than doggy abuse; why should humans waste their time/energy/resources to care for dogs?   If one's neighbor wants to eat his dogs, what business of mine or the others or the government?  
  
If one's neighbor wants to 'abuse' his dogs, what business of mine, or others or the government?  
  
Why should we even care, when this will lead to more unnecessary intrusion of governmental power over individual rights?  If you love/care about your dogs, care about your dogs, not others.  
  
It's like those 'traditional conservatives' making a big deal about polygamy/polyandry/swinger style relationship.   'Traditional conservatives' can practice monogamy all they want if that's what they want for themselves!  
  
But no, we have no fault divorce laws because monogamy does not work; why even 'traditional conservatives' are not in favor of criminalizing adultery, so why should they obsess about the sanctity of marriage/monogamy when they themselves no longer believe in what they preach?  
  
The same with dogs, doggie crazies can indulge their doggies all they want; why should they stick their nose on others who do not agree with how dogs should be treated?  
  
We  
'

6 bumps

sonatime · 7/23/2026, 3:36:49 AM · permalink

2 bumps

hyokkim · 7/23/2026, 6:48:19 AM · permalink

1 bump

Some people who like dogs.......

Comments

Signature