Epstein had no client list!

[Sir Tortoise]

Yeah yeah but he's guilty of crimes I can't even name blah blah.

As in you don't know them or you literally can't say...?
Sexual abuse, defamation, 34 counts of falsifying business records to hide his hush money payments. Probably others I've missed, certainly if we're looking at credible accusations rather than just what has made it to court.
And of course this thread, which is unproven but pretty weird. Though it sounds like you think he's guilty of that too and just don't care. Would you care if he was?

 

[Heavy01]

As in you don't know them or you literally can't say...?
Sexual abuse, defamation, 34 counts of falsifying business records to hide his hush money payments. Probably others I've missed, certainly if we're looking at credible accusations rather than just what has made it to court.
And of course this thread, which is unproven but pretty weird. Though it sounds like you think he's guilty of that too and just don't care. Would you care if he was?

The bullshit you mentioned no, him being on the Epstein list yes, and his answer of "Why are we still talking about Epstein" is pretty bad and probably fucked him for the midterms lol.

I doubt he is on it, more likely he simply realized the kind of people he was messing with and chickened out. People with TDS think Trump is somehow a central figure on Epstein's case when reality is worse, the people involved are so powerful even his whole administration had to backtrack. We will probably never get the truth out at this point.

 

[SeltzerMist]

I doubt he is on it...

...People with TDS

This is what TDS actually is folks.

 

[Sir Tortoise]

The bullshit you mentioned no, him being on the Epstein list yes, and his answer of "Why are we still talking about Epstein" is pretty bad and probably fucked him for the midterms lol.

I doubt he is on it, more likely he simply realized the kind of people he was messing with and chickened out. People with TDS think Trump is somehow a central figure on Epstein's case when reality is worse, the people involved are so powerful even his whole administration had to backtrack. We will probably never get the truth out at this point.

Yeah, I guess it's plausible that Trump is just under the Deep State's control now, or always was. That's a shame. Not sure how we're so certain he's not also on the list despite being a long-standing friend of Epstein but that's probably just a coincidence.

 

[Jayro]

It was on her desk just February 21st ago, and now it no longer exists... Funny how destroying evidence happens.

 

[Mythrandir]

Well, if you're bringing religion into it (specifically Christianity), then you don't care about justice in the afterlife. That's more substitutionary atonement, which is immoral in itself.

How is the doctrine of substitutionary atonement immoral? The guilt of sin is imputed to Christ and His righteousness is imputed to the believer (2 Cor. 5:21). In doing this, God is both just and justifier (Rom. 3:21-31). He is the one who all sins offend. He has the right to forgive any transgressions committed against him. He may choose to atone for those transgressions against Him. Why is this immoral?

For example, if someone killed your family member in cold blood. Would you think that justice was served if the murderer went free (Because they're really sorry!), but their parent went to jail in their stead? I hope you wouldn't.

I agree with you. That is injustice. Your hypothetical is not unlike the injustice that occurs for the unborn when they are slain for the sins of their rapist father. Yet our culture has deemed it morally necessary to permit that the child be murdered by the mother while the father lives with minimal consequence to achieve some perverse form of justice. It seems you may be arguing against the Provisionist assertion that salvation occurs after penitence and repentance rather than before penitence and repentance. I agree with the Reformed/Calvinistic assertion that penitence and repentance occurs as a product of salvation rather than salvation being the product of penitence and repentance. One reciprocating the gospel is the result of their regeneration by His Holy Spirit.

On the other hand, if someone steals a loaf of bread to feed their starving family and they don't atone for it, it's infinite punishment for a finite crime. Also very immoral.

What atoning can a person do when salvation is the work of God and not man? If man can atone for his sins, then Christ was crucified in vain. Does Paul not provide rich doctrinal teaching on this very subject in his letter to the Romans? If you read through Romans 3, you will find that all are guilty, none are righteous, and none seek after God. We are all rebels, enemies, and haters of God before regeneration occurs. This is an assertion of the doctrine of radical corruption, meaning that the very core/root of a person's being has been corrupted by sin. We are all hopelessly bound to death if we must depend on ourselves for atonement and justification before the wrath of a most holy and righteous God. This is not at all immoral on God's part. God is free to have mercy on whom He has mercy (Rom. 9:15). What unrighteousness can there be if God grants the gift of mercy (Rom. 6:23) to some and owed justice to the rest? It would seem strange to treat a gift as a wage as though it were a contractual transaction.

Also, what is the standard of morality that you use to determine whether something is moral or immoral?

 

[The Catboy]

The bullshit you mentioned no, him being on the Epstein list yes, and his answer of "Why are we still talking about Epstein" is pretty bad and probably fucked him for the midterms lol.

I doubt he is on it, more likely he simply realized the kind of people he was messing with and chickened out. People with TDS think Trump is somehow a central figure on Epstein's case when reality is worse, the people involved are so powerful even his whole administration had to backtrack. We will probably never get the truth out at this point.

The guy who has been in multiple pictures with Epstein and has a long history with the man suddenly changing his mind when it comes to releasing the list doesn't strike you as odd? Trump literally ran on the platform that HE and HIS people will release the list and other documents. Kind of wild that 6 months in, suddenly it's "Why are we still talking about him?" and "there's no evidance of a list." Really take a moment to think deeply about this. Why would the same guy who's literally on camera hanging out with Epstein suddenly have a vested interest in continuing the covering up of the files?

Additionally, he is the president of the US. Do you really think the guy with 24/7 security, who will lay down their lives for him, has anyone to fear? Really, how many layers of cope do you have to be under to think he's being threatened at this level? Seriously, he has the power to remove those people; he's flexed that power countless times. Really, who is he supposed to be afraid of?

The absolute layers of coping that the MAGA crowd has been going through are astonishing.

 

[Heavy01]

Not sure how we're so certain he's not also on the list despite being a long-standing friend of Epstein but that's probably just a coincidence.

Because if he was it would have already been used against him during Biden's term. So either he isn't, or literally everyone is and that is why either side would rather try to jail each other in any way that doesn't involve the Epstein case because then both would face consequences.

Also Trump cut ties with Epstein on the early 2000s for being a creep in Mar-A-Lago, you can cope that this is because he didn't want the heat on him or whatever, but pretending like they were in good terms recently is just outright lying.

The guy who has been in multiple pictures with Epstein and has a long history with the man suddenly changing his mind when it comes to releasing the list doesn't strike you as odd? Trump literally ran on the platform that HE and HIS people will release the list and other documents. Kind of wild that 6 months in, suddenly it's "Why are we still talking about him?" and "there's no evidance of a list." Really take a moment to think deeply about this. Why would the same guy who's literally on camera hanging out with Epstein suddenly have a vested interest in continuing the covering up of the files?

Additionally, he is the president of the US. Do you really think the guy with 24/7 security, who will lay down their lives for him, has anyone to fear? Really, how many layers of cope do you have to be under to think he's being threatened at this level? Seriously, he has the power to remove those people; he's flexed that power countless times. Really, who is he supposed to be afraid of?

The absolute layers of coping that the MAGA crowd has been going through are astonishing.

Same cope that has been used over and over. Every billionaire knew and dealt with Epstein one way or another, and Trump cut ties with Epstein long ago, it doesn't mean anything.

Doesn't it strike you as odd that Trump would run on "Cleaning up corruption" and that his DOJ claimed they would release the Epstein files if Trump was on it to begin with? why would he do that? It makes more sense he would just literally not say or do anything related to Epstein, like Biden did, what you are claiming doesn't make any sense logistically.

Personally? I think it is more likely that too many powerful people related to banking, corporations, royalty, etc are tied to it, it would outright collapse the economy, bring entire companies down, wipe out banks if the truth came out, which would obviously not be good for republicans since people always vote on the economy despite what you think are the important issues, economy is always #1. I think Trump underestimated how many people would be implicated and the damage it would cause and he simply chose the alternative, but I do think he should have straight up said this instead of trying to imply it isn't important or lash out with "Wow we are still talking about Epstein? move on", that was a horrible move lol.

Regardless, what you need to understand is that no one takes you seriously when you try to imply all of this is just to cover for Trump, that is outright TDS speaking.

Either there really is nothing and this is a case of mass hysteria, or it goes so deep that no one will dare reveal the truth because the damage will be catastrophic and a lot of people would die as a result. Stop trying to reduce it to it revolving around a single person (on either side of the political spectrum).

Also you're just a straight up idiot if you think the US president is the most powerful person on the planet lol, if you're going to go all in on conspiracies then you can't say surface level normie shit like this. Or are you pretending JFK was actually killed by some random loony who acted alone?

 

[BakerMan]

isn't it funny that it was going to get released and then within a half year of trump's administration its existence gets denied
not trying to point fingers, buuut (no i totally am)
makes ya think huh?

 

[Sir Tortoise]

Doesn't it strike you as odd that Trump would run on "Cleaning up corruption" and that his DOJ claimed they would release the Epstein files if Trump was on it to begin with? why would he do that?

Have you heard of the concept of lying? To get elected? He says whatever will get him the most support, like when he admitted that all the trans stuff was just to rile up his voters. Once elected, he can do whatever he wants.

I do agree that there are a lot of powerful people on this list, regardless of affiliation. But that literally has no bearing on if Trump is on there too. That's just you choosing to believe Trump is helpless rather than complicit, and yeah, we will never know for sure. I think complicit is more straightforward myself than "was friends with Epstein for a decade, but was never involved in anything despite having apparent knowledge of it".
And yeah, he cut ties with Epstein. By that logic, there really is no list because anyone with an ounce of brainpower would do the same, guilty or innocent.

 

[Heavy01]

Have you heard of the concept of lying? To get elected? He says whatever will get him the most support, like when he admitted that all the trans stuff was just to rile up his voters. Once elected, he can do whatever he wants.

I do agree that there are a lot of powerful people on this list, regardless of affiliation. But that literally has no bearing on if Trump is on there too. That's just you choosing to believe Trump is helpless rather than complicit, and yeah, we will never know for sure. I think complicit is more straightforward myself than "was friends with Epstein for a decade, but was never involved in anything despite having apparent knowledge of it".
And yeah, he cut ties with Epstein. By that logic, there really is no list because anyone with an ounce of brainpower would do the same, guilty or innocent.

Trump didn't win on "I will release the Epstein files", he won on the economy, the #1 issue for voters. He literally could have not said anything about Epstein and still would have won.

Sure Trump could be on the list, but it still doesn't line up with his actions. He did not have to campaign on releasing the Epstein files, and he did deliver the JFK files among other government coverups (that already made him a 10 times better candidate than Kamala).

If Trump knew he was on the Epstein files and going through this path would implicate him he simply wouldn't have brought it up. Your claims don't make sense and just assume Trump is dumb and would lie on something so important that could literally dismantle his entire movement.

Admit it, Trump over-promising on something he didn't fully understand the damage it would cause makes far more sense than "Trump knew he was on the Epstein files but lied about releasing them hoping people would forget, oh and if they did not forget and actually pressured him to release them then he's fucked for life", come on.

 

[Sir Tortoise]

Trump didn't win on "I will release the Epstein files", he won on the economy, the #1 issue for voters. He literally could have not said anything about Epstein and still would have won.

Sure Trump could be on the list, but it still doesn't line up with his actions. He did not have to campaign on releasing the Epstein files, and he did deliver the JFK files among other government coverups (that already made him a 10 times better candidate than Kamala).

If Trump knew he was on the Epstein files and going through this path would implicate him he simply wouldn't have brought it up. Your claims don't make sense and just assume Trump is dumb and would lie on something so important that could literally dismantle his entire movement.

Admit it, Trump over-promising on something he didn't fully understand the damage it would cause makes far more sense than "Trump knew he was on the Epstein files but lied about releasing them hoping people would forget, oh and if they did not forget and actually pressured him to release them then he's fucked for life", come on.

Is it really so absurd he thought he could get away with just not releasing them? You are currently defending him for it, I've seen numerous conservatives online claiming it doesn't even matter IF he did absolutely everything, they'll still support him. This is the guy who said he could shoot someone and not lose a voter, he has so many broken promises at this point, he knows he can just say whatever he wants.

 

[Heavy01]

Is it really so absurd he thought he could get away with just not releasing them?

Yes? Do you even understand what you are saying?

"This could set me in jail for life, end my political career, end my children's political and financial careers, I better remain hush about it, no wait I will just say I will do it but then not do it! Muahahaha *twirls mustache*"

????????????????????????

You are deranged about Trump, it is that simple. If he was on the list then he should be executed for all I care, Trump isn't as important to most conservatives as you think, so I really doubt you even speak to any of them. Trump will be dead in 10 years, it's about moving the needle forward, not any candidate.

What you are claiming simply makes absolutely no sense whatsoever to any sane person.

 

[titan_tim]

Hoooooooooly crap! That's a LOT to take in, and even less to bother reading too deeply into. I'll try to get the core root of your evangelizing here. Also please refrain from the constant bible quotes. It's about as meaningless as me quoting the Iliad as if it were truth.

How is the doctrine of substitutionary atonement immoral? The guilt of sin is imputed to Christ and His righteousness is imputed to the believer (2 Cor. 5:21). In doing this, God is both just and justifier (Rom. 3:21-31). He is the one who all sins offend. He has the right to forgive any transgressions committed against him. He may choose to atone for those transgressions against Him. Why is this immoral?

I say that having someone suffer for your crimes is immoral. You say jesus is the one who the sin offends.... not the victims of a murder..... jesus. And he has the ability to forgive it, because it was him that was offended..... not the victims..... He can also choose to atone for the sin.... and not the perpetrator.

Sorry, that's still immoral. Then not only does the transgressor go free, jesus can just forgive the sin. So ZERO accountability for any victims of the crime.

I agree with you. That is injustice. Your hypothetical is not unlike the injustice that occurs for the unborn when they are slain for the sins of their rapist father. Yet our culture has deemed it morally necessary to permit that the child be murdered by the mother while the father lives with minimal consequence to achieve some perverse form of justice. It seems you may be arguing against the Provisionist assertion that salvation occurs after penitence and repentance rather than before penitence and repentance. I agree with the Reformed/Calvinistic assertion that penitence and repentance occurs as a product of salvation rather than salvation being the product of penitence and repentance. One reciprocating the gospel is the result of their regeneration by His Holy Spirit.

So you agree that it's immoral, but you previously tried to use apologetics to twist around jesus doing it for others isn't immoral.

Also, I can tell that you like to shoehorn abortion as an issue, but if you want I can prove to you that you don't think abortion is immoral with a simple hypothetical as well. People here have seen me use it before, and nobody can answer it honestly.

What atoning can a person do when salvation is the work of God and not man? If man can atone for his sins, then Christ was crucified in vain. Does Paul not provide rich doctrinal teaching on this very subject in his letter to the Romans? If you read through Romans 3, you will find that all are guilty, none are righteous, and none seek after God. We are all rebels, enemies, and haters of God before regeneration occurs. This is an assertion of the doctrine of radical corruption, meaning that the very core/root of a person's being has been corrupted by sin. We are all hopelessly bound to death if we must depend on ourselves for atonement and justification before the wrath of a most holy and righteous God. This is not at all immoral on God's part. God is free to have mercy on whom He has mercy (Rom. 9:15). What unrighteousness can there be if God grants the gift of mercy (Rom. 6:23) to some and owed justice to the rest? It would seem strange to treat a gift as a wage as though it were a contractual transaction.

Utter rubbish. Humans can't atone for their crimes because only a god can provide salvation? Remind yourself not to say "I'm sorry" next time you do something wrong. Just tell them "Sorry, I don't need to say that I'm sorry because god will judge me."

Also, what is the standard of morality that you use to determine whether something is moral or immoral?

We've adapted to the times and found ourselves in a situation where we need to do the lest amount of harm to each other while attempting to do as much good as possible. That has guided us through history LOOOOONG before any religion attempted to co-opt the idea of morality. Morality predates any religion.

Just as a side point: It's a little funny to see someone THIS religious on a site about emulation, where 99.99999% of the people here download ROMs which they don't own.

 

[Deleted member 705600]

-Religious discussion-

Ngl, I would recommend you just to not engage. Your arguments are not only not going to get through them, but they will also use the chance to preach to you (Quoting scripture for example)

Generally trying to debate religion is a Sisyphean task because of the rules tied to the belief itself, you both are playing on different fields.

More so with how the Abrahamic god tends to be presented as inherently perfect and incomprehensible in human terms.
Most don't even believe secular morality even makes sense

 

[titan_tim]

Ngl, I would recommend you just to not engage. Your arguments are not only not going to get through them, but they will also use the chance to preach to you (Quoting scripture for example)

Generally trying to debate religion is a Sisyphean task because of the rules tied to the belief itself, you both are playing on different fields.

More so with how the Abrahamic god tends to be presented as inherently perfect and incomprehensible in human terms.
Most don't even believe secular morality even makes sense

With that person specifically, you're without a doubt right. That's the type of person who uses marker to write bible verses all over their car. Even his signature was just more of it.

But I DO really want to give my abortion hypothetical which never fails to make me laugh at the gymnastics they do when presented.

 

[BakerMan]

fucking hell why haven't i unsubbed? i forgot people were so damn passionate about religion and politics

 

[Kei_wo]

**IMPORTANT
It is not a sin to differ in opinion. In truth, it is the very liberty to do so that sets us apart as a free people.
There are those who would see our differences not as marks of strength, but as tools to turn us against one another.

The greater danger lies not in disagreement, but in the division that grows when we forget our common bonds.
The enemy is not our neighbor, but the hand that fans the flames of division, so that we may be too distracted to see its grip upon our freedoms.

Though we may differ in belief, in background, or in creed, we are bound by something far mightier: a shared destiny.

Let us, then, speak with passion, but listen with grace. Let us debate, but never despise. For if we are to preserve our liberty, it shall be through unity of purpose, not uniformity of thought.

With charity for all, and malice toward none, may we strive together — as brothers and sisters — to defend the freedom for which so many have given their last full measure of devotion.

 

[Mythrandir]

Hoooooooooly crap! That's a LOT to take in, and even less to bother reading too deeply into. I'll try to get the core root of your evangelizing here. Also please refrain from the constant bible quotes. It's about as meaningless as me quoting the Iliad as if it were truth.

My contention with your post is that it was a misrepresentation of the doctrine of substitutionary atonement presented in Scripture. I cannot assert a biblically orthodox position that differs from your strawman without citing the Bible. Honestly, I would not have responded if the strawman was not presented. I don't have much problem with anyone disagreeing with the Bible as long as they do not misrepresent it. I have no power to convince you of its truthfulness. I can merely present the gospel as it is presented in Scripture. It's not unlike the parable of the sower in Matt. 13:1-23, Mark 4:1-20, and Luke 8:4-15.

I say that having someone suffer for your crimes is immoral. You say jesus is the one who the sin offends.... not the victims of a murder..... jesus. And he has the ability to forgive it, because it was him that was offended..... not the victims..... He can also choose to atone for the sin.... and not the perpetrator.

Sorry, that's still immoral. Then not only does the transgressor go free, jesus can just forgive the sin. So ZERO accountability for any victims of the crime.

You're conflating the temporal and eternal. Why is eternal mercy necessarily immoral when the unrighteousness has been punished, satisfying justice?

In your view of substitutionary atonement, does the transgressor compel God to suffer punishment in their place? It seems as though that is your position and I'd like to know why you assert that this is the biblically orthodox position. In my studies, this is not the case, and I presented why.

So you agree that it's immoral, but you previously tried to use apologetics to twist around jesus doing it for others isn't immoral.

Yes, I agree that your hypothetical is immoral. It ought to be obvious that you are drawing a false equivalence. A truer equivalence would be that the victim would offer to forgive and atone for the transgression committed against them, without any compulsion from the transgressor. Would that be immoral? If so, who is being immoral; the transgressor or the victim? Apologetics means providing a defense. You are using apologetics to defend your own position. Everyone arguing opposing positions engages in apologetics. This is the nature of argumentation.

Also, I can tell that you like to shoehorn abortion as an issue, but if you want I can prove to you that you don't think abortion is immoral with a simple hypothetical as well. People here have seen me use it before, and nobody can answer it honestly.

I thought it was a useful parallel to your hypothetical regarding the injustice of substitutionary atonement in the temporal sense to show that you may not consistently hold to the assertions of your hypothetical. In both hypotheticals, the one suffering for the transgression is compelled by another to do so. They also present the fallacious idea that the 3rd party can provide propitiation for the iniquities of the transgressor. The referenced articles and Scripture passages already address this. I assumed that reiteration would be redundant.

Utter rubbish. Humans can't atone for their crimes because only a god can provide salvation? Remind yourself not to say "I'm sorry" next time you do something wrong. Just tell them "Sorry, I don't need to say that I'm sorry because god will judge me."

Again, you are conflating the eternal and temporal. The doctrine of substitutionary atonement addresses eternal atonement. Why do you believe that antinomianism is the necessary consequence of my position? Is this not already addressed in Romans 6?

We've adapted to the times and found ourselves in a situation where we need to do the lest amount of harm to each other while attempting to do as much good as possible. That has guided us through history LOOOOONG before any religion attempted to co-opt the idea of morality. Morality predates any religion.

I agree that morality predates any religion. Remember, the Christian assertion is that God always existed and that He defines morality. What is the situation that requires us to do the least amount of harm and do as much good as possible? What do you mean by "harm" and "good"?

 

[Sir Tortoise]

Yes? Do you even understand what you are saying?

"This could set me in jail for life, end my political career, end my children's political and financial careers, I better remain hush about it, no wait I will just say I will do it but then not do it! Muahahaha *twirls mustache*"

????????????????????????

You are deranged about Trump, it is that simple. If he was on the list then he should be executed for all I care, Trump isn't as important to most conservatives as you think, so I really doubt you even speak to any of them. Trump will be dead in 10 years, it's about moving the needle forward, not any candidate.

What you are claiming simply makes absolutely no sense whatsoever to any sane person.

Okay, so, just to reiterate: your argument is that saying that he'd releasing the Epstein files, and then not releasing the Epstein files would end him. That there is no way he could say he was gonna do it for a boost in support and then not do it, the risk is just too high.

... He literally just did all of that, and you're defending him for it. Some conservatives are mad but as usual plenty are willing to turn a blind eye.

In other news, Trump just blatantly lied about the US having a trade deficit with Brazil. It actually has a pretty large trade surplus. He can say whatever he wants that he thinks will appeal to his base, no one will stop him.