Total posts: 3,520
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
So if I can product any post where you admit to being a theist then you will apologize and stop being such a jerk?>>>>>Lets get this correct for you, you clown, I was christened as a baby, I had no say in the matter. This would make me a Christian in anyone's terms and language. But I do not have a religious bone in my body I am not what is called a ' practicing Christian '. I am not religious. I believe the Old Testament to be an historic record of sorts of the Israelites. I believe the Old Testamant to be much more honest and truthful than the New Testamant.The New Testament to my mind is on the surface a collection of ambiguous half stories about a man that believed himself to be the rightful heir to the throne of Jerusalem and had attempted to reunite the" lost" tribes of Israel ie those that had fell away and of which many were now Hellenised in attempt to free 'god's chosen people' from the Roman yoke. He failed miserably and was put to death for crimes against Rome.And all this has been my own personal stance from the day I came to this forum.I have also said many times, I find it impossible to dismiss the bible and many biblical accounts out outright and out of hand, as I have attempted to put across in many of my of my threads. <<<<< CUT OUT AND KEEP.So what that makes me in your own eyes is irrelevant. I personally believe that I fall into the family of atheists. So yes, I am an atheist.You forgot this , Reverend Munchausen:Stephen and Brother who are the only so called religious folk that call post-op trans self-mutilators on this site.And I would like to see you pull a post of mine that has ever once mentioned "trans" - anything.That being said. You are indeed the one to have shown that you have flipped from one gender to another . Each to their own, I say. But your own "sexual deviances" and "sexual experimentations" is something you should keep to yourself and are not really something to be shared freely on a religious forum of the WWW, in my opinion. But you just love sharing such personal information about yourself freely on the WWW that I don't think you would take that advice no matter which quarter it came from.So when you are ready, lets see you produce that evidence.
So just to be clear for EVERYONE. You are prepared to apologize for being such a jerk if I produce evidence from your own mouth that you are a theist.
BTW - despite your so called christening - no one in most Christian circles would admit that makes you a Christian. It certainly would not in my circles. Nor in the mind of MOST protestants. I have never made the error of thinking you are a christian despite your lies that you were a theist.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherD.Thomas
Miss Tradesecret, as a woman shown herewith: https://ibb.co/NFcsLgy that goes directly against Jesus’ words in 1 Timothy 2:12 ,whereas she is not to teach and in being SILENT towards men!YOUR UNGODLY MUMBO JUMBO QUOTE IN POST #257 IN TRYNG TO TAKE AWAY AN ACTUAL PHYSICAL DEATH AS THE BIBLE SO STATES IN MATTHEW 15:4 TO OFFSPRING THAT CURSE THEIR PARENTS: “Nevertheless you also ignore what I present to my congregation - which is that covenantal death is not to be automatically equated with a physical death.”“For God commanded, ‘Honor your father and your mother,’ and, ‘Whoever reviles father or mother must surely die.” (Matthew 15:4)The passage above is relating to these passages herewith:1. “Whoever curses his father or his mother shall be put to death.” (Exodus 21:17)2. "For every one that curseth his father or his mother shall be surely put to death: he hath cursed his father or his mother; his blood shall be upon him.” (Leviticus 20:9)How can your ungodly and comical “covenantal death” proposition be relative to “his blood shall be upon him” at the time in the Leviticus 20:9 passage above? What is your latest grasping for straws "spin" upon this topic in changing Jesus exact words within the scriptures? BEGIN:The actual deaths in the passages shown above, is equal to the actual physical death of a 2nd class women in the following passage with absolutely NO “covenantal death scenario” being possible that you comically try and hang your hat upon: "But if this thing be true, and the tokens of virginity be not found for the damsel: Then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father’s house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die: because she hath wrought folly in Israel, to play the whore in her father’s house: so shalt thou put evil away from among you." (Deut. 22:20-21). Get it Bible fool?You said you don’t disagree with God, nor do you disagree with Jesus who is God, therefore as explicitly shown above, you have to discard your Devil Speak relative to your ungodly notions of "covenantal deaths" verse Jesus' "actual physical deaths" scenarios as shown in Jesus' inspired words within the scriptures, get it Bible doofus!NEXT DUMBFOUNDED OF THE BIBLE 2ND CLASS PSEUDO-CHRISTIAN WOMAN LIKE MISS TRADESECRET WILL BE …?
I love it how you are always trying to excuse me. Are you really that scared of discussing these matters with me - that you hope I will leave and run away. Yet after all of your attempts to suggest I run away - here I am - still waiting for you to have even ONE half decent discussion properly.
Again - I am not a female. I identify as male. Although in my latest profile I have taken male out. I might put it in again one day. It is my profile and I don't have to answer to you for anything I put in there. Having looked at your profile, it seems to me that out of you and me - you are the biggest fake here. A profile that is clearly a joke. Or a lie in any one's language.
Again you seem to be having trouble distinguishing between literal language and genre. That's ok but you do need to go and learn the difference. Literally an idiom. Go and ask Jesus. He will tell you that "must surely die" in Hebrew is an idiom. Translated literally from the Hebrew it is "dying you shall die". Notice the two uses of die. This is one of the text markers that indicate - stop and think about this. Why is this word used twice in two parts of the language in the same context but differently. In the book of Revelation - you rightly disagreed with your literalistic hermeneutic based on the fact the marker in the text indicated it was a vision. Do the same here dear Brother. It will assist in your understanding. In fact go to your concordance. Look up every time must surely die is used. And if you have the skills - look up every verse that this time of language is used - when the one word is used twice within a very short phrase in different ways. If you take the time to do this - then you might learn what the marker in the text is referring to. Or perhaps you could just go to a Hebrew Language commentary, they are often very helpful. Text indicators are helpful especially when you don't know the language.
"His blood shall be upon him". Is this a literal phrase or something else? Will the blood literally be on that person? Or is it talking figuratively? Be careful how you answer. You would not want to be accused of not being literal. Personally, I am of the view that it is figurative not literal. It is talking about guilt, is it not? Shame even.
Hence my usage of covenantal death here is VERY applicable. David committed adultery and murder. Nathan the Prophet did not request physical death for David. the nation did not sentence him to physical death- but he died covenantly - and was raised to life after he repented. Repentance brings new life.
Spin things however you like - but it is pointless. Until you can show us why something need to be taken literally and why others need to be visions or symbolic - then really you have just walked your self out of the discussion.
Do you deny that the family unit is valuable? Are you ever going to answer that question?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherD.Thomas
Miss Tradesecret, as a woman shown herewith: https://ibb.co/NFcsLgy that goes directly against Jesus’ words in 1 Timothy 2:12 whereas she is not to teach and in being SILENT towards men,YOUR EVER SO WEAK POST #256 IN TRYING TO GET OUT OF YOUR EMBARRASSMENT OF USING REVELATION 12!!!: "Yes so what? My point is Brother D Thomas has heard it from Jesus that EVERY WORD in the bible is literal and that we are not supposed to question anything. Hence - whatever is said - whether or not I think it is a vision or narrative or history is irrelevant."YES, it is LITERALLY a VISION that John spoke about in Revelation 12, get it for Christ's sake?!!! Now, once again, wipe the egg from our face!Just accept the FACT that you tried in vain to come up with a woman in heaven to support the FACT that your Bible ignorance does not know that women will NOT be going to heaven. As shown, this includes YOU as a 2nd class woman as shown in your Profile Page link above, and before you comically became an "unknown!" which Jesus and I will address at your continued embarrassing expense! LOLDear, do you teach that women will NOT be going to heaven to your equally Bible inept "hooked" congregation?NEXT PSEUDO-CHRISTIAN WOMAN LIKE MISS TRADESECRET THAT IS GRASPING FOR STRAWS TO "TRY" AND PROVE THEIR UNGODLY POINT WILL BE ...?
I like to quote you in full. That lets people see how lovely you are and kind and TOLERANT.
literally a vision. ???? I love that Brother. Whatever does that mean? Let's apply it to "literally a parable". If a parable talks of killing people - does that make the person telling the parable a murderer? Literally a vision? Does that mean the person seeing the vision - sees what is happening in heaven? LOL! You are so far out of your depth in this topic. But that is ok. At least you and I get to talk about the bible. It would be worse for you if you suddenly left the site and stopped reading the bible.
BTW - there is no such thing as a second class woman. In fact I am not even sure what that is. I am sure you are not suggesting that trans people who identify as females are second class are you? That would be quite a thing for someone who is an atheist pretending to mock Christians. Imagine that. The tolerant atheist who dislikes the intolerant Christian - mocking those with transgender identifiers.
You should be ashamed of yourself. Yet given you are an atheist, I think you are being entirely consistent with your amoral nature. I don't expect you to be ashamed. In fact I doubt you would even know what that word means and why you ought to feel that way.
I do like to talking to you - but sometimes - it is like trying to talk to a child. A tiny little toddler. If only you would see how many feet you continue to thrust into your own mouth with the silliness you express.
I'll wait here for you next attempt to say something intelligible. Waiting.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Do you ACTUALLY think that this is going to goad me into responding and answering your question?I make that four times you have ignored a simply question concerning a verse that you chose to somehow prove a point.Which it didn't and doesn't.Let's give this one last try:So tell us; what to your mind does the verse that you have used actually mean if it is not to be taken literal, Reverend Munchausen?"a great and wonderous sign appeared in Heaven: a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet and a crown of twelve stars on her head". Revelation 12:1
I'm trying to figure out which is more amusing. The fact that you think such goading is going to make me respond to your question or the fact that once again you attempt to pretend that I did not explain to dear Brother?
My point was not the substance of the verse itself - it was the manner in which Brother refuses to acknowledge his hypocrisy in relation to how he interprets the bible. The Brother has on many occasions belittled others for not taking verses which are clearly poetry or symbolic as literal. Indeed Brother emphatically has informed us in prayer with Jesus that EVERY WORD of the bible is to be taken literally.
So I produced a verse - and let it sit there. If taken literally (in the manner that the Brother expects others to take poetry and parables and visions literally) it is clearly a woman in heaven. It PROVES the Brother foolish in anyone's language.
Yet what do you do? Rather than do what people seeking truth do - and seeing my point - you want to turn it into something else. LOL @ your folly.
Now the Brother is saying it is "literally a vision". LOL! Whatever does that mean? Does the literal vision exist in heaven in anyone's mind? LOL! I am sure he has no clue what he is saying. Just like you don't.
NB: the meaning of the verse in this context is relevant only in relation to the interpretational methodology of the Brother. He says every word is literal. If he is correct about literal meanings - then he is incorrect about there being no females in heaven. He can't have it both ways. Oh I am sure he will try and put a spin on it. He always does. But anyone else - if they could be bothered reading this topic will make up their own minds.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
So if I can product any post where you admit to being a theist then you will apologize and stop being such a jerk?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
It sounds like to me that they are.For example, their bible states that most people will burn in hell forever (Matthew 7:13-14)
My position as many people in the church is that most people in history will end up in Heaven and that only a minority of people will end up being judged in Hell. The Book of Revelation tells us that the number of people in Heaven is number without count. Admittedly there are some people who hold to the erroneous view that more people will go to Hell. The passage you refer to in the Sermon on the Mount talks about the many and the few. It is a parable of course - and it was speaking in general terms to those people in Jesus' time and more or less to a time prior to the incarnation. The world's population was much smaller than it is now - and since that time - the numbers of believers have grown exponentially around the world for a significant period of time. My view is that such numbers will continue to grow. Yes, I have seen the numbers in the West suggesting christians are reducing in number. But have you seen the numbers in Africa, and China, and Asia, and South America? Exponential growth is still occurring.
When pointing this out, Christians say, "They deserve to burn in hell if God puts them there"
I think you will find that Christians generally say - that EVERYONE - christian or non-christian deserves judgment from God - for all have sinned and fallen short of his requirements. That's why Jesus is significant. Because he is the only one who did not deserve judgment because he alone did not sin. Since Christians hold to the view that God is good and just - we take the view that since we know the punishment for our sin and do it anyway that - we have no excuse. And we have no defense. Noone forces us to sin - we choose to do it ourselves - knowing full well it will have consequences.
Moreover - you need to flip this upside down to try and understand it better. If Hellfire is the punishment - why is it so severe and harsh? In normal legal systems - the more severe and heavy the punishment - the greater the value of what is being protected. We value life as a rule so someone who takes away someone else's life is given a punishment appropriate to that - which is mitigated only by circumstances and intent. We value the sanctity of the marriage which is why rape, and adultery and other forms of sexual offences are given heavy sentences (at least historically). Incidentally, one way to show marriage is not valued anymore in the west is the fact we don't in many countries have punishment for adultery.
The question you need to ask is what is the offence that deserves the most terrible and awful judgment? And the answer is interestingly, even on most legal books the most serious offence- treason. Go and have a look at the various legal systems around the world. One of the few offences which still carries the death penalty in most cases is treason. Sometimes expressed by attempting to pull down the authority of the king or queen or president. Sometimes expressed in spying to other nations and giving away secrets or attempting to gain secrets. Sometimes expressed by means of desertion within the military. Conspiring against the authority, disregarding the prevailing power. In Thailand - treason is expressed simply saying something negative about the king.
Treason of course is in many respects the most serious offence against the STATE. Murder is against individuals within the state. As is rape. But treason is must more serious in the larger scheme of things in our world today.
I suggest to you that sin - is treason against God. It is the most vile and offensive thing. And we do it knowing the consequences - and still sinning anyway.
This is bootlicking; because God can do something as horrible as burn people in hell forever and the Christians have no problem with it.
Nope. It is not bootlicking. God can do anything he chooses to do. Personally I think the idea of eternal Hell is a metaphor. Judgment is what it is a metaphor of. And as for Christians, I don't know any Christian who wants anyone to burn in Hell. Are there some? Probably. Most of us - do have a problem with Hell even if we don't have a problem with the justice of God. How can I say that? Because we are constantly warning people how they can avoid going to Hell. We don't guild the lily. We don't pretend it is not true. We don't say that one is better than another. All of us deserve God's punishment. We need God's mercy. And his grace. But this is not bootlicking. It is a recognition that even though God does not have too do anything for us - he graciously has. He sent Jesus.
There is not a single crime you can do that is so horrible the just penalty is an eternity in hell. The worst crime you can do (murder) can be punished by hell for only a minute because hell is extremely painful. Rape (possibly the 2nd worst crime you can do) can be punished with 24 seconds in hell and given the painfulness of hell, 24 seconds would be justified. But anyone who is not a murderer or a rapist should not spend one instant in hell without their consent. To disagree and advocate that your typical Joe and Jane deserve to burn in hell forever because the bible says so is bootlicking God, and bootlicking is unamerican.
See above. I reject your assertion that there is no offence that deserves judgment in Hell. The bible clearly indicates there there is an offence and that all of us have broken it. You might not like the rules - that is a different matter altogether. How about you go and create your own world and make the rules. Then you really could make such a silly statement.
Christians also have said, "Just repent and change your ways and God will send you to heaven".However, they should NOT be forced to repent.Lets say someone genuinely hates Joe Biden because of a political disagreement. Now lets say Joe Biden said, "Anyone that hates me should change their ways or else I will jail them the rest of their life and give them white room torture. Keep in mind that I love these people and I give them free will but their options are support me and everything I do or life in jail with white room torture". If Joe Biden said this, it would be incredibly tyrannical and authoritarian and anyone who likes Biden at that point would be a bootlicker.If you happen to dislike Trump, imagine the same scenario as above, except Trump is saying that to a never Trumper. Anyone who likes Trump at that point is a bootlicker to Trump.If you agree with someone torturing someone in hell forever because the prosecuted merely dislikes the person in charge, then you are a bootlicker. Bootlicking is unamerican and anti liberty.
There is a difference between a crime against a person and a crime against the State - even in our world. To say that this does not apply on a larger and more universal manner is arguing from silence. It is not an argument. People cannot be forced to repent. If people were going to be forced to repent - then no one would be in Hell and everyone would be in heaven. But that is not the case, is it? And if it is - then this entire post is redundant.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
So you haven't a clue. And no will be surprised that even with all of your self proclaimed theological education and "scientific methodology" that you claim to apply to scripture, that you fail to answer.
Do you ACTUALLY think that this is going to goad me into responding and answering your question? You must be more naïve than you make out.
As for any of my personal quibbles - you are the only one who cares for them in the manner than you do. And why the adjective creepy is apt for you.
Apart from the one page of matters I threw at you in order for you fill up your little hands, the times I have mentioned personal matters is in response to other people on this forum. Not one of them have ever suggested that my comments to them in context and with a purpose behind them was somehow big-noting myself or promoting myself.
I am quite content with who I am. Your attempt to belittle me is creepy. You are what is known as a stalker - by your conduct. I know you don't have the capacity to actually understand that. And there is no doubt you can rationalize all your creepiness. I hope one day you will wake up and realize how pathetic your remarks are. But honestly I doubt it.
Once a creepy old man, always a creepy old man. Once a stalker and a bully, always one. If perhaps you could actually address any of my questions - pertaining to your nonsense about "lifting verses, then perhaps we could have a dialogue. But not you. Distract and attack is your motto and rather than actually addressing my point - you first suggest I don't have an answer and then bring up what you perceive is a winner. But one thing is certain. You don't address the question - because you can't. And you know it.
I could provide a fuller answer - but there is no need - since you won't read it anyway. If something gets to hard which for you invariably it is - you try to divert attention. Pretty good example of atheistic tactics really. Since they don't have any substantial reasons for their stupidity - the distract and attack.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
I am curious. Is this a callout thread against Stephen and Brother who are the only so called religious folk that call post-op trans self-mutilators on this site. The Brother in fact is quite clear in that he thinks that it is anathema and that they should be banned from this site.
I take the view that both situations ought to be strictly regulated - prohibited - except in situations where it is absolutely necessary to prevent significant harm on people.
There are always exceptions to any rule.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Ok so you take the verse to be literal. When it is clearly not to be taken literally. Which has ALSO been my argument since the day I came to the forum. Examples; "raising the dead" is not to be taken literally as I have explained what I believe it to mean many times. "Making a blind man see" is another example. "Curing a leper" is another as is "water into wine". Bible dunces such as yourself take these verses literally and call them "miracles" performed my a LITERAL "son of god" .I have maintained all along that these were no such thing and that they are simply initiations into different levels of the Jesus movement that he had learned and copied from the Qumran community.
Sorry old chap that is just a silly thing to say. I said I lifted a verse "just like you". I never gave any reason - since you never do. I think some things should be understood narratively or metaphorically. I steer away from the word literal because it is used as a weapon by idiots like you who have no clue what you are talking about.
I can take the view that this verse is from revelation because it is clearly called a vision even by the author. But the other verses and phrased you refer to are not being referred to in the same way. For you to suggest so - requires that you provide the basis for it. A basis apart from - "I don't believe it is possible to be true literally". You NEVER establish anything so helpful. You reject miracles - fine. But that is not a basis for calling these things symbolic. That is just your silly belief system not an argument.
At least look at the language used. What did the author mean by it? You never go there. Are you afraid?
So tell us; what to your mind does the verse that you have used actually mean if it is not to be taken literal, Reverend Munchausen?
No. There is no need for me to do it. I am not claiming anything about it - except it is talking about a woman in heaven. I don't care whether it is true or a vision. For me there is no need to take it any further. Brother twists the bible to make it mean something other than it does - he makes the claim that there is no woman in heaven. Yet this verse clearly says - vision or not - a woman in heaven. He can't deny this verse. He is simply trying to say it is not what it is saying. But only because he was so insistent that other verses meant what he said. That dear Stephen is his problem not mine. The fact is - it proves his to be nothing more than a fraud - which everyone knew anyway.
And you know as I do - that it is not to be taken in a wooden sense - it is symbolic. But so what? Even the symbol has to represent something to have any meaning. We all know that what symbols are for.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherD.Thomas
Miss Tradesecret, as a woman shown herewith: https://ibb.co/NFcsLgy that goes directly against Jesus’ words in 1 Timothy 2:12 whereas she is not to teach and in being SILENT towards men,I forgot to ask you, whereas the people that you allegedly preach too in an ungodly manner, GOD FORBID, or your friends as well, have you ever told them that you believe in offspring that curse their parents should be killed like as shown you did in the following link to you by me herewith: https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/7337-how-do-you-know-the-bible-is-true?page=9&post_number=204I have to admit, your approval shown above, in the name of Jesus, where you say it is okay to kill offspring that curse their parents, is a gutsy call to say the least in the 21st century! WOW!
As I have repeatedly said and as you conveniently continue to run away from and ignore - is that the punishment of any offence demonstrates the seriousness of the offence. Cursing parents is a complete dishonoring of the family unit. It is one of the most serious offences in humanity - because it is attacking one of the basic institutions in society. Now you may take the view that the family unit is not valuable but others do take the view it is absolutely vital to our humanity. Hence - to attack it - deserves the most serious consequences.
Nevertheless you also ignore what I present to my congregation - which is that covenantal death is not to be automatically equated with a physical death. In church, for example, death is understood covenantally by excluding people from Holy Communion. In the family, death is understood covenantally as disinheritance. In the State, death is understood covenantally with a maximum penalty of physical death. In former times - the death sentence was commuted to other things - all which are equal in substance to death although not by physical death. Transportation for instance. Extradition. Expelled out of the nation. Even losing your vote.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherD.Thomas
The said women that you had shown was a VISION, I repeat, a VISION by John in Revelation 12, and NOT a literal woman, GET IT BIBLE FOOL?! Then you have the audacity to state, "who cares if it is not a real woman" is the topic at hand, GET IT?
Yes so what? My point is Brother D Thomas has heard it from Jesus that EVERY WORD in the bible is literal and that we are not supposed to question anything. Hence - whatever is said - whether or not I think it is a vision or narrative or history is irrelevant.
Now of course - you may have changed your mind and now consider that not every word is to be taken literally. Which if it is the case, then we can go back to the question of whether death is supposed to be understood as literal or convenanal?
I am very happy to work with you - And if you could provide the measure of what is supposed to be "literal" as opposed to vision as opposed to symbolic or poetry as opposed to covenantal - that would be helpful.
But until you do provide such a measure - then EVERY WORD according to Brother is literal including this woman in Heaven which contradicts Brother absolutely. And please try and not run away with more of your cowardly responses.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Tradesecret wrote: Yet the Bible says in Revelation 12:1."a great and wonderous sign appeared in Heaven: a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet and a crown of twelve stars on her head".Who should we believe Brother DT who is a fake and a fraud or Jesus? Both can't be right. One must be wrong. Either there are no women in heaven or Revelation 12:1 is incorrectSo this will be a actual woman, with the actual moon at her feet? And twelve stars about her head , will it, bible dunce?So will that be a literal response Stephen or something else?Of course it is a lateral response you clown.So you don't have a clue what that verse is even referring to although the clue is in the verse itself..
Literal or lateral. Hmmm. Not only do you give your own spin on what words mean - but it seems you are quite arbitrary about how they are spelt.
All I have done is what you do. I have lifted a verse from the bible - and used it literally like you. I have as you do - disregarded the context and exposed you and the Brother as frauds. I have not once indicated what it means so your verbal diarrhea will only fall on your face.
Oh and I am not a clown.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherD.Thomas
I don't need to prove you wrong - your words do that without any help.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherD.Thomas
Brother - given you literal stance on things, it seems now you want to show everyone what a hypocrite you are.
There was a woman in heaven - whether metaphorical or literal - who cares? You said there was no woman EVER in heaven.
So whether the woman returns to earth or not is irrelevant unless of course you have a different understanding of ever.
Fact is - you are incorrect.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
So this will be a actual woman, with the actual moon at her feet? And twelve stars about her head , will it, bible dunce?
So will that be a literal response Stephen or something else?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
Actually men converting to Judaism have to be circumcised. This typically happens when a Jewish lady wants to marry a Gentile and the person needs to convert. It is quite common I understand.
It might be interesting to note that one of the fastest growing religions from new converts is Islam. Both males and females choose to get circumcised. So I think the stat of 99% is well over inflated. And needs to be reduced (cut) with pun intended.
Personally, the Christian view is that circumcision is part of the OT law applying to Jews specifically and that upon the arrival of Jesus - was no longer necessary.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherD.Thomas
You say:
I wish I could say that at least you will possibly find happiness in heaven upon your demise, but we both know that NO WOMEN will be in heaven, but only MEN! Praise Jesus' inspired words in proving this fact! https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/7337/post-links/318760
Yet the Bible says in Revelation 12:1.
"a great and wonderous sign appeared in Heaven: a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet and a crown of twelve stars on her head".
Who should we believe Brother DT who is a fake and a fraud or Jesus? Both can't be right. One must be wrong. Either there are no women in heaven or Revelation 12:1 is incorrect.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Nope. You will never find a post of mine saying as such, either.How many times do I have to repeat myself to bible dunces like you!? I believe all the characters in the scriptures existed. I believe Jesus the Jew believed himself to be the rightful heir to the throne of Jerusalem as did his supporters. I believe the so called "miracles" were initiation rites into his following at different levels into his movement.Simply put for a dunce such as yourself, I don't accept the scriptures as they have been "passed on" by the likes of bible clowns just like you for millennia. I have also said many times that I cannot prove my theories, ideas or opinions concerning these unreliable ambiguous scriptures as they have come down to us. But no way have I "rejected" the scriptures outright.Mind how you preach Reverend Munchausen.
That makes no sense. Either it is true or it is not. Will you say it is true or not true. Why do you think the miracles are not true?
And why is it that you somehow have the magic key to determine what is true and not true? That's the question and the one you refuse to answer. So far you only ever tell the bare sketches. But you never explain why - or how do you know? You are such a fraud. No one cares what you believe.
Tell us how do you know that every character exists? How do you know that Jesus believed himself to be the rightful heir to Jerusalem? How do you know the miracles are simply initiation rites?
Saying you can't prove anything is evidence only that you believe in blind faith. An irrational believer - worse than the fundamentalists. How sad? And pathetic?
On one hand you say you haven't rejected the scriptures and on the other hand you deny they are true. Now there is a contradiction of immense proportions. How can you say the bible is true on one hand and yet deny what is obviously in the text? Oh wait - there it is - still waiting.
Created:
-->
@GnosticChristianBishop
Don't make stupid statements without an argument.
Seriously??? Is that what you are going to lead with? You assume and make your own stupid statements. I called you on it by noting it was a leading question. But hey rather than address it - you take the weak way out and suggest it is for me to prove. Funny. It seems to me that you were the one who called God incompetent and stupid. All I did was deny it. HENCE - your assertion has no argument to support it. My comment is simply a refutation. Refutation meaning denial.
"You should not asking leading questions. Questions that assume facts without evidence. God is neither incompetent nor stupid."That statement is a lie, unless you can show competence and intelligence.
I love it. It is not a lie. It is a denial of what you asserted without evidence. You do know what a leading question is, don't you? It is not for me to prove those things. It was your assertion which I denied. Hence - you need to prove that God is incompetent. The burden is on you. Not me.
Ignoring all your false claims about God, by your own standards , lets see if we can chat without you lying all the time.
Hmmm. I have not once told a lie to you. What would be the point of that? I actually hold to the view that it is a good thing to worship God. I actually think that it is worthwhile telling the truth and not lying about God. I also don't see the point of lying about something like this. On the other hand - I do like to refute and then argue against people who state such outlandish lies like the one you told. Primarily because you don't believe it - but are doing it to provoke a fight.
"Humanity chose to rebel against God. That is the essence of it. God meant what he said would happen if humanity rebelled. Humanity chose to rebel and went ahead anyway. God judged the world. Absolutely. And humanity was found guilty and sentenced to death. This GCB is justice."
I like that statement. Very true. And helpful.
You, in your Exsultet hymn, sing of Adam's sin being a happy fault and necessary to God's plan.
No - don't keep repeating a lie and a myth. That is what a strawman argument is. Do you know what a strawman argument is? Please look it up. I am not using an exultist hymn. Nor am I singing of Adam being a happy thing. I take the view that Adam rushed us into sin. He was our champion and he lost. Was it necessary to God's plan? I doubt it. Adam stuffed up. He plunged the world into sin. He was supposed to do the right thing. But he didn't. God might have known what was going to happen. So what? Is God supposed to use the utilitarian view of morality? Hardly. Even if you do. God has his own morality which is much purer than your utilitarian one. I do find it amusing that that is where you go. Utilitarianism. LOL! SO 20th century really.
This is the joke about people trying to say God knew and did it anyway. Or God used evil for his own good. What a monster. Utilitarian morality. The ends justifies the means. You do realize don't you, that utilitarian morality is a very modern form of morality that is so totally flawed that no one EVER admits to thinking it is right - save and except if you are a politician trying to justify your own IMMORAL position.
Try and understand that morality is much broader than the type you are trying to suggest is correct. Try asking real questions like - what makes something right or wrong? Then perhaps you might start to grow in knowledge rather than simply regurgitating the nonsense that you have been doing so far.
You are saying the opposite.Are you correct or is Christianity?Why do you see failure for God in Eden while singing of Eden's success?The Jews who invented your religion call it Original Virtue.Why are you calling good evil?
Do you even consider what you write? The bible is correct. God is correct. Christianity is a religious worldview. It is neither right or wrong. I don't think God failed in any time - or any place. I don't think God failed in the Garden of Eden. I think humanity failed. I don't call good evil. That seems to be something that you in your domain are doing.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Glad you care how I am faring.
I am not a narcissist by the way. But if it makes you feel better if you think I do, that is a matter for you.
How about you address the question? Hmmm - do you even remember the question? You have not addressed it yet? Even though you are one of the most prolific contributors.
I believe the bible to be true - external evidence, internal evidence - logic and reason. and revelation. Those are the basis for my belief.
You reject it is true - because ????? Well because you think you got dealt a bad hand and therefore God is not true. Since if God was true, then you would not have been dealt such a bad hand. Stands to reason. Well for a pom anyway. just like the Ashes eh. Vale Shane Warne.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherD.Thomas
Those walls of mine are holding up pretty well. I didn't even hear you knock. LOL!
Created:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
only say it because at this point you're the only one still interacting with them and they're getting away with a lot because of it. And getting away with it with you is bleeding over into other people.
Fair Call.
I will pull my head in. Thanks for the clarification and for being so brutally honest.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherD.Thomas
: "Ethang might be banned - but as a person and intelligence, he runs rings around both of you."
Brilliant that! Eh. And so true.
Of course you have to say what you did in your quote above, which makes you even the greater Bible fool that you are in worshipping ethang5 in being the King of the Non Sequiturs, and having the biblical Ham curse where he was not to be within this forum in the first place! I have so many of his RUN AWAY posts from me, just like I have with you as well, that it would take days in showing just how Bible ignorant he was, and again, just like you!
No I didn't need to say that at all. But well, it is true. So that it ok. I don't worship Ethang. Only the God of the Bible, the Holy Trinity. Father Son and Holy Spirit.
When ethang5 was in this forum, I am sure that you secretly knew that he might take your place in being the #1 Bible ignorant and stupid fool! Whereas your Bible ignorance is the ONLY thing that you have within this forum to be known for, and at your expense!
Sounds like you miss him. Poor baby.
Miss Tradesecret, you are excused for now by me being the superior man over your lower class in being a woman as factual shown ad infinitum. " But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man. For the man is not of the women; but the woman of the man.” (1Corinthians 11: 3,8)
You do realize people who dismiss others - are usually making up for the size of their diminutive little weeny. In hindsight - that actually makes a lot of sense and brings clarity to why you wish to appear larger than life.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherD.Thomas
YOUR COMICAL RUNAWAY QUOTE AGAIN IN POST #215, LOL!: "I refuse to discuss anything to do with my profile - in its current form, in its past form or in any future form. It is personal not religious."No sh*t Sherlock! Other than your biography stating that you are a woman https://ibb.co/NFcsLgy and being in this forum speaking to men which Jesus' words say you are not to do, but to remain SILENT in Timothy 2:12, the rest of your biography as shown below is EMBARRASSINGLY EMPTY, nada, zilch, zip!
I take it your reading comprehension skills are sadly letting you down. Let me say it again in slow terms - I refuse to discuss anything to do with my profile.
Dear Miss Tradesecret, let us look at your ever so wanting biography as shown in the link herewith: https://ibb.co/3cVmfF5. What we embarrassingly see is the following where some things are religious in nature, to wit:1. Your gender is unknown. HUH? This states that you do not know your gender to begin with, where you do not have the sense to be embarrassed over this fact alone! Before you knew you were a woman as shown herewith https://ibb.co/NFcsLgy and subsequently now you don't know what gender you actually are? Priceless comedy and embarrassment on you part, but what did we expect from you as a woman? LOL!2. Birthday is allegedly January 1, 1969. Hmmm, Stephen takes exception to this being true because of your stepping in the poo on previous posts of yours.3. Country is unknown. Whoops, therefore get a map to see what country you live in, or check your ground mail to see as well, okay?4. Language is unknown. Wait, you write in English, so you don’t know what language you speak? OMG, how embarrassing again.5. Education is unknown. With your ever so weak insipid posts and child like jabberwocky, you should put down “grade-school,” okay? 2+2=4.6. Life’s priority is other. How can a life's priority be called “other?”7. Religion is Christian. No dear, YOUR religion is being a pseudo-christian at best as easily shown throughout your Bible ignorant and pitiful posts!8. Political ideology is Libertarianism. BLASPHEME! Jesus is NOT smiling on your behalf in taking this ungodly ideology!9. Occupation is other. Does the term “other” mean that you are embarrassingly unemployed?10. Income is unknown. Are you to dismayed to tell us, whereas if you followed Jesus' inspired words, your income should be ZERO at the end of the month as Matthew 19:21 so states, READ THE PASSAGE BIBLE FOOL!About me: The best and most beautiful things in the world cannot be seen or even touched - they must be felt with the heart. Helen KellerYour “About me” is not even something about yourself, but you let a quote from Helen Keller define you where you couldn’t do it yourself! WEAK!
Please read my previous comment. Get your mum to help. Or your boyfriend. It doesn't matter who - just get some help.
Miss Tradesecret, may I make a suggestion? Why don't you just put nothing in your biography, and leave it blank, which would be more apropos for you and not be embarrassing for you, agreed?My responses to your comical and weak biography as shown at this time, before you change it to save face, are in part religious in nature, therefore Jesus' words and I can admonish you, understood Bible fool?
a b c d e f g h. Go back to your abc's please.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherD.Thomas
YOUR COMICAL RUNAWAY QUOTE IN POST #215, LOL!: "I refuse to discuss anything to do with my profile - in its current form, in its past form or in any future form. It is personal not religious."FACT: Your biography is relevant to Jesus when it shows you to be a woman herewith; https://ibb.co/NFcsLgy and that you speak within this forum in going against Timothy 2:12, STOP, end of logical facts! 2+2=4. You can sit there and ring your hands, turn blue in the face, bang the wall, throw cloths around your room, yell, hold your breath, but the FACT remains, the above proposition is true that you cannot RUN AWAY from is disgrace, PERIOD!
Not discussing my profile. You can sit there and bluster and blow - all you like. My little house is not going to be blown down. I am not in disgrace. Given the accuser is you - I am hardly going to worry.
Now, what I want you to do to save any further embarrassment in front of the membership, is to enroll into an online English reading comprehension class to help you not remove one foot to insert the other all the time regarding the topic at hand, get it? Yeah, you do! LOL! You're not only the #1 Bible ignorant fool in this forum that I have easily shown, but you are ignorant of understanding reading comprehension of the English language to be able to decipher the facts listed above!
Are you going to ask an actual religious question?
Stand by, because Jesus said in prayer last night is for me to bring up another disturbing topic about your biography, and which is, your gender was a woman first and now it is currently an UNKNOWN!!! Huh? WTF! When this happens, you can just sit upon the sidelines as usual and hold your breath dear and not repsponding, okay? Thank you.
Waiting!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Stephen,you do realise that when you or the Brother continue to go down this line of ad hominin argumentation - it is evidence that you don't have anything to add to the discussion of weight?And you do realise that it is ALWAYS you that takes ALL threads that you struggle with off track. Just like your " good friend" Ethang often did after painting himself into a theological corner.
Well I disagree. Yes sometimes I throw questions out - that are obviously designed to make you rethink your agenda. So you turn it into a personal attack. Although you deny you would ever do that. But as a general rule I try and stay on track when possible. Obviously if people are attacking, I sometimes feel the need to defend. As we all do. Still I could do better. Thanks for the reminder,
]
Ethang might be banned - but as a person and intelligence, he runs rings around both of you.Is that "ad hominin argumentation" , Reverend?
Yes.
Me, I am happy to talk about proper matters.Such as religion and the bible, Reverend Munchausen? On a forum to discuss religion and the bible? I have started almost 100 threads wanting to discuss the bible if not more, why do you not check them out and see who it ALWAYS was and still is that disrupted and turned every single one into unnecessary argument with "ad hominin argumentation"?
Yes, you start topics but not to discuss religion - just to present your own agenda. Quite a different matter.
I had only been here a matter of weeks and this is an example of you using "ad hominin argumentation" and your version of discussing "proper matters"Tradesecret wrote: The serpent, satan, whatever - he is the accuser and you follow after him. you are his disciple. From my point of view - he is slime. You know like the stuff we find after a snail has passed by. creepy. disgusting. Ugly. \ #24Would you like more examples of you discussing "proper matters", with me, Reverend Munchausen?
We don't need more examples of your ad hominin attacks. I could just as well produce yours. Except I want to stay on topic. Which often means refuting your faulty understanding of religious ideas.
And you should take real care about what you preach and who it is that you are preaching to, Reverend, It will always come back to haunt you.Colossians 3:25 "For the wrongdoer will be paid back for the wrong he has done, and there is no partiality".
I'm am not in danger dear Stephen. I am quite content for God to do what he wants. I know he will be fair and just - but also full of mercy.
Luke 12:2-3 " whatever you have said in the dark shall be heard in the light". <<<<<<<<<<<< Take good note of that sunshine.You really do need to read your own shite, Reverend.
Again - I am transparent. So please try and get back to the topic so that we can discuss it. Rather than continue on your immature agenda of ad hominin highlights.
Created:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
You should really stop feeding the trolls.
Agreed. But they are so hungry for any conversation it is difficult to say no. It must be hard being so lonely in your ideas. Not you Poly, the trolls.
Thanks for your wisdom.
Created:
-->
@GnosticChristianBishop
""If you want to me to chat with you - then please stop being so antagonistic. Calling my God genocidal is intentionally trying to rile me. ""If female, you would think that being decreed to be of less value than a man, would suffice. No ?Good Christ; what if you are gay?
the problem dear GCB is that you have confessed you are a subjective moralist. This means you cannot in good conscience actually condemn anyone else - for taking a different moral position. It also means that you cannot deny that genocide might actually have a place or misogyny or even homosexuality. While for you in your little narrow minded world you might find it distasteful - you cannot deny with any absolute confidence that there are not proper places that such moralist it appropriate and the wiser and better thing. That dear GCB is the entire rub of your default morality.
In any event, I have indicated that God in the Bible does not discriminate on the basis of sexuality or sex. Yes, God opposes sin. And will judge sin. As well he should. Since he is holy. The fact that you actually think that evil ought to prevail is sadly pathetic.
Created:
-->
@GnosticChristianBishop
Some deny that Noah's flood, myth or not, that it was genocide.
And some intentionally and stupidly take the exact opposite view of what occurred?
Which is always an interesting perspective when they don't believe in objective morals. And won't give an example of when genocide is subjectively ok.
Some do not see Armageddon or the death of hells residence into the lake of fire as genocide either.
Some complain that God never punishes the evil and lets them get off scot free - but then get all teary eyed because God sets a date for it to happen.
Those people are stupidly immoral.The intelligent and moral will think like these.
Yes, people who say one thing and contradict themselves with every ounce of their bodies are stupidly immoral.
The intelligent tend to wait, understand, and then decide whether what they are going to say is really putting a foot into their mouth or not - and then shut up. Others just say whatever comes to mind - no matter how silly it looks or sounds or how inconsistent it it.
Created:
-->
@GnosticChristianBishop
Let me know when you want to chat with me, not at me, and when you stop adoring a genocidal prick of a God.
Ah you want me to stop emulating you. I can do that.
If you want to me to chat with you - then please stop being so antagonistic. Calling my God genocidal is intentionally trying to rile me.
What is good for the goose is the same for the gander.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherD.Thomas
Ethang might be banned - but as a person and intelligence, he runs rings around both of you. This is why you are happy to see the end of him. You were no match and the only way you could save was if he got a permanent ban.
I don't aspire to get banned. Yet if it was a choice between aspiring to be like Ethang or either of you two - there is no competition. He is heads and shoulders above both of you - morally, academically, intellectually, and in a debate. Whatever negative you say about him may or may not be true - but it sure beats you guys.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Stephen,
you do realise that when you or the Brother continue to go down this line of ad hominin argumentation - it is evidence that you don't have anything to add to the discussion of weight? Of course you know. Isn't that why you continue on with your charade?
Me, I am happy to talk about proper matters. Please join in when you wish to as well.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherD.Thomas
QUOTE POST #156 IN MAKING YOU THE BIBLE FOOL AGAIN: "Since you "say" you will only respond to religious in nature posts, then the following is a religious in nature post to you that you are finally to respond too in what Jesus' inspired words say about you being a woman (https://ibb.co/NFcsLgy ), and where you are to directly follow His inspired word herewith: “But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp the authority over man, BUT TO BE IN SILENCE.” (Timothy 2:12)
Actually, it is not a religious matter. It is a matter of whether people believe your silliness or not. I have already denied I am woman. This is not a religious issue. It is one to do with your mental health.
Miss Tradesecret, as shown in my quote post #156, there was absolutely NO ATTEMPT by me showing that the question was a religious one when it rightfully included Timothy 2:12 since you are a woman in your biography https://ibb.co/NFcsLgy and the subsequent ramifications of this FACT in the aftermath, get it ignorant Bible fool?
Well yes, you are a fool. I agree with that. No attempt at a real argument. Yes, again that is true. No attempt to provide any evidence except for a bio that is not and has not been verified as being mine. And honestly, no one cares. I will not comment about that bio anymore.
Tell the membership, what is your next excuse to NOT address the fact that you are NOT a woman, even though your biography specifically shows your gender as a female as shown in the link above?1. Maybe you will use the excuse of "what you factually see in my bio as a female gender, aka, woman, is not true because my biography was hacked by Brother D. Thomas or Steven to change it from my gender as a man to a woman? LOL!2. You were drunk with biblical wine, and when you filled out your bio, you misquoted your gender as a woman instead of a man as you erroneously propose a this time?3. You had a sex change from a woman to a man, and you forgot that you were a man at that time of filling out your biography and used your previous gender as a woman instead?4. You were born as a man, and had "female tendencies" and you just slipped again and put female down as the gender that you wanted to be in your bio instead of a man?Miss Tradesecret, you truthfully make is too easy for Jesus and I to show your outright Bible stupidity and lame excuses upon this topic that you just can't get rid of, other than to show yourself the continued #1 Bible fool and using your unsupported lame EXCUSES to this topic at hand! You provide priceless comical entertainment in this forum at your continued expense!
I am not going to respond to nonsense. Stuff which is personal.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherD.Thomas
1. Miss Tradesecret is a woman in her biography: https://ibb.co/NFcsLgy
I refuse to discuss anything to do with my profile - in its current form, in its past form or in any future form. It is personal not religious.
2. Miss Tradesecret, as one of many comical and unsupported examples, states specifically that she is not a woman: https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/7337-how-do-you-know-the-bible-is-true?page=7&post_number=170
See above.
3. When Miss Tradesecret factually is a woman, as shown in her bio above, then she biblically goes directly against Jesus' Timothy 2:12 when she is within this forum!!!
See above.
Dear Miss Tradesecret, not so to your quote above dear, because your Bible ignorance is showing again, whereas Jesus’ inspired words state: “Pay attention to yourselves! If your brother sins, rebuke him, and if he repents, forgive him,” (Luke 17:3)
Pardon? Please explain what sin I have committed that requires you to rebuke me?
Heads up, YOU have sinned against Jesus’ words because you are a woman as shown, and therefore I am to rebuke you for going against Jesus in Timothy 2:12! Since you haven’t repented yet relative to the Luke passage above, I have to continue to rebuke you for your stated transgression shown above! Get it Bible fool? Do you want to call Jesus a LIAR again relative to the Luke passage? Huh?
Pardon? It is not a sin to be a woman. Or a male. Please show me in the bible where to be either gender is a sin. Jesus is not a liar. He is the truth. The Brother is a liar. I have not gone against Timothy 2:12.
As a closer to your complete Bible stupidity, you couldn’t have said it better yourself when you included in your quote; “forgive those who do not know what they are doing,” whereas YOU DO NOT know what you are doing by continuing to sin against Jesus by being a woman and not following Timothy 2:12! Your weak term when you simply say that you are not a woman does NOT hold water when your bio shows that you are, BEFORE you comically and embarrassingly changed your gender to "unknown," does not cut it whatsoever, understood inept Bible fool?
It is not sinful to be a woman. 1 Tim 2:12 is not relevant in this context. This is not a church. Nor are you a man. I am not a woman. This is not teaching, although you continue to be schooled for the silly thing you are.
Created:
-->
@Stephen
I know that Reverend Munchausen. I am simply saying that for someone that you only claims to be fully trained in the legal field as a DEFENCE layer, you should not ever introduce into your argument something that can and will be used against you. It is you that is the clown. I did say that; "you wouldn't want me to remind you of your own sexual deviance, would you"#73, but what did you do? You not only denied that you were a "sexual deviant" but called me a liar too, thereby leaving the door wide open for me to show you for the liar that you clearly are.I started my reply to you simply because YOU said:You can think whatever you like, entirely up to you. How I respond is up to me. You are the creep who stalks people. I have denied I have ever confessed to any such deviency. How you respond will as always be an attempt to make yourself look good. I personally give you no credit. You are fake and fraud and a liar. Everyone is free to make their own assessments.Tradesecret wrote: I personally experimented with various so called sexual activities when I was younger...... And so I experienced various different manners of sexuality.Stephen will read this and use it against meAnd what was my reply to that? Well here is my reply Reverend Munchausen:
Indeed you have tried to. Hence your digging up of material that is completely immaterial and irrelevent. Yet you produce it as an aha moment. LOL at your complete and utter shamelessness.
Stephen wrote: "Only if you give mean genuine cause to do so, which you often do on a regular basis".#73Well you went right ahead and gave me "genuine reason", when you called me a liar and denied that you were the author of this quote:
don't be so mean to yourself. You were always going to find a reason and call it geniune. the truth has never been a factor for you before - why start now?
Tradesecret wrote: Yeah, Us Indians - and I can say I am Indian because I lived there for a while - have a serious problem with sex. We are deviants - but this is ok - because we are just modeling our goddess. She would be proud of us. I am not proud - but she would.We meet lots of other persons who share our sexual deviancies - it is like going home. All of our brothers are there - and dads and uncles.You didn't take my hint of caution, but in true Ethang5 style, you went at it like a bull at a gate..... just like I expected you to.
no i just hoped that you have some sense and common decency - but obviously by producing this - shows that you ALWAYS go to the bottom to dredge stuff up - no matter what the truth is. I really feel sorry for you. Pity in the most desperate way for you.
Yeah, Us Indians - and I can say I am Indian because I lived there for a while - have a serious problem with sex. We are deviants - but this is ok - because we are just modeling our goddess. She would be proud of us. I am not proud - but she would.We meet lots of other persons who share our sexual deviancies - it is like going home. All of our brothers are there - and dads and uncles.That ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ is you. It has your name on it and your pompous arrogant mug too. It is you, laughing and joking about your deviancy with none other than that good ole' friend of yours Ethang 5, the forum sex pest, he that you told us you aspire to be like. >> "If I could be more like him, I would" . #76Ethang in my view is a decent human being. Perhaps at times he spoke foolishly. Nevertheless you have done the same on many occasions. Some of the things you have said are absolutely crude and disgusting.
So so you keep insisting, but it is no coincidence that he is a sex pest and you are a self confessed sexual deviant is it. YOU REALY NEED TO STOP DIGGING YOUR HOLE, Reverend Munchausen.
Ethang in my view is a decent human being.
Would a decent human being say something as abhorrent as this: "Only sheep or soldiers get killed by jihadists".#144
I had to remind the forum sex pest that some of the "sheep" were of Jesus' fold.
Nevertheless you have done the same on many occasions.
Ok, now I am going to open the door for you. I deny I have ever been so sick and sexually offensive to any one in my life as Ethang 5, and have never spoken of myself as being any kind of perverted or experiencing and practicing "sexual deviancy" as you freely say you are. So when you are ready I am sure the whole of this forum would just love to see your evidence of that accusation that you have leveled against me.
My response to Bones is only about admitting that I have experimented sexually...None of that is a confession of being a pervert.Nope. What you have said is exactly this>> "I personally experimented with various so called sexual activities....".#66You need to look up sexual deviant: here you go>>"Sexual deviance, and what is defined as sexually deviant, is culturally and historically specific. This concept refers to behaviors where individuals seek erotic gratification through means that are considered odd, different, or unacceptable to either most or influential persons in one's community. <<<<<<That Reverend Munchausen, is perversion. That is the "various sexual activities" that you mention to Bones.And this is also YOU >.Yeah, Us Indians - and I can say I am Indian because I lived there for a while - have a serious problem with sex. We are deviants - but this is ok - because we are just modeling our goddess. She would be proud of us. I am not proud - but she would.We meet lots of other persons who share our sexual deviancies - it is like going home. All of our brothers are there - and dads and uncles.https://www.debate.org/forums/religion/topic/4341728/1/#7446963Again - you completely just change what I wrote. I never said I experimented in sexual deviancy.
NOPE!!
Define "various" you idiot. Define "sexual deviancy" and then define perverted. And keep digging.... please😂
I have never said that God tolerates homosexuality. I have said that God is not homophobic.And I have said that god is anti homosexual and anti homosexuals which in todays parlance is - homophobic. But you will insist that god as not.Say whatever you want to .
I think you mean what the BIBLE and shows. I didn't write it, Reverend Munchausen. God, is clearly ANTI homosexuality and ANTI homosexual, and in todays language, that make him clearly homophobic.
Does your own church congregation of "300" that you lead know of your sexual deviant past, Reverend Munchausen? I for one am totally baffled why a god would "choose you" to lead his flock? You would have been stoned to death in his ancient time for your self confessed "abominations", wouldn't you, Reverend Munchausen?I have been absolutely up to front with my flock as you call it.I won't take your word for that.Do I look Iike I care.No you don't. And it appears I had you tagged to a tee, and you have clearly proven my point and opinion. That is why I wrote over page earlier ;Stephen wrote: "The believability of the fantasy for the narcissist seems to be of no consequence. All that seems to count with the narcissist is whether his tall tales about himself helps him rebuild the façade of his greatness while struggling to be relevant. #77
Well on the contrary - you don't prove a point about me. You prove only how desperate and pitiful you are. This doesn't hurt me at all. I know the truth - and for the record I think most people reading it understand the truth as well. But you and people like yourself - Hari for instance and Brother well - the truth has never been part of your language - and it is not about to start any time soon. Calling people names is the best you can do - it's the only way you know how to argue - ad hominin. red herring - strawman. It is shame you never learnt to actually put forward even a half decent argument. I certainly won't be holding my breath for it.
You are not my prosecutor..Correct, I am not, and only your god knows what a real prosecutor would do with your, denials, contradictions, hypocrisy, double standards, outright lies and the ALL of the many bullshite claims you make about yourself.🤣
No prosecutors ACTUALLY attempt to put forward real evidence. something you sadly lack on any front.
Stephen have a nice day.I nearly always do.
Pleased to hear it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
wow! you do have the temerity to acknowledge your mistakes. Way to go.What mistake?
O ok, sorry I actually thought for a moment you might have had some humility. Obviously that was my mistake.
Tradesecret wrote: "Most atheists I know are impractical and airhead. Many end up in prison, for theft and sex related crimes, mostly kiddie crime. Many commit suicide and or are on drugs and alcohol. Not too many get married, or if they do - are on to their 4 or 4th marriage. Many are gay or lesbian. #33I never said MOST atheist's are kiddie criminals.MOSTLY of MOST you idiot!And you are a barefaced backpedalling liar aren't you!?
I have not backpeddled once. And with your responses I have actually had no need too.
I don't tell lies. I admit mistakes when I make them. And regret those things as well.
This is me. Transparent as always. Nothing to hide.
Created:
-->
@GnosticChristianBishop
Adulthood and moral maturity happened.
So are you suggesting that has happened to you? Or are you being metaphorical about the world and its knowledge? A pity Russia, America and China and indeed the entire world has missed this maturation? But you on the other hand -? Wow! A standout in anyone's book.
I don't think I know any but one objective moral tenet, so of course morals are mostly all subjective.
You do realize don't you, that you have now completely refuted all of your arguments? Why is genocide morally wrong? Obviously it is only subjectively not very nice - certainly not always wrong in an objective sense. You can't admit it is not subjectively possible to be right in the right circumstances. Once you admit to this logical inconsistency - nothing else you say matters. It all comes down to a subjective opinion. This culture or the next carries the day. It basically means - Who cares?
I on the other hand do believe in absolute morals. Mind you, I am not reduced to only moral absolutes since I am a covenantalist. I can believe in both - absolute and subjective - it's a question of epistemology. This is the wonderful thing about believing in the Trinity. The one and the many. The absolute and the personal. In fact - it is only the Christian and the ancient Jew - not the modern Jew - who is able to hold to a consistent epistemology in this sense.
I recall at college the difficulty that many lecturers had - trying to balance - the rights of the individual over the many. They could not do it. Similarly in economics. They all could hold either to a market system or to a command system but the mixed economy drove them mad. Their out - was to say it is pragmatic. You will notice of course this is not epistemology but something else.
It flows into every field of life. Law, morals or philosophy, economics, theology, politics, sociology, science, education. It is the eternal fight between ONE GOD and the many. The fight between the individual and the many. It is interestingly the fruit of the two cults at the edges of Christianity, the JW and the Mormons. One focuses on the ONE and the other on the MANY. It is the focal point of law - it is my right to own this gun v it is our right to protect ourselves from gun owners. It is my right to kill this baby v it is our right to make sure that babies have rights.
Friend, you have stumbled into a magnificent discussion. Into a beautiful and rarified area where only the true giants of the world - even know it exists - let alone know how to discuss it. What say you? Where do you stand? Why do you stand there? How do you justify such things in your own mind?
"I haven't seen a genocidal god,"You have not read of the Jesus/ Yahweh genocidal prick?
Hmmm. As I said you stumbled - it was not intentional. Your subjective understanding of God is obviously different to mine. and given your confession that you only hold a subjective view - your interpretation holds no help to me - since I hold to an absolute moral position on God.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherD.Thomas
First things first, since you are in discussion with men within this forum, therefore you go directly against Jesus' command in Timothy 2:12 since you are explicitly shown to be a woman in this link; https://ibb.co/NFcsLgy and where YOU are therefore NOT to usurp the authority, nor teach, but to remain silent when around men within this forum! Your comical and weak refutations pertaining to the FACT that you are not a woman, fall by the wayside in embarrassment.
That link has been changed and denied. I am not a woman. Taking a photograph of my profile page does not make me a woman anyone than taking a photo of your profile makes you a human. Repeating this over and over again is boring. Please stop.
Secondly, We are not in church. Thirdly, Even if we were in church, this command is not for females to be silent per se - it does not prevent singing, praying, nor speaking to their children. It is a command only to those in the higher levels shouting down to the lower levels - thus causing disruption. Since at the time - it was only woman and their children upstairs - and all the men were down with the rest of the men, there was no need to tell the men to stop disrupting.”
Since you don't have the brains to actually understand what proves one thing over another. And since you have no clue about what the bible says. It really is a waste of time responding to you. Yet, again I will repeat this very clearly. We are not in church. This is a forum. The bible does not forbid woman talking on a forum. Also - since I am not a woman - it is irrelevant. And yet even if I was - it still is irrelevant. Your misogyny is your problem not mine.
Whoops, you slipped on your freudian when you inferred to yourself as a woman because you said we are not in church, referring to my easily grilling you on Timothy 2:12, which is not relating to church whatsoever in the first place you ignorant Bible fool! H-E-L-L-O?The passage relating to women being silent in church as you mistakenly proposed is this verse at your embarrassing expense once again: “Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says.” (1 Corinthians 14:34). As shown, your Bible ignorance is without bounds!
Thirdly dear stupid one - wives are to submit to their husbands only. You are not my husband. Unlike you - I am not gay and do not wish to be married to a man. Perhaps you should stop trying to seduce all of us on this website. It is most unbecoming of someone who is a fake and fraud to be doing this.
YOUR QUOTE OF BIBLICAL STUPIDITY ONCE AGAIN: “this command is not for females to be silent per se - it does not prevent singing, praying, nor speaking to their children.”Firstly, you quoted the WRONG passage because of your Bible ignorance and stupidity, then in me schooling you AGAIN, the passage that you should have quoted for pseudo-women like you to be silent in a church was 1 Corinthians 14:34! Therefore, within this said passage as shown above, it explicitly states that women should remain silent, they are NOT TO SPEAK as the law says, period! Therefore, your comical and weak proposition of women allowed to sing or to speak to their children in church is therefore WRONG AGAIN WOMAN Bible doofus!
Duh!
Now, wipe the proverbial egg from your face AGAIN in front of the membership and I will continue in making you the #1 embarrassment of a pseudo-christian WOMAN within this esteemed forum, that if you actually followed Jesus' inspired words in Timothy 2:12, you are NOT even supposed to be in this forum!
Please change your diapers.
Created:
-->
@Stephen
Like I said above, Reverend Munchausen, - for a lawyer you are and absolute diamond for opening the door for the prosecution. You could have left it there but instead you choose to call me a liar. So here you are. This is you proclaiming your own sexual deviancy:
I'm not arguing here as a lawyer you clown. I'm not trying to defend myself. I am not in court. You are not my judge. You are not the prosecutor. I could have left it. But I have no reason to run from your lies. What you write below is not a confession by me. It is not a confession of any sense. You know it. I know it. Harikrish knows it. For you to repeat your misguided lies as fact exposes you for what you are. A fake and a fraud and bully and a creepy old man.
Yeah, Us Indians - and I can say I am Indian because I lived there for a while - have a serious problem with sex. We are deviants - but this is ok - because we are just modeling our goddess. She would be proud of us. I am not proud - but she would.We meet lots of other persons who share our sexual deviancies - it is like going home. All of our brothers are there - and dads and uncles.
That ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ is you. It has your name on it and your pompous arrogant mug too. It is you, laughing and joking about your deviancy with none other than that good ole' friend of yours Ethang 5, the forum sex pest, he that you told us you aspire to be like. >> "If I could be more like him, I would" . #76
Ethang in my view is a decent human being. Perhaps at times he spoke foolishly. Nevertheless you have done the same on many occasions. Some of the things you have said are absolutely crude and disgusting.
My response to Bones is only about admitting that I have experimented sexually...None of that is a confession of being a pervert.Nope. What you have said is exactly this>> "I personally experimented with various so called sexual activities....".#66You need to look up sexual deviant: here you go>>"Sexual deviance, and what is defined as sexually deviant, is culturally and historically specific. This concept refers to behaviors where individuals seek erotic gratification through means that are considered odd, different, or unacceptable to either most or influential persons in one's community. <<<<<<That Reverend Munchausen, is perversion. That is the "various sexual activities" that you mention to Bones.
Again - you completely just change what I wrote. I never said I experimented in sexual deviancy. Even the words here you quote me to Bones uses the word "activities". Your spin - and your need to spin is wholly on you. I deny I experimented in deviant ways. And you cannot find anywhere in this forum or the other one which is a confession admitted by me to any such thing.
So you chew on that before calling me a liar my lawyer friend!
Nothing to chew on. You assert and define words that I don't even use. You are the proverbial creepy old man here. And a liar to boot. So many times you get proven wrong. Yet your arrogance won't even admit it. LOL!
I have never said that God tolerates homosexuality. I have said that God is not homophobic.And I have said that god is anti homosexual and anti homosexuals which in todays parlance is - homophobic. But you will insist that god as not.
Say whatever you want to say - but please don't add to my words or change the meaning of my words or what I say. It only reveals your silliness and desperation.
I have no reason to backpeddle. So I don't
Does your own church congregation of "300" that you lead know of your sexual deviant past, Reverend Munchausen? I for one am totally baffled why a god would "choose you" to lead his flock? You would have been stoned to death in his ancient time for your self confessed "abominations", wouldn't you, Reverend Munchausen?I have been absolutely up to front with my flock as you call it.I won't take your word for that.
Do I look Iike I care what you believe or not believe?
The rest is not worth responding to. Stephen have a nice day.
Created:
-->
@GnosticChristianBishop
"Mercy and Grace that is meted out by God The Saviour of the World. "What kind of incompetent and stupid God would have to condemn his own creation and then have to die, Not that God can fucking die, right, to remove his own condemnation?Do you really believe such utter stupidity?
Absolutely do I believe in justice. And absolutely do I believe that God grants grace and mercy. Who would be stupid enough not believe such things?
You should not asking leading questions. Questions that assume facts without evidence. God is neither incompetent nor stupid. You can read as well as the next person - so read the Genesis account again.
Humanity chose to rebel against God. That is the essence of it. God meant what he said would happen if humanity rebelled. Humanity chose to rebel and went ahead anyway. God judged the world. Absolutely. And humanity was found guilty and sentenced to death. This GCB is justice. It is neither incompetent nor stupid to be just. For God not to carry out such a consequence would have made him a liar, untrustworthy, weak, and foolish, not to mention incompetent as well.
Mercy and grace - are not opposites of justice. In every legal system in the world - well apart from your own mind methinks - mercy and grace are used to mitigate against a so called harshness of the justice system. Interestingly, only the Common Law jurisdictions have an underlying epistemology for this aspect. One that comes from the biblical understanding of justice and mercy. See Blackstone's wonderful commentary on it.
Grace and Mercy are the means by which the holiness of God can be satisfied.
Oh and yes, the alternative to this crazy and bewildering truth is what? We live and we die. Give me the Christian foolishness anyday. Your alternative has nothing. It has no truth. It has no hope. It has no basis. Why would anyone want to go with that?
Created:
-->
@Bones
Also I feel like we are talking in circles. Would you be interested in arranging a time to call and chat about this (discord, google hangouts maybe). Despite my critical tone, there's no shade towards you from my end. Just interested in a discussion.
Bones, that is probably the most interesting question anyone has posed to me on this forum. Thank you - let me think about it. I am not normally in the habit of actually contacting or speaking to people in private on the internet. Yet I have enjoyed (mostly) our conversations.
I am not even sure how to go about it if I agree. Would you please PM me? thanks again.
Created:
-->
@Stephen
I personally experimented with various so called sexual activities when I was younger...... And so I experienced various different manners of sexuality. Stephen will read this and use it against meOnly if you give mean genuine cause to do so, which you often do on a regular basis. Your own self confessed sexual deviancy is of no concern to me otherwise. I have told you, for a defence lawyer that you claim to be, you are an absolute diamond at opening the door for the prosecution.And you have spoken of your sexual deviancy and perversion before now. But I am sure you won't want reminding.... will you? Is it any wonder that you recoil at the biblical verse concerning gods "abhorrence" of homosexuality. It is a great dilemma for you I should imagine. I am not surprised you attempt to water it down given that homosexuality according to the bible warrants the death penalty.
I have never confessed to being a sexual pervert no matter what lies you like to make. None of those posts from the other forum are a confession of me at all. You know it and I know it, and everyone else does. That you even refer to it is - well shows the size of your character.
My response to Bones is only about admitting that I have experimented sexually. None of that is a confession of being a pervert. For you to even try and to draw a connection AGAIN speaks to your petty little mind. Not to me or to anything I have said or admitted. You have no morals. Yet you do have a presence on this site which is I have responded.
You take great delight in what you see as my faults. Stephen read my words - I have never suggested I am perfect. I have never suggested I have not made stupid and foolish mistakes. I have admitted I have regrets and that there are things I could take back. That is me. I am me. So what?
Unlike you - I don't need to belittle you to make myself feel good. You can do that all by yourself and I don't need to draw this to anyone's attention. Unlike you I don't find fun at other people's expense - although at times I do strike at you - with quite a bit of success - but that's easy with you. I shouldn't but I have and probably will in the future.
I don't water down the Bible. I happen to believe that the death penalty in the bible is primarily a covenantal punishment and is the maximum penalty. Even our Jewish rosends has agreed with this assessment. Blackstone's commentary is where I got the idea from. I don't particularly care that you don't have the breadth of reading to know this. I know it suits you to think the bible is homophobic. I can't change that bias you have - but it does not mean I have to change my views.
I have never said that God tolerates homosexuality. I have said that God is not homophobic. I know for you that seems to be a contradiction which is why I tried to explain the difference in definitions that people use for homophobia. Of course you rejected that difference of definition. I didn't expect anything other from you - since you have your own agenda. I note you deny you have one - an agenda. but you do. It is probably subconscious. Yet it is there. Clear as a bell.
Leviticus 20:13King James Version13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.
Do you notice those words "surely be put to death" Go and get your Hebrew bible. "dying you shall die" is the literal wooden translation. I know you know this. But you just skip over it like it is irrelevant. It is a Jewish idiom. You know this too. Yet you pretend it is nothing. This is why I consider your words to be of no substance. It is why I know you are a fraud. And a fake. IT goes against your agenda. Your unspoken agenda. The one you deny. You want to pretend you have some kind of unique take on the bible - the Secret Gospel of Mark - won't do it though. You need more than that squire. You need to do your homework and actually respond to my comments - with a substantial response. But in all the time on this site - you have never done that. You throw out ad hominin comments. And then you deny it.
Does your own church congregation of "300" that you lead know of your sexual deviant past, Reverend Munchausen? I for one am totally baffled why a god would "choose you" to lead his flock? You would have been stoned to death in his ancient time for your self confessed "abominations", wouldn't you, Reverend Munchausen?
I have been absolutely up to front with my flock as you call it. Nevertheless, I am not a sexual deviant. God works in mysterious ways - he calls those who are weak not the strong. I am certainly weak and of little understanding. This is my place and I know it. I don't have tickets on myself unlike you. I am lowly and weak of spirit. This is why it baffles you. And why it will always baffle you. Because God has told you why - but there will no need for him to tell you again.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherD.Thomas
To your dismay, I am sorry, but in prayer with Jesus last night He told me to forget about only posting one question or refutation to you at a time, whereas He told me to go full throttle and post many biblically vouchsafed propositions to you at one time at your obvious biblical expense. In simpler terms for you to maybe understand, He wants to get your pseudo-christian presence addressed in a quicker manner. Sorry. :(
You were not praying to Jesus last night. Again you demonstrate you are fake. And a fraud. Just like your persona on your profile page. Fake fake fake. You are more fake than Donald Trump. Jesus would have told you to be full of grace - mercy and to "forgive those who do not know what they are doing". Why is it that people like you always post part of the bible but never the whole. Why is only the bits you think suck - rather than the other bits? Hmmm.
If you can't handle the above situation, and if you cry about this new action of mine in following Jesus' request, notwithstanding, whimpering to the moderators, then I will conclude that you forfeit your total Biblical ignorance to me forthwith! Thank you dear.
Not crying, just think you are being childish. You don't like the fact that I ACTUALLY want to have a discussion with you. You would rather have a pissing contest. that's not discussion. That's just childish. We don't need another Stephen. You don't have to be as immature as him. I think your persona actually betrays you more than you think. But that is a matter for you to reveal. not for me to speculate on again. I ought not to have done that in the past. Bad habits don't necessarily stop easily. For my remarks in relation to any part of your past I life - I am regretful for and apologize to you for. I will endeavor to restrain myself from doing so in the future. no promises - but I will try my best.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherD.Thomas
YOUR CALLING CARD OF ACCUSATIONS TO RUN AWAY FROM THE TRUTH: “I have asked you to stop referring to it, again your tendency is towards bullying and stalking and Attacking when it is in fact more pleasant to discuss the religious questions.”Ah yes, to save face in your not addressing your contradicting womanhood status one way or the other, as shown as your gender in your biography as a woman, and the biblically ramification thereof within this forum in Timothy 2:12, you are now having to use once again towards me your excuse #1; bullying, excuse #2 stalking, excuse #3 attacking, as embarrassingly shown in my link of the many excuses you have to use to runaway from questions to you; https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/7337-how-do-you-know-the-bible-is-true?page=6&post_number=147**************** Therefore, when you can’t address the facts above, we are not bullying, nor stalking, nor attacking you, because in your continuous running away from your embarrassing predicament of your biography stating that you are a woman; https://ibb.co/NFcsLgy and then you state that you are not a woman, we therefore have to continue to pursue you to answer the question one way or the other, understood? GET IT BIBLE FOOL? **************Listen up woman, even though you are not under oath, do you think that a prosecution attorney in a trial setting would allow you to not come forth with an explanation to your outright contradictions of said facts shown above, no he would not! What you are essentially doing is to cause reason for the membership to doubt your motivations and credibility in why you have to act in such a manner to RUN AWAY relative to your contradicting state of your womanhood without explanation! 2+2=4!THE NEXT BIBLE WOMAN THAT IS UNDER TIMOTHY 2:12 , AND PSYCHOTICALLY DENIES THEY ARE A WOMAN LIKE MISS TRADESECRET IS DOING AT THIS TIME WILL BE ...?
I can't find a question here that has not been asked and answered before. However to try and avoid your accusation that I am running away I am noting it for the record.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherD.Thomas
I did state biblically a Religious Question to you relating to the ramifications of you being a woman in your biography relating to Timothy 2:12 as shown herewith: "Barring my alleged fake persona that owns your Bible stupidity outright, you have yet to put this proposition where you say that you are not a woman to rest, and the ramifications thereof pertaining to Timothy 2:12!" Get it Bible runaway fool? Huh? My statement to you was a religious question and you still RAN AWAY from it with blind excuses!
Yes this is true, you did attempt to spin your personal question into a religious one. I chose to see it as personal and so far have not changed my mind.
I notice I also did answer the question - in relation to females being quiet. I indicated and let me repeat - this forum is not a church. It is a forum. Secondly, I stated it was a cultural issue and thirdly, I stated that even if it was commanding females to be silent - I AM NOT A WOMAN. Hence it does not apply to me.
Now I know this won't satisfy you - so I will revert back to my original point - this is a personal question - not a religious one - and your spin attempting to make it so does not change my position.
Why don't we talk about baptism? Much more interesting.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherD.Thomas
I am not a "flitter" as you erroneously propose, to try and save what face you have left within this forum, because I am trying to help you with your mentally challenged modus operandi pertaining to you being a woman as you present yourself within your biography herewith: https://ibb.co/NFcsLgy and of which, your laughable denial saying you are not a woman! Psychotic Alert! ROFLOL! Therefore, you should be thanking me in my attempt to try and take away your #1 runaway status in all aspects within this forum!
Yes you are. You are one of the chief flitters on this site. You hate being cornered into an argument so you distract and you divert and ask a question on another topic.
I am not a woman.
One post, one easy refutation, to try and help your grade-school MO intellect get through your embarrassing times here on this Religion Forum in being a Biblical 2nd class woman, and you being in total denial of this blatant FACT as shown in your biography.
Again, refuted. not that it matters whether I am a woman or not. I would not be ashamed of it if I was. I happen to think woman are pretty cool. And as for your notion that any person could be a second class woman - you still have never addressed what that ACTUALLY means. After all, I have asked you on numerous occasions to let us all know what makes any person a second class woman. Still waiting. I would accuse you of running away. But it's not running so much as it is flittering.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
wow! you do have the temerity to acknowledge your mistakes. Way to go.
when people are in trouble - they will try and find a way to get out. Some go and try God - some do. Some don't. I always say the proof is in the pudding. The fruits will tell the story.
We have Christian people go in and speak to them. But mostly, they won't even talk about God unless it will help them get out. This is AUSTRALIA. Most convicts are ATHEIST.And that was my point you absolute cretin!!! And you also say that "Many ATHEIST are kiddie fiddlers and incarcerated for "Kiddie crime", don't you?
Most people in Aussie prisons reflect the cultural trends. We have some anomalies - such as a high rate of indigenous folk per head of population. This group is followed closely by new Australians, primarily from the latest places of war and terror. I would name nations or continents but would then be accused of racism so will refrain from that line.
In Australia, most people identify as non-religious and atheist, especially those hauled before the justice system. Very rare to have religious people in the courts. The kiddie crime is mainly the domain of people who don't like anyone telling them what to do. They do what they do - because they see themselves as above the law and above the morality of society. If I mention God or the church - the look of disgust on their faces is pretty intense. And this is common. A significant proportion of these are lowly educated - although it is interesting that some of the more sophisticated educated ones are about and increasing in number.
Tradesecret wrote: "Most atheists I know are impractical and airhead. Many end up in prison, for theft and sex related crimes, mostly kiddie crime. Many commit suicide and or are on drugs and alcohol. Not too many get married, or if they do - are on to their 4 or 4th marriage. Many are gay or lesbian. #33So looking at your own stats, what number do you regard as "many" from the "most atheists" that you claim are " drug addled, airhead, lesbian and gay and those you consider to be "kiddie fiddlers"?
Absolutely, most atheists I know are impractical - they like their books - and they speak through their noses. They think they are a cut above everyone else - yet the things they speak about are airheadish. And when I say many end up in court - this means more than a few. It doesn't mean most atheists I know. but many atheists I know. most live for themselves - which is entirely consistent with their worldview. Although inconsistent with their socialistic philosophies.
I don't need to give a number. I say many of those I know. Most of the kiddie crimes I have dealt with over the years have been atheists. I don't know why you seem to marvel at this? I never said all. I never said MOST atheist's are kiddie criminals. I said many I know are airheads. And most of the sex crimes have been atheists. This only reflects the current trends of our society.
Created:
-->
@Stephen
I have no issue with God having omnis. Yet to say he is omni everything goes beyond what the bible says.
I prefer to stick with what we know - not speculate about what we don't know - especially when it comes to pushing a strawman argument.
To say God is omni-everything and then to push against that is weak and clearly straw.
I am not contradicting myself, I have simply drawn a line in the sand - and don't feel the need to shore up other's arguments.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
the Bible is from God and worthy of being read by itself without the distortion of othersSo can it be taken literally then?Are you asking me to explain this again?Not that you have explained this to me before but yes, I am asking you a simple yes or no question.If we are using the word "literal" it is used in contrast to the allegorical or mystical point of view. In other words, do we take the words that are written at face value - v a mystical understanding of them.Ok so that will be no then ? "Allegorical or mystical " Although you are quick to tell us that:Tradescret wrote: Well, I for one, do not believe that the bible is ambiguous at all. It is clear. Crystal clear in fact.The authors in the bible are pretty clear about what they want to communicate.Do you not see what a complete and utter contradictory clown you are Reverend Munchausen?Face Value does not mean without context, understanding who the author is, who he is writing to, the purpose or occasion of why they are writing, the type of genre being used.So then the answer again is no, the bible is not to be taken literally. Something I have been saying since the day I came to the forum.so the Bible is written clearly ( for the most part). It is not a mystical book per se.You just want it both fkn ways. Particularly when your on the backfoot.It is not a mystical bookYet Jesus speaks of teaching the "mysteries" often. Speaks in parables and often does things in secret."He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given.".Matthew 13:11This implies secret teachings, does it not? To a chosen few and not for the uninitiated.So the bible cannot be taken literally, it is full of ambiguity , full enigmatic half stories, full of ambiguous and enigmatic verses and that is something else I have been saying here from day one: And it is not as "crystal clear" as you regularly purport it to be , is it you clown?You just want to jump in and out as its suites you.One day you will say you " I do not ever take the bible literally" and another day you will say the bible is to be taken "both literally and none literally".The fact is that you simply interpret the scriptures as YOU believe them and or been taught to believe them. I, on the other hand am a free thinker, I do the same... but I believe they tell a completely different story to the wonder working prince of peace that you believe and have faith in and which I have laid out many times in most my own threads.You just don't like the fact that I am showing that there could be, or is, another side to the NT and Jesus that you do not recognise, accept or like.Tell me Reverend Munchausen, why have you spent 40 years studying and "memorising" the bible , if it as "crystal clear and unambiguous" as you claim it to be?
Stephen, the bible is clear. Yes, let's say that again. It is not a mystical book. Yes, it a book that needs to be properly read. I think it is to be read literally as against a mystical understanding. Yet there is no LITERAL genre. Words are words, aren't they? You want to add to the words in the Bible with your secret mysticism. Go ahead. But its not relevant to those who see through your charades and smoke and mirrors. Have I explained this to you before? Absolutely. Yet I doubt you read it the first time around - and I doubted you would do it this time. And reading your responses - it seems you really do have a problem understanding what you are reading. You are not a free thinker. You have a copy of the Secret book of Mark and its special mysteries. LOL @ you for thinking you are a free thinker. Not an original thought in your little brain.
My views on the other hand are consistent with millions of people around the world. Anyone with half a brain can find the same conclusions as me, It is not difficult. Yet, if you want to think you are something special and have a mystical understanding - that no one else has - then well Stephen, there you are. Arrogant and a putz all in one thought. A little bit of humility never hurt anyone.
Created: