Total posts: 5,875
Posted in:
Why stop at 10,000? Why not blame God for every death?
Because then the silliness of his charge becomes obvious. Our sock only enjoys spray painting, not explaining why he spray painted what he did, and enjoys even less, questions that expose his bias and dishonesty.
When you ask questions like that, the hypocrite will just ooze to another can of spraypaint.
Created:
Posted in:
Was it not Nancy who originally opposed the stimulus?
When does reality kick in for democrats? AOC was one of the biggest complainers about the bill, and yet voted for it. Trump voted for the revised bill using a constitutional tool that allows the govt. to reject certain parts of the bill based on spending restrictions.
No democrat will explain how a bill that includes ridiculous pork like gender studies for Pakistan could be a good use of American tax dollars. How can anyone who says they love America be FOR this bill?
But the democrats are lined up at the trough to suck up the massive kickbacks that will come from this bill. Calling most Americans sheep should deeply insult sheep.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Jarrett_Ludolph
I'll make a thread in this gaming Forum. I want to be black. Traditional chess rules.
We may play faster, but the deadline for a move is one day. Longer only if the late player informs the other before the 24 hour time period is up.
New moves suggested by anyone other than you or I will not be discussed by you or I with anyone in this forum till after the game.
Agreed?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Utanity
Your old racism is coming through Willows!
But no matter how hard you try, you cannot deny that what you are doing indicates that you aren't quite sane. How wonderful your life must be that you would create 33 fake accounts just to keep spray painting on Dart! Your compulsion may even be worse than Hari's.
You sided with Hari. That didn't work out. Now you're with Stephen. How do you think that will go?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Barney
Thanks Ragnar!
You go work, I got this.
Created:
Posted in:
Perhaps, but I've seen you start multiple threads with no success. I don't think there's a way to talk sense in these people.
Tell him to start multiple accounts like you. That might work.
I hardly think that would.
You thought it would work for you.
Also, you've ignored that I sent you...
Because I find you too ridiculous to take seriously.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Danielle
I did not give my opinion so far, but no I do not think the same standard should apply for lawyers.
Why?
We have a constitutional right to a lawyer acting in the best legal interest of the accused. The attorney-client privilege encourages clients to make "full and frank" disclosures to their attorneys, who are then better able to provide candid advice and effective legal representation. We have these rights because it is important for the criminally accused to get a fair trial.
But do not these good points all equally apply to the spiritual representation of the accused?
We do not have a right for people (including clergy) to keep secrets just because we really want them to.
But the clergy is keeping secrets for the exact same reason lawyers do so. I'm sorry, I'm having a hard time believing you're being serious.
I agree that people who confess their sins probably recognize those sins were wrong, but they should still be held culpable under the law if applicable.
Why should they not be held culpable if the person across from them is a lawyer??
I completely disagree with your misguided perspective that "known homosexuals should not have unfettered access to children." There is no evidence that gay men molest children at higher rates than heterosexual men.
Rates have nothing to do with it. And gay pedophiles DO molest male children at higher rates than heterosexual men.
The reason gay men get offended by this myth...
You brought up the myth, not me.
Let me know if you want all the citations and links to research disproving the idea that gay men are for some reason inclined to sleep with children.
I did not allow men unfettered access to my daughters growing up. "Rates" had nothing to do with it. Heterosexual men are attracted to females. That was enough to justify the caution. The same principle should apply to homosexual men.
And note we do not keep hetero men away from little girls, although maybe we should...
Lol. Thanks.
...considering the overwhelming majority of children and women who are sexually abused get raped by men they know and are close to.
Not all sexual abuse is rape. Last time I checked, "men" still included homosexual men.
Men are restricted from women's bathrooms because women feel more comfortable having privacy away from the opposite sex. It has nothing to do with rape.
Lol. OK. I need say nothing here. The Political correctness is so incorrect, I don't need to.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
AGAIN, FOR THE SECOND EMBARRASSING TIME...
Why are you always telling us how embarrassed you are? No one cares dee dee. Stop embarrassing yourself it you don't like feeling embarrassed. Does that take rocket science?
I ASKED YOU THIS QUESTION IN MY POST #60:
You dodge my questions, your questions get tossed. Deal with it dodger.
I think you may actually have a lower IQ than Stephen. That would warrant a gold star at least."
Uh, hmmmmm, what was missing in your lame and runaway response?
Your low IQ?
Hmmm, OH YEAH, you did not answer it and instead, you did your little boy runaway non-response instead!
You dodge my questions, your questions get tossed. Deal with it dodger. Your schtick will not save you.
Then you wonder in why you are completely irrelative to this forum, other than to be continually laughed at because of your RUNAWAY MO!
Lol. At least I can spell.
Whats new in your runaway status to questions posed to you, NOTHING! LOL
What's new in your posts? Nothing. Same old schtick. I bet you find yourself entertaining though. You are at least correct that we are continually laughing, though.
Lol! "irrelative" Jesus didn't spell check for you dee dee? Hope the 2 of you haven't fallen out. Who will you take with you to Vegas the next time you go visit prostitutes?
We are laughing again.
Created:
Posted in:
--> @Stephen
But you believe the Gnostic gospels to be heresy don't you.... when it suites you.
Then it must always suit me, coward.
It is actually you who believes ancient books - when it suits you. But cowards are wishy-washy aren't they?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
Well, it does explain the Resurrection
Lol, as godzilla explains plate tectonics, sure. Stop, you're killing me!
Created:
Posted in:
I blocked three of you all on the same day.
Then why are you addressing me when I have not addressed you? You block me and then answer a post I sent to another person? Are you trying to be dumb?
And yes, that is a terrible thing to do. And I am ashamed to have done so, I really am. But do you know what caused me to do that don't you. Elmer?
You don't need to be ashamed of blocking anyone. The tool is there for us to use. But what you should be ashamed of is blocking and then responding to the one you blocked when he posts a thread to someone else.
I don't care if you block me, but if you do, don't then start addressing my posts to other people. That is pathetic. And cowardly. And illogical. And just like you.
Like you I agree that it is cowardly but NOT AGAINTS THE RULES, by all accounts Elmer.
I never said it was against the rules. It's good because it shows how mentally off balanced you are, and how dishonest you are, all without me doing anything.
If you block me, it means you don't want me to talk to you, yet you will seek out and answer a post of mine not addressed to you! Are you sane? And you will later whine that I attacked you.
I have had plenty of reasons to block ignorant pigs and timewasters like you on many occasions, but like YOU I believed it to be a cowardly response. But NOT AGAINST THE RULES, Elmer.
Lol! At least we agree that you're a coward.
So if you do not like the fact that I can respond to you directly but won't afford you the same curtesy, then take it up with moderation. Or simply block me. I won't hold it against you princess.
I won't block you. You aren't significant enough to warrant a block, and also, I'm not a coward. I can respond to you just fine. And burn you just fine.
Any further comments made to me by YOU especially on my own threads I will take as harassment and stalking and will expect them to be treated as such.
Lol!!! You're responding to me even when I'm not posting to you, but if I post to your loser threads that would be harassment?? Hee! Hee! That's hilarious.
I don't care why you blocked me. You aren't that important. But if you thought that your lame threads with their lame topics would escape the harsh spotlight of logic, you were mistaken. I am surprised that you could feel shame tho. I guess you aren't as far gone as dee dee.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
Hahahahahaaaa!
I see you aren't restricted to science links doing your thinking for you. Funny.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
OMG, thank Jesus that you haven't been BANNED AGAIN because of sexual harassment and other debauchery, whew! Wonders will never cease, eh?
If bannings are wonders, then no, they probably won't cease. You'll see.
Whats this "can I give it a shot quote of yours?
It wasn't addressed to you dee dee.
As usual, not sure of yourself in addressing the Brother D again, whereas your perceived knowledge of the Bible goes severely wanting again? LOL
Like you thinking the CoC covered Jesus? Lol.the
Now, to the topic at hand in this thread, that you rarely truly address, but only muddle up instead with your Satanic Devil speak spin. What do you think of Jesus allowing Lot to bring forth his young daughters to be raped by the men in question?
I think you may actually have a lower IQ than Stephen. That would warrant a gold star at least.
Does this set moral standards that other Christians can follow to make points with Jesus?
You mean other "Christians" like you?
To save you further embarrassment in trying to spin this biblical fact, a simple yes or no would suffice, okay? Then we can go from there if you have the nerve NOT to run away like Tradesecret does ad infinitum, agreed?
Lol, you actually think you can come back to your loser schtick and continue as if nothing happened. I wonder if Landover knows you're lost in the meme?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Jarrett_Ludolph
Sure. The old fashioned way, posting moves and having a real chess board before you.
Created:
Posted in:
Perhaps, but I've seen you start multiple threads with no success. I don't think there's a way to talk sense in these people.
Tell him to start multiple accounts like you. That might work.
I do not have to resort to that kind of deviousness to get my points across. And neither would I stoop to sharing passwords and scripting another members replies.
No, you just stoop to blocking a person then addressing them by answering a post not sent to you. That is cowardly and dishonest jasper.
I notice you didn't attempt to address the questions posed but instead chose to post something entirely irrelevant to the questions not to mention the thread.
You're still noticing what I do though you've blocked me hypocrite? You block me, then answer my posts addressed to another person?
You and Willows deserve each other.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Wagyu
Perhaps, but I've seen you start multiple threads with no success. I don't think there's a way to talk sense in these people.
Tell him to start multiple accounts like you. That might work.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
That is almost 50 percent. It looks like our Creator didn't have a PGE license (Professional God Engineering).
I wonder what God's pre-creation purpose was before it became wet nurse to man?
Has God gotten His PGE license yet from His creation? I just got off in court because the judge had not gotten his PJE license (Professional Judge Engineering) from me!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
My personal view is that many more people will enter Heaven than most atheists think.
Judgement is not my job. I don't know how God will judge individuals, but I do know the greatest chance anyone has of being saved is to be judged by God. Not only does He love them the most, but knows every mitigating factor, and wants them saved more than anyone else.
What about everyone else, who hasn't been or ever was or ever will be, conditioned to accept your version of the Jesus GOD principle.
God doesn't judge us based on our "conditioning". That is just your delusion toying with your mind. But here is what God says about your question in His letter to us...
Rom 1:18 - The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness,
Rom 1:19 - since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them.
Rom 1:20 - For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.
Rom 1:21 - For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened.
Rom 1:22 - Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools
Perhaps we are all saved by our own particular version of things.
Nothing about our "version" saves us.
Act 4:12 - Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to mankind by which we must be saved.”
Salvation is by Jesus Christ, and Him alone.
Tit 3:3 - At one time we too were foolish, disobedient, deceived and enslaved by all kinds of passions and pleasures. We lived in malice and envy, being hated and hating one another.
Tit 3:4 - But when the kindness and love of God our Savior appeared,
Tit 3:5 - he saved us, not because of righteous things we had done, but because of his mercy. He saved us through the washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit,
Tit 3:6 - whom he poured out on us generously through Jesus Christ our Savior
God is the final and supreme judge. It doesn't matter what you think of His rules or His judgement. Your "version" makes no difference. No one has any excuse.
The time to do something about the law is NOW, not when you find yourself in court.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Barney
I guess the oath Dee Dee took to his Landover satire church was more important than I thought.
Will you handle this, or can I gave it a shot?
Created:
-->
@MarkWebberFan
So, what makes Singapore 3rd world?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Castin
@Tradesecret
The point is, you may think you were baptised, and you may think you received The Holy Spirit, but the church has taught since the beginning that these things are not done independently of the church. The fathers of the church did not have the same understanding of ecclessiology that you do.
This the exact same sentiment of the Jehovah Witnesses, Mormons, and Catholics, just change "the church" to mean "their church".
The focus of the true church was, is, and always will be, His Glorious Majesty, King Jesus Christ. Everything else, and I do mean everything else, is subservient and inferior to Him, be they traditions, doctrines, or denominations.
And no man who places his faith in Jesus Christ can possibly be wrong.
Created:
Posted in:
Usually context objections by atheists are so ridiculous, one doesn't need to spend much time refuting them, especially when the atheist knows he's being disingenuous and silly.
And it seems no one took the OP very seriously. What a surprise.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@rosends
The language precision police could find no probable cause.
You have a good day too Rosends.
Created:
Posted in:
I addressed it. You don't like that I addressed it so well, you have no viable comeback.
You didn’t address it as a whole, you nitpicked individual aspects of it.
I addressed and dismembered it.
I have addressed that too. You must read my replies, otherwise, you remain in the dark.
Why are you acting in bad faith?
Your opinion is not fact.
Can you clearly define “precede” please?
I did in post #192. I explained it in depth to you.
Your first phrase above has no verb. Existing is the verb it deletes. Existing everywhere, including time, is not the same as existing "throughout time". Your phrase implies God exists only in time. No wonder you came to the incorrect conclusion that - therefore God does not precede everything.
I told you that God does not exist IN time, as He is the creator of time. He can enter time, but does not need it to exist. Time does flow for God the way it does for men. He is not limited by time in any way.
The "throughout" in your paraphrase, which you incorrectly say is synonymous to "everywhere" in my comment, is limited to time. The "everywhere" in my comment is not limited to time, but includes time. Squint, if that will help you think.
We are creatures trapped in time genius, we have no language for "outside" of time. We are speaking of God, not men, words take meaning from their context. And I told you before your dishonest paraphrase, that God existed outside of time. You have no excuse.
If you cannot understand this, you are not intellectully equipped for thus conversation.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Reece101
I addressed this. Just because you're pretending not to have seen it doesn't make it disappear.
You didn’t address it as a whole. You nitpicked closely related words.
I addressed it. You don't like that I addressed it so well, you have no viable comeback.
Nope. I just want you to use the definition from the context I gave, not your childish idea that words can only have one meaning regardless of context
Can you clearly define it please?
I have addressed that too. You must read my replies, otherwise, you remain in the dark.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@rosends
...his experience is not corroborated by anyone, either as witnesses or those who can offer material support.
Do you have any witnesses and any corroboration?
Of what?
Lol.
I didn't say I corroborated anything.
I didn't claim that you did. I said you cannot.
Of course not capt. O. I wasn't there, and it was 6,000 years ago!
That could be taken either as a specific statement about you, or as a generic statement of the inability of anyone to corroborate that which he was not privy to personally.
It is good that you are willing to admit sloppy writing.
Complex" being liberal code for contradictory.
No, "complex" meaning that I recognize inherent human bias in presenting a perception of fact.
Except you do not recognize that bias in yourself. Typical.
I don't recall saying that,..
That is probably because I said it.
so your response, imputing it to me is inaccurate.
Something tells me you don't know what "impute" means.
Your gifts at language precision are legendary.... in your own mind Rosends. Got a little megalomania to go with that anal retention?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Reece101
If God simultaneously exists throughout time, he does not precede anything. Past, present and future all exist equally. For something to precede, it requires time by definition.
I addressed this. Just because you're pretending not to have seen it doesn't make it disappear.
You would like to change the definition of precede, correct?
Nope. I just want you to use the definition from the context I gave, not your childish idea that words can only have one meaning regardless of context.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Reece101
OK, please tell me what your main argument was.
Created:
Posted in:
Lol!
Putting Trump off topic makes the TDS sufferers have nothing to say.
I'd love to do a test one day to see if there is any topic the TDS sufferers cannot turn to Trump.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Reece101
If I miss anything you say, just point it out to me. But if you dodge my questions, I will give yours similar respect.
Can you please reply to everything and I’ll reply back.
Nope. I will reply to questions and comments that are pertinent. I will not respond to every off the cuff silly little anti-theist pivot that crosses your mind.
I've learned that atheists will ooze to another topic the moment you beat them if you allow it. I am no longer a noob.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
The above is what happens when you allow someone you read online to do your thinking for you. I declined going further with this subject and I continue to believe that was the right decision.
That is an action I chose.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@rosends
I'm not sure what you think "burning" someone is. Based in how I used it growing up, it certainly isn't what you are doing. But since you play fast and loose with language (like conflating "exile" and "voluntary exile") then you will use it however you want.
Lol. If a person was afraid of being found out a murderer, and left under that fear, it wasn't really voluntary. Plus your question had nothing to do with exile, so I said "... after his exile" there was no reason for me to specify the type of exile, and you think so shows you are anal.
In terms of corroboration, you are now claiming that someone who supposedly lived well after an event can corroborate that event because you equate him with the phrase "I am"
No.
(which, by the way, is not an actual statement God made).
Do you have any witnesses and any corroboration?
That is a statement of belief from within your context of belief. You insist that that makes it some sort of fact, but it doesn't. You cannot corroborate an event that happened 1000 years ago.
I didn't say I corroborated anything.
"Complex" being liberal code for contradictory.
No, "complex" meaning that I recognize inherent human bias in presenting a perception of fact.
Except in yourself. Typical.
And in my judgement, toasting you is a good, and highly enjoyable, use of my time.
OK, in the same way, I enjoy pointing out your errors. Cheers!
Yeah, you sound happy. Wait, sorry, you sound voluntarily happy. Wouldn't want to be accused of conflating happy and voluntarily happy by some anal retentive now, would I?
Created:
-->
@MarkWebberFan
Yeah, I hated the lack of free speech...
But loved the good English education huh?
...third world countries (rich and poor)
What's a rich 3rd world country?
Created:
-->
@MarkWebberFan
Was missing Darwin a "shortcoming"?
The concept of free speech was conceived and developed in a non-secular countries. You're a theist in the vein of Willows.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
Only Stephen can see the inconsistency. He has special glasses.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
There are unique and unknown risks to messenger RNA vaccines, including local and systemic inflammatory responses that could lead to autoimmune conditions.
After more research, I don't think inflammatory responses will be a problem.
Glad you got that worked out. Lol.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Reece101
Why don’t you just directly argue against it instead of just taking such a weak stance.
If insisting that you attribute the correct words to me is "weakness" then so be it. Use MY words.
There was no reason for me to call you moronic, everyone could see that you were.
I didn’t say you called me moronic.
I didn't say you did.
Can you please quote me instead of just using your “paraphrase to interpret me.”
I used no paraphrase, I did no interpretation.
I never insult anyone without provocation
Me neither.
Uh-huh. But I'm moronic.
If it was the same you would not have changed it.
Like when you call a human by name? Yeah, people specify meanings with words which have common understandings.
Huh?? Lol.
Refine your own words.
That’s what I did. Did I misquote you anywhere?
You tried to "refine" my words. Don't do that.
I say what I mean and mean what I say.
That’s nice. Same here.
That's why I don't change the meaning of your words.
I simply will not be drawn into having to explain your words.
You don’t have to because I explained them for you.
Don't attribute them to me.
Keep bellyaching, that will not change.
Is that a threat?
Lol!! What? That I will not concede to your silliness?
Then there was even less justification for you to change it, no?
Justification? They mean the same thing.
They do not.
“Throughout time” is just cleaner to understand than “everywhere, including time”
Throughout time is limited to inside of time.
By the way “time” is the key word when it comes to “precede.”
Precede applies to "existing". God is outside of time.
Your first phrase above has no verb. Existing is the verb it deletes. Existing everywhere, including time, is not the same as existing "throughout time". Your phrase implies God exists only in time. No wonder you came to the incorrect conclusion that - therefore God does not precede everything.
God being limited or not limited by time does matter when you use words such as precede.
Nope. God has qualities that change meanings of words used for him.
What are you fighting for?
You should be asking yourself that question. You keep on pivoting to arguments which have already have been resolved.
Untrue. Nothing has been resolved. You want me to accept your silly interpretation. I will not.
To be able to chose words for me?
I am not wanting to choose any words for you.
Thanks, then accept that I did not say "throughout" time.
You’re the one that has an issue with the words I’m using (which have a common meaning by the way).
Your words did not mean what I said. My words did. Use my words.
That will never happen.
Ummmm okay.
Then stop whining about it.
Your paraphrase changes my meaning, as evidenced by your erroneous conclusion.
You meaning of what?
God preceding time.
Use my words
Your only word that’s relevant to the main conversation is “correct.”
All my words are relevant. And I am the one who determines their relevance, not you.
Two things are not synonymous simply because they refer to the same thing.
If you do a quick search, it will show that you’re wrong.
Reece is clueless and ugly. Are "clueless" and "ugly" referring to Reece? Yes. Are "clueless" and "ugly synonymous? No.
You may beg for me to "concede", but you will win concessions through honest logical arguments, not simple insistence that you get to interpret my comments.
Which comments?
I told you that God does not exist IN time, as He is the creator of time. He can enter time, but does not need it to exist. Time does flow for God the way it does for men. He is not limited by time in any way.
Yet you agreed God’s omnipresent (everywhere, including time). Comment #155
Because the "throughout" in your paraphrase, which you say is synonymous to "everywhere in my comment, is limited to time. The "everywhere" in my comment is not limited to time, but includes time. Squint, if that will help you think
In context I was talking about God. The resembles little of what I said. You’re just mashing words together.
Use my words anyway.
We are creatures trapped in time genius, we have no language for "outside" of time.
You can be a theologian and hijack science lingo from actual geniuses. Delve into some quantum mechanics.
What is the science lingo for existing outside of time?
We are speaking of God, not men, words take meaning from their context. And I told you before your dishonest paraphrase, that God existed outside of time. You have no excuse.
You’re the one that hasn’t conceded the word “precede.”
I used the word precede. Words can have more than one meaning, and take their meaning from context. There is nothing for me to concede.
Wow! You're prophesying my argument BEFORE I make it and judging me as acting in bad faith just on your prophesy alone!
Well are you going to give any arguments in that regard?
Nope. It is not relevant here.
Do you ever lose any arguments?
Not many.
You must often debate noobs.
Your comment to FLRW was future tense about something I had not yet done. If my "faith" is bad, it's because I have none for your prophetic powers
Perhaps praying will help you calm down.
Lol!! You militants always broadcast your frustration.
I did not bring up testing, and it has no pertinence here.
How doesn’t it have pertinence?
If it does, please show how. You brought it up. It has no pertinence to my argument.
You thought it was something I might do, fine, but then you went on to convict me on your prophesy alone as if I was already guilty.
Guilty of changing your position when you come to the conclusion God’s unfalsifiable just like that dragon in the garage?
Nope, you said I was going to say God cannot be tested. That was prophesy. The silly dragon thing has been eviscerated. You did not respond to my debunking of it.
The question has nothing to do with the bible.
Though it will lead you to the bible.
Another prophesy? At least wait till your prophesies have come true before you start convicting and preening.
It is atheists always coming to a religion board to tell us they find no valid evidence for God. Asking atheists what evidence they would consider valid is a reasonable question.
The more knowledge humans gain, the less God/gods are involved in our physical lives. God is now an abstract being that would make no sense to a farmer 2000 years ago.
Christian farmers 2,000 years ago is why you are talking about God today. It is a valid question.
You just changed the words again. I never ask militant atheists what would get them to believe in God, because I know nothing will. My question is, "what evidence atheists would consider valid?
For God to convince me to believe in him.
Nope. I said nothing about believing IN Him. It is possible to believe God exists and NOT believe IN Him. Like Satan.
Satan was part of God’s plan. You agreed God’s omniscient, correct?
So? It is still possible to believe God exists and NOT believe IN Him. Stop trying to pivot.
That means God knows everything. Are you going to try to nerf that as well?
No one can see inside your cluttered head Jedthro. I said nothing about believing IN God. It is possible to believe God exists and NOT believe in Him. Like Satan.
Do you detect a contradiction?
No. Easy work can become tedious if there’s enough of it.
Easy work is like sloppy thinking then.
If I miss anything you say, just point it out to me. But if you dodge my questions, I will give yours similar respect.
Same here. :)
Good to know.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Reece101
Quote me, don't put words i n my mouth and then get bent when I point out your error.
You’re not pointing out any errors.
Attributing to me, something I didn't say, is either an error or a lie. I was being generous to you.
If you agreed that you liked torturing animals, and then I told you that’s sadistic. You would then turn around and say ‘I didn’t say it’s sadistic.’
False analogy. Be safe and honest by just quoting me, not using your paraphrase to interpret me.
That’s the level at which this is applicable. It’s moronic.
There was no reason for me to call you moronic, everyone could see that you were. I never insult anyone without provocation.
If it was the same you would not have changed it.
I like refining words just like anyone. They still mean the same thing.
Refine your own words. I say what I mean and mean what I say. I simply will not be drawn into having to explain your words. Keep bellyaching, that will not change.
I did explain what I said. I cannot explain what you said. If you cannot explain what you said then you have a problem don't you?
We’re talking about simple phrases, not multi-page essays.
Then there was even less justification for you to change it, no?
”everywhere, including time” and “throughout time” are substantively the same thing when it comes to time.
Untrue. Your first phrase above has no verb. Existing is the verb it deletes. Existing everywhere, including time, is not the same as existing "throughout time". Your phrase implies God exists only in time. No wonder you came to the incorrect conclusion that - therefore God does not precede everything.
Do I really have to break it down for you? “Everywhere” and “throughout” are close synonyms which essentially mean widespread.
What are you fighting for? To be able to chose words for me? That will never happen. Your paraphrase changes my meaning, as evidenced by your erroneous conclusion. Use my words.
Both phrases referred to time. Either you’re stupid or you don’t know how to concede arguments.
Two things are not synonymous simply because they refer to the same thing. You may beg for me to "concede", but you will win concessions through honest logical arguments, not simple insistence that you get to interpret my comments.
I told you that God does not exist IN time, as He is the creator of time. He can enter time, but does not need it to exist. Time does flow for God the way it does for men. He is not limited by time in any way.
Yet you agreed God’s omnipresent (everywhere, including time).
Because the "throughout" in your paraphrase, which you say is synonymous to "everywhere in my comment, is limited to time. The "everywhere" in my comment is not limited to time, but includes time. Squint, if that will help you think.
By the way, God being limited or not limited by time does matter when you use words such as precede. You have no arguments against that. All you have are pivots.
We are creatures trapped in time genius, we have no language for "outside" of time. We are speaking of God, not men, words take meaning from their context. And I told you before your dishonest paraphrase, that God existed outside of time. You have no excuse.
Wow! You're prophesying my argument BEFORE I make it and judging me as acting in bad faith just on your prophesy alone! Amazing. Do you ever lose any arguments?
You do go back on your words. You are a bad faith actor.
Your comment to FLRW was future tense about something I had not yet done. If my "faith" is bad, it's because I have none for your prophetic powers.
What does the bible say about testing God? You were invoking the bible a while back.
I did not bring up testing, and it has no pertinence here. You thought it was something I might do, fine, but then you went on to convict me on your prophesy alone as if I was already guilty.
Asking atheists what would get them to believe in God, is pretty stupid if you like referring to the bible.
The question has nothing to do with the bible. It is atheists always coming to a religion board to tell us they find no valid evidence for God. Asking atheists what evidence they would consider valid is a reasonable question.
You just changed the words again. I never ask militant atheists what would get them to believe in God, because I know nothing will. My question is, "what evidence atheists would consider valid?" Satan "believes" in God.
I can easily substantively reply to everything you say,....I’m probably not going to comment on everything you type next for practicality sakes....
Do you detect a contradiction?
...though you don’t give me the same courtesy.
If I miss anything you say, just point it out to me. But if you dodge my questions, I will give yours similar respect.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@rosends
If you wish to conflate the two,...
Lol. All I said was, "after his exile". I conflated nothing. You noted that he could return and I agreed and told you many exiles do return. You are kind of petty. But I am glad the quip burned you.
No, his experience is not corroborated by anyone, either as witnesses or those who can offer material support. It is believed by many. Belief is not corroboration.
Moses is corroborated by Jesus who said He was the " I am", and told us Moses wrote of Him. Jesus is the ultimate corroboration. Your opinion is just that, the opinion of another online person with an axe to grind.
History must be touch and go for you.
it is a very complex subject, yes.
"Complex" being liberal code for contradictory.
Sure it does, your bias does not change reality. None-the-less, I don't really care what you do or don't believe. But thanks for sharing your doubt.
Your calling something bias doesn't change the reality of the writing process, but since I am not affected by your labels, I thank you for your unsolicited input, though I think you could find something better to do with your time.
Lol! Keep confirming that you're getting burned. Remember, you first contacted me. And in my judgement, toasting you is a good, and highly enjoyable, use of my time.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
No, it is not a quote from some web site. You can search and see that there is nothing to match it. I am one of the first
One of? Lol. OK.
to prose this and I base it on the research paper, Authoritarianism, Religious Fundamentalism, and the Human Prefrontal Cortex,
Congrats.
which I have talked about before. I believe in the next 100 years there will be a massive shift to Humanism and an abandonment of Religion.
Jesus already told us that.
Created:
Posted in:
I wonder if God feels guilty for not giving Stephen an explanation?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Right, the main stream media never told you how the vaccine came about, and so quickly. Just go take it and stay healthy Z-Man.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@rosends
Sure he could return -- no one forced him to leave...
Sure, and risk punishment for murder. Exile seems proper. Most exiles do not leave under force.
..and, in fact, he does return.
Many exiles do return when conditions change. Being contrary for the sake of being contrary is not profitable Rosends. Make better use of your time.
Seems to me then that if you were correct about his intent, he would have asked for a personal audience.
I assumed (possibly wrongly) that he was trying to find a way to have more widespread corroboration.
You projected your bias.
If he had a personal audience in private then his reportage would be uncorroborated and as trustworthy as Moses'.
Moses is corroborated by billions and trusted by as many. But we will mark you as skeptical.
And? Or do you habitually disbelieve all authors? Or do you cherry pick which ones you will believe?
I have a natural leaning away from blanket belief of an author, yes.
History must be touch and go for you.
If an author claims that what he writes is non-fiction, then I might have a less jaundiced eye, but the biblical text has no clear author nor claim to literal accuracy.
Sure it does, your bias does not change reality. None-the-less, I don't really care what you do or don't believe. But thanks for sharing your doubt.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
I believe that...
Thank you for telling us what you believe, though I doubt its what you believe but rather some quote taken from some website.
If you divulged your belief wanting us to take it as truth, I'm afraid you're going to be disappointed. But it was interesting. Thanks.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@rosends
Just before Moses reentered Egypt after his exile.
I'm not sure "exile" is the proper word. He fled voluntarily.
He could not return. Exile seems proper.
FLRW did not mention corroboration.
He mentioned the act's being done in a public and visible place. I assumed that this is becuase he wanted there to be corroboration.
The story in Exodus suffices. And he now claims he was being sarcastic.
The text is not anonymous, and ancient texts do not have "contemporary versions".
The text is anonymous (at least Exodus is...Deuteronomy sort of has a claimed author). And thank you -- I meant "contemporaneous."
OK. I'm sure you see the relevance to the topic.
And it was roundly ridiculed by atheists. Do you find Jim Baker more credible than Moses?
Nope. But at least one would be visible by others besides the person involved.
Seems to me then that if you were correct about his intent, he would have asked for a personal audience.
If it wasn't witnessed by more than one person or corroborated, how do you know about it?
The same way I know that Harry Potter ran through the column top get to Platform 9 and 3/4. A writer made a claim in print.
And? Or do you habitually disbelieve all authors? Or do you cherry pick which ones you will believe?
It is obvious to me that you'd be in the line to ridicule FLRW's so called valid evidence. And you're supposed to be a theist!
I absolutely would,...
Of course you would. The "evidence" is flimsy.
...but because I'm not looking for proof...
The question was about proof.
...and I know that any claim of proof is doomed, including equally claims using the bible and using a TV show.
Thank you for restating my point. Now we know why smart atheists don't ask for proof, and smarter ones do not offer any.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
What type of evidence would you consider valid for God? I ask every militant atheist that question, they all dodge.
lesions or dodging. Either or.
Created: