Total posts: 5,875
-->
@Stephen
....they are not interchangeable words...
They can be.
Nope.
OK. But you know you have a reading comprehension problem right?
And they are not interchangeable words either. They are two distinct words with individual meanings in their own right
Yet the different versions of the bible does interchange them!
Nope.
Lol!! OK.
You are forgetting that your god just loves the aroma of burning flesh;
And yet He stopped Isaac being burned! Weird huh?
That is not the point of the question and you know it.
That wasn't a question. It was a comment.
Stop acting dumb...... if you can
You aren't acting are you?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@skittlez09
Why would his sword come with him? His shoes didn't.
Created:
Posted in:
Therefore if I were to use your logic, we shouldn't allow heterosexuals to raise children because the vast majority of pedophiles are heterosexual.
Are they really? Then those homo pedos are hogging all the limelight, what with the Catholic church, the boys scouts, and what not. Are pedos answering surveys?
Created:
-->
@dustryder
It's quite simple really. Here let me give you an analogy. While Trump may not have been certified as an idiot, and while he may claim he is very very smart, it is quite quite clear he is not.
In my country "idiot" is not an electable office. But I'm beginning to understand better why you post what you do. Did you win? Because its clear you did win.
It's a shame vote counts aren't dismissed quite so easily like you seem to think they are
I want the votes counted. But just the valid ones, not the "obvious" ones.
Which provisions allow for a president to halt vote counting and declare himself the victor? I wasn't aware this was cuba.
He did not halt the vote count. A president in America cannot half the count. But he can petition the court to halt the vote counting process if he believes illegalities have taken place. In your country, is a president able to halt a vote count?
Unluckily for Trump's team, his claims of voter fraud have no credibility
I'm sure he will be broken hearted to hear that you have ruled against his suit.
Nice try, fascist sympathizer.
I don't sympathize with you at all. And when you antifa/BLM guys try this on me in RL, you do it only once.
Created:
None of such atheists ever answer why most of the great men of science were theists. It just goes to show that science has no friction with Christianity.
Created:
Posted in:
Here is an example of context.
Example #1
I love my mother, so for her birthday, I sent her on a vacation and while she was away, I decided I would paint her house blue. She had told me she loves that color. When she returned she was delighted in how her house looked. To see her joy was wonderful!
Example #2
Stefan is a terrible person. Every time we get a new employee he proceeds to paint me in a negative light. For some strange reason, he tries to color the new employees perception of me. When I confront him, he denies that is his intention.
Now look at the underlined words in each paragraph. Color and paint. Do the words mean the same thing in each?
Atheists, hoping to convict God, must pretend that words in the bible can have only one meaning, and that meaning doesn't come from context.
So if, "....proceeds to paint me in a negative light." was in the bible, an atheist like Stephen would insist that the bible says people are painted with light that is negative.
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.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@EtrnlVw
Hi Etrnl!
Another very good post!
How have you been?
Created:
I don't know your bible doctrine, but as far as I'm concerned and I was taught,...
Does the fact that you consider yourself no longer a Christian not make you doubt the correctness of what you were taught?
...obviously Jesus is more important.
Jesus is most important, but Jesus isn't a doctrine. He is a person. Adoption is a doctrine.
I am not familiar with any sorts of promises that the messiah will come through Isaac's line.
That is clear.
Provide doctrine that specifically links Isaac's descendants and the Messiah.
I did. Look at the chapter of Romans I provided.
God also says that all of their children are his, so....
But not all of Abraham's children have the promise. Please read the passage I posted.
...considering how important Jesus is, you'd think there would be a specific mention if that were true.
You think everything should be in a single verse? Really, I'm not interested in teaching you. You as supposed to know the subject you choose to talk about. It is your responsibility, not mine.
I gave you another example, and then you go on about, "atheist musical chairs" or whatever
That was not an example of God telling someone to go kill another person.
That's pretty lose for a genocide,...
Who told you it was genocide?
Okay, I'm sorry, a mass killing, is that better?
Saying God killed someone is neither here no there. Are you trying to imply it was immoral?
Did God not turn Lot's wife into a pillar of salt whenever she looked back? Did he not destroy that city because he couldn't find 10 righteous men (Originally 55 or so)? Did that God not do this to other communities?
Are you just reciting bible history or do you mean to imply something by repeating these stories? If you are just reciting history, OK. But if you mean to imply God acted immorally you will have to do more than just simply repeat what happened.
...then I should not believe your proposition reasonably. So... either explain, or I really have no reason to believe you.
You are mistaken if you think I desire your belief. If your attitude was one of learning, I would teach you, but as of now, you are incapable of learning with your attitude, so I will not waste my time trying to teach you.
He killed them himself, that's even worse, also, the bible recommends that people be like him, so ideally his actions should be the ultimate arbiter of what is right and wrong, his actions there mean that this killing is right. At least according to the bible.
I haven't a clue who you're talking about here, or even what you're talking about. But off the cuff I can say that someone can be a role model even if he has some failings.
You imply that I am illogical, but provide no actual reasoning to support that claim.
You're not stupid or insincere, you just don't know stuff. There may be other Christians willing to hold your hand, but I am not. Two Christians who will gladly go into the details with you are Tradesecret and PGA2.0. Ask them.
I'm sorry, I don't mean to blow you off but this is akin to trying to explain why planes fly to a person who knows nothing about air pressure. And when you try to teach him about air pressure you find out that he must first know about atoms, which he doesn't know about. I have limited time. I cannot hold your hand.
Or go to google and research "the christian doctrine of adoption" and then google, "why was Isaac chosen and Ishmael rejected?" And then get back to me. But since you don't believe, and have renounced Christianity, what does it matter?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
You made a claim. You haven't supported your won claims. It is a baseless claim made only from what only you believe you heard , seen or read. It is a totally unsupported claim.
Why do you think I need to prove it to you?
OK. So if I make a claim any claim about anything are you going to accept my claim without any supporting evidence or proof?
No. But I would not think that you owe me proof. You can give proof if you want, or not give it if you don't want. I've told you I don't really care what you believe. I was answering someone else's question about why I believed something when you barged in demanding "proof" of what I believe. I need offer you no "proof" of why I believe something, and asking for proof of a belief is kinda silly.
How hypocritical. But hypocrisy doesn't effect you bloody minded Christians one bit does it? And neither do your own use of double standards.
Lol.
You was also told that you couldn't use "because the Bible says so". But that didn't stop you telling us that it was verses in the bible to believe it was true. Which, to my own delight, you did by quoting two verses from the bible that tell you us caused you to "find out" it is true
The verses told me what to do in order to find out if the words were true. I did it and found out the bible is true. Had I done it and not found out, I would have concluded the bible is not true. All you need is to read more slowly and take off the bias glasses.
The verse told you !!!!!!!? what to do!!!!!!!!!!!!!? and you did it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!? However did simply words cause you to do that?
That is what language is for. Conveying information.
And
Are you confused? I'm not Tradesecret. Address what I say to me. Address what others say to them.
Here you are right from the Reverends mouth...
I don't know what this has to do with you or me. Stay on topic.
Its all very on topic ethang5 and you have blown your best buddies stupid statements CLEEEEEEEEEAN out of the water.
OK. Now deal with what I said. Or should I quit so you can yell crazily at Tradesecret?
And here again, admitting that "WORDS TOLD YOU" something. that WORDS And that WORDS driected you somwhere
I don't have reading comprehension problems.
Yet here you are, telling us that just 40 words out of the 783,137 in the bible, caused you to "find out" the bible was all true.
Finding out that I got exactly what the words told me I would get if I followed their directions proved to me that they were true.
Calm down
Never been calmer princess. Those capitals are for emphasis only. just so everyone get the message , especially you!
Lol. OK, but if you get any calmer you're going to have a seizure.
Created:
-->
@Theweakeredge
Whom did God tell to go kill another person in the story of Sodom?
Created:
-->
@dustryder
You claim you value the truth. The truth is that you have no evidential basis to support these bogus processes. Hence you do not value truth, because you have ignored it for your own delusion.
I asked you to whom should thus evidence be presented. Trump is in court. The process cannot be called bogus till a court has ruled. The election cannot be over till it has been certified. Kavenaugh is not guilty till he has been convicted in a court of law. I see a pattern with you Democrats. You want to rule on things by your emotions. This is why a BLM thug in the street feels free to assault another person, he has done exactly what you're doing here, made himself judge, jury, and executioner in one fell swoop. Conservatives want the rule of law and due process. We will NEVER submit to fascism.
Correct. The electoral votes determine presidents. The states have decided.
And yet the election has not been certified? No worries, reality has a way of correcting delusion.
Being president elect simply requires an obvious winner in the recent election. There is an obvious winner. It's not Trump.
>>snicker<< This is like that other liberal gem, "Women must be believed when they allege rape!" It's "obvious" my candidate won so, he's president! It just needs to be "obvious". Lol.
No need.
When you win, you can try to abolish the "unneeded" courts.
His suits are getting dropped one by one, which speaks to what evidence he has. Or rather what evidence he hasn't.
None of Trump's cases have been dropped. That is just the fake news media calling the cases of private individuals, " Trump cases". That's why you can't name a single case of Trump that has been dropped.
You claim that candidates have not won until the election is officially is called.
That is the law dusty. It was written before I was born.
You claim that due process should be followed.
Again, the law. In fact, denying anyone due process is illegal.
Declaring himself the winner and asking that vote counting should be halted violates both of those principals.
Then why are there provisions in the law for it?
Such people have no credibility and require evidence to support their claims.
Luckily for Trump's team, your opinion of their credibility is irrelevant. Sit down and let the man have his day in court.
I am waiting to hear your condemnation, you hack.
You will wait a very long time to hear me condemn something good and legal. While you wait, look up the several Governors who have decided that they will not certify their state's results till the lawsuits have all been resolved.
"Being president elect simply requires an obvious winner..." Tell me we don't need civic lessons in school.
Created:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
I don't think that anyone is "Great"......That's the difference between you and I. - Z-man
Jesus is great - Doc Franklin
This is probably the best reply I've ever seen a theist gave to an atheist. That simple 3 letter reply highlights the poverty of the atheist life.
Yes Doc, Jesus is great.
Created:
-->
@Theweakeredge
As compared to any of the new testament? No, it is not important,
It is very important. That's why its mentioned numerous times and expounded on in the NT in several books, and God is called the "God of Abraham". You think its relatively unimportant because you do not know Christian doctrine or bible history.
I did not know this.
Sorry. I meant you did not know it. I told you, so obviously, I knew. It is pertinent to the argument I made, so yes, I did know it. You didn't.
None of the verses in the chapter, nor does the actual verse itself imply anything about a messiah being born through Isaac's line:
Because you don't know Christian doctrine and think verses are independent of each other.
They will both have nations risen in there name, that's all you can get without making assumptions.
Untrue. Gd tells Abraham in the chapter that his seed shall be called through Isaac. And again, the bible is not one verse.
That is not the conclusion you get, as in not the main idea, but it is a conclusion you can get.
Not reasonably or logically.
...there are the way more blatant examples
Then you should have brought those "examples", because this one has failed to live up to the claim that it is an example of God telling someone to kill another.
So because god thought them bad they just were?
A new point. You don't know me yet so I will explain. The atheist tendency to ooze to another point after he loses the previous point I don't entertain. I will not spend my time playing musical " contradictions" with atheists. Make a new thread if you want to introduce a new topic. Or at the very least, concede the old point before you introduce a new one.
That's pretty lose for a genocide,...
Who told you it was genocide?
...and is even looser for some of the god of the old testament, not to mention the salt thing.
?? Something tells me you lack of knowledge of bible history has tripped you up again.
First of all this isn't decreed from god as far as my understanding leads, but a work of Paul and his writings, second the only thing they speak of is being god's children or not, yet later god claims all people who accept him are his children. I find these verses propagating contradictions.
Of course you do. You don't know anything about the Christian doctrine of adoption and inheritance. It is far too tedious to have to teach you all these things in every exchange we have. The problem is not actually your ignorance, but the fact that you think you know when you don't.
Indeed we have, but that was not my point here, my point is that its not out of the realm of believability for god to ask such a thing.
As long as there are uninformed, illogical people in the world, nothing is out of the realm of believability.
Created:
-->
@Stephen
....they are not interchangeable words...
They can be. Which is why some interpretations interchange them.
Nope. This why some bibles simply leave out the other word...
Lol. They leave out the other word because it means the same thing. That is what "interchangeable" means. Reading comprehension Stephen.
And they are not interchangeable words either. They are two distinct words with individual meanings in their own right
Yet the different versions of the bible does interchange them! As I told you, the atheist's practise of thinking that words stop having multiple meaning once they are used in the bible is foolish. Words gain their meaning from context. A sacrifice can be an offering, and an offering can be a sacrifice.
So you are preferring to use the word "offer" when it suites your narrative.
In this context the words mean the same thing. I can use either. So the versions do too.
You are forgetting that your god just loves the aroma of burning flesh;
And yet He stopped Isaac being burned! Weird huh?
Sacrifice him to whom?
To the one asking for the sacrifice .
You mean, offer a sacrifice to the one asking for the sacrifice? Lol!
I do not think the atheist tendency to believe words can have only one meaning in the bible is intelligent.
Well you wouldn't would you,...
No I wouldn't. Its a silly practice. Word meanings change with context.
...especially if it makes you look silly not to mention wrong and to be clutching at straws trying to defend your gods sadistic and torturous indefensible actions.
All this bombast and Isaac didn't die! Imagine how incoherent Stephen would be if someone had been killed! Neither word is wrong. They mean the same thing in this context.
Yes Ethang5, this will be one of your famous - "there are no Americans in Baghdad" - claims.
Reading comprehension issues again? Read more slowly and get back to me.
Created:
-->
@Theweakeredge
DId you completely ignore entire sentences and parts of my refutation?
I don't think I did. I tend to ignore points you make that do not contradict my argument. There is no reason to entertain them. Less clutter. But I thought we had agreed on my main point.
Yes, yes you did, will I respond to this specifically later, indeed, indeed I will.
You are welcome. I appreciate that you don't go (or haven't yet gone) BLM on me. I enjoy your responses.
Created:
-->
@Stephen
Sacrifice him to whom?
....they are not interchangeable words...
They can be. Which is why some interpretations interchange them.
But what about bibles that don't even mention the word offer? But sacrifice alone?
I do not think the atheist tendency to believe words can have only one meaning in the bible is intelligent. A sacrifice can be offered. And a sacrifice can be an offering.
Anyway, Abraham did offer Isaac, and God stopped him after that, showing that what God wanted was the offer, not the death.
Created:
-->
@dustryder
...despite being unable to provide evidence
Provide evidence to whom? The news media? You? Evidence is presented to courts, not random liberals. None-the-less, the allegations are all over the news, that you chose to be obtuse about them does not make them disappear.
Lets stick to reality
Realty is the law that says no one has won till the election is officially called. That is why the Time magazine cover calling Hillery Madam President was a joke. Mass media do not determine presidents.
Calling Biden president elect does not require certification.
Lol! Which is why about a thousand people on twitter are currently calling themselves "president-elect". But BEING president-elect certainly does require certification. At least for now in non-fascist America.
A dishonest person would call for a vote to stop, despite having no evidence. Which is what happened here.
I'll tell President to submit his evidence to you post haste. And alert the legally ignorant court that you have judged the "evidence" nonexistent. The police will have to release all those it arrested for voter fraud, and the courts that have barred vote without signatures have to rescind those decisions.
I have heard no condemnation of this action.
Then you haven't been watching the fake news media. They have been condemning Trump for 4 years!
I'm waiting, you hack.
No need to be angry BLM. If you are right, the courts will throw out Trumps claim AFTER listening to it. (Unlike fascists who want it thrown out without due process) And no one needs to condemn legal actions by Trump, and much less to you.
Trump thinks some illegality went on in the election, it is his legal right to challenge the results in court. In 2,000 it took 35 days. Settle down and get your panties out of a wad. Dart is not a good place to practise BLM thuggery of assaulting people because they hold a different political opinion.
Thank God this is online and you can't burn anything down.
Created:
-->
@Theweakeredge
Wait, so I don't know the bible,
You don't.
for supposedly, not knowing this one specific detail...
It was not supposedly. You did not know.
out of an arguably not very important story (compared to others),
The importance of the Abraham and Isaac story cannot be overstated. I don't wish to make this about what you don't know, but what am I to do when you don't know?
and yet you also didn't know it? So then wouldn't you also not know your bible?
I did know it. You apparently still don't know it.
Not to mention, you're wrong:Genesis 21: 13 "I will make the son of the slave into a nation also, because he is your offspring.”
God's promise was not just that the child would have many offspring, but that the promised Messiah would come through that line.
Genesis 21:12, the verse directly before, God says Abraham should allow Sarah to sack Ishmael, because "In Isaac shall thy seed be called". It is difficult to debate a person who doesn't know what he's talking about, especially if he views it as an insult when he is shown not to know what he's talking about.
...but he also promised that to his slave son, and then they went and become the literal enemies, kinda.
Ishmael did not have the same promise. You are totally unaware of the covenant and what it means. You think the promise was only about having a lot of children.
...my point with this story is that the believers, as small as they were at the time, did not doubt that god would ask for human sacrifices.
OK. I don't think you can reasonably get that conclusion from THIS story, but even if you are correct, (and you aren't) that doesn't show that God Himself would ask for human sacrifice, it only would show that a few thought He would. The historical fact is that Israel was unique at the time among nations of that region in that it did not practise human sacrifice, and had written law that prohibited it.
...please substantiate our claim with a verse or passage as I have.
Read this to better understand the difference between Isaac and Ishmael.
ROM 9:5 ...from them is traced the human ancestry of the Messiah, who is God over all, forever praised! Amen.
Rom 9:6 - It is not as though God’s word had failed. For not all who are descended from Israel are Israel.
Rom 9:7 - Nor because they are his descendants are they all Abraham’s children. On the contrary, “It is through Isaac that your offspring will be reckoned.”
Rom 9:8 - In other words, it is not the children by physical descent who are God’s children, but it is the children of the promise who are regarded as Abraham’s offspring.
Rom 9:11 - Yet, before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad—in order that God’s purpose in election might stand:
Rom 9:12 - not by works but by him who calls—she was told, “The older will serve the younger.”
Rom 9:13 - Just as it is written: “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.”
The Abraham story is vital to God's plan of salvation. I do not believe you are less honest or less intelligent because you didn't know. But the fact that you don't know makes you interpret the story incorrectly. Taking verses out of context always results in error.
Of course I know why he did stop Isaac, because he didn't intend for him to actually kill Isaac there, that's obvious.
We have reached agreement on that one point! Which means that in THIS case, God was not telling someone to go kill another, He was telling someone to offer someone.
I agree that Abraham thought Isaac might die, but knew that God could/would remedy that situation because of what he said to others at the time and what God had promised through Isaac. But God Himself never wanted the death of Isaac. Thus God was not asking for a human sacrifice.
Created:
-->
@ludofl3x
RIght, but that's you adding your opinion to inform the text
No. The text doesn't say that Abraham had two legs. Is it "adding opinion" if I assume he climbed the mountain rather than flew? I'm not using what Abraham might have thought as an explanation for what he did, but as a reaspnable explanation for why he was ready to do what he did.
But is that what happens in the text?
No. Because Isaac didn't die! But Abraham probably believed God would some miraculous method to keep Isaac alive so that His promises would stay true.
He doesn't let him sacrifice the kid, which is what god expressly told him to do. That's what happens,
Yes. The God you say wanted the death of Isaac, stopped the death. AND YOU DON'T KNOW WHY HE DID!
So he either changed his mind about the sacrifice, or was giving a fake command to Abraham,
Interesting that the atheists interpretation only allows for God being inconsistent or a liar.
...or Abraham didn't believe god, or Abraham disobeyed the command.
You cannot say Abraham didn't believe or disobeyed and also say Abraham would have killed Isaac if God had not stopped him. You are undercutting your own argument. Abraham was able to do what he did because He believed in the promises God had made, and believed in the power of God even over death.
That's all the options that are available from the text.
No sir. That is an irrational argument from a biased atheist who does not really know the subject he's speaking about. But as I told you, even God allows atheists to hole contradictory and incoherent beliefs.
Ethan, come on now. This is the verse, Genesis 22:2Then God said, "Take your son, your only son, Isaac, whom you love, and go to the region of Moriah. Sacrifice him there as a burnt offering on one of the mountains I will tell you about."That's what the text says. Not offer:
Wrong. That is what I mean by you don't know what you're talking about. I'm not trying to insult you. You aren't reading from a bible but probably from some atheist website or blog. Watch.
Here is what verse 2 says...and offer him there for a burnt offering upon one of the mountains which I will tell you of. KJV
See, sacrifice is used in the same sense as "offer". What version of the bible did your source use?
Here is what actually happened in the story.
*God asked Abraham to offer his son.
*Abraham offered his son just as God asked.
*That satisfied God and the sacrifice was not needed so God stopped Abraham.
This logical, true to text interpretation does not require the irrationality of an omniscient God " changing His mind" or illogically charging Abraham with disobeying God for doing exactly what God told him to do.
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
I wasn't referring to votes....I was referring to Americans who can think for themselves.
Lol! The democrats did a similar thing, much of their "votes" had no Americans casting them.
And you still want to believe that the election was rigged and that your grey haired idol will continue to entertain the rest of us for another four years.
The sad, though funny, part is, you don't even know you're sheep.
We're all fed information, it's the nature of the beasts
But we're not all fed the same information. We can see whether the information we were fed agrees with, or contradicts reality. When it contradicts reality, conservatives reject it, liberals bend it to their dogma.
Look at us. All you've done is continually make what you apparently think are insults to Trump. No substance. I have been addressing law and policy. I have said nothing personally insulting to Biden. The behavior here on the board of liberals has mirrored the BLM thugs in the streets of democrat cities. Irrationally lash out at anyone who has a different opinion with the stock insults.
I don't need to insult Biden. Logic and the law are on my side.
Created:
-->
@dustryder
You seem to support the hijacking of democracy. That's pretty fascist to me.
Right. You're the one denying due process, pre-judging people, and refusing access to courts but I'm fascist. OK.
No, in my system....
All I can say is thank God America isn't on your fascist system. No wonder you hate Trump. He is as antifascist as one can get.
Did you happen to google "evidence for widespread voter fraud us 2020" while you were at it?
The certification in MI was rescinded. Do you know why? Hispanics in FL voted overwhelmingly for Trump. Do you know why? Kavenaugh was innocent. Do you know why?
...thinking that [certification] will materially change the fact that Biden is president elect in this particular case is delusion.
I said nothing about changing the result. I said election results are not official until certification. That is a fact that doesn't change because Biden calls himself president-elect.
Time is needed to fully see how the votes pan out.
Certification is needed. That is why the vote, no matter how much time passes, is not official till it is certified. Certification is not just a formality, it necessary, and it is the law.
I believe the one who called for vote counting to stop in battleground states...
Any honest person would call for a fraudulent vote to stop. That is why our laws allows for it. And the court did find that the state violated the law, and fake votes were switched back to Trump.
...and declared himself the winner on the 4th was actually Trump. Perhaps you should look into that.
Yet Trump had nothing to do with the buggy dominion software glitches, or the criminal USPS employees who threw out votes, or the county officials who are now refusing to certify the fake results.
The supreme court is going to hear this case. Dust off your liberal argument that conservative justices will vote for Trump. (We know you don't think that liberal judges can be biased.)
Nothing you say here now will change the present facts.
*Biden is not the president-elect.
*Elections are not called by private news companies
*Due process is required by American law.
Trump is within his legal rights and has done nothing wrong. The only ones crying are you liberals.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Castin
To these guys, a ban from the site is horrific. The worst thing that can happen to them. I remember Harikrish begging in a formal letter to the mods to be let back in, and Willows making more than 30 fake alts to break in and spam over and over. To them, access to the site is as desirable as gold. It's no wonder the mods eventually start behaving like they sit on a golden treasure.
But its good you're back posting. Level headed, humorous, objectivity is always in short supply. You have it worse than me. Your objectivity makes you hated by both extremes, theists love me. ; )
Created:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Mr.Trump is great
Which explains TDS.
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
America still has sufficient people who can think for themselves.
Reality: Yep and they got rid of Trump.
Trump is still president and no state election has been called. Reality dies not reside between your ears.
I think that you are are referring to the Old White Guard, who are slowly dying out...More slowly in the U.S. than here in the U.K. perhaps
Trump got huge amounts of minority votes. Do your "old white guards" speak Chinese, Spanish, and Swahili?
I would suggest that species evolution is unstoppable, and it's probably going to be slightly darker and more egalitarian than what you are currently used to.
And as you look to the halal future England has already condemned itself to, I will focus on the reality of today.
And don't forget I'm neither blue nor red nor orange or green....I just sit comfortably on the fence and tell things as I see them.
After a steady diet of BBC, you only think you're on the fence. But that is how fake news propaganda is supposed to work.
Created:
-->
@dustryder
I'm satisfied that anyone who looks at facebook will see it.
But you aren't satisfied with the truth?
That is what the "it" is in my comment.
No one cares hypocrite.
Except apparently you.
You seem to be the one wailing and crying that the courts should be allowed to precede.
Because I'm a non-fascist American who believes in the rule of law through a legal system set up for exactly this purpose.
After all, it's not my money and time that will be wasted.
No, in your system, people must first fit your politics to be worthy of due process. Americans reject your system and are willing to pay for a democratic one.
Sounds like nonsense to me.
I know. Google, "people arrested for vote fraud in 2020" and you will see a lot more "nonsense". Well you won't see it as you have your liberal reality blinders on, but it'll be there anyway.
The reality is he has won the most electoral votes.
Then why do we need elections certified? Are you aware we are talking about the American system here?
Calling him anything but the president elect is delusion.
Biden then wasted time and money. He should have just called himself the president elect on Nov 4th. Same difference if certification is irrelevant.
(yeesh. And these people say they aren't fascist)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
Of becoming a mod. Male highschoolers welcome.
Created:
-->
@Theweakeredge
Regardless of God's promises to replenish his ancestors that does not mean that Abraham was specifically talking about Isaac's children (Note that Abraham has more than one son and even if he didn't the having faith arugment would work just as well there)
This is what I mean when I say you do not know the bible. God's promises were specifically to Isaac. In fact, Sarah thought God was taking too long and got her maid to have a baby with Abraham. God rejected that baby as the conduit for His promised and insisted it would be Isaac only to whom the promises came through. I did not know this.
How about you address the literal scripture of evidence I give you, offering?
I have addressed it. You are giving us YOUR impression of what Abraham thought God meant and expecting us to accept that as what God meant. That is illogical.
He is going to kill Issac. According to the bible he would have to but the angel stopped him at the last second.
That is not our disagreement. You are saying God intended to kill Isaac. And you are trying to conflate Abraham's intention to kill Isaac as God's intention. It isn't. God never intended Isaac to die, that is why He stopped his death.
My "opinion" is supported by the bible, therefore it is not an opinion.
Lol. Your opinion is that the bible supports your opinion. It doesn't.
Your increduality about my raising is funny, because of my Christian back ground I've been through some shit whenever I deconverted. Let's not even bring up the fact that different sects have different's takes and perspectives of the bible, therefore you are still wrong.
What "takes" different sects have on the bible is immaterial and off topic. You are trying to claim that God told Abraham to kill Isaac. Yet God stopped Abraham from killing Isaac. You admit you do not know why God stopped Abraham from killing Isaac. Yet you insist God intended to have Abraham kill Isaac. Your argument is incoherant.
You are the one using illogical arguments here. I actually provided evidence and you just ignored it.
OK. We can agree to disagree, but of the two of us, I know the historical context and you do not, and what actually happened in the story supports my argument, you have no clue why God stopped Abraham. I'm satisfied that your argument has been eviscerated.
Created:
-->
@ludofl3x
Where is this possibility demonstrated in the text?
I didn't say it was in the text. But we Christians do not read the bible with our brains turned off. I think it might have occurred to Abraham that God would save the day somehow even if Isaac was killed. This is God we're talking about. He can bring the dead back to life.
Also, you're saying Abraham thinks god's a liar...
If God kept Isaac alive during the sacrifice, or raised him from the dead, how would it be a lie? Think man.
...and the command to sacrifice and burn his son (again, not alive),
God said "offer you son". He did not say " burn" you son. And the fact that God stopped him is evidence that God did not want the young man killed. But your bias forces you to be obtuse about that.
...is not authentic, in a story about how deeply faithful this one person is. Strange.
Your feefeeling of strangeness comes from your biased assumptions, not from the story.
Created:
-->
@Theweakeredge
Also, I've read the bible cover to cover, I was a christian for the majority of life, etc, etc... But if I need to quote scripture to prove my point, fine.
Uh-huh.
Created:
-->
@Theweakeredge
You brought up the case you thought was your strongest. It was weak.
The clear implication is that Abraham is prepared to kill his son
Abraham was prepared to offer his son. Address the context I gave you. Just asserting you opinion is not argumentation. I'm surprised none of you see the possibility of Abraham believing that Isaac would survive the sacrifice, or that God would resurrect him.
But I know from experience that when an atheist wants to convict God, words can have only one meaning and the bible becomes as clear as day. At all other times it's open to interpretation and ambiguous.
it would a clear as day example
Is it because its so "clear as day" you refuse to give us an actual example from scripture? Basically you're telling us what you believe and are expecting us to accept your personal perception as God's character.
Sorry. Logic prevents me. But you are free to believe any illogical thing you want. The truth remains unaffected.
Created:
-->
@dustryder
I'm satisfied that anyone who looks at facebook will see it.
You, and liberals like you, will not be the door keepers to the courts, disallowing those who you pre-judge to be fake cries.
You can wail and cry now, but Trump will get his day in court, and no election will be called by you or the fake news outlets.
In the main time, people keep getting arrested for election fraud, and in each case so far, it has been democrats trying to cheat the system. As I said, your flippant denials do not change reality.
And you can call Biden anything you want, but until he is declared the winner, and not by CNN, he is not the president elect. Reality does not reside between your ears.
Created:
-->
@FLRW
I don't see how. But perhaps you want me to ask how for dramatic effect?
Created:
-->
@Theweakeredge
It is clear you don't know the story, and much less the context. But that is OK, you are like 99% of the atheists here.
Abraham told people he and his son would be back
Abraham told his son God would provide a sacrifice
We don't have to assume. Abraham did not talk like, or behave as if he thought Isaac would die. That is evident in the story itself. Your perception based on your bias is not in the story.
Here is a little context for you.
Abraham was 100 years old when God told him he would have a son. God told him that through this son, his descendants would be as numerous as the sand at the sea shore. God promised Abraham that through this son, He [God] would enact His plan for the salvation of Israel. And the bible says Abraham "believed God" on faith.
Abraham was willing to offer his son because he knew that God's promises concerning his son could not fail. He knew that this son whom God had made those promises could not die. He had no doubts.
And finally, what you think Abraham believed about God's character has nothing to do with God's actual character. It is interesting to note that the only example atheists can come up with of God telling someone to kill another, is a case where the other was not killed, and his survival was ensured by the same God you all claim asked for his death!
More curious still, none of you can say why God would ask for Isaac's death and then stop it when it was imminent.
Christians can only argue the truth, but we can't make you see it if you are invested in the idea that God is evil.
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
Next time, why not just choose an intellectually competent candidate.
Reality: Trumps economy was better than "smarter" Obama.
At least Trump didn't start any wars
Reality: Democrats assured us he would. But from the middle east to Korea, Trump has made war less likely.
they voted to get rid of Trump
Reality: Trump had more minority votes than any republican president in history. Trump had 78+ million votes. There was just a demonstration in Washington in excess of a million American people supporting Trump.
All you're telling us here is your biased slant on current events, not reality. That comes from existing on a steady diet of the BBC and CNN. I bet you expected a "blue wave" too.
But this is why we have courts. So that the MSM doesn't simply sheeple the majority into a wall-y existence. It's too late for England and Canada, but America still has sufficient people who can think for themselves.
Created:
-->
@Deb-8-a-bull
You can't be walking around in heaven with skin covering ya knob can ya ?
Can you be walking around with a wife without a ring?
One bunch of idiots ( not you) think the ring is what proves the marriage.
The other bunch (not you) thinks the ring means nothing.
Your question shows you haven't a clue what circumcision means or what it is for. But of course, if ignorance ever stopped you, we wouldn't know of you.
Sometimes I wonder if your repetition is compulsive. I mean, can you make a post without it? Are you in control of that? Well, at least you seem to have progressed from the obsession with singing groups.
Created:
-->
@Deb-8-a-bull
Didn't think you did, but maybe Dee dee has. Your styles are at their core, similar, down to the repetition of stock phrases and thinly suppressed anger. But if you are liberal enough, the mods don't seem to mind a sock puppet or two.
Hope you are well.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SirAnonymous
Anytime you want to vent, an ear and a shoulder are at [email protected]
Your low point will pass. Just hang on.
Created:
Could deb8 and dee dee be the same person?
Created:
-->
@Stephen
It was you that come onto my own thread.
This isn't your thread.
I know. And I haven't said it is. I said it wasn't yours. Keep up sunshine.
You said, "It was you that come onto my own thread." This isn't your own thread.
That's right I did say that,...
Then you shouldn't have, as this is not you thread.
Now address the topic or go talk to someone who wants to post about irrelevant off-topic things.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Castin
I could say the same thing to you! You're one of the reasons I did decide to post again. I have not been disappointed.
Created:
-->
@dustryder
Biden is the winner.
You better tell the states to declare that then. Cause we know whomever you decide is the winner.
The impeachment was by a single party - that was empowered by the majority of American people to do so.
Then I was correct and you were wrong.
I'll give you that. The rest is nonsense.
You first called it an untruth. The rest are facts you cannot counter.
It's a conspiracy theory because...
WHY its a conspiracy theory to you is immaterial. No one should be denied their day in court because someone thinks lowly of his allegation.
Conservatives prefer to let due to process work when it benefits them and they can pretend to take the highroad.
Due process is still warranted. And due process is supposed to benefit the person seeking redress. That is the point. You want thugs in the streets assaulting people and burning down property. We want redress legally and peacefully in a court of law.
Calling Biden president elect...
Biden is not president-elect. That is a lie.
Saying that Trump should be barred from intelligence does not mean Trump is not still President.
Of course it does. Intelligence briefings are FOR the president. A sitting president cannot be barred from intelligence briefings.
Saying Trump should be removed from office before January 20th is not equivalent to will be.
You said no one had done it.
Of the 2 of us, I am the one advocating the American system of due process. You seem to want a form of fascism where people you have pre-judged as "bad" never get their day in court.
The same thing was attempted on Judge Kavenaugh. Democrats wanted him convicted simply on an allegation. This is America, not 1970's South Africa. You do not decided whose allegation is worthy of jurisprudence. You do not call elections. You do not decide who wins.
Facebook removing "President" from his official account is just false. Do your research you silly goose.
And this is the problem with the mass media duping the sheeple. Even though its easy to go to the president's facebook page and see that he is now listed as "political candidate", you will just mouth the talking points of the fake news sites.
Go look at it and then get back to me. Yeesh.
Created:
-->
@Stephen
I didn't laugh at you for posting the contents of the PMs. I laughed because you thought you were righteous in doing so. I'm laughing at you again.
Created:
-->
@Utanity
Lol!!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Castin
Hey Castin, I see your BS meter is still functioning. : )
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
Just because you keep repeating the same question - does not make it a good question or even a question that arises from the passage.
Stephen totally disagrees with you on this. He thinks if he keeps repeating something, it becomes true.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Why are you afraid of me being on your threads?
What ever gave you that idea.
Your constantly asking me to leave your threads.
Herod claims that these "miracles" that John had once performed were "now showing in him"
Only your poor reading comprehension claims that.
TradeSecret - You do realise that King Herod is talking about Jesus.
Stephen - Of course I do.
Herod ( despite the fact Jesus and John were once alive at the same time) believed that John had returned and somehow possessed Jesus and " therefore mighty works do shew forth themselves in him [Jesus]. And it is Herod's very first thought on hearing about the "miracles" Jesus was now performing.
Then the "mighty works" Hero's alludes to are attributed to Jesus, whom Hero's thinks is the risen John. You even specify [Jesus] in brackets above.
Reading comprehension Stephen.
Created:
-->
@Theweakeredge
Never did Abraham think it was out of character for god to do such a thing.
You don't know this. It is clear from the story that Abraham did not think Isaac would be killed.
But your argument has a fatal flaw. What Abraham thought is not the same as what God is. You want us to make a judgement about what God is based on what someone else thinks He is. That is neither fair or reasonable.
And that god's apparently okay with child sacrifice, at least thats what his followers thought
Which followers? There was no Hebrews at the time. And the fact is that Israel was unique among the nations in the region in that it did not practise human sacrifice.
Just the implications of the text.
The "implications" are wholly in your mind and not in the text (or in history). The reason seems to be your poor knowledge of the history of the time.
Created:
-->
@Stephen
It was you that come onto my own thread.
This isn't your thread.
I know. And I haven't said it is. I said it wasn't yours. Keep up sunshine.
You said, "It was you that come onto my own thread." This isn't your own thread.
I can take it then that you will not be engaging me any more.
I will post anywhere I want at any time I want till the mods show me that its a coc violation. I suggest you do the same.
Well that was a quick change of heart and mind wasn't it.
What you "take" is not my heart or mind. Reading comprehension Stephen. Read the exchange again. Slowly.
Created: