Total posts: 5,875
Posted in:
Still not one example of anything in either evolution or Genesis that contradict each other.
I'm beginning to think our Darwinists don't have an example. Sal can make a 10 paragraph post and still not mention a single example.
He keeps repeating, "Genesis says nothing about evolution." Of course he knows that no one said Genesis says something about evolution. The claim was that evolution did not contradict Genesis.
Because he is a biased rabid anti-theist, he thinks the claimant is trying to validate Genesis by associating evolution, when the claimant is actually saying that evolution cannot be used to counter Genesis.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@drafterman
Thank you. Now do the minority of homosexual pedophiles not also pose a threat to young boys?Because of the minority of people that do pose a threat.
Because the prohibition wasn't created with me in mind.
No one knows your sexual proclivities Draft. The law was made in case you were a pedophile.
The laws I am proposing are not with specific persons in mind either. Therefore no one should feel denigrated.
I didn't say "Heterosexuality does not make a male prone to sexual attraction."I said: "Heterosexuality does not make a male prone to sexual attraction and molestation of underage girls."
What makes a man prone to sexual attraction and molestation of underage girls." Draft?
Do you think non-heterosexual males are ever prone to attraction and molestation of underaged girls?
Yes it does, which is why we are able to identify pedophilia as an aberration.
Pedophilia is defined differently in different societies, and differently over time. It is the act that is against the law, not the attraction.
We should have similar laws for homosexual attraction that we have for heterosexual attraction.
We do.
We do not. A picture of a topless 16 year old boy on your computer causes no alarm, one of a 16 girl gets you 5 to 7. Please be realistic.
You seem to think that pedophilia comes part and parcel with having sexual attraction at all.
Pedophilia is not possible without sexual attraction.
I assume you are a heterosexual which you claim makes you prone to sexual attraction to under age girls.
No sir. I claimed it makes sexual attraction to underaged girls possible. Are you so wedded to PC dogma you will now say sexual attraction doesn't happen till you know the age of the girl? Or that it suddenly starts on her 18th birthday?
Insinuating I am a pedophile would not make your argument any less incorrect. It would simply mean you are being beaten by a pedophile.
I'm just letting you know that that mind set is NOT the norm, but there is help for people with that mindset.
I'm not calling it the norm. I'm saying we should have laws because of the minority of people that do pose a homosexual pedophilic threat.
Homosexuals are no more allowed to molest boys in locker rooms than heterosexuals are.
Heterosexuals are not sexually attracted to boys. Homosexuals are, yet they are allowed into boys locker rooms.
Quite obviously, "they" refers to "the same restrictions."
There are few restrictions on men for boys that are similar to the restrictions on men for girls. They are not the same.
The rules in the BSA do not address sexual attraction because they don't need to. The rules apply to all adults in a blanket manner and covers all adults regardless of sexual attraction.
This is both untrue and silly. We have the rules we do because of sexual attraction.
It is slanderous to suggest that pedophiles are currently able to freely abuse children in the BSA.
How is it slanderous when pedophiles ARE currently able to freely abuse children in the BSA?
Are you gay Draft?
I am not.
How do you know you're not? If neither homosexuality or heterosexuality plays a role in sexual attraction, how can you tell what you are?
Nothing is "different" for homosexual males.
Do heterosexual males have the same access to the underaged targets of their sexual desire as homosexuals do?
Why was it a problem in the BSA Draft?
Because there weren't protection mechanisms in place to protect children at the time. Now there are.
Like what Draft? Tell us one "new" protection mechanism.
Or when a person tries to inflate the likelihood or rate of occurrence of some event happening.
Do you know the rate or likelihood Draft? Because to know that I'm inflating, would require you to know the rate.
But you are being inconsistent. The rate is immaterial. When I asked you, "Why do we have these restrictions?"
You answered, "Because of the minority of people that do pose a threat."
Do we know the rate? No. The possibility of the threat is enough for the restrictions to be in place.
A boy will be sexually molested only if the molester has a homosexual sexual attraction.
There is a minority of people that do pose this threat. Every single one of them is homosexual.
There should be laws governing homosexual men with boys, just like the current laws governing heterosexual men with girls.
Any law trying to govern sexual behavior that doesn't take sexual attraction into account is foolish.
And the results are clear in the BSA (and the Catholic Church) today.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
That you are not Zed, that you are not.But fortunately I am not as picky and choosy as some people.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Never contradicted. At least you got the ratio correct.So there are exceptions. Ergo theist nutters.
Though it's difficult to find them infecting atheist boards.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
So nothing particularly special about the Jesus myth other than it's acquired popularity.
I didn't say there was something special about it. But if it isn't special, and people are still talking about it 2,000 years later, my claim is more likely no?
Does it bother you Zed, that you will be forgotten and your life will have had no meaning and no lasting effect on the world?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@drafterman
No. I said it. You responded as if it was untrue, and when I asked you if there was a connection, you answered, "Other than the connection you're claiming, there is none." Nice try.Yes, I said that.
This no more makes homosexuals predisposed to molesting young boys than it makes heterosexuals predisposed to molesting young girls.
Yet we have restrictions on men for young girls. Stop repeating yourself and answer my questions. Why do we have these restrictions?
The policy was implemented as a response to combat these issues.
How would allowing homosexuals into leadership positions combat homosexual pedophilic abuse??
But we can't validate your claim for another 23 years.
The claim is already validated. Unlike you, I do not allow PC dogma to blind me to actual reality. Boys are being molested right now. They are not being molested by women, or heterosexual men. Some of the cases of abuse are recent.
I think it's denigrating to suggest that homosexuals are prone to sexual abuse of minors.
Do you find it "denigrating" that you are not allowed to enter a girls locker room? Does that prohibition mean you are prone to sexual abuse of minors? If not, please tell me why.
And heterosexuality does not make a male prone to sexual attraction and molestation of underage girls.
Yet we have all these laws to protect girls from molestation! If all men were homosexual, would there be sexual abuse of girls? It is absurd to say that heterosexuality does not make a male prone to sexual attraction.
If heterosexual men were not attracted to girls, we would need no laws prohibiting it, and no social customs making some things taboo.
By the same vein, homosexuality does not make a male prone to sexual attraction and molestation of underage boys.
No sexual attraction works on an age system. And children are at sexual development across the range from baby-like to adult-like. A man is simply attracted to whom he is attracted to. We should have similar laws for homosexual attraction that we have for heterosexual attraction.
Pedophiles are no different from heterosexuals?
Not in their sexual desire. Both homosexual and heterosexual pedophiles are the same when it comes to sexual desire.
Homosexuals do not have foreign minds when it comes to sex. They are just like heterosexuals. One just has to know people.
I agree.
Sexuality is in the mind. If you agree that Homosexuals do not have foreign minds when it comes to sex, that they are just like heterosexuals, then why aren't the rules governing heterosexual men with young girls, applicable to homosexual men with young boys?
We're not talking about PC cancel culture.
I was.
There are plenty of single fathers who have daughters. You don't seem concerned for them.
Sorry. Shall I give you a list of all my concerns? A single man gets a child by impregnating a woman. If she dies or leaves him with a child, that is acceptable. Even though many single fathers abuse their daughters. But the risks are too great to have single men adopt girls. Reminding me you still have not answered.
Do you advocate the state removing the daughters from their families in those cases?
Only if there is evidence of abuse.
I assure you, that adult males being attracted to children is an aberration, not the norm.
It depends on the age of the child. From the many, many, movies we have where underaged girls are for titillation, to the jungle of porn sites with youth as their theme, male heterosexual attraction to 15 to 18 year old females is NOT an aberration.
But that is beside the point. We don't know which males suffer this aberration, so we have laws. Why should it be any different for homosexuals?
If you are an adult and find yourself sexually attracted to children, ethang, I encourage you to seek out counselling and help.
Right Draft. The rules are for me. You can't answer my questions but you can smear me with a petty swipe? Do you think men became no go in girls locker rooms only after I was born?
Or do you feel you're losing so bad you think smarmily calling me pedophile will help your argument?
Because those people exist? I'm not suggesting pedophiles don't exist, ethang.
Ok. Do homosexual pedophiles exist? Yes. Then why not have the same rules prohibiting them from boys locker rooms?
They apply to all men in the BSA.
What is "they" draft? The rules in the BSA as they are now do not address sexual attraction. And that is why these pedophiles are able to so freely abuse vulnerable children. The laws need to be reciprocal based on sexual attraction.
Are you attracted to children, ethang?
Not sexually, but I do find them adorable. Are you gay Draft?
Why should that be any different for homosexual males?
It isn't.
It is. Hetero men are not allowed certain interactions with children of the gender fitting their sexual attraction. Homo men have no such restriction. And homosexual abuse of boys runs rampant.
I think the abuse took place before the measures were put in to stop it.
To stop what Draft? What is "it"? Homosexual abuse. Why was it a problem in the BSA Draft?
...your baseless fear mongering about the current state of affairs.
Fear mongering is when someone tries to scare people about something that has not occurred, but with what will occur.
The abuse is happening now. It is real, regardless of what the current PC ziegist is on homosexuality.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@rosends
<br>Though I don't think I'm being dishonest (factually or rhetorically)
You aren't.
Now, when one decides to act like a smart derriere by using la-dee-daa, airy-fairy philosophical concepts to make an quasi argument by deceptively attempting to defuse another argument by poking hypothetical, non-committal pinpricks into it without even finding the intestinal fortitude to attempt making a stand or a valued argument
Either Ol' Sal doesn't understand your argument, or is being dishonest in his evaluation of your argument. Further, he calls you deceptive.
But I've known him for years, I've seen him make dozens of threads on this subject. He fully knows of all the problems with methodology as his contentions in those threads were systematically dismembered by many posters. I know he's lying.
But I'm not telling you to convince you of it, I'm telling you so you better know how to approach him. Though it seems you may not need it.
I like your style.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@drafterman
Other than the gender of the target of sexual contact, no.
Then there is a connection. The connection is that little boys are the same gender as the target of sexual desire.
And men are not allowed in boys restrooms and bathing areas in the BSA, either.
You dodged the question.
Nor is any one-on-one contact permitted between adults and scouts.
So are the hundreds of abuse claims false?
since the admission of homosexuals happened 7 years ago, let's revisit the subject in 23 years and see how things have panned out.
We know now. It was homosexuals who molested those boys, from 100 years ago to today. Admitting homosexuals will only accelerate the frequency of abuse cases.
After all, we wouldn't want to jump to conclusions and denigrate an entire class of people because of one's own personal biases, would we?
You think its "denigrating" to observe that homosexuals are attracted to males? Who do you think are sexually molesting boys? Heterosexual men?
Can you enlighten me as to how you can claim to know so well the minds of homosexuals with respect to pedophilia?
Homosexuals do not have foreign minds when it comes to sex. They are just like heterosexuals. One just has to know people.
It strains your imagination why pedophiles would make it easier for them to abuse the objects of their desire? Have you met any pedophiles, Draft?
Not to my knowledge. Have you?
Yes I have. That is how I know they are no different from heterosexuals.
/s
You sarcasm missed the point. PC cancel culture is rampant in our society.
And yet you don't seem concerned about daughters in families with heterosexual male figures. Why not?
...history has shown us that the effect of an adult female, (the wife) mitigates the risk of a sexually aggressive male toward the female child.
Read, don't skim. This is exactly why I am also against single men being able to adopt little girls.
If your logic is to be followed, daughters should be removed from those families and placed with single mothers or the homosexual males themselves.
My "logic" would seem that way to you only if you don't know what a "wife" is.
Because men are sexually aggressive, and generally attracted to females.
Of an appropriate age.
Untrue. Men generally approach females of a legally appropriate age, but are attracted to many different ages of females. So to be safe, we have restrictions in place.
Because sexual attraction toward a gender does not imply pedophilia attraction toward that gender.
Yet men are restricted from the locker rooms of inappropriately aged females. Why? I'm saying that the same restrictions should apply to homosexual men.
Or are you saying that heterosexual men are naturally sexually attractive and aggressive towards ALL females, regardless of age?
Other than it being female, we don't know what else male heterosexuals are attracted to, so for safety's sake, we have restrictions in place, because we do know that men are attracted to females. A 17 year old can look like a 23 year old. Some men cannot resist the desire and it overcomes their hibitions. Why should that be any different for homosexual males?
[Citation needed]
First, please tell me why single men are not permitted to adopt females. I am not going to be bogged down with citation requests for obviously evident things.
ALL adult leaders have restrictions to ALL children in the Scouts.
And yet we have hundreds of abuse cases! Reality should matter to you more than PC dogma. Or do you think the homosexual abuse took place in the presence of other adults?
Reasons that exist only in your head.
Single men are actually not allowed to adopt little girls, so the reason cannot exist only in my head.
When I asked you the reason why single men are not allowed to adopt girls, you did not answer. What reason is there for that Draft, that isn't just "in my head"?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Salixes
I used to rip sheets out and use it for toilet paper...
Could your bitterness and vitriol be due to your poverty?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Salixes
You sound like a bigot.
But of course I'm not one.
No sir. You are both a bigot and a racist, and I can cite your comments to that effect.
A new site doesn't erase your racist and bigoted comments from the old site.
Your zero reply threads are now up to 8. Has it even been a month?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
@Salixes
Did you see him answer or dodge the question?What, even though you understand the concept, do you still nonetheless regard as non-sense?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@rosends
@Salixes
Ouch. Someone got roasted.
Don't feel required to try and respond if you have nothing constructive to say.
Ol' Sal thinks whatever he says is "constructive".
I would welcome some sort of comment on what I actually said (you know, "content")
Don't hold your breath. Ol' Sal doesn't address content. See, he thinks he's right because.... Well, because. So there is no need for him to argue or offer any logic.
He will now do one of 3 things.
1. He will recede into what he thinks is humor, and hide behind it with a lame post.
2. He will accuse you of dishonesty and imply your theism makes you untrustworthy.
3. He will run to create another thread where he will repost his illogical bias and imply you were beaten in this post.
Just Watch.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
And why etc.
Because this is a debating website.
You may be a little confused on what constitutes debate. Simply blurting out unrelated things is not covered just because this is a debate.
The things you say must not only make sense, but be pertinent to the context of the topic being discussed.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dynasty
@Salixes
"Oh then Sal, where's your evidence?" I hear you cry in your relentless search for the truth.To which my response would be:
Nothing. You did not offer any response or post a link.
The simple thing would have been to point out one thing in Genesis or in evolution that contradicts the other.
But you couldn't do that, and yet could insult Dynasty by implying what he would bring would be stupidity.
Other than your personal disagreement, what have you offered? Yet later you will lie that you brought up well researched facts to support your claim.
Do you ever tire of lying? And how good is your case if you have to lie?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Can you comprehensively say that they don't?
I don't have to, as you have not asserted that they do.
Probably, though I must admit that I have never researched this.
I haven't either. I'm just going from my own experience. But that is why the OP is a question.
Religion, atheism. Same difference as far as nutters are concerned.
And yet the actual evidence on our board betrays you. There are no theist equivalents on any of the secular boards clogging up the board with spam threads, or going potty mouth with all caps and bold in every silly "godmanbad" post they make.
With very few exceptions, the "nutters" seem to be all atheists. Its just that, strangely, religion is what apparently sets them off.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
And you will be remembered occasionally for a few years.
You're here talking about Jesus from 2,000 years ago Zed. You may be remembered occasionally for a few years, but that is no reason to think that will be the same for me.
And is Jesus the dog?
Jesus is the King you think is imaginary though you date by His birth, and talk about Him everyday, 2,000 years later.
Would you go to such lengths to insult a dog? I don't think so.
You're not as much a nihilist as you think you are.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
Here is what English teacher Dee Dee "corrected".Like I have had to tell the equally bible ignorant ethang5, is that Jesus does not like dummies spreading the gospel with questionable English skills.
Your begging for attention, while endearing, is pathetic.
The genius said the "your" should have been "you're". It's one thing to be basically illiterate, but to begin trying to correct others is hilarious. I mean, Dee Dee uses a template for his posts.
Oh my, the lolz!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
Didn't I tell you many times with your bastardized English...
Like when you embarrassed yourself by "correcting" a correct sentence? Dude, its obvious to everyone that you are poorly educated. I keep telling you, no one is in that pretend world with you.
Therefore, your hyphenated word of "none-the-less" is wrong!
But I'm the one "running away" from the thread topic huh Dee Dee?
...which is poor syntactical sentence structuring to begin with.
Lol. Sure Dee Dee.
The rest of your post was the usual petty stupidity so I ignored it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@drafterman
Man, got me on the click-bait title.
You still have pure heart.
Bankruptcy does not mean the end of an organization.
And none of my comments said it did. But widespread realization that the organization is riddled with pedophiles might.
Any link between the current situation with the BSA and the acceptance of homosexual members and leaders is tenuous, if not entirely imagined.
This is the PC talking point, but common sense contradicts it. There is no connection between men sexually abusing little boys, and men who are sexually attracted to other men?
Do you know why men are not allowed in girls locker rooms?
About 90% of the abuse claims are from over 30 years ago...
So far.
...whereas homosexual members and leaders were permitted in scouts in 2013 and 2015, respectively.
Homosexuals have always been members, they just got in under pretense before the change. But by officially permitting homosexuals, they validated pedophilia in the minds of the homosexuals in, and attracted to, the organization.
They were aware of the problem, but still voted to let homosexuals become troop leaders.
Most likely because there is no link between homosexuality and pedophilia/child abuse.
Even more likely is that the dominant PC culture told them there was no connection, and they believed it.
It strains the imagination to consider how (or why) "a few" pedophiles could contrive to do this.
It strains your imagination why pedophiles would make it easier for them to abuse the objects of their desire? Have you met any pedophiles, Draft?
An overwhelming majority of Chartered Organizations are religious institutions.
All of them under PC cancel culture pressure to normalize homosexuality and thereby lose any reason not to allow them in as leaders.
I'm sure there are incidents of this happening already. I'm not sure what the point is. Children get molested in a variety of family structures.
And yet we have structures we will not place kids into. My prediction is that we will find that the rate of abuse of male children with male homosexual couples will outstrip the overall average.
PC apologists will again say it isn't homosexuality, but just pedophilia. But just as the precedent in the catholic church shows, the common denominator in 90% of organizational cases of systematic abuse is homosexuality.
...you don't have to speculate as to their motivations. It's money. Plain and simple money.
An organization, and individuals within that organization, can have different and multiple motivations.
This is baseless fear mongering, nothing more.
So the PC police would have us believe. But clear thinking is all it takes.
Why are male doctors not allowed to examine females without a female nurse present? Why are male coaches not allowed in female student locker rooms? Why are single men not allowed to adopt female children?
Because men are sexually aggressive, and generally attracted to females. These rules though unequal for men, help mitigate the risks of abuse of females. Even men do not complain about them.
Why would anyone think the male sex drive is different or safer if the male is homosexual?
A single man is refused adoption because history has shown us that the effect of an adult female, (the wife) mitigates the risk of a sexually aggressive male toward the female child. That mitigating dynamic is lost in a homosexual couple who adopts a male child.
Just look at the sheer number of cases in the Catholic church! We do not see the same rate of abuse in heterosexual cases because we wisely do not allow men such access to female children.
Homosexual men should have similar restrictions on access to male children for the same reasons.
It is no more fear mongering to raise caution about two men adopting a little boy, than it is to raise caution about a single man adopting a little girl.
Neither case is advisable, and for the same reasons.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
Not quite yet jasper. If I were done, you wouldn't still be begging for attention.Shhhhhhhhhh, you're done.
This is because...
No one cares about your silly observations or your inane repetition about people being done or slapped. You are the only one in your pretend world, its interesting only to you.
Therefore, may I suggest that you save yourself further embarrassment...
I like the embarrassment I'm causing you. It's deliberate, why would I avoid it?
The rest of your template post was nonsense so I threw it out.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Deb-8-a-bull
Who is "we"?
Wait, let me guess.
You have a group. A singing group.
Lol.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
Always, but in that analogy, you were unfit to be Moses. You would have told God that His behavior towards Pharaoh wasn't loving.
Created:
Posted in:
I get that you think you think you need to tell me who my quote was meant for. I made the quote genius, I know whom it was meant for.Your quote above was obviously meant for me, otherwise you wouldn't put this quote upon yourself, GET IT?
Therefore calling one inane is against the rules and should be flagged,
Having a mental illness is not necessarily insanity. And I do find it very interesting.
..but I didn't because you have enough embarrassment within this forum, UNDERSTOOD?
Why would I be embarrassed at your mental illness? I find it funny. You must be constantly embarrassed cause you talk about it often. You must be projecting.
Lol!!
Your silly lols don't convince us homer. When you have nothing to say, adding a "lol!!" at the end doesn't make it any more pertinent.
Created:
Posted in:
"If you have nothing to say, remain silent!"
For some reason, trolls never obey this.
Created:
Posted in:
Your begging for attention, though pathetic, is endearing.
Next time, use the contraction "you're" instead of the wrong word "your" for the given sentence.
Your begging for attention, .... is pathetic. If you want to be an English teacher Dee Dee, it helps to be educated first. Lol. You're would have been incorrect.
You have forgotten once again that I mention you a lot because of your blatant biblical ignorance and runaway modus operandi, remember?
You mention me because you're obsessed with me. You have an obsessive personality. The weird posting template, the need to have the last post, the pretend world, posting when you have nothing to say, all point to a personality disorder.
You're begging for attention is endearing.
Lol! English teacher.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
Lucky for God He had Moses then.You won't convince me...
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
Yes. Like, for example , why do all trolls bold and cap everything? It's so interesting.In your post #33, you mentioned that you thought mental illness was fascinating!
Therefore, I obviously took that to mean you have mental illness in some way or another, because if you had meant your statement towards me, then you possibly would have been warned again of your misdeeds within this forum because the rules.
I would have been warned because I find mental illness fascinating? Warned by whom? And why is it against the rules to find mental illness fascinating?
Therefore, do you want to talk about your mental illness?
To a mentally ill person? I think not.
The rest of your post was more of your childish gibberish, so I skipped it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
@rosends
I agree. One of the best answers I've ever seen.Rosends gave the best answer.
Created:
Posted in:
Can anyone imagine if Deb posted as often as Sal? Makes one see that things could be worse. Yikes.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Salixes
Well, he prayed that you would start another topic demonstrating your foolishness, and you did so.So, we can take it that, by default, you concede the fact that prayer does diddly squat.
Was it coincidence?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Then why even mention them if they don't make the slightest difference?
Mo has a point, your mentioning them was a petty shot.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
You know its why and still you dodged answering Dee Dee. Runaway much?The correct term this time is instead of "by" you need to use the word "why" to make it readable and coherent for a change.
You're so desperate, you're addressing me in your posts to others. Obsess much?
And for as much as you write, you say nothing. You would wilt away if I ignored you. But don't worry. I won't ignore you.
Your begging for attention, though pathetic, is endearing. What can I say, I have a soft spot for loons.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Then he isn't going to like you. But if you convince him you haven't a religious bone in your body, he might learn to like you.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
But do theists park on atheist websites and post over and over that atheism is nonsense?And theists decided that theism wasn't nonsense and therefore say so.
...and religion is a good enough reason for some nutters.
So is atheism.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
That's bordering on the nihilistic.
I don't think so. I'm saying save your concern for things of consequence, not fads. I am not saying that nothing matters.
Perhaps you have too much of a safe and secure life, are getting older and the thought of change bothers you.
I'm the one saying that change is constant and ever present. Some change, like fads, are not worth getting bent about. Jesus has told me He has already won. No change can bother me.
Haven't you noticed that green is big business.
I have. The foundation of every fad is the love of money.
And we will be dead and forgotten and our opinions will be irrelevant.
Not me. I will not be dead. I will not be forgotten. And my opinions will not be irrelevant. I have Jesus and children.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
I've known Sal for a long time. He isn't mean, he's just hurting.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
I don't think think you should make excuses for your inability to present a better example.
I made no excuse. To the froward God shows Himself froward. You are well meaning but inexperienced.
The wickedness of the person you are talking to is not a license to respond in a way that is unbecoming of the example we are supposed to set.
Sal isn't wicked. He's just a dweeb in pain. And he is currently unable to see any example you set.
...than it is to make sport of a fool.
At least you know he's a fool.
That is what we are called to do.
So then what is your problem? I suggested you love him harder. Isn't that what you said is the answer?
You think Jesus is calling us to be pacifists. He isn't. Sometimes, a person is a Pharaoh. Their only purpose is to be used as a tool to show the sovereignty of God, and strengthen the faith of observing believers.
Exo 7:4 - But Pharaoh shall not hearken unto you, that I may lay my hand upon Egypt, and bring forth mine armies, and my people the children of Israel, out of the land of Egypt by great judgments
Exo 10:1 - And the LORD said unto Moses, Go in unto Pharaoh: for I have hardened his heart, and the heart of his servants, that I might shew these my signs before him
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
...maybe just a certain aspect of The Trinity that is hard to wrap the head around. Namely, that 3 can be 1.
I can agree. Nothing can fully explain God, and if something could, our minds would not comprehend it anyway.
But God did gave us minds, and I think He intended us to use them. Anyway, I just found the subject interesting.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Salixes
If when I point out that kindness also doesn't eradicate disease, you insist kindness still has value, then its value does not come from being able to eradicate disease.
Yet you say prayer has no value because it can't eradicate disease. The dumb illogic is there even if you can't admit to it.
Now, prayer may or may not have value, but because it cannot eradicate disease is not the reason you think it lacks value, or else you would think similarly of kindness.
You posted diseases because it made a good soundbite. But you are aware you are being dishonest. Here is your infantile argument.
Prayer cannot decimate or eradicate disease, but science can. Therefore science has value, and prayer does not.
Yet kindness also cannot decimate or eradicate disease, but science can. Therefore if kindness has value, it is despite not being able to cure disease.
Now, the purpose of prayer is not to cure disease, so why is its value based on what it is not designed to do? That is like calling a car useless because it cannot fly.
I point this out yo you, and because you're dishonest, you fail to address the obvious question. Why the difference between prayer and kindness, when neither of them can decimate or eradicate disease?
See, I'm a good liar, aren't I?
Yes, but we differ on whether that makes you filthy.
While you're a good liar, your thinking is rather poor. I was easily able to show your logical failure here. And when it was pointed out to you, you chose to continue lying instead of admit your faulty logic.
This is why I force you into debate, because first your shoddy thinking shows through, and then your dancing behind lame humor at being exposed is an additional bonus.
Notice that you now have 6 zero-reply threads. Only 4 more to go before your first update.
Tell us again about people going quiet as the walk past your water cooler. Lol.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Salixes
A list of diseases decimated or eradicated by kindness:* 0
Therefore kindness has no value!
I certainly believe it does.
A list of diseases decimated or eradicated by prayer:* 0
Therefore prayer has no value!
..prayer,... [has] absolutely no value at all.
Something tells me folks, that ol'Sals argument has nothing to do with decimated or eradicated diseases.
Then why did he mentioned diseases? Intellectual dishonesty.
Now, if his argument was correct, would he need to be dishonest?
This is how I know Sal is not simply mistaken, but is rather being dishonest.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
Read it again sloooowly. Do some breathing exercises before you stalk. Eagerness causes mistakes.The correct term is "trained."
Yeah, but I don't respect the paper crown you gave to yourself, so I still toss you for lolz.Thus far, I have easily shown you to be biblically ignorant and a runaway as well.
...instead of Jesus' inspired words to prove Jesus' Triune.
I was not trying to "prove" the trinity. You think I was because you are functionally illiterate. But thanks for trying to help.
Naw again, your bible ignorant presence is what makes me address your ungodly ways.
My Christianity makes you address me, but your frustration and bitterness makes you use stupidity to do so. And you are only going to get more bitter and frustrated. Because with me, your weapons are useless, as I toss you like the emotional child you are.
HOW DARE YOU MENTION MY CHRISTIAN FAITH AS A PRETEND WORLD????!!!! BLASPHEME!
Stop imitating mopac. If you had anything of substance, you would not be pretending. But I know how to deal with posters who think they can hide behind pretense too.
Your posts are empty Dee Dee. I suspect that is because you are empty. Fueled by nothing but bitterness and bile.
No one cares how "embarrassed" you pretend I am, and its boring after you repeat it the hundredth time.
Leave the loony post template and simply post honest thinking. Stop trying to be top "coon cat" and people will take you seriously. Really, you can't win arguments by being stupid. You should know this by now.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
I don't think you do. But I am willing to let you find out that you don't.I understand where he is coming from.
A Christians goal is not always conversion.People are rarely converted by arguments.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Deb-8-a-bull
Not unlike you posts then. Lol.A REALLY WELL THOUGHT OUT RELIGION.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
If the post is irrelevant, by are you addressing it? Get thee to a dictionary.In addressing ethangs5's post #43 of irrelevancy once again,
...he still hasn't addressed my following posts within this thread that shows him to be one of the most biblically ignorant pseudo-christians within this forum
Nope, it just shows me to be a poster that doesn't tolerate stupidity. Your posts are vacuous Dee Dee, and if you want people to take you seriously, stop being a fool.
It isn't an insult, its just brutal honesty.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Salixes
A list of diseases decimated or eradicated by science:
* Chicken Pox
* Diptheria
* Measles
* Pertussis
* Polio
* Tetanus
* Typhoid
* Yellow Fever
* Smallpox
A list of diseases decimated or eradicated by kindness:
* 0
Therefore kindness has no value!
Of course, telling the genius that is not what kindness is for, or that those diseases have not actually been eradicated, makes no difference.
Delusions are resistant to reality.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
You gave me the position genius.I can only preclude that he loves this position given to him by Satan Himself! LOL!!!
But not to worry, we've always known who you are anyway
It is true that Satan is marked more by banal stupidity than by outright evil.
Created:
-->
@Barney
Ol' Sal is not interested in debate.
People are starting to ignore him. But let me warn you, for the last year Sal has been on the dead DDO, posting his lame spam to himself.
When the behavior is compulsive, ignoring them doesn't help. Sals emotional release is from posting his clunkers, no one answering makes no difference to him. He will accumulate hundreds of zero-reply turds here if he is allowed. His deep delusion all the while telling him he's "converting" Christians.
Created: