Total posts: 5,875
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Repeating your spam as if it was not addressed disrupts the flow of conversation homer. So does your constant stalking me about some personal grievance of yours.
If you have a problem, take it to the mods, not disrupt the thread and than claim someone else is disrupting the thread.
You cannot change empirical facts on the board. You posts show your dodges. This is a fact. Address that.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Salixes
You be the judge.
The world has already judged. Jesus has been worshipped and revered all over the world for 2,000+ years. Have you not heard?
Who was the worst of the worst?
I've travelled the world, and lived in more than 12 countries. Most people do not know who Jones or Hitler was. But they all know Jesus.
No one but deluded western idiots count Jesus as among the worst. The world counts Him as the best. His name has become synonymous with virtue and kindness.
There are houses of worship to Him on every continent on Earth, and countless works of art dedicated to him, and millions who have braved death rather than deny Him. Your question immediately paints you as clueless dolt.
But we both know you didn't care about an answer. All you wanted was to make the insult. Like a moron spray painting an insult on a church wall, only the insult matters to you.
But like the spray painting idiots, you're always flummoxed as to why everyone see you as a clueless dolt.
Did your grafitti soothe the bitterness in your soul? Did you get emotional release? No. As your obsession to keep posting nonsense like this will force you to keep embarrassing yourself.
Do another "whose worse of the worse" about the Black Widow, Jezabel, and Mother Theresa, that should be interesting. Lol.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
your last reply is not a rant then I don't know what is.
The charge of ranting can easily be cynically manipulated to discredit an opponent and/or stir up trouble
Trump is the protagonist and Netanyahu the Zionist is his friend and they recently met inside of America.
Lol! O.k Adolph.
And so the thread unravelled itself.
And then you woke up. The thread isn't unravelled. You just came out of the blue with an attack on Zionists betraying your latent antisemitism. You aren't alone, antisemitism seems to be in vogue right now.
See how these things unravel?
I see how you hope they do.
No ranting was or is ever needed.
Too bad the same isn't true for your antisemitism.
Created:
Posted in:
Normal people ask questions of people making threads too. This is a debate site, something the both of you need to realize.
I agree,
If you did, you would answer questions.
You simply pose of your own questions over that of the OP' and totally ignore the questions that are the whole theme of the thread...
The threads are up for all to see. I answer your questions, you pretend not to see them and dodge my questions.
These are not guesses. This isn't subjective. The board has the record in black and white. You dodge questions.
And most people posting to you now, comment you your dishonest behavior instead of the thread's topic.
Ignoring it will only continue the phenomena.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Christen
No, it was amended.
Title 9 itself was good, but liberals started using it in ways it was not intended to be used.
Trumps Dept of Ed. finally rescinded some of Obama's dumb changes and newly appointed Judges stopped the activism around the law.
Out of Balance
Colleges lose series of rulings in suits brought by male students accused of sex assault. In stinging decisions, judges fault lack of due process.
Last week, the California Court of Appeals ruled against the University of Southern California in a lawsuitbrought by a student suspended for allegedly sexually assaulting a woman during group sex.
The encounter had started as consensual, the woman told the university, but soon became violent. The accused student violated Southern California's sexual misconduct policy, the university argued, not by harming the woman himself, but by failing to stop the other men from slapping her and for later leaving her alone with them.
The accused student, according to the court’s decision, was not "provided any information about the factual basis of the charges against him," was not able to examine the evidence supporting the victim's statements and was not allowed to appear before the panel deciding his case.
The case joins three other legal wins for accused students in the past two months, and at least 10 in the last year. Some legal experts, including the federal and state judges deciding the cases, say the flurry of recent successes for disciplined students may show how some colleges and universities are eliminating “basic procedural protections” in an attempt to combat campus sexual assault.
“In over 20 years of reviewing higher education law cases, I’ve never seen such a string of legal setbacks for universities, both public and private, in student conduct cases.” Gary Pavela, editor of the the Association of Student Conduct Administration's Law and Policy's Report and former president of the International Center for Academic Integrity, said.
“Something is going seriously wrong. These precedents are unprecedented.”
As recently as a year ago, accused students seemed destined to lose lawsuits challenging their penalties. In May, it was widely believed that there had been just one such case in recent memory -- a lawsuit brought against the University of the South in 2011 -- that made it to court and had a favorable outcome for an accused student. Though a few cases have seen success in the way of pretrial settlements -- including recently at the University of Colorado at Boulder, Swarthmore College and Xavier University in Ohio -- many more have been dismissed outright.
Then, in July, a California trial court judge ruled that the University of California at San Diego must reverse the suspension of a male student who allegedly assaulted a female student. The student accused the university of violating his due process rights by presuming his guilt ahead of a hearing, not allowing the accused student access to witnesses and evidence, and informing a hearing panel of his guilt instead of letting the panel reach its own conclusion. The judge in the case agreed.
Accused students punished by the University of Southern California and the University of Tennessee at Chattanooga soon won lawsuits against their institutions, as well. In September, a student who sued Middlebury College won a preliminary injunction allowing him to return to campus while the case is adjudicated.
In late February, a federal court ruled in favor of a disciplined George Mason University student who argued he was treated unfairly during his case’s appeal process. The sophomore, who had been disciplined previously for issues unrelated to the case, had developed a relationship with a female student in which the two had consensual, sadomasochistic sex.
During one encounter, the female student alleged that she told the male student she was unsure if she wanted to continue. The male student continued the sexual activity, however, arguing that she did not use the couple's safe word for stopping sex, "red."
According to court records, the female student later recorded the male student admitting to having sex with her even after she said the safe word, but a hearing panel initially found the student not responsible of the sexual misconduct.
The university then ruled against him after the woman appealed the ruling, and he was expelled. The male student later learned that his expulsion was based not only on the alleged sexual assault, but on other accusations against him of which he had not been notified, including harassment and for having been caught with a knife on campus as a freshman.
The federal court concluded that the student was not given an opportunity to defend himself when the university failed to notify the student of all the charges against him, and that an assistant dean had “made up his mind so definitively that nothing [the accused student] might have said could have altered his decision.”
Earlier this month, a federal judge in Boston rejected Brandeis University’s attempt to dismiss a lawsuit by a student disciplined over sexual assault allegations there. The Brandeis student was accused of sexually assaulting his long-term partner. After the two broke up, according to court records, the former partner "attended two sessions of university-sponsored sexual assault training, which began (in his words) to change his 'thinking' about his relationship."
He then reported his partner for sometimes awakening him with a kiss and persisting even when told to stop, for performing unwanted oral sex on him and for touching his groin while the two watched a movie.
In his harshly worded opinion, the judge, F. Dennis Saylor, wrote that the university failed to provide sufficient notice of the charges against the student and did not allow him to cross-examine the complainant or his witnesses. The judge expressed concern that the university allowed the same official, a former lawyer for the U.S. Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights, who investigated the complaint to also serve “as prosecutor, judge and jury” in the case.
“Brandeis appears to have substantially impaired, if not eliminated, an accused student’s right to a fair and impartial process,” Saylor wrote. “And it is not enough simply to say that such changes are appropriate because victims of sexual assault have not always achieved justice in the past. Whether someone is a ‘victim’ is a conclusion to be reached at the end of a fair process, not an assumption to be made at the beginning.”
Also this month, a judge ruled that a similar lawsuit against James Madison University can proceed. In that case, according to the judge’s decision, the accused student was not allowed to receive a copy of the charges against him or to make copies of his own. Instead, he was only allowed to take notes as he read the complaint. A three-person panel ruled in favor of the accused student, but the student was suspended for five years after an appeal.
During the appeal process, according to the decision, the accused student was again unable to make copies of any file materials involving his case. The student was given no prior notice of the appeal board’s meeting date, nor was he allowed to appear before the board. He was suspended without any explanation as to what led the appeal board to reverse the hearing board’s original decision.
Joe Cohn, the legislative policy director at the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, said he “expects to see more and more schools told they’re botching this” as accused students continue to bring lawsuits against institutions that have disciplined them. Cohn said the increase in such lawsuits -- and in wins for the accused -- is a result of colleges adopting policies to appease the U.S. Department of Education.
In 2011, the department's Office for Civil Rights issued a Dear Colleague letter that urged institutions to better investigate and adjudicate cases of campus sexual assault. The letter clarified how the department interprets Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, instructing institutions to avoid using mediation when resolving complaints of sexual assault and to use the preponderance of evidence standard of proof when determining if a student is responsible for sexual misconduct.
“The more the schools shift to policies that on their face are fundamentally unfair, the more obvious it will be to courts that they need to step in,” Cohn said. “More and more courts are recognizing the flaws in unprofessional tribunals deciding these cases in an environment that is highly politicized. And the more extreme pressure that campuses feel to expel accused students, the more you’re going to see successful cases brought by accused students.”
Thank God for Trump.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Christen
Interesting concept.
If a mother knows a man is trying to kill her 6 moth old baby, and does nothing to thwart the man, and the baby is killed, has she violated the babies right to be protected from known threats to its life?
Does the baby have a positive rights case against the mother? Does not the baby's life have a right to be protected by the mother?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Christen
And then who would vote for them Christen?
They will NEVER do these things because that would erode their voting base of poor, illiterate, masses.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
If Jesus had called himself god or even the son of god he would have been stoned to death...
They tried to stone Him to death several times genius. Have you read scripture?
The charge that Jesus had tried to make Himself God was officially made at His trial. But the Romans didn't care about that as it was not against Roman law to say you were God. So the Jews devised another charge. They claimed Jesus wanted to unseat Caesar....and not hung on a cross for sedition.
You really should read the passages before posting.
What you say would have happened if Jesus had called Himself God is exactly what happened. Strange no?
Created:
Posted in:
...is it true then that Christ is His own Father and His own Son?
No. You said....
Yet these three divine persons are distinct from one another: the Father is not the Son, the Father is not the Holy Spirit, and the Son is not the Holy Spirit.
Are you contradicting yourself? Are you confused?
Therefore, my dissertation has to be correct relating to your explanation listed in your quote above, CORRECT?!
No, it is confused contradictory silliness.
You say the Son is not the Father, and then ask if the Son is His own Father. Silly.
Your poor reading comprehension is misleading you again. Read what I wrote again slowly. Take your time. Speed is the enemy of reading comprehension.
Instead of praising your incompetence, pay more attention to what is being said.
You actually ask about the age of God, asking questions as dumb as "is the Son "younger" than the Father? Lol!
Perhaps you should follow your own advice about not engaging in debates you aren't intellectually equipped for Dee Dee.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
Why didn't you come up with this insidious notion at the onset,..
Because it was too silly. I didn't know you would escalate the silliness by coming up with a running update.
...it took you how many days to come up with this new and current ruse of yours by adding other posts in different forums?
Many posts are older than a month Dee Dee. And if that was the case, why would I not just add posts to the religion board?
You are being silly. There is nothing wrong about not posting to any board. Why you think there is something wrong with that is locked in your confused mind.
You posted repeatedly that I had not made a post. I showed you were lying. You now want to amend what you said. I didn't make you post such silliness. I didn't make you post it repeatedly. And I didn't make you elevate it to a running update. All that petty silliness was your doing.
the time period that I gave everyone, which currently is ONE YEAR, 6 MONTHS, AND 3 DAYS, was related to your Religion Forum non posting!!!
You said nothing about specific board Dee Dee. You just blabbered that I had not made a new post in your peculiar broken English.
And still, so what? You've made no post to boards too, so what? It is silliness Dee Dee. You thought the childish goading would make me post. But I have been professionally trained.
I knew there was nothing wrong by not posting, and taunts and goadings don't work on me. Much less childish silly ones.
When you have absolutely NOTHING to gain from posting to me,
You always post to me first, but it is for people like you that I'm here. I was trained for posters like you. I like posters like you.
...therefore I suggest that you just don't post! Don't you get it yet? You are done!
Lol. Now you're tired of the attention Dee Dee? I first ignored you, thinking your ridiculous shtick was not worth my time. But then you started posting to me, thinking I was like your normal target. And to your surprise, your silly antics did not move me, and I burned you.
This confused and incensed you. Your all caps, bolding, underlining, and exclamation marks increased. Your posts became more and more incoherent and bizarre.
Till the mods had to step in and try to calm you. Now, angry and frustrated, you think latching on to this silliness of "no new post" will somehow make you seem relevant.
You wanted me Dee Dee. Now you have me. I reject your "suggestion" that I just dont post. Wasn't it you posting a running update of my not posting and calling it shameful?
Burned now, you want me to stop posting? Whiplash much? No Dee Dee, I am not done. I've got much more.
NEXT?
You're next Dee Dee. The attention you sought is now on you. Enjoy.
Created:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
All your silly updates and notices have taken up the space.You are in MY THREAD where you have yet to discuss the main topic at hand!
Instead of discussing the thread topic, you have chosen to waste your time babbling about embarrassing people and slapping them with bibles.
You are the reason your thread topic is being ignored. As I told you, no one will take you seriously if you continue behaving like a hobo preacher.
Created:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
Then it was silly to post Dee Dee.Whats new? Nothing!
But then I realized, silliness may be your aim. There is no way one could so persistently chase silliness if it were not willful.
So, you have my blessing. Be as silly as you like. Make vacuous posts. But when bolding, caps, and underlining stop working for you, (as you new use of the "+" sign would indicate) what will you do?
Created:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
Or, what you're babbling about makes no sense. Either or.When you state "I doubt if a mod can make sense" is in fact, stating that the mods are vacant of understanding
Now, I suggest that you either learn reading comprehension, or just accept the fact that you will be attacked upon your lack of knowledge in this area in the future.
Attack away Dee Dee. But I think you're holding that gun wrong. The bullet holes are supposed to be in whom you're attacking, right?
DEBATEART ALERT!
Lol! Will this also become a running update?
When are you going to put your "big boy pants" on and engage on this topic? Scared? LOL!
I'm way too old to entertain such childishness Dee Dee. I left grade school and its silly antics years ago.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
You never said that Dee Dee. But even if we grant you that, there is nothing shameful about not posting in some forum or other. That is just silly. It is childish.The simple math of the time period deals with the Religion Forum...
You were trying to goad and taunt, but you were doing it with something totally senseless. I would guess the majority of members here have a board they have never posted to.
And then you decided to take the silliness higher by posting a running update. Hilariously saying you were "embarrassing" me.
Do you mean I'm excused only on the religion board? Cause you again aren't qualifying your comment. I'm just trying to save you the embarrassment later of having to explain how the "simple math of the time period deals only with the Religion Forum".You're excused once again.
Lol!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Now watch him dodge my questions.
Why shouldn't he?
Other than integrity? Nothing.
He has every right to ignore ALL of your questions, considering that it is his thread.
Then the same thing that has happened to you will happen to him. People will conclude that he is not interested in dialogue but is only looking for a platform to indulge his obsession.
If you have questions simply start your own thread, That is what any normal person would do.
Normal people ask questions of people making threads too. This is a debate site, something the both of you need to realize.
But whether he answers or dodges, the result will be the same. His poor thinking, his unreasonable bias, and his ignorance of Christian doctrine will be spotlighted.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Salixes
A groom with short hair and cleanly shaven?
Why would a Christian baker expect a non-christian to obey Leviticus?
A couple with tattoos?
Why would a Christian baker expect non-christians to obey Leviticus?
A bride whose wedding dress is part polyester, Part silk?
How would the Baker know the wedding dress material of the bride? And why would a Christian baker expect a non-christian to obey Leviticus?
A gay couple?
How would the baker know the couple was having sexual relations? And why why would a Christian baker expect on-christians to obey Leviticus?
I am a Christian and I would gladly bake a cake for every group you mentioned. I don't expect non-christians to be bound by Leviticus.
In the real world, in a real life instance of this scenario, the Christian baker did not refuse to bake a cake for a gay couple.
But when he declined to decorate a cake for the couple, he was charged with discrimination by the state government.
The supreme court disagreed with the state (California of course) and chided the state for unfair and biased treatment of the bakers religious rights.
This thread, lifted directly from DDO, is the leftist chaffing at the sharp rebuke of the Supreme Court.
So they create a fake scenario, where they demand the baker acts incoherently by behaving as if Leviticus applies to non-christians, and think they have a gotcha! moment against Christians.
Now watch him dodge my questions.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Lol. How did Netanyahu evolve from the topic? There was nothing about Jews, nothing about Israel, there was nothing about any subject outside of America.Trump was already a part of the thread and Trump and Netanyahu evolved quite appropriately from the same.
In short; I say what I think is relevant and have very few steadfastly pre-conditioned ideas.
You thought Zionism was relevant because you are an anti-semite and thus are overly sensitive to it. You see it everywhere, and take the slightest opportunity to castigate Jews.
Q. And so why is calling a Zionist a Zionist anti-Semitic?
Suddenly ranting about Zionists in a conversation about the first American president to attend a pro-life march exposes your latent antisemitism buddy. How do you even connect the two?
A. It's not of course, but nonetheless can easily be cynically manipulated to discredit an opponent and/or stir up trouble. Which is directly relative to the thread.
I would have thought the same thing if you had suddenly started blurting about Sandinistas, or Bolsheviks, or Maoists.
I believe you don't know you have these latent biases, but you really need to do a soul search Zed.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
I stated it is now ONE YEAR, 6 MONTHS, AND 2 DAYS since you have even "tried" to post a topic by yourself in the RELIGION forum, get it?
I get that you're being dishonest. Here is what you said in post #32
Furthermore, I cannot show the truth of you not addressing the fact that you haven't posted a new thread upon your own in ONE YEAR AND 24 DAYS!
You said nothing about the religion forum. You posted this repeatedly, in several threads, you never once mentioned a particular board.
That was a nice try to try and save face by stating that you posted some more vain attempts in those other forums, but again, the subject was this forum because of the dates shown of your last post in the religion forum.
Lol. How is not posting in tje religion forum a shame? You are ashamed now because your falsehood has been exposed, and are trying to save face.
Don't worry. Not posting is nothing to be ashamed about. Making multiple idiotic posts is what should be shameful.
Understand English 101? I know, to try and prove yourself you forget all about logic 101, tsk, tsk, tsk.
Lol. I posted your claim. It was false. Now you want to qualify it. At the time, I asked you if you knew why the mods were cautioning you about it, you did not answer.
Perhaps you have an idea now? It's silly Dee Dee. You haven't posted in the Economics forum, many people haven't posted in the politics forum, so what? It's all pointless stupidity. The shame is only in you being clueless enough to think it's shameful.
Thanks for the lolz.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
I will just bring forth your standout quote of God not being Hebrew!!!!! LOL!!! OMG!!!!! Did you really proffer this ungodly statement, really???! You were just kidding us, correct?!!!
No. God really isn't Hebrew. You think God is ethnic? Really?
And what's with the all bold, caps and underlining? Why are you yelling Dee Dee?
Ethang5, do you want to try and go against the scriptures herein, and continue to speak for Satan and posit that our Jesus,
Nope. Your jesus is not my Jesus.
...as explained within the Trinity Doctrine, is not HEBREW?
The trinity has nothing to do with being Hebrew. And I did not say Jesus wasn't Hebrew, your reading compression has caused you to stumble again.
In my ever growing collection of your blatant bible ignorant statements, this one will certainly be at the top of the list!
It isn't difficult for me to believe that you have an ever growing collection of blatant bible ignorant statements Dee Dee.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
God is one, not three. Three persons are one God.
Atheist reply - This means there are 3 Gods.
Answer - More than one God is a logical impossibility. The bible says there is only one God, and even God Himself, who is omniscient, says He knows of no other Gods. (Isa 44:8)
Atheist reply - That means each person in the trinity is only one third God.
Answer - Each person in the Godhead is in Himself fully God. In each person dwells the fullness of the Godhead bodily. God cannot be reduced or broken apart. God is not 1+1+1=3, or ⅓+⅓+⅓=1, but rather, God is 1x1x1=1 (Col 2:9)
"God" is a title. "God" is an office. Each person in the Godhead has a name. But there is only one God. Always has been, and always will be.
Atheist reply - The trinity concept doesn't make sense.
Answer - It make perfect sense as long as you do not require God to be something other than what he is. God is not a man. God is not a created being. What is impossible for man is possible for God. (Isa 55:8-9)
God is not under or subject to the natural laws of His creation. He is superior to all, and no rule, law, or authority applies to Him.
The trinity is God's description of Himself given to us. We can accept it or reject it. But it is revealed truth that cannot be changed.
Atheist reply - The word trinity is not in the bible.
Answer - The concept of the trinity is in the bible, from Genesis to Revelation. One may disbelieve the trinity, but one cannot say the bible does not advance it.
(1Jo 5:7)
So the question in the OP of this thread is non-sensical and based on the false assumptions that God is divisible.
Created:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
HUH? How does your quote above align with your previous quote in post #67 of calling the mods reading comprehension as inept:
I said nothing about the mods reading comprehension.
"I doubt if a mod can make sense in what either genius is babbling about."
It would have taken omniscience, not reading comprehension, to make sense out of what you were babbling about.
But your poor reading comprehension is now again fooling you into thinking I said anything about the mods reading comprehension.
How can the following truthful statements by me, that you had to run away from, be childish and silly
If you don't already see the childishness and silliness, you aren't capable of seeing it.
Therefore, how can this be childish and silly?
It's immature and lacks sense.
You above all should be happy that I cannot show your pseudo-christian MO in the way that I did!
Why can't you? I asked and you didn't answer. Are you sure that you cannot?
Sorry you had to report me...
I've never reported you. I've never had to. Your unhinged behavior does that all on its own.
NEXT?
Lol. Don't worry. It's coming.
Created:
Posted in:
ROFL!!Opinion and still failing to answer the question. Is there something the matter with you?
Is it irony or hubris?
Created:
Posted in:
By "worthwhile" he means "answers you already agree with".you are not going to find worthwhile answers on this site.
But if you ever fancy truthful answers, you may be in luck.
Created:
The mods do not have reading comprehension problems so I can dismiss this without prejudice.Oh, but I did have something to say about you calling the moderators fools because you posited that they probably didn't even know what we were talking about.
You can't judge others upon your ignorance, okay?
OK Dee Dee. I'll assume you mean just me, not you too.
The rest of your post was just even more childish silliness, so I ignored it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
No, it is about what our Jesus,...
My Jesus isn't your jesus.
..as the Hebrew God incarnate,
God is not Hebrew.
..wants His creation to perform against all homosexuals
Untrue. Jesus did not perform it. And He is God. It was an edict to Hebrews at a certain time under certain conditions.
See, I told you that your jesus is not my Jesus.
Get it? Huh?
You may if you read more slowly. Reading comprehension can be improved.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Salixes
I have proven and given sound evidence that those who believe in God are deluded.
Yet you claimed you had not reached that conclusion! And what you offered was not sound evidence, it was half-baked premises that your conclusion did not logically follow.
You have not successfully refuted nor challenged the evidence..
I cannot if you refuse to answer questions. You dodge my questions precisely because you know it would refute your so called evidence.
..and simply calling my argument illogical is not only bad judgment but wrong.
I pointed out 3 errors you made in your OP showing the premises you built argument on were false, thus, your conclusion is false. Ignoring them does not invalidate them.
Furthermore, you have completely failed to even attempt to address the subject questions.
I have. The questions are illogical as the religious are not necessarily deluded, and you may be deluded yourself, which would make your claim's validity questionable.
Just like all the other anti-theist here, you just want a platform from which you can post your biased opinions and call them facts. You do not want to entertain questions, or engage in reasoned debate.
But this is a debate site. Your poor and biased arguments will be exposed with logic whether you honestly answer questions or not. As a liberal, you will see this as an attack, but you will grow and learn.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
The recent Trump Netanyahu accord was overtly and undeniably Zionist.
The accord had nothing to do with our subject. You injected Zionism into a conversation about the first American President attending a pro-life march.
Now you've introduced Netanyahu. Why?
Correct terminology and far from Anti-Semitic.
The terminology is fine, your inappropriate introduction of it out of the blue into a convo about Trump attending a pro-life march smacks of anti-semitism.
In fact anti-Semitic is a typical slur that would be used to both instigate violence and also to discredit an opponent.
You mean "can be used". Anti-semites exist. And you aren't my opponent.
The term evil Jews was never mentioned and certainly not in relation to the issue that was being discussed.
You blurted, "And the obsequious arrogance of the Orange Man and the Zionist should tell you what the Right has to offer."
What did Zionists have to do with the topic? You equated them with Trump, whom you obviously dislike, and called them arrogant. Zionists are Jews. Be an anti-semite if you want, but the seedy denial is what I don't like.
And so I continue to assume that you got my point and will therefore ignore your deception.
Your point was that you dislike Trump and Zionists (?) and think they are arrogant. The point I got that you obviously did not intend to send was that by injecting Zionism out of the blue into an innocuous convo about the first president to attend a pro-life march, you are an anti-semite.
I know you don't think you are, but your slip here is similar to Biden's slip of "there are smart kids and there are black kids". It tells us what you really think.
So you can ignore anything you want, your posts and it's inexplicable Zionism dig will remain up. Readers will decide on whether there was any deception.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Salixes
You remind me of Linate.
I think I can dismiss you as a person not sincerely willing to communicate. You keep dodging my questions and asking more of your own.
Since you aren't interested in a dialog, at least with me, when I respond I will be responding to the subject and not you.
We debate reality here, not your personal opinion. God doesn't need your approval to deem something sin.
Christians forbid things for Christians, they do not forbid others from what they themselves want, even God doesn't do that.
Christians have principles and a Boss. No hate is needed. You would not allow your child to associate with certain people, like with what you would call poor character, or who are infectious.
You are a liberal snowflake and call that hate. It isn't hate because you call it hate. It is appropriate selectivity. You are just biased and have a morality based on pleasure.
You also have a cartoonish understanding of Christians. Your questions and arguments can only advance if your cartoonish caricature is validated.
I am a Christian telling you I do not hate homosexuals, you insist that I do, as if you know me better than I know myself. Why? Because to you, your sophomoric idea of a Christian must be correct, and you will reject any nuance or complexity.
My long experience on the net tells me you get your information third-hand from an atheist website. You don't really know the bible or Christian doctrine.
Your excuse may be that you're young, but youth will not excuse ignorance for long. The world is bigger than the little liberal, progressive enclave you frequent.
Created:
Posted in:
homosexuals are no different from heterosexuals in what they do.
Then why use different words for them?
The book of Leviticus states that "it is an abomination for a man to lie with a man as with a woman."
Is this about who they are or what they do?
Is it not fair to say then that Christians hate gays for no other reason than ignorance?
It's not fair. It's actually also dishonest. Christians do not hate, and your example was about what they do, not who they are.
And if ignorance, ignorance of what? You do not personally think homosexuality is a sin, that is fine, but it is a lie to say homosexuality is the "same thing" as heterosexuality.
But then, the same chapter tells Christians (men) not to cut their hair
There were no Christians during the time of Lev.
You have not established that Christians hate homosexuals. And you have not shown them ignorant of anything but your bias.
Created:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
Dee Dee, when you have nothing to say, making a post is silly.
But it is very rare at DEBATEART when what is missing from a post tells everyone that the poster has been forced into civility.
Does it hurt to not be able to do your schtick?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
Sure it is Dee Dee.Once again you show your complete ignorance of specific religions concering that Christianity is NOT the only religion that proposes a Heaven!
Look at the description of Heaven in Revelation. What other religion calls Heaven the personal home of their God?
What other religion posits Heaven as a spiritual place? What other religion posits Heaven as having no sun, no ocean, no night? As having rivers? The tree of Life? As lit by His Royal Magnificence Himself, King Jesus Christ?
See, I am educated, so I know that slapping the word "Heaven" on a place does not make it the home of God in Christian Doctrine.
Then you wonder why I call you a pseudo-christian. :(
No one wonders that Dee Dee. Everyone knows how you are.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
The trinity is not "God is three and one at the same time."
So I concluded the OP is not referencing Christianity.
God is a title, not a name.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Salixes
If the person has used the unproven as the lynchpin of his argument, then, no I would not agree. Thus I dismiss your argument as unproven nonsense.Im sure you would agree that it is absurd to demand someone to disprove something that is not even proven in the first place.
If you look at the top of the page you will see that the subject is:"Does religion cause delusion, or are religious people deluded to start with"
Which means that to you, religious people are deluded, and you just want to know the source of that delusion. You start at a conclusion.
So far you have offered not one discussion or argument to the subject one way or the other
Your subject is illogical, and I think you know it is. Religious people are no more deluded than you.
You appear to be unaware that your OP is a conclusion based on premises you admit are unproven.
That is my argument. You're still dodging my question. Are you religious? I ask because you show signs of delusion.
But if you only want people to answer your fake question without questions of their own, have a nice day.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Salixes
Sure it is. You even make another conclusion off this false one, that the religious are therefore deluded."followers are required to believe in an entity that is invisible, silent and completely unproven." is not a conclusion.
It is an established fact...
Your proof? Or are we to take it on faith?
You mean a conclusion of your argument. Semantics work when you use it huh?...that is a condition of my argument
You claimed incorrectly that I made false assumptions,
You have failed to cite any incorrect claims I've made nor indeed explained why such "claims" are incorrect.
First, I told you not every religion posits a heaven...failed to cite any false assumptions nor indeed explained why such "assumptions" are false.
Next, you have only asserted that God is "completely unproven". Can you support that assertion?
Finally, you treat the "God gene hypothesis" as if it's a fact even while you call it a hypothesis.
You have also not addressed the subject at all.
That is strange, as I've been addressing your post. Is the subject not in your post?
Would you kindly stick to the subject?
The subject is that religious people are deluded, right? So I'm asking you, "are you religious?"
Am I not supposed to ask you questions?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Salixes
Heaven is a doctrine of only one specific religion....how do religious followers feel about the fact that they have less than 1 in 10,000 chances of (going to heaven)?
But I guess they feel exactly as they do about any other illogical false "facts". They don't give it any more attention than it deserves. None.
Created:
-->
@Deb-8-a-bull
You mean we can join singing religious groups without fear of divine retribution? Yay!i reckon that god hasn't got a count on the stuff we do.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Salixes
Sure you did. You are just unaware you did, a sure sign of delusion.I made no conclusion whatsoever to the subject questions.
This is conclusion.
...followers are required to believe in an entity that is invisible, silent and completely unproven.
This is a conclusion.
...comprehensive research and authoritative studies have concluded:
This is a conclusion.
...Could the delusion in some religious followers be due to both factors...
...it had nothing to do with whether or not I am deluded.
That depends on whether you are religious no? So I asked you. Now tell us. Are you religious?
Perhaps you could now offer a valid comment or argument...
Valid to whom? Validated by whom?
Your question is riddled with false assumptions. To answer your question, you must be helped past your unwarranted assumptions.
I can help you if you are open to learning. Would you like me to assist you?
Created:
-->
@Deb-8-a-bull
And yeah, on that list.# 314 .. Overall Pork consumption....
And # 2... Religious group membership...
Lol!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
You will continue waiting till you read my reply. Read it slowly.
Created:
Posted in:
The only thing I can say for sure with the information you've given, is that since the Christian God (the only God anyway) is NOT three and one at the same time, I haven't a clue which mythical god you're referring to.
Do small details of myth matter?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
As you did not respond to my question of instigation...
I did.
I will assume that you got my point.
That evil Jews are behind everything evil?
And I used the word Zionist appropriately and in accordance with it's proper definition.
But why would the word come up at all? Anti-semite much?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
It often does yes. Damn shame, that.
I'm aghast that I may have missed some of your humour because it is so subtle.
I am not often inclined to create them myself.
Our loss.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
Lol!
That post was amazingly easy to read.
I wonder why?
I'm beginning to suspect your humor may pass over most of the masses here.
Created:
Posted in:
I did not say it was a single reporter, but that most reports were by a single reporter.
Stop with the semantics and your lies. This is what you have written at post 6 above:
"the vast number of those reports come from one person".
Right, I said most reports were by a single reporter. I did not say all reports were by a single person.
It would be nice to know how it is that you appear to have access to knowledge that only a moderator should have?
How? Other than the fact that the mod verified it above? Common sense.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Deb-8-a-bull
If you believe in communication ,,,,,, YOU JOIN A DEBATE GROUPIf You believe in god ,,,,,, YOU JOIN A RELIGIOUS GROUP
Spooky!
Lol. Deb, I know it makes perfect sense to you inside your head.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Salixes
I offered my comment on the issue.
You are unaware that you've reached a conclusion. You are asking about delusion no? Most deluded people are unaware they are deluded.
Are you religious?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
--> @BrotherDThomasYOUR INTENTIONALLY COMEDIC AND CONFUSING MANNER OF SPEAKING:YOUR [INSERT WORDS HERE] QUOTE:MY RESPONSE:Dude, why?
ROFL!
There does that otherwise missing great sense of humor again!
Funny.
Created:
-->
@n8nrgmi
Look at your thread title. Now read below slowly.
Sorry, but experience has shown me that it is folly to take an insincere person seriously.
In case you missed it, I consider you insincere. As a liberal, you probably believe I have a duty to answer your questions as you dodge mine. You will be disabused of that silliness.
You also probably think I consider it some sort of honor to be grilled by you. Again, that bit of liberal hubris will be dismissed without ceremony.
I won't post here again, but feel free to @ me or post more questions to me here.
Created:
-->
@n8nrgmi
God said they were unclean, then God made them clean. Where is the contradiction?
You did not answer me. Why? I still haven't the foggiest idea why you think this is a contradiction.
I didn't join your thread, you out of the blue sent me an @. If you are not going to answer questions on the thread topic, why did you @ me?
Do you even know what unclean means as used in the bible?
You again ignored my question above and asked another of your own. Why? Only your questions are worthy? You have reading comprehension issues? You're a liberal?
why would God change his mind whether food was unclean or not?
How do you know God changed his mind?
In another thread, you asked me to comment here. I told you then that I thought the question here was silly, and that taking the insincere seriously was not wise.
Nothing has changed. Drop the insincerity, and answer questions, and I may give your questions a shot even if they are simplistic. Otherwise, have a good day.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Barney
For all of Ethang's faults,....
Huh? What faults? ; )
I prefer "steadfast". Better fit and all that....he's feverish in his determination.
Created: