Total posts: 5,875
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
You bold and underline because that is the style of trolls.I always have to embolden and underline everything for you don't I, Ethang5?
Acts seems to think so too;
16 And now what are you waiting for? Get up, be baptized and wash your sins away, calling on his name.’
The verse says "And" wash away, not to wash away. Jesus had no sin. Acts disagrees with you.
The Life Bridge Church happens to agree.
So what? Whoever contradicts the bible is wrong. Baptism is needed, but is not what saves.
I personally don't see how that by being pushed under-water that animals and such have pissed and shit in can somehow wash away anything at all never mind a persons "sins".
I'm the one telling you that baptism doesn't "save" anyone homer. You're the one who thinks "some say" says it does.
Some say it also washes away our sins. So then this raises two more problems...
Why does what "some say" raise a problem? You claim you don't say it, and the bible certainly doesn't say it, yet you irrationally think it "raises" problems.
So No Ethang5, this fkn "genius" doesn't think that being half drowned in pissy shitty water "is for remission of sins."
Then why bring it up at all Jethro?
So why don't you explain what the ritualistic meaning and propose of baptism is to those that give a fk.
That wouldn't be you then.
I'm just waiting to see where your disjointed rant ends. Perhaps Jesus had a plan to poison Jerusalem's water and kill everyone who got baptized?
Lol
Created:
Posted in:
And if you personally like something else, how does that concern me?
It shouldn't.
Thank you.
And you're a mod?
Not on DART, for Discord...
Still, you're a mod???
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@EtrnlVw
Good question Etrnl. Plus, the answers to his question are all in the text. Again!
I hope he has his obtuse glasses on.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
You can do that then and no one will care
Except those who keep posting here.
It's something I disagree with.
Disagreeing that I like a post is lunacy. I'm not saying the posts are great, I'm saying I like them. How can you disagree with what I like?
And you're a mod?
Nope. I am a Discord Mod, not a DART Mod.
I didn't qualify the type of you are.
Clear difference.
Which would mean something if I had said what type of mod you were.
And just because I disagree with a personal taste doesn't mean I have to swing my ban hammer on you.
Lol!! I'm so relieved.
Virt, Ragnar, and other mods have personal preferences and likes and dislikes. Yet you don't accuse them of irrationality
None of them have ever told me anything as silly as "disagreeing" with a personal taste. Other than you having a different taste, what could "disagreeing" mean? Nothing.
And if you personally like something else, how does that concern me?
And you're a mod?
Created:
Posted in:
Is it me, or is the only thing here a person with too little bible knowledge and too much time ranting incoherently?
Our genius thinks baptism is for remission of sins.
And doesn't know why John wanted to be baptized.
And doesn't know why John felt unworthy to baptize Jesus.
And claims John doubted. But where does he get that?
I feel another shaming coming on. It will be complete with ducking and dodging too.
Pop em if you got em.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
Your claim is that I shouldn't say anything if I disagree with a list you made.
Untrue. You can say anything you want. I just called it irrational.
How can you "disagree" with what I like? You like a different thing? How is that related to me at all?
It's an insult because it is directly aimed at me. Saying I think your list is not good is not an insult toward you.
Good for you that the one deciding is you. I know he'll be objective.
...it really isn't but go on
It's rational for you to "disagree" with a personal taste of mine? Lol. And you're a mod?
I never said you have to believe me
What's to believe? You think what I like is invalid because you don't like it. Rich.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
Sure you did.I never slandered him...
Way to use an insult as an argument
My opinion of your behavior is an insult but your opinion of my list is ypur prerogative?
Then good for you if it is good for you. It's my opinion
Lol. Your opinion is that what I find good for me shouldn't be.
I am giving an opinion, and my opinion is allowed
Yes. Even highly irrational ones.
GOOD FOR YOU
Yes. That is how its supposed to work.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
We can see your break didn't mature you any dee dee....you need to take a break from DEBATEART like the equally bible ignorant fool ethang5 did,...
mopac - [Dee Dee is] Definitely not a Christian by any true sense of what that means.
Stephen - Correct.
Oops! Dee Dee, I think you're not even fooling the other fake poster.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
I know. I didn't say you did. I said you slandered RM.And I am not slandering you for your list.
From your behavior on this thread so far, I would think he has a point.He also likes to say I never deserved a position at all and things like.
...when you talk about people on a site, you are bound to have your disagreements, especially on a debate site
So you "disagree" with who I find interesting to read. You think I should not find Dr. Franklin interesting, and think your opinion somehow invalidates my liking his posts. It's amazing how you cannot see how ludicrous that position is.
If you have a different list, make one of your own dudz. Mine doesn't have to agree with yours. And my list is not validated by whether you like it or not.
..and just sad your list was not good lmao
My list was perfect for me. It has all the people I like to read. How is that "not good"? A list that did not have my favs would be "not good".
You think my list has to be good for you for it to be good. But then it wouldn't be my list now would it?
You obviously dislike Dr. Franklin and RM, and are letting your hate cloud your good sense. My opinion is that both of them consistently make better posts than you.
But it's has been nice to know my list didn't meet your approval. Luckily for me, my list is supposed to contain the posters I like, and not the posters you like. That is what makes my list "good" for me.
Created:
-->
@Stephen
Stop spamming your lame excuses and address your contradiction majoub.
You contradicted yourself. You said MoPac was a sheep, but we know that barnyard animals cannot post here.
Then you agreed that barnyard animals cannot post here, but that leaves your comment calling MoPac a sheep a blatant contradiction. Address your contradiction.
Are you ashamed?
Created:
-->
@Stephen
It's only literal when you want it to be right (hate)? and figurative only when you want it to be right (sheep) lol?
And then will dodge and shuffle around instead of addressing his contradiction.
Yet in your ignorance you were able to claim Jesus was wrong.I admitted right from the start that I didn't know.
What you still cannot get over is that you didn't fkn know either.
I knew it wasn't in the bible. I knew that the bible was not in existence at the time of Jesus comment. I knew "scripture" did not necessarily mean "bible". I knew Jesus was not wrong.
I will also add that I know these scriptures better than you too.
Lol! Sure you do Jed. That must be why you dodge and run like an Olympic champ.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
The evidence is the bible verse saying there were 4 of them from one family, and lists their killers, the soldiers of David.Nice try, but you have not provided a single piece of evidence for your crack pot excuse for there being more than one Goliath.
2nd Samuel 21:22 - These FOUR were the descendants of Rapha in Gath, and they fell at the hands of David and his men.
Remember? Its the verse you are pretending you can't see.
You have not explained who killed these other Goliath's. either.
I quoted the bible listing all four killers. You also have that move in your obtuse dance.
FAIL!!! AGAIN!!!!
Lol. Yeah. Ironic.
Created:
-->
@Stephen
You are saying that MoPac is not a literal sheep
No that is the way you want to and are interpret the word and out of context.
So you are saying MoPac is a literal sheep?
Could not the bible be using different meanings of the words love and hate also?
They are different words. and they do mean TWO DIFFERENT things.
Depends on the meaning genius. Sheep and human are different words too. You called a human a sheep.
FFS try reading this contradictory crap for yourself and keep up.
I've read your contradictory crap and I am trying to get you to stop dodging and address it.
Calling a human a sheep is a contradiction genius. Maybe you don't know what a contradiction is.
Do you?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
But you claimed RM would do exactly that were he not on it. I think the same of you.I am not calling it bullshit cause I am not on it.
The difference is I have your posts complaining about my personal tastes, you have no evidence for your slander against RM except your bias.
Do you also hate my choice of favorite color and style of bonsai? Do you also find my love of turtlenecks shirts to be invalid?
Lol.
Created:
-->
@Stephen
How can a question about a comment you made be harassment?
Already answered on the correct and appropriate thread.
No sir. You contradicted yourself. You said MoPac was a sheep, but we know that barnyard animals cannot post here.
Then you agreed that barnyard animals cannot post here, but that leaves your comment calling MoPac a sheep a blatant contradiction. Address your contradiction.
Stop intentional cross threading to create an argument. it is totally against the rules.
There is no thread about your silly contradiction Pedro. It isn't a topic from any other thread.
It isn't so easy to address your own contradictions is it genius? You called a poster a sheep, and then said sheep could not post. Are you confused?
Created:
-->
@Stephen
This elusive verse has baffled me for a long time. Why can I not find it ?
I am not pretending. I know the bible inside out the New Testament in particular, and more than you will ever live to know them.
*You didn't know Jesus could not have been quoting a nonexistent bible.
*You didn't know the history of how the bible came to be.
*You know the bible does not contain all scripture.
*You thought Jesus had made a mistake.
Knowing something inside out is sure not what it used to be.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Lol! You're now spamming the same silliness to multiple posters.
The fact that you can't answer, but hide behind spam is proof you are empty. Vacuous.
You can't address 2nd Samuel 21:22 - These FOUR were the descendants of Rapha in Gath, and they fell at the hands of David and his men.
Which four Cletus? Lol
If only you had read the passage before you demonstrated you were ignorant of the topic huh?
Spam again. Your emptiness will be even more apparent.
Created:
-->
@Stephen
You are saying that MoPac is not a literal sheep. So you must be using a different definition of the word "sheep". So you are aware that words can have more than one meaning.
Could not the bible be using different meanings of the words love and hate also? Because you did say "sheep". Why is your comment not a contradiction?
If you can see that, why can you not see how dumb it is to simply insist on the word usedin the bible and not examine the meaning intended in the bible?
Here are your contradicting comments again:
1. And I wouldn't expect anything else from a sheep. - Said to MoPac, a human being posting to this thread.
2. No I do think "farm animals" are posting on this forum. -Yet you called a poster a barnyard animal.
While you're crying that words in the bible can have only one meaning, you're running away from your own one meaning contradiction.
Can the class say hypocrite?
I thought it could.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
I don't care about being on a list or what not.
Lol. OK. But your behavior on this thread belies that claim.
I have an opinion on the validity of the list and personally I don't think your list is great...
A personal read list can only have validity or be "great" for its creator. Your opinion of its validity or greatness is illogical. Perhaps you are confused about the concept.
and I used the example of DrF. Also by nothing, I mean an exxagerated version of "not good or flawed"
How another person's personal tastes can be "not good or flawed" for you escapes me. You liking or not liking it does nothing to its greatness or validity.
The list would then be called "Utter bullshit because I am not on it."
Like you're contending right now. Lol. OK dude.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Singularity
If you didn't fear death, you would be dead and certainly not using religion as a coping mechanism.
I am neither dead or using religion as a coping mechanism.
But you're contradicting yourself. You said people did not fear death, but feared nonexistence. My contention is not that people do not fear death, but that Christianity is not a coping system against the fear of death. It doesn't save us from dying.
The only people unafraid of death are martyrs, and usually they lie to themselves about an after life as well.
Illogical. Martyrs are only martyrs AFTER dying, not while alive. Most people are afraid of the pain that usually comes with dying, not death itself.
I've seen several people die, only a few of them showed fear at the prospect. But I don't care whose afraid and whose isn't, my only point is that Christianity cannot be a coping mechanism against death because Christians still die like everyone else.
You're basically still telling me your personal opinions. They are illogical, but that is allowed with opinions.
I remain here if you should ever start talking about facts and reality. Thanks.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
Christ is our only wisdom, but some do not know Him.
Doc is, correct me if I am wrong, saying that the the Leibnizian Cosmological Argument is logically valid, not that it is true. He may personally believe it is true, but his case here is to it's logical validity.
My gut reaction towards proving God with logic is that questioning the existence of God is in itself ludicrous and wicked if you recognize that The Truth is God.
I agree. But many do not recognize that The Truth is God. We must speak to them none-the-less.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
Lol!
See how he dodged your question? Par for the course. Just destroy his lame arguments, and let him dance the obtuse.
Everyone sees it. And its healthy entertainment.
Created:
You cannot possibly expect anyone to take you seriously if you also "expect" farm animals to be posting to this forum. Can you clear that up?
No I do think "farm animals" are posting on this forum.
Thank you. OK then, you responded to MoPac this way,...
Mopac - I for the most part would say the same thing EtrnlVw did.
Stephen - Of course you would. And I wouldn't expect anything else from a sheep.
You are saying that MoPac is not a literal sheep. So you must be using a different definition of "sheep". So you are aware that words can have more than one meaning.
Could not the bible be using different meanings of the words also? Because you did say "sheep". Why is your comment not a contradiction?
If you can see that, why can you not see how dumb it is to simply insist on the word used and not examine the meaning intended?
Although there are no doubt some pig ignorant posters here .
Lol. On that most people reading your posts can agree. Pigs, like sheep, are ignorant.
Created:
-->
@Stephen
How can a question about a comment you made be harassment?
Did you make the comment or not? If you didn't then we need to alert the mods that someone else has access to your account.
If you did make the comment, you need to explain it because barnyard animals cannot make posts to the internet. Why are you running away from a simple question about what you said?
...pick up the thread or simply leave it
You started with an off topic question to me about the mods. Hypocrite much?
Do you really think farm animals can post to this forum? You made the comment saheed. Can you explain it?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
He knows he's a crank. The fact that he consistently dodges questions that would expose him proves it.
He allows us to expand on biblical topics and his absurd responses and comical dodging actually enhance our answers. I like him.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
2nd Samuel 21:22 - These FOUR were the descendants of Rapha in Gath, and they fell at the hands of David and his men.
Which four Cletus? Lol
You actually think you can ignore a verse in the text of a passage you dispute.
If only you had read the passage before you demonstrated you were ignorant of the topic huh?
Spam will not save you Jethro.
Created:
-->
@Stephen
Nothing to clear up, its your opinion and you are welcome to it.
I posted your comment, not my opinion.
This is not to mention how many times Jesus calls himself a shepherd and the many times others call him a "shepherd" and his "flock" sheep.
So Jesus had sheep. So what? You could be a shephard if you had sheep. But that is very different from calling a poster to this thread a sheep. That isn't my opinion, its your comment. Are you denying you said it?
So, not surprisingly, you have failed again and are already attempting to create an argument from nothing.
I'm asking you a question about something you said, just like you do with the bible.
So now either address the blazing contradiction concerning love and hate, or simply leave the thread.
Lol. Without you addressing your blazing contradiction concerning sheep and posting? I don't think so. I'm going to make you run and dodge till you're even more dizzy than you usually are.
Sheep do not have sentience. They cannot type. They do not own computers or smart phones.
You cannot possibly expect anyone to take you seriously if you also "expect" farm animals to be posting to this forum.
Can you clear that up?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
2nd Samuel 21:22 - These FOUR were the descendants of Rapha in Gath, and they fell at the hands of David and his men.
Stick your head in the sand deeper.
Respamming your post where you dodge addressing the verse that shames you does nothing.
Your claim of a contradiction is dead, as proven by your inability to address the verse...
2nd Samuel 21:22 - These FOUR were the descendants of Rapha in Gath, and they fell at the hands of David and his men.
Which four Cletus? Lol
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Good analysis Doc. Clear and easy to follow. Too bad you flew over the heads of most your responders.
They will all readily tell you that its wrong, but don't hold your breadth waiting for any of them to show you how its wrong.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
2nd Samuel 21:22 - These FOUR were the descendants of Rapha in Gath, and they fell at the hands of David and his men.
Stick your head in the sand deeper.
And I find it odd that even not 1 of the five other posters on this thread, including Mopac , couldn't or didn't come up with that absolute crap of an excuse!
Its a bible verse talking about your subject Jethro. Lol. How can the very text be an excuse?
Here it is again, from the bible of your own choice.
Every bible has the same verse Hosea.
Stick your head deeper in the sand. You wouldn't want to have to acknowledge 2nd Samuel 21:22 now would you?
Created:
-->
@Stephen
I say once again you've dodged the topic of my post.Eh Ethang,what do you say.
You said...
Of course you would. And I wouldn't expect anything else from a sheep.
Sheep do not have sentience. They cannot type. They do not own computers or smart phones.
You cannot possibly expect anyone to take you seriously if you also "expect" farm animals to be posting to this forum.
Can you clear that up?
Created:
-->
@Stephen
You will disagree about that too shortly.
Do you really think farm animals can post to this forum?
Created:
Posted in:
My Salvation Bus broke down...
Lol!! I don't think you were even on it dee dee. but something surely has broken down with you.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Singularity
People don't fear the experience of death, if they claim to it is a cope.
What is the "experience of death"? And how is it different from ceasing to exist?
Well, if you're guessing at what people fear, then go ahead. I have no problem with your personal opinion.I think what they really feat is the seizing to exist, this is why they create religion to ease that existential anxiety.
When you do want logical facts though, I'm your guy.
Created:
-->
@Singularity
Yes. Liberals roll out their talking points as if they have night school to learn how to regurgitate that stuff like lemmings.Did anybody say Dunning Kruger affect yet?
2 weeks after Hitchens or some other mentally challenged atheist says it, it pops up on their posts like clock work.
Someone will bring it up soon.....wait.
Created:
This is untrue. I said the reason for his dissatisfaction with life might be because of his contradicting beliefs.Ethang says that you aren't a Christian for being a libertarian. I don't think the two are mutually exclusive.
When he is ready to address the root causes of his unhappiness, he will.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Singularity
The death people fear is the one we all know. Christianity doesn't save anyone from the death they fear. We all still die.
Christianity requires the Christian to die. Anyone looking to avoid death would better look elsewhere.
Christianity says God will hold Christians more responsible for sin, and judge them more severely. Anyone looking to avoid death would better look elsewhere.
Christianity calls all "works" by man, vanity. And says works cannot save us from death. Anyone looking to avoid death by being immortalized through "works" would better look elsewhere.
Christianity values age, and likens gray hair to a crown. It says there is no fountain of youth, but Jesus is the fountain of which its drinkers never die. Christianity is not your best shot if you wish to stay young.
Given all this, how you can call Christianity a cope is a mystery. Christianity is actually for mature, strong, people who are ready to face reality and consequences without blinking. We are Christians because we stopped "coping".
Created:
-->
@Mopac
Libertarianism, though not near as noxious as communism, is just as irrational.
The only people who would see value in libertarianism are people in technologically advanced countries who have lost touch with reality through being protected from reality by their culture's advanced technology.
A single Hitler is sufficient to show the complete irrationality of libertarianism.
Created:
Posted in:
Here is the passage our genius is avoiding.
There were 4 goliaths actually, not 2. And if you had read the texts instead of cutting and pasting from a website like a biased ******, you wouldn't be this ******.
(Truth deleted to satisfy coc)
2nd Samuel 21:18 –
2nd Goliath
War against - Philistines
War location – Gob
Hero – Sibbecai the Hushathite
Villain – Saph, descendant of Rapha
2nd Samuel 21:19
3rd Goliath
War against - Philistines
War location – Gob
Hero – Elhanan, son of Jaare-Oregim, of Bethlehem
Villain – Goliath the Gittite
2nd Samuel 21:20
4th Goliath
War against - Philistines
War location – Gath
Hero – Jonathan, son of Shimeah, and David’s brother
Villain – Goliath the Gittite
And the evidence for this is in the text.
2nd Samuel 21:22 - These FOUR were the descendants of Rapha in Gath, and they fell at the hands of David and his men.
See? Either you didn't read the passages, or your reading comprehension is just **** poor. Or you're lying again.
Created:
-->
@Mopac
the ideal is to get as close to anarchy as you can...
1 Corinthians 14:33
Created:
-->
@EtrnlVw
Thanks for holding the fort. Some nice posts there bud. Too bad the levelheaded wisdom in them was wasted on some.
Created:
-->
@Athias
I'll say. One would think if he was going to replace the context with a made up one, he would consider making sense.It continues to be an "enigma" because you have trouble understanding, even when replacing premises, the importance of context
Not to mention, John was the disciple whom Jesus loved and who was present at Jesus' crucifixion.
Yet our genius says it was Lazarus. Why? Because a verse elsewhere says Jesus loved Lazarus. What about other verses saying Jesus loved other people? Our genius "forgets" those.
What about the fact that John, whom Jesus loved, was present, and Lazarus, whom Jesus also loved, was not present but lived in another town? Our genius "forgets" those.
But this is a guy who thinks farm animals post to this forum. "Context" wouldn't hold much importance to such a person
Created:
-->
@Stephen
Sheep do not have sentience. They cannot type. They do not own computers or smart phones.Of course you would. And I wouldn't expect anything else from a sheep.
If you expect a sheep to be making posts here, then I wonder about your sanity.
If a sheep did own a pc, and could type, why in the world would he be posting to the religion forum?
You cannot possibly expect anyone to take you seriously if you also "expect" farm animals to be posting to this forum.
Created:
-->
@Mopac
What do libertarians believe?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
...there are flaws to the list
The only "flaw" to my list is that you didn't agree with it. I don't see that as a flaw.
You probably have your own list, and there is nothing wrong with that. I only wanted you to understand that Dr. Franklin being on my list and you being off it does not make it "nothing". Same would be true of your list, whomever was on or off it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
RM thinks that it has some validation or is an official list or something
Unlike how you apparently think about "likes"?
You didn't just say my list was nothing, you said it was nothing "because....". No person on or off a personal read list makes it nothing.
RM was right in that two members publicly called his posts "must read", as opposed to a "like" vote that is anonymous and can be auto-clicked.
Created:
Posted in:
The aim of terrorism is to cower people into accepting injustice through fear.
Sulimani was a government official. So what? The President is sworn to protect American lives, regardless of who threatens them.
I can only imagine what these people complaining now would have said about Hitler and WWII. "Hitler is a government official!"
In the real world, there are evil people, sometimes war is inevitable.
But revulsion to war should never make us accept atrocities, or else terrorism will have accomplished its aim.
Created:
Posted in:
We never hear what should have been done with Sulimani.
Nothing? With him slaughtering Americans? Is that a serious option?
Talk to Iran? When his killing of Americans was what pleased them in the first place?
Punished Iran some other way that did not involve death? How is that different from allowing Sulimani to continue to kill Americans?
People just up and condemn the President, never admitting that there was no better option.
They say, "He was an official of a foreign government!"
So what? How does his office protect him from the charge of murder?
They say, "More Americans will be killed!"
So we should overlook the deaths of 600 Americans because the killers will kill more? Is that not the aim of terrorism?
Created: