Total posts: 5,875
-->
@dylancatlow
@ResurgetExFavilla
Excellent post!
Is it yours? Sorry, I had to ask.
And nothing in the Constitution says they are.
This is why I subscribe to judicial realism.
Trump, if he can get just 2 more rational judges on the bench, will turn the poor state of affairs around.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Raltar
Hear, hear!!I believe ducks are the official meme for this website.
I now commission an artistic minion of Dart to create a duck meme for this kingdom to be presented to King Mike.
Dart: Respect the Duck.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
May one suspect that the "brides" had very little choice in the matter?
That would be true. But in the particular case where the woman's city state had been defeated and destroyed, the alternative for the woman was being left in the wild with no protection. That was most likely a certain death. It is more the times forcing the women's hand than the men.
There were no police. The countryside swarmed with bandits, outlaws, robbers and slavers. People were drawn to city states because they afforded a measure of protection. Hardly anyone travelled alone, and theft and murder went unpunished.
That is how people were, yet atheists will blame God. But of the two choices, the women would certainly have chosen to go with the men. Women could not earn a living alone. Single women outside the household of a man was begging for trouble unless she was very old.
The Hebrew men were not thinking rape, they were thinking marriage. Their society was not set up where they could take a woman and sleep with her in an affair. And the risk upon discovery was death.
The captured women were taken in by the female elders of the tribe. They were assigned duties and thought the religion, as any man who was interested, showed his interest. The woman was free to refuse any man, but in those days, that was not a thing done lightly, as a wrong decision could mean spinsterhood and death.
In those times, marriage was very, very important. A westerner of today cannot imagine how important it was to a woman. She had no hope of a career, or schooling. Her only chance in life was to somehow snag a man and have children. And as virtually everyone was poor, and people could not marry outside of class, a "rich" man was not a realistic expectation. Men were so certain that a woman would say yes, they sometimes simply asked her father, not even telling the woman.
Though unfair to women, these were the times. It was rough and tumble, and a very hard living. People who blame God for people's behavior, or who speak out of ignorance of these times, are mostly just looking for a way to blame God.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
The point is that it's not a story about god or god commanding people to do anything so the thread title 'God of Rape' is misleading.
Thanks Keith. Though "misleading" is a little....... misleading. Hmm?
In those days, it was immoral for a woman to live with a man she was not married to, so why would anyone assume the women were to be sex slaves?
If a woman was to yell if she was being raped, then the rape would be stopped if she yelled. Why would anyone assume the women were to be sex slaves?
If these women were to be betrothed, then they were to be married, not used as sex slaves. Why would anyone assume the women were to be sex slaves?
The phrase, "take for yourselves" means, take as wives for yourselves. Sex outside of marriage was considered a sin. Why would anyone assume the women were to be sex slaves?
Why? Because to the froward, all things are bad. To the impure, all things are impure. Out of a sick mind comes sick thoughts.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
That was a statement of fact used to show the stupidity of basing personhood on the baby's dependency on the mother. You took it and used it as if it was an endorsement. You did so because you've lost the argument and are now resorting to lies.Exactly what context do you believe is required in order to properly understand "But today, babies as young as 5 months old can survive outside the mother"?
It's a quote of me from a besting I gave you. Keep lying, and I will keep that hot spotlight on you.
Bizarrely, you don't actually own every single sentence you write.
So when you quote someone, credit them. It's supposed to be difficult to tell you're a liar.
You have absolutely no way of determining if I am pretending to be obtuse or lying.
Sure I do. But as it doesn't matter, I don't care. Either way, you've lost, and either way, you're an idiot.
Y U MAD BRO?
Lol. I see you've run out of stupidity. Rest a bit and your tank will replenish. You are a liberal.
Your penchant for ad hominem attacks is actually pretty adorable.
Oops. The liberal is about to play the victim card. Every attack was on your silly, illogical argument. But people do find me adorable, that is true.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Again you're stupidly telling me why you can't believe as if your belief is some sort of prize for me.
That is precisely why it is unreasonable to believe....
I don't care. I don't care for your reasons. I don't care if you believe or don't. I.don't.care.
Stop telling me how and why you don't believe. I don't care.
You don't believe. You've told everyone a million times. Move on or shut up. I don't care.
Created:
Posted in:
What I actually said was that (IFF) an individual human with the full protection of the law sparks into existence at the moment of conception (THEN) all miscarriages are potentially crimes and should be investigated as such.
You just added in "potentially". Your concession is noted.
(IFF) you consider a zygote has the same legal protections as a citizen, (THEN) every dead zygote deserves examination and investigation.
If it is noticed. If it is reported. If it is suspicious. Sure.
...preventable miscarriages are nothing to worry about.
I did not say preventable miscarriages are nothing to worry about. Lying will not help you.
Give me a call when being selfish and stupid become crimes.
Concession noted. Abortion is immoral.
If the mother drank excessive amounts of alcohol and ran a marathon every month, would that be a-ok in your opinion?
What business of mine are marathon runners and heavy drinkers?
But using that (raising the bar to 100%) as an excuse to not even try is ridiculous.
So then tell it to those who are not even trying.
Perfect, so if abortions were barely detectable and went unnoticed and unreported, there would also be no problem with them.
No, people would still see them on TV and still report them. Lol, sorry, this level of stupidity demands sarcasm. If they are undetected and unnoticed, no one is going to know Einstein.
By screening through raw sewage in search of precious zygotes...
Stop being stupid. We don't do that for adult people now, why would we do that for the unborn when we don't know if the miscarriage was anyone's fault? And what would you learn from the zygote? Expecting to find knife marks? We don't assume foul play unless something is suspicious.
An embryo is not an individual human being with the full rights of citizenship and protection of the law until the cord is cut. True Fact.
Truth joined to a lie are still lies. An embryo is an individual human person . That is a scientific fact. The law does not change reality.
Nobody wants to kill embryos.
That is another lie. You want to kill them. Many do. No one has to kill an embryo, yet they do.
And if an embryo is not a human or alive as you claim, why would anyone hesitate to kill it?
...take those embryos to a doctor, a no-kill-doctor
Smarmy stupidity. The embryo is alive. After the abortion, it is dead. Your phrase, "no-kill" unadulterated stupidity.
...nobody will have any desire to abort embryos of five months or older.
Stupidity. The desire to kill babies do not stem from a lack of ectogenesis services (whatever that is), it comes from a lack of morality. Basing personhood on technology is cold and stupid.
The mother and the embryo are one person because the embryo is 100% dependent on the mother.
Ad-hoc nonsense. Dependency does not make two people one. That is just an arbitrary standard you made up to rationalize killing babies.
The conjoined twins in your example are 50% dependent on each other.
No sir. Many conjoined twins share vital organs and cannot be separated. They are inseparable. But your 50% is just more of your ad-hoc nonsense.
So now are you suggesting that "making laws on exceptions is sometimes perfectly logical"?
Read what I said, not suggest what you wish I'd said. Lying will not win you arguments.
There is no such thing as a "genetically mutated tumor".
Full stop
Full stupidity. Your claim is that cancer cells are genetically distinguishable from the host. They are not. Really, you are just ignorant on genetics.
The example I gave was of human chimeras, not "a baby".
So it was human? Concession noted.
Red herring. Nobody claimed a zygote/embryo is not comprised of human cells.
You said the zygote was not human. Would you like to take that back?
..that have the DNA of their prenatal sibling.
The sibling being a baby. Lol. We can explore this one for as long as you like. This only proves my point, the baby and the mother are genetically different, and thus not the same person. And the only genetically different cells in the anyone, will be from a baby or a transplant.
Unfortunately your opinion has nothing to do with who is legally considered a citizen and who isn't.
Fortunately, we are debating who is a person. The law changes, reality doesn't.
When a woman deports a foreign invader from her sovereign body, what happens to it outside is nobody's business.
Please stop being stupid. "Outside" her body holds no right of privacy. And immigrants are born elsewhere, a baby is in it's country in the womb. It is not a foreigner, and as such cannot be deported.
Liberal logic.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
What if we deport a criminal from, say, New York to Chicago? They're futher apart than London and Paris.
Doesn't apply because New York begins with the letter "N" and Chicago with the letter "C".
Created:
Posted in:
No sir. It is your delusion of grandeur that makes you think I want or desire your belief. I have never proselytized anyone on this site.
I defend Christian doctrine. It is God who converts hearts. But you aren't alone in your delusion. Most liberals think, as you do, that Christians are salesmen trying to sell them something and that their belief is currency.
That is a delusion. You aren't desired. Your belief is not being sought. You aren't special. No one needs your validation. Understand that.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Opinions can be facts. Plus, a post only needs to be factual and legible.
You did cut a comment of mine. You did take it out of context. You did pretend to be obtuse. You did lie. You did post it uncredited in another thread.
It is no surprise that you are a liar. I'm use to people like you resorting to dishonesty. I just expose your stink. Whether you still have enough of a conscience to be ashamed matters not to me. I just let the Gentle Reader get a whiff of your funk.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Ramshutu
thas what he said.(sic)
When will you be joining the queue?
Created:
Posted in:
Miscarriages are not automatically crimes. Using your brain will not hurt you....often contribute to miscarriage
It is not a crime to get pregnant...
But it is selfish and stupid to spread your legs, and then kill the baby that develops.
having children is not a punishment.
Nor should it be a death sentence for the child.
This argument is nonsensical...
Stop being stupid. No one can help everyone.
We can never fix all road damage, therefore why bother?
Stop being stupid and deceitful. I never said "why bother". I help who I can, and who I think deserve help will be decided by me, not you or some other liberal moron.
Because miscarriages are often barely detectable and most go unnoticed or unreported.
Then there is no problem with them.
....these are all potential murder cases that should be investigated.
How can they be investigated if the go by unnoticed or unreported? Again, are you trying to be stupid?
If you want to cut the cord at 5 months, that's fine with me baby!
I did not want to cut the cord, that is just your stupidity misleading you. You claim a baby is not a person as long as it is dependent on the mother for survival. So then your definition of personhood depends on how early technology can make baby survive outside the mother. That is stupid. No wonder you tried to dodge that point by pretending to be obtuse.
Your conjoined twins example is exceptionally rare
The frequency doesn't matter. If as you claim the baby and the mother are one person because they are physically connected, then so are conjoined twins. I don't need you to agree, logic will roll on without you.
PLUS, didn't you say, "Making laws on exceptions is silly"?
I did. Yet you keep trying to do so.
In the same way that a genetically mutated tumor is technically "NOT an individual human being with the full protection of the law" and simultaneously "part of the mother".
Repeating a lie will not make it true. There is no such thing as a "genetically mutated tumor". It is nonsense. You are just pitifully ignorant of genetics. A baby is human, regardless of whether the law affords it protection. And a baby is not the mother, and no amount of silly semantics will change that.
The example I gave was of human chimeras, not "a baby".
So it was human? Concession noted. And your chimera came about from a fertilized egg, or what is commonly called a baby. You should be ashamed to lie like this.
Embryos are not citizens. True Fact.
I beg to differ. Every person conceived here or having citizens as parents is a citizen. Plus who I chose to save is my business, not yours.
Have you heard the term "public policy"?
Within a country yes. American public policy is no business of say, Russia. If a woman, with people within her, can have privacy, so can a country, with people within it, have privacy.
I've honestly never even heard anyone suggest that a nation (itself) has some sort of right to privacy.
Which is why you liberal dweebs think its OK for foreigners to just walk into America. You try to take an impromptu stroll into Iran or North Korea and you'll see if countries value privacy.
Once we deport some foreign criminal back to his country, what happens inside there is not our business.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
I have no reason to believe....
I do not care what you do or do not believe. You have no need to apologize to me for not believing something. I don't care. I have never proselytized to you. I could not care less if you withhold your belief. I do not give one fig for why you do not believe. Your belief means nothing to me. I'm not seeking it, asking for it, or needing it.
Read the above slowly, so that you don't respond to me yet again by telling me how you're sorry you must withhold your belief. I don't care.
Created:
Posted in:
What humanity really needs is one that cures stupidity.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
Deb isn't pretending. Words mean only what he/she thinks they mean.Lets just keep pretending words are meaningless.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Analgesic.Spectre
You can remain in ignorance. That is your right as stupidity has not yet been made illegal. You don't know science well enough to make the judgments you're trying to make. Basically, your POV is from ignorance.
Fine. But don't be upset when I point out your ignorance and highlight your stupidity. That is the price you will pay for choosing to remain in ignorance.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Ramshutu
For example: your go-to example of malefeasance was the mods publically asking whether the community would support some form of limited additional power - and agreeing to the result.
Fake news. First, the mod requested this obviously nazi- like power of the owner and the owner made him put it to the board. So it was not as "transparent" as you think.
And when he put it to the board, he did so with the most absurd justification. You keep telling us your feelings, at the very least, drafterman'sfeelings are as valid as yours. And unlike you, he has actual examples of mod misbehavior.
That is why you have to constantly resort to silly tactics like calling him childish, and babbling about prams and sandboxes. You wouldn't need such silliness if you had a case.
In my 23 years on the net, there has always been a sycophant like you, willing to excuse bad behavior because it allowed you some small authority or prestige.
Draft has a complaint. He has a right to it, and to voice it. Many agree with him. And he has a right to voice his complaint without some idiot insulting him for doing so.
You think the mods are great, so go enjoy your voting club where you never fail to award points to the wonderful mods, (even when the mod himself disagrees with you), And let Draft do his thing too.
Bsh1 and virt are big boys, they don't need your protection.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Analgesic.Spectre
Genetic changes brought on by natural selection influenced by the particular environment.
Black pigeons are not a different "race" from white pigeons. Physiological differences do not make different "races". There are very large physiological differences even within families. Many people have siblings who are darker, or shorter, or bigger, not to mention the differences inside that we don't see.
You need to stop involvement in this convo until you have read a little on basic genetics. As it is, you are embarrassing yourself with your ignorance even if you don't know it.
The only thing that consigns the so called white, black, red and yellow people to different races, is racism. And most intelligent people would agree, racism is stupid.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
This is stupidity.I tend to accept the reality my senses present simply because no other is observable to me.
Do you think Einstein "observed" relativity? Has any scientist "observed" quantum entanglement? Your view is just a ploy to not have to address what you obviously don't understand. With your view, science would still be in the 9th century.
If that means that there is no reason to bother presenting me with evidence thhen don't bother.
I don't. And as posters get to know that your "prove it"s and "peer review citation"s are bogus, they will stop bothering too. How many bother now?
If you claim to know nothing, and have no way to tell what is reality, what in tarnation are you going to do with evidence? Use it as a doorstop? And if it is evidence you can't "observe", your view pretends it doesn't exist. The whole time you are running your little liberal atheist fantasy that theist are here seeking your validation.
Yeah, that's right. I don't bother.
Created:
Posted in:
How can anyone be satisfied with a worldview that requires them to dodge questions? Where is their internal integrity?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
No, it just contains facts you wish to avoid.This post contains no logical arguments.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Lol.
You can't debate your position, so you begin another thread with my comment cut and taken out of context. Win!
What liberals normally do in response to a principled conservative argument is lie, manufacture quotes, and call conservatives names.
-Ann Coulter
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Maybe EtrnlVw cares what you'll "consider", I don't. And if you know nothing for sure as you've said you do, your request for evidence is bogus.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@drafterman
Dude, you literally have the mods asking the site owner to gain access to user PMs.
He knows. The thief who is successfully breaking into houses always thinks the police are doing a great job patrolling.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@EtrnlVw
He has already admitted he does not know what is true and has no way of finding out what is true.In this case, how will you ever know what is true??
The absurdity of such a person asking you for evidence is lost on him. The fact is, by his own words he has no logical bases to ask for evidence, and has no logical bases to deny or reject your evidence.
Here is his strategy. If he says he knows nothing for sure, and he does say so, he doesn't have to answer any of your questions. But when it comes to demanding "evidence" from you and rejecting your evidence, suddenly, he knows something.
Don't know why you guys accept only one form of evidence. That is intellectually dishonest.
They know it's dishonest. If they were honest, your side would win the argument because they would not be able to address your evidence. They are materialists, they cannot address your position, thus the subterfuge and dodging.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Hey doofus,
I never talked about the poor.
You are just being an idiot. The verse says one should not put their hope in earthly riches. How is God giving Solomon riches a contradiction of that? You can't say, all you can do is repost the verses as if the gibberish in your head is apparent.
1. Why should God not give riches?
2. If one does not invest his heart in earthly riches, can he have riches?
3. Why does Jesus say we should not accumulate treasures on earth? Can you say doofus?
4. Solomon asked for knowledge so he could better rule God's people, and God, being impressed that he did not desire treasure for himself, gave him the money he needed to govern God's people. Was Solomon accumulating treasures for himself?
5. Where is the contradiction? Other than in your low IQ head?
You can't answer any of these questions. These are passages even a six year old would understand. You are confused.
And again, your broken English and poor grammar expose your lie, you are not English, neither have you been to college. And your ridiculous thinking suggest retardation. Sorry dweeb, it is obvious you grew up in some impoverished society, probably Muslim or Hindu.
Created:
Posted in:
So it is concluded that Mrs. Trump is great, intelligent, and beautiful, and the country loves her.
Does not surprise me.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
You are not thinking. But then, you never do.
Do not put you heart into earthly riches, does not mean you can't have earthly riches. Where is the contradiction? Only in your head.
You think there is a contradiction because you have assumed something not in the text (that wealth is bad) and are a poor thinker.(God shouldn't give wealth)
There is no contradiction goober. And the contradiction in your scrambled head doesn't count. All you did was repost the verses. Say what the contradiction is. Surely you know?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Alec
I will only respond this one time because you can't restrict a person from being stupid. You aren't making sense. Observe.
The US has about 2 million soldiers and our soldiers are better trained and equipped then African soldiers.
It doesn't matter. They aren't enough. Do you know how many a billion people are? 2 million soldiers are not enough to hold even the single country of Nigeria with 100 million people.
China and Russia would be hypocritical...
Yes, they would be, but they still won't stand by and allow America do it, hypocrital or not. China and Russia need raw materials from Africa, they currently have investments and agreements with several African countries, they would be crazy to allow America freedom to attack and take over Africa.
I think the US military is stronger then all 3 (India,China, Russia)of their militaries put together,
Then you are either young and very ignorant, or you are just stupid. The US is stronger than EACH one of them, but cannot fight all of them simultaneously. That is not something a knowledgeable person would think.
Then what was all the other land for?
It was for the taking as there were no organized countries to oppose their taking.
I think there were other tribes on the continent before Europe came along.
Who do you think it would be easier to invade, an area with a few scattered tribes with bows and arrows, or an actual country with an actual military with jets, bombs, and tanks? Europe did it when there were just tribes. America would have to do it multiple times to a real and active militaries. And each time America would have to leave a chunk of their soldiers there who would be useless in the attack on other countries. This would happen more than 50 times, and they began without enough soldiers. Think man.
If the locals are okay with it, which they probably would be if the US increases the standard of living for them and doesn't treat them badly, then the military will only have to defend the area from outsiders.
Are you stupid? OK with "it"? Would you be "OK" with someone invading your country? The African soldiers that would be killed, who do you think their mothers and fathers will be? Do you think promising their brothers and sisters a better standard of living would make them OK with America invading their country and killing their family? Would you be OK with your dad and brothers being killed and your country taken over if your standard of living would be made "better"?
Keep in mind that the African military, once the consent of the people is obtained, probably would help the US military in defending the area.
Because the American army is going to hold a vote? And the African army defending their country are going to wait till there has been a vote? What country's army do you think would help an invading army?
They aren't well equipped compared to American soldiers,
Doesn't matter. There are too many of them. Plus, the African soldiers will be home, so will not need as much logistics as the invaders. American soldiers will still die, no matter how much more better equipped they are. And after America loses the element of surprise, more of them will die with each successive invasion.
Africa may have some bombs and fighter jets, but the US has much more of them
Doesn't matter. America doesn't have enough of them. And each plane or tank lost in battle will delay the next invasion.
...and the US can make more on demand.
Not fast enough.
If Africa loses a tank, it would take a long time to make a new one.
Russia, China, and India would supply the African countries instantly.
If America loses a tank, they could make 5 more.
But when they lose soldiers, of which they already don't have enough, they can't make 5 more. And they would lose soldiers. The idea is ludicrous.
How old are you by the way?
Created:
Posted in:
Told you that you couldn't show it. Just posting the verses do nothing shemp.
Created:
Posted in:
There is no contradiction. You just have a low IQ and poor reading comprehension.
Like I said, you think simply posting the verses is evidence of a contradiction. The contradiction is in your head goober. If not, tell us what the contradiction is. You can't. And this is where you start yelling and cursing like the dolt you are.
Your English is at 5th grade level. Add that to your low IQ and we have you. The atheist who other atheists face palm when he posts.
Created:
-->
@dylancatlow
Excellent post.
+1
Created:
Posted in:
Lol. You got it but still thought it made no sense? A five year old would have understood this, but you had a problem.I got it first time around. I told you i got it first time around. Thank you.
Can the class say clueless?
Created:
Posted in:
Because,why can't a united America hold the whole continent,
1. America doesn't have enough soldiers to do so.
2. Other powers like China, India, and Russia will not let them do it.
3. When the European countries took over, there were only 2 countries in Africa. Egypt and Ethiopia.
4. Africa has about a billion people. Too many for any current military to capture and hold.
5. Today African countries have things they didn't have during colonial times, like bombs, fighter jets, tanks, and a lot more soldiers with fully automatic weapons.
Created:
Posted in:
Hey doofus. I don't want to "share" with you. You are nobody. Shut up and go away. You aren't boss. You aren't in control, and I don't care for your dumb opinion.Please share when you actually have any...
Shut up. Go away.
Created:
Posted in:
Lie. Your English is just too bad. If you are British, you are either naturalized, or didn't go to school. You may live in England now, but you certainly aren't English.Nope. I live and was born in England, Droitwich Worcestershire to be exact.
What “interpretation”?
The loony one you always introduce that isn't in the text.
One contradicts the other. it is there there to see
Yet no one sees it but you. Not even other atheists see it. Can the class say delusion?
Only you can never put up a reasonable answer...
To you, a reasonable means only agreement with your loony interpretation.
This is why you won't answer questions. Any opposition to your loony ideas and you start yelling and cursing, like an idiot. And then dodge the questions.
Created:
Posted in:
You being chief among those he blames. It is hilarious. Sorry, but it is funny.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@mustardness
I've told you that you have no authority, so shut up.
I don't care for your opinion. You are nobody. No one. You are just some idiot on the internet. You can't tell me anything. I think both you and your opinion are idiotic.
So shut up and go away. And please, take your meds.
Created:
Posted in:
Hey ringer, calm down.
Your multiple posts make you look guilty and ashamed. At least you still have a conscience.
You say you are innocent, relax. If you are innocent, why are you so bothered?
Go ring. Virts record is going to be great with you voting. I wonder if your inclusion in the voting club was a tit for tat arrangement with him? I have no proof, just wondering.
I don't want to keep you from your duties, so I'm out. You can keep posting your denials if you still feel guilty. I have better things to do.
Buh-bye.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
I am never sure what point Stephen is trying to make,
Stephen himself doesn't know.
but I think the problem is that in Chronicles the bible seems to be approve of earthly wealth but in the gospels it disaapproves of them.
Untrue. It is God that gives wealth. The NT is saying do not make earthly wealth your hearts desire, not that wealth is bad. That slant is just your spin to justify your bogus claim that there was a "change".
The solution is that the Hebrew/Jewish religion changed.
Its nice when you can manufacture a "problem" and then suggest a "solution" for it huh?
If you are an atheist one explains the change in historical and sociological terms. If you are a believer it is due to the change from old to new covenant.
But both "explanations" must operate as if your bogus claim that there was a change is true. Masterful fakery!
I think both have been explained to Stephen but neither shuts him up!
Stephen is not here for dialogue. The thrill for him is in the posting, not the debating.
I think Stephen lives in a non-christian, non-western country. From how he repeatedly posts the same thing over and over, he thinks the verses will be shocking to westerners, like they are to his ears. So he thinks just posting the verse is evidence of his loony interpretation.
Because he doesn't understand the verses, he thinks the problem is the verses. He has no clue that the problem is in his ignorance. So anyone from a western country familiar with the christian story, theist or atheist, finds his position ridiculous.
He claims to not understand things that a 5 year old child would find easy to understand. He's perfect for tossing for lolz, sort of like a gift to theists.
Created:
Posted in:
Sure. Everyone "runs away" but it isn't because you stink. No, the fault is with everyone else, not you.
Everyone calls you a troll, but they are all wrong, and you are innocent. You just have great questions.
OCD and delusion. OK.
Created:
Posted in:
And you have jumped to yet another verse. As usual.
You are empty, vacuous. Lacking logic.
Look up incredulous, it doesn't mean what you think.
Do not lay up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy and where thieves break in and steal
store up treasures that will last, not the the kind that will rot, be stolen, or fade away.
but lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust destroys and where thieves do not break in and steal
You are too dumb to understand that simplicity. It's funny
Clowns are funny.
Created:
Posted in:
The comments do not contradict. You just have a low IQ. See the quotes around "races"?
Shoo.
Oho, now you want me to shoo troll? Sorry, you came looking for me, you've found me. Enjoy.
Created:
Get a clue. "well-supported and worthwhile" are not values that can be assigned to your comments. Stop condemning people when you do the same things.
Created:
Posted in:
No sir. Demonstrated by your silly posts. Each time Keith has understood the verse you stumble over.OPINION, you clown.
Frankly, your criticisms are stupid. Funny in fact. Funnier still is how clueless you are, calling others clowns as you ride your unicycle with the painted face and big red nose.
The verse simply says, store up treasures that will last, not the the kind that will rot, be stolen, or fade away. You are too dumb to understand that simplicity. It's funny.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Keith knows, and more importantly, understands scripture better than you are capable of.Atheist such as keith prosser who doesn't believe a word of the scriptures,
Created:
Posted in:
Everyone "runs away" but it isn't because you stink. No, the fault is with everyone else.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@KingLaddy01
@Alec
This is a nitpick but are you referring to DR Congo? Because no, it is not larger than Europe. It's not even the largest country in Africa for that matter.
D.R. Congo is in fact larger than Europe.
On our actual planet, Africa is bigger than China, India, the contiguous U.S. and most of Europe—combined!
Scientific American just published a correctly proportioned image to show how Africa swallows up these nations, with Japan thrown in.
The variation between the equatorial regions is quite vast in reality and as long as we have flat screens it will always be not quite true to the true size and scope of the continents.
That said, the aforementioned countries outside of DR Congo and itself are unquestionably too much for the military to contain.
Thank you! Look at the size comparisons in the 1st link. It is crazy to think that the US could gain, much less hold, territory that size.
Created: