Search results

It's a shame really jem. Irrespective of the awful rubbish you come out with in these religious threads, you must presumably be a decent guy way deep down, past all that inhumane doctrinal gunk, if you care about what your mon thinks of you. Good luck.

Unfortunately for you the record shows. Obviously your ego and pretentiousness is more than enough to stop you understanding what is actually being said .

Madmen go around mindlessly supporting a book in the way you do which threatens, inplied and direct, the actions of a mass murdering genocidal maniac as something worth worshipping. And your eventual response was.... "you may presume that it was predicted." ..anyway!! You dolt. The...

Non of that will make a scrap of difference to the fact you obviously aren't able to deal with the underlying facts. A long ago I came to the conclusion you were dishonest on matters explaining the ideas behind your religion. All this stuff is yet more evidence of that. What a lot of Rubbish...

It doesn't. You said it. I asked you what you mean. You can't get past that. Get help from whoever is working your keyboard to explain it jem. F'kin 'ell jem. What are you on? stu: "The destruction of the middle east, which presumably you consider to be God's or Jesus's intention," Jem...

jem, I must presume you are trying to be straightforward when you respond, right? There see? I made a presumption as a question hanging, as an invite for you to answer. Now watch.... " You make TWO statements in ONE sentence... " (1)When you will have a chance to see him arrive for...

Why don't I stop at myth? You've not noticed. I do. You do not. Myths (Bible stories) and the characters in them, proves your point about the efficacy (not mythical) of other myths (miracles) according to what you say. That is not stopping at myth. Your argument requires faith in myth...

How strange, I see your misunderstanding ! :) I’ll ask the question slightly differently.. Do you think a different version of God is somehow not God ? Do you see? By your statement above , you will have to be defining someone else’s God (Greek, Egyptian, Grimm) as “not God” so...

Get outa town ddunbar! There is contradiction in what you state. You say.. " It makes no sense to test/falsify God against itself.".. only then to go along and describe how you would do just that! In what way exactly do you not test/falsify God against itself when.. "...it makes plenty of...

Bullshit. You made two statements contained in one sentence. 1. " When you will have a chance to see him arrive for yourself,.." 2. ".. after the destruction of the middle east.". I asked you, because of that sentence you wrote and the inference of statement 2 , ... "presumably you...

It's not difficult to appreciate the way in which archimedes finds such discussions deteriorating under the theistic viewpoint. One minute the idea that, to test/falsify God for existence means one must only test/falsify for God against itself, is rejected with .. "No I wouldn't dare put...

Not worth the bother and irrelevant begs the question, why did you mention the middle east in the first place? "When you will have a chance to see him arrive for yourself, after the destruction of the middle east.".. Are you now saying, half what you think of your sentence is...

So are you really saying that things which you can't test/falsify, can only be compared for verification against themselves?! Can't test/falsify God for existence means one must only test/falsify for God against itself?! How would that be anything but disingenuous? Test/falsify the H&B...

You make some very relevant points and they are well taken. But surely your suggestion stifles debate and leaves no room for the evaluation of much at all. One side says true the other false and the debate ends with no more information or clarification on either side. If one's argument can only...

ddunbar, It is noticeable the way in which all your reasons must inevitably rely only on the cast of characters and their adventures within a story book. Paul said this, did that, because it says so in the narrative of a fictional account. Ok, you will consider the Bible to be a factual...

JEM you do not consider the destruction of the middle east to be God's or Jesus's intention? . Could you explain yourself any better then? ..... ..or else what? The whole message is a threat. Jesus says in Matthew do it this way or you burn. You have the evidence you asked for. The mistake I...

The context is your question for evidence. The "burn rhetoric" evidence you asked for is from Jesus in Matthew. The jesus character in the story is telling his disciples parables about this and that, including a tale on how the 'son of man' will send folk to everlasting hell fire. That is...

non-miximetrohirizination the antonym is pro-miximetrohirizination

I find that explanation a lot more apealing than the one about a great big narcissistic fairy sky elf who gets pissed if you don't sing to it .

jesus plain enough.. Matthew 25:41 "Then shall he ['the Son of man'] say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels " He expects people to 'come unto' the least of his brethren, whilst he himself would rather...