NationStates Jolt Archive

damn, i wanted to bag the 1,000th post in this thread :(

damn, i wanted to bag the 1,000th post in this thread :(
o.0

I thought I had the 999th post, since I looked at the number of replies. I should probably know how Jolt works by now. But anyway, yay for me! :p Sorry about that, old chap.

Just out of curiosity, why DID you mean non-same-sex?

Because the Bible condemns such behavior and those who commit such an act will be dispatched to Hell.

Because the Bible condemns such behavior and those who commit such an act will be dispatched to Hell.

Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?

I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?

Because the Bible condemns such behavior and those who commit such an act will be dispatched to Hell.

The bible also says you should stone them to death, shouldn't wear clothing of mixed materials, or cut your hair. Of course it also says men shouldn't have long hair.

Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?

I'm pretty sure you can own Canadians, but Guatamalans and Cubans are a different story. Too bad! They make good cigars.

I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?

No, killing is wrong.

Therefore God should be the one to do it, becuase God is good.

The bible also says you should stone them to death, shouldn't wear clothing of mixed materials, or cut your hair. Of course it also says men shouldn't have long hair.

...and that all insects have 4 legs and some birds have 4 legs.

"All flying insects that walk on all fours are to be detestable to you. There are, however, some winged creatures that walk on all fours that you may eat: those that have jointed legs for hopping on the ground. (Leviticus: 10:20-21)"

Another of my favorites:

No one whose testicles are crushed or whose male organ is cut off shall enter the assembly of the Lord. (Deuteronomy 23:1)

...and that all insects have 4 legs and some birds have 4 legs.

"All flying insects that walk on all fours are to be detestable to you. There are, however, some winged creatures that walk on all fours that you may eat: those that have jointed legs for hopping on the ground. (Leviticus: 10:20-21)"

Clearly, this is a reference to griffins. Let's see--"winged creatures that walk on all fours...that have jointed legs," sounds like a flying lion to me.

Another of my favorites:

No one whose testicles are crushed or whose male organ is cut off shall enter the assembly of the Lord. (Deuteronomy 23:1)

Well, I never liked eunuchs anyway. Wait a sec--does that mean that most of the Vienna Boys' Choir are condemned to Hell?

...and that all insects have 4 legs and some birds have 4 legs.

"All flying insects that walk on all fours are to be detestable to you. There are, however, some winged creatures that walk on all fours that you may eat: those that have jointed legs for hopping on the ground. (Leviticus: 10:20-21)"

http://www.messybeast.com/images/wings1.jpg

No one whose testicles are crushed or whose male organ is cut off shall enter the assembly of the Lord. (Deuteronomy 23:1)
I hope LG knows about that one!!!

Duh. I don't like atheists, but any theist who won't accept evoulution is a moron.

Of course it also says men shouldn't have long hair.
Funny, i always pictured Jesus as a barefooted hippie with long hair.

Funny, i always pictured Jesus as a barefooted hippie with long hair.

I confine myself to the core books of the Bible and not more extraneous teachings. Some of the more "nonsensical" or "contradictory" notions come from some rather extreme books, in which I do not place so much faith, as they may have been tainted by the hand of Man and the word of God may have been twisted or otherwise distorted.

But the Bible was written by man.Does that mean its tainted?

I confine myself to the core books of the Bible and not more extraneous teachings. Some of the more "nonsensical" or "contradictory" notions come from some rather extreme books, in which I do not place so much faith, as they may have been tainted by the hand of Man and the word of God may have been twisted or otherwise distorted.

Ah, so now you're saying you selectively choose what is the "word of god" and what isn't.

Have the words of Paul been mistranslated?

1 Cor 11:14

Does not the very nature of things teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a disgrace to him,

I'm not going to read 68 pages of debate, but...how many evolutionary biologists are on this forum? unless most people answered "I don't know" I'm going to be kind of sad. very few people are qualified to answer this kind of question, though I lean strongly towards "yes".

I'm not going to read 68 pages of debate, but...how many evolutionary biologists are on this forum? unless most people answered "I don't know" I'm going to be kind of sad. very few people are qualified to answer this kind of question, though I lean strongly towards "yes".

It was the closest thing to "most likely according to all the evidence" for me.

Does not the very nature of things teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a disgrace to him,

Having long hair is disgraceful, but not a sin.

*Pours acid on this thread and runs away*

Having long hair is disgraceful, but not a sin.

Who said anything about "sinning"? It says men shouldn't have long hair. Is it wrong?

Why did you edit out the rest of my post? Do you now deny that you've stated the Bible is the "word of God" but now claim it's been "tainted" so you selectively pick and choose? What are the "core books"?

Is it wrong?

See, "wrong" can have many possible definitions. It is not morally wrong any more than it is morally wrong to act like Peter Pan; nonetheless, it is disgraceful to act that way.

What are the "core books"?

The ones that are most central to the precepts set forth in the Bible and not some more obscure ones.

So do you follow the teachings of Leviticus or not?

You don't get to use parts of it (gays are going to hell) and ignore other parts (like slave ownership and what kind incense you burn on your sacraficial altar).

I call shenanigans.

See, "wrong" can have many possible definitions. It is not morally wrong any more than it is morally wrong to act like Peter Pan; nonetheless, it is disgraceful to act that way.



The ones that are most central to the precepts set forth in the Bible and not some more obscure ones.

So who defines obscure? You?

So do you follow the teachings of Leviticus or not?

You don't get to use parts of it (gays are going to hell) and ignore other parts (like slave ownership and what kind incense you burn on your sacraficial altar).

I call shenanigans.

According to one of my old teachers you don't get to pick and chose anything in catholicism. You believe it all and that's it. Though I doubt she's an expert of any kind.



In Soviet Russia, shenanigans call you.

See, "wrong" can have many possible definitions. It is not morally wrong any more than it is morally wrong to act like Peter Pan; nonetheless, it is disgraceful to act that way.

So now you're getting into semantics. How cute. The bible says it's disgraceful for men to have long hair. I asked you if the Bible is right or wrong. The bible states that gays should be stoned to death. Is that the word of god or has it been "tainted"?



The ones that are most central to the precepts set forth in the Bible and not some more obscure ones.

And once again you selectively edit the post and refuse to answer the question. I guess the "word of god" is subjective.

How shocking.

So do you follow the teachings of Leviticus or not?

You don't get to use parts of it (gays are going to hell) and ignore other parts (like slave ownership and what kind incense you burn on your sacraficial altar).

I call shenanigans.

Get the brooms!

I confine myself to the core books of the Bible and not more extraneous teachings. Some of the more "nonsensical" or "contradictory" notions come from some rather extreme books, in which I do not place so much faith, as they may have been tainted by the hand of Man and the word of God may have been twisted or otherwise distorted.

Leviticus is an extreme biblical text?

Leviticus is an extreme biblical text?

I guess it's not part of the "Core rules." I mean, books.

Sorry, I'm not buying that RuleCaucasia is even Christian, let alone believes half the shit types. The only purpose in his arguments is to argue. He enjoys the attention.

Leviticus is an extreme biblical text?

As well as Matthew, Mark, and Luke.


Matthew 10:10
Provide neither gold, nor silver, nor brass in your purse, Nor scrip for your journey, neither two coats, neither shoes, nor yet staves.

Luke 9:3
And he said unto them, Take nothing for your journey, neither staves, nor scrip, neither bread, neither money; neither have two coats apiece.



Mark 6:8-9
And commanded them that they should take nothing for their journey, save a staff only; no scrip, no bread, no money in their purse: But be shod with sandals.

As well as Matthew, Mark, and Luke.


Matthew 10:10
Provide neither gold, nor silver, nor brass in your purse, Nor scrip for your journey, neither two coats, neither shoes, nor yet staves.

Luke 9:3
And he said unto them, Take nothing for your journey, neither staves, nor scrip, neither bread, neither money; neither have two coats apiece.



Mark 6:8-9
And commanded them that they should take nothing for their journey, save a staff only; no scrip, no bread, no money in their purse: But be shod with sandals.


The Bible fails at continuity.

The Bible fails at continuity.

Atheists have known this since we first read it. Atleast I knew that. How anyone can read that thing is beyond me. Terrible writing.


So why are we still on this topic anyway? Our good friend here is pulling the same old tricks our good mtae used to use before. Selectively edit, ignore counter-arguments and brace up straw-men every third sentence.


Are ya'll hopin if you poke him in the eye enough he'll go away?

Atheists have known this since we first read it. Atleast I knew that. How anyone can read that thing is beyond me. Terrible writing.


So why are we still on this topic anyway? Our good friend here is pulling the same old tricks our good mtae used to use before. Selectively edit, ignore counter-arguments and brace up straw-men every third sentence.


Are ya'll hopin if you poke him in the eye enough he'll go away?

I'm just having fun seeing MTAE jump through hoops.

RC I guess you also believe the earth is flat.

Then the devil took him up to a very high mountain, and showed him all the kingdoms of the world in their magnificence, (Matthew 4:8 NAB)

...And believe in killing children

Later on God tested Abraham's faith and obedience. "Abraham!" God called." Yes," he replied. "Here I am." "Take your son, your only son – yes, Isaac, whom you love so much – and go to the land of Moriah. Sacrifice him there as a burnt offering on one of the mountains, which I will point out to you." (Genesis 22:1-2)

Maybe you should take this one to heart:

In the mouth of the fool is a rod for his back, but the lips of the wise preserve them. (Proverbs 14:3)

Although you also are instructed to not think for yourself:

Trust in the LORD with all your heart, on your own intelligence rely not. (Proverbs 3:5)

Atheists have known this since we first read it. Atleast I knew that. How anyone can read that thing is beyond me. Terrible writing.


So why are we still on this topic anyway? Our good friend here is pulling the same old tricks our good mtae used to use before. Selectively edit, ignore counter-arguments and brace up straw-men every third sentence.


Are ya'll hopin if you poke him in the eye enough he'll go away?

No, we want him to stay! It's not often we get to be so right with so little effort.

I asked you if the Bible is right or wrong.

In most of the instances you mentioned, I believe that the word of God has been accurately transcribed into the Bible and his directives have been passed along in their entirety throughout the generations, yes. However, some data may have been lost in some instances in some books of the Bible; however, no book is entirely flawed, only small portions, at most.

The bible states that gays should be stoned to death. Is that the word of god or has it been "tainted"?

It is.

RC I guess you also believe the earth is flat.

Then the devil took him up to a very high mountain, and showed him all the kingdoms of the world in their magnificence, (Matthew 4:8 NAB)

It would be theoretically possible to see all the kingdoms in the world in all their magnificence from a mountain which was sufficiently high even though the world is spherical. I doubt there were any majestic kingdoms in Antartica when that particular passage was written. Furthermore, by a string definition of "kingdom," several other "empires" or "civilizations" would not be included, as they were not ruled by a king.


...And believe in killing children

That was one isolated incident in which a man's faith needed to be tested, and a very stringent test was designed to plume the depths of his obedience. You, however, should not kill your children (unless, of course, God tells you to do so in a dream, in which case you should do so post-haste, as long as the dream is valid and you are sure God is speaking to you).

You, however, should not kill your children (unless, of course, God tells you to do so in a dream, in which case you should do so post-haste, as long as the dream is valid and you are sure God is speaking to you).

Yep, that settles it.



Troll, and a sock puppet.

Yep, that settles it.

It is not up to you to question God's will. Whatever he commands you must do like an obedient servant, even if it may seem offensive or even repugnant to you.

Quoted! That's brilliant.

I wonder if that will be a valid defense in a court of law? [/sarcasm]

In most of the instances you mentioned, I believe that the word of God has been accurately transcribed into the Bible and his directives have been passed along in their entirety throughout the generations, yes. However, some data may have been lost in some instances in some books of the Bible; however, no book is entirely flawed, only small portions, at most.



It is.

It is what, puppet?

It is not up to you to question God's will. Whatever he commands you must do like an obedient servant, even if it may seem offensive or even repugnant to you.

So why did He bother with the free will stuff then?

I confine myself to the core books of the Bible and not more extraneous teachings. Some of the more "nonsensical" or "contradictory" notions come from some rather extreme books, in which I do not place so much faith, as they may have been tainted by the hand of Man and the word of God may have been twisted or otherwise distorted.

So, wait. You've several times in this thread claimed that "the Bible was written by the hand of God." When I and others repeatedly pointed out that actually, the Bible was written by the hands of a whole heck of a lot of plain old mortal men with a whole heck of a lot of agendas, you disagreed. And now you start claiming that, oh, nevermind, actually, the Bible wasn't written by the hand of God, just the books you personally like.

So please, tell us which books those are. Which specific books are the "core" books, and which are the "tainted" books? I want lists. :)

Quoted! That's brilliant.

I wonder if that will be a valid defense in a court of law? [/sarcasm]
It sounds like Star Trek, where you can get away with anything if you're possessed by an evil alien entity. Although, I do remember there was a story here on NS about a woman who threw her kids into San Francisco Bay because God told her to.

It is not up to you to question God's will. Whatever he commands you must do like an obedient servant, even if it may seem offensive or even repugnant to you.Would you? If Jesus said you should do unto others as you would have done unto you, would you comply with that no matter how repugnant you seem to think that is?

So, wait. You've several times in this thread claimed that "the Bible was written by the hand of God."

The Bible, in its earliest form, was a text directly dictated by God and it coincided perfectly with his dictates. I have not denied that now, nor will I deny it.

And now you start claiming that, oh, nevermind, actually, the Bible wasn't written by the hand of God, just the books you personally like.

No, I'm claiming that God's message has been distorted and twisted by time and imperfect men.

So please, tell us which books those are. Which specific books are the "core" books, and which are the "tainted" books? I want lists. :)

There are bound to be mis-translations and human errors in all of the books, potentially. There is not set of "tainted" books, such books which have a certain percentage of "tainted" passages. The "core" books have less of a chance of being "tainted" than do others like Deuteronomy.

It is what, puppet?

It is true. Also, I don't know what you mean by "puppet," but if you are referring to God as a "puppet-master," then you are correct in that analogy for the most part. If he wishes you to kill your sons, you must obey his will and do so, as you are his "puppet." If you meant it as an insult, too bad; I'll take it as a compliment. It is a great honor for a man to be used to do God's bidding, like a puppet. To be honest, though, I haven't heard of many people being considered "puppets" because they were religious.

The Bible, in its earliest form, was a text directly dictated by God and it coincided perfectly with his dictates. I have not denied that now, nor will I deny it.The Bible in its "earliest form" consists only of the old testament, no gospels.

There are bound to be mis-translations and human errors in all of the books, potentially. There is not set of "tainted" books, such books which have a certain percentage of "tainted" passages. The "core" books have less of a chance of being "tainted" than do others like Deuteronomy.

Deuteronomy isn't a core book? Moses would disagree.

It is true. Also, I don't know what you mean by "puppet," but if you are referring to God as a "puppet-master," then you are correct in that analogy for the most part. If he wishes you to kill your sons, you must obey his will and do so, as you are his "puppet." If you meant it as an insult, too bad; I'll take it as a compliment. It is a great honor for a man to be used to do God's bidding, like a puppet. To be honest, though, I haven't heard of many people being considered "puppets" because they were religious.
What's your take on God being, like, good and all that?

There are bound to be mis-translations and human errors in all of the books, potentially. There is not set of "tainted" books, such books which have a certain percentage of "tainted" passages. The "core" books have less of a chance of being "tainted" than do others like Deuteronomy.

Okay, so Deuteronomy is non-"core." That's not exactly a complete list. Please show us a specific and complete list of which books of the Bible you consider to be "core" books. Pretty simple, right?

What's your take on God being, like, good and all that?

God is good, but his intelligence transcends ours; he resides at a different plane of existence than us. We can never hope to comprehend his complex rationale, simply to obey his directives as well as we can, whatever they might be. His judgment is better than ours, and we have no right to question it, even if what he asks us to do may seem "bad." We must be cognizant of the fact that he is benevolent, merciful, and, above all, good.

Okay, so Deuteronomy is non-"core." That's not exactly a complete list. Please show us a specific and complete list of which books of the Bible you consider to be "core" books. Pretty simple, right?

No, it's not simple at all. There are bound to be some slight errors in every single book, possibly. I cannot state for certain which are true and which are false. All of the books are mostly correct. The first books are generally the most valid, in my opinion. However, I am no Bible scholar and I do not know this for certain. I am not the (wo)man to ask that question to.

God is good, but his intelligence transcends ours; he resides at a different plane of existence than us. We can never hope to comprehend his complex rationale, simply to obey his directives as well as we can, whatever they might be. His judgment is better than ours, and we have no right to question it, even if what he asks us to do may seem "bad." We must be cognizant of the fact that he is benevolent, merciful, and, above all, good."Mercy"? Tell the Egyptian first-borns.

Okay, so Deuteronomy is non-"core." That's not exactly a complete list. Please show us a specific and complete list of which books of the Bible you consider to be "core" books. Pretty simple, right?

I'm wondering what the hell definition of "core" he uses if one of the five sacred books of Moses doesn't make the cut.

God is good, but his intelligence transcends ours; he resides at a different plane of existence than us. We can never hope to comprehend his complex rationale, simply to obey his directives as well as we can, whatever they might be. His judgment is better than ours, and we have no right to question it, even if what he asks us to do may seem "bad." We must be cognizant of the fact that he is benevolent, merciful, and, above all, good.

God is not good. He is Satan.

No, it's not simple at all. There are bound to be some slight errors in every single book, possibly. I cannot state for certain which are true and which are false. All of the books are mostly correct. The first books are generally the most valid, in my opinion. However, I am no Bible scholar and I do not know this for certain. I am not the (wo)man to ask that question to.

I'm glad you admit that the Bible contains errors, and that you have no way of knowing which statements in the Bible are true and which are false. That would, of course, seem to undermine your argument for the last 70 pages that the Bible constitutes "proof" of the falsehood of evolution.

Still, I don't feel quite generous enough to let you off the hook just because you've admitted, however unintentionally, that your arguments were specious. Here's what you said three pages ago:

I confine myself to the core books of the Bible and not more extraneous teachings. Some of the more "nonsensical" or "contradictory" notions come from some rather extreme books, in which I do not place so much faith, as they may have been tainted by the hand of Man and the word of God may have been twisted or otherwise distorted.

And now you say that all of the books have been tainted in some way. So what do you confine yourself to? You say "the first books," which makes me curious on what grounds you declare the gospels to be comparatively "extraneous teachings." I also wonder why, if the "first books" are the most valid, you would have mentioned Deuteronomy as your one specific example of a less reliable book. Could you please explain these discrepancies?

It is not up to you to question God's will. Whatever he commands you must do like an obedient servant, even if it may seem offensive or even repugnant to you.

This is message from god. He says you should douse yourself in petroleum and set yourself alight. He hasn't seen a good troll burning in a long time.

If you're obedient, I shan't expect to hear from you ever again.

If you're disobedient, you shall forever burn in the hellfires.

I'm wondering what the hell definition of "core" he uses if one of the five sacred books of Moses doesn't make the cut.

I'm guessing the definition in question comes from the Dictionary of RuleCaucasia's Ass, since that's about the only place he could be pulling these arguments from. ;)

I'm glad you admit that the Bible contains errors, and that you have no way of knowing which statements in the Bible are true and which are false. That would, of course, seem to undermine your argument for the last 70 pages that the Bible constitutes "proof" of the falsehood of evolution.

There may be some minor errors in the Bible, yes. These can most likely be attributed to such things as a slight human mistake. However, the general precepts of the Bible are very rarely flawed, if ever. Thus, what it says about the creation of the Earth is largely true, even though there may be some unimportant inaccuracy embedded within (for example, it may say "grandiose" instead of "big").

Are ya'll hopin if you poke him in the eye enough he'll go away?

I've tryed it already, I also tryed reasoning with it. That didn't work either.

In most of the instances you mentioned, I believe that the word of God has been accurately transcribed into the Bible and his directives have been passed along in their entirety throughout the generations, yes. However, some data may have been lost in some instances in some books of the Bible; however, no book is entirely flawed, only small portions, at most.

It may only be small portions, but how do you know that those portions aren't the ones crucial to your argument.

If he wishes you to kill your sons, you must obey his will and do so, as you are his "puppet." If you meant it as an insult, too bad; I'll take it as a compliment.

May you never have children.

God is good, but his intelligence transcends ours; he resides at a different plane of existence than us. We can never hope to comprehend his complex rationale, simply to obey his directives as well as we can, whatever they might be. His judgment is better than ours, and we have no right to question it, even if what he asks us to do may seem "bad." We must be cognizant of the fact that he is benevolent, merciful, and, above all, good.

Benevolence characterizes the true goodness of the mind and spirit, the unbiased kindness to do good. It confers thought and regard for the welfare of other people, and finds expression in sympathy and kindly gentleness and compassion, with charitableness and kindness.

Last time I checked, inflicting physical and emotional injury doesn't fall into this category.

I also wonder why, if the "first books" are the most valid, you would have mentioned Deuteronomy as your one specific example of a less reliable book. Could you please explain these discrepancies?

Moses, if I recall correctly, was on his deathbed when relating the discourses which had been conveyed to him by God. I deem it plausible that his vision may have been clouded by the earthly burden of death and that he may have unintentionally committed an error. However, I would first need to consult a reputable Bible scholar prior to giving a definitive answer to that question.

May you never have children.

Why not? I am a loving parent and I would do everything necessary to ensure that they would go to heaven, which is more than I can say for some people.

Why not? I am a loving parent and I would do everything necessary to ensure that they would go to heaven, which is more than I can say for some people.Like stoning them if they become rebellious?

Why not? I am a loving parent and I would do everything necessary to ensure that they would go to heaven, which is more than I can say for some people.

You make me so hot when you talk all dirty like that. Do you know what a pearl necklace is?:cool:

Like stoning them if they become rebellious?

I do not believe that physical pain is ever the correct method to employ if one's goal is to convert a wayward lamb to the path of God. No, the only thing to do is to launch an emotional and spiritual assault by detailing the terrible nature of Hell and the everlasting bounty and joy of Heaven.

do you wear leather while you do it? I'm just asking CAUSE YOU"RE TORTURING US!

Do you know what a pearl necklace is?:cool:

A necklace made of pearls? I think it kind of speaks for itself. :confused:

I do not believe that physical pain is ever the correct method to employ if one's goal is to convert a wayward lamb to the path of God. No, the only thing to do is to launch an emotional and spiritual assault by detailing the terrible nature of Hell and the everlasting bounty and joy of Heaven.Picking and choosing what parts of the bible we believe in again, are we?

I do not believe that physical pain is ever the correct method to employ if one's goal is to convert a wayward lamb to the path of God. No, the only thing to do is to launch an emotional and spiritual assault by detailing the terrible nature of Hell and the everlasting bounty and joy of Heaven.

Ah, bribery and threats then.

never heard of zz top have you?

Picking and choosing what parts of the bible we believe in again, are we?

Physical stones should only be reserved for the most nihilistic of non-believers, not just those who are misguided. A baby does not believe in God, yet we should not stone it. Perhaps you need to re-read the pertinent section of the Bible, because you have it all wrong. A wayward lamb needs to be treated gently and kindly, not violently so as to turn it away from God forever.

You make me so hot when you talk all dirty like that. Do you know what a pearl necklace is?:cool:
Um... ok... :eek:

http://www.acc.umu.se/~zqad/cats/1163920438-1162221297423.jpg

Ah, bribery and threats then.

I'm not going to give my kids money to believe in God, and I am appalled at that notion. I am also not going to beat my children if they are non-believers, although that is not a bad idea and I might consider it.

never heard of zz top have you?

Who's top? Are you sure you spelled that term correctly? Is it some form of 4-dimensional structure with 2 z axes? :confused:

A necklace made of pearls? I think it kind of speaks for itself. :confused:

The other sort of white necklace, I think he means...

RC, if you haven't heard the song "Pearl Necklace" by the rock band ZZTop, then I STRONGLY suggest you look it up, and listen until you understand the words. It will do you more good than anything else I could possibly suggest or hope for you. Well, except possibly heroin.

I do not believe that physical pain is ever the correct method to employ if one's goal is to convert a wayward lamb to the path of God. No, the only thing to do is to launch an emotional and spiritual assault by detailing the terrible nature of Hell and the everlasting bounty and joy of Heaven.

I doubt I'd ever get used to eternal joy. It'd get monotonous surely. I appreciate my ability to experience infinite joy, when I dream. But I the fact that I can experience nightmares and wake up from both of them to the world that is neither but a constantly changing mixture of the two is an ability that I appreciate just as much. Will this be an option for you?

Physical stones should only be reserved for the most nihilistic of non-believers, not just those who are misguided. A baby does not believe in God, yet we should not stone it. Perhaps you need to re-read the pertinent section of the Bible, because you have it all wrong. A wayward lamb needs to be treated gently and kindly, not violently so as to turn it away from God forever.How'd you manage to read "Stone non-believers or babies" from "If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them: Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place; And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard. And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you;"?

The other sort of white necklace, I think he means...

There are more than two types of white necklaces. I looked it up on Google, but I found too many varieties to know for certain to which one he was referring. Can you please point me in the correct direction? Or is this just a "wild-goose" chase?

http://images.google.com/images?q=white%20necklace&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&sa=N&tab=wi

How'd you manage to read "Stone non-believers or babies" from "..."?

You were not talking about drunkards and the like. You were referring to non-believers. I assumed you were reading a version of the Bible in which stubborn non-believers were to be stoned.

There are more than two types of white necklaces. I looked it up on Google, but I found too many varieties to know for certain to which one he was referring. Can you please point me in the correct direction? Or is this just a "wild-goose" chase?

http://images.google.com/images?q=white%20necklace&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&sa=N&tab=wiThat you didn't search for images of a pearl necklace indicates that you know what it is but are pretending otherwise.

You were not talking about drunkards and the like. You were referring to non-believers. I assumed you were reading a version of the Bible in which stubborn non-believers were to be stoned.It only says drunkards in the part where the bible asks the parents to lie to the elders as to why the child should be stoned.

There are more than two types of white necklaces. I looked it up on Google, but I found too many varieties to know for certain to which one he was referring. Can you please point me in the correct direction? Or is this just a "wild-goose" chase?

http://images.google.com/images?q=white%20necklace&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&sa=N&tab=wi

read this (it's rather short): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pearl_Necklace_%28song%29

and skim this: link edited

[edit:] i removed the link because it occurred to me that it might fall under the 'linking to pornographic materials' rule (It was the wikipedia article for "pearl necklace (sexuality)")

That you didn't search for images of a pearl necklace indicates that you know what it is but are pretending otherwise.

you caught that, too?

NEVERED! you're messing it up!:mad:


Ah well. THere is really ever only one good way to bust a troll: feed them pearls.

That you didn't search for images of a pearl necklace indicates that you know what it is but are pretending otherwise.

I also searched for that, but my results were no more precise. Instead of telling me that I do know something that I don't, can't you please tell me what it is?

http://images.google.com/images?q=pearl%20necklace&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&sa=N&tab=wi

read this (it's rather short): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pearl_Necklace_%28song%29


Thank you. I now understand to what you were referring. I appreciate your posting a link.

NEVERED! you're messing it up!:mad:


Ah well. THere is really ever only one good way to bust a troll: feed them pearls.

my bad :confused:


I'm more looking for how blatantly i have to shove it under his nose before it is literally impossible for him to feign ignorance.

Moses, if I recall correctly, was on his deathbed when relating the discourses which had been conveyed to him by God. I deem it plausible that his vision may have been clouded by the earthly burden of death and that he may have unintentionally committed an error. However, I would first need to consult a reputable Bible scholar prior to giving a definitive answer to that question.

Make up your mind! First, the "first books" are the most reliable. Now they're relatively unreliable. I'm coming to believe you haven't even read the Bible at all.

Make up your mind! First, the "first books" are the most reliable. Now they're relatively unreliable. I'm coming to believe you haven't even read the Bible at all.

All of the books are reliable, but the first books have the fewest errors. I have said this all along and I am starting to get quite irritated.

I'm more looking for how blatantly i have to shove it under his nose before it is literally impossible for him to feign ignorance.

Hmm...let's see. What could you have possibly done? Oh, I know! You could have told me what it meant rather than tell me it was the same thing as a "white necklace" or what the fuck you said. I don't know what fucking sexual positions you're referring to, and I really don't want to know.

Edit: sorry, I flew off the handle there. I apologize. However, just because I am not a master at various sexual positions does not make me "ignorant."

All of the books are reliable, but the first books have the fewest errors. I have said this all along and I am starting to get quite irritated.Having errors and being reliable contradict eachother.

Hmm...let's see. What could you have possibly done? Oh, I know! You could have told me what it meant rather than tell me it was the same thing as a "white necklace" or what the fuck you said. I don't know what fucking sexual positions you're referring to, and I really don't want to know.

Edit: sorry, I flew off the handle there. I apologize. However, just because I am not a master at various sexual positions does not make me "ignorant."

isn't wrath a sin?

isn't wrath a sin?

It is not a sin to get pissed off unless you utter the Lord's name in vain.

Having errors and being reliable contradict eachother.

No, they do not. I can tell you "cookie store is around corner" and you'd know what I mean even though my utterance is ridden with grammatical errors.

It is not a sin to get pissed off unless you utter the Lord's name in vain.:rolleyes:

Hmm...let's see. What could you have possibly done? Oh, I know! You could have told me what it meant rather than tell me it was the same thing as a "white necklace" or what the fuck you said. I don't know what fucking sexual positions you're referring to, and I really don't want to know.

Edit: sorry, I flew off the handle there. I apologize. However, just because I am not a master at various sexual positions does not make me "ignorant."

as I said, it's that or heroin. Either one will fix you right up.
NEver apologize, you've said far far to much to ever bother apologizing. It's like being pregnant: once you have reached a certani point you chouldn't consider the abortion. It's just not riiiight.;)

No, they do not. I can tell you "cookie store is around corner" and you'd know what I mean even though my utterance is ridden with grammatical errors.:rolleyes:

as I said, it's that or heroin. Either one will fix you right up.

How would a narcotic "fix me right up"? Perhaps you need to be educated on the detrimental effects of drugs. Besides many harmful physical effects, they also tend to make you lose some of your faith, which is the opposite of a "good fixing up."

It is not a sin to get pissed off unless you utter the Lord's name in vain.

The sin of wrath has nothing to do with taking god's name in vein.

RC, the first books were actually scrolls, see? And they were generally copied and individually aimed at making some poilitical point as much as talking about jebus or gawd or pearl necklaces or whatever. And THEN about a thousand years later some old fat cats got together and decided which ones would sell the best. And those old fat cats-they got rich off it cause it was basically scary as shit and only they could tell you which stories were right or not. And a few people had their heads cut off for saying the wrong stories but everything worked out for the fat cats, who started the Catholic CHurch and demanded that everybody give them money for telling them the stories.

And then another guy saw that he could get in on the business and so they started a whole big war demanding that the first group of fat cats give him some of their money and power, and he had sexxors for the first time with a bunch of nuns and there were some guys with stukas and a guy with a funny mustache who burned a lot of short people who only liked the first half of teh stories and then there was you. Who needs a pearl necklace. Or maybe some heroin.

How would a narcotic "fix me right up"? Perhaps you need to be educated on the detrimental effects of drugs. Besides many harmful physical effects, they also tend to make you lose some of your faith, which is the opposite of a "good fixing up."How do you survive if you're this much out of touch with reality?

:D How do you survive if you're this much out of touch with reality?

She eats hellfire and shits brimstone and taht's all she really needs. Except maybe...oh well you get it by now.

The sin of wrath has nothing to do with taking god's name in vein.

It is a sin to be constantly wrathful; however, it is not wrong to get annoyed every once in a while. As a general rule, you should be polite and courteous. It is fine if you allow that facade to fall sometimes as long as you do not slip often and you do not utter the Lord's name in vain should you so fall.

How do you survive if you're this much out of touch with reality?

If you honestly think that drugs are good for you, then you are out of touch with reality (unless you are referring to medicinal drugs to combat disease instead of those dreadful poisons like marijuana).

If you honestly think that drugs are good for you, then you are out of touch with reality (unless you are referring to medicinal drugs to combat disease instead of those dreadful poisons like marijuana).You still haven't answered my question, only delivered further proof that you must have been living in some kind of fallout shelter avoiding all human contact.

You still haven't answered my question, only delivered further proof that you must have been living in some kind of fallout shelter avoiding all human contact.

Your question was based on the faulty premise that I am out of touch with reality; therefore, there is no possible answer that I can give. By the same token, I can ask you why you are gay, and if you are straight, you cannot answer me. Now, do you acknowledge that drugs are horrible toxins which alter your body and mind for the worse?

no worse a toxin than say....religion which is just another way of distorting reality.

Well, okay, religion is worse. At least drugs can be fun and get you laid. *nudges RC* sure you don't want me to give you a....never mind.;)

You really are funny! I have only seen a couple of troll sthat could keep in form this long. Either you're a quaker or you were brought up in a cabin in the hills like those people in "the Hills Have Eyes," or you are REALLY REALLY enjoying this:D

You really are funny! I have only seen a couple of troll sthat could keep in form this long. Either you're a quaker or you were brought up in a cabin in the hills like those people in "the Hills Have Eyes," or you are REALLY REALLY enjoying this

I doubt it, it doesn't matter how sheltered a life RC has lead. RC has 'net access.

How do you know it's bad unless you've tried it?

Because scientists have said so? You mean those same scientists who talk about evolution and say the earth is billions of years old and that starts are billions of miles away.

Your question was based on the faulty premise that I am out of touch with reality; therefore, there is no possible answer that I can give. By the same token, I can ask you why you are gay, and if you are straight, you cannot answer me. Now, do you acknowledge that drugs are horrible toxins which alter your body and mind for the worse?I acknowledge that you have the vocabulary of someone that is out of touch with reality.

All of the books are reliable, but the first books have the fewest errors. I have said this all along and I am starting to get quite irritated.

No, you haven't.

Here you state that Deuteronomy, one of the first books of the Bible, is more likely to contain errors than other books:


There are bound to be mis-translations and human errors in all of the books, potentially. There is not set of "tainted" books, such books which have a certain percentage of "tainted" passages. The "core" books have less of a chance of being "tainted" than do others like Deuteronomy.

And here you change your mind, retract this, and declare that the Pentateuch is less likely to contain errors:

No, it's not simple at all. There are bound to be some slight errors in every single book, possibly. I cannot state for certain which are true and which are false. All of the books are mostly correct. The first books are generally the most valid, in my opinion. However, I am no Bible scholar and I do not know this for certain. I am not the (wo)man to ask that question to.

And here you change your mind yet again, and suggest that the Pentateuch is more likely to contain errors:

Moses, if I recall correctly, was on his deathbed when relating the discourses which had been conveyed to him by God. I deem it plausible that his vision may have been clouded by the earthly burden of death and that he may have unintentionally committed an error. However, I would first need to consult a reputable Bible scholar prior to giving a definitive answer to that question.

The only conclusions I can come to are that either you (a) have some sort of debilitating mental disorder which causes you to forget your argument from one post to the next, or (b) know extremely little about the Bible.

....


Well, page after page of argumentation from RuleCaucasia has finally swayed me. Evolution is a myth perpetrated by pseudo-scientists. Drugs are bad, mkay. And the Bible is 100% fundamentally correct, except for the parts I don't like.

Wasn't that productive?

Your question was based on the faulty premise that I am out of touch with reality; therefore, there is no possible answer that I can give. By the same token, I can ask you why you are gay, and if you are straight, you cannot answer me. Now, do you acknowledge that drugs are horrible toxins which alter your body and mind for the worse?

And yet one of the most debilitating drugs known to man. Responsible for more deaths than all the others combined (excluding nicotine) is served in catholic churches to represent the blood of Christ. Seems like an odd thing to do if religion is so anti drug. Not sure that you will find too many anti drug references in the bible either.

Its fine to dislike drugs.. but saying that the church is against them is kinna pushing is a little.

Not that this has anything to do with unicellular organisms, well apart from yeast that is.

I keep wondering what she looks like under taht Nun's habit. THink she does "stuff" with that big ol' cross? I could take pictures if we could convince her to...

....


Well, page after page of argumentation from RuleCaucasia has finally swayed me. Evolution is a myth perpetrated by pseudo-scientists. Drugs are bad, mkay. And the Bible is 100% fundamentally correct, except for the parts I don't like.

Wasn't that productive?

Your posting on an internet forum for a game.. how "productive" do you expect things to get??

I haven't seen one single productive thread yet. I may have missed a few though.

Your posting on an internet forum for a game.. how "productive" do you expect things to get??

I haven't seen one single productive thread yet. I may have missed a few though.

:( Wasting time here's no fun when you put it that way

I love these posts. There always filled with such crap. Evolution is obviously a myth concocted by the scientific community to obtain research grants. The same is true of dinosaurs and gravity. Everyone knows a great inpercivable being outside space and time decended from the clouds and created all creatures 4,000 years before Jesus walked on water. This was, of course, before the flood when all the animal were piled into a boat and sent to repopulate the planet (aka the center of the universe).

Okay, so Deuteronomy is non-"core." That's not exactly a complete list. Please show us a specific and complete list of which books of the Bible you consider to be "core" books. Pretty simple, right?

I'm guessing he's a big fan of Leviticus.

I voted "yes".

Justify your belief and I'll return the favour, but until you do, this isn't debate, it's a conspiracy theory.

Thank you for a good morning read. Rule Caucasia where are you from if i may ask? And could you please explain your online name for me?

Aren't threads supposed to be locked at a certain length? Isn't it like 60 pages or something?


WHEN WILL THIS MONSTER DIE??!!!

I love these posts. There always filled with such crap. Evolution is obviously a myth concocted by the scientific community to obtain research grants. The same is true of dinosaurs and gravity. Everyone knows a great inpercivable being outside space and time decended from the clouds and created all creatures 4,000 years before Jesus walked on water. This was, of course, before the flood when all the animal were piled into a boat and sent to repopulate the planet (aka the center of the universe).

You forgot the myth about inbreeding leading to problems, that fits nicely in with all of this.

Having long hair is disgraceful, but not a sin.

And being gay is an abomination, but not a sin.

I'll start a new thread, I dont wanna get this one off-topic (HAH!)


http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=12116816

Aren't threads supposed to be locked at a certain length? Isn't it like 60 pages or something?


WHEN WILL THIS MONSTER DIE??!!!

RAWWWARRAGGHARRRAWWWARRGH!!!!

NEVER!!!!

If it drops off the front page RuleCaucasia will probably gravedig it and we'll get a whole load of noobs to swarm all over it.

Why not? I am a loving parent and I would do everything necessary to ensure that they would go to heaven, which is more than I can say for some people.

Wait, didn't you tell me earlier you were in 11th grade? You're a sinful little bugger aren't you?

Wait, didn't you tell me earlier you were in 11th grade? You're a sinful little bugger aren't you?

Ooooohhh... either we have a super-hypocrite or a new convert.....

Here's his earlier post:

I never claimed that I was; the only time I took biology was in 9th grade, however. Currently, I am in 11th grade, and taking chemistry (which, unfortunately, is based on equally shaky scientific footing as biology; hybrid orbitals, anyone?).



Actually, my parents are Christian, but very understanding. They brought me up to be a moral person, and I have a firm conviction in my beliefs. No internet site could dissuade me from my surety in the truth of the Bible. My parents acknowledge that to be truly Christian, you have to be capable of defending your religion against the atheist onslaught; they encourage me to see what the enemy is saying so that I can better prepare myself. They are quite in favor of hearing every viewpoint before drawing a conclusion; regardless of what you may think, religion is not bred from ignorance, but rather from strength of heart and mind.

Guess he's a very moral person, living with his parents who has a kid. Since he said he's a parent too.

Um... ok... :eek:

http://www.acc.umu.se/~zqad/cats/1163920438-1162221297423.jpg

That looks like my cat.... :eek:

If you honestly think that drugs are good for you, then you are out of touch with reality (unless you are referring to medicinal drugs to combat disease instead of those dreadful poisons like marijuana).

Question: does Sativex fit into the category of 'medicinal drug' or into the one of 'dreadful poison'?

Here's his earlier post:



Guess he's a very moral person, living with his parents who has a kid. Since he said he's a parent too.
Wait, he says he's a parent, and he's in 11th grade?!

Wait, he says he's a parent, and he's in 11th grade?!

He's either
a) a stupid troll
b) a new convert
or c) a hypocrite

Pick yer pizen.

Wait, he says he's a parent, and he's in 11th grade?!

It's true, give a troll enough rope and he'll commit sepukku.. or something like that.

He's either
a) a stupid troll
b) a new convert
or c) a hypocrite

Pick yer pizen.

i go with all to be safe

Why not? I am a loving parent and I would do everything necessary to ensure that they would go to heaven...
Everything?

So you'd kill them, right? Because that's the only 100% certain way to make sure they'll go to heaven. Kill them while they are still babies, unable to sin, and you ensure they'll go straight to heaven.

i go with all to be safe

Same here, but I lean toward A.

The first time I heard this absurd statement was during the first day of my 9th grade biology class, and I laughed out loud, thinking it was a joke. Sadly, it turns out that many people do believe such a ridiculous notion. They also tend to be the people who think that the universe magically came about from nothing, and life came about from a chemical reaction. How many people on these forums believe that we came from organisms as simple as common bacteria?

I do because there is evidence of human beings having a common ancestor. We did not evolve from apes directly, but we are apart of that family tree. Let me ask you this... Why does it make more sense to people like you that the universe was created by something out of old Judeo mythology (which is about as credible as all the other religion creation stories around that time period) that has absolutely zero evidence. Where's the Garden of Eden? Where's the angel with the flaming sword? You believe a talking snake tricked the first humans into eating a piece of fruit. Let that sink in for a second and then get back with me.

Where as we have fossils of creatures millions of years old that contradicts what the Bible says and evolution on a genetic and adaptative level has been proven. Darwin didn't come up with the monkey theory.

I know that just rattles your fundy brain, but it was actually one of his fellow scientists that did. But hey, if you want to keep believing the shit that your southern baptist preacher tells you every Sunday, then so be it. That is your perogative. Just don't start attacking the rest of us for having common sense and using our heads and thinking for ourselves.

Everything?

So you'd kill them, right? Because that's the only 100% certain way to make sure they'll go to heaven. Kill them while they are still babies, unable to sin, and you ensure they'll go straight to heaven.

Original sin, babies go to hell.

Original sin, babies go to hell.

One would, therefore have to baptise them, and then kill them. Hell, you could drown them right in the fount.

One would, therefore have to baptise them, and then kill them. Hell, you could drown them right in the fount.
Beat me to it. :D

Same here, but I lean toward A.

i go get my gun

Wait, didn't you tell me earlier you were in 11th grade? You're a sinful little bugger aren't you?

No, I am not. I happen to be very happily married.

No, I am not. I happen to be very happily married.

So now you're saying you didn't post this:


I never claimed that I was; the only time I took biology was in 9th grade, however. Currently, I am in 11th grade, and taking chemistry (which, unfortunately, is based on equally shaky scientific footing as biology; hybrid orbitals, anyone?).

So you bore false witness then? Or are you doing it now?

No, I am not. I happen to be very happily married.
If we really are talking to an 11th grader who is married, then it sure explains a few things. :D

If we really are talking to an 11th grader who is married, then it sure explains a few things. :D

Why does Jeff Foxworthy come to mind?

So now you're saying you didn't post this:




So you bore false witness then? Or are you doing it now?
Hey, he could be a married 11th grader!

Maybe he got held back, and is actually 45 years old but just now getting around to completing high school. Or maybe he's one of those charming 11th graders who decides to prove how mature they are by getting married to their high school sweetheart before high school is even over.

So now you're saying you didn't post this:




So you bore false witness then? Or are you doing it now?

Those two statements are not mutually exclusive. In fact, they both happen to be true.

Those two statements are not mutually exclusive. In fact, they both happen to be true.
Well that does it, then. I mean, how can any of us possibly debate against somebody with the fantastic judgment and maturity of Romeo?

;)

Hey, he could be a married 11th grader!

Maybe he got held back, and is actually 45 years old but just now getting around to completing high school. Or maybe he's one of those charming 11th graders who decides to prove how mature they are by getting married to their high school sweetheart before high school is even over.
Wonder when he got hitched?

Those two statements are not mutually exclusive. In fact, they both happen to be true.

So you're in 11th grade, married, and have at least one kid.

Right.

So what state do you live in that allows marriages this young?

Wonder when he got hitched?
I'm guessing shortly after, "Don't worry, baby, I'll pull out in time!"

Wonder when he got hitched?

Perhaps he is a 34 year old man who is still in grade 11?

So you're in 11th grade, married, and have at least one kid.

Right.

So what state do you live in that allows marriages this young?
There are plenty of states where it is legal, particularly if there is parental consent. You can get married at 14 in some places in the US.

Well that does it, then. I mean, how can any of us possibly debate against somebody with the fantastic judgment and maturity of Romeo?

Well, although I do have an intrinsic advantage in debating, that does not necessarily mean that it is impossible to agrue against me; it simply increases the difficulty of doing so.

So you're in 11th grade, married, and have at least one kid.

Right.

So what state do you live in that allows marriages this young?

Or is it that he's 18+ and only now doing 11th grade?

So you're in 11th grade, married, and have at least one kid.

Right.

So what state do you live in that allows marriages this young?

I'm going to say Kansas...


...or rather, BizarroKansas, where the laws of physics do not actually exist, people can get married at such a young age, and people don't get caught by their own lies...

So you're in 11th grade, married, and have at least one kid.

The child is not yet born, but we do have one child, yes.

So what state do you live in that allows marriages this young?

I believe that almost every state allows for marriage at 17.

Or is it that he's 18+ and only now doing 11th grade?
Hmm, so somebody who is 18+ and just getting around to 11th grade, or somebody who got hitched and knocked up his wife before being legally able to vote.

Either way he's a winner, folks!

Well, although I do have an intrinsic advantage in debating, that does not necessarily mean that it is impossible to agrue against me; it simply increases the difficulty of doing so.

Ignoring posts and sections of posts does give you an advantage, but it's not considered "debating".

I'm guessing shortly after, "Don't worry, baby, I'll pull out in time!"

That would be pre-martial sex! Surely you don't doubt the virtue of our good mtae here.

Well, although I do have an intrinsic advantage in debating,

...what with your ability to let fact in one ear and out the other without disrupting your thought process in the least...


that does not necessarily mean that it is impossible to agrue against me; it simply increases the difficulty of doing so.
Nah. Arguing with you is like bouncing a tenis ball against a brick wall. It's very, very simple, yet surprisingly entertaining for short periods of time.

The child is not yet born, but we do have one child, yes.



I believe that almost every state allows for marriage at 17.

How old were you when you got married, and if you don't have a kid, you're not a parent. Also how old is your wife?

The child is not yet born, but we do have one child, yes.



I believe that almost every state allows for marriage at 17.

hey that post said 18 just now.

How old were you when you got married, and if you don't have a kid, you're not a parent. Also how old is your wife?

I was 17. Although our child is not yet born, you cannot state that we do not have one; he is, however, not an independent entity, separate from his mother. My wife is also 17.

The child is not yet born, but we do have one child, yes.

Darling, being a parent means actually having to PARENT something.

If you do not have a born child yet, and if you are male, then your "parenting" to date has consisted of spooging in or near your partner's vagina. Don't get too full of yourself just yet.

hey that post said 18 just now.

Yeah, I typed too fast and made a mistake. I edited it quickly.

I was 17. Although our child is not yet born, you cannot state that we do not have one; he is, however, not an independent entity, separate from his mother. My wife is also 17.

And were you married before you concieved the poor little bugger?

I was 17. Although our child is not yet born, you cannot state that we do not have one; he is, however, not an independent entity, separate from his mother. My wife is also 17.

When'd you get married? In Kansas?

on topic, yes, although it would appear that the OP is struggling to do so.

on topic, yes, although it would appear that the OP is struggling to do so.
HEY-oh!

HEY-oh!

an it's there second post too

Of Course We did not come from a uni-cellular organism. Some thing put us here. A bang didn't just happen and boom we are all here. That is absurd. Something doesn't explode and a house is made. Plus it doesn't fit with the laws of thermodynamics. "The Universe is in constant chaos, and organization will be come disorganized eventually. So we could'nt have come from one cell. It doesn't fit the laws of nature.:sniper: :upyours:

How cute, a guy who registered yesterday (7 mil pop) logs on just to use gun smilies in this first post.

:D


I do love how he says life contradicts the law of thermodynamics.

Of Course We did not come from a uni-cellular organism. Some thing put us here. A bang didn't just happen and boom we are all here. That is absurd. Something doesn't explode and a house is made. Plus it doesn't fit with the laws of thermodynamics. "The Universe is in constant chaos, and organization will be come disorganized eventually. So we could'nt have come from one cell. It doesn't fit the laws of nature.:sniper: :upyours:
Lookee, a puppet show!

Lookee, a puppet show!

who left the gate open

Of Course We did not come from a uni-cellular organism. Some thing put us here. A bang didn't just happen and boom we are all here. That is absurd. Something doesn't explode and a house is made. Plus it doesn't fit with the laws of thermodynamics. "The Universe is in constant chaos, and organization will be come disorganized eventually. So we could'nt have come from one cell. It doesn't fit the laws of nature.:sniper: :upyours:

Alright! A gun smiley, finger-smiley, multiple strawmen, and no knowledge of science. A stereotypical 1st post. Congradulations. Your career here will be short.

Of Course We did not come from a uni-cellular organism. Some thing put us here. A bang didn't just happen and boom we are all here. That is absurd. Something doesn't explode and a house is made. Plus it doesn't fit with the laws of thermodynamics. "The Universe is in constant chaos, and organization will be come disorganized eventually. So we could'nt have come from one cell. It doesn't fit the laws of nature.:sniper: :upyours:

If you're very good and quiet, you could become like RuleCaucasia. But you must stop using the gun smilies, little'un

*Ruffles hair affectionately*

If you're very good and quiet, you could become like RuleCaucasia. But you must stop using the gun smilies, little'un

*Ruffles hair affectionately*

I'd put dollars to doughnuts that he is RC.

I'd put dollars to doughnuts that he is RC.

I think RC has quietly 'Stage Left' 'ed because he's been caught out with one too many fibs. This chap is just another random troll n00b.

No, I am not. I happen to be very happily married.
Haha.

Yeah, we'll see how happily married you are 4 years down the road when you realise what a horrible, horrible mistake getting married and having kids at 17 is.

I think RC has quietly 'Stage Left' 'ed because he's been caught out with one too many fibs. This chap is just another random troll n00b.

RC is just laying low for a few pages so we'll "forget" what's been posted and it can start all over again.

RC is just laying low for a few pages so we'll "forget" what's been posted and it can start all over again.

I figured he left to look up Kansas marriage laws. Incidentally in Kansas you can get married under 18 only with a judge's consent. I cannot imagine a judge would grant such a thing without extraordinary circumstances.

Of Course We did not come from a uni-cellular organism. Some thing put us here. A bang didn't just happen and boom we are all here. That is absurd. Something doesn't explode and a house is made. Plus it doesn't fit with the laws of thermodynamics. "The Universe is in constant chaos, and organization will be come disorganized eventually. So we could'nt have come from one cell. It doesn't fit the laws of nature.:sniper: :upyours:

Worst Troll Ever

RC is just laying low for a few pages so we'll "forget" what's been posted and it can start all over again.

Actually, I am not going to post for a week because of the "holidays" (that's Christmas to you). However, I would like to say that I am 17, happily married to a pregnant wife, and not ashamed of my choices.

the only thing to do is to launch an emotional and spiritual assault by detailing the terrible nature of Hell and the everlasting bounty and joy of Heaven.
I've said it before, and I will say it again, any religion which is based on the fear of being tortured for eternity because of some godling's displeasure is psychologically diseased. This is plain theological extortion. Period.

RC, do you really think that you are going to convert anyone? If you do, i must warn you, this preaching of yours is only getting me pissed off at this 'god' of yours and at your religion. You christians make me sick. Now i understand why most native american peoples attacked those pesky missionaries.

Actually, I am not going to post for a week because of the "holidays" (that's Christmas to you). However, I would like to say that I am 17, happily married to a pregnant wife, and not ashamed of my choices.

And I called it.

And I called it.

I do have approximately half an hour remaining to answer any queries you might have, but after that deadline passes, I will have to defer answering your questions until next week.

I do have approximately half an hour remaining to answer any queries you might have, but after that deadline passes, I will have to defer answering your questions until next week.

So does that mean that you'll start answering something?

Where'd you get married?

Were you 17 when you got married?
How old was your wife when you got married?
How long until she gives birth?

I do have approximately half an hour remaining to answer any queries you might have, but after that deadline passes, I will have to defer answering your questions until next week.

Well, there's an awful lot of posts in this thread addressed to you to which you have never replied. Why don't you just start at the beginning and see how many of them you can get through in half an hour, then?

Where'd you get married?

Do you want the state or the municipality? If the former is sufficient for you, I shall reply with "Kansas."

Were you 17 when you got married?

Yes.

How old was your wife when you got married?

17.

How long until she gives birth?

Approximately 6 months; we consummated our relationship immediately after becoming married, if you know what I mean.

I do have approximately half an hour remaining to answer any queries you might have, but after that deadline passes, I will have to defer answering your questions until next week.

You haven't answered any yet. Why should you start now?

Should practicing homosexuals be killed?
Is long hair wrong on a man?
Which books do you classify as "Core"?
What exact parts are "tainted" and which aren't?
What actual evidence (peer-reviewed and published) do you have that opposes the current accepted theories?

Kansas marriage laws require judicial consent on all marriages under 18, which is granted only under extraordinary circumstances.

If as you say she was not pregnant until after you two got hitched, how did you get married? Not that I think being pregnant would be enough to get married at that age.

Should practicing homosexuals be killed?

Only if other punishments and/or deterrents prove ineffective. It should only be a last resort.

Is long hair wrong on a man?

Yes, but it is not sinful.

Which books do you classify as "Core"?

Generally, the first books are more accurate than the later ones, but "core" is not a concrete concept any more than "correct" is. The first ones are the most "core," however.

What exact parts are "tainted" and which aren't?

I don't have time to speculate on that.

Kansas marriage laws require judicial consent on all marriages under 18, which is granted only under extraordinary circumstances.

Actually, it is granted quite easily. Basically, all that's required is parental consent.

http://marriage.about.com/cs/marriagelicenses/p/kansas.htm

The minimum age to get married is 15 in Kansas. This legislation can be waived only by a district court judge who thinks that getting married at such a young age would be in that individual's best interest.

Teens who are 16 or 17 years old need to obtain one of the following in order to get married in Kansas:

* Obtain parental or legal guardian permission and judicial consent.
* Receive permission from both parents or legal guardian.
* If the minor's parents are dead, or if there is no legal guardian, permission must be received from a judge.

Only if other punishments and/or deterrents prove ineffective. It should only be a last resort.

But the bible doesn't say it should be a last resort. It says they should be killed.



Yes, but it is not sinful.

So every contemporary description of Jesus is wrong.



Generally, the first books are more accurate than the later ones, but "core" is not a concrete concept any more than "correct" is. The first ones are the most "core," however.

You claimed "core". I want a list of books that are "core". I've shown you contradictions in the "first books" and you ignored them or claimed that it was "tainted" w/o showing proof of what is or is not tainted.



I don't have time to speculate on that.

Shock.

Generally, the first books are more accurate than the later ones, but "core" is not a concrete concept any more than "correct" is. The first ones are the most "core," however.


I've only asked these questions three or four times already, so maybe this time you'll answer them!

On what grounds do you consider the gospels less "core" to Christianity than the Pentateuch?

If the first books are more accurate and more "core," why did you specifically choose Deuteronomy as an example of what you perceive to be a less accurate, more "extraneous" book?

I've only asked these questions three or four times already, so maybe this time you'll answer them!

On what grounds do you consider the gospels less "core" to Christianity than the Pentateuch?

If the first books are more accurate and more "core," why did you specifically choose Deuteronomy as an example of what you perceive to be a less accurate, more "extraneous" book?

Prepare for a vague, dodgy answer.

Only if other punishments and/or deterrents prove ineffective. It should only be a last resort.



Yes, but it is not sinful.



Generally, the first books are more accurate than the later ones, but "core" is not a concrete concept any more than "correct" is. The first ones are the most "core," however.



I don't have time to speculate on that.



Did you just advocate killing gays?

Did you just advocate killing gays?

Yes he did.

Yes he did.

Isn't that blatantly against the rules?

Isn't that blatantly against the rules?

I believe so.

Isn't that blatantly against the rules?

Yes, but remember, "some" of it is tainted, the parts that he can't explain away or disagrees w/ which he'll dodge aroung and refuse to answer.

Isn't that blatantly against the rules?

I believe so.

Only if other punishments and/or deterrents prove ineffective. It should only be a last resort.

Say goodbye to your cut-off t-shirts, steel-toe boots and body odour.

BY THE DECREE OF THE HOMOCRACY:

You shall henceforth and forthwith be removed to a detention facility where unspeakable beauty treatments shall be forced upon you. You shall be clad in Armani and forced to carry a Louis Vuitton handbag...a rainbow Louis Vuitton. *ebil smile*


J.

The universe came into existence because God made it. However, he did not employ magic to do it, nor is he "magical."

He used science!!

1) Of course we came from unicellular life, which itself came from simpler forms.

2) The universe didn't come from nothing, nor did it come from something. It was never created; it has always existed, "always" meaning "from the very first moment". People tend to think of time as eternal, and something in which the universe exists. It isn't. The universe is a completely self-contained phenomenon, and time exists completely within it.

3) This thread is a good example of the futility of arguing with someone who has a poor grasp on reality.

Well, golly gee, it looks like RC has wandered off without answering my questions. I'm shocked. Shocked, I tell you.

Maybe Haloist Party will come back and continue to not answer questions in RC's absence.

Has this been the longest thread?
I'd like to know.. its certainly the longest one I've seen but I've not been a member that long.

Nah. Arguing with you is like bouncing a tenis ball against a brick wall. It's very, very simple, yet surprisingly entertaining for short periods of time.

Say goodbye to your cut-off t-shirts, steel-toe boots and body odour.

BY THE DECREE OF THE HOMOCRACY:

You shall henceforth and forthwith be removed to a detention facility where unspeakable beauty treatments shall be forced upon you. You shall be clad in Armani and forced to carry a Louis Vuitton handbag...a rainbow Louis Vuitton. *ebil smile*


J.

Maybe Haloist Party will come back and continue to not answer questions in RC's absence.

There have been some fantastic put downs in this thread, I'd just like to say.

Has this been the longest thread?
I'd like to know.. its certainly the longest one I've seen but I've not been a member that long.

One of the longest threads that have stayed fairly on topic, I've got to say. Though if you cut out the repetition and arguing the same points with RuleCaucausia, it's probably about 1/10th this length. Ho hum.

There have been some fantastic put downs in this thread, I'd just like to say.

:D ::takes bow::

I've read all 1213 posts in this thread, (which was the number of the last post when I hit reply.) and wow. Its possible that my tiny fragile little mind was warped and destroyed in the process of reading the entire thread from beginning to end, but I've now reached the conclusion that both Creationism and Evolution are completly correct without error, because they both happened at the exact same time in the exact same universe. Then again, maybe I'm just exausted from reading all the arguing and trolling. I'll go get a good night's rest and reconsider.

Really though, 1213 posts, this entire thread, without stopping or resting? I feel like I've inhumanly tortured myself needlessly.:(

Ok. After having read this entire thread, I am convinced that you, RuleCaucasia, either currently suffer from Aspergers Syndrome, are a complete and utter moron, are one of the best and most convincing troll I've ever encountered, or you are a very religious individual who is, if rather provincially minded, exceptionally secure and adamant in your beliefs.
That being said, I have found your definition given for God to be too vague. We understand that you belive this entity to be creator of the universe, but you remain lacking in an actual description of this God. Is God male? Female? Omnipresent, or limited in shape and form? Does God consist of actual mater, or is it energy, or does God have no physical form? Does God ever change?
P.S. Congrats on the marriage and the kid. Good luck with that.

The universe came into existence because God made it.What's your source of information for that? How do you know that?

What's your source of information for that? How do you know that?

How do you know he didn't. Where, in fact, does the burden of proof lie?

How do you know he didn't. Where, in fact, does the burden of proof lie?

On the person who made the claim. But RC's left.

How do you know he didn't. Where, in fact, does the burden of proof lie?

On the one making the positive claim. So whoever claims that God created the Earth. Basic debating rule right there.

No, it's not a scientific fact any more than the "fact" that the Earth is over a billion years old or that dinosaurs existed.

Wow... that's all that I can really say.... wow.
Actually, dinosaur comment: So, are you proposing that teams of scientists, for thousands of years... built elaborate, massivly heavy, grand-scale skeletons, buried them, and then dug them up in order to claim that they had found the remains of some animal? (yes, thousands. The Chinese were super-advanced waaaayyyy back then, far more than my European ancestors, and had already discovered and catalogued fossils, although they thought that they were "dragons")
Wow... that's pretty amazing :headbang:

Tell you what, I'd rather my family tree included a monkey than a Creationist.

http://www.johnberman.com/pics/funny/not_this_shit_again.jpg

Did we come from unicellular orgasms?

Sorry, just read the other thread. *sneaks away*

Did we come from unicellular orgasms?

Sorry, just read the other thread. *sneaks away*

*Catches and brings back with hands and legs tied. Ties her to chair*

*Catches and brings back with hands and legs tied. Ties her to chair*
:p
Well, did we?

:p
Well, did we?

I know you know the truth.

*Prepares electroshock machine. Gets eggs and oil.*

Did we come from unicellular orgasms?

Sorry, just read the other thread. *sneaks away*

I'd be disappointed with an orgasm confined to one cell.

I'd be disappointed with an orgasm confined to one cell.

:D

Well, I think this is the first page that has seen any spam. :p

:D

Well, I think this is the first page that has seen any spam. :p

*Dumps SPAM on Pancake*

SPAM.

I only have this to add about the OP, gleaned through reading this thread:

http://i68.photobucket.com/albums/i10/Rahegalhoff/yousucketh.jpg

*sneaks in, cuts Pancake's bonds, and points lightsaber at Minaris and Ifreann* Run, Milady! I'll hold them off!

Perhaps he is a 34 year old man who is still in grade 11?

Judging from his thread, this is likely.

RC, do you really think that you are going to convert anyone? If you do, i must warn you, this preaching of yours is only getting me pissed off at this 'god' of yours and at your religion. You christians make me sick. Now i understand why most native american peoples attacked those pesky missionaries.

Don't bother, I tried reasoning with it already. It didn't work.

Did you just advocate killing gays?

RC does a lot of things.

They are quite in favor of hearing every viewpoint before drawing a conclusion; regardless of what you may think, religion is not bred from ignorance, but rather from strength of heart and mind.

In other words stubbornness?

How do you know he didn't. Where, in fact, does the burden of proof lie?

That's a question that deserves its own thread. If you reach an answer on that one get back to me. I won't wait up for it though.