better wear your carbide teeth
Per Chinese person? See, it's all in the context, isn't it.If you were to estimate how much money we owe to China, what would that number be?
The capital letters really make the point...and given your lack of argument on the point God knows something had to. lain:You’re wrong AGAIN.
Yes, they are. You want to make the debate about whether or not the Bible says this or that. It's an interesting debate, but it isn't the argument....my questions are not side bars.
It's another difference. But it isn't the difference I'm speaking to in noting the failure of the apostate. My argument could have been sustained prior to the collection of books that became the Bible having been in existence.They are a necessary part of demonstrating the other half of your argument – i.e. your claim that you trust the Biblical God/the words of the Bible and that makes me unlike you.
...[while] you've made that sort of charge over and over you've yet to set out a single quote that you could then demonstrate was anything of the sort using the thing you claim to value but so rarely apply, logic.In fact your argument is probably the most disingenuous and convoluted stream of illogic I’ve ever heard...
Prove it...set out a quote supporting that. I'll wait while you can't.You constantly hide behind the “God” word as if it has magical powers
Just when I think you've hit disingenuous bottom you surprise me. Or, also not true. Christ is God. That's rather specific.and won’t allow yourself to be drawn into saying “Biblical God”.
Anything else? ...nope, same old else and as noted above.
First, anyone who tries to connect manhood with agreement on their point doesn't understand the mantle and is just playing the same stupid wanna be bully card Spec has tried repeatedly.He's on point TH weather you are man enough to admit it or not.
...If your regard is this easy to lose...then I'd suggest you're cheapening the value of your regard, not me and I'm sorry to see it. My respect isn't predicated on a litmus other than honest and principled difference and I hope yours won't be either at some point.I've lost a great deal of respect for you today that you cannot or rather WON'T defend.
Else it's simple. My argument has nothing to do with his complaints about scripture. It never did and it never will.
I don't see the inevitability of that...Do you understand math if you know your multiplication tables? I can know the answer to one question without it following that I have all or even most of the answers.You perhaps don’t really need faith if you have what you think is knowledge.
To quote Socrates, "Sure I'm thirsty." There's always something more to know.
What's this inferentially, praise? lain:Do you show the Love of Christ by condeming?
To make reading your posts bearable? lain:Why Did God Create Marijuana?
Addiction has a genetic element and some addicts are on the road to personal ruin with the first drink, etc. So God means for it to happen?God lovingly and masterfully planted and "caused to grow" all of the herbs and plants of the field. The human body, which God created, has cellular receptors specific to match up with the active ingredient of Mary Jane, THC. Their fit was no accident, it was designed.
Of course not.
Are you right or left handed?Originally Posted by Eeset View Post
Anna the war is over and you lost.
I only asked because I was wondering which arm is grotesquely larger than the other.
I'd vote for two, ktoyou and Plastic Buddha, because it would mean they're all right and because like many around here I miss them.
I can't say who, but I bet he was married. lain:... see if you can answer this Q without going anywhere...
What president started the tradition of saying, after his swearing in (with hand on Bible)
"So help me God"?
World War Z:zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.
Sure you do.Oh I try never to thinly veil insults.
You did it every time you made a Cary Grant or Randolph Scott comment aimed at invoking the slur that sent you to the bench without actually saying what would get you sent there again.
I'm going to neg rep Eeset for being an enormous hypocrite...
And for being a moron.Only a moron would think that.
I started in on the obvious harmony rejoinder but, frankly, that was too good a return. :chuckle: I concede the point.Trust you to strike dischord into the conversation...lain:
...and yes, I know you always thought I was conceded.
lain:
You did that a crappella, didn't you.I'm starting to feel all 'crotchety'...or 'quavering', I'm not sure which.
lain:
Ok, I am out this thread. It is beyond me.
I apologize.
Probably a good move, because-
Wait a minute, did you you just-May God bless you, lady.
I mean, a minute ago you were-I have not seen you involved in the Scripture discussion. If you think...
Hey, I've gotten drawn into a post I meant to walk away from, but I-Bybee,
If you think you can expose me...
lain: As a rule, if you find yourself giving a toast at an AA meeting you might want to reconsider your handle on the problem.thank you ma'am.
Was the question, "Which former president felt really, really bad about the slaves he kept owning until he died?"OK, all you history-illiterate people...
the answer is
Thomas Jefferson...
So, not mortally wounded then...more of a flesh wound. lain:...But this is typical of Christians... they love the religion but not what it actually dictates. That they hate.
Well, no. That's not pacifism any more than my eating a meatless panini makes me a vegetarian. You're overreaching, it's a contextual mistake caused by isolating and forgetting that before long Jesus is going to chase money changers from the temple how?So maybe he was a pacifist ONLY IN THOSE CASES where a slap was involved?!
I'll give a hint: he wasn't slapping at them.
That sort of thing. :e4e:
...If you think chasing people out of the temple with a whip isn't a violent act you're a mighty interesting pacifist.So you discount what he taught by the example of his life even though his example really has no clear example of violence...
For all criticism related to me, I guess I'll throw up some neg reps I get and offer my opinion on the things others do too.
Yeah, I just know this is going to turn out well. lain:
Calm yourself my dear Totton!
I'm still an Episcopalian!I bet you thanked him for his service. :mmph:I know a Veterinarian! :noid:
Sicily has a navy? :think:I tried Squid in Sicily.
Didn't take what? lain:It didn't take.
Orange you glad you looked that up? lain:No.....a navel.
I don't think you can take your own stuff. :nono: Unless you're a communist.I forgot to take my jacket.
You should spend your time opposing things you're reasonably against that a given religion might support and the points you believe you can demonstrate the falsity of...otherwise, you remind me of chrys, who having a legitimate bone to pick with many democrats over abortion has decided to destroy the party instead of change minds on the issue, ignoring the fact that very few people are democrats because of one issue and that the larger context will remain....I oppose religion, and I spend most of my time dealing with the most popular one.
But what courage is there in opposing what you believe is an imaginary being and what risk unless you credit the potential outcome? :think:Your second question is mistaken, the courage in convictions comes from believing that there are no Gods and being willing to risk my eternal "soul" on it.
I think you're mischaracterizing to suit your bias/context. I doubt you'd find many who say they believe without evidence and I find the mischaracterization both dangerous and sad....]I'm not trying to say that every Christian is Jim Jones or Charles Coughlin, I just have a problem with people believing things without evidence, which is what they tell me they're doing - I think it's dangerous and sad.
Now what do we do with one another?
See, this is just plain crazy, prima facie (Latin, for "pretty fancy"). The Jews can't be behind climate change or you'd never be able to publish the fact since, as everyone knows, the Jews control all media and determine what is or isn't seen. lain:
Then in the Jews and Climate change thread...yeah, but no...
No one really. I have it on good authority that it's mostly motor reflex. lain:Are you kidding? Really?....absolutely no! Who thinks these up?
Eat enough of them [thin mints] and the irony will be hard to miss.
No one really. I have it on good authority that it's mostly motor reflex. lain:
I was a rationalist/atheist for decades. I'm no less rational now. If it makes you tired you should take a nap.I am getting really tired of hearing people who believe in an invisible, undetectable, imaginary being making claims that they employ reason.
No, you're wrong about that. If you rest your life on the empirical you're going to miss a great deal that is very real and nearly impossible to approach except in effect.We only know anything by direct examination.
I'm tired of people like you confusing declaration of bias with argument.The idea of "god" has nothing to back it except fanciful dreaming. Nothing at all.
It has the majority of recorded human history speaking for it. Causality, contingency, they speak to rational approach of man to God. Now you can say you aren't convinced. Fine. But if you say more than that you're mistaken at best.
Actually, it depends. I'm an attorney. I've interviewed and cross examined literally thousands of people in relation to events. The quality of witness depends on the individual and on the nature of the event. The Jewish people had a rich oral history. I suppose not having notebooks, let alone the internet had something to do with it.Ask any detective in the world and he or she will tell you that eye-witness testimony is sketchy even when the reports are given immediately following an incident. Over time, that testimony is less and less reliable until eventually it is simply another fiction. Neuroscience will back this up.
And narratives on essential points can be related remarkably intact where literary devices are employed, where the prose is memorable and vivid. I can recite a great deal of Shakespeare and the Canterbury Tales in Middle English and I learned it decades ago. So it depends.
Also, it depends on what's witnessed. A traumatic experience will get you a fairly wide variance of recollection, though from a wide enough sampling of witnesses you can nail down the principle narrative pretty effectively.
The ages of the various accounts are debatable, but we know that Paul writes within the life in being of people who witnessed the events. We know that the apostles were growing the religion within the area and within the life in being of people who were in a perfect position to aid the principle religious authority in stamping out the new and troubling religion. And we know that didn't happen. His epistles speak to a widely spread and thriving church in relatively short order.
What we don't have is evidence of people with a vested interest in shouting Christianity down coming forward to say, "No, I was there and none of that happened."
I answered a bit of this above, but given we're talking about it a few thousand years later it seems that the communication was effective enough. And the Bible is a collection of books, written over time by different authors. If I bound together a book of evidence for an accident consisting of witness testimony you might say the same thing a few thousand years later.If god is so clever and the whole of eternity was resting on the life, death and alleged resurrection of Jesus, how is it possible that none of it was documented until three decades after the alleged events took place and there is no outside corroborating evidence to support any of it?
We have what we have. There are any number of historical documents with less corroboration than that.
Anything is possible. But is it reasonable?See the video evidence that the fainting lady at Obama's speech might have been staged.
Or he's just shifting body position, the way people will.Here's something the article missed. At the 2:26 mark, the man standing directly behind the woman drops his hands in preparation to catch her before she even starts falling.
Or like he does all the time at various points in up close speeches.Obama also turns around and looks directly at the woman, like he knew in advance which person would be fainting.
Defense attorneys don't like their clients testifying because a skilled cross examination can wreck the impact of direct. So it's not so much about acting as composure and the fact that the narrative isn't iron clad or you wouldn't be having a trial.99 percent of the population are lousy actors. Shoot, most professional actors are lousy actors. It's why defense attorneys usually make sure their defendants don't testify. They know their clients can't act.
If you think your client is going to lie you're actually not allowed to let them and if it's demonstrated you did your practice will be more of a mirror thing thereafter.
Great question. And without a great reason no reason to think he did.Why would Obama even attempt something like this?
And some who put up their own scoreboard and slap numbers across it and cheer for no apparent reason.....there are a lot of idiots in the country... but there are plenty who know the score...
No, but if it's a good enough pony there's no reason to trade horses.i guess u r a one trick pony, eh?
I don't know. No one does. But I know what Jefferson was and all the smoke in the world won't change that.i will bet $$ that Town Heretic...
if he had lived in the times of Jefferson.. and had massive $$
he would have owned slaves also...
No, it isn't like that...Jefferson knew better. He failed himself.you see, its like this...
if something is legal, that registers in most people's minds as: OK
Did you mean to be ironic or don't you understand what you're up to here?...so quit with the high and mighty stuff already
To be wise to others is smart, but assumptions take one to no one.'To know others is smart. To know yourself is wise.'
Good morning in advance. Because I only intend to be late once.
Just exactly what are you implying, sirrah! I'll have you know that Jewish motor reflex is every bit as dependable as climate change! :mmph:
is that a racist joke? :freak:
What the Town Tabloid needs is more sensationalism.
Why? I think it's sensational as it is!
Thanks.Why? I think it's sensational as it is!
With your post count it's darn nearly miraculous when YOU mention.Especially when I'm mentioned.
With your post count it's darn nearly miraculous when YOU mention.
Shocking isn't it? Oh wait, that would be watt.:chuckle:
Wait.. What?? lain: