Child Rapist in Heaven
- Thread starter Orleander
- Start date
Sounds like a loving God for sure. If you're trying to be convincing, you've failed miserably. Thanks but no thanks.
another morbid fear of clarifications, eh?
a pigeon mates more than that in one day
no need to envy the pigeons .. is there?
no
I said according to such a value system, animals such as pigs, dogs and pigeons are superior
Last edited:
Thank you for making my point.
Here it is again.. see if you can manage an answer this time..
"anyway, what you say makes no sense. I ask what exactly is wrong with sex, sex and more sex to which you basically say "it's wrong because animals do it more" (which they don't lol).... wtf??"
Explain yourself, or continue with your typical irrelevant idiocy.. whatever.
If I'm "trying to be convincing", eh...uh, no; I'm not "trying to be convincing". Your ingratitude notwithstanding, you exist in the 'context' of God's immediate Presence. The M.O. of this 'context', or, the principle governing its operation/Presence, is the Word of God Written/Incarnate (His Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by Whom also He made the worlds; Who being the brightness of His Glory, and the express Image of His Person, and upholding all things by the Word of His Power...Who is the Image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature: For by Him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by Him, and for Him: And He is before all things, and by Him all things consist... ).
Remain ignorant of It/Him to your peril.
Truth be told, it's you who've "failed miserably"..."failed miserably" at convincing yourself God does not exist. Misery loves company--but contrary to popular belief, you'll bear the guilt of your sin alone.
Oh I disagree, I've succeeded grandly at convincing myself God doesn't exist!
I truly don't think you realize that what you say is pure speculation and opinion. You respond to everything I say with threats as to how I will be judged according to what you declare by your own granted authority as my "ingratitude" and "sin", when someone else may see my resistance to your conformity or my pursuit of a well-structured truth as something admirable. Indeed, I could suggest that your God you speak of values a genuine spirit of seeking out what is true and being intellectually honest--even if that means calling myself an atheist because of it--over a memorization of scripture, in which case I believe I have you bested. The point is, you can't prove that my claim is wrong, just as I cannot prove yours is wrong. We are both operating from pure speculation here, and I point this out because it is on such a faulty ground that you vehemently and ineffectively launch your smear campaign and damnation of me. You make overarching statements that due to their ambition (and not to mention blatant ignorance) are just destined to be wrong. For instance, I am far from miserable, but you've assumed right off that because I don't share your idiosyncratic views, then there is no way I can know what true happiness is.
We could replace your bible with a swastika and your tone would be identical to Hitler's that condemned a whole slew of people solely because their opinions differed from his; same echo, different canyon.
And yes, according to your views, I will burn forever in hell with no relief or solace of any kind, and you will get to laugh at me from heaven right along side all-loving Jesus. Once again, the fact that I am not intimidated by this in the slightest should suggest to you how ridiculous I find your reasoning (if one can actually call it that) that leads you to these beliefs. All of your efforts are at a minimum inadequately convincing and poor evangelical tools at best. Maybe you should try a different approach for the next heathen.
I might as well comment on your success too; you've not only convinced yourself that a God exists, but that you happen to fall into the one interpretation of millions (all of which are subject to our feeble and faulty human brains) of one religious practice of one species on one planet that just so fortuitously happens to be the one that God, the creator of the ENTIRE UNIVERSE, chose to represent himself in. How very convenient! If it's degrees of self-convincing we are battling in, then I exclaim a surrender to you!
Last edited:
Your knowledge of the realm of pigeon is sadly lacking.
Only after seven years in a Tibetan pigeon coop will you
fully understand their mysterious and inneffable ways
"Everything"?
Not so. For example, on Tuesday morning, July 31 in the "Why do atheists hate Jesus?" thread Photizo responded to you with an invitation, not a threat.
Photizo wrote: "Christ commands the lame 'pick up your mat and walk' ... will you obey Him?"
That is an invitation.
Govern thyself accordingly.
God bless you.
Source for this information please.
No.
While that's still largely inaccurate, how does it answer my question: "what is wrong with sex, sex and more sex"? I didn't ask who was better at it or who did it more, I asked what was wrong with it. Wakey wakey.
Last edited:
:yawn:
There is no smear campaign being launched against you, and damnation is the result of choices made in accordance with the Divine Algorithm (The Word of God)...My initial post was a straighforward reply to the individual who began the thread...you chose to reply to me. My replies to you were neither "evangelical tools" nor attempts at "convincing" you of anything. In fact, they amounted to a provision of basic information--information that you claim to be familiar with. Given that, the exchange demonstrates God is graciously inclined towards you, not hostile. It is you who senses/makes Him to be an Adversary in light of your denial and ineffectual "self convincing". As such, it is He with Whom you are "battling" and not me, and accordingly then, it is He to Whom you must surrender.
Last edited:
Nutter, nobody asked you to comment and I was being specific to this thread. Do you not recognize a bit of rhetorical exaggeration when you see it? Have you been reduced to discuss not the things that matter in our above posts but instead minute details while pedantically overreacting to mere semantics?
That aside, do you honestly believe that's all it was, an innocent invitation? On the back of that invitation, there always looms an ominous response of an eternity of torture if one is to respond negatively. That's not a threat?
Blue text, huh? Archaic-toned language...I think we may have a double-accounter here. :spank:
Last edited:
You aren't a very astute reader are you? I wasn't surrendering to you in any way but a facetious one. Sorry to rain on your parade.
But even so, why would I surrender to something that is dead? Yes I am familiar with your information and see just how you have obtained your beliefs. Unfortunately, they are not pragmatic, which is why I responded to you in the first place. For example, I told you I love others and yet have no relationship with God, which undermines your claim that one has to know your God in order to have genuine love, a claim that I would nominate as the most arrogant and flat out false one I've heard in a long time. You of course chose not to deal with that but to instead dismiss my authentic emotions in one fell swoop with even more arrogance, saying that you do have a monopoly on love. No more is my task to expose your ignorance, you've done that yourself. It's just a pity that you are oblivious to that as well.
And if your part of our exchange is what you would call "gracious", then I fear for your children. While I don't claim a monopoly, I do certainly think you fall short of realizing an authentic love. The fact that you think your God burns his creations in an eternity of torment is another blindingly obvious indicator of that.
Though thou shouldest bray a fool in a mortar among wheat with a pestle, yet will not his foolishness depart from him.
That's very nice, such a contribution you've made here.
How irrelevant.
Nobody asked you to soil this thread with non sequiturs. But yet you do.
No you weren't. Stop trying to save face.
Nice try.
That is exactly what you are doing. Thank you for the autobiographical interlude.
On Photizo's part, yes.
The "ominous response" of which you speak is indelibly etched in your personal ontology, as evidenced by your posting activity in sciforums over the past month as well as your defensive posturing with respect to Photizo's statements.
You are also color blind, old sport.
God bless you.
CuriousBioGirl
Registered Member
As Dr. Freud said.
Don't call the kettle black mate.
Oh I forgot that you are so wise that you know what I mean by my words more than I do, even the thoughts behind them, and that any attempt to explicate them to you will be thwarted by masterful rebuttals like "No you weren't." How silly of me, from now on I'll check with you before I say anything, just in case it's not really what I'm thinking. Honestly, come off of yourself.
That's not an answer to my question. I would mockingly say "Nice try" here, but that would be too dishonest; it was a poor try on your part.
I'll respond to this with a quote of your own;
This is how you follow up on your claim that I am being pedantic? Oh I'm sorry, your NAVY colored text. Yes, navy blue, not blue, how careless of me.
Yes precisely. Of course an ominous response is to be expected! You go tell Christians that you reject their offer of Jesus, hear their responses and I'll be quick to bet you, many of those will be dripping with ominous threats. I would like it to be more as you suggest and for Christian's offers of salvation to be less colored with the undertone of an eternal threat, but my time on this board has only reinforced my expectations of that dishearteningly frequent combination. And I take it you haven't read all of Photizo's posts to me, otherwise you may have thought twice about defending an understanding/gentle spirit on his part, one that would have stilled my expectation:
Photizo said:
In tone, he's actually already damned me (or as he would say, "God has damned me" or "I have damned myself", either way it's all from his mouth) despite your valiant yet useless defense.
If God were to be anything like what you represent, then I would not wish him to bestow upon me anything he deems a blessing.
Last edited:
There you go with another non sequitur. Again, please stop soiling this thread.
There you go with another unsuccessful attempt at obfuscation. You made the mistake of using a universal quantifier instead of an existential quantifier. In other words, don't say "always" when you mean "sometimes." Otherwise, your folly will continue to be exposed.
At least you admit your mistake. Try to be more careful henceforth. Perhaps if you would proofread some of your sloppy posts and off-the-cuff rants in the future you will be spared any further embarrassment.
1. If, as you maintain, Christianity is unsubstantiated fiction, then what difference does it make if you are confronted with these perceived "ominous threats"? Why should these perceived "ominous threats" bother you?
2. Understand that these perceived "ominous threats" are not personal "threats" issued by the speaker towards you, rather, the speaker is simply conveying to you the consequences of your action or forebearance to act. The speaker is actually doing you a favor by alerting you to the consequences.
Alas, how you would "like it to be" is irrelevant with respect to, as you yourself have admitted, the fact that "God has damned [you] already." As it is written:
"He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God." - John 3:18
"He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him." - John 3:36
Of course you can choose to believe it or not believe it. If you truly reject the entire proposition, then why get your panties in a wad concerning the issue and spend your summer pontificating in an internet discussion forum over a supposed "fiction"? On the other hand, if you do not reject the proposition, you know what to do.
Govern thyself accordingly.
God bless you.