Why Should Jesus Love Me?

“ Ah see's lanlubbers Cap'n BT!”

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#583660 Sep 2, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
"BenAdam wrote:
Yes, the Bible is much better than science.
Kill the gays and end the problem, right ?"
THAT is in the Bible?!?
Such a despicable deflection of an outright question.
You are truly making me question whether to bother posting to ever again...it's not like I have not been here before...and then decided to give you another chance....You are running out of chances with me here .

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#583661 Sep 2, 2013
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>
Because you made truth claims in it. Only the first one was a correct truth claim. The subsequent ones were incorrect.
You might be asking questions to gain knowledge, but you don't appear to be. You come across as asking questions to promote what you believe to be accurate while simultaneously not engaging discussions and denying what most people tell you, usually through distraction and ridicule. It looks a lot more like the desire of self-promotion and attention grabbing than anything.
They were incorrect "to you", you mean, right?

Right.

Yes.

Moving on.

“Game Over”

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#583662 Sep 2, 2013
lil whispers wrote:
Well, I out of here headed for a cook out party laters.
Bye, LW. Have a good time.

“ Ah see's lanlubbers Cap'n BT!”

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#583663 Sep 2, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
This is one of the stupidest atheist lines:
"If it ain't in that bible...It jist ain't so!"
Tying your shoes isn't in the Bible, either.
So what do we do with that.....
So...now you falsely accuse me of being an atheist too!
You are now relegated to the posters I will not ever respond to because of their insolence and arrogance.

“A sentient umbrella speaks”

Since: Mar 11

Some stable somewhere

#583664 Sep 2, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
HL has given me some insight, so has River. It's helped me move along, but kind of like a turtle...
Sweet. So listen to them more.
Hidingfromyou wrote:
Ok, so for the purposes of the ascribed/achieved status, you've agreed that some homosexuals have the ascribed. If so, then would you agree that their ascribed status cannot be compared, in terms of protection under the law, to that of a KKK or NAMBLA member?
RiversideRedneck wrote:
No. Because, unfortunately, the KKK and NAMBLA are both protected groups, protected "companies".
Anyone who is not a member of either of those two groups would be crazy to be a part of either of those two groups, in my opinion.
1. You're using distraction again. You specifically avoided using the ascribed/achieved status discussion and called KKK and NAMBLA 'protected "companies"' whatever you mean by that. In any case, people join them, so they're achieved and not protected in the same manner that ethnicity and sexuality are.

2. What??? What on earth do you mean by both are "protected groups" and "Anyone who is not a member of either of those two groups would be crazy to be a part of either of those two groups"? You just called them protected groups and then said no one should join.
Hidingfromyou wrote:
Second, you are incorrectly associating the physical act of sex with the physical, mental and social act of being homosexual.
It's like you are claiming your heterosexual ONLY arises from your exclusive sex with women. It doesn't. There's a lot more going on than just that.
RiversideRedneck wrote:
No, not necessarily. I know I've used the word "relationship" a lot more than I've used the word "sex".
For the record, I know that homosexuality is not just about sex, no more than heterosexuality is.
You just wrote:
RiversideRedneck wrote:
I don't believe that people, most people anyway, are born with sexual desires built in. I think a lot of it is choice and influence.
Achieved status, like "I'm now gay, and always have been", ignoring all the heterosexual sex and relationships they've had. That's a choice.
So you're contradicting yourself when ever you feel it's useful. How enjoyable to have a discussion with someone who can redefine their statement son the fly, refuses to engage in the argument itself, denies science while asking for evidence, accuses all atheists of being liars, introduces distractions as a debate tool and is basically all over the place doing anything he can to avoid speaking to the original topic in question.

Now, if I was a bigot, I'd point out your religious biases here. But I'm not. This just falls on you.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#583665 Sep 2, 2013
Catcher1 wrote:

I've got one thing to supply here, and it should tell you something.
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Are you mad that we rich white people give so much money and land to the Indians but don't pay reparations to the blacks?
Well maybe if you get your black ass out there and get a job you wouldn't be so mad.
http://www.topix.com/forum/topstories/TOCO8TE ...
Filth.
Pure, unadulterated filth.
Watch out for a "got caught in a word jumble", or a "that was because so and so said," or a "that doesn't mean I'm a bigot" post.
We already know the redneck and his filth.
He can't crawl out of it.
The first part of it was pure sarcasm, mocking was Sharkey was bitching about for the past few days.

The second part was said in anger, as I posted to scar, I just couldn't take his shit anymore and just snapped.

You ever snap?

It happens.

Get over it.

Since: Jul 09

Location hidden

#583666 Sep 2, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
I hate no one, not even you.
You didn't answer my question.
Fail.
karl44 wrote:
<quoted text>
are you a christian?
How do "I" tell?

“A sentient umbrella speaks”

Since: Mar 11

Some stable somewhere

#583667 Sep 2, 2013
Lacez wrote:
<quoted text>
I agree with everything you've said, but one doesn't need to have a university level education to logically debate something. I see his reason for his logical fallacies being that he knows his arguments are at a loss. He then wishes to convolute the meanings of what he says to try and make them seem right while confusing the opponent.
It doesn't work well.
Though I suppose that's the definition of a red herring.
I don't think university education is needed for debate at all, and I apologize if I suggested that. I wrote that merely to be mean to Riverside since he seems upset by his lack of education.

“ Ah see's lanlubbers Cap'n BT!”

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#583668 Sep 2, 2013
lil whispers wrote:
<quoted text>
Humm one has to adore you for keeping her out of jail.
Ya know gal like that can be a handful lol lol.
Oh lawdy!~ She was a handful...but I will always love her.
We were the "blacksheep" in the circle of kin. LOL!

“A sentient umbrella speaks”

Since: Mar 11

Some stable somewhere

#583669 Sep 2, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, since neither one of you have provided any evidence other than social sciences that being homosexual is ascribed and not achieved, of course I'm going to ignore that.
"other than social science"

hahahahaha!!!

“"None shall pass"”

Since: Jul 11

There

#583670 Sep 2, 2013
Happy Lesbo wrote:
<quoted text>
.. just wondering - why didn't you target Red Apples instead of RR ??..
.. how's the treatment going? Did Saturday's new regiment change anything ??..
I left RR alone until he started bashing me along with RA.

RR is now on my shitlist. He earned it.

No muscle cramps, just a headache and 'anxiety attacks' nonstop. My patience is as non existent as a magic sky daddy.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#583671 Sep 2, 2013
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>
1. No, I gave you a more complicated one but you didn't understand so I dumbed it down.
2. The social sciences study how people work. Their findings relate to how people work. Claiming that knowledge within the social sciences is only relevant within the social sciences is like claiming that Einstein's equations are only valid in physics. It's about as stupid as I can imagine and I'm not surprised you made the claim.
3. Science uses methodologies designed to remove subjective bias while the Bible is a mythological text with clear biases toward supporting the Jewish cultural identity in the OT and Christian identity in the NT. You can't compare the two. This is another ridiculous statement that only the naive could make.
The way I see this is the way some of you see the "circular reasoning" of the Bible.

"Social sciences is correct and unbiased because social sciences says so."

Perhaps due to my ignorance of social sciences.

But hey, at least I admit it.

“A sentient umbrella speaks”

Since: Mar 11

Some stable somewhere

#583672 Sep 2, 2013
Lacez wrote:
<quoted text>
Has he ever supported anything he said with evidence?
No. He comes across as a person who does not respect evidence. He's already rejected the whole of the social sciences in favor of his own opinion. That's a person who cannot be reasoned with, because they don't respect reason.

“"None shall pass"”

Since: Jul 11

There

#583673 Sep 2, 2013
Happy Lesbo wrote:
<quoted text>
...why didn't you target Red Apples ...
I did. Then RR came to his rescue.

“"None shall pass"”

Since: Jul 11

There

#583674 Sep 2, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Yawn... It's "always" me that doesn't read right...
You read just fine. You simply twist everything you read and then lie about it.

Since: Jul 09

Location hidden

#583675 Sep 2, 2013
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>
As I wrote, I told them what would happen: someone would get upset and I would be made uncomfortable.
No, no, they assured me. We're not like that.
<quoted text>
1. The church people.
2. Tacitly, yes. Overtly, yes, the old man did and later, the other guy who separated me did.
3. I felt and feel like everything about their invitation was a trap. It was dishonest of them to assure me I would remain unmolested (or un-bothered in simple terms). It is dishonest to pretend to be giving out free food - the cost is Christian preaching and, apparently, condemnation of atheism. They should have just been honest. A simple "we don't discriminate among Christian denominations" would suffice.
However, it wasn't a physical trap. No one held me there against my will - and I'm sure they wouldn't. The initial invitation was a con; I could have left.
I did leave shortly after the old man was taken away, actually. The second time I was angry and so laid into them. I didn't go seeking that fight, but they provided it against their word, and I so I returned volley.
I'm not a victim of being persecuted. I'm a victim of being lied to. That's it, I learned not to trust those people at that Church. I never spent time with them again.
they are xenophobic, and there you are a "wolf" in their house.

To acquire a christian faith one must be dishonest with themselves, after that all other dishonesties are easily embraced.

their apologists are prevaricators.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#583676 Sep 2, 2013
Happy Lesbo wrote:

.. there is no right or wrong, only sense and nonsense. I've told you this before ..
Understood and agree.
.. when you insist the story of Noah's Ark is entirely true after posters take the time to provide you with a myriad of evidence disproving the story, it's nonsense ..
It's not evidence, it's circumstantial nonsense. So I dismiss it as such.
.. when you say nobody can disprove God, it's sense ..


Agreed
.. currently, we have a conflict between two rights, not right or wrong: your beliefs and my perception of a biased hidden agenda ..
To what agenda are you referring?
.. if you are unable to understand my little story, there's not much more to write ..
I am able to understand it, but I had questions about it. You told to me find out for myself.

Huh?

“A sentient umbrella speaks”

Since: Mar 11

Some stable somewhere

#583677 Sep 2, 2013
Bongo wrote:
<quoted text> Hfy, the thought never crossed my mind. I was referring to the businessman way.
Exactly. And in the doing, you destroyed the veil covering RR's bigotry.

“A sentient umbrella speaks”

Since: Mar 11

Some stable somewhere

#583678 Sep 2, 2013
Lacez wrote:
<quoted text>
That won't happen, he doesn't like to admit he's wrong.
Yup. Prediction held true.

“A sentient umbrella speaks”

Since: Mar 11

Some stable somewhere

#583679 Sep 2, 2013
scaritual wrote:
<quoted text>
The more RR speaks the more he disgusts me.
You don't say?

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Top Stories Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Jehovah's Witnesses are true disciple of Jesus ... (Mar '07) 8 min Neville Thompson 45,597
Cuckold (Jan '16) 13 min Marc 5
The Christian Atheist debate (Jun '15) 17 min Clearwater 70,429
Poll Was 9/11 a conspiracy?? (Oct '07) 19 min Neville Thompson 282,924
Moms having sex with their sons (Aug '12) 39 min Hilary 93
News Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 1 hr guest 658,507
ye olde village pub (Jun '07) 2 hr Ruby88 53,931
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 5 hr nanoanomaly 974,676
More from around the web