Why Should Jesus Love Me?
dogs of war

Baltimore, MD

#599880 Oct 9, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm not participating in the name calling/slandering that you talked about,....
<quoted text>
Did you even read what Annie or I wrote?
The name calling & slandering is constant from you.
You seem to always have to end your posts with a derragtory name calling, like you JUST did here, calling me an ahole.
that is what I don't like
this f...scum call almost every christian with his insults,hates, and derogatory posts,

but if someone call him that he is POS
he get upset on you or RA

I even doesn't have desire to spew at his coward cyber face

he kiss only Skombolis a...because he is scare of Skombolis logical defeat of scums like him-that way it makes him safe in this room

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#599881 Oct 9, 2013
AnnieJ wrote:
<quoted text>
Just so there is not any misunderstanding...
My post might have been written to G/Duane/Ben but it included all that are fighting to have the biggest "D*ck"...including you RR.
If you find it ridiculous...why are you participating in it?
Basically you guys have fairly well cleaned out this thread...look around...how many do you see contributing to this thread on a regular basis? It has gotten old...the constant turf wars. It didn't just happen when "the other side" showed up...it has been going on for a long time in here. It has however gotten worse...maybe...if that is possible.
At this point...it has nothing to do with Christian vs nonChristian...it is about seeing who can piss the furthest.
Nonsense Annie

It is the same traveling trolls that came here in the beginning

Just because they don't always make it about religion doesn't change what they have come here to do

And why does RR participate when he is being slandered? is that a joke?

I noticed you have never said a word to any of the traveling trolls. You waited about two months into it and finally said something to G about it who you have said stuff to before

If you think the accusation against RR is untrue why wouldn't you address Catcher who has been the ringleader?

It has gotten WAY, WAY worse since the group from PTAG came here and everybody seems to know it except you and them

RR has a right to defend himself against claims he beats women and children

“"None shall pass"”

Since: Jul 11

There

#599882 Oct 9, 2013
Skombolis wrote:
<quoted text>
you are wrong
The court says you are wrong...
Several states authorize the use of deadly force to protect property.
Here is a list of the laws for all states from CNN's website:

http://www.cnn.com/interactive/2012/04/us/tab...

“"None shall pass"”

Since: Jul 11

There

#599883 Oct 9, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
...You do't believe me...
I don't believe much of anything you post. You are proven "fabricator".

You should read the story of the Boy Who Cried Wolf.
dr Shrink

Baltimore, MD

#599884 Oct 9, 2013
Skombolis wrote:
<quoted text>
He said it struck it one time
Why are you saying repeatedly?
Besides, now the conversation is whether i would find it enjoyable, not whether i am allowed to kill the person in return?
No I am sure i wouldn't like it
Is that really what we are on now?
this topic hater hates you too, not only old RA or RR,or me

only he kiss you a.... to makes you silence ,that way make him safe on this topic with all those wicked insults against every christian.
He knows that you by your logical defeats are able to smash him out of this room and stop this abominable hate spread by him(leader)or all those scums like;INAS,CATCHER ,HL and other sick moraly gays

Skom?I wonder you don't see this?

“H-o-o-o-o-o-o-ld on thar!”

Since: Sep 08

The Borderland of Sol

#599885 Oct 9, 2013
Skombolis wrote:
<quoted text>
you are wrong
The court says you are wrong
And its why you made sure to put a disclaimer on your post saying "I would not recommend this"\
Why would you go out of your way to make sure you tell people you would not recommend using a legal remedy Mac?
That's weird from a guy who has bragged on Topix he would shoot trespassers
And what a surprise, you didn't link your source either
But try reading the case law and also link your source and we can go from there if you still don't get it
*sigh*

What court said otherwise? And does their writ run in Florida and Texas?

And I put the disclaimer in because I was a professional firearms instructor and Range Safety Officer - as well as a competitive shooter.

I ALWAYS recommend unassing the area rather than shooting.

Since: May 11

Ashford, UK

#599886 Oct 9, 2013
Skombolis wrote:
<quoted text>
LOL
The dumbass troll actually gets something close to right
But its not would a reasonable man feel his life is in imminent danger but rather would it be reasonable for a person to feel their life was in imminent danger
The reaction is being judged as reasonable not the man
But you are right it needs to be reasonable and the danger needs to be IMMINENT
And someone pounding on the outside of a locked door would not make the danger imminent
Your group is pretty prideful for being so freaking stupid
But you came close at least. Much closer than Scaritual. Then again, you had my posts telling you all this already
You can regurgitate, that I know
:)
The 'reasonable person' test is first semester criminal law, something about which you know nothing. It is called a 'legal fiction', an hypothetical tool constructing an analogue of the 'ideal human agent', this is employed by the court to benchmark what was 'reasonable'. There are countless jornal articles on the subject.

The reactions would be measured against the reaction of the 'reasonable man'. Not you, me or anyone else.

Google Quetelet, Menlove and perhaps APP v Wednesbury for case law regarding 'reasonableness' then commence your word vomit.

“"None shall pass"”

Since: Jul 11

There

#599887 Oct 9, 2013
Skombolis wrote:
<quoted text>
He said it struck it one time
Why are you saying repeatedly?
Besides, now the conversation is whether i would find it enjoyable, not whether i am allowed to kill the person in return?
No I am sure i wouldn't like it
Is that really what we are on now?
Which rendition of RR's story are you buying ?

He changed it a few dozen times already.

First he was "killing a car" then it changed to "slightly broke a windshield with a single blow from a steering wheel lock."

He sounds just like a teenager caught in a lie.

In honesty, I think the who event only happened in RR's imagination. There was no car, person, club, cop, court, jail etc. at all.

Since: May 11

Ashford, UK

#599888 Oct 9, 2013
Skombolis wrote:
<quoted text>
LOL
Shut up dumbass troll
I am sure the child didn't remember being tapped on the butt at 6 months old
You can't have it both ways. That the baby won't even make the connection but being tapped on the butt at 6 months will make them turn on their father violently when they are older
You seem worked up. Find Catcher and take a bubble bath
shhhh...listen....they're playing your song!

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#599889 Oct 9, 2013
BenAdam wrote:
<quoted text>
Several states authorize the use of deadly force to protect property.
Here is a list of the laws for all states from CNN's website:
http://www.cnn.com/interactive/2012/04/us/tab...
No they don't Ben

Please list the states from your own source that supposedly say that and I will copy what it actually says from the same source

“"None shall pass"”

Since: Jul 11

There

#599890 Oct 9, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
How is that a new story?!
It's an addendum.
If I told you it was in the middle of the afternoon, it that a "new story", too?
If you had already told is it was dark, yes. Then you would make up a lie about it being cloudy-dark in mid-day to cover.

Sorry, RR I have dealt with several students who suffer from pathological lying. I know the symptoms. It is quite common in teens.

“I.Spirit.Son.God”

Since: Jan 12

Location hidden

#599891 Oct 9, 2013
Skombolis wrote:
Edit Trifecta
Meant to add
What was your conclusion about these three version when looked at together as far as interpretation?
Matthew 10:28
Do not fear those who kill the body but are unable to kill the soul; but rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell
Psalms 146:4
His breath goeth forth, he returneth to his earth, in that very day his thoughts perish
Ecclesiastes 9:5
For the living know that they will die, but the dead know nothing; they have no further reward, and even the memory of them is forgotten.
Sure I can tell you what I get from them--but I don't think it will make a difference in our interpretation.

In Matt.28--as said, to me destroyed not mean unaware or erased. Hell is a place of destruction. A soul in hell [is] destroyed. But not destroyed in the way you propose as obliterated.

Psalm 146:4
Thoughts have to do with the mind. You would agree our mind is fleshly right? so in the day the person dies--their fleshly human thoughts do perish.

But what that have to do with the Soul Skombolis? the [Soul] is not fleshly or physical. So to that verse---the fleshly thoughts perish. The soul will exist in some form but it will not have to do with "thoughts" which relates to the body and the flesh

Ecclesiastes 9:5--same thing. The body dies. That body has no more reward on earth because that body is dead. That not have anything to do with the soul.

How do you square Jesus' account of Lazarus and the Rich man to what you believe about the soul and hell?

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#599892 Oct 9, 2013
macumazahn wrote:
<quoted text>*sigh*
What court said otherwise? And does their writ run in Florida and Texas?
And I put the disclaimer in because I was a professional firearms instructor and Range Safety Officer - as well as a competitive shooter.
I ALWAYS recommend unassing the area rather than shooting.
Sigh

LOL, what does that have to do with putting a disclaimer to tell people you wouldn't advice using a legal remedy

If deadly force is wMac, why wouldn't you recommend it. You would recommend someone just let a robber do whatever they want even though they can legally stop them?

Gee, that doesn't sound like you

You put the disclaimer there because you know if some dumbass follows your advice you could be sued

Link your source mac and we can go from there. I have asked you three times now

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#599894 Oct 9, 2013
MisterCharrington wrote:
<quoted text>

The reactions would be measured against the reaction of the 'reasonable man'. Not you, me or anyone else.
Google Quetelet, Menlove and perhaps APP v Wednesbury for case law regarding 'reasonableness' then commence your word vomit.
LOL

Right dumbass troll, just like i said

The REACTION is what is measured. Not the man

Was it reasonable to feel their life was in imminent danger

Not was it a reasonable man who felt his life was in danger

There is a distinction because someone can be a reasonable man and be way wrong about a situation or totally overreact.

So next time you want to post back to me what I already told you and corrected you on to try to pretend like you said it, please don't waste my time

You were wrong. Its not whether the man is reasonable but whether the reaction would be considered reasonable

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#599896 Oct 9, 2013
MisterCharrington wrote:
<quoted text>
shhhh...listen....they're playing your song!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =nZ9EWcaS7IIXX
I don't click on links from dumbass trolls!

“H-o-o-o-o-o-o-ld on thar!”

Since: Sep 08

The Borderland of Sol

#599897 Oct 9, 2013
BenAdam wrote:
<quoted text>
Several states authorize the use of deadly force to protect property.
Here is a list of the laws for all states from CNN's website:
http://www.cnn.com/interactive/2012/04/us/tab...
I tried being nice to Skom for quite a while.

That came back to bite me.

He wasn't the first one, but I still sometimes try.

“LOL Really?”

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#599898 Oct 9, 2013
Catcher1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh, no.
Let nothing come between Thing One and Thing Two!!
Thing Two, no more nasty posts about Happy Lesbo!!
Just like Thing One, I think HL is a wonderful person, to be admired and respected, and not denigrated.
Catcher1 wrote:
<quoted text>
I think HL is a wonderful person, to be admired and respected
You left out slowly kissed and caressed.

Catcher1

Since: Sep 10

Fremont, CA

#599899 Oct 9, 2013
MisterCharrington wrote:
<quoted text>
The 'reasonable person' test is first semester criminal law, something about which you know nothing. It is called a 'legal fiction', an hypothetical tool constructing an analogue of the 'ideal human agent', this is employed by the court to benchmark what was 'reasonable'. There are countless jornal articles on the subject.
The reactions would be measured against the reaction of the 'reasonable man'. Not you, me or anyone else.
Google Quetelet, Menlove and perhaps APP v Wednesbury for case law regarding 'reasonableness' then commence your word vomit.
Please.

Don't encourage him.

“"None shall pass"”

Since: Jul 11

There

#599900 Oct 9, 2013
Skombolis wrote:
<quoted text>
No they don't Ben
Please list the states from your own source that supposedly say that and I will copy what it actually says from the same source
FLorida Law:

"JUSTIFIABLE USE OF FORCE
776.013&#8195;Home protection; use of deadly force; presumption of fear of death or great bodily harm.—
(1)&#8195;A person is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another when using defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another if:
(a)&#8195;The person against whom the defensive force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or if that person had removed or was attempting to remove another against that person’s will from the dwelling, residence, OR OCCUPIED VEHICLE; and
(b)&#8195;The person who uses defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred."

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm...

Bolding of "OR OCCUPIED VEHICLE" is mine.
dr Shrink

Baltimore, MD

#599901 Oct 9, 2013
MisterCharrington wrote:
<quoted text>
shhhh...listen....they're playing your song!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =nZ9EWcaS7IIXX
english dumb butt
listen language yours of tniking brain yours not to a...to far do do,

that is how you write you old idiot?
go take brake and dig dumpsters under Tamiza bridge?

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
News Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 3 min PadMark 685,771
News Plurality of Americans think Trump is failing 16 min Aura Mytha 26,440
Truth About The Term: "White Nationalists" 1 hr Johnny 12
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 1 hr Test 985,711
Why it's time for Donald Trump to RESIGN...in d... 2 hr Johnny 31
God is REAL - Miracles Happen! (Jun '11) 2 hr Jake999 6,449
David Duke: "We're going to take our country ba... 2 hr Johnny 70
More from around the web