“I never claimed to be Perfect”

Since: Nov 10

just better than yesterday

#565121 Nov 23, 2012
LIes Busters wrote:
<quoted text>So, let me get this straight, for 40 years you exhibited no positive qualities when you were in the church or are you saying that you exhibited positive qualities but then now you are not a Christian?
No, what I have posted reveals that you also were as lost as the pedophile and rapist, who will be exactly were you wind up for eternity. You decide where you think that might be, since it won't matter.
Love for sinners, do mean, the love that pseudo-Christians have for pedophiles, murderers, rapists, child molesters, drug addicts, and child prostitution ruing leaders. Are you talking about that love?
You claim to support gays and blacks, which is a lie. How come you do not have even one gay friend or one male black friend who is not a family member?
If that is what you mean, then no I do not have your flaws.
Did you also mean pseudo-Christians like Al Garcia, who live in Southern California, but he does not even know one gay/lesbian, has never visited a gay in their home, had one over to his house, or sat and had dinner with a gay/lesbian and found out about the abuse and trauma that led to their homosexuality.
No, I do not have that kind of absent love.
I also have talked to and listen to ex-gays, but to you that is not love. Sorry, based on your choices and your delusion, you may just be right.
You are lost. Your heart is lost. Perhaps one day when you speak about believing in the Lord and his goodness will really mean something to you or even better, every one here will really believe you.

All you've accomplished is simply to prove what a lying, piece of crap troll you really are.

Happy thanksgiving you piece of crap.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#565122 Nov 23, 2012
Al Garcia wrote:
<quoted text>
Get it right ........ It was three girls. It was only weed. It was 20 years ago. And I drink but not to get drunk.
Hmpf. I get drunk no matter how little I drink. I am now jealous of your drinking.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#565123 Nov 23, 2012
Al Garcia wrote:
<quoted text>
You are lost. Your heart is lost. Perhaps one day when you speak about believing in the Lord and his goodness will really mean something to you or even better, every one here will really believe you.
All you've accomplished is simply to prove what a lying, piece of crap troll you really are.
Happy thanksgiving you piece of crap.
We may disagree, but I do like your attitude. Peace and harmony to you.

“H-o-o-o-o-o-o-ld on thar!”

Since: Sep 08

The Borderland of Sol

#565124 Nov 23, 2012
Al Garcia wrote:
<quoted text>
Get it right ........ It was three girls. It was only weed. It was 20 years ago. And I drink but not to get drunk.
Hehehe.

Hi, Al.

“H-o-o-o-o-o-o-ld on thar!”

Since: Sep 08

The Borderland of Sol

#565125 Nov 23, 2012
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Hmpf. I get drunk no matter how little I drink. I am now jealous of your drinking.
Sheesh, I wish I could do that - the cost of my incohol altake would be luch mess...

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#565126 Nov 23, 2012
macumazahn wrote:
<quoted text>Sheesh, I wish I could do that - the cost of my incohol altake would be luch mess...
You misspelled much.

I'm on number 3 and can harely see the keyboard.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#565127 Nov 23, 2012
scambuster wrote:
<quoted text>
As a former christian, church deacon and youth minister, I can vouch for this. Some of the elders of the church, and certainly some of those in high leadership positions demand respect based on their status as a christian and their position in the church. Even when it's not deserved.
Thanks for that.
scambuster wrote:
Religion already gets special treatment from the US government, is that not enough for them?
That needs to be among the first things to change. Not only do churches need to be taxed like any other business, they need to be subject to frequent random audits with hefty, zero-tolerance prison terms for clergy caught defrauding the American public, including having the offenders frog marched out of their churches by police for the evening news.

Wouldn't you just love to see the results of the forensic audits of about a hundred churches chosen at random to see how little gets past those jackals pockets? I sure would. I'll bet less than fifty percent of the dollars collected are recorded, and that less than ten cents on the dollar is spent charitably, meaning that at most, ten percent of their gate should go untaxed. I'd bet quite a bit that that is the case.

When people that don't feel like giving churches a pass just for saying "Jesus! Jesus!" a lot have attained majority status, we might see some fairness there.

If you have any interest in the matter of church tax exemptions, and the unfairness in the way that the tax law is applied today, you might check out these emails on the subject I passed along at http://www.topix.com/forum/religion/atheism/T...

And here's an article from The Guardian from this week entitled, "How US churches exploit tax exemption to promote faith-based politics - With the IRS turning a blind eye, the Christian right is getting its political advertising subsidized by American taxpayers" at http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/...

I resent that, especially in light of the fact that unlike secular charities, churches are automatically granted 501(c)(3) status, the IRS has no will to enforce the law with churches (it is assumed that if FFRF politicked, that they would lose their tax exempt status), and that there is zero oversight of the fraud committed by churches. Whereas you and I can be randomly audited, a church must be caught in flagrante delicto before the IRS will get involved.

"To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical." -Thomas Jefferson

“H-o-o-o-o-o-o-ld on thar!”

Since: Sep 08

The Borderland of Sol

#565128 Nov 23, 2012
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
You misspelled much.
I'm on number 3 and can harely see the keyboard.
Practice, practice, practice...

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#565129 Nov 23, 2012
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
The whole purpose of that treaty was to show the Muslim nations that America’s Christianity was different than that of Europe.
Says who besides you? You forget that your word is no good here.
RiversideRedneck wrote:
We had no intention of fighting a war solely based upon religion.
"Solely based upon religion?" That's political revisionism. The issue was the Barbary Coast pirates that colonial vessels had been protected from by the British navy prior to independence. Muslims don't care what kind of a Christian you are any more than you care what kind of Muslims they are.

Here's what the Qur'an instructs them: "O you who have believed, do not take the Jews and the Christians as allies. They are [in fact] allies of one another. And whoever is an ally to them among you - then indeed, he is [one] of them. Indeed, Allah guides not the wrongdoing people." http://quran.com/5/51

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#565130 Nov 23, 2012
RiversideRedneck wrote:
The bottom line is that when you read the entire article in context it shows that the intention of the line was not to say that the nation was not founded upon Christian principles.
Nonsense. That's just another of your empty and unsupported claims, and a familiar ruse with church apologists, especially when referring to criticism of their bible: "You're taking it out of context." Prove it. Restore the relevant context and prove it.

If your point had any validity, you could and would have included the missing context from the treaty (it's a treaty, BTW, not an article) that elucidated how the meaning changed without its inclusion.

Example of a passage which meaning is altered by removing surrounding context, and how restoring the context proves that :

Quote mined snippet: "I don't love my wife"
Original comment restored: "I would never say that I don't love my wife"

Do that, or gracefully accept the ignominy rightly earned by making a false claim about surrounding context changing the meaning of the words.
RiversideRedneck wrote:
I think any honest historian would agree with that, even if they don't like Christianity.
More codswallop. Plenty of honest historians and other literate people disagree with that. The relevant passage of the Treaty of Tripoli reads:

"[T]he Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion"

What part of that do you not understand? Do you know what "not in any sense means"?

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#565131 Nov 23, 2012
macumazahn wrote:
<quoted text>Practice, practice, practice...
Pft, you just want me more drunk.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#565132 Nov 23, 2012
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
So I take it that you read my post out of context. Nice.
I take it that you're making another unevidenced claim that you could easily have supported were your claim valid.

Let me take some of your words out of context and show you how sometimes it merely leaves out some detail, and sometimes it changes their meaning altogether.

Full statement with no context removed:
[1] "So I take it that you read my post out of context. Nice."

Context removed that does NOT substantially change the meaning:
[2] "So I take it that you read my post out of context."
[3] "you read my post out of context. Nice."

Context removed that DOES change the apparent meaning:
[4] "read my post" - now it sounds like a command.
[5] "So I take it that you read my post ... Nice." - now it sounds like a thank you.

Got it? Simply saying that "you removed context" to imply that a passage's meaning has been altered is insufficient. Every time any quotation or excerpt is reprinted, including biblical scripture, surrounding context is perforce removed. Ethical posters do that responsibly.

To claim otherwise is to accuse another of dishonest. To claim otherwise without even bothering to demonstrate in what way the words' apparent meaning were changed is either laziness on your part, or an example of your own dishonesty.

You've pissed off half of the thread with your irresponsible and dishonest posting. I'll bet that it surprises you to see how much we care about about that. It has to do with personal integrity and self-respect. They matter to me. They matter to Booots. They matter to OCB. They matter to KittenKoder. They matter to Scam Buster. But not to you:

RiversideRedneck wrote: My Topix reputation?!? OH NOOOO!!!!!!!!!

IANS: Yes, your reputation on this thread is shot. And your obvious indifference to that is no surprise.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#565133 Nov 23, 2012
RiversideRedneck wrote:
The USA is a Christian nation.
“The Ten Commandments fit the United States like $10 shoes, from the first, where we install the "almighty" dollar as an idol, to the last, when we rely on covetousness to turn the wheels of commerce. We keep the Sabbath holy by shopping for bargains and allow and excuse false witness for advertising and political spin. We have been casual about killing for a nation that believes in "Thou shall not kill." And as for adultery, we apparently couldn't have a Congress without it. Beyond all that, we revere the Ten Commandments to shreds.” Tom Blackburn

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#565134 Nov 23, 2012
RiversideRedneck wrote:
we're NOT a secular nation
You mean that most Americans still call themselves Christian. That won't be for long.
RiversideRedneck wrote:
If the USA is secular, why is Hod on our money, buildings, offices, courthouses, White House, Congress, etc?
Don't forget the Pledge: "One nation, under Hod (sic)"

Hod appears in those places illegally. I resent the Christians turning the Pledge into a prayer, and the currency into religious tracts.

I predict that Hod will disappear from all of those places, as will the grossly unfair church tax exemptions and their free pass from the IRS to promote political candidates.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#565135 Nov 23, 2012
Tide with Beach wrote:
<quoted text>
This is one of my favorite games.
Stained Ass Widow
Trinity and Tobacco
Holy Ghost Busters
The Frankincense Monster
Dial M for Myrrh
The Immaculate Contraceptive (NIB)
Pretty good.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#565136 Nov 23, 2012
endtime

AOL

#565137 Nov 23, 2012
.

PROOF Obama's ReElection = ANTICHRIST_______

&fe ature=plcp

.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#565138 Nov 23, 2012
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh sure. Because evilbible MUST be telling the truth... pfft
Don't be ignorant. Genesis 1:1–2:3 provides us with a chronological account of what God did on each of the days during the creation week. Genesis 2:4–25 zooms in on day six and shows some of the events of that day.
Get it?
Genesis 1 is a chronological account.
Genesis 2 is a descriptive account.
NOT contradictory.
Read it and weep, Mr. Revisionist. These are contradictions:

CONTRADICTIONS BETWEEN THE TWO CREATION STORIES IN GENESIS
adapted from http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/acco...

[1] Were the non-human animals created before man was created [Genesis 1:25-27], or was man created before the lower animals were created [Genesis 2:18-19]?

Genesis 1:25-27 (Humans were created after the other animals.)“And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good. And God said, Let us make man in our image.... So God created man in his own image.”

Genesis 2:18-19 (Humans were created before the other animals.)“And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.”

[5] Were there two or seven on the ark?

Genesis 6:19-21 - "And of every living thing of all flesh, two of every sort shalt thou bring into the ark, to keep them alive with thee; they shall be male and female. Of fowls after their kind, and of cattle after their kind, of every creeping thing of the earth after his kind, two of every sort shall come unto thee, to keep them alive. And take thou unto thee of all food that is eaten, and thou shalt gather it to thee; and it shall be for food for thee, and for them." -

Genesis 7:2-3 - "Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the male and his female: and of beasts that are not clean by two, the male and his female. Of fowls also of the air by sevens, the male and the female; to keep seed alive upon the face of all the earth."

[3] Were the birds created before man was created [Genesis 1:20-21, 26-27], or was man created before birds were created [Genesis 2:7, 19]?

[4] Were man and woman were created at the same time [Genesis 1:26-27], or was man was created first, woman sometime later [Genesis 2:7, 21-22]?

[5] Were the trees created before man was created [Genesis 1:11-12, 26-27] or was man was created before the trees were created [Genesis 2:4-9]?

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#565139 Nov 23, 2012
RiversideRedneck wrote:
Unlearnable - it's a Scrabble word :)
unlearnable (not comparable)
adjective
1. Not able to be learned.
en.wiktionary.org/wiki/unlearnable
That would be fine, but you used the word to mean unteachable. That is a very different idea, isn't it.

RiversideRedneck wrote: "You are untrainable & unlearnable."
http://www.topix.com/forum/topstories/TOCO8TE...

Here is another example of your mind skipping a track. This happens a lot with you. It's the equivalent of making errors like 7 + 4 = 12 every tenth or twentieth time you try to add to digits. There is just no way you're ever going to get a column of multi-digit numbers added correctly without help.

Likewise with a chain of thought. If you make as many mistakes in all of your thinking as you do in your Topix posting, well, not much that you post can be correct.
RiversideRedneck wrote:
I should really start charging you...
You really should start paying us.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#565140 Nov 23, 2012
RiversideRedneck wrote:
You got a problem with torturing prisoners? Did your mom take your balls away again?
Your boy Bush agreed with you. Christian ethics, meaning the ones you people embody rather than the words in your book that you point to when praising yourselves but ignore in practice, simply need to be expunged from American culture.

We can do better than this.

“I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians. They are so unlike your Christ.”- Mahatma Gandhi

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
Why Should Jesus Love Me? (Feb '08) 5 min lil whispers 605,123
21 Dead Babies Found on Riverbank in China (Mar '10) 12 min AERT 669
Bush is a hero (Sep '07) 19 min WildWeirdWillie 175,720
Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 22 min June VanDerMark 559,798
Moses never existed 34 min KiMare 775
Blaming Israel for carnage (Jul '06) 41 min cheer the f up 119,667
Is homosexuality a sin? (Oct '07) 1 hr EdmondWA 96,763
Was 9/11 a conspiracy?? (Oct '07) 1 hr Charlie Sheen 265,251
Why I’m no longer a Christian (Jul '08) 2 hr foothillbilly 441,788
More from around the web