Prove there's a god.
huh

Fort Worth, TX

#626677 May 26, 2013
nanoanomaly wrote:
<quoted text>Apparently, it is only murder if the zygote is not human in origin.
" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personism" ;
Singer and his buds don't ever seem to be aware of their hypocrisy.
Or ever admit to it.
Wrong again.

http://www.utilitarian.net/singer/by/1995----...

Since: Sep 10

Long Beach, CA

#626678 May 26, 2013
huh wrote:
<quoted text>Actually, she didn't write that it was the only option. Read it again.
Rumor has it your wife likes the UPS guy, too. It gets her off in a different way to have a real penis inside her instead of your 24/7 Topix pee pee. I'm certain she's be very happy to know that you are discussing intimate details of her whoredom right here on the Internet.
Of course Adam was a sex offender. He was made in Invisible Sky Daddy's image, right, and a invisible Sky Daddy is the biggest sex offender around. Even if you discount the 100s of thousand or even millions of rapes Yeahnoway ordered, there is the rape of the married virgin when the juke joint ran out of ribs and dirt was suddenly in short supply.
Haha, keep at it.

You should check out the Why Should Jesus Love Me thread.

It's a hoot. Characters funnier even than the ones here.
morganTownhall

Chicago, IL

#626679 May 26, 2013
End of Times wrote:
<quoted text>In fact all of the evidence points to Adam and that points to God. In a science world without evidence, you actually think that the ignorant fools you admire as scientists are capable of measuring the supernatural, when they can not measure at levels of quantum mechanism.
I say with certainty that man does not have an ancestor which is another species, unless nature designed the world to make it seem impossible.
So where is your non-biblical proof that this supposed god of yours is real?

And where is your proof that man has not evolved? You claim to "speak with certainty" about the subject, so please enlighten us with your knowledge.
huh

Fort Worth, TX

#626680 May 26, 2013
timn17 wrote:
<quoted text>Where exactly did it say that they are trying to grant personhood to ape zygotes? I only saw apes and elephants in there. Do you know how *not* to misrepresent your sources? Any time I ever follow a link of yours, it turns out to be wildly different than you claim.
Yeah, she's a lying nutter, you know, a Topix Christian.
huh

Fort Worth, TX

#626681 May 26, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Huh...
Never thought of that.
Good point.
But now that you mentioned it, they'll probably start naming others...
It wasn't a good point. It was generalized BS, or what is known around here as most of your posts.
huh

Fort Worth, TX

#626682 May 26, 2013
timn17 wrote:
<quoted text>Ok. Now that I think of it, it's stupid, but I mean, god *could* easily magic a photo into everyone's hand all at once.
No, no, no, toast and tortilla chips.

Since: Sep 10

Long Beach, CA

#626683 May 26, 2013
nanoanomaly wrote:
<quoted text>Up, "down" or "around", whatever...you haven't smacked anybody yet.
Hi nano.

Come on, admit it--huh is pretty good.

How's things?
morganTownhall

Chicago, IL

#626684 May 26, 2013
psalms 23 wrote:
<quoted text>
LOl,, you have just rattled the cage of a freethinker who cant think for himself..
Oh the irony.

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#626685 May 26, 2013
huh wrote:
<quoted text>Really, the Moonie Times? That's your source. Sun Yung Moon makes Rupert Murdoch seem sane.
You need to look up Peter Singer before you spew your nonsense. Here is his view of abortion:
It is wrong to kill an innocent human being.
A human fetus is an innocent human being.
Therefore it is wrong to kill a human fetus.
http://www.utilitarian.net/singer/by/1995----...
His treatise on suffering was extended to animals. What is wrong with that?
Ahahah. I knew I recognized "washingtontimes" from somewhere. It's moonie's paper. That's absolutely hilarious.
morganTownhall

Chicago, IL

#626686 May 26, 2013
susanblange wrote:
<quoted text>We were all created in the image of God, male and female. If God is both male and female, and is not a hermaphrodite, God must be female. Eve was created from a rib taken from Adam and was called Woman because she was taken out of Man. Women are also men but men are not women. The serpent was an earthly creation for sexual purposes.
What about hermaphrodites? Care to explain them?

Also, if according to the bible men can only have sex with women then who are hermaphrodites supposed to have sex with? Surely this god you worship would have mentioned this, right? They are, after all, his creation.
morganTownhall

Chicago, IL

#626687 May 26, 2013
macumazahn wrote:
<quoted text>Same as mostly - so far, so good.
How's by you?
Are you still hanging upside down from trees in wind storms shooting sweet potatoes?

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#626688 May 26, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Huh...
Never thought of that.
Good point.
But now that you mentioned it, they'll probably start naming others...
You've never thought of that? Despite the fact that you've been told numerous times that we (in the US) live in a christian dominated culture. If our money said "in dracula we trust," we would be debating the finer points of vampire mythology.
huh

Fort Worth, TX

#626689 May 26, 2013
nanoanomaly wrote:
<quoted text>Being able to follow orders of intentionality is crucial to surviving abduction and/or rape for a victim.
" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intentionality&q... ;
I'm sure the Ohio trio are proof of that ability existing in one or all of them.
FYI, "willing" and "able" are two different things. All humans are capable of murder, emotionally, but fear the possibility of being caught and punished.
Most murders are done in the heat of the moment where fear of punishment is immaterial. Another swing and a miss.

And, you are wrong that all humans are capable of murder, emotionally.

http://greatergood.berkeley.edu/article/item/...

Extensive studies have been done on this.

Hope on the Battlefield

By Lt. Col. Dave Grossman

Military leaders know a secret: The vast majority of people are overwhelmingly reluctant to take a human life.

During World War II, U.S. Army Brigadier General S.L.A. Marshall asked average soldiers how they conducted themselves in battle. Before that, it had always been assumed that the average soldier would kill in combat simply because his country and his leaders had told him to do so, and because it might be essential to defend his own life and the lives of his friends.

Marshall’s singularly unexpected discovery was that, of every hundred men along the line of fire during the combat period, an average of only 15 to 20 “would take any part with their weapons.” This was consistently true,“whether the action was spread over a day, or two days, or three.”

Marshall was a U.S. Army historian in the Pacific theater during World War II and later became the official U.S. historian of the European theater of operations. He had a team of historians working for him, and they based their findings on individual and mass interviews with thousands of soldiers in more than 400 infantry companies immediately after they had been in close combat with German or Japanese troops. The results were consistently the same: Only 15 to 20 percent of the American riflemen in combat during World War II would fire at the enemy. Those who would not fire did not run or hide—in many cases they were willing to risk greater danger to rescue comrades, get ammunition, or run messages. They simply would not fire their weapons at the enemy, even when faced with repeated waves of banzai charges.

Why did these men fail to fire? As a historian, psychologist, and soldier, I examined this question and studied the process of killing in combat. I have realized that there was one major factor missing from the common understanding of this process, a factor that answers this question and more: the simple and demonstrable fact that there is, within most men and women, an intense resistance to killing other people. A resistance so strong that, in many circumstances, soldiers on the battlefield will die before they can overcome it.

So far, you haven't been right yet. Tomorrow, figure out what time zones are then try Opposite Day.
huh

Fort Worth, TX

#626690 May 26, 2013
Skitz wrote:
<quoted text>
To add to the last sentence. All people are capable of murder. Whilst some don't do it is through fear of getting caught, some don't do it because the realise it's the wrong thing to do, some don't do it because they are afraid and some don't even think about it.
All people are not capable of killing.
huh

Fort Worth, TX

#626691 May 26, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
*sigh*
Good: Adjective
To be desired or approved of.
===
Perfect: Adjective
Having all the required or desirable elements, qualities, or characteristics; as best as it is possible to be.
Verb
Make (something) completely free from faults or defects, or as close to such a condition as possible.
===
Quite different. Here:
That was a good pizza.
That was a perfect pizza!
That was good sex, honey.
That was perfect sex, honey!
Dictionaries only point to usage. You're equivocating, again.

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#626692 May 26, 2013
huh wrote:
<quoted text>No, no, no, toast and tortilla chips.
Oh, right. Touche. Jeebus has truly shown himself in a wide variety of foodstuffs. Better than a photograph if you ask me. This way, christians have their photographic evidence, and they can partake of his flesh, just as he likes it. Nothing more spiritual than symbolic cannibalism.
huh

Fort Worth, TX

#626693 May 26, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Nope.
And God is called "Father" 260 times in the bible...
Which means nothing.

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#626694 May 26, 2013
morganTownhall wrote:
<quoted text>
What about hermaphrodites? Care to explain them?
Also, if according to the bible men can only have sex with women then who are hermaphrodites supposed to have sex with? Surely this god you worship would have mentioned this, right? They are, after all, his creation.
No, hermaphrodites are creations of the devil, obviously. Jeebus tries to make them come out the right way, but the devil sneaks into the womb and mucks it all up. He's devious like that.
huh

Fort Worth, TX

#626695 May 26, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
God doesn't have a father or a mother. He is eternal.
The logical fallacy of special pleading, again? Ugh. Besides, you have no evidence or even scriptural support of that.
huh

Fort Worth, TX

#626696 May 26, 2013
psalms 23 wrote:
<quoted text>
Of course timmy, of course..
I know the feeling all to well, take you for example..
It must be a boring life to live in that small bubble of illusions you have created.
BOOM! Irony meter.

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) 13 min Regina 591,322
Poll If you're Christain what kind are you? (Oct '07) 37 min Miguel duqquetto 4,763
Bush is a hero (Sep '07) 38 min Clearwater 176,966
4 word game (use same Letter) (Mar '13) 49 min Miguel duqquetto 1,428
Poll Is homosexuality a sin? (Oct '07) 1 hr Miguel duqquetto 100,196
Poll Was 9/11 a conspiracy?? (Oct '07) 1 hr Khutra Duqquette 271,457
Fondling my nipples drives me wild 1 hr stemaxgizmo 7
Why Should Jesus Love Me? (Feb '08) 3 hr karl44 612,273
More from around the web