FC Community
Discussion Boards => Off-Topic => Debate & Discuss => Topic started by: graveyardmaiden on August 03, 2012, 09:12:49 am
-
dreams ? i had a dream or moreless i heard Jesus say to me : do not mourn when your baby is born ,but rejoice in motherhood" what do u think it means and yes im prego! :angel11:
-
Of course, I can tell you precisely what it means, it's a very simple message. It just means that carrying a child for nine months, and then going through labor is a difficult process for any woman, but the joy of a new life you bring into the world and the love for your child will make up for that.
-
Yes, Jesus talk to us in our dreams. Also, the virgin Mary shows her image in potato chips.
-
It means that post partum blues can be common and aren't particular to any religious beliefs.
-
I believe God send us signs, He's always with us.
-
I believe God send us signs, He's always with us.
Such a belief has no evidentiary basis and perpetuates/proselytizes blind religious faith.
"So far as religion of the day is concerned, it is a damned fake. Religion is all bunk."
-- Thomas Alva Edison
-
God does send people dreams. He has given us biblical examples of this as follows:
The Pharoah has a dream sent by God and interpreted by Joseph Genesis 41:1-40
And Joseph said unto Pharaoh, The dream of Pharaoh is one: God hath shewed Pharaoh what he is about to do.
Gen 41:25 (KJV)
Joseph who was bethothed to the Virgin Mary has a dream Matthew 1:18-20
18 Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.
19 Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a publick example, was minded to put her away privily.
20 But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.
21 And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins.
Matt 1:18-21 (KJV)
God warns Mary's husband Joseph to flee to Egypt to save Jesus life from Herod's massacre and the Wise Men not to return to Herod Matthew 2:1-14
12 And being warned of God in a dream that they should not return to Herod, they departed into their own country another way.
13 And when they were departed, behold, the angel of the Lord appeareth to Joseph in a dream, saying, Arise, and take the young child and his mother, and flee into Egypt, and be thou there until I bring thee word: for Herod will seek the young child to destroy him.
Matt 2:12-13 (KJV)
Pontius Pilate's wife is troubled in a dream about Jesus and warns him to have nothing to do with him Matthew 27:11-19
When he was set down on the judgment seat, his wife sent unto him, saying, Have thou nothing to do with that just man: for I have suffered many things this day in a dream because of him.
Matt 27:19 (KJV)
If you are unsure about a dream it would be best to go your pastor or a Christian spiritual leader you can trust, let them know about your dream and allow them to give you sound biblical guidance in addition to your prayer. You definitely must be careful of anything spiritual you deal with though whether it be dreams, visions, tongues or the like. These can be counterfeited as well by devils so it's important to get sound guidance and know that you are hearing from the Lord.
Let me know if this helps. :)
-
God does send people dreams.
He has given us biblical examples of this as follows ...
"Biblical examples" constitute religious hearsay and not substantive evidence. There is, therefore, no substantive evidence presented to support the faith-based, (lacking evidentiary support), contention that "g-d does send people dreams", (which is merely a religious belief presented as if it were factual when it is not).
-
God does send people dreams.
He has given us biblical examples of this as follows ...
"Biblical examples" constitute religious hearsay and not substantive evidence. There is, therefore, no substantive evidence presented to support the faith-based, (lacking evidentiary support), contention that "g-d does send people dreams", (which is merely a religious belief presented as if it were factual when it is not).
That is your opinion. You cannot prove that those events did not happen. And just because you think there is "no substantive evidence presented" does not mean that it is not the correct evidence, and does not mean that it's not true, just because YOU, an unbeliever, says so.
-
God does send people dreams.
He has given us biblical examples of this as follows ...
"Biblical examples" constitute religious hearsay and not substantive evidence. There is, therefore, no substantive evidence presented to support the faith-based, (lacking evidentiary support), contention that "g-d does send people dreams", (which is merely a religious belief presented as if it were factual when it is not).
That is your opinion.
It isn't a matter of subjective opinion; the basis of the contention is rationality/logic. Logic isn't my personal opinion, I didn't invent the process.
You cannot prove that those events did not happen.
That's not how burden of proof works. It is incumbent upon the claimant to substantiate their claims, not upon the challenger to prove/dispove a negative assertion. This has been reiterated many times and yet, several xtian believers remain unable to comprehend that they continue to insist upon a logical fallacy to bolster the logical fallacy of their religious beliefs. That's the epitome of blind faith.
And just because you think there is "no substantive evidence presented" does not meant that it is not the correct evidence, and does not mean that it's not true, just because YOU, an unbeliever, says so.
The validity of evidence is not a matter of whimsical 'opinion'; the basis is either logical/rational or, it isn't substantive evidence. An irrational/illogical/insubstantive basis would be faith-without-evidence, a baseless subjective perception/opinion or, a depositional 'testimony' which has no evidentiary support. None of the preceding religious claims have any valid evidentiary basis, (not because I *say* they don't but, because neither "faith"/"belief"/unsupported depositions constitute valid/substantive evidence.
The provisional conclusion deduced thusfar is that religious adherents are reluctant to concede that their religious beliefs/faith has no substantive basis in evidence and is, essentially, an empty religious opinion.
-
God does send people dreams.
He has given us biblical examples of this as follows ...
"Biblical examples" constitute religious hearsay and not substantive evidence. There is, therefore, no substantive evidence presented to support the faith-based, (lacking evidentiary support), contention that "g-d does send people dreams", (which is merely a religious belief presented as if it were factual when it is not).
That is your opinion.
It isn't a matter of subjective opinion; the basis of the contention is rationality/logic. Logic isn't my personal opinion, I didn't invent the process.
You cannot prove that those events did not happen.
That's not how burden of proof works. It is incumbent upon the claimant to substantiate their claims, not upon the challenger to prove/dispove a negative assertion. This has been reiterated many times and yet, several xtian believers remain unable to comprehend that they continue to insist upon a logical fallacy to bolster the logical fallacy of their religious beliefs. That's the epitome of blind faith.
And just because you think there is "no substantive evidence presented" does not meant that it is not the correct evidence, and does not mean that it's not true, just because YOU, an unbeliever, says so.
The validity of evidence is not a matter of whimsical 'opinion'; the basis is either logical/rational or, it isn't substantive evidence. An irrational/illogical/insubstantive basis would be faith-without-evidence, a baseless subjective perception/opinion or, a depositional 'testimony' which has no evidentiary support. None of the preceding religious claims have any valid evidentiary basis, (not because I *say* they don't but, because neither "faith"/"belief"/unsupported depositions constitute valid/substantive evidence.
The provisional conclusion deduced thusfar is that religious adherents are reluctant to concede that their religious beliefs/faith has no substantive basis in evidence and is, essentially, an empty religious opinion.
Your trying to make my answer look empty, with no substantive basis in evidence, is NOT proving anything in your favor. I stand by what I believe, with the Bible, the history, and the things that friends have seen when over there, that line up with what the Bible says, and classes of Biblical history and Middle East history of those countries, and you will not sway me with your constant negativity, big words, and bashing.
-
I believe God send us signs, He's always with us.
Such a belief has no evidentiary basis and perpetuates/proselytizes blind religious faith.
"So far as religion of the day is concerned, it is a damned fake. Religion is all bunk."
-- Thomas Alva Edison
Get 'em falcon9!
-
Your trying to make my answer look empty, with no substantive basis in evidence, is NOT proving anything in your favor.
On the contrary, your answer, (in your own words), is sufficient to demonstrate that it has no substantive basis in evidence and constitutes 'proof' of my contention. Thanks.
I stand by what I believe, with the Bible, the history, and the things that friends have seen ... and you will not sway me with your constant negativity, big words, and bashing.
That's nice; stick to your blind faith if wished, (or unable to break free of it). It still does not constitute validly substantive evidence supporting your specious claims.
-
Your trying to make my answer look empty, with no substantive basis in evidence, is NOT proving anything in your favor.
On the contrary, your answer, (in your own words), is sufficient to demonstrate that it has no substantive basis in evidence and constitutes 'proof' of my contention. Thanks.
I stand by what I believe, with the Bible, the history, and the things that friends have seen ... and you will not sway me with your constant negativity, big words, and bashing.
That's nice; stick to your blind faith if wished, (or unable to break free of it). It still does not constitute validly substantive evidence supporting your specious claims.
This is just an example of your consistent intolerance of someone else's views and personal opinions. God does not need to provide proof to anyone, yet it is all around you, if you choose to acknowledge that. The thing my heart is concerned about, is that one day, for those who do not choose to accept Him, reality and fact will indeed happen, with "wailing and gnashing of teeth," and I don't want anyone to have to go through that.
-
I have a friend who has three daughters, then had a stillborn baby boy. Of course, she was totally devastated by the loss, but the voice of the Lord told her that she would have the joy of her heart. She took it to mean that she should engross herself in her daughters and realize the blessing. But, nope, we now have our little Nicholas to enjoy as well, and with the four she is so content and knows that her little cherub came from Heaven.
-
I stand by what I believe, with the Bible, the history, and the things that friends have seen ... and you will not sway me with your constant negativity, big words, and bashing.
That's nice; stick to your blind faith if wished, (or unable to break free of it). It still does not constitute validly substantive evidence supporting your specious claims.
This is just an example of your consistent intolerance of someone else's views and personal opinions.
No, this is another example of your implicit denial that your faith is blind and your religious belief has no evidentiary basis. That's alright though, you aren't required to acknowledge the accuracy of that determination, nor am I required to "tolerate" blind faith in supersititious beliefs.
God does not need to provide proof to anyone, yet it is all around you, if you choose to acknowledge that.
Unverifiable attributions to supernatural causes do not constitute "proof". One could claim that 'invisible pink unicorns' created the universe but, without substantiating evidence to support such a claim, it is as specious as claiming a xtian 'g-d' did it.
-
The attribution of effect to a supernatural cause is specious since it has no evidence to substantiate the religious claim other than religious faith/belief, (and neither "faith" nor "belief" constituute substantive evidence).
I have a friend who has three daughters, then had a stillborn baby boy. Of course, she was totally devastated by the loss, but the voice of the Lord told her that she would have the joy of her heart. She took it to mean that she should engross herself in her daughters and realize the blessing. But, nope, we now have our little Nicholas to enjoy as well, and with the four she is so content and knows that her little cherub came from Heaven.
-
Only in my sleep, is when I dream.
-
Falcon9, I will give you partial credit for correcting me on that. You are correct in saying that "belief" may not constitute substantive evidence. But true Christians have more than belief. It does become more than a "belief" when it becomes true knowledge of the heart and that cannot be denied. Of course, unless you want to experience what true denial will really mean in the end of days, but I do not have that worry. :peace:
-
Thank you jcribb16 for expressing what a lot of us feel. Sometimes it is a lot eaiser to ignore the unbelivers then argue with them. God Bless.
-
Falcon9, I will give you partial credit for correcting me on that. You are correct in saying that "belief" may not constitute substantive evidence. But true Christians have more than belief. It does become more than a "belief" when it becomes true knowledge of the heart and that cannot be denied.
The vague contention of "true knowledge of the heart" is not more substantive because it still contains no evidentiary information and remains a subjective belief sans evidence.
Of course, unless you want to experience what true denial will really mean in the end of days, but I do not have that worry. :peace:
Those are your religious beliefs, they remain devoid of evidence so, I'm unconcerned about them, (they don't apply to me and suggesting that they do is insultingly presumptive, prejudiced and is rejected outright).
-
Thank you jcribb16 for expressing what a lot of us feel. Sometimes it is a lot eaiser to ignore the unbelivers then argue with them. God Bless.
Either way, your specious superstitious religious beliefs remain unsubstantiated nonsense which you are free to have faith in, just as others are free to refute them when 'publically' posted.
-
The evidence is in my life and actions. And those who interact with me on a day-to-day, I pray, have all the evidence of that they need, thank you. - - And, maybe they don't apply to you YET, be be warned, the day is coming.
-
The evidence is in my life and actions. And those who interact with me on a day-to-day, I pray, have all the evidence of that they need, thank you. - - And, maybe they don't apply to you YET, be be warned, the day is coming.
Such constitutes hearsay and inaccurate attributions to supernatural sources. As such, they still don't apply to me and your presumptive self-righteous insinuations that they do will continue to be rejected as proselytizing sewage, (insult for insult).
-
Yep, you should definitely recognize sewage. And on that note, I'm going to go do 20 web searches. You have a nice day.
-
Yep, you should definitely recognize sewage.
It isn't that difficult; you xtians are constantly posting unsupported religious proselytiations.
And on that note, I'm going to go do 20 web searches. You have a nice day.
Doing searches just to get the search bonus is as disingenuous as specious religious faith, albeit to a lesser degree of fraud.
-
Ok, but why don't you go ahead and search on "the revelation of John" and think on it. It may be of good benefit.
-
Ok, but why don't you go ahead and search on "the revelation of John" and think on it. It may be of good benefit.
Was that a general proselytizing or, one aimed at me in particular? Either way, such 'biblical references' are disregarded as specious.
"Properly read, the bible is the most potent force for Atheism ever conceived."
-- Isaac Asimov
-
Did you feel it was aimed at you? Oh no, I would hate to think Falcon9 could be developing what is known as a "conscience"...
-
Did you feel it was aimed at you? Oh no, I would hate to think Falcon9 could be developing what is known as a "conscience"...
So, that's a "no" and it was a generalized religious propaganda screel? If not, I'm loath to consider the possibility that 'scroggy' is struggling to develop 'consciousness'.
-
My greater consciousness was awakened long ago when I was sixteen and dipped into the Baptismal waters following the lead and the command of my Savior, thank you, and thank Him.
-
My greater consciousness was awakened long ago when I was sixteen and dipped into the Baptismal waters following the lead and the command of my Savior, thank you, and thank Him.
No, that process drowns conscious awareness and is not an awakening but, a willful walking sleep in which the higher cognitive functions of reason are abdicated in favor of blind faith.
-
No, I don't think so. The only thing that was drowned was my old, sinful life to arise out of those waters with a higher cognitive function due to the ability to know exactly where to turn to seek right decisions with undeniable faith and true knowledge proven time and time again by those who have gone on to sit in His Kingdom and await my arrival.
-
No, I don't think so. The only thing that was drowned was my old, sinful life to arise out of those waters with a higher cognitive function due to the ability to know exactly where to turn to seek right decisions with undeniable faith and true knowledge proven time and time again by those who have gone on to sit in His Kingdom and await my arrival.
That's what happens with blind faith; the holder loses the ability to distinguish between actual awareness and self-delusions brought about by clinging unreasonably to religious superstition.
-
Again, I believe your wording is slightly off. It is not "religion" or "religious superstition" that is able to be clung onto at all. But "relationship". And that Heavenly relationship with the Savior is, as stated before, very personal, very real, and very true. If and when a conversion experience happens, and I pray for you it will, it is extremely undeniable and extremely self-evident.
-
Again, I believe your wording is slightly off. It is not "religion" or "religious superstition" that is able to be clung onto at all. But "relationship". And that Heavenly relationship with the Savior is, as stated before, very personal, very real, and very true.
When someone tells others that their own self-delusional belief consists of a "relationship" with an invisible supernatural egregore which has no evidence of existence, that person is self-delusional.
“Faith: Belief without evidence in what is told by one who speaks without knowledge, of things without parallel.”
-– Ambrose Bierce
-
yes god can talk to you in a dream
-
yes god can talk to you in a dream
This claim is challenged; is there substantive evidence to support such a claim or, does it rely upon nothing substantial, (e.g., "faith")?
“Faith is the great cop-out, the great excuse to evade the need to think and evaluate evidence. Faith is belief in spite of, even perhaps because of, the lack of evidence.”
--– Richard Dawkins
-
We have already proven that the visual proof is in and through each of us who carry Him with us in our every word and deed. And I would truly much rather hang on to the Word which you believe deludes me than the lack of anything at all to hold onto which causes you to do nothing other than troll around jealous of what the true Christians have and you are lacking. Mine will surely lead to much less tears and gnashing of teeth later.
-
We have already proven that the visual proof is in and through each of us who carry Him with us in our every word and deed.
What "visual proof"? No such thing has been "proven", (substantive evidence provided to support the claim). The remainder of your religious claim is a non-rational attribution to supernatural causes sans evidence other than the claim itself.
And I would truly much rather hang on to the Word which you believe deludes me than the lack of anything at all to hold onto which causes you to do nothing other than troll around jealous of what the true Christians have and you are lacking.
There you go with another false attribution; I'm not "jealous" or envious of the mind-blinded blind faith that xtian fundies have because I enjoy the lack of such restrictions upon reason and critical thought which bind xtian fundies.
"Faith is the fatigue resulting from the attempt to preserve God's integrity instead of one's own."
-- Matt Berry
-
We have already proven that the visual proof is in and through each of us who carry Him with us in our every word and deed. And I would truly much rather hang on to the Word which you believe deludes me than the lack of anything at all to hold onto which causes you to do nothing other than troll around jealous of what the true Christians have and you are lacking. Mine will surely lead to much less tears and gnashing of teeth later.
Your post is nothing more than the definition of arrogance and bigotry as you claim something you know you cannot produce, and then you attempt to play the moral highground card. If you disagree, please provide the visual proof as well as how freethinkers are jealous of your slave-like beliefs. If you fail to surpass basic skepticism that even a child could point out the problems to, you will fail to counter my claims of your stance.
-
Thank you jcribb16 for expressing what a lot of us feel. Sometimes it is a lot eaiser to ignore the unbelivers then argue with them. God Bless.
Thank you for that. :)
-
Thank you jcribb16 for expressing what a lot of us feel. Sometimes it is a lot eaiser to ignore the unbelivers then argue with them. God Bless.
Either way, your specious superstitious religious beliefs remain unsubstantiated nonsense which you are free to have faith in, just as others are free to refute them when 'publically' posted.
And your atheist stance does not apply to us Christians, and trying to mock our beliefs, as you do, is insulting, biased, slanted, intolerant, prejudiced (one of your words), and as you said of our beliefs, yours are rejected outright, as well.
-
Yep, you should definitely recognize sewage.
It isn't that difficult; you xtians are constantly posting unsupported religious proselytiations.
And on that note, I'm going to go do 20 web searches. You have a nice day.
Doing searches just to get the search bonus is as disingenuous as specious religious faith, albeit to a lesser degree of fraud.
How do you know what he's using the search for? The search mode is there for us to use and to earn from. There are many "viable" reasons for using the search. Sounds like you are getting a little too sensitive...
-
No, I don't think so. The only thing that was drowned was my old, sinful life to arise out of those waters with a higher cognitive function due to the ability to know exactly where to turn to seek right decisions with undeniable faith and true knowledge proven time and time again by those who have gone on to sit in His Kingdom and await my arrival.
Well said! :thumbsup:
-
And your atheist stance does not apply to us Christians, and trying to mock our beliefs, as you do, is insulting, biased, slanted, intolerant, prejudiced (one of your words), and as you said of our beliefs, yours are rejected outright, as well.
I highly recommend you look in the mirror as your beliefs are intellectually insulting and intolerant (if this weren't true, no freethinker would post in these threads), your sources are normally biased and slanted, and your scriptures talk and teach prejudices (and worse) numerous times. Any 'insulting' Falcon9 has done to this belief system fits the word and can be explained easily, though religious arrogance will never be able to see them as anything else than insults.
-
And your atheist stance does not apply to us Christians, and trying to mock our beliefs, as you do, is insulting, biased, slanted, intolerant, prejudiced (one of your words), and as you said of our beliefs, yours are rejected outright, as well.
No, it isn't an exclusively "atheistic" stance; it's a rational stance which is nominally available to any reasonable person. Your misinterpretation of logical skepticism as "insulting, biased, slanted, intolerant, prejudiced" is mere gain-saying what I've said in an immature "I-know-you-are-but-what-am-I" response. You can, (and have), rejected rational opposition to your irrationality and that's fine. Embrace the baseless emptiness of blind faith if wished - even deny that it has no substantive basis - it doesn't negate the reasoning, it merely tries to sidestep it.
-
And your atheist stance does not apply to us Christians, and trying to mock our beliefs, as you do, is insulting, biased, slanted, intolerant, prejudiced (one of your words), and as you said of our beliefs, yours are rejected outright, as well.
I highly recommend you look in the mirror as your beliefs are intellectually insulting and intolerant (if this weren't true, no freethinker would post in these threads), your sources are normally biased and slanted, and your scriptures talk and teach prejudices (and worse) numerous times. Any 'insulting' Falcon9 has done to this belief system fits the word and can be explained easily, though religious arrogance will never be able to see them as anything else than insults.
Given the numerous previous examples of her inability, (and extreme reluctance), to apply skeptical reasoning to her superstitious religious beliefs, there is little likelihood of her doing so now. This inability/reluctance isn't restricted to any particular religious adherent, however and appears to be a wide-spread aspect of faith-blindness.
-
No one ever said that Christians did not have the ability to be free thinkers. We just choose not to have the negative, trolling, down-putting thoughts that those heading nowhere in life spew venomously out. And, to call Christians, intolerant and prejudiced is laughable considering the source, as your viperous tones have not just been aimed on these forums at Christians, but at anyone with any positive direction in life, hence my statement of your jealousy of a productive life with direction. Is it your goal to attempt to get Christians to turn their backs on the Word? As I have said, at least we have something to hold onto. What is there for you to turn your back on? Trust me...that cavernous pit will still be there waiting on you, but there is ONE AND ONLY ONE way to escape it. And it has been told to you repeatedly. And, again, have a nice day, as I leave you to go do my searches for the day.
-
No one ever said that Christians did not have the ability to be free thinkers. We just choose not to have the negative, trolling, down-putting thoughts that those heading nowhere in life spew venomously out.
Essentially, you are implicitly claiming that closed-minded blind faith constitutes "free thinking". It does not since it excludes rationality and the application of reasoning to such superstitious religious beliefs being held by xtians. Further, mischaracterizing skeptical challenges to those unsupported religious beliefs as "negative, trolling, down-putting thoughts that those heading nowhere in life spew venomously out" demostrates the opposite of rational/free thinking due to the inherent religious bias from which it stems.
And, to call Christians, intolerant and prejudiced is laughable considering the source, as your viperous tones have not just been aimed on these forums at Christians, but at anyone with any positive direction in life ...
What is the basis of your allegation that "viperous tones", (an inherently prejudical presumption), have been "aimed at anyone with any positive direction in life" and not just xtians, (a secondary assumption in that it assumes skeptical challenges to unsupported superstitious religious beliefs are "viperous" in the first place)?
... hence my statement of your jealousy of a productive life with direction.
Your 'conclusion' is irrational because it does not logically derive from your (invalid) premise.
Is it your goal to attempt to get Christians to turn their backs on the Word?
Some will 'awaken' from the mind-slumber of blind faith and some will not. This will occur as a result of continued mind-blinded 'sleep' or, because the 'sleeper' engages their own conscious awareness and internal ability to reason, (not necessarily due to what religious adherents to irrarionality or, non-religious adherents to rationality may post).
As I have said, at least we have something to hold onto. What is there for you to turn your back on? Trust me...that cavernous pit will still be there waiting on you, but there is ONE AND ONLY ONE way to escape it. And it has been told to you repeatedly. And, again, have a nice day, as I leave you to go do my searches for the day.
Your santimonious self-righteousness is rejected as specious, superstitious nonsense. Enjoy wallowing in that as you run superficial searches just for the search bonus.
-
I'm okay with that because when I "awaken" I will be in His Kingdom as promised. And, also, thank you for proving that you are not here to partake of the searches, offers, etc that we are here to do, but just to troll around and demoralize our forums.
-
I'm okay with that because when I "awaken" I will be in His Kingdom as promised.
That's an unfounded religious belief, not an "awakening".
And, also, thank you for proving that you are not here to partake of the searches, offers, etc that we are here to do, but just to troll around and demoralize our forums.
No such thing was 'proven', it remains your unproven opinion. I merely noted the instances, (twice so far), where you indicated you were supposedly done making invalid claims for the day and were moving on to making specious searches to obtain the bonus. The remainder of your random accusations have no rational merit and stem simply from your religious bias.
-
Ya know what, Falcon9? Actually, I want to thank you. You have proven something to me. I now have a deeper realization of the depths of the relationship I have with Jesus. I knew, of course, that it has always been with me, but I now know that relationship can endure any challenge and that is important to me, so again, thank you for bringing me to an even greater depth of KNOWLEDGE.
-
Ya know what, Falcon9? Actually, I want to thank you. You have proven something to me. I now have a deeper realization of the depths of the relationship I have with Jesus. I knew, of course, that it has always been with me, but I now know that relationship can endure any challenge and that is important to me, so again, thank you for bringing me to an even greater depth of KNOWLEDGE.
That isn't a "depth of knowledge", it's a stubborn entrenchment of pre-existent blind faith. Some would consider that an ego-defensive mechanism which kicks-in when a strongly-held empty belief gets successfully challenged and discerned as simply blind faith.
-
No one ever said that Christians did not have the ability to be free thinkers.
If you believe the bible to be true, you cannot be a freethinker. If you admit it could be nothing more than ancient dribble, you have no faith in it. Therefore your statement here is cornered.
We just choose not to have the negative, trolling, down-putting thoughts that those heading nowhere in life spew venomously out.
Then what's this Hell place your religion talks of? Also, you do exactly this in the rest of your post, hypocrite.
And, to call Christians, intolerant and prejudiced is laughable considering the source, as your viperous tones have not just been aimed on these forums at Christians, but at anyone with any positive direction in life, hence my statement of your jealousy of a productive life with direction.
YOUR BIBLE MAKES INTOLERANT AND PREJUDICIAL STATEMENTS NUMEROUS TIMES. READ IT SOMETIME! And fyi- I have an extremely positive outlook on life right now. I'm doing fantastic. Your vague ad hom attacks are ridiculous and only shows you're a bad christian for trying such childish tactics. We are furthest from jealous of your beliefs-- we have no reason to believe in mythology or a malevolent god such as your own. We understand reality and are brave enough to accept our mortality and look at the universe as a positive mystery. We do not need to believe in mythology or defined deities in order to make ourselves feel better like individuals such as yourself.
at least we have something to hold onto. What is there for you to turn your back on?
The future of mankind. I want it to be great for people when I'm gone. That's one of the major points in life, right? Constant improvement.
Trust me...that cavernous pit will still be there waiting on you, but there is ONE AND ONLY ONE way to escape it. And it has been told to you repeatedly. And, again, have a nice day, as I leave you to go do my searches for the day.
This translates to "Go to hell. Unless you repent and believe what I do! Have a nice day!"
Have a nice day yourself. I truly mean that though- no strings attached.
-
First...Falcon9, it truly was meant as an expression of gratitude. But it was your ego-defensive mechanism that could not accept that just for what it was without always feeling the need for the challenge and the male-egotistical last word.
And Falconeer2...yes, I do believe (whoops, know) that the future of mankind is in exactly hands like yours. That, also, was foretold long ago. It will be exactly the reason for His return. I have do doubt of your statement whatsoever. It is the entire topic of the book of the Revelation of Jesus to John.
-
First...Falcon9, it truly was meant as an expression of gratitude. But it was your ego-defensive mechanism that could not accept that just for what it was without always feeling the need for the challenge and the male-egotistical last word.
No, it was a sanctimonious expression of self-righteous blind faith on your part and was responded to as such.
-
And Falconeer2...yes, I do believe (whoops, know) that the future of mankind is in exactly hands like yours. That, also, was foretold long ago. It will be exactly the reason for His return. I have do doubt of your statement whatsoever. It is the entire topic of the book of the Revelation of Jesus to John.
1.) Post proof that you "know" this will happen. Biblical sources do not count as that would be circular reasoning and thus completely illogical. If you do not understand, then I'd suggest you walk away from this argument as you do not posess critical thinking skills.
2.) Armageddon? When the world gets destroyed by people like me who admit they want the world to become a better place? So no doubt you look forward to destruction and chaos of our world whereas I look forward to it evolving into a nicer place. Again, your hypocrisy astounds me considering you say you have a positive outlook on life and yet you hold such a psychopathic and ego-driven view of it. Face it- you want destruction just so you can say "I'm right!". It would seem you're bathing in your own arrogance and hatred rather than selflessness and love. How positively christian of you, hypocrite.
-
Destruction and chaos of YOUR world caused by YOUR choices. We, on the other hand will be removed from it.
-
Destruction and chaos of YOUR world caused by YOUR choices. We, on the other hand will be removed from it.
As I asked before-- proof plz. Avoid the circular reasoning with the biblical scripture.
-
Destruction and chaos of YOUR world caused by YOUR choices. We, on the other hand will be removed from it.
Oh, because no judeo-xtians or muslims are contributing to such chaos and destruction by their choices? You certainly are a hypocrit and your specious belief that you can slash-and-burn and then run from the responsibility for doing so is a laughable irrational superstitious belief without merit. You simply "hope" that your specious belief will come to pass and when it doesn't, (because it's nonsensical), you'll snap like a dry twig, (I mean, even moreso than the precarious grip on pseudo-sanity you evince now).
-
Destruction and chaos of YOUR world caused by YOUR choices. We, on the other hand will be removed from it.
As I asked before-- proof plz. Avoid the circular reasoning with the biblical scripture.
Doubtless your challenge is "unfair" to xtians who are unable to avoid such circular non-reasoning. They could at least try reasoning once, just for a change, couldn't they?
-
Exactly, Falcon9, the whole basis of all of my KNOWLEDGE, all of my life, every decision I make, every relationship I form, every word from my mouth is with SCRIPTUALLY BASED forethought, headed toward the goal of joining my Lord, my grandparents and my father where I know they are rejoicing and singing His praises.
-
Exactly, Falcon9, the whole basis of all of my KNOWLEDGE, all of my life, every decision I make, every relationship I form, every word from my mouth is with SCRIPTUALLY BASED forethought, headed toward the goal of joining my Lord, my grandparents and my father where I know they are rejoicing and singing His praises.
All of that has no evidentiary basis and instead, relies entirely upon blind faith without knowledge, (blind religious faith and knowledge are mutually-exclusive terms). What happens when your hopes don't materialize? It'll be too late to regret the waste of life an exchange for empty promises in some hypothetical afterlife.
"Religion is based ... mainly upon fear ... fear of the mysterious, fear of defeat, fear of death. Fear is the parent of cruelty, and therefore it is no wonder if cruelty and religion have gone hand in hand . . . . My own view on religion is that of Lucretius. I regard it as a disease born of fear and as a source of untold misery to the human race."
-- Bertrand Russell
-
Alright, what? My hopes are certain and written to materialize. On what are you laying your hopes? Nothing more than just this, what we have now only worse? That would be fear to me. And as I have stated before I do not say I have religion, I say I have relationship and that completely alleviates fear. I may have fear of dying, but absolutely none of death...that is two completely concepts. And how is fear the parent of cruelty? Wow...you have now opened about 1,000,000 different cans of worms here. How is fear the parent of cruelty? We have already explored in another thread that if today's children were allowed to be raised with the fear and respect that we were that this generation would not be headed in this direction. And Bertrand Russel's statement using the "untold misery" choice of words is inaccurate as well because mankind has been warned centuries ago of the misery that would be caused by neglect of choice. Also, are you trying to tell me that my grandparents and father are not in that Kingdom awaiting my arrival? That would be another whole issue entirely...let's go....
-
And Falconeer02, I did not tell you "go to Hell, have a nice day.". That choice is sequential to the choices you have already made for yourself. I did not say that. I just said it is a written consequence of the choices you have made (or failed to make) in life. You know, choices like putting words in my mouth that were not there to begin with. Words that come from my mouth are words like "amen", "praise", "fellowship", and "thanks". The latter of which being one I tried to express to Falcon9 only to chew again, but that's expected.
-
I did not tell you "go to Hell, have a nice day.". That choice is sequential to the choices you have already made for yourself. I did not say that. I just said it is a written consequence of the choices you have made (or failed to make) in life. You know, choices like putting words in my mouth that were not there to begin with.
Your exact words were-
"Trust me...that cavernous pit will still be there waiting on you, but there is ONE AND ONLY ONE way to escape it."
So since I do not believe your mythology or would I ever fall to such delusions (by definition), you're telling me I'm going to hell. Nice false dilemma you've thrown me into! So you did say "go to hell", just obviously worded differently which is why I stated "This translates to". I do not believe nor talk of people being thrown in a pit where they are tormented (or whatever disgusting dish you select) forever as it is simply cursing others in a primitive fashion. I could bring up the many fallacies the concept of hell creates which really would make any decent person think about. If you'd like, of course. However since you have already brought up your emotional bearings and how tight your relationship is with something that cannot be proven to exist, I completely understand if you do not wish to discuss such obvious faults.
Words that come from my mouth are words like "amen", "praise", "fellowship", and "thanks". The latter of which being one I tried to express to Falcon9 only to chew again, but that's expected.
I notice in the past that the most ignorant and delusional (again, by definition) christians here are the ones who say their "beliefs are only strengthened" when faced with basic questions and obvious flaws put forth by the skeptics that they refuse to answer. You unfortunately have been an example of this. Not only that, but now you're goading both yourself and Falcon9 after saying stuff like this-
"We just choose not to have the negative, trolling, down-putting thoughts that those heading nowhere in life spew venomously out."
"the lack of anything at all to hold onto which causes you to do nothing other than troll around jealous of what the true Christians have and you are lacking."
Falcon9 has not trolled you, but simply pointed out basic flaws in your reasoning. That's it.
Doubtless your challenge is "unfair" to xtians who are unable to avoid such circular non-reasoning. They could at least try reasoning once, just for a change, couldn't they?
Speaking of which, I'm still waiting!
-
Yes, Falconeer2, the concept of Hell is a lot to think about, which is yet another reason I stick even more tightly to my Savior and know that I have been redeemed from that possibility...so if you feel the need, bring it. However, it is not appealing to me to think of the amount of time that the word "eternity" implies and spend mine in that way, hence the reason for the VERY CONSCIOUS choice that I made long ago. And I have no problem backing up what I know as long as you want to fight this out, but when I was referring to Falcon9's trolling around the forum, it is funny to me that your self-divulging, attention seeking, jealous ego had to troll its way on into the conversation while he thinks he was big boy enough to defend those deluded teachings on his own...so now, 2 on 1...let's go...Oh wait, I have the entire Kingdom on my side on this one....bring it.
And Falcon9, don't take that "big boy" as a compliment now, when as I tried to legitimately thank you earlier it couldn't simply be accepted as such. I just know that when Falconeer2 saw that you were the weak link in this chain, he felt the need to pipe up.
-
Alright, what? My hopes are certain and written to materialize.
No, this is merely your faith-based belief, (in that faith has no evidentiary basis and in fact, relishes the lack of evidence as if it's noble to be irrational).
I say I have relationship and that completely alleviates fear.
Yes, you "say" this and believe you do however, there's nothing to distinguish such a specious belief and a self-delusion. In fact, to declare that your religious belief alleviates fear merely reveals fear concealed by delusion.
And how is fear the parent of cruelty?
It was fear which caused followers of your superstitious religious belief to launch the crusades in order to persecute and kill, (there's the cruelty), others who believed differently. It was fear that instigated the Inquisitions by religious fanatics of your "faith" to persecute and kill those they deemed as "witches", (not a stretch to define as "cruel"). It was fear that caused followers of your religious superstition to 'assimulate' and kill "pagan" 'unbelievers' whose religions preceded the cult of xtianity by thousands of years. You ask how this can be, are you really that blinded by faith?
We have already explored in another thread that if today's children were allowed to be raised with the fear and respect that we were that this generation would not be headed in this direction.
On the contrary, many of mankind's problems stem from such fundamentalist religions' followers brain-washing/indoctrinated children at young enough ages that they are raised in the same myopic hatreds your "religion" espouses under the false banner of "love".
And Bertrand Russel's statement using the "untold misery" choice of words is inaccurate ...
No, you ignorant fundie, the Inquistions, the Crusades and the suppression/assimulation of "pagans" at the point of a sword is precisely accurate.
Also, are you trying to tell me that my grandparents and father are not in that Kingdom awaiting my arrival? That would be another whole issue entirely...let's go....
Don't try to put words in my mouth, it would make me sound as stupid as you do. What I said was that there is no evidence to support the "hopes", (religious claims, sans evidence), you tried to assert as if a belief were equivalent to a fact. It isn't. Since you made the claim, it's your responsibility to support it with evidence, (neither "faith", 'bibles', nor "belief" constitute actual evidence). Since you have no evidence, your claims are specious/empty ones.
-
it is funny to me that your self-divulging, attention seeking, jealous ego had to troll its way on into the conversation while he thinks he was big boy enough to defend those deluded teachings on his own
Nope. Just trying to get my post count up while enjoying arguments with the religious fundamentalists.
And I have no problem backing up what I know as long as you want to fight this out
And yet here you are, never providing proof after all this time like we've asked. Perhaps you should answer our questions and be respectful like your bible commands you to in 1 Peter 3:15. Maybe then your hypocrisy will cease?
so now, 2 on 1...let's go...Oh wait, I have the entire Kingdom on my side on this one....bring it.
Very well. Please ask your kingdom these questions as I'd be pleased to hear a logical/rational answer-
1.) Why does an omnipotent loving god allow for the existance of an evil antagonist and a place of eternal damnation? How is this not malevolent to create them in the first place?
2.) If this defined god exists , and it is moral and loving and worthy of respect, then why is it bothered so much that people have rational doubts about it and rational reasons for not believing in it? This god surely wouldn't punish people for exercising their critical thinking skills and being skeptical of the claims of other "fallible humans", right? Why is that worthy of eternal damnation?
3.) Coming from #2, why would you want to spend an eternity with a god who punishes people who exercise their brains and question this god? You're calling me egotistical when your entire belief system centers around an egotistical deity!
4.) If he is indeed omniscient, he knows past, present, and future, correct? Thus he already knows who is going to hell and who isn't. Therefore nobody can exercise freewill and our fates are sealed before we're even born. Please explain how you are not a fatalist and how is this even remotely fair.
5.) How is "choosing" your god over hell even a choice? How is "Worship me or suffer for eternity" not coercion?
-
... when I was referring to Falcon9's trolling around the forum ...
I don't 'troll' "around the forum", I reply to the xtian proselytizing trollings. You'd see the distinction were you not blinded by your faith.
And Falcon9, don't take that "big boy" as a compliment now, when as I tried to legitimately thank you earlier it couldn't simply be accepted as such. I just know that when Falconeer2 saw that you were the weak link in this chain, he felt the need to pipe up.
You apparently don't "know" and instead, simply claim to know without evidence beyond your empty claim for this. As to your childish non-compliment, "Falconer02" already addressed the logical fallacy inherent in your unsupported false assertions. For one, there's no "chain" to be either a "weak" or strong link in, (that's xtian 'sheeple' rationalizing and doesn't apply to non-sheep). For another, you 'debate' ineptly, making empty assertions which you either cannot support or, are unable to substantiate while wrapping yourself in the "emperor's clothing" of blind faith.
-
Ok, first, troll #2 edges his way into a conversation challenging me to fight a spiritual battle without straight out quoting from the Bible, which is like being challenged to a knife fight and saying no blades, but ok, I hold up to that. And he comes at me with 1st Peter? Wow. But ok. And to answer why does an omnipotent, loving God allow for the existence of an evil antagonist...the antagonist to which you are referring is actually a jealous fallen angel who once had his place in the Kingdom. From that jealousy, he thought that he could rise up and be as God (his creator). Therefore in answer to his jealous behavior God did indeed give him a place to rule and put him in his place. Therefore, he was not created as evil...again, consequences of his own choice in actions. And why is God bothered so much by the doubts of unbelievers? Because as stated over and over, He has laid His proof all around us and watched His one and only Son die for us and some still say "oh well". And I will count it all joy to spend my eternity with not a God, but the God, who has separated His Church from those who have turned on Him. He is absolutely not punishing people for making choices, He is rewarding His people for true and faithful service and honor to Him. And, yes, you are very right in the statement of predestination. Indeed, nothing we do can surprise God. When I pray and say to Him "Lord, why did I do that?" He reveals later that whatever I did was a part of a greater plan and it all comes together for His glory. And choosing God over Hell is a simple choice. Did not say it did not involve a lot of hard work, but it's a simple choice.
-
And, no, please do not say I am "wrapping myself in the Emporer's clothing" of faith...that purple robe I am not worthy to wear. I do not deny, I put the blood stains on it, but cannot wear it. I would never say that.
-
And to answer why does an omnipotent, loving God allow for the existence of an evil antagonist...the antagonist to which you are referring is actually a jealous fallen angel who once had his place in the Kingdom. From that jealousy, he thought that he could rise up and be as God (his creator). Therefore in answer to his jealous behavior God did indeed give him a place to rule and put him in his place. Therefore, he was not created as evil...again, consequences of his own choice in actions.
Your "answer" derives from a superstitious mythology cobbled-together, edited and retranslated into variations called "the bible". Omitting "verse" references to this self-referential source does not constitute not using it to prop up a religious mythology which still has no evidentiary basis and relies upon hearsay and unsupported "faith" in lieu of actual evidence.
And why is God bothered so much by the doubts of unbelievers? Because as stated over and over, He has laid His proof all around us and watched His one and only Son die for us and some still say "oh well".
The "soteriological" argument of 'sacrifice' is internally-illogical since there is no rational correspondence between a supernatural ransom and "absolving" of "sins". This entirely irrational basis for an equally nonsensical "redemption" contains no reasoning whatsoever and is instead, chock-full of faith-based nonsense which requires the suspension of disbelief and more faith-based nonsense to baffle those unable to discern the null-content of the premise of soteriology.
You've demonstrated this faith-based nonsense piled upon more faith-based nonsense which does not support the previous faith-based nonsense. The entire non-argument is circular and self-refuting. That is, your specious declarations defeat your own argument's premise.
"The study of theology, as it stands in Christian churches, is the study of nothing; it is founded on nothing; it rests on nothing; it proceeds by no authorities; it has no data; it can demonstrate nothing."
--Thomas Paine, in The Age Of Reason
-
And, no, please do not say I am "wrapping myself in the Emporer's clothing" of faith...that purple robe I am not worthy to wear. I do not deny, I put the blood stains on it, but cannot wear it. I would never say that.
Your assertions indicated a pronounced self-delusion.
"You're a loony!"
-- Arthur, in Holy Grail
-
If my Bible cannot stand as evidence in and of itself, then how are those you are quoting (humans created by God, given the ability of that freedom of thought by God) any better sources of reference?
-
If my Bible cannot stand as evidence in and of itself ...
It's irrational to claim that premise supports itself in a circular fest of unreason, (e.g., 'the bible says that the bible says stuff so, the stuff said in the bible is evidence that stuff said in the bible is true').
... then how are those you are quoting (humans created by God, given the ability of that freedom of thought by God) any better sources of reference?
Firstly, the premise that "humans" were "created by g-d, given the ability of that freedom of thought by g-d" is an unwarranted and unsupported assumption with no substantiating evidence), other than a faith-based claim, which does not constitute evidence).
Secondly, the emergent meta-debate is between those who adhere to irrational superstitions and those who utilize logical reasoning to discern the difference between sense and nonsense. What's truly ironic is that the irrational religious adherents either try to use pseudo-logic to bolster an illogical position or, eschew reasoning altogether and run with the irrational faith-based nonsensical 'arguments'.
"He that will not reason is a bigot; he that cannot reason is a fool; he that dares not reason is a slave."
-- William Drummond
-
Actually, the emergent meta-debate is no longer even about those who adhere to a certain morally based code of ethics, but boiling down to just who would dare to disagree with Falcon9's over-inflated egotistical male overcompensating denial of our whole country's founding principles of religious freedom without fear of persecution. And if you want to call me a slave to my Master's orders, again I say thank you and take that as a compliment. I am in no way hurt or insulted by being called a Christian fundamentalist. I wear the full armor of that, but not His robe. You throw that out as though it were meant as an insult or to hurt someone, but it is the entire fiber of my being and if it comes out so that even you see it, I am accomplishing my mission. :) :) :)
-
Actually, the emergent meta-debate is no longer even about those who adhere to a certain morally based code of ethics, but boiling down to just who would dare to disagree with Falcon9's over-inflated egotistical male overcompensating denial of our whole country's founding principles of religious freedom without fear of persecution.
“The government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion.”
--– John Adams
And if you want to call me a slave to my Master's orders, again I say thank you and take that as a compliment. I am in no way hurt or insulted by being called a Christian fundamentalist. I wear the full armor of that, but not His robe. You throw that out as though it were meant as an insult or to hurt someone, but it is the entire fiber of my being and if it comes out so that even you see it, I am accomplishing my mission. :) :) :)
A slave can remain a slave but, the slave who rejects freedom and embraces his own slavery is a fearful fool. Your admission to being a faith-blinded religious fundamentalist invalidates any implied claims of rationality for there is none in unreasoned fundamentalism. It isn't "armor", it's a while cane with a red tip, tapping fearfully in the darkness of religious ignorance.
"The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason."
-- Ben Franklin, Poor Richard's Almanack, 1758
-
Wow...couldn't debate that one so had to misquote me and twist my words again. The government of the United States is indeed not founded on the Christian religion, nor is that what I said. Did I not say religious freedom? And is that not exactly what our men and women in uniform are standing watch day in and day out to defend? Now, I have answered all you have thrown at me...now let me give you a few....Where did your great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great grandmother get her umbilical cord? And what is your definition of the term "original sin"?
-
Ok, first, troll #2 edges his way into a conversation challenging me to fight a spiritual battle without straight out quoting from the Bible, which is like being challenged to a knife fight and saying no blades, but ok. And he comes at me with 1st Peter? Wow. But ok
I've simply asked some questions. Name-calling with no substance to the insults used is childish. And I came to you with a basic lesson in manners quoted from the bible, which you obviously have failed to follow.
And to answer why does an omnipotent, loving God allow for the existence of an evil antagonist...the antagonist to which you are referring is actually a jealous fallen angel who once had his place in the Kingdom. From that jealousy, he thought that he could rise up and be as God (his creator). Therefore in answer to his jealous behavior God did indeed give him a place to rule and put him in his place. Therefore, he was not created as evil...again, consequences of his own choice in actions.
I did not ask for the story and you have completely hovered over the question. I will restate it and make is simpler to understand- How is it not malevolent for this god to create an evil entity that he knew would screw with mankind considering his omniscience? Remember that you stated later in your post that you believe in predestination and believe your god is all-knowing.
And why is God bothered so much by the doubts of unbelievers? Because as stated over and over, He has laid His proof all around us and watched His one and only Son die for us and some still say "oh well".
Surely the rational thinkers would see basic proofs before the delusionals in the majority of situations, correct? It's very practical. I asked you for proof earlier, and you have not given any. Please provide proof w/o your biblical circular logic because it's a completely fallible foundation which has already been discussed. If you can't, then your argument has already crumbled.
:-/
And I will count it all joy to spend my eternity with not a God, but the God, who has separated His Church from those who have turned on Him.
Your haughty ignorance to other religions and their gods is absurd. Yours is just one in the crowd unless you can provide proof of your own. The "My god is real! The bible says so!" fallacy holds no weight since a Hindu could do the exact same thing. "My gods are real! The Vedas says so!".
He is absolutely not punishing people for making choices, He is rewarding His people for true and faithful service and honor to Him.
And choosing God over Hell is a simple choice. Did not say it did not involve a lot of hard work, but it's a simple choice.
"Worship me or suffer for eternity. The choice is yours."
"Give me your money or I'll shoot you. The choice is yours."
Both cases are very similar and both are illogical punishment and coercive tactics. And you support this mob-boss tactic? "Make him an offer he can't refuse!"
And, yes, you are very right in the statement of predestination. Indeed, nothing we do can surprise God.
Well therefore you cannot exercise freewill or make choices. Saying otherwise is an obvious contradiction since you admit this entity knows your every move before you make it. It would seem that your god is a malevolent cheater who stacks the deck.
When I pray and say to Him "Lord, why did I do that?" He reveals later that whatever I did was a part of a greater plan and it all comes together for His glory.
"A delusion is a belief held with strong conviction despite superior evidence to the contrary. Unlike hallucinations, delusions are always pathological (the result of an illness or illness process)."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delusion
-
Actually, the emergent meta-debate is no longer even about those who adhere to a certain morally based code of ethics, but boiling down to just who would dare to disagree with Falcon9's over-inflated egotistical male overcompensating denial of our whole country's founding principles of religious freedom without fear of persecution. And if you want to call me a slave to my Master's orders, again I say thank you and take that as a compliment. I am in no way hurt or insulted by being called a Christian fundamentalist. I wear the full armor of that, but not His robe. You throw that out as though it were meant as an insult or to hurt someone, but it is the entire fiber of my being and if it comes out so that even you see it, I am accomplishing my mission. :) :) :)
:thumbsup: Thank you! :)
-
No one will ever be able to disprove God's existence.It's useless to even try to reason will these "enlightened" individuals.Common sense alone dictates that order does not come from chaos.A creation must have a creator.The Bible is historically accurate.What more do I really need to say?It "goes through one ear and out the other" as the old saying goes.
-
No one will ever be able to disprove God's existence.
No one will ever be able to "disprove" any number of imaginary things. Your assertion is an illogical non sequitur.
It's useless to even try to reason will these "enlightened" individuals.
You xtian fundies don't use reasoning in your illogical, religiously-based empty claims, (no substantive evidence for them). Although you cannot be compelled to cease misusing a term with which you are practically unfamiliar with, (reason), your illogic is easily refuted.
Common sense alone dictates that order does not come from chaos.A creation must have a creator.The Bible is historically accurate.
On the contrary, if you knew fluid dynamics or chaos theory's mathematical basis, you would have known that "islands of stability", (order), can and do arise out of apparent "chaos". This eliminates the presumption of a "creator", which in turn, negates your objection.
[/quote]
What more do I really need to say?It "goes through one ear and out the other" as the old saying goes.
Of course it does; actual reasoning never penetrates the blind faith of religious fundies.
-
I would definitely say that mean rejoice be happy teach the child how to be a Godly person also how to trust and believe in Christ Jesus. Yes I have been sent a few dreams I believe were sent from God, and messages while I was awake as well. It makes me so happy to know the truth, now only if I could break my sinful habits.
-
I would definitely say that mean rejoice be happy teach the child how to be a Godly person also how to trust and believe in Christ Jesus. Yes I have been sent a few dreams I believe were sent from God, and messages while I was awake as well.
(http://i45.tinypic.com/2lbat3.gif)
It makes me so happy to know the truth, now only if I could break my sinful habits.
-
JediJohnny and jcribb, thank you...that is why I left it and dropped it...I have proven myself time and time again and he can only come back with the same circular reasoning over and over...so, it is what it is and I'm beyond it, have gone on to why we are really here at FC and just left it to go increase that number on my banner. I've said what I've said, am convicted of it, and am leaving it here. The only remaining thing I have to repeat myself on, though, is that I am truly glad that he did bring that out in me and showed even myself something I needed to see...AND IT'S DONE.
-
...that is why I left it and dropped it...I have proven myself time and time again and he can only come back with the same circular reasoning over and over...
You've "proven" nothing more than that you're blinded by your religious faith. The logic used to challenge your circular, (faith=belief=faith, ad infinitum), was not circular and demonstrates that you have no awareness of what constitutes inferential, deductive, symbolic or basic logic. You virtually wallow in your irrationality and unreason and that's your choice. Mine is to reject your illogic and superstitious religious mythology.
I've said what I've said, am convicted of it, and am leaving it here.
I agree; your own words "convicted" you of religious blind faith and inability to see reason.
The only remaining thing I have to repeat myself on, though, is that I am truly glad that he did bring that out in me and showed even myself something I needed to see...AND IT'S DONE.
If your repeating the same circular 'faith-belief-faith-belief' invalid premise didn't show your own self-delusion to yourself, nothing will.
Since you're attempting to get in the 'last word' in making another false claim which you have no intention of backing up with evidence, you may as well employ that ignore function which FC has thoughtfully provided, (unless you're another one who "ignores" by continuing to not ignore).
-
Hmmmmm, not sure, but gee, I think that post started out with...jedijohnny and jcribb.....so ok, other than that all I have to say at this point is ho hum, you bore me. But, thanks.
-
Hmmmmm, not sure, but gee, I think that post started out with...jedijohnny and jcribb.....so ok, other than that all I have to say at this point is ho hum, you bore me. But, thanks.
This is a thread posted in the debate & discuss subforum of an FC discussion board; not some private xtian back-patting exclusive club. Therefore, any member of FC who wants to reply to a post on can do so. It's not surprising that a response containing more than monosyllables "bores" you so, you might want to take advantage of the ignore button to prevent over-taxing your limited mental resources.
-
Wait...wait...wait...here you go again...let's talk about resources...it is humorous to me that immediately the first thing you do is tell every Christian to back up their points, but do not use scripture. That's great because you can indeed try to separate a Christian from his/her Bible, but the Word is always with them. And that is to say that my resources are not limited, but as vast as...well, you know...
-
Wait...wait...wait...here you go again...let's talk about resources...it is humorous to me that immediately the first thing you do is tell every Christian to back up their points, but do not use scripture.
That's because the "reference" is self-referential, ('the bible says so because the bible says so', etc.), that's circular, irrational, invlaid and not an evidentiary basis. So, if all you've got is a faith-based belief in a belief-based faith, you've got no substantive evidence to back up your specious superstitious religious beliefs.
That's great because you can indeed try to separate a Christian from his/her Bible, but the Word is always with them. And that is to say that my resources are not limited, but as vast as...well, you know...
If you weren't separate from your book of mythological deception, why do you fundie xtians keep reposting from that invalid 'biblical' source? To keep reblinding your baseless faith-based belief? Please avail yourself of the ignore button; if you don't know how to use it, ask another xtian fundie who does.
-
Oh, I would not do that...lol...that would not be very Christian of me, now would it? But I also would never expect a ball player to step up to the plate without his bat.
-
Oh, I would not do that...lol...that would not be very Christian of me, now would it? But I also would never expect a ball player to step up to the plate without his bat.
I wouldn't expect even a lousy "ball player" to forfeit everytime they come up to bat like a xtian who makes unsupported assertions and then expects to "walk" on base.
-
ok, have a nice day.
-
ok, have a nice day.
Same to you, (in the same sense).
-
Hmmmmm, not sure, but gee, I think that post started out with...jedijohnny and jcribb.....so ok, other than that all I have to say at this point is ho hum, you bore me. But, thanks.
This is a thread posted in the debate & discuss subforum of an FC discussion board; not some private xtian back-patting exclusive club. Therefore, any member of FC who wants to reply to a post on can do so. It's not surprising that a response containing more than monosyllables "bores" you so, you might want to take advantage of the ignore button to prevent over-taxing your limited mental resources.
Perhaps you could take your own advice.
-
Hmmmmm, not sure, but gee, I think that post started out with...jedijohnny and jcribb.....so ok, other than that all I have to say at this point is ho hum, you bore me. But, thanks.
This is a thread posted in the debate & discuss subforum of an FC discussion board; not some private xtian back-patting exclusive club. Therefore, any member of FC who wants to reply to a post on can do so. It's not surprising that a response containing more than monosyllables "bores" you so, you might want to take advantage of the ignore button to prevent over-taxing your limited mental resources.
Perhaps you could take your own advice.
I could ignore all of the superstitious proselytizing you fundies flood the forums with, sure. Or, since I don't treat these forums as if they were an exclusive non-xtian country-club, I could continue to oppose those who keep treating these forums as if they were some kind of private xtian reservation where any dissent/opposing viewpoints are considered to be "bashing", (in a forlorn hope to silence opposition/dissent). Guess which way it's going to go.
-
Hmmmmm, not sure, but gee, I think that post started out with...jedijohnny and jcribb.....so ok, other than that all I have to say at this point is ho hum, you bore me. But, thanks.
This is a thread posted in the debate & discuss subforum of an FC discussion board; not some private xtian back-patting exclusive club. Therefore, any member of FC who wants to reply to a post on can do so. It's not surprising that a response containing more than monosyllables "bores" you so, you might want to take advantage of the ignore button to prevent over-taxing your limited mental resources.
Perhaps you could take your own advice.
I could ignore all of the superstitious proselytizing you fundies flood the forums with, sure. Or, since I don't treat these forums as if they were an exclusive non-xtian country-club, I could continue to oppose those who keep treating these forums as if they were some kind of private xtian reservation where any dissent/opposing viewpoints are considered to be "bashing", (in a forlorn hope to silence opposition/dissent). Guess which way it's going to go.
Yes, you could ignore. But you would be so "bored" and unhappy not to bash on the Christian's belief in God. You have just admitted your sole purpose for bashing Christians on here. You have, instead, been trying to "silence opposition/dissent" and instead form your own weird idea of a "Christian Bashing Club" in order to make them look foolish, stupid, ignorant, irrational, delusional, and I could go on and on with other words used against Christians in these forums.
You go exercise your freedom to make up threads, while others, including Christians, do the same, with whatever topics so chosen. They are allowed in here and no one, including the mean-spirited hater of Christians, will not have the right to hush them, scare them away, make them feel foolish. You are showing your absolute intolerance towards Christians, and actually, it's none of your business if they choose to believe in God. Oh sure, we already know you are going to say it's your business in an open forum, but actually, it's not. People can discuss things about it, or around and about of it, but they don't have to "answer" to you, specifically, about something when they already know you will use it against them, or simply don't care for you to know any more than they want you to know.
You rarely discuss Biblical topics - once in awhile, yes; but mostly no, because you start bringing in your bashing, name calling, and intolerant remarks. You enjoy suggesting others use the "ignore" button, but that furthers your cause of picking on others. You could put certain people on "ignore" but then you wouldn't be able to pick on them for their beliefs. You show extreme tolerance to the wiccan thread - maybe because you made it. Yet, you don't seem to know what tolerance is when it comes to believers in God. I'm not telling you what to do, but it goes without saying, that no one is forcing you to scan the board and deliberately go into Biblical threads. That's all on you, and when you do what you do, then you shouldn't be surprised when people share their opposition of your hateful comments.
-
You have just admitted your sole purpose for bashing Christians on here.
No, ye-of-too-much-faith, I was referring to a few xtians' obvious intent to characterize opposing viewpoints as "bashing", (as you continue to substantiate every time you overuse the word).
You have, instead, been trying to "silence opposition/dissent" ...
It isn't possible to silence xtian proselytizing on these forums so your accusation is false. Conversely, there is documented/archived evidence of you and a few other fundies repeatedly attempting to silence viewpoints opposing xtian ones by characterizing them variously as "rude",
'bashing", "disrespectful" and so on with the direct intent of censoring such.
... and instead form your own weird idea of a "Christian Bashing Club" ...
I've formed no such "club". There were other non-xtians dissenting here before I arrived and others joined FC after I did. These fabrications, (straight out lies), are unsupported by facts - your specious beliefs are not factual.
... in order to make them look foolish, stupid, ignorant, irrational, delusional, and I could go on and on with other words used against Christians in these forums.
On the contrary, the xtians' own posted words regarding such religious nonsense are making themselves look "foolish, stupid, ignorant, irrational, delusional" without external assistance. In replying to such unsupported declarations and empty assertions, the xtian's own words are quoted.
it's none of your business if they choose to believe in God. Oh sure, we already know you are going to say it's your business in an open forum, but actually, it's not.
There's no forum rule about xtian proselytization having an unopposed 'free ride' on FC. You fundies chose to post such religious propaganda, others are choosing to post in opposition to it. Which part of this eludes your understanding?
-
You have just admitted your sole purpose for bashing Christians on here.
No, ye-of-too-much-faith, I was referring to a few xtians' obvious intent to characterize opposing viewpoints as "bashing", (as you continue to substantiate every time you overuse the word).
You have, instead, been trying to "silence opposition/dissent" ...
It isn't possible to silence xtian proselytizing on these forums so your accusation is false. Conversely, there is documented/archived evidence of you and a few other fundies repeatedly attempting to silence viewpoints opposing xtian ones by characterizing them variously as "rude",
'bashing", "disrespectful" and so on with the direct intent of censoring such.
... and instead form your own weird idea of a "Christian Bashing Club" ...
I've formed no such "club". There were other non-xtians dissenting here before I arrived and others joined FC after I did. These fabrications, (straight out lies), are unsupported by facts - your specious beliefs are not factual.
... in order to make them look foolish, stupid, ignorant, irrational, delusional, and I could go on and on with other words used against Christians in these forums.
On the contrary, the xtians' own posted words regarding such religious nonsense are making themselves look "foolish, stupid, ignorant, irrational, delusional" without external assistance. In replying to such unsupported declarations and empty assertions, the xtian's own words are quoted.
it's none of your business if they choose to believe in God. Oh sure, we already know you are going to say it's your business in an open forum, but actually, it's not.
There's no forum rule about xtian proselytization having an unopposed 'free ride' on FC. You fundies chose to post such religious propaganda, others are choosing to post in opposition to it. Which part of this eludes your understanding?
YOU don't seem to understand that ALL KINDS OF TOPICS are allowed to be posted in this forum, which happens to include Biblical ones. You don't have to like it, and you are welcome to opposing views, that is true. You take it TOO FAR when you bash Christians, including mocking and belittling. So others, in turn, are choosing to post in opposition to YOUR HATEFUL REMARKS, as well. You don't like it? Fine - you don't have to answer nor read them, do you.
-
YOU don't seem to understand that ALL KINDS OF TOPICS are allowed to be posted in this forum, which happens to include Biblical ones.
Since I've already stipulated that point, your contention regarding the intent you fabricated about non-xtians wanting to silence/prohibit xtian proselytizing posts remains untrue.
You don't have to like it, and you are welcome to opposing views, that is true. You take it TOO FAR when you bash Christians, including mocking and belittling.
Once again, you are not the arbitrator of what form opposing/dissenting viewpoints may take. "Too far" under your inherently-biased perspective is not too far under a more objective outlook, (one not tainted by religious irrationality). By using such biased terms as "mocking and belittling", you are implicitly attempting to use those characterizations to inhibit/silence opposing viewpoints. While you are certainly 'free' to falsely describe dissenting points of view in such a biased manner, I'm as free to refute it as a tainted/biased/false characterization, ("bashing" xtians when instead, xtianity's belief system is being opposed).
Now, others could consider your constant religious proselytizing as "bashing" non-xtians and there is an element of truth to that. Until now, I haven't leaned toward that characterization because I want to reiterate a central cognitive point; there's no rule concerning xtian declarations of empty religious opinions getting an unopposed 'free pass', (nor any rule concerning restricting/prohibiting such dissenting viewpoints which do not violate FC TOS). We're both choosing to continue this seemingly-endless argument simply because you insist upon hiding behind your blind faith while reason contends out in the open.
-
YOU don't seem to understand that ALL KINDS OF TOPICS are allowed to be posted in this forum, which happens to include Biblical ones.
Since I've already stipulated that point, your contention regarding the intent you fabricated about non-xtians wanting to silence/prohibit xtian proselytizing posts remains untrue.
You don't have to like it, and you are welcome to opposing views, that is true. You take it TOO FAR when you bash Christians, including mocking and belittling.
Once again, you are not the arbitrator of what form opposing/dissenting viewpoints may take. "Too far" under your inherently-biased perspective is not too far under a more objective outlook, (one not tainted by religious irrationality). By using such biased terms as "mocking and belittling", you are implicitly attempting to use those characterizations to inhibit/silence opposing viewpoints. While you are certainly 'free' to falsely describe dissenting points of view in such a biased manner, I'm as free to refute it as a tainted/biased/false characterization, ("bashing" xtians when instead, xtianity's belief system is being opposed).
Now, others could consider your constant religious proselytizing as "bashing" non-xtians and there is an element of truth to that. Until now, I haven't leaned toward that characterization because I want to reiterate a central cognitive point; there's no rule concerning xtian declarations of empty religious opinions getting an unopposed 'free pass', (nor any rule concerning restricting/prohibiting such dissenting viewpoints which do not violate FC TOS). We're both choosing to continue this seemingly-endless argument simply because you insist upon hiding behind your blind faith while reason contends out in the open.
No sir, it's ALSO because you will not let up on your mean-spirited quotes, cutting remarks, and certain pictures - you are basically cutting off any opportunity for debate because you are continually showing intolerance and respect of others who have beliefs you don't agree with.
-
Now, others could consider your constant religious proselytizing as "bashing" non-xtians and there is an element of truth to that. Until now, I haven't leaned toward that characterization because I want to reiterate a central cognitive point; there's no rule concerning xtian declarations of empty religious opinions getting an unopposed 'free pass', (nor any rule concerning restricting/prohibiting such dissenting viewpoints which do not violate FC TOS). We're both choosing to continue this seemingly-endless argument simply because you insist upon hiding behind your blind faith while reason contends out in the open.
No sir, it's ALSO because you will not let up on your mean-spirited quotes, cutting remarks, and certain pictures - you are basically cutting off any opportunity for debate because you are continually showing intolerance and respect of others who have beliefs you don't agree with.
On the contrary, I've not only opposed superstitious blind faith, but also delineated the reasons why. The religious adherents of blind faith have chosen not to debate these points and instead, simply bible-quote or rely on the same blind faith being contended. That's not debate; that's xtian copping-out. You keep characterizing opposition, (which is not required to be "politically-correct" just because you don't like it), variously as "mean-spirited", "bashing", "rude", "impolite", etc. - over and over again. Go ahead and use such diversionary adjectives to avoid debate but, don't whine about others cutting off opportunities for debate when all you xtians want to do is make proselytizing empty declarations without opposition.
"Faith does not give you the answers, it just stops you asking the questions."
-- Frater Ravus
-
Now, others could consider your constant religious proselytizing as "bashing" non-xtians and there is an element of truth to that. Until now, I haven't leaned toward that characterization because I want to reiterate a central cognitive point; there's no rule concerning xtian declarations of empty religious opinions getting an unopposed 'free pass', (nor any rule concerning restricting/prohibiting such dissenting viewpoints which do not violate FC TOS). We're both choosing to continue this seemingly-endless argument simply because you insist upon hiding behind your blind faith while reason contends out in the open.
No sir, it's ALSO because you will not let up on your mean-spirited quotes, cutting remarks, and certain pictures - you are basically cutting off any opportunity for debate because you are continually showing intolerance and respect of others who have beliefs you don't agree with.
On the contrary, I've not only opposed superstitious blind faith, but also delineated the reasons why. The religious adherents of blind faith have chosen not to debate these points and instead, simply bible-quote or rely on the same blind faith being contended. That's not debate; that's xtian copping-out. You keep characterizing opposition, (which is not required to be "politically-correct" just because you don't like it), variously as "mean-spirited", "bashing", "rude", "impolite", etc. - over and over again. Go ahead and use such diversionary adjectives to avoid debate but, don't whine about others cutting off opportunities for debate when all you xtians want to do is make proselytizing empty declarations without opposition.
"Faith does not give you the answers, it just stops you asking the questions."
-- Frater Ravus
You are not accepting of any views that are Christian, and are against even Bible verses, quotes, and comments of uplifting inspiration being written and shared in here. People do not have to shut up because you don't approve of what many say. There is that little ignore button that you so enjoy reminding others of, but that you could certainly use yourself, if there are things you don't like. This forum is not built around your likes and dislikes, nor is it around anyone else's. It is for the enjoyment of everyone who chooses to post in here.
If you want to be disagreeable and rude, or debatable, fine, but expect people to stand up for their choices and remind you that you have to choice to disbelieve. If you want to debate, then do it in the right debate part of things, on topic, and adding depth to it. All you do is totally disrespect and do not accept that people have their rights to their choices of religion or no religion. Whatever they choose is none of your business, and though you think you are the right one in not accepting their choice, you are not, as far as their personal choice. You don't have to accept or like their choice to believe in God. But you do not have the right to try and make them look foolish and stupid, and call their beliefs the names you do. You should mature yourself on acting like a grown-up in here towards people you don't agree with, instead of like a little petulant boy who can't get his bullying way.
-
You are not accepting of any views that are Christian, and are against even Bible verses, quotes, and comments of uplifting inspiration being written and shared in here. People do not have to shut up because you don't approve of what many say.
That's correct; my opposition to the Initial religious proselytizing posts made by faith-blinded xtians is not intended to silence them; it's intended to oppose them. Your continued objection is to such opposition and is intended to censor/prohibit dissenting viewpoints which are not somehow vaguely 'politically-correct'.
If you want to be disagreeable and rude, or debatable, fine ...
Just as you are free to post disagreeable, rude, proselytizing religious superstitions; so too are others free to oppose such. You don't get to dictate the form of that dissent/opposition because these forums are not some exclusive xtian country club which provides an unopposed free pass to proselytizing such religious superstitions.
-
dreams ? i had a dream or moreless i heard Jesus say to me : do not mourn when your baby is born ,but rejoice in motherhood" what do u think it means and yes im prego! :angel11:
I've been wanting (and meaning) to ask this since you started this thread -
Why would you MOURN when your baby is born??
I don't understand this AT ALL, unless the last thing you would ever want is to be pregnant/have children. And if that's the case, well.....
I don't think you would need to interpret what jesus supposedly said in that dream.....the meaning is rather obvious.
-
I think God sends me messages of advice or help in different ways..One being my dreams...Thanks for your post. God Bless you. :thumbsup:
-
God talks to us all the time, we just need to know how to listen.
-
dreams ? i had a dream or moreless i heard Jesus say to me : do not mourn when your baby is born ,but rejoice in motherhood" what do u think it means and yes im prego! :angel11:
I've been wanting (and meaning) to ask this since you started this thread -
Why would you MOURN when your baby is born??
I don't understand this AT ALL, unless the last thing you would ever want is to be pregnant/have children. And if that's the case, well.....
I don't think you would need to interpret what jesus supposedly said in that dream.....the meaning is rather obvious.
Just noticed that the OP hasn't come back to this thread to make any comments WHATSOEVER.........
:angry7: Figures.
I'm guessing that I will never get an answer to the above question I asked/posted.....(other than speculative posts from other FC members, possibly)
-
I think God sends me messages of advice or help in different ways..One being my dreams... God Bless you.
Vague attributions to supernatural 'causes' constitute a belief without viable evidence. Just as you are free to post disagreeable, rude, proselytizing religious superstitions; so too are others free to oppose such.
-
God talks to us all the time, we just need to know how to listen.
Then so too do 'invisible pink unicorns' "talk to us" but, we just don't know how to listen for them.
Just as you are free to post disagreeable, rude, proselytizing religious superstitions; so too are others free to oppose such.
-
God talks to us all the time, we just need to know how to listen.
Then so too do 'invisible pink unicorns' "talk to us" but, we just don't know how to listen for them.
Sometimes, I know WHEN to listen for them, as they will come to my window, and tap on it with their hooves. They also use their horns for tapping occasionally, but that is rarely done anymore, since the time they broke a window.
Regardless, I still don't get what they say when they're "talking to me".
I just can't understand them.
I tried asking "What is it? Is it......is Timmy in the well?", but then I don't understand what they say, IF they reply (which isn't always the case)......
and I can't see if they're shaking their pink heads yes or no, as they're invisible.
-
god is good all the time god could work many way god can give you any thing just prayer god got your back.god is good people that love god bless you god love you :heart:
-
The evidence submitted below supports a general perception of unreasoned blind faith when it comes to superstitious religious belief.
god is good all the time god could work many way god can give you any thing just prayer god got your back.god is good people that love god bless you god love you :heart:
-
god is good all the time god could work many way god can give you any thing just prayer god got your back.god is good people that love god bless you god love you :heart:
"god got your back," holy schittaree, how much more absurd can you get? I love it, yet another idiot announces himself, who's the next one to provide us all with some comical entertainment?
-
god is good all the time god could work many way god can give you any thing just prayer god got your back.god is good people that love god bless you god love you :heart:
"god got your back," holy schittaree, how much more absurd can you get? I love it, yet another idiot announces himself, who's the next one to provide us all with some comical entertainment?
Apparently, "god's got your back" is a rather well-known saying (? :dontknow:), that they abbreviate like the "what would jesus do" saying.......
I haven't heard this one before though.....
*WWJD
*GGYB
@ alaric99x - I can let you know where you can buy buttons, t-shirts, posters, etc., with GGYB on them if you like.......
(http://i.imgur.com/6sZWN.jpg) (http://i.imgur.com/bCT4z.jpg) (http://i.imgur.com/t7hAq.jpg)
-
god is good all the time god could work many way god can give you any thing just prayer god got your back.god is good people that love god bless you god love you :heart:
"god got your back," holy schittaree, how much more absurd can you get? I love it, yet another idiot announces himself, who's the next one to provide us all with some comical entertainment?
Apparently, "god's got your back" is a rather well-known saying (? :dontknow:), that they abbreviate like the "what would jesus do" saying.......
I haven't heard this one before though.....
*WWJD
*GGYB
You mean to say that "ggyb" doesn't have something to do with the poor grammar of so many g-d mongerers?
:o
-
god is good all the time god could work many way god can give you any thing just prayer god got your back.god is good people that love god bless you god love you :heart:
"god got your back," holy schittaree, how much more absurd can you get? I love it, yet another idiot announces himself, who's the next one to provide us all with some comical entertainment?
Apparently, "god's got your back" is a rather well-known saying (? :dontknow:), that they abbreviate like the "what would jesus do" saying.......
I haven't heard this one before though.....
*WWJD
*GGYB
@ alaric99x - I can let you know where you can buy buttons, t-shirts, posters, etc., with GGYB on them if you like.......
(http://i.imgur.com/6sZWN.jpg) (http://i.imgur.com/bCT4z.jpg) (http://i.imgur.com/t7hAq.jpg)
So where can I get a t-shirt like that? Not that I would ever contemplate buying one. How would this "homey" contemplate god, he gonna bust a cap in you a$$. I wait to use this word, but I'm "flabbergasted" at this superb display of idiocy.
-
In addition to that, and I'm sure I'm not the only person to notice this, but many of these people are total illiterate tunnel-heads. No use of capitalization, no use of punctuation, did they drop out of school in the middle of the 3rd grade? Once again, I'm "flabbergasted," and they would wish to impart their superior wisdom upon us and teach us about the mystical metaphysical wonders of our universal existence at the same time that they still believe in Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny.
-
In addition to that, and I'm sure I'm not the only person to notice this, but many of these people are total illiterate tunnel-heads. No use of capitalization, no use of punctuation, did they drop out of school in the middle of the 3rd grade? Once again, I'm "flabbergasted," and they would wish to impart their superior wisdom upon us and teach us about the mystical metaphysical wonders of our universal existence at the same time that they still believe in Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny.
They're just doing their part to perpetuate the boundaries of irrationality while wearing the perceptual sunglasses of the faithfully-blind.
-
I don't know about God delivering messages through dreams but I know when I was pregnant and it was about a year after my uncle passed away he came to me in a dream I can still see today and touched my stomach like he knew and I know other family members have had passed family members in their dreams telling them things or guiding them. I believe in something, that's for sure
-
It means just be happy for your blessing.
-
Of course, unless you want to experience what true denial will really mean in the end of days, but I do not have that worry. Peace
Those are your religious beliefs, they remain devoid of evidence so, I'm unconcerned about them, (they don't apply to me and suggesting that they do is insultingly presumptive, prejudiced and is rejected outright).
You are unconcerned with them but you are also scared of them.
-
Of course, unless you want to experience what true denial will really mean in the end of days, but I do not have that worry. Peace
Those are your religious beliefs, they remain devoid of evidence so, I'm unconcerned about them, (they don't apply to me and suggesting that they do is insultingly presumptive, prejudiced and is rejected outright).
You are unconcerned with them but you are also scared of them.
[/quote]
You are projecting your own presumptive, superstitious fears which I do not share. There's a subtle difference between "know fear" and "no fear" which seems to elude faith-mongers.