|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on May 13, 2017 21:05:10 GMT
tpfkar I'm having a good time sans the can sculpture. Somehow you don't sound quite like you manage that. 
You could have been enjoying your life instead, and not thinking about the hell you're going to burn in. And you deserve it.Exactly. Trolling, stalking, and harassing is your idea of a good time, which explains a lot (if not all) about you. |
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on May 13, 2017 21:10:00 GMT
tpfkar Not even. Simply responding to raw emotion, teary bitterness, spittly assh!lishness, unrepentant dishonesty and patent bonkers with bit of reason, one post at a time.
I know what a contrail is. They were not contrails, you animal. |
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on May 13, 2017 21:13:32 GMT
tpfkar Not even. Simply responding to raw emotion, teary bitterness, spittly assh!lishness, unrepentant dishonesty and patent bonkers with bit of reason, one post at a time.
I know what a contrail is. They were not contrails, you animal.Hey, if that's what it takes to convince you that you have a life worth living, then okay.  |
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on May 13, 2017 21:17:42 GMT
tpfkar Your short list of catchphrases helps! 
And IMDb condones it. If they didn't, they would have thrown you out weeks ago. |
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on May 13, 2017 21:19:08 GMT
tpfkar Your short list of catchphrases helps!
And IMDb condones it. If they didn't, they would have thrown you out weeks ago.You don't say?  |
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on May 13, 2017 21:20:39 GMT
tpfkar Love it! A true original.
Really? You don't say? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on May 14, 2017 4:35:30 GMT
Obama probably does have some sincere Christian beliefs, although I doubt his life revolves around religion as he tries to make it appear. I'm sure that Trump is indifferent to religion as a matter of personal spirituality, but finds it useful as a tool for manipulation (as many unscrupulous leaders do).
|
|
|
|
Post by geode on May 14, 2017 12:37:55 GMT
Who, not which. That is generally true if which is used as a relative pronoun used for people. But I didn't use it as a pronoun. |
|
|
|
Post by Aj_June on May 14, 2017 12:42:18 GMT
I think Obama is a far better human being than Trump will ever be. But I don't believe either of them have any sort of religious faith to begin with.
|
|
|
|
Post by kls on May 14, 2017 12:42:52 GMT
The critics of both of them claim that neither is really true to being a Christian as claimed. Not my place to judge. |
|
|
|
Post by geode on May 14, 2017 12:46:11 GMT
The critics of both of them claim that neither is really true to being a Christian as claimed. As amply demonstrated in the winter of 2012-13 on the old board, the religion of a head of state may be something other than the religion he or she claims. Hitler called himself a Christian because he was leader of a Christian country, but the overwhelming evidence is that he had his own religion based on the occult and ancient Germanic mysticism. The next world conflict will be globalist versus nationalist. Obama was the poster child for globalism, just as Trump is for nationalism. Alongside that, I think their personal religious beliefs, whatever they are, don't matter so much. Yes, I remember that discussion on the old board, but what Hitler actually was divided people in that discussion. There is ample evidence that he was basically a Chrsitian, just a very poor example of one. |
|
|
|
Post by geode on May 14, 2017 12:48:48 GMT
The critics of both of them claim that neither is really true to being a Christian as claimed. Not my place to judge. Yes, but commenting upon what is the situation with either of them is not necessarily to judge them. |
|
|
|
Post by drystyx on May 14, 2017 12:55:12 GMT
As amply demonstrated in the winter of 2012-13 on the old board, the religion of a head of state may be something other than the religion he or she claims. Hitler called himself a Christian because he was leader of a Christian country, but the overwhelming evidence is that he had his own religion based on the occult and ancient Germanic mysticism. The next world conflict will be globalist versus nationalist. Obama was the poster child for globalism, just as Trump is for nationalism. Alongside that, I think their personal religious beliefs, whatever they are, don't matter so much. Yes, I remember that discussion on the old board, but what Hitler actually was divided people in that discussion. There is ample evidence that he was basically a Chrsitian, just a very poor example of one. Wackos who want to change History do it because they are control freaks. No matter how much you morons lie or rewrite History, there was zero evidence to show Hitler was a Christian. Zero. And absolute proof to the contrary, but you control freaks just want to be in control until you make everyone think what you create out of History is reality. There's actual proof there of demonic possession. I know because I've felt it myself, when I was as immature as you are.
No offense.
|
|
|
|
Post by OldSamVimes on May 14, 2017 17:29:46 GMT
Except without knowing all the non-religious people it's hard to tell what they might be gullible about. Religious people wear their gullibility on their sleeves. When you've been convinced that you need another person to have a closer relationship to God, you've been hoodwinked. Haven't you noticed that some people pay way too much for things that have nothing to do with religion? For example everything? If anything is worth sharing, it's God. "If anything is worth sharing, it's God." How do you know your God is worth sharing? How can you prove your conception of God to someone else? Don't you have to do that before you can 'share God'? You have to prove that this God you are sharing exists, definitively, before you can share Him with me. If you can't prove your idea of God is true, you're not sharing 'God', you're sharing an idea. I think we have enough examples in history of what happens when an altruistic people decide to share their idea of God with others. Because it's never actually God they are sharing, it's ideas about God. I would argue that your ideas about your fragile, sensitive, vindictive God are best kept to yourself. |
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on May 14, 2017 17:46:38 GMT
"If anything is worth sharing, it's God." How do you know your God is worth sharing? How can you prove your conception of God to someone else? Don't you have to do that before you can 'share God'? You have to prove that this God you are sharing exists, definitively, if you hare to share Him with me. If you can't prove your idea of God is true, you're not sharing 'God', you're sharing an idea. I think we have enough examples in history of what happens when an altruistic people decide to share their idea of God with others. Because it's never actually God they are sharing, it's ideas about God. I would argue that your ideas about your fragile, sensitive, vindictive God are best kept to yourself. You shouldn't judge a god by the people who represent it. You shouldn't judge a god by the people who deliberately misrepresent it. You should be smart enough to realize misrepresentation happens for all sorts of reasons. People on this board sound silly blaming God for Hitler, or blaming religion, or blaming inept followers of religion. " ... it's never actually God they are sharing, it's ideas about God." Don't call it a god then. Call it the truth. I represent the truth. I hope I represent it well. I hope others see that this is the way to go. I would say life began without an intelligent designer if I thought it was the truth. I don't believe it's the truth. I think it's a lie. Perhaps at one time it was a good myth. Perhaps it helped that people believed life began without an intelligent designer. It is no longer a good myth. It's leading to bad decisions all over the place because people lost their fear of a god. |
|
|
|
Post by OldSamVimes on May 14, 2017 17:53:56 GMT
"If anything is worth sharing, it's God." How do you know your God is worth sharing? How can you prove your conception of God to someone else? Don't you have to do that before you can 'share God'? You have to prove that this God you are sharing exists, definitively, if you hare to share Him with me. If you can't prove your idea of God is true, you're not sharing 'God', you're sharing an idea. I think we have enough examples in history of what happens when an altruistic people decide to share their idea of God with others. Because it's never actually God they are sharing, it's ideas about God. I would argue that your ideas about your fragile, sensitive, vindictive God are best kept to yourself. You shouldn't judge a god by the people who represent it. You shouldn't judge a god by the people who deliberately misrepresent it. You should be smart enough to realize misrepresentation happens for all sorts of reasons. People on this board sound silly blaming God for Hitler, or blaming religion, or blaming inept followers of religion. " ... it's never actually God they are sharing, it's ideas about God." Don't call it a god then. Call it the truth. I represent the truth. I hope I represent it well. I hope others see that this is the way to go. I would say life began without an intelligent designer if I thought it was the truth. I don't believe it's the truth. I think it's a lie. Perhaps at one time it was a good myth. Perhaps it helped that people believed life began without an intelligent designer. It is no longer a good myth. It's leading to bad decisions all over the place because people lost their fear of a god. Nobody is 'judging a God', to do that you first have to prove that the God exists, otherwise you're just judging the idea of that God.
Then you say 'I'm not sharing my God, I'm sharing truth'. The truth is, there are thousands of different ideas about what God is and you can't definitively prove that any of those ideas are any better or worse than your idea because it's all just ideas, concepts, ABSTRACTIONS. You can frame your idea of God as an absolute truth, but that does not make it so. That kind of talk makes me wary of you and makes me think you are not intellectually trustworthy. |
|
|
|
Post by geode on May 14, 2017 18:05:19 GMT
Yes, I remember that discussion on the old board, but what Hitler actually was divided people in that discussion. There is ample evidence that he was basically a Chrsitian, just a very poor example of one. Wackos who want to change History do it because they are control freaks. No matter how much you morons lie or rewrite History, there was zero evidence to show Hitler was a Christian. Zero. And absolute proof to the contrary, but you control freaks just want to be in control until you make everyone think what you create out of History is reality. There's actual proof there of demonic possession. I know because I've felt it myself, when I was as immature as you are.
No offense.
I'm trying to decide if you are being sarcastic. This rather arrogant over-the-top diatribe laced with ad hominem certainly sounds as if you are being such, since what you have written does not appear to be grounded in much of anything that I posted....or reality for that matter, but perhaps that is the province of somebody possessed by demons. |
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on May 14, 2017 18:07:28 GMT
You shouldn't judge a god by the people who represent it. You shouldn't judge a god by the people who deliberately misrepresent it. You should be smart enough to realize misrepresentation happens for all sorts of reasons. People on this board sound silly blaming God for Hitler, or blaming religion, or blaming inept followers of religion. " ... it's never actually God they are sharing, it's ideas about God." Don't call it a god then. Call it the truth. I represent the truth. I hope I represent it well. I hope others see that this is the way to go. I would say life began without an intelligent designer if I thought it was the truth. I don't believe it's the truth. I think it's a lie. Perhaps at one time it was a good myth. Perhaps it helped that people believed life began without an intelligent designer. It is no longer a good myth. It's leading to bad decisions all over the place because people lost their fear of a god. Nobody is 'judging a God', to do that you first have to prove that the God exists, otherwise you're just judging the idea of that God.
Then you say 'I'm not sharing my God, I'm sharing truth'. The truth is, there are thousands of different ideas about what God is and you can't definitively prove that any of those ideas are any better or worse than your idea because it's all just ideas, concepts, ABSTRACTIONS. You can frame your idea of God as an absolute truth, but that does not make it so. That kind of talk makes me wary of you and makes me think you are not intellectually trustworthy. You really need to get off that kick about "proof." It just so happens there is proof of an intelligent designer. That's science though, not religion. There is no "proof" for religion. There never will be. It's something you have to try to understand. It's something people have to work out together. "An it harm none, do what ye will," might be as good as any place to start, but it is obviously not solving problems in such a poorly developed state. Somebody somewhere has to decide what walls and what bridges to build. Science is no help with that. |
|
|
|
Post by OldSamVimes on May 14, 2017 18:11:47 GMT
Nobody is 'judging a God', to do that you first have to prove that the God exists, otherwise you're just judging the idea of that God.
Then you say 'I'm not sharing my God, I'm sharing truth'. The truth is, there are thousands of different ideas about what God is and you can't definitively prove that any of those ideas are any better or worse than your idea because it's all just ideas, concepts, ABSTRACTIONS. You can frame your idea of God as an absolute truth, but that does not make it so. That kind of talk makes me wary of you and makes me think you are not intellectually trustworthy. You really need to get off that kick about "proof." It just so happens there is proof of an intelligent designer. That's science though, not religion. There is no "proof" for religion. There never will be. It's something you have to try to understand. It's something people have to work out together. "An it harm none, do what ye will," might be as good as any place to start, but it is obviously not solving problems in such a poorly developed state. Somebody somewhere has to decide what walls and what bridges to build. Science is no help with that. Science does not help us to decide where to build bridges? God does? Maybe human beings do that? I agree with you that religions are great at building walls. Walls are great for separating people and so is religion. You could almost say that religion is like a wall built around the mind. |
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on May 14, 2017 18:24:32 GMT
You seem to be having difficulty with the concept. Whether a bridge gets built depends on whether people agree they want one at any particular place. Science can build one almost anywhere they finally decide. You know a tunnel was built under the English Channel. Wikipedia is a great source for what happened and when. It is a total loss at explaining the "why" of anything. How to build a bridge isn't really very difficult. Humans can handle that without consulting religion, I agree. Why to build a bridge is something else entirely. And remember "bridge" here is a metaphor for any material endeavor. Blind faith in science and ignorance of everything beyond it is the worse such wall. |
|
