Pre Fall Of Satan, Pre Creation And Post Creation Evil Show That The Bible God Is Self Refuting. (Comments Criticism, Please!)

[centauri]

@ Centauri

Cite the bible OT text that say the irreverent and censorious (who are very rebellious) will comprehend spiritual things. Cite the OT passage that say that people who use disingenuous practices of pitting different beliefs against each other by using google university as research, while ignoring the biblical stipulation of yielding to God and comparing scripture with scripture, will understand the bible. Dude all you do is read mostly Jewish propaganda and you do EVERY SINGLE THING that Rayskidude said.

Well, like you, rayskidude was an aspiring teacher/preacher that couldn't come up with an actual answer to a very simple request.

You're the zealots that make claims about the Bible displaying self-proving harmony.

If you're going to make such bold proclamations, be prepared to back them up with something more than Christian self-righteousness and imagined scriptural discernment.

The Jewish propaganda is their evaluation of what their scriptures mean.

I see absolutely no reason why their propaganda should be considered inferior to yours.

[centauri]

I do what the bible does and address whomever hath an ear.

 

Cite the Old Testament passage that says an expected king messiah would make parts of the law irrelevant and no longer binding, as Paul claimed.

 

It's contained in Daniel 9 . Limiting the bible to one passage is just a way of deliberately misunderstanding it to hold on to unbelief (stopping ones ear)

Where exactly does Dan 9 say this?

 

Cite the Old Testament passage that says the new covenant would eliminate parts of the law and be based on faith in a human sacrifice that dies for your sins.

 

It's contained in Daniel 9

Where would that be found in Dan 9?

 

Cite the section of the law that says a human being is a valid sin sacrifice. Centauri has no insight to see spiritual things!

 

Isa 53, Neh 3 (one man had to build the dung gate, no one else could do it.) etc.

Isa 53 is not the law.

The law was delivered to Moses and is found in the first five books of the Old Testament.

Specific rules for sacrifice are found in Leviticus.

That would be a good place for you to start.

Isaiah is primarily a metaphorical theme writer who personified the servant Israel in Isa 53.

Neh 3 is also not the law.

 

Cite the Old Testament passage that says introducing a new ritual that involves the drinking of blood would be part of the new covenant.

 

Jeremiah 31:31

I don't see anything about a new ritual involving the consumption of blood in this:

 

Jer 31:31-33

Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:

Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the Lord:

But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the Lord, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.

 

It says God would reaffirm his law under a new contract.

That very law forbids the consumption of blood, symbolic or otherwise.

 

 

Exodus 24:6; Exodus 24:8 ; Jeremiah 31:31 ;

New Testament, covenant made:

Luke 22:20

 

Luke 22:20

Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you.

 

 

I didn't see anything in Jer 31 about needing to believe in a vicarious human sacrifice who creates a new covenant by putting his blood in a cup and urging people to drink from it.

In fact, Jer 31 says that each person will die for their own sin.

In Exo 24, the blood involved was that of bulls (which were valid sacrifices) and nobody drank it.

 

 

There's a law of non contradiction and it's one of the basic laws in classical logic. It states that something cannot be both true and not true at the same time when dealing with the same context. It's AGAINST the health laws (these are SEPARATE from the ceremonial laws and should be followed today! ) to drink actual blood so animal blood was NEVER drunk in the OT, it was sprinkled on the people or in the sanctuary!

If it was against God's law to consume any manner of blood, then Jesus taught contrary to what God had instructed.

He introduced a ritual that was abomination in the eyes of God.

[centauri]

 

Where does the Old Testament confirm this claim of God having another law?

 

It's implied in Genesis 3 but

Genesis 22:2 prefigures Jesus.

So you're claiming that Abraham sacrificing Isaac, which he didn't actually do, somehow equates to Jesus, which somehow equates to another law.

That's interesting, considering Moses came along later with all sorts of laws that he got directly from God.

However, not one of those laws says God would become a man and eliminate the sacrificial system.

 

Was Moses or anyone else informed of this?

Yes.

When was Moses informed of this?

 

 

No part of God can die at any time.

Either God was dead (a theology impossibility), or the death of Jesus was simply theater.

Or perhaps, Jesus wasn't God and he was simply an elevated celestial being.

 

God as God cannot die. God incarnate (as in the flesh) can and did.

So Jesus the Man died, while Jesus the God was up in heaven watching.

Christian salvation is then based on a sacrifice of flesh, not spirit or soul.

 

The "original God" stated to his people that he was not a man nor a son of man, that he was a singular being (no others), the only savior, would not give his glory to another, and didn't change.

Jesus being declared God by clerics is an example of a counterfeit god.

 

Yeah, God had to distinguish Himself from the polytheistic religions that were rampant. Satan counterfeited God so the biblical writers let the people know that there is unity and oneness with the God of the bible. God said let US make man in our image. Angels can't create.

The Trinity is polytheism in disguise.

It wraps three gods into one figurehead.

God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Spirit, is not monotheism in the Hebrew sense.

In Genesis, God was speaking to his court.

There is no indication of a three person deity being defined.

 

Matthew 28: 18.

Then Jesus came to them and said, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me."

The problem is that this contradicts God's proclamation that he will not give his glory to another.

 

Isa 42:8

I am the Lord: that is my name: and my glory will I not give to another, neither my praise to graven images.

 

Nowhere in Old Testament scripture does God declare that his name is Jesus.

 

Isa 42:8(YLT)

I [am] Jehovah, this [is] My name, And Mine honour to another I give not, Nor My praise to graven images.

 

John 1:14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

Jesus wasn't the only begotten of the Father, Adam was also the word made flesh.

 

Psalm 138:2 I will worship toward thy holy temple, and praise thy name for thy lovingkindness and for thy truth: for thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name.

How do you equate David praising Jehovah and his word to Jesus being God.

When did God tell David that he was really Jesus too?

Contrary to the theology of John, the word was not God, it was of God.

 

Psa 33:6(YLT)

By the word of Jehovah The heavens have been made, And by the breath of His mouth all their host.

 

Adam was also the word manifested and made flesh, but he wasn't God any more than Jesus was.

 

Some women cry out the Lord's name in the throes of passion but what if the person making them feel that way is somebody else's husband? God's name should not be profaned but the act of adultery is against His Word which represents His character.

If God's name shouldn't be profaned, then you should stop trying to jam Jesus into God's sole and exclusive definition of himself.

You're going against his word.

Jehovah repeatedly stated that he was not a man, nor a son of man.

Jehovah stated that he alone was the savior, there were no others.

 

Isa 45:18(YLT)

...`I [am] Jehovah, and there is none else.

[Realist]

Yes indeed, this has happened with virtually all the believers I've encountered here.

 

... the fact that becomes rather obvious to those who know how this shit works is the very part that shows it up for the evil it actually is. If one has to use dishonesty to help prove your cause ... your cause is either not honest or is not defensible in the first place. Thumb is a shining example of this at work!

[hereticzero]

Helter Skelter!!!!

Now you're worshiping at the feet of Charles Manson a mass murderer? it figures. It was his favorite song.

 

No, that's how you interpret the bible, helter skelter!

 

 

Helter skelter: ADVERB:

1. In disorderly haste; confusedly; pell-mell.
    
   
2. Haphazardly.
   

ADJECTIVE:

1. Carelessly hurried and confused.
    
   
2. Haphazard.
   

NOUN:

Turmoil; confusion.

 

 

 

Manson was a disciple of Alestir Crowley just like many atheists but they don't know it.

 

Thumbelina

Pronoun, fictional character.

Used by Christian whithout a clue as to what it worships.

Fictional character teaching fictional commandments because of cult mind-control.

[Astreja]

God created music.

 

Your alleged god did no such thing. Humans created music, and I learned music from human teachers.

 

And don't you ever fucking give your imaginary friend credit for My music.

Lesbianism, fornication, adultery are all sins... Christians should pray for the lesbians instead of verbally abusing them and condemning them.

 

Lesbianism is not a sin, Thumbelina. It is an innate sexual preference, and an uncommon but natural variant. Therefore, calling it a "sin" IS verbal abuse and condemnation.

 

Not that your behaviour surprises Me anymore... You're so deep in the Kool-Aid factory that I'm actually beginning to think that you're mentally and emotionally incapable of finding your way out even if you wanted to. You seem to have a vested interest in pushing your sick, hateful, superstitious agenda on us, despite the fact that you present as the poster child for mediocrity and are not in the least bit inspiring. If anything, you're an anti-role model for your dead-guy-on-a-stick cult..

 

Oh, and I prefer Aleister Crowley's lunacy to your lunacy, Thumbelina. I've actually read some of his writings. Although 99% of them are pure woo-woo, his book reviews from the Equinox are painfully funny.

[bornagainathiest]

Rayskidude?

 

I exposed him as a liar, l-o-n-g before you arrived, Thumbelina.

 

That's why my profile page says that I ate the Big MAC. The Most Annoying Christian was the way he described himself before he saw what I wrote and so he changed it to the nonsensical, 'Most Right Reverund'.

 

You sure you want to pin your flag to the mast of a liar?

 

BAA.

[bornagainathiest]

Btw, Thumbelina...

 

In Christianity, where does the ultimate authority rest?

 

In the person of Jesus or in the pages of the Bible?

 

BAA.

[Thumbelina]

@ Centauri

Cite the bible OT text that say the irreverent and censorious (who are very rebellious) will comprehend spiritual things. Cite the OT passage that say that people who use disingenuous practices of pitting different beliefs against each other by using google university as research, while ignoring the biblical stipulation of yielding to God and comparing scripture with scripture, will understand the bible. Dude all you do is read mostly Jewish propaganda and you do EVERY SINGLE THING that Rayskidude said.

-----------------------------

 

 

Well like you, rayskidude was an aspiring teacher/preacher that couldn't come up with an actual answer to a very simple request.

You're the zealots that make claims about the Bible displaying self-proving harmony.

If you're going to make such bold proclamations, be prepared to back them up with something more than Christian self-righteousness and imagined scriptural discernment.

The Jewish propaganda is their evaluation of what their scriptures mean.

 

 

 

*raised eyebrow* You Centauri are full of shenanigans. You do not (PRESENTLY; I believe you did in the past, you seem to be an avid reader too) search the scripture for truth, you take a doctrine from here and a doctrine from there in order to create confusion (that's the spirit of antichrist you know; I hope you stop, I still like you and don't want you to not be saved). How can someone reason with you when you plan on dismissing everything and you do not do what Rayskidude said one is supposed to do to understand? The bible does prove itself to people with open hearts/minds. Show me in the bible where it says scripture is for persistent unbelievers with predetermined hearts. Show me where it says the scoffer has spiritual discernment. You as an unbeliever, an unbeliever, has placed yourself as a discerner of the bible, show the lurkers the scriptures where it says someone with an anti-gospel is able to do that.

 

The Jewish propaganda is that God says all nations are to be blessed and given the opportunity for salvation and the Jews are exclusivist and don't give two shakes about the salvation of non Jews.

You are similar to Heretic in that you're someone helter skelter in trying to find a gospel; it ends up a discombobulated mess, an anti gospel as it were. You're not as looney as Heretic though, you have read and have been reading about the laws and you seem to understand some of them but you isolate texts to support the Jewish view (that Christ isn't God and is unnecessary) and you do it without the HS. You tie the hands of God with your choice; you tie the hand of the Christian who is willing to point out the scripture. However, there are certain things that I see you find questionable but your ears are stopped and you don't dialogue, you just automatically dismiss it by using the Jewish propaganda. The Christian who is trying to reason gives up because you are NOT communicating but just dismissing, you're not being a Berean! You then boast that the answer is not adequate, granted sometimes they are not , and you repeat the process thereby wasting people's time. *mad* That's not very nice Centauri! I had a crazy-as-a-fruit-bat atheist on another cite do the same trick except he used the SAB website; it's a way of closing ones ears and causing others to stumble too.

 

IMO, I still think you're scared which is why you act the way you do. *sigh* If that's the case then I have to pray a 'father forgive him for he knows not what he's doing' prayer for you. Hopefully you will ditch your chicken-esque ways and you'll be saved and we'll end up meeting up in heaven

[Thumbelina]

Heh, heh, Centauri Darlin', you haven't had an ear since I've been here or so it SEEMS, so why are you responding?

 

.......................

 

 

I do what the bible does and address whomever hath an ear.

 

Cite the Old Testament passage that says an expected king messiah would make parts of the law irrelevant and no longer binding, as Paul claimed.

 

It's contained in Daniel 9 . Limiting the bible to one passage is just a way of deliberately misunderstanding it to hold on to unbelief (stopping ones ear)

-----------------------------

 

Where exactly does Dan 9 says this?

 

 

 

.............

 

Daniel 9:27 ... he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, ... .

 

------------ ----------

 

Cite the Old Testament passage that says the new covenant would eliminate parts of the law and be based on faith in a human sacrifice that dies for your sins.

 

It's contained in Daniel 9

-----------------------------

 

Where would that be found in Dan 9?

 

..........

 

Daniel 9:24-27

 

------------ ----------

Cite the section of the law that says a human being is a valid sin sacrifice. Centauri has no insight to see spiritual things !

 

 

Isa 53, Neh 3 (one man had to build the dung gate, no one else could do it.) etc.

-----------------------------

 

Isa 53 is not the law.

 

......

 

In essence it is, it's the law of GRACE. Th law of grace is contained in the Decalogue, you know.

 

 

....

The law was delivered to Moses and is found in the first five books of the Old Testament.

 

 

Yes I know.

 

 

 

Specific rules for sacrifice are found in Leviticus.

That would be a good place for you to start.

 

Exodus contains the law too. Remember Moses was with God 40 days getting instructions?

 

 

Isaiah is primarily a metaphorical theme writer who personified the servant Israel in Isa 53.

Neh 3 is also not the law.

 

.........

 

Why don't you guys not get that the ten commandments are comprehensive? The passages are descriptions of God's grace, they're under the umbrella of the Decalogue.

------------ ----------

 

Cite the Old Testament passage that says introducing a new ritual that involves the drinking of blood would be part of the new covenant.

 

Jeremiah 31:31

-----------------------------

 

I don't see anything about a new ritual involving the consumption of blood in this:

Jer 31:31-33

Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:

Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the Lord:

But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the Lord, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.

It says God would reaffirm his law under a new contract.

.......

 

God did, Christians see Jesus as God and He did fulfill what was written in Jeremiah. He made this covenant by instituting the Lord's supper.

 

...........

 

That very law forbids the consumption of blood, symbolic or otherwise.

 

 

The laws forbade the drinking of literal blood, diseases are carried in the blood. It says nothing about symbolic drinking, you're making that up!

 

Answer this, with your reasoning, was it unlawful to eat human flesh? Was it unlawful to eat human flesh symbolically?

 

------------ ----------

 

Exodus 24:6; Exodus 24:8 ; Jeremiah 31:31 ;

New Testament, covenant made:

Luke 22:20

-----------------------------

 

Luke 22:20

Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you.

 

I didn't see anything in Jer 31 about needing to believe in a vicarious human sacrifice who creates a new covenant by putting his blood in a cup and urging people to drink from it.

In fact, Jer 31 says that each person will die for their own sin.

In Exo 24 , the blood involved was that of bulls (which were valid sacrifices) and nobody drank it.

 

 

You need spiritual discernment to see. In Jeremiah 31 it says a new Covenant will be made. Daniel gave the time prophecy as to when Messiah was to arrive. Jesus came right on time and was cut off for our sins in the middle of the week (31/2 years after He was baptized). Before Jesus died He instituted the Lord's Supper and gave the symbolic bread and wine for His disciples to remember Him by. He replaced the passover with the Lord's supper. He was going to be the lamb. If the shewbread, seven-branch candlestick, oil, the incense, the ark of the covenant, and the human high priest were all symbolic then why the heck will the bulls etc be literal?

 

Where in Jeremiah does it say each person will die for their own sin?

 

------------ ----------

 

 

There's a law of non contradiction and it's one of the basic laws in classical logic. It states that something cannot be both true and not true at the same time when dealing with the same context. It's AGAINST the health laws (these are SEPARATE from the ceremonial laws and should be followed today! ) to drink actual blood so animal blood was NEVER drunk in the OT, it was sprinkled on the people or in the sanctuary!

 

 

-----------------------------

 

If it was against God's law to consume any manner of blood, then Jesus taught contrary to what God had instructed.

He introduced a ritual that was abomination in the eyes of God.

 

They did not drink actual blood, m'kay?!

 

Was the VERY human high priest the actual high priest or did he represent a higher authority?

[Thumbelina]

Helter Skelter!!!!

Now you're worshiping at the feet of Charles Manson a mass murderer? it figures. It was his favorite song.

 

No, that's how you interpret the bible, helter skelter!

 

 

Helter skelter: ADVERB:

1. In disorderly haste; confusedly; pell-mell.
    
   
2. Haphazardly.
   

ADJECTIVE:

1. Carelessly hurried and confused.
    
   
2. Haphazard.
   

NOUN:

Turmoil; confusion.

 

 

 

Manson was a disciple of Alestir Crowley just like many atheists but they don't know it.

 

Thumbelina

Pronoun, fictional character.

Used by Christian whithout a clue as to what it worships.

Fictional character teaching fictional commandments because of cult mind-control.

 

 

 

Thumbelina is small, I'm small so why not?

What's with the username Heretic zero?

My mischievous side wants to call you Pell Mell, for you're a nutty fellow, can I?

[Thumbelina]

 

 

 

 

God created music.

 

Your alleged god did no such thing. Humans created music, and I learned music from human teachers.

And don't you ever fucking give your imaginary friend credit for My music.

 

 

 

God created oratory too. Hitler was a good orator, God did not command him to use his gift for worldliness. Same with music, it can be used to honor God or not.

 

 

 

 

Lesbianism, fornication, adultery are all sins... Christians should pray for the lesbians instead of verbally abusing them and condemning them.

 

 

 

 

 

Lesbianism is not a sin, Thumbelina.

 

I am an adherent of the bible and it says that it is. Naturally, unbelievers will not see it that way.

 

 

 

 

 

It is an innate sexual preference, and an uncommon but natural variant. Therefore, calling it a "sin" IS verbal abuse and condemnation.

 

For some it's a tendency, for some it's a learned behavior.

 

It's not verbal abuse to disagree with someone if one is not threatening a person.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Oh, and I actually prefer Aleister Crowley's lunacy to your lunacy, Thumbelina. I've actually read some of his writings. Although 99% of them are pure woo-woo, his book reviews from the Equinox are painfully funny.

 

 

Aleister would not have minded if people thought his writings are woo woo, he was an Anything but person (anything but Christ).

Aleister had a counterfeit of God's Word. He wrote :Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law. It's occultic, it's Satanic! Satan absolutely HATES God's ten commandments (D'you see how Heretic and Realist are acting up? They're listening to the voice of a stranger ) Satan said/says no rules, no rules! The music and movie industries are replete with occultic beliefs. Songs that say, It's your thang do what you wanna do ( I know someone who LOOOOOOVES to commit adultery who LOOOOOOOVES that song) If loving you is wrong, I don't wanna be right ( adulterer loves that song too), Helter Skelter and MANY other songs that promote law breaking. Michael Jackson, The Beatles and any group or artist that made it big or will make it big will have to follow Crowley's teachings, Ozzy Osbourne even sang Mr Crowley. David Bowie, Beyonce, Jay Z, Gaga all of 'em are occultists. YOLO is another example of the mess, do what you want. Many people are sheep and they follow their music blindly. Yup, Manson liked Helter Skelter and I guess he really took it to heart and see how he broke more of God's ten commandment law?

 

 

 

Here's how sin has a snowball effect, the adultery guy doesn't want God because God has laws. Adulterer wants his cake and wants to eat it too (good wife at home while messing around with low hanging fruit or easy women with bad morals). In order to CHEAT, he has to LIE (doing what he wants, in that instance it's not against the civil law after all), if wife questions him he gets verbally abusive. When about to go out on a tryst he partakes of conscience killer (alcohol) and he deliberately looks at something his wife is insecure about and mentions it, when she shys away he yells and storms out, it's now her fault why he's cheating so it's OK. It actually led to physical abuse a few times (civil law broken) but once is too much! Children are adversely affected. Look at that intervention show on A&E, most addicts had divorced parents or dysfunctional homes. People just want to do what they wanna do and follow their own selfish inclinations.

[Thumbelina]

In Christianity, where does the ultimate authority rest?

In the person of Jesus or in the pages of the Bible?

 

Jesus and His word are one. By OBEYING His Word one shows they RESPECT His name, Him personally. Calling His name and having a pretend relationship with Him ain't gonna cut it. If someone says Jesus,Jesus (Lord, Lord) and do not obey His Word (Jesus said a LOT and it is written in the bible) they WILL be lost.

[bdp]

Dude all you do is read mostly Jewish propaganda

 

What the fuck does THAT mean?

[bdp]

the Jews are exclusivist and don't give two shakes about the salvation of non Jews.

 

 

The Jews don't pretend they have the only possible path to 'god' and as such I respect them, which I can't say for Xtians - funny a Xtian calling Jews 'exclusivist.' I don't think you honestly know anything about them or what they believe.

[bdp]

Helter Skelter and MANY other songs that promote law breaking.

 

Helter Skelter is a song about a carnival ride. Have you been going to those idiotic anti-rock seminars? Charles Manson made up shit about what the Beatles' song 'meant' as a form of mind control, along with LSD; he's a nutjob who had NOTHING to do with the Beatles AT ALL. He didn't believe a word of what he was saying or his own interpretations of the songs, it was all just a means to an end to him, a sociopath. You can't use him as an example of anything but mental illness, and you can't use his actions to tarnish the Beatles' songs.

[bdp]

Michael Jackson, The Beatles and any group or artist that made it big or will make it big will have to follow Crowley's teachings

 

Absolute and complete bullshit.

[Thumbelina]

Michael Jackson, The Beatles and any group or artist that made it big or will make it big will have to follow Crowley's teachings

 

Absolute and complete bullshit.

 

Yeah, I know you can't see it:

 

 

http://theater.goodfight.org/?vdld=Aleister_Crowley

[agnosticator]

I haven't been on the site for quite some time. I drop in and......there's Thumby at it again! Girl, you need to grow up and move on!

 

Let me ask you this:

 

Could you love a Mormon, Hindu, Jew, Muslim, or atheist? Could you accept them for who and what they are, without trying to change them? Could you be a friend to them, or are your beliefs worth more to you than their friendship and even their lives? If you had to choose, would you be a friend or an evangelist to any of them? You can't be both.

 

If you believe God and the kingdom of heaven is within you, then it's also within everyone else. It's not out there, beyond the universe. It's not a set of doctrines or stories to be taken literally. So don't strain at gnats and swallow Little Debbies^tm ! (a little Adventist humor) What's important is what you do and how you live with other people. Not what you believe about God from your little subjective existence, and certainly not by hounding the apostates! END OF LESSON

[Thumbelina]

 

 

Hello Agi! You've been away and no friendly hug? *Christianly hug*

 

Could you love a Mormon, Hindu, Jew, Muslim, or atheist?

 

Of course, love fulfills the law I won't steal from them, wrongfully covet their stuff, commit adultery etc.

 

Love does not force. Am I plucking your (as in you all) eyeballs out and forcing them (the eyeballs) to read what I write? Maybe oddbird might have some trouble though, hmmm, is there an audio section around here?

[agnosticator]

Hello Agi! You've been away and no friendly hug? *Christianly hug*

 

I take it oyu mean a "non-sexual" hug. Thanks!

 

 

Of course, love fulfills the law I won't steal from them, wrongfully covet their stuff, commit adultery etc.

 

Love does not force. Am I plucking your (as in you all) eyeballs out and forcing them (the eyeballs) to read what I write? Maybe oddbird might have some trouble though, hmmm, is there an audio section around here?

 

That's what love would NOT do. Being a friend rather than an evangelist is a totally different purpose and action within a relationship. It's what you DO that defines a loving relationship. That's what I've learned as a Christian, and what made me an EX-C.

[Thumbelina]

Hello Agi! You've been away and no friendly hug? *Christianly hug*

 

I take it oyu mean a "non-sexual" hug. Thanks!

 

 

D'uh. Yes, a platonic one.

 

Of course, love fulfills the law I won't steal from them, wrongfully covet their stuff, commit adultery etc.

 

Love does not force. Am I plucking your (as in you all) eyeballs out and forcing them (the eyeballs) to read what I write? Maybe oddbird might have some trouble though, hmmm, is there an audio section around here?

 

That's what love would NOT do. Being a friend rather than an evangelist is a totally different purpose and action within a relationship. It's what you DO that defines a loving relationship. That's what I've learned as a Christian, and what made me an EX-C.

 

 

I don't force people. I talk to some of those people who talk to me about all that stuff. Some people don't want to know about God and I don't tell them about Him, I talk about other things. I put "to whom has an ear", if they don't have an ear they don't have to respond. I'll just leave 'em and pray.

[agnosticator]

 

 

D'uh. Yes, a platonic one.

 

better than a "christianly" one! I'm just pulling your leg...

 

 

I don't force people. I talk to some of those people who talk to me about all that stuff. Some people don't want to know about God and I don't tell them about Him, I talk about other things. I put "to whom has an ear", if they don't have an ear they don't have to respond. I'll just leave 'em and pray.

 

Christian "love 'em and leave 'em" doesn't count for friendship. That would mean you choose evangelism.

 

Have a nice day Thumby!

[Thumbelina]

D'uh. Yes, a platonic one.

 

better than a "christianly" one! I'm just pulling your leg...

 

 

I don't force people. I talk to some of those people who talk to me about all that stuff. Some people don't want to know about God and I don't tell them about Him, I talk about other things. I put "to whom has an ear", if they don't have an ear they don't have to respond. I'll just leave 'em and pray.

 

Christian "love 'em and leave 'em" doesn't count for friendship. That would mean you choose evangelism.

 

Have a nice day Thumby!

 

Hardy ha ha.

 

 

What I put in read is friendship, you missed it Mr. tunnel vision!

[florduh]

Long time, Thumbs!

 

You know, when you say things like this:

Job did not give up on God so why are skeptics always criticizing Him?

it confirms my conclusion that you should give up evangelizing the Heathens and concentrate on your mud wrestling career. You still do not understand the basic, crucial fact that "skeptics" can't criticize your deity for the simple fact we accept that there is no evidence whatsoever that it exists. We aren't criticizing the nonexistent, we are pointing out the absurdities and inconsistencies of Christian mythology in its myriad variations.

 

Now, tops off, ladies, and into that mud!!!! Our reigning champ, THUMBELINA!!!!!!!!!! Let's rassle!!!