Feed on Posts or Comments 25 September 2016

Christianity &Islam &Judaism Thomas on 30 Oct 2013 09:44 pm

One of the most popular threads in the forums – athesist vs. Christian apologist

Over 3,000 people looked at this thread on Friday, and gave the forum its best day ever in terms of visitors. It is an email chain where an atheist questions a Christian apologist after the apologist’s university lecture:

Made up evidence for God? [#1999]

Good reading.

1,326 Responses to “One of the most popular threads in the forums – athesist vs. Christian apologist”

  1. on 04 Feb 2014 at 12:57 am 1.the messenger said …

    175.Angus and Alexis, I did not twist any bible verses or passages.

    I did not twist the word eternal, I proved that(when referring to hell) “eternal” is used to express a long period of time instead of “forever”. I provided text evidence to support this in the past. Why do you ignore evidence?

  2. on 04 Feb 2014 at 1:05 am 2.alex said …

    ““eternal” is used to express a long period of time instead of “forever””

    your idiot is showing (again). juxtapose any time against eternity and what do you get? a blip, you dumb motherfucker. in other words, a SHORT period of time.

    asshole.

  3. on 04 Feb 2014 at 1:40 am 3.the messenger said …

    187.DPK, There is one consistent detail in most of the witnesses accounts. A circular thing of light spinned in the sky and crashed into the earth drying all of the rain water off of the crowed.

    How can you prove that with science.

  4. on 04 Feb 2014 at 1:46 am 4.alex said …

    A circular thing of light spinned in the sky and crashed into Messenger’s head, drying out the miniscule brain he started off with.

    Now messenger just goes around mumbling: rapist marry woman, eternal is not forever, homos bad, yahweh = allah, say what god?, mumble, jumble.

    Can you prove that with science, DPK?

  5. on 04 Feb 2014 at 1:55 am 5.A said …

    “fossil record, when cross referenced with anatomy, and genetic trees, fits perfectly, and is the single most compelling piece of evidence for evolution.”

    ROTFL!! What did you copy that from….lol!!!!

    Now this is true for microevolution but we don’t need fossils for that.

    Lets continue the claim. We find a jaw bone for dinosaur X. Lets see, we compare this to which anatomy? Maybe a tool? Lol!…. then make Ass-umptions X, Y, Z after hiring a great artist!

    Then of course we take the fossilized jaw, hire a creative artist and shake the gene tree!! Lol!!!!!

    Oh Agnus! So young and gullible. So how dat soup create that first cell Agnis? That should be easy with some anatomy and genes. Lol!!!

  6. on 04 Feb 2014 at 2:06 am 6.alex said …

    ” We find a jaw bone for dinosaur X. Lets see, we compare this to which anatomy? Maybe a tool? Lol!”

    science bad, evolution fake, what’s the alternative?

    making woman from a rib? now that’s believable. lol indeed. nope, there’s more. all those fossils older than the biblical beginning of time? placed there by the omnipotent god, knowing that the atheist heathens will find them, thus fulfilling their destiny of everlasting torture. what? am i on drugs?

  7. on 04 Feb 2014 at 3:58 am 7.the messenger said …

    204.alex, once again you have dodged the question and gave no answer to my question, further proving that your comments have no substance.

    I pity you.

  8. on 04 Feb 2014 at 4:00 am 8.the messenger said …

    204.alex, if you are not willing to give any information against our claims then you should just leave.

    You are the king of dodging questions, and you act immature like a bratty child.

    Grow up.

  9. on 04 Feb 2014 at 7:01 am 9.Angus and Alexis said …

    Messenger said.
    “188.Angus and Alexis, no they should not. Jesus teaches us to forgive others and to love all people no matter what. They law states nothing about killing homosexuals.”

    Messenger, please at least TRY to be honest.
    The bible clearly states that if a man sleeps with another man, like he would with a woman, he is to be put to DEATH.

    Homosexuals therefore must be put to death, yes, or no?

    “I did not twist the word eternal, I proved that(when referring to hell) “eternal” is used to express a long period of time instead of “forever”.”

    Messenger, by definition, eternal means FOREVER, thus trying to twist the word would be twisting the bible, and thus GODS word.

    Are you seriously trying to twist your own imaginary friends words?

  10. on 04 Feb 2014 at 11:02 am 10.alex said …

    “once again you have dodged the question”

    you mean this?

    “A circular thing of light spinned in the sky and crashed into the earth drying all of the rain water off of the crowed.
    How can you prove that with science.”

    you get to spew nonsense and you want scientific proof? once again you’ve demonstrated that you’re a stupid dumbass goat herder motherfucker. your spinning light is bullshit and you want proof to dispute it?

    look bitch, a ufo is sighted. can you disprove it. see how ridiculous your question is? your brain is empty, can you disprove it. messenger rapes woman and tries to marry her, can you disprove it.

    get the picture, you dumb motherfucker?

  11. on 04 Feb 2014 at 11:09 am 11.alex said …

    you mean this:
    “So how dat soup create that first cell Agnis?”

    asked and answered, you dumb motherfucker. the answer is, i don’t know.

    remember bitch, your yahweh/allah cannot possibly coexist with the other hundreds of hindu gods. let me guess, all the gods are the same?

  12. on 04 Feb 2014 at 4:19 pm 12.freddies_dead said …

    196.A said …

    “I have provided the names of 2 scholars.”

    Liar

    Nope. Post 111.

    “Brazza presented some of the evidence”

    Liar

    Nope. Post 154.

    Putting on your sock makes neither claim true.

    Nope, the facts of reality do. Unfortunately for you the facts of reality show you to be wrong … as usual.

    Just another fish fossil that leads nowhere…..

    sigh……

    The transitional fossil found using the scientific method you mean? We spent a long time on that thread discovering that you’re almost entirely ignorant of science, the scientific method or the nature of evidence.

    You offered nothing that was a problem for evolution – partly due to your refusal to openly state your own beliefs (most likely because you’re well aware of how stupid they are) and partly because you’re incompetent at all things scientific. And when we finally got to the point where you had nowhere left to dodge or run to, you still couldn’t offer a positive ontology for your God.

    Right there where science admits it does not know, you had the perfect chance to show that your God exists and that it was He that did it.

    What did you do? You ran away … again.

    This time will be no different.

    So, to speed things up, lets assume we’ve gotten to the point where science admits it doesn’t know – that should save us a couple of months of you whining about stuff you know nothing about.

    Here you go A. Here’s your chance. Give us a positive ontology for your God. Explain how you know it’s the Christian God and demonstrate that it was your God that bought everything into existence. Then you can explain exactly what processes your God used to bring about the current state of biodiversity.

  13. on 04 Feb 2014 at 6:41 pm 13.A said …

    “Nope. Post 111.”

    Liar unless you…are…Dippy….and even then no scholars.

    ‘Nope. Post 154.”

    Liar, you other sock posted opinion.

    “The transitional fossil found using the scientific method ”

    No the fish fossil you assume is transitioning into another species……wait, do you have supporting evidence it is transitioning into another creature?

    Oh, never mind, your cop out is all fossils are transitional.

    lol!!!!! I guess we can quite looking.

    “You offered nothing that was a problem for evolution”

    No, just that macro evolution has zero evidence using SM.

    It not observable
    Its not testable
    Its not falsifiable

    Oh, a fossil is not observing macroevolution.

    ROTFL!!!!!!!!!!! We can dig out Lincoln and claim we are observing the Gettysburg Address!! ROTFL!!!

  14. on 04 Feb 2014 at 7:04 pm 14.alex said …

    “ROTFL!!!!!!!!!!! We can dig out Lincoln and claim we are observing the Gettysburg Address!! ROTFL!!!”

    yeah, keep patting yourself on the back, smug in your delusion that Your god did it. unless of course, you got something?

    HEY, I FINALLY GOT IT! we can dig out the GM Saturn which was created by the youngest of the Titans. I stand corrected, a god did it!

  15. on 04 Feb 2014 at 10:35 pm 15.freddies_dead said …

    213.A said …

    “Nope. Post 111.”

    Liar unless you…are…Dippy….and even then no scholars.

    Apologies, it was 109. Still not a liar

    ‘Nope. Post 154.”

    Liar, you other sock posted opinion.

    As you’re so set on people backing up their claims you can go ahead and back up your unsubstantiated assertion that I am Bazza and that what was posted was simply opinion.

    “The transitional fossil found using the scientific method ”

    No the fish fossil you assume is transitioning into another species……wait, do you have supporting evidence it is transitioning into another creature?

    All on the other thread. Your continued bleating doesn’t change the fact that it’s a transitional fossil found using the scientific method.

    Oh, never mind, your cop out is all fossils are transitional.

    As you’re so set on people backing up their claims you can go ahead and back up your unsubstantiated assertion that the observation that “all fossils are transitional” is a “cop out”.

    lol!!!!! I guess we can quite looking.

    So much for your claim that you are “a man of science”. Giving up when you don’t like the evidence doesn’t strike me as much of a scientific thing to do.

    “You offered nothing that was a problem for evolution”

    No, just that macro evolution has zero evidence using SM.

    Despite you bleating, the evidence was given on the other thread

    It not observable
    Its not testable
    Its not falsifiable

    No, that’s your imaginary God.

    Oh, a fossil is not observing macroevolution.

    Define macroevolution and then demonstrate that it’s impossible to conclude that macroevolution has taken place by observing the characteristics of fossils

    ROTFL!!!!!!!!!!! We can dig out Lincoln and claim we are observing the Gettysburg Address!! ROTFL!!!

    You’re saying the Gettysburg Address didn’t happen because you can’t watch it now? You really are strange.

  16. on 05 Feb 2014 at 12:04 am 16.the messenger said …

    209.Angus and Alexis, Leviticus 20:13 does not specify who will be the executioner, and therefore could be referring to a natural death as the killer of them.

    GOD will most likely pardon them and not punish them, just like he pardoned the adulteress in john 8:2-11.

  17. on 05 Feb 2014 at 12:23 am 17.the messenger said …

    210.alex, this is not nonsense, these are actual eyewitness accounts. You claim that all “miricles” can be explained through science, therefore, care to explain this event with science.

  18. on 05 Feb 2014 at 1:46 am 18.alex said …

    “You claim that all “miricles” can be explained through science..”

    lyin bitch you are, but basically you and your whole flocked up fucks, position is: if it cannot be proven to your approved liking, then goddamnit, goddidit!

    if i or science cannot prove (to your approval) that donkeys cannot talk, then according to the bible, donkeys must talk, yay?

    let’s say you’re right and the muslims are right and the hindus are right. how the fuck is that possible?

    dumbass, motherfucker, you are.

  19. on 05 Feb 2014 at 3:19 am 19.A said …

    Dorothy M. Murdock?

    ROTFL!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    ok, now I didn’t see where she claimed the NT Gospels as you claim (liar) was not written by the authors as listed. Strike 1!

    she is a writer, don’t see her listed as a scholar. Strike 2!

    Most academic scholars disagree with her writins. Strike 3, you are out again.

    You need to stop staring at fossils until you dee macroevoltion happening (lol!!!!) and het a clue unsteady freddie. No wonder you tried to hide your um ER uh….scholars.

    No time to check out your other Mensa. Dorothy was enough.

    ROTFL!!!!!!!!!!

  20. on 05 Feb 2014 at 11:58 am 20.freddies_dead said …

    221.A said …

    Dorothy M. Murdock?

    ROTFL!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    ok, now I didn’t see where she claimed the NT Gospels as you claim (liar) was not written by the authors as listed. Strike 1!

    Ms Murdock has written about the writings of Josephus and Tacitus – you seem to have forgotten that this is where the discussion started.

    But, seen as you’re not happy with Ms Murdock, you could try Gary Greenberg instead. He’s President of the Biblical Archaeology Society of New York and a Fellow of the Jesus Project. He also wrote the book “Who Wrote the Gospels? Why New Testament Scholars Challenge Church Traditions.”.

    she is a writer, don’t see her listed as a scholar. Strike 2!

    No doubt you have an exhaustive list of Biblical scholars that you can provide to back up your assertion here? I suspect not. She has a degree in classics and is a member of the American School of Classical Studies at Athens, Greece. What are your qualifications in the field, A?

    Most academic scholars disagree with her writins. Strike 3, you are out again.

    Once again you make the assertion but totally fail to back up your claim. Where’s this exhaustive list of scholars along with a breakdown of which ones agree/disagree with Ms Murdock?

    For such a stickler over claim backing you seem utterly unable to back up any of your own.

    You need to stop staring at fossils until you dee macroevoltion happening (lol!!!!) and het a clue unsteady freddie. No wonder you tried to hide your um ER uh….scholars.

    I notice you utterly failed to define macroevolution despite the explicit request for you to do so.

    It’s unsurprising but fortunately (for us of course, not so much for you) you equated macroevolution to speciation on the other thread and you can quite easily pop over to the TalkOrigins website and read all about the observed instances of speciation. Cue A changing his mind over what constitutes macroevolution while still refusing to actually define what he means by the term.

    As for scholars, we’re still waiting for you to present even one scholar and the evidence they’ve used to determine that God exists. I would ask if you’ll be doing this anytime soon but we all know you won’t … because you can’t.

    No time to check out your other Mensa. Dorothy was enough.

    What a surprise, an ignorant theist refusing to do any proper research. Because research is the theists enemy. Once you start studying it’s only a matter of time before your pathetic theistic worldview crumbles under the weight of evidence that directly contradicts your ridiculous beliefs.

    ROTFL!!!!!!!!!!

    Indeed.

  21. on 05 Feb 2014 at 12:37 pm 21.A said …

    “Josephus and Tacitus – you seem to have forgotten that this is where the discussion started.”

    You seem to have forgotten I challenged your Gospel claims! Strike 4

    “No doubt you have an exhaustive list of Biblical scholars that you can provide to back up your assertion here?”

    Absolutely, but why only modern? Your now have evidence of your next claim that the Church used authorship of the Gospels to further Christianity? Proof please! Lol!; still holding oit

    And further, the fact you don’t realize all the scholars who support authorship of Gospels by those named means you know zero about the subject.

    Strike 5

    “theistic worldview crumbles under the weight of evidence”

    lol!!!!! I am a man of truth. Bring on the truth and I will happily change. It must be more than looking at a bump on a fish fossil and claiming you know observe macro evolution! strike 6

    Amd lastly, you don’t even know the definition of macroevolurion? My spell checker knows the word! ROTFL!!! STRIKE?

  22. on 05 Feb 2014 at 1:49 pm 22.freddies_dead said …

    218.the messenger said …

    209.Angus and Alexis, Leviticus 20:13 does not specify who will be the executioner, and therefore could be referring to a natural death as the killer of them.

    Holy crap! (yet again). You mean the Bible went to all the trouble of mentioning that homosexuality is an abomination (Leviticus 18:22) just so it could threaten homosexuals with a natural death? How can anyone be “put to [a natural] death”? As usual messy makes no fucking sense.

    GOD will most likely pardon them and not punish them, just like he pardoned the adulteress in john 8:2-11.

    How do you know He won’t just have them mauled to death by a couple of she bears like He did with 42 kids who called someone a baldy?

  23. on 05 Feb 2014 at 2:57 pm 23.freddies_dead said …

    223.A said …

    “Josephus and Tacitus – you seem to have forgotten that this is where the discussion started.”

    You seem to have forgotten I challenged your Gospel claims! Strike 4

    Not at the point that I mentioned the original 2 scholars. I’ve since provided you with another scholar regarding the Gospel claims. So far you’ve presented nothing but unsubstantiated assertions in response.

    “No doubt you have an exhaustive list of Biblical scholars that you can provide to back up your assertion here?”

    Absolutely, but why only modern?

    Produce the list then. Presumably it’ll have notes stating which scholars agree or disagree with Ms Murdock?

    Your now have evidence of your next claim that the Church used authorship of the Gospels to further Christianity? Proof please! Lol!; still holding oit

    Can you show where I made any such claim?

    I have made 2 claims so far:

    1). That the passages in Josephus and Tacitus were forgeries.

    2). That the gospels were authored by people other than those attributed with authorship back in the 2nd century.

    I never once claimed the Church used the authorship of the Bibles for anything. I did accuse them of forging the paragraphs in non-Biblical sources, such as Josephus and Tacitus, and the only real reason for them to do that is to try and legitimise their claims in order to further their religion. If you dispute this you’re welcome to show some other reason that they would have forged those passages, or your evidence that those passages are authentic of course.

    And further, the fact you don’t realize all the scholars who support authorship of Gospels by those named means you know zero about the subject.

    Strike 5

    What fact? Where have I denied the existence of scholars who support the early church’s decision to attribute the authorship as they did? Oh, that’s right, I haven’t.

    “theistic worldview crumbles under the weight of evidence”

    lol!!!!! I am a man of truth.

    Liar.

    Bring on the truth and I will happily change.

    Liar.

    It must be more than looking at a bump on a fish fossil and claiming you know observe macro evolution! strike 6

    And you’re still lying about the evidence you were given on the other thread.

    Amd lastly, you don’t even know the definition of macroevolurion? My spell checker knows the word! ROTFL!!! STRIKE?

    I’m not sure what your argumentum ad spellcheckerum was supposed to achieve, but the spellchecker on my version of Firefox doesn’t recognise the word … erm … so there!

    Moving swiftly on. I’m aware that, despite there being absolutely no change in the underlying process itself, macroevolution is generally referred to as transitions at the taxonomic level of species (or higher).

    I also noted that you had equated macroevolution to such in the other thread, hence I’m correct in noting you’ve been given the evidence for that too.

    However, your dishonesty seems to know no bounds and I wouldn’t be at all surprised to see you try to deny that definition so you can claim you haven’t been given the evidence for macroevolution. Then you’ll carry on refusing to define what you mean so you can carry on trying to avoid acknowledging that you’ve been answered. Because you’re dishonest.

  24. on 05 Feb 2014 at 3:00 pm 24.freddies_dead said …

    In my previous post I wrote:

    “I never once claimed the Church used the authorship of the Bibles for anything”

    when, in fact, I meant to write:

    “I never once claimed the Church used the authorship of the Gospels for anything”

  25. on 05 Feb 2014 at 5:38 pm 25.A said …

    ” So far you’ve presented nothing but unsubstantiated assertions in response.”

    My assertion continues your fact claim has not been supported. You seem reluctant to provide PROOF that solidly support what you call Truth. Need names and there fact based claims which leave no doubt.

    “the Church used authorship of the Gospels to further Christianity? Proof please! Lol!; still holding oit

    Can you show where I made any such claim?”

    Yes, in your original claim withe the Gospels. I reposted it multiple times. Proof please! Lol!!!!!

    While you research your claims so we can call them truth, as you claim, look up macroevolution. HINT: It is the opposite of micro. I know you like to pretend all evolution has the same proof however that is only your delusion.

    Now come on! Bring that truth so we can all convert!

    lol!!!!!

  26. on 05 Feb 2014 at 6:47 pm 26.A said …

    Let me repost freddie-boy from 118 since he has memory issues. Forgive his sentence structure.

    “None of Matthew, Mark , Luke or John wrote the gospels that were attributed to them, but the reason to keep the Christian lies going – and add to them – is simply to gain and then keep control over others.”

    Lets see if he can prove any if this.

    popcorn heating up…

  27. on 05 Feb 2014 at 9:10 pm 27.the messenger said …

    222.freddies_dead, I said that he may pardon them, therefore the pardon may not happen, I do not know which one will happen.

    If they have remorse for their sins they will be forgiven. GOD is not fast to punish with severity, he is merciful and patient.

    Death comes to all of our earthly bodies, it could be caused out of punishment or simply our time to go to heaven, but either way it will happen.

    A natural death can be caused by GOD because he could make their bodies deteriorate faster.

  28. on 05 Feb 2014 at 9:13 pm 28.the messenger said …

    218.alex, the bible does not say anything about donkey’s talking.

    Stay on subject.

  29. on 05 Feb 2014 at 9:47 pm 29.DPK said …

    “218.alex, the bible does not say anything about donkey’s talking.

    Stay on subject.”

    Proof again that messenger, who come here to give us god’s word, has not even ever read the bible! LOL.

  30. on 06 Feb 2014 at 1:57 am 30.alex said …

    “Lets see if he can prove any if this.”

    i believe in santa, but i can’t prove it and this somehow proves your bullshit bible?

    all these other shits is a smokescreen, a fabreeze attempt to mask the malodorous, toxic stench of your biblical crap. flush, you impolite motherfucker.

  31. on 06 Feb 2014 at 2:58 am 31.the messenger said …

    229.DPK, the word “donkeys” is plural, and there is only one donkey that GOD ever gave the ability of speech to.

    The entire donkey species does not have the ability to speak, only one donkey was given the ability of speech. It was a one time thing.

    Now lets get back to the subject of this debate.

  32. on 06 Feb 2014 at 3:11 am 32.the messenger said …

    223.freddies_dead, the church has two purposes, preach GOD’s message of love and kindness, and help the sick and poor, sick, sad, and lonely people of the world.

    The church is not trying to gain power from any human, they are trying to help people become more loving towards one another, just as GOD commanded.

  33. on 06 Feb 2014 at 8:32 am 33.Angus and Alexis said …

    Messenger said.
    ” and there is only one donkey that GOD ever gave the ability of speech to.”

    Prove that magical speech can be given to donkeys.

    “only one donkey was given the ability of speech. It was a one time thing.”

    Prove it.

    “and help the sick and poor, sick, sad, and lonely people of the world.”

    A: Prayer does not help the sick, poor, nor sad.
    B: Lonely people need friends, not IMAGINARY friends.

  34. on 06 Feb 2014 at 12:01 pm 34.alex said …

    “Prove that magical speech can be given to donkeys.”

    it true. if the talking bush can do it, trivial for a donkey.

    see how this works? bullshit evidence to buttress the bullshit assertion.

    messenger: alex, you’re full of shit. it not bush, it burning bush….. bleh!

  35. on 06 Feb 2014 at 12:52 pm 35.A said …

    “Lonely people need friends, not IMAGINARY friends”

    yeah! They need a Tulip like Agnus has in Alexi!

    lol!!!

    “Prayer does not help the sick, poor, nor sad.”

    Funny……..they tell me it does and even ask for it. But Agnus, just for you and Alexi I will lass along your um, we, eh….advice…

  36. on 06 Feb 2014 at 1:01 pm 36.Angus and Alexis said …

    A said…
    “yeah! They need a Tulip like Agnus has in Alexi!”

    I have a social life, Alexis is just an addition.

    “Funny……..they tell me it does and even ask for it.”

    Note that “telling” and “asking”, does not equate to “Actually works”.

  37. on 06 Feb 2014 at 1:06 pm 37.alex said …

    “yeah! They need a Tulip like Agnus has in Alexi!”

    and of course this offering is so much more fulfilling.

    …strike down upon alex with great vengeance and furious anger those who attempt to poison and destroy my brothers.

    paraphrasing of course, but since samuel is blackie, he not a true xtian.

  38. on 06 Feb 2014 at 2:38 pm 38.freddies_dead said …

    227.A said …

    ” So far you’ve presented nothing but unsubstantiated assertions in response.”

    My assertion continues your fact claim has not been supported. You seem reluctant to provide PROOF that solidly support what you call Truth. Need names and there fact based claims which leave no doubt.

    I’m not talking about your continued request for evidence despite being presented with it. It’s not my fault that you don’t like the evidence, deal with it. No, I’m talking about the claims you’ve made. Claims that remain nothing more than unsubstantiated assertions as you refuse to back them up with evidence.

    Where’s your evidence that Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, Josephus were in some sort of conspiracy? I’ve never claimed that they were, you just made that shit up yourself and tried to make out it was what I had said – can you say strawman, A? Because that’s all it is.

    Where’s your evidence that God has given you free will?

    Where’s your evidence that God knows what you will do?

    You might want to provide evidence that God exists first of course and that it’s the Christian God.

    Where’s your evidence as to how free will is even possible when an omnipotent, omniscient deity has foreordained all that will come to pass?

    Where’s your list, A? You claim to have one, why haven’t you posted it yet?

    You’re the one who started whinging about backing up claims yet you’ve made no effort to back up any of your own. Hypocrite.

    “the Church used authorship of the Gospels to further Christianity? Proof please! Lol!; still holding oit

    Can you show where I made any such claim?”

    Yes, in your original claim withe the Gospels. I reposted it multiple times. Proof please! Lol!!!!!

    Incorrect, as usual. Let’s see what really happened shall we?

    Before we start I’d like to mention that there’s something iffy about the post numbering on this thread. In A’s post at 228 (on my PC) he refers to something he says I posted at 118, however, when I look at 118 it’s one of A’s posts and the section he quotes is actually from post 120 on my PC. I believe it may have something to do with a couple of posts I made very early on in this thread which went into moderation (most likely because I’d put some URLs in the posts). Therefore you may need to check the post + or – 2 numbers from the one stated.

    In 115 you said:

    Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, Josephus all conspired to make up Jesus. What did they gain?

    In 120 I responded:

    “None of Matthew, Mark , Luke or John wrote the gospels that were attributed to them, but the reason to keep the Christian lies going – and add to them – is simply to gain and then keep control over others.”

    Now, people who can read for comprehension will be able to figure out that the first part of my sentence rules out Matthew, Mark, Luke and John as part of your little conspiracy theory because they almost certainly weren’t the ones who actually wrote the gospels attributed to them. I’ve also mentioned already that the writings in Josephus and Tacitus are widely believed to be forgeries, so once again, those people aren’t part of your little conspiracy theory either. Instead the forgeries were carried out by early church leaders in the 2nd century who, as I’ve already stated, were attempting to legitimise and extend their religion. If they weren’t trying to legitimise and extend their religion you have to wonder why they were adding extra passages into non-Biblical works.

    I also never claimed that they “made up Jesus” either – despite your strawman claim that I did.

    While you research your claims so we can call them truth, as you claim, look up macroevolution. HINT: It is the opposite of micro.

    This is a monumentally stupid claim to make, even for you, A.

    Lets unpack what you’ve said here shall we?

    Microevolution is generally defined as “change in allele frequency in a population over time” so the opposite of that would be “no change in allele frequency in a population over time” i.e. nothing would change.

    The best thing though, is that you don’t believe macroevolution happens and you’ve now equated macroevolution to “no change at all”. Well done A, you’ve just argued that change happens – which is exactly what evolution says.

    I know you like to pretend all evolution has the same proof however that is only your delusion.

    Based on your previous comment I think it’s obvious to all that the only deluded one here is you, A. When macroevolution tends to be* the accumulation of lots of small changes over longer periods of time then it is the same evidence that supports both it and microevolution. We know you don’t like that fact but you’ve yet to present any argument/evidence of a barrier to small change equalling large change over time. You’re welcome to try any time you feel up to it.

    *I say ‘tends to be’ as you’ve already been pointed to evidence of instances of macroevolution (the species to species change kind) that have been observed by scientists so it’s not only small changes adding up to large changes over time.

    Now come on! Bring that truth so we can all convert!

    lol!!!!!

    Why do you continue to lie, A? Other than because you’re just plain dishonest of course? It doesn’t seem to matter what evidence we put before you, you show no intention of evaluating it honestly so your claim to be prepared to “convert” is an empty gesture on your part.

  39. on 06 Feb 2014 at 2:39 pm 39.freddies_dead said …

    229.the messenger said …

    222.freddies_dead, I said that he may pardon them, therefore the pardon may not happen, I do not know which one will happen.

    You said he’d “most likely” pardon them. You seemed far more certain of their fate whan you posted that, why backtrack now? Is it because you haven’t really got a clue what will happen? That would be a surprise.

    If they have remorse for their sins they will be forgiven.

    What? So no belief in God necessary then? Just a bit of remorse? I can’t say as I’ve seen any other self-proclaimed Christians make a similar claim. How do you know this? i.e. Why should we trust your interpretation rather than say, the Westboro Baptist Church’s position?

    GOD is not fast to punish with severity, he is merciful and patient.

    Except when he’s not, like when He drowned the whole world because the people acted exactly as He’d created them to act, or when He had 42 boys mauled to death by she bears for calling someone a “baldy”. I mean, if this is Him being merciful and patient, I’d hate to see Him get upset.

    Death comes to all of our earthly bodies, it could be caused out of punishment or simply our time to go to heaven, but either way it will happen.

    So your argument is that the punishment will happen either yes, no or maybe. Is anyone else thinking God’s approach to punishment is very much akin to His response to prayer i.e. non-existent?

    A natural death can be caused by GOD because he could make their bodies deteriorate faster.

    How can we distinguish between who is being punished by having their “bodies deteriorate faster” and who is simply dying a bit quicker courtesy of nature?

  40. on 06 Feb 2014 at 2:42 pm 40.freddies_dead said …

    234.the messenger said …

    223.freddies_dead, the church has two purposes, preach GOD’s message of love and kindness, and help the sick and poor, sick, sad, and lonely people of the world.

    Odd, from what we’ve seen in the news it seems the Church is actually here to provide a shelter to a large number of child rapists – that seems to undermine your claim that they’re here to preach love and kindness. The Catholic insistence of lying about condoms in Africa also undermines your claim that they’re trying to help the sick and the poor.

    The church is not trying to gain power from any human, they are trying to help people become more loving towards one another, just as GOD commanded.

    Then why are right wing American Christians desperately trying to pull down the wall between church and state? If they don’t want power over others, why are they seeking to force themselves into the political arena? Why are the religious company owners trying to use that religion to prevent their employees from getting healthcare?
    Why do they want to be able to teach non-science to children? Why are the Christian African theocracies pushing through laws making homosexuality illegal? Why are the Muslims trying to force people to live under Sharia Law? If the church leaders are not interested in having power over other humans why are they trying to force their beliefs onto others? At pain of death in some cases?

    From very early on religion has been a tool used to gain power over others; for priests over their followers etc… By interpreting the words of their Holy books in their own favour they remain in power and by pushing their religion onto others they seek to extend that religion and, by extension, their own power. Christianity is no different to most other religions in that respect.

  41. on 06 Feb 2014 at 10:43 pm 41.A said …

    “Where’s your evidence that Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, Josephus were in some sort of conspiracy? I’ve never”

    Never claimed you did. You claim the church started a conspiracy to keep control. Here let me post your words again to remind you.

    “None of Matthew, Mark , Luke or John wrote the gospels that were attributed to them, but the reason to keep the Christian lies going – and add to them – is simply to gain and then keep control over others.”

    Ouch! Gonna provide proof of any of that freddie-boy?

    No, didn’t think so…..lol!!!!!

    Run Freddie Run!!!!

  42. on 06 Feb 2014 at 10:46 pm 42.alex said …

    fucking morons are everywhere.

    moron names his kid “messiah” and the other idiot orders the moron to change the messiah’s name.

    where is messenger’s acid test for true xtianity?

    just like every shit that comes out of his mouth, it’s bull.

  43. on 06 Feb 2014 at 11:01 pm 43.alex said …

    “Ouch! Gonna provide proof of any of that freddie-boy?”

    self patting again? how the fuck does anybody’s statement, true or false, prove your god?

    i say that the great odin jacked off and his sperm spawned mankind. does my inability to prove it legitimize your god?

    asshole.

  44. on 06 Feb 2014 at 11:36 pm 44.A said …

    Alexander,

    You seem like a highly intelligent young man. A great education, a fine finishing school and some keen insight into contemporary issues. Maybe you could shed some light on the claims made by Freddie? Your analysis would be greatly welcomed.

  45. on 06 Feb 2014 at 11:56 pm 45.alex said …

    “Maybe you could shed some light on the claims made by Freddie?”

    me and freddie don’t believe in your god shit. if freddie and i agree or don’t agree about everything else, is irrelevant.

    bait failed.

  46. on 07 Feb 2014 at 12:41 am 46.A said …

    Lol!! So paranoid and funny

    Love ya buddy.

    Lets see if freddie-boy can support his claims I related in 241. My money is on he will run and change the subject. Lets watch…..

    popcorn on!…….

  47. on 07 Feb 2014 at 12:58 am 47.the messenger said …

    233.Angus and Alexis, the way to prove that the donkey event happened is to prove that GOD is real, and I have already proved his existence.

    Prayer gives people hope.

    We Christians and Jews offer money and supplies to help the poor. GOD is not imaginary.

  48. on 07 Feb 2014 at 1:00 am 48.alex said …

    “So paranoid…”

    now, i remember where i’ve seen that quip! it was in the secret pervert priest handbook that was discovered by the investigators. it’s the standard retort when little boys rebuff.

    are you the author?

  49. on 07 Feb 2014 at 1:03 am 49.the messenger said …

    234.alex, are you high, it was GOD in the form of a flaming bush.

    Now can we please get back to the subject of this debate?

  50. on 07 Feb 2014 at 1:09 am 50.alex said …

    “Now can we please get back to the subject of this debate?”

    if motherfuckers like you aren’t dangerous, i would invite you to a party. not an atheist party, but just a regular one. you would be great for a few laughs, but after a few, it would be too dangerous for you..

    of course, you won’t understand my prose, but that’s the beauty of it. and it’s plain englash.

  51. on 07 Feb 2014 at 1:41 am 51.the messenger said …

    239.freddies_dead, I have confidence that he will forgive them due to his forgiving nature, but it could go either way.

    A belief in GOD is not necessary, ok.

    My interpretation of the bible is trustworthy because it is mostly comprised of catholic interpretations(teachings from pope peter himself)but with only a few differences(for example, my interpretation says that salvation can be reached outside of the church but not outside of GOD, and that hell is not eternal).

    I am a liberal catholic.

  52. on 07 Feb 2014 at 1:48 am 52.the messenger said …

    250.alex, I do not have any desire to attack you with physical violence. If you attacked me through physical violence I would defend my self with a weapon, though I would not enjoy hurting you. Atheists tend to be intolerant and hateful people.

    Most atheist leaders are murders, such as stalin and hitler amd karl marx.

  53. on 07 Feb 2014 at 2:06 am 53.alex said …

    “I am a liberal catholic.”

    you are an idiot, marooned on your island of delusion. how about calling on your homies and get them to reply on this blog to vouch for you in agreement. none?

    your list of crap is tiresome and ridiculous. why won’t martin support you? why won’t anybody?

    “If you attacked me through physical violence I would defend my self with a weapon..”

    instead of the anonymity, why don’t you publicly proclaim your stance on rape? you better get a big weapon.

    try the court house when a rapist is on trial. yell out your conviction, but you won’t….. asshole.

  54. on 07 Feb 2014 at 2:13 am 54.alex said …

    “Atheists tend to be intolerant and hateful people.”

    wrong again, motherfucker. forget about the hitler was/was not an atheist. if you can come up with a recent crime perpetrated by an atheist motive, i can come up with 100, with religious intent. wanna try it?

    asshole, lyin bitch.

  55. on 07 Feb 2014 at 2:35 am 55.Vox said …

    Vox Day notes concerning atheism and mass murder:

    “ Apparently it was just an amazing coincidence that every Communist of historical note publicly declared his atheism … .there have been twenty-eight countries in world history that can be confirmed to have been ruled by regimes with avowed atheists at the helm … These twenty-eight historical regimes have been ruled by eighty-nine atheists, of whom more than half have engaged in democidal162 acts of the sort committed by Stalin and Mao …
    The total body count for the ninety years between 1917 and 2007 is approximately 148 million dead at the bloody hands of fifty-two atheists, three times more than all the human beings killed by war, civil war, and individual crime in the entire twentieth century combined.

    The historical record of collective atheism is thus 182,716 times worse on an annual basis than Christianity’s worst and most infamous misdeed, the Spanish Inquisition. It is not only Stalin and Mao who were so murderously inclined, they were merely the worst of the whole Hell-bound lot. For every Pol Pot whose infamous name is still spoken with horror today, there was a Mengistu, a Bierut, and a Choibalsan, godless men whose names are now forgotten everywhere but in the lands they once ruled with a red hand.

    Is a 58 percent chance that an atheist leader will murder a noticeable percentage of the population over which he rules sufficient evidence that atheism does, in fact, provide a systematic influence to do bad things? If that is not deemed to be conclusive, how about the fact that the average atheist crime against humanity is 18.3 million percent worse than the very worst depredation committed by Christians, even though atheists have had less than one-twentieth the number of opportunities with which to commit them. If one considers the statistically significant size of the historical atheist set and contrasts it with the fact that not one in a thousand religious leaders have committed similarly large-scale atrocities, it is impossible to conclude otherwise, even if we do not yet understand exactly why this should be the case. Once might be an accident, even twice could be coincidence, but fifty-two incidents in ninety years reeks of causation

  56. on 07 Feb 2014 at 2:44 am 56.alex said …

    256.Vox said …

    bleh, bleh, and more motherfucking bleh.

    you think you got a monopoly on bullshit skills? let me demonstrate mine.

    throughout history, xtian fanatics have beeen responsible for killing more that 150,000,000,236 gazillion non-xtians. this atrocity has been vigorously denied, but the evidence is undeniable. even though, i can’t produce it, i promise you that the evidence exists. bleh, bleh, bleh.

    you like my bullshit?

  57. on 07 Feb 2014 at 4:41 am 57.DPK said …

    on 07 Feb 2014 at 2:35 am 257.Vox said …

    … A bunch of blah blah, completely undocumented and unsupported claims…. And how does the bad behavior of any number of atheists, agnostics, or any particular political philosophy have any bearing on the existence of imaginary gods? Are you that dense? That no more proves your imaginary god exists than the rampant corruption in this Catholic Church proves he doesn’t.
    For the sake of argument, let’s assume every atheist in the world is a murdering, thieving, lying, selfish bastard. So what? How does that prove your imaginary god is real? It doesn’t, so?

  58. on 07 Feb 2014 at 11:19 am 58.freddies_dead said …

    243.A said …

    “Where’s your evidence that Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, Josephus were in some sort of conspiracy? I’ve never”

    Never claimed you did.

    Then why ask me for evidence for such a conspiracy, moron?

    You claim the church started a conspiracy to keep control. Here let me post your words again to remind you.

    I never said it was a conspiracy, that’s all in your own head. There’s no conspiracy they just blatantly made shit up.

    “None of Matthew, Mark , Luke or John wrote the gospels that were attributed to them, but the reason to keep the Christian lies going – and add to them – is simply to gain and then keep control over others.”

    Yup and I stand by what I said. It’s what religions do. They make shit up – like Gods and demons, talking donkeys and men living in whales, global floods that didn’t happen and the ability to force what hide pattern you’ll get by breeding livestock in front of different patterned sticks.

    Then they claim an authority they don’t deserve through the God they made up in order to get other people to do what they say.

    Ouch! Gonna provide proof of any of that freddie-boy?

    You gonna provide any proof of your God A-hole? Or any of the other mutitude of claims you’ve failed to back up so far?

    No, didn’t think so…..lol!!!!!

    Nor me … lol.

    Run Freddie Run!!!!

    Run from what A? You? That really is a lol and a half. I’m stood right here asking for proof of your God and all you can manage is diversions and outright lies. We know why. It’s because your God is imaginary.

  59. on 07 Feb 2014 at 11:25 am 59.freddies_dead said …

    248.A said …

    Lol!! So paranoid and funny

    Love ya buddy.

    Lets see if freddie-boy can support his claims I related in 241. My money is on he will run and change the subject. Lets watch…..

    popcorn on!…….

    ROFLCOPTER. It’s now us changing the subject. The whole forum is about the total lack of evidence for any God and yet all A is interested in is trying (and failing) to find gaps in evolution, butchering the scientific method while claiming to be “a science guy”, uttering outright lies about what other posters have said and even lying about his own identity in failed attempts to buttress his unsubstantiated claims.

    Where’s the proof for your God, A? That’s what the site is about, why do you always change the subject?

  60. on 07 Feb 2014 at 11:39 am 60.freddies_dead said …

    253.the messenger said …

    239.freddies_dead, I have confidence that he will forgive them due to his forgiving nature, but it could go either way.

    That’ll be the same forgiving nature that has condemned untold billions to an eternity of torment for simply failing to live up to rules they were created specifically unable to follow. Your claim of a loving and merciful God is just so much horseshit.

    A belief in GOD is not necessary, ok.

    Then why are you so desperately trying to get us to believe in one?

    My interpretation of the bible is trustworthy because it is mostly comprised of catholic interpretations(teachings from pope peter himself)but with only a few differences(for example, my interpretation says that salvation can be reached outside of the church but not outside of GOD, and that hell is not eternal).

    I am a liberal catholic.

    Your claim of trustworthiness due to being somewhat Catholic is wholly undermined by the Catholic church’s continued protection of the child rapists in it’s ranks. I wouldn’t trust a Catholic any further than I could throw the Vatican.

    Also, why should I accept your interpretations any more than a liberal Muslim, or a liberal Mormon, or a liberal Hindu? None of you can demonstrate the existence of your God(s).

  61. on 07 Feb 2014 at 11:46 am 61.Vox said …

    ‘None of Matthew, Mark , Luke or John wrote the gospels that were attributed to them, but the reason to keep the Christian lies going – and add to them – is simply to gain and then keep control over others. (sic)

    Yup and I stand by what I said”

    Great!!!!! Let us see the proof!!
    Then we can do away with this entire Christianity thing!!!!

    This will be so awesome when freddie-boy provides undeniable truth!!!!!!

    popcorn in heating up!!!! Chopper warming up.

  62. on 07 Feb 2014 at 12:37 pm 62.freddies_dead said …

    263.Vox said …

    ‘None of Matthew, Mark , Luke or John wrote the gospels that were attributed to them, but the reason to keep the Christian lies going – and add to them – is simply to gain and then keep control over others. (sic)

    Yup and I stand by what I said”

    Great!!!!! Let us see the proof!!
    Then we can do away with this entire Christianity thing!!!!

    This will be so awesome when freddie-boy provides undeniable truth!!!!!!

    popcorn in heating up!!!! Chopper warming up.

    Oh look, A’s been in his sock drawer again.

    Where’s the proof for your God, A?

  63. on 07 Feb 2014 at 12:44 pm 63.freddies_dead said …

    257.Vox (A pretending to be someone else) said …

    Vox Day notes concerning atheism and mass murder:

    Of course, what Vox Day (the actual Vox Day not A’s new sockpuppet Vox) fails to note is that, if his claim that God exists is true, then every single one of those deaths can be laid squarely at God’s door.

    After all it was God that created every one of those atheists and it was God who planned that they should kill all those people. Such a loving and merciful God you Christians have got there.

    And back to A’s new sockpuppet. Where’s the proof for your God, Vox?

  64. on 07 Feb 2014 at 3:50 pm 64.DPK said …

    263.Vox said …
    “Great!!!!! Let us see the proof!!
    Then we can do away with this entire Christianity thing!!!!

    This will be so awesome when freddie-boy provides undeniable truth!!!!!!

    popcorn in heating up!!!! Chopper warming up.”

    And ONCE AGAIN “A” forgets to change his screen name and is busted sock puppeting.

    Harharhar…. what a deceitful sack of shit. Does the holy book supposedly authored by his omnipotent god forbid bearing false witness?

  65. on 07 Feb 2014 at 3:57 pm 65.freddies_dead said …

    266.DPK said …

    Harharhar…. what a deceitful sack of shit. Does the holy book supposedly authored by his omnipotent god forbid bearing false witness?

    Such lies from a so called “man of truth”, you couldn’t make this shit up.

  66. on 07 Feb 2014 at 4:32 pm 66.alex said …

    “Such lies from a so called “man of truth”,”

    the allure of redemption. free pass to do anything! it’s fantastic, until you try it in court.

  67. on 07 Feb 2014 at 4:35 pm 67.DPK said …

    “Such lies from a so called “man of truth”, you couldn’t make this shit up”

    I’ve come to expect nothing less from him. He is a very sad excuse for a human.
    But Messy??? Someone should write a book with his stupidity.

    “The bible doesn’t say anything about talking donkeys.”

    “Messy, you haven’t actually read the bible, have you?”

    Messy scrambles to google “talking donkeys in the bible” and comes back with.

    “There was only ONE talking donkey… there weren’t any talking donkeys… I was right!”

    THAT shit you actually couldn’t make up… no one would ever believe it! LOL

  68. on 07 Feb 2014 at 4:42 pm 68.Angus and Alexis said …

    Talking about books.

    Wasn’t Alex making a compilation on A and Messenger’s posts?

  69. on 07 Feb 2014 at 5:20 pm 69.alex said …

    “Wasn’t Alex making a compilation on A and Messenger’s posts?”

    yeah, but i ran into memory/cpu problems when i tried to consolidate mess, hor, martin, etc.

    cheap ass hosting account.

  70. on 07 Feb 2014 at 7:03 pm 70.A said …

    “Vox (A pretending to be someone else”

    ROTFL!!!!!!! I gladly admit I posted Vox and used his name. Its called integrity. Lol!!!!!

    unlike Freddie busted as anonymous and continued to lie. Lol!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Then Brazzier!

    I posted it as Vox because Vox wrote it. That was for Alex not for you. He wanted some actual deaths caused by atheists. Lol!! Its a specialty!!!

    But Geez, what have I done. Gave unsteady Freddie a chance to run from his truth claim. Lets try again.

    staging by ut???

    Still running Freddie??? His claim:

    “None of Matthew, Mark , Luke or John wrote the gospels that were attributed to them, but the reason to keep the Christian lies going – and add to them – is simply to gain and then keep control over others. (sic)”

    Well Freddie lets see you defend it…… My truth claim…..he runs, changes subject. Watch it unfold!

    lol!!!!!!!

  71. on 07 Feb 2014 at 7:07 pm 71.A said …

    “After all it was God that created every one of those atheists and it was God who planned that they should kill all those people. Such a loving and merciful God you Christians have got there.”

    After unsteaday freddie defends his other truth claim I will then destroy this one. Don’t want to give him more reasons to run. :)

  72. on 07 Feb 2014 at 7:45 pm 72.DPK said …

    Ahh… so “A” is a Theodore Beale fan, so much so that he plagiarizes his writings and post under his pseudonym, and then claims that as integrity.
    So, the racist, homophobic, misogamist, bat shit crazy Vox Day is is hero…. Stan, that tells us so much.
    Here is another quote from “A”‘s hero:
    “[In]light of the strong correlation between female education and demographic decline, a purely empirical perspective on Malala Yousafzai, the poster girl for global female education, may indicate that the Taliban’s attempt to silence her was perfectly rational and scientifically justifiable.”

    Another gem from his hero:
    “I don’t believe I could recommend this as a strategy for most men, but it is surely educational to learn that raping and killing a woman is demonstrably more attractive to women than behaving like a gentleman. And women, before all the inevitable snowflaking commences, please note that there is absolutely nothing to argue about here. It is an established empirical fact.”

    Whatever tiny shred of legitimacy “A” may have sill had is gone. Go back to your van out behind the supermarket and preach your manifesto to the wine-os and derelicts… ROTFLOL!!!!

  73. on 07 Feb 2014 at 10:10 pm 73.the messenger said …

    260.freddies_dead, I have stated before that hell is not forever.

    I am trying to get you to believe in GOD because even though it is not nessesary, it is still a good thing to do.

  74. on 07 Feb 2014 at 10:31 pm 74.A said …

    “Ahh… so “A” is a Theodore Beale fan, so much so that he plagiarizes his writings and post under his pseudonym”

    ROTFL!!! WHOO!!!!, so the name “Vox” AND the part where I state “Vox Day notes” in the post didn’t meet proper footnoting for a……..blog! Maybe I should have quoted fellow atheist, Stalin!

    lol!!!!!!!

    A fan of Vox? No not really but he can back up his claims. And Dippy, it got you to do some research!!

    That reminds me…. Where is unsteady Freddie? Still hiding?

    yeah. ……..

  75. on 07 Feb 2014 at 10:39 pm 75.the messenger said …

    260.freddies_dead, my interpretation is not just somewhat catholic, it is mostly catholic, but it does not include the “no salvation outside the church” doctrine (because it is an over literal interpretation of matthew 16:13-20) or the “eternal hell” doctrine either (because it fails to understand that people can be saved from hell, which is proven in 1 John 1:9 because it reveals the way that we can escape hell).

  76. on 09 Feb 2014 at 10:50 pm 76.alex said …

    “260.freddies_dead, my interpretation is not just somewhat catholic”

    you dumbass. you didn’t interpret that. that was already part of god’s plan, ain’t it? fuck outta here.

  77. on 10 Feb 2014 at 2:50 am 77.alex said …

    oh, i forgot the other thing. it’s in god’s plan that the resident two (2) fuckheads will come back in here and say some stupids shits.

    it’s not a choice….. do it, motherfuckers.

  78. on 10 Feb 2014 at 4:41 pm 78.freddies_dead said …

    I see the lying fuckwit A is desperately trying to divert the conversation away from his own dishonesty. Too funny.

    Where’s the proof for your God, A?

  79. on 10 Feb 2014 at 4:43 pm 79.freddies_dead said …

    275.the messenger said …

    260.freddies_dead, I have stated before that hell is not forever.

    I know you’ve stated it but you’ve offered no proof that your interpretation is any more creditable that that of any other purveyor of theist bullshit.

    I am trying to get you to believe in GOD because even though it is not nessesary, it is still a good thing to do.

    If it’s not necessary, what in the hell makes it “good”?

  80. on 10 Feb 2014 at 4:46 pm 80.freddies_dead said …

    277.the messenger said …

    260.freddies_dead, my interpretation is not just somewhat catholic, it is mostly catholic, but it does not include the “no salvation outside the church” doctrine (because it is an over literal interpretation of matthew 16:13-20) or the “eternal hell” doctrine either (because it fails to understand that people can be saved from hell, which is proven in 1 John 1:9 because it reveals the way that we can escape hell).

    Where in 1 John 1 does it claim that you can confess your sins and repent whilst in Hell? Or are we supposed to simply imply that it’s the case because it doesn’t specifically rule it out?

  81. on 10 Feb 2014 at 6:33 pm 81.A said …

    I am indeed a prophet! Unsteady Freddie comes back, attempts to change the subject and refused to support his claim! Lol!!!

    Lets remind our readers of Freddie’s claim of which he provides no proof!

    “None of Matthew, Mark , Luke or John wrote the gospels that were attributed to them, but the reason to keep the Christian lies going – and add to them – is simply to gain and then keep control over others. (sic)”. Freddy

  82. on 10 Feb 2014 at 7:07 pm 82.alex said …

    “Lets remind our readers of Freddie’s claim of which he provides no proof!”

    ok, all atheists here are delusional/crazy. you happy? your turn. omnipotence while granting free will? like the irresistible force versus immovable rock, it’s bogus.

    some people claim that an omnipotence god cannot create something that will render him not. huh? all this double talk can be avoided by the simple fact that you can’t be both. round square, baby.

  83. on 11 Feb 2014 at 12:49 pm 83.freddies_dead said …

    283.A said …

    I am indeed a prophet! Unsteady Freddie comes back, attempts to change the subject and refused to support his claim! Lol!!!

    Lets remind our readers of Freddie’s claim of which he provides no proof!

    “None of Matthew, Mark , Luke or John wrote the gospels that were attributed to them, but the reason to keep the Christian lies going – and add to them – is simply to gain and then keep control over others. (sic)”. Freddy

    Lol. The lying cunt is back trying to divert the conversation away from his dishonesty.

    Not going to happen, A. I’m not interested in trying to carry on discussing things with inveterate liars such as yourself.

    Unless you’ve got proof of your God’s existence you’ll get nothing but deserved scorn from me.

  84. on 11 Feb 2014 at 9:09 pm 84.A said …

    Now unsteady Freddie comes back with personal insults. Truly sad but totally expected. Way back on this thread Freddie made a claim he stands behind yet will provide no supporting evidence for his truth claim:

    ““None of Matthew, Mark , Luke or John wrote the gospels that were attributed to them, but the reason to keep the Christian lies going – and add to them – is simply to gain and then keep control over others. (sic)”. Freddy

    He claims I am the liar but has no proof of that either. There it is for all to see. I can only surmise Freddie has no character or integrity.

    sigh…….

  85. on 12 Feb 2014 at 11:55 am 85.alex said …

    “I can only surmise Freddie has no character or integrity.”

    kazaaam! in your wildest dream, all the godless atheists and their mindless, unproved arguments are wiped out after a long and unbearable thousand years of torture.

    and still no god proof? who you gonna argue with? messenger and his yahweh = allah? and the moronic mooslims/hyundus?

  86. on 12 Feb 2014 at 12:32 pm 86.freddies_dead said …

    286.A said …

    Now unsteady Freddie comes back with personal insults. Truly sad but totally expected. Way back on this thread Freddie made a claim he stands behind yet will provide no supporting evidence for his truth claim:

    ““None of Matthew, Mark , Luke or John wrote the gospels that were attributed to them, but the reason to keep the Christian lies going – and add to them – is simply to gain and then keep control over others. (sic)”. Freddy

    He claims I am the liar but has no proof of that either. There it is for all to see. I can only surmise Freddie has no character or integrity.

    sigh…….

    Still not going to happen, A.

    You’ve proved yourself to be a liar.

    You lie about the evidence.

    You lie about other people.

    You even lie about your own identity.

    You’re a liar, A, plain and simple.

    Unless you’re presenting the evidence for your God’s existence all I’ll be doing is pointing out your dishonesty.

  87. on 12 Feb 2014 at 6:26 pm 87.A said …

    Awwwww, another epic failure by Freddie. Lets recap his lies again for our readers.

    “None of Matthew, Mark , Luke or John wrote the gospels that were attributed to them, but the reason to keep the Christian lies going – and add to them – is simply to gain and then keep control over others. (sic)”. Freddy

    Second claim with mo evidence:

    “You’re a liar, A, plain and simple.”

    Third claim:

    “I’ll be doing is pointing out your dishonesty.”

    Well he hasn’t pointed out dishonesty. But atheist do discuss others more than issues.

    Fourth and final:

    “You even lie about your own identity.”

    Hmmmmm, never revealed my identity. My name is not A. Lol!!!!!! So……maybe he has a point! I hope dead Freddie is not his real identity! Lol!!!

  88. on 12 Feb 2014 at 7:29 pm 88.DPK said …

    “Hmmmmm, never revealed my identity. My name is not A. Lol!!!!!! So……maybe he has a point! I hope dead Freddie is not his real identity! Lol!!!”

    Well of course you have, remember when you got busted cross posting as Stan, the 40yr idiot? LOL indeed. And dishonesty??? from someone who has been busted pretending to be other people more times then any of us can even count?? That’s rich… you are the very definition of intellectual dishonesty.. the one who always carefully avoids answering any direct questions lest his delusion be shattered. The one person you are MOST dishonest with here is yourself. You are a pathetic excuse for a human. Too cowardly to debate with honesty or integrity, so deceitful as to invent other persona to try to bolster support for your own idiocy, to despicable to even define your god, his properties, or even answer the simplistic of questions about your “faith”. Not much of a faith that you are so ashamed of it you refuse to even discuss it with integrity.
    You, Mr. “A” are a complete and total fraud.. and EVERYONE here (who is not you..LOL) knows it full well. You aren’t fooling anyone but your own pathetic self. ROTFLOL………….

  89. on 12 Feb 2014 at 8:03 pm 89.A said …

    “The one person you are MOST dishonest with here is yourself.”

    ROTFL!!!! Self time to be honest with self.

    “You, Mr. “A” are a complete and total fraud.”

    LOL!!!!! You right, I am not really A, I am Megatron. I have bee a fraud attempting to pass myself off as A but inside I knew I was just Megatron. I can see it now! I even pretended to be everyone on the blog! My apologies to the real A and all.

    Dippy you make me laugh so. The blog is where your feel real life happens, huh:)

    Since it is so serious to you Dippity Doo, start by answering the many questions I have posed to you time and time again!

    Prediction: Dippy will not follow through, again. Do I think him a fraud, dishonest, lacking character as he paints me? Nah, just way over his head with the serious questions of life!

  90. on 13 Feb 2014 at 12:12 am 90.DPK said …

    More lies? I challenge you to produce even one legimate question you have asked of me that I have not answered.
    You on hue other hand, have steadfastly refused to answer any specific questions about your god, his properties, or your faith…
    Remember the best I ever got out of you was a definition of your god as being a ” somewhat clever, kind of powerful being? Answers always either avoided or very carefully crafted to provide plenty of squirm room.
    Such a bold liar you are. I predict your god, should he be real, would be most displeased. What does the bible say awaits liars?
    Lol, very loud indeed!

  91. on 13 Feb 2014 at 1:03 am 91.A said …

    And once again Dippity Dew glosses over every challenged made to him again!

    No evidence
    No facts?
    Lame claims!

    Now he wants me to go back over all the questions which have gone unanswered! Lol!!!!!

    Dippys claims dismissed.

  92. on 13 Feb 2014 at 1:27 am 92.the messenger said …

    282.freddies_dead, yes, because it does not rule it out, and also because 1 Timothy 1:12-16 reveals that Jesus(aka, GOD) came to save sinners from sin, and is therefore a GOD of forgiveness.

    Jeremiah 31:33-34 explains the current and future effects of the new covenant, in which it states that GOD will I “….forgive their sins and I will no longer remember their wrongs”.

  93. on 13 Feb 2014 at 3:35 am 93.DPK said …

    “Now he wants me to go back over all the questions which have gone unanswered! Lol!!!!!”

    No, I challenged you to name even one.
    But you won’t because you can’t. A liar of epic proportions.
    No one expects any less of you… all mouth, no balls.
    LOL

  94. on 13 Feb 2014 at 10:31 am 94.freddies_dead said …

    289.A said …

    A load of shite I can’t be bothered to repost.

    Still not going to happen, A.

    You’ve proved yourself to be a liar.

    You lie about the evidence.

    You lie about other people.

    You even lie about your own identity.

    You’re a liar, A, plain and simple.

    Unless you’re presenting the evidence for your God’s existence all I’ll be doing is pointing out your dishonesty.

  95. on 13 Feb 2014 at 10:46 am 95.freddies_dead said …

    294.the messenger said …

    282.freddies_dead, yes, because it does not rule it out,

    So, despite the fact that it doesn’t happen anywhere in the Bible, because it’s not specifically ruled out it’s possible? That’s your argument? Well OK then. Using your logic. Just because my becoming God doesn’t happen in the Bible, the fact that it’s not specifically ruled out means I could become God. W00t! What fun.

    and also because 1 Timothy 1:12-16 reveals that Jesus(aka, GOD) came to save sinners from sin, and is therefore a GOD of forgiveness.

    Did Jesus forgive anyone while He spent that long weekend in Hell? I’m pretty sure the Bible doesn’t mention anyone. Let’s face it, the whole idea that we get from the Bible is that, you must repent and trust in Jesus before you die and face judgement. There’s nothing to suggest you’ll get a second chance to repent while you’re being tortured for all eternity.

    Jeremiah 31:33-34 explains the current and future effects of the new covenant, in which it states that GOD will I “….forgive their sins and I will no longer remember their wrongs”.

    Apart from the ridiculous concept of an omniscient deity forgetting something, those passages say nothing about forgiving sin after death.

    It’s bad enough Christians figure they can get away with anything as long as they repent and trust in Jesus before they die, just think how bad they’d be if they felt they had the option to leave that whole repentance thing until after they were dead.

  96. on 13 Feb 2014 at 2:57 pm 96.A said …

    “Unless you’re presenting the evidence for your God’s existence all I’ll be doing is pointing out your dishonesty”

    well would you do it already? Lol!! You will nit because you lie.

    so moving on. Can you support this claim with some evidence? Use the scientific method if you like :)

    “None of Matthew, Mark , Luke or John wrote the gospels that were attributed to them, but the reason to keep the Christian lies going – and add to them – is simply to gain and then keep control over others. (sic)”. Freddy

    Wonderful claim……can he support it?…..

  97. on 13 Feb 2014 at 4:38 pm 97.freddies_dead said …

    298.A said …

    A load of shite I can’t be bothered to repost.

    Still not going to happen, A.

    You’ve proved yourself to be a liar.

    You lie about the evidence.

    You lie about other people.

    You even lie about your own identity.

    You’re a liar, A, plain and simple.

    Unless you’re presenting the evidence for your God’s existence all I’ll be doing is pointing out your dishonesty.

  98. on 13 Feb 2014 at 8:12 pm 98.A said …

    None of Matthew, Mark , Luke or John wrote the gospels that were attributed to them, but the reason to keep the Christian lies going – and add to them – is simply to gain and then keep control over others. (sic)”. Freddy

    Wonderful claim……can he support it?…..

    The answer is a resounding no. Freddie tells another lie. Sorry Freddie, not my intention to embarrass you but liars must be exposed. You’ll learn from this.

    ????

  99. on 14 Feb 2014 at 4:39 am 99.DPK said …

    Not sure why you are so obsessed with this… 4 accounts that don’t even agree with each other written at least decades and probably a century after the supposed events, with no other historical support, bastardized over the centuries… Who do you think wrote them, and why were only these gospels included in the Christian bible, despite many others?

    So, you got nothing for my challenge to produce even one legimate question that I have failed to answer? So you’re just mouth, huh? Lol

    Shall we start again with the scores of questions you have failed to answer here?
    Na, nobody cares. We got your number, fraud.

  100. on 14 Feb 2014 at 1:56 pm 100.A said …

    “Who do you think wrote them, and why were only these gospels included in the Christian bible, despite many others?”

    If not the referenced writers then who? Why did they pretend to be an eyewitness for a belief system that would get your murdered? So you are claiming the apostles Luke, Matt and Mark died as martyrs death to propagate a lie? How did they benefit? Many more more martyrs even a century later. So prove the Gospels were written as a big hoax to control the masses.

    I don’t need to challenge when you have not asserted anything with evidence.

    Now try again.

  101. on 14 Feb 2014 at 7:01 pm 101.DPK said …

    “I don’t need to challenge when you have not asserted anything with evidence.”

    Ahhh… true. Equally true from my perspective. What evidence do you have that these carefully selected gospels were written by people who were actually eye witnesses to the supposed events?

    Now try again…. or don’t… I don’t care. The authorship of a several accounts of an ancient legend which do not even agree with one another about actual content is evidence enough for me that they are just stories. Next.

    But let’s revisit a rather crucial question concerning the actual existence of your god that you have steadfastly refused to answer, despite being asked directly at least 30 times.
    Your god is supposedly omniscient, and knows all. If tomorrow I have the ability to choose between 2, or even more options, and god already knows which one I will choose, is there in fact any conceivable scenario in which I could actually choose an option different from what god already knows will occur?

    Running again?? LOL

  102. on 14 Feb 2014 at 7:39 pm 102.A said …

    “What evidence do you have that these carefully selected gospels were written by people who were actually eye witnesses to the supposed events?”

    I didn’t make the claim……freddie did claim they were not the authors AND it was used by the early church to perpetuate a hoax and to keep Christianity. going.

    I thought you were going to come to his rescue and provide evidence. Guess not, huh?

    So many posts ago and still no supporting evidence.

    :)

  103. on 14 Feb 2014 at 9:06 pm 103.DPK said …

    Ok, so you make no claim about the authorship of the gospels that supposedly dictate your faith? Ok, fine… then why do you care what anyone’s opinion on the matter is if you have no counter claim? LOL.

    What a fucking coward. I have offered evidence… the gospels that the christian religion claims are eyewitness accounts of supposed events in the life of one Jesus do not agree with one another on many specific points. They cannot all be right, but they can all be wrong. If you have no counter claim, then my point stands.

    Now, why won’t you answer my direct question? Again?
    Seriously, why does this question terrify you so much?
    Have you found any questions yet that I have not answered? I guess that defines you as a liar and a fraud. hahahah. You are always good for a hearty laugh. It’s seriously a toss up between you and messenger as to which one of you has done to most to bolster atheism. Good work.

  104. on 14 Feb 2014 at 11:51 pm 104.alex said …

    “freddie did claim they were not the authors AND it was used by the early church to perpetuate a hoax..”

    so your gospel truth claim is supported by your counterclaim that some atheists are full of shit?

    why not defend the rest of the pile of shit? i claim that the donkey couldn’t speak because the ass’ language is composed entirely of heehaws. i can’t prove it, makes me full of shit therefore the donkey talk is the truth? huh?

    oh, i forget. some of the biblical shit is not to be taken literally and motherfuckers like you and messenger gets to decide which…..

  105. on 15 Feb 2014 at 2:29 am 105.DPK said …

    And lest we forget… “A”, who is the most vocal in demanding answers from everyone has once again run away from even the simplest of questions about his magical god.

    “But let’s revisit a rather crucial question concerning the actual existence of your god that you have steadfastly refused to answer, despite being asked directly at least 30 times.
    Your god is supposedly omniscient, and knows all. If tomorrow I have the ability to choose between 2, or even more options, and god already knows which one I will choose, is there in fact any conceivable scenario in which I could actually choose an option different from what god already knows will occur?
    Running again?? LOL”

    Clearly he won’t answer because he is a complete and total fraud. LOL.
    Let’s all share a hearty laugh at his embarrassment.

  106. on 15 Feb 2014 at 2:50 pm 106.A said …

    ” fine… then why do you care what anyone’s opinion on the matter is if you have no counter claim?”

    He didn’t give opinion he made a claim. Opinions start with “in my opinion”. See how that works? Lol!!

    You really are confused. So you agree with me….Freddie is a liar and his claim is no more than opinion?

    “Have you found any questions yet that I have not answered?”

    You have answered none. That was easy. Go back and pick a couple and answer them..Geez….about time.

    lol!!!!!

  107. on 15 Feb 2014 at 4:38 pm 107.DPK said …

    What a bullshit artist… you must be some kind of minister because lying just comes naturally to you.

    Here’s a clue for you… any claim about the authorship of the gospels is an opinion because no one alive “knows” who wrote them. Freddie’s opinion is in line with the majority of biblical scholars who actually study such things. If you are privy to knowledge that the rest of the world does not know… prove it. Otherwise, his claim is every bit as valid as yours… in fact more so, because the conflicting accounts of supposed eyewitness testimony and the fact that they contain factual errors and contradict one another suggests strongly that they cannot be actual eyewitness accounts written contemporaneously.
    But since you are not making any claim about it, you have no horse in this race, and your grumblings are just a fart in the wind. Dismissed for lack of anything of substance.

    “Have you found any questions yet that I have not answered?”
    “You have answered none. That was easy. Go back and pick a couple and answer them..Geez….about time.”

    So that would be a “No”, huh? LOL LOL LOL. Can’t find even one? How embarassing for you… making claims you cannot back up.

    But let’s not forget your own hypocrisy….

    “let’s revisit a rather crucial question concerning the actual existence of your god that you have steadfastly refused to answer, despite being asked directly at least 30 times.
    Your god is supposedly omniscient, and knows all. If tomorrow I have the ability to choose between 2, or even more options, and god already knows which one I will choose, is there in fact any conceivable scenario in which I could actually choose an option different from what god already knows will occur?
    Running again?? LOL”

    Why won’t you answer this simple question? There are only two choices, “yes” or “no”. Pick one.

  108. on 15 Feb 2014 at 6:01 pm 108.A said …

    “Freddie’s opinion is in line with the majority of biblical scholars who actually study such things”

    um, actually……..No! and if you read a Bible….. ever you would find authorship is still attributed to the Gospel writers. Lol! But MORE importantly, Then how many then claim that authorship was used to continue the hoax of Christianity?

    whadda ya think spunky?

    “you have no horse in this race, and your grumblings are just a fart in the wind”

    oh but I do. Exposing liars who claim Christianity was kept going by lying about Gospel authorship… :)

    You like to skip that lie. So we agree? Freddie is a liar?

  109. on 15 Feb 2014 at 6:54 pm 109.DPK said …

    No, but you most certainly are:

    “and if you read a Bible….. ever you would find authorship is still attributed to the Gospel writers.”

    hahahaha… yes, and the Keebler Elves make the cookies according to the Keebler Elves! What a ridiculous claim. Is that all you have? Dismissed. Your ability to chase your own tail endlessly is mind boggling.
    So, can you prove your claim that the gospels where written by eyewitnesses? If so, why doesn’t the gospel according to Mark even mention something as important as the resurrection? You’d think that would be kind of an important part… how come it is only mentioned in later versions?

    “you have no horse in this race, and your grumblings are just a fart in the wind”

    “oh but I do…..” No, unless you are prepared to make a counter claim and provide evidence for it beyond “the bible says so” you have absolutely zero.
    Now hypocrite:
    “let’s revisit a rather crucial question concerning the actual existence of your god that you have steadfastly refused to answer, despite being asked directly at least 30 times.
    Your god is supposedly omniscient, and knows all. If tomorrow I have the ability to choose between 2, or even more options, and god already knows which one I will choose, is there in fact any conceivable scenario in which I could actually choose an option different from what god already knows will occur?
    Running again?? LOL”

    Why won’t you answer this simple question? There are only two choices, “yes” or “no”. Pick one.

  110. on 15 Feb 2014 at 10:00 pm 110.alex said …

    “You like to skip that lie. So we agree? Freddie is a liar?”

    dude, toldya already. every atheist is a liar, delusional, ugly, smelly, stinky, etc. anything else?

    did it change the bullshit omnipotent/giving free will god? bullshit donkey talking? bullshit jesus existing? bullshit rapist marrying the victim? should i go on?

  111. on 15 Feb 2014 at 11:52 pm 111.A said …

    “dude, toldya already. every atheist is a liar”

    Not true my dear Alexander. Freddie and Dippy dew are liars but you I admire. You are accomplished, well spoken and not afraid to speak your mind. Not to mention your tolerance and obvious love for all mankind. You are a role model every parent would like to hold up to their children.

    Now if we can just get Dippity dew to acknowledge that Freddie boy I’d a liar. You know but don’t believe Dip can bring himself to recognize the obvious. Lol, he tries so hard to change the subject…..hee hee

  112. on 16 Feb 2014 at 1:10 am 112.the messenger said …

    297.freddies_dead, that is ruled out, because the bible states that there is only one GOD and he is the GOD of Israel/aka jews and Christians.

  113. on 16 Feb 2014 at 1:27 am 113.the messenger said …

    297.freddies_dead, you forget, GOD is all powerful, and therefore can do anything. A person can forget something, though the information is still in the brain, though it can’t be easily accessed.

    True, that verse does not specifically say “forgiveness of sins after death”, it says “forgive their sins”, which is an umbrella statement that includes all sins.

    I hope that I am enlightening you, brother.

  114. on 16 Feb 2014 at 1:30 am 114.alex said …

    “because the bible states that there is only one GOD and he is the GOD of Israel/aka jews and Christians.”

    you’re a fucking moron. if there’s only one god, why “thou shalt have no other gods…”? even worse, your moronic god had already planned for the other morons to worship the other gods and in his forgetful piousness, your god acts all vengeful and shit. your god should send hisself to hell, but maybe he did and just switched shit around, eh?

    how’s that rape shit going? tried it yet? shared it with other people instead anonymously/privately spewing your garbage on the internet?

    yeah, motherfucker. i’m anonymous too, but what is the shit i’m spewing?

  115. on 16 Feb 2014 at 1:37 am 115.alex said …

    “you forget, GOD is all powerful, and therefore can do anything. ”

    you dumbass. your powerful god knows everything that is to be because he can do anything. you’re a dumbass because it’s god’s plan and you’ll never be anything but a dumbass. but, you’re getting close of being a super dumbass which is prolly god’s plan.

    free will is bullshit. prayer’s success is inline with random chance and even you morons admit that an unanswered prayers is the result of god’s will.

    give it up. why don’t start your own religion? call it the “church of dumbass, chief dumbass messenger presiding”. the cool aid is this way.

    fucking dumbass.

  116. on 16 Feb 2014 at 5:11 am 116.DPK said …

    ” the bible states that there is only one GOD and he is the GOD of Israel/aka jews and Christians.”
    Isn’t Jesus supposed to be god too, and the Holy Spirit also? That’s three gods, and Jews do not accept Jesus as god, so how can he be the god of the Jews? You’re funny.

    “you forget, GOD is all powerful, and therefore can do anything. ”

    Can god make another god more powerful than himself?
    Can god do something, and then regret that he did it?
    Can god make a mistake?

    While you’re answering ridiculous questions, maybe you could answer one that “A” refuses to answer and clear the subject up, seeing as how you are god’s messenger and all. Your god is supposedly omniscient, and knows everything. If tomorrow I have the ability to choose between 2 or more options, and god already knows which one I will choose, is there in fact any conceivable scenario in which I could actually choose an option different from what god already knows will occur?
    Appreciate you clearing that up for us. Apparently the answer so terrifies A that he will not even speak of it. Whatever the answer is, it must be very bad.

  117. on 16 Feb 2014 at 6:30 pm 117.A said …

    I love that Alex dude. The words are just like honey off the screen. Now Alex is guy you what to hold up as an example for those taking classical speaking….:)

  118. on 16 Feb 2014 at 9:32 pm 118.DPK said …

    At least he speaks his mind and doesn’t tap dance around like a slimely little weasel.
    Yes, I’m talking about you.
    Btw, you never answered me. I guess you must have missed it, because you jump all over everyone else here if they don’t answer you…. But here is just one of the dozens of direct questions I have asked you many many times that you have neglected to answer. I’m sure it’s just an oversight though, because a good Christian like you would never intentionally be so blatantly hypocritical:
    Your god is supposedly omniscient, and knows everything. If tomorrow I have the ability to choose between 2 or more options, and god already knows which one I will choose, is there in fact any conceivable scenario in which I could actually choose an option different from what god already knows will occur?

  119. on 17 Feb 2014 at 1:19 am 119.A said …

    Dippity you are back.

    Lets focus and see if we can get this questioned answered. Freddie ran like a coward

    “None of Matthew, Mark , Luke or John wrote the gospels that were attributed to them, but the reason to keep the Christian lies going – and add to them – is simply to gain and then keep control over others. (sic)”

    Did Freddie lie? Is there proof this was done to “keep control over others”.

    Try to focus and answer honestly. Throw in some colorful f-bombs if you find your vocabulary lacking. Set a record, answer your first question :)

  120. on 17 Feb 2014 at 2:39 am 120.DPK said …

    Asked and answered. You have a reading compression problem. See post 309.
    Btw, you never answered me. I guess you must have missed it, because you jump all over everyone else here if they don’t answer you…. But here is just one of the dozens of direct questions I have asked you many many times that you have neglected to answer. I’m sure it’s just an oversight though, because a good Christian like you would never intentionally be so blatantly hypocritical:
    Your god is supposedly omniscient, and knows everything. If tomorrow I have the ability to choose between 2 or more options, and god already knows which one I will choose, is there in fact any conceivable scenario in which I could actually choose an option different from what god already knows will occur?

  121. on 17 Feb 2014 at 5:23 am 121.alex said …

    “Now Alex is guy you what to hold up as an example for those taking classical speaking..”

    nice one, motherfucker. try posting to a non-U.S. site and see how you do? you too stoopid to even realize that my style is purposely stark and in your face. englash is not my first language, ya dipshit.

    you have nothing on me so you resort to the time tested theist diversionary tact. failed again, moron.

    you want me to call freddie a liar? ok, freddie is a liar. anything else you want me to call him? guess what, motherfucker? your god is still shit.

    your pompous, righteous references to fbombs don’t mean shit. especially when you champion a ridiculous book filled with foreskin obsessions, talking animals, and a psychotic made believe god.

    switch tabs, motherfucker. your porn has finished loading.

    classically speaking, what the fuck is “”Now Alex is guy you what to hold up…”? your sinuses acting up?

  122. on 17 Feb 2014 at 12:27 pm 122.A said …

    Dippity dew!

    Oh my! You never defend Freddie boys position. You only make a claim and that I don’t have a position. Answering the question would comprise of:

    1. Defending the claim the authors of the Gospels did not write them AND the church used this false information to keep Chriranity going.

    2. Or agree Freddie is a liar.

    BTW. Mark does give an account of the resurrection.

    Anywho, for someone who demands answers to a questions you sure Bo not follow through.

    Alex!

    Love ya babe. You silver tongue devil you! Lol! What finishing school was that?

  123. on 17 Feb 2014 at 2:39 pm 123.DPK said …

    “BTW. Mark does give an account of the resurrection.”

    Not the original versions, it doesn’t. It also doesn’t mention the virgin birth, another key element of getting people to believe that Jesus was the prophecized Messiah. It was added much later, and certainly not by Mark, which would certainly support Freddie’s claim. To what motive, one can only speculate, but if I were trying to convince people of the reality of a religion based on the idea that a particular person was a god who rose from the dead, and the earliest eyewitness account of the event failed to even mention such a crucial element, I suppose it would behoove me to add some creative writing.
    So, Freddie’s position is supported, and you make no claims. Done beating this horse yet?

    Now, it appears that my assumption that your refusal to answer my question was an oversight was misguided. You in fact seem to be hypocritically and purposely dodging the question, which leads me to assume that you don’t like the answer and are embarrassed to give it. But, generous soul that I am, I will give you one more chance to grow some balls.
    Your god is supposedly omniscient, and knows everything. If tomorrow I have the ability to choose between 2 or more options, and god already knows which one I will choose, is there in fact any conceivable scenario in which I could actually choose an option different from what god already knows will occur?

  124. on 17 Feb 2014 at 3:33 pm 124.freddies_dead said …

    In a bunch of posts. A said …

    Some more shite I can’t be bothered to repost.

    Still not going to happen, A.

    You’ve proved yourself to be a liar.

    You lie about the evidence.

    You lie about other people.

    You even lie about your own identity.

    You’re a liar, A, plain and simple.

    Unless you’re presenting the evidence for your God’s existence all I’ll be doing is pointing out your dishonesty.

  125. on 17 Feb 2014 at 3:47 pm 125.freddies_dead said …

    314.the messenger said …

    297.freddies_dead, that is ruled out, because the bible states that there is only one GOD and he is the GOD of Israel/aka jews and Christians.

    How does that claim stop me becoming the one and only God? After all your God can do anything, right? By refusing to take the Bible at it’s word you’ve effectively made it meaningless. You can read into it whatever you want. Convenient but ultimately self-defeating.

  126. on 17 Feb 2014 at 3:48 pm 126.freddies_dead said …

    315.the messenger said …

    297.freddies_dead, you forget, GOD is all powerful, and therefore can do anything.

    Including making Himself non-omniscient apparently .. which contradicts the Bible’s claim about Him being omniscient. Well done.

    A person can forget something, though the information is still in the brain, though it can’t be easily accessed.

    A person can, yes. We’re not talking about people here though, we’re talking about God.

    True, that verse does not specifically say “forgiveness of sins after death”, it says “forgive their sins”, which is an umbrella statement that includes all sins.

    Then why does the Bible make such a huge point of repenting before you die? If it’s possible to repent post demise why wouldn’t you want people to know the good news?

    I hope that I am enlightening you, brother.

    Not so far. You might want to enlighten yourself before you attempt to enlighten others. Checking up on concepts such as omniscience and omnipotence might be a start.

  127. on 17 Feb 2014 at 6:16 pm 127.A said …

    “To what motive, one can only speculate, but if I were trying to convince people of the reality”

    So Freddie now just speculates? No no my dear boy. Freddie made a claim..so is he a liar or can you provide proof of this purposeful deception? We need to know so we can tell all the truth

    Stay focused rather than than attempting to change the subject.:)

  128. on 17 Feb 2014 at 7:12 pm 128.alex said …

    “1. Defending the claim the authors of the Gospels did not write them AND the church used this false information to keep Chriranity going.”

    diversion(s) is all you got?

    time and again, you’ve failed to prove the xtian monopoly on morals, creationism, the fucked up contradiction of an all knowing god with the miraginary free will and the clueless selfish motherfucking morons that thank god or rationalize that things didn’t go their way because of god’s plan.

    eternal bliss/hell is the last call for you morons, aint it? oh, and the redemption card, handy shit, for those who hatred against gays, women, and other religions.

    you fuckers pick and choose from the bible, but it never occurred to you morons that you can still have your heaven if you would just leave other motherfuckers alone. let the gays be and treat the women good. most of the shit in the book, you morons already rationalized away, anyways, so just say most of the shit is not literal, like genesis.

    now, go fuck yourself.

  129. on 17 Feb 2014 at 7:46 pm 129.DPK said …

    “So Freddie now just speculates? No no my dear boy. Freddie made a claim..so is he a liar or can you provide proof of this purposeful deception? We need to know so we can tell all the truth…”

    You have made a claim that there in an all powerful god, both omniscient and omnipotent, who created the universe and everything in it and you have never backed up that claim with even the suggestion of any evidence. Freddie has based his claim on historical evidence that would suggest that his claim is likely true. You have based your claim on, what exactly? That would seem, by your definition, to make you much more of a liar than Freddie.

    You wouldn’t acknowledge the truth if it slapped you in the face, because you are nothing but a lying, deceitful bastard. ANY claim made about ANYTHING that happened in the past cannot be “proven”… can you prove that Jesus existed? Of course not… all you can do is provide sufficient evidence to support the claim reasonably.
    It is not surprising that you do not grasp this simple concept, since you have in the past shown a complete and utter ignorance of the scientific method and the nature of evidence, despite your claim to be a “science guy”… LOL.

    The earliest gospels, written about 60AD, about 30 YEARS after the supposed death of Jesus, did not mention Jesus’ resurrection, or his virgin birth. These accounts were added much later some 40 to 60 YEARS later. So, someone “changed” the earliest written accounts for some reason. What reason do YOU propose for whoever did this, who by virtue of the limits of human life span, could not have POSSIBLY been eyewitnesses to the events described, had for doing this, and, can you prove it?

    Now, back to your god. Because unless you can demonstrate that this god of yours actually exists and has all the properties you ascribe to him, the motivation of some ancient sheep herder who was trying to also convince his fellow humans that HIS imaginary god was real is moot. So answer the question that so terrifies you and let’s examine the reality of your god.

    Your god is supposedly omniscient, and knows everything. If tomorrow I have the ability to choose between 2 or more options, and god already knows which one I will choose, is there in fact any conceivable scenario in which I could actually choose an option different from what god already knows will occur?

    Really don’t understand why this question is so very terrifying to you. I can either ONLY do what your god knows I will do, and have no choice in the matter, or I CAN choose a different path than the one that god knows will occur. It’s pretty simple. There are no other possibilities. I am either free to negate god’s perfect knowledge, or that is not possible… which is it, ASS?
    Why won’t you answer? It’s a question way more profound and important that the motivation of some 2nd century forger trying to convince people his god is real.
    What’s the problem?

  130. on 17 Feb 2014 at 9:16 pm 130.A said …

    “Freddie has based his claim on historical evidence that would suggest that his claim is likely true”

    Historical evidence? Lol!!! Let see that evidence that proves the gospels were not written by the stated authors AND it was used to keep Christianity going.

    This should be good. I like truth and sounds like we have some nee truth here. If these guys have been duping the world we need to know. You know we need facts right? Not atheist blog “facts” or ad home in……lol!!!!!!!!!!

  131. on 17 Feb 2014 at 10:07 pm 131.DPK said …

    So you are going to dodge the question yet again?

    I can only assume you have no answer that will not show the complete insanity of claiming there exists a god who is omniscient and omnipotent. Could this be?
    Is that why you refuse to answer, “A”?

    Let’s see if your god can actual exist with the properties ascribed to him, then we can look into the actual historical facts surrounding the myths about him. Because if you cannot even demonstrate that he in fact exists, what’s the point?

    Come on… give it a try. All you have to do is type “Yes, you can certainly choose an action that is different from god’s perfect knowledge because you have free will.” or, “No, god’s knowledge is perfect, and there is no way that you could choose an action different from what god knows you will choose.”
    One of these has to be correct if your god exists. Pick one.

  132. on 17 Feb 2014 at 11:37 pm 132.A said …

    “Is that why you refuse to answer, “A”?”

    I only give what is given.
    But lets stay on track, shall we since my question was first.

    Lets assume for a moment a hoax as unsteady Freddie implies happened with authorship of the Gospels. Why would they use Luke, not a disciple, a companion of Paul’s as an author. More so why Mark, a small player, not a disciple, is the scheme of the NT? Hmmm?

    To make the hoax effective why not claim Jesus penned one or more of the books and Peter one of the Gospels?

    Funny……..I am sure unsteady believed all 4 were disciples.

    So whadda ya say there Dippity Dew? Freddie is a liar or can you substantiate his claims?

    Your question is quite simple but we must…..must stay on track.

  133. on 17 Feb 2014 at 11:53 pm 133.DPK said …

    But lets stay on track, shall we since my question was first.

    Actually my question was first… Back around post 83 or thereabouts, so if that’s your critera… I’m waiting.

    “To make the hoax effective why not claim Jesus penned one or more of the books and Peter one of the Gospels?”
    No idea, do you have a theory? Lol.

  134. on 18 Feb 2014 at 12:28 am 134.A said …

    “No idea, do you have a theory? Lol.”

    So you still side with Freddie? This huge conspiracy to keep Christianity going? Lol! Well you do believe primordial soup wrote DNA code. Lol !!!!

    Evidence please!

  135. on 18 Feb 2014 at 3:22 am 135.DPK said …

    So you are going to dodge the question yet again?
    I can only assume you have no answer that will not show the complete insanity of claiming there exists a god who is omniscient and omnipotent. Could this be?
    Is that why you refuse to answer, “A”?
    Let’s see if your god can actual exist with the properties ascribed to him, then we can look into the actual historical facts surrounding the myths about him. Because if you cannot even demonstrate that he in fact exists, what’s the point?
    Come on… give it a try. All you have to do is type “Yes, you can certainly choose an action that is different from god’s perfect knowledge because you have free will.” or, “No, god’s knowledge is perfect, and there is no way that you could choose an action different from what god knows you will choose.”
    One of these has to be correct if your god exists. Pick one.

  136. on 18 Feb 2014 at 3:43 am 136.A said …

    Oh Dippity Dew……you are such a shallow thinker and so silly.

    So you gave up? Can’t prove the Gospels were used as a hoax to keep Christianity going? And you want me to jump to other issues with such blatant liars? You must prove yourself Dippity and you are batting well below the Mendoza line…:)

  137. on 18 Feb 2014 at 4:42 am 137.DPK said …

    So, you seem to be saying that you’ve got nothing to offer? No evidence for your god, no explanation about how you can reconcile his supposed foreknowledge of events with the idea of free will, nothing?
    I guess there is really no point in discussing the history of a religion based upon a being that you can’t even demonstrate could possibly exist.
    Let us know if you’ve got anything, or decided to actually answer questions honestly. Yeah, like that will ever happen!
    Great job, btw. Lol. Very well done, in fact.

  138. on 18 Feb 2014 at 11:53 am 138.A said …

    “discussing the history of a religion based upon a being that you can’t even demonstrate could possibly exist.”

    lol!!! Yep that’s is just another elaborate hoax too! Lol!!!

    Oh Dippity Dew, first with Gospel being used to keep Christianity going now with the God hoax. Well if you decide Freddie is not a liar, and you have evidence of the hoax let me know slick.

    chow

  139. on 18 Feb 2014 at 12:14 pm 139.alex said …

    “lol!!! Yep that’s is just another elaborate hoax too! Lol!!!”

    which one? xtianity, muslimity, hinduminity, taominity? all of them can’t be right, but all of them can be wrong. which one, you moron motherfucker?

  140. on 18 Feb 2014 at 1:18 pm 140.freddies_dead said …

    326.freddies_dead said …

    In a bunch more posts. A the lying prick said …

    Some more shite I can’t be bothered to repost.

    Still not going to happen, A.

    You’ve proved yourself to be a liar.

    You lie about the evidence.

    You lie about other people.

    You even lie about your own identity.

    You’re a liar, A, plain and simple.

    Unless you’re presenting the evidence for your God’s existence all I’ll be doing is pointing out your dishonesty.

  141. on 18 Feb 2014 at 6:37 pm 141.DPK said …

    340.A said …

    “discussing the history of a religion based upon a being that you can’t even demonstrate could possibly exist.”

    lol!!! Yep that’s is just another elaborate hoax too! Lol!!!

    Glad to see you admit it. I notice you offer absolutely nothing in response… not even an answer to a simple yes or no question that might explain the paradox of your god being omniscient with the idea of free will. Since you can’t reconcile the idea, I’d say yes, that certainly supports the idea of your god story being a hoax. Wanna debunk it? Simple enough… answer the question:
    Your god is supposedly omniscient, and knows everything. If tomorrow I have the ability to choose between 2 or more options, and god already knows which one I will choose, is there in fact any conceivable scenario in which I could actually choose an option different from what god already knows will occur?

    Now, while the idea of a god with perfect foreknowledge itself does not automatically discount the idea of god, it does completely eliminate the idea of free will, and along with that of course, the idea of sin, or even responsibility for one’s one actions. Rather troubling.

    But, let’s look past that to the very idea of an omniscient and omnipotent being. If god know with perfect knowledge what will occur tomorrow… can he change it? If he can, he did not have perfect knowledge, if he can’t, he isn’t omnipotent. Indeed, if god has a perfect knowledge of all things past, present and future, and exists in all times simultaneously, god himself has no free will. He can only do what he has already done. To do anything else would negate his omniscience.

    Being powerless is a rather unenviable position for an omnipotent being to be in, wouldn’t you say?

    Now, let’s acknowledge what “A”‘s mindbogglingly idiotic answer must be, should he decide to give one (he won’t) it will be some version of “Well, god can do be both things because he is god.” Not unlike his recent pearl of wisdom that the authors of the gospels are who the bible says they are because it says so in the bible.

    So, enough of this idiocy, since “A” obviously has nothing to offer here….

  142. on 19 Feb 2014 at 12:43 am 142.A said …

    “I notice you offer absolutely nothing in response”

    You noticed? How observant! Well yeah, I give what I an given.

    lol!!!! I mean who needs to acknowledge conspiracy theorist!!!!!

    When you are ready to respond to hoax #1 as offered up by Freddie boy, let me know. Then we can deal with your hoax claim.

    Ah, the three stooges…..you are always so priceless.

    Dippity you can be Moe.
    Freddie can be Larry
    Alex….that leaves you as Curly.

    ROTFL!!!

  143. on 19 Feb 2014 at 1:28 am 143.alex said …

    “Alex….that leaves you as Curly.”

    nice. and me being curly proves your god?

    your m.o. is well known here, you dumb motherfucker. you point out stupid shit and in your own fucked up mind, this somehow validates your god.

    i’m standing on the ledge, i’m throwing f-bombs, atheist this, atheist that, but it don’t do shit for your god. pointing out my bad manners don’t do shit for your god. pointing out that evolution is bad, don’t do shit for your god. pointing out the big bang, abiogenesis, ufonians, dna programming, all don’t do shit for your god.

    give it up, you dumbass. go ahead and point out ocean swimming. it’s been a while, you dumbass 2X. oh, and the 200 trillion xtians that atheists killed.

  144. on 19 Feb 2014 at 1:38 am 144.the messenger said …

    316.alex, he means that we must not worship false GODs. It does not mean that there are multiple GODs.

  145. on 19 Feb 2014 at 1:47 am 145.the messenger said …

    318.DPK, are you high?

    Jesus, the holy spirit, and the father are all the same person, just in different forms.

    The Jews worship GOD, but many of them do not believe that GOD came down to earth in human form as Jesus.

    Some Jews do believe that Jesus is GOD in human form, such as the messianic Jews. Plus the first followers of Jesus were Jews.

  146. on 19 Feb 2014 at 1:56 am 146.the messenger said …

    325.DPK, the old testament prophesy of Jesus’s birth states a young woman will give birth. Young women are usually virgins, and the Hebrew word in the original text is a duel meaning word.

    Plus the prophet Isaiah was addressing the house of King David(David’s family)when he gave this prophesy, and is therefore speaking about a future descendant of David being born.

  147. on 19 Feb 2014 at 2:00 am 147.the messenger said …

    328.freddies_dead, he could make himself non omniscient, but he chooses be omniscient. That does not contradict the biblical claim.

    Just because he has the ability to do something does not mean that he will.

  148. on 19 Feb 2014 at 2:24 am 148.DPK said …

    Dippity you can be Moe.
    Freddie can be Larry
    Alex….that leaves you as Curly.
    ROTFL!!!

    The last desperate ploy… name calling!
    Brilliant. Your humiliation is now complete.
    That’s all you got huh? LOL indeed.

  149. on 19 Feb 2014 at 2:32 am 149.alex said …

    “318.DPK, are you high?”

    says the same dumbshit who admitted to have spoken with god. same one who says that it’s ok for rapists to marry their victim as retribution. same, dumb motherfucker who says that eternity is just for a little bit. same one who says that yahweh = allah.

    the question is, messenger, have you checked with your homies lately to see if they even remotely agree with you?

  150. on 19 Feb 2014 at 2:36 am 150.DPK said …

    318.DPK, are you high?
    Jesus, the holy spirit, and the father are all the same person, just in different forms.

    Then why did Jesus speak of himself in the third person? Weren’t his last words before supposedly dying on the cross “Father, forgive them, they know not what they do.” Why would he ask his Father to forgive someone if he was the father? He would have said, “I forgive you.” You need to learn to think before you open your mouth. Jesus often spoke of god in the third person.

    “The Jews worship GOD, but many of them do not believe that GOD came down to earth in human form as Jesus.”
    That’s right, and I think they would take exception to you proclaiming Jesus as the god of the Jews.

    “325.DPK, the old testament prophesy of Jesus’s birth states a young woman will give birth.”

    Oh…. so now you are claiming that the immaculate conception is just a myth and the mother of god wasn’t actually a virgin in the current sense, but just a young woman??? Interesting.

    328.freddies_dead, he could make himself non omniscient, but he chooses be omniscient.”

    But if he is omniscient, he cannot be omnipotent. It is impossible. If he knows everything that has or will happen, he cannot change it, without violating his own perfect knowledge. Therefore he is not all powerful, and has no free will.

    You are such a hot mess of contradictions…. virgins who have had sex, gods who are the same person, but different, eternity that doesn’t last for eternity… what’s next? I suppose you will tell us that during consecration, the bread and wine does nt become the body and blood of christ! Oh that’s right, you already told us that!
    Newflash for you messy… you aren’t a Catholic, you are a heretic!

  151. on 19 Feb 2014 at 3:05 am 151.A said …

    “The last desperate ploy… name calling”

    ROTFL!!!!!!! The stooges are calling others out for name-calling. Well, we can’t all have the same class as Moe, Larry and curly! And we are all thankful!

    Moe you left out a whoo whoo whoo whoo!

    Messenger,

    How big an impact does being called a heretic by an atheist have on you? Funny how they view themselves as such accomplished theologians…..for a deity they claim….does not exist……lol!!!!

  152. on 19 Feb 2014 at 3:20 am 152.alex said …

    “Funny how they view themselves as such accomplished theologians…..for a deity they claim….does not exist……lol!!!!”

    ima motherfucking expert on santa claus aint i? elves? tooth fairies? your god ain’t no different. you’ve wallowed in your bullshit pit for so long, you can’t smell the odorificus.

    atheists call you names because it’s a descriptive byproduct of your state. think of a jungle native somewhere and you trying to explain to him about your god. he calls you a dumbass for believing the shit and you turn around and call him an ignorant smelly uneducated heathen. see the difference? no?

    i call you a dumb motherfucker for believing a bible that talks about creating a woman from a rib, etc. and you call me curly as in three stooges and it’s the same level of namecalling?

    you a dumb stupid shit.

  153. on 19 Feb 2014 at 3:57 am 153.DPK said …

    “Moe you left out a whoo whoo whoo whoo!”

    You can always tell when someone is completely and utterly defeated intellectually when this is the only response they have to offer.

    Well done “A”. But, it isn’t really your fault. God knew you would be unable to answer, so you had no choice in the matter.
    Lol indeed.

  154. on 19 Feb 2014 at 12:38 pm 154.A said …

    “You can always tell when someone is completely and utterly defeated intellectually”

    very true, when they continually run from a claim you know they are beaten. But even more telling is when they try………so……..hard…… to change the subject. lol!!!!! Very reminiscent of a politician…..doncha think?

    And Then!……Suddenly.. ….they become so serious…..lol!

    Love ya Curly!

  155. on 19 Feb 2014 at 1:04 pm 155.freddies_dead said …

    349.the messenger said …

    328.freddies_dead, he could make himself non omniscient, but he chooses be omniscient. That does not contradict the biblical claim.

    You’re the one claiming He will forget people’s sins. So that’ll be you claiming He’ll make Himself less than omniscient. Now you’re saying He won’t – so He won’t forget your sins whether that be pre or post death. You really seem to be confused about what you believe. Not surprising when you’re having to imagine it all in the first place.

    Just because he has the ability to do something does not mean that he will.

    Doesn’t mean He won’t either. Which is, of course, the (for wont of a better word) beauty of theism. God can do absolutely anything you imagine – because He’s imaginary. If there’s something you imagine He will do, you’ll claim He’ll do it, and if He doesn’t actually do it, it’s because He doesn’t want to – not because He’s simply a figment of your imagination.

  156. on 19 Feb 2014 at 1:35 pm 156.alex said …

    “when they continually run from a claim you know they are beaten.”

    newflash reminder. what’s the atheist(s) claim(s)?

    god is bullsheet.

  157. on 19 Feb 2014 at 2:04 pm 157.DPK said …

    “very true, when they continually run from a claim you know they are beaten. But even more telling is when they try………so……..hard…… to change the subject. lol!!!!! Very reminiscent of a politician…..doncha think?”

    Very true, and the irony is so strong you can smell it.
    So now you’re going to try to divert the attention to politics?
    Lol

  158. on 19 Feb 2014 at 4:09 pm 158.DPK said …

    “Funny how they view themselves as such accomplished theologians…..for a deity they claim….does not exist……lol!!!!”

    One need not be a “theologian” to recognize that many of the claims that messenger makes directly contradict the established doctrine of the Catholic Church that he claims to be a member of.
    So far he has denied the church’s position on transubstantiation, the eternity of hell, the immaculate conception, and a host of other articles of faith.
    In addition to that, he asks us to accept that an omniscient god can “forget” things, and that a god who know everything that will ever occur in minute detail, can decide to change it, thus negating his own perfect knowledge.
    Like “A” who’s evidence that the gospels of the bible where written by who the bible says they were is because “it says so in the bible”, the absolute requirement for accepting Messy’s reasoning is to turn off your ability to think in any rational way.
    Perhaps that is what “A” means by being an “accomplished theologian”. LOL

  159. on 19 Feb 2014 at 6:04 pm 159.A said …

    “newflash reminder. what’s the atheist(s) claim(s)?”

    I am so glad you asked Curly. Let me repost for your convenience:

    “None of Matthew, Mark , Luke or John wrote the gospels that were attributed to them, but the reason to keep the Christian lies going – and add to them – is simply to gain and then keep control over others. (sic)”

    Who can step forward and defend the atheist claim?

  160. on 19 Feb 2014 at 6:42 pm 160.alex said …

    “I am so glad you asked Curly. Let me repost for your convenience:”

    moron. inasmuch as you insist, me, freddie, dpk, or any other atheist DO NOT represent all atheists. unlike you morons, i don’t have to defend anything dpk or any other atheist in here.

    again, atheists by definition, do not believe in your bullcrap.

  161. on 19 Feb 2014 at 7:36 pm 161.DPK said …

    “Who can step forward and defend the atheist claim?”

    The only “atheist claim” that has ever been made here, or anywhere, is that there is no evidence to support the idea that such a thing as supernatural gods actually exist. Despite “A’s” desperately trying to change the subject, which as he himself pointed out, is the 2nd step of the obviously defeated, right before name calling (and btw… the 3 stooges really dates you LOL…. couldn’t think any anything from this century?)

    As to the authorship of the gospels, the historical consensus is that Mark was written around 70 AD, Matthew and Luke were copied, in many cases word for word, and embellished with additional text to more closely align with the then current claims of Jesus’ divinity, about 15 to 20 years after Mark and the gospel of John about 100 CE or thereabouts.

    If “A” has some actual evidence that would dispute this, other than “the bible says so”, well, he doesn’t so that’s a mute point.

    Perhaps, since “A” doesn’t have the balls to actually respond to questions, or address the bigger issue of his imaginary god’s actual existence, one of the other theists would care to respond to my question, which really goes to the heart of the irrationality of belief in an omnipotent and omniscient god, of any flavor.

    God is supposedly omniscient, and knows everything. If tomorrow I have the ability to choose between 2 or more options, and god already knows which one I will choose, is there in fact any conceivable scenario in which I could actually choose an option different from what god already knows will occur?

    It is a simple yes or no answer. Either I can, or I cannot. Why is it that no theist is willing to answer this question??

  162. on 19 Feb 2014 at 11:07 pm 162.the messenger said …

    352.DPK, he was speaking in third person because he wanted to further emphasize that he was still in the son form, also know as Jesus form.

  163. on 19 Feb 2014 at 11:09 pm 163.the messenger said …

    352.DPK, Jesus’s last words were not “Father, forgive them, they know not what they do.”, they were “Father! In your hands I place my spirit!”.

  164. on 19 Feb 2014 at 11:14 pm 164.the messenger said …

    352.DPK, are you stupid? I stated the following.

    Young women are usually virgins, and the Hebrew word in the original text is a duel meaning word.I was not opposing the fact that mary was a vigin when she gave birth to Jesus.

  165. on 19 Feb 2014 at 11:17 pm 165.the messenger said …

    352.DPK, are you stupid? Omniscient and omnipotent do not cancel each other out.

  166. on 19 Feb 2014 at 11:22 pm 166.the messenger said …

    357.freddies_dead, when a person forgets something the knowledge is still within the person’s mind, but it is hard to access. GOD will still posses the knowledge of our sins, but he will not access it.

  167. on 19 Feb 2014 at 11:29 pm 167.the messenger said …

    357.freddies_dead, GOD always keeps his word.

  168. on 20 Feb 2014 at 12:37 am 168.DPK said …

    352.DPK, he was speaking in third person because he wanted to further emphasize that he was still in the son form, also know as Jesus form.

    Like anyone looking at him couldn’t tell that? Seriously, that’s the best you have?

    352.DPK, Jesus’s last words were not “Father, forgive them, they know not what they do.”, they were “Father! In your hands I place my spirit!”.

    Same difference… why would he say that if HE was actually god the father? “Into YOUR hands I place MY spirit” clearly distinguishing the two are NOT one and the same. Thanks for making my point perfectly clear.

    352.DPK, are you stupid? I stated the following.
    Young women are usually virgins, and the Hebrew word in the original text is a duel meaning word.I was not opposing the fact that mary was a vigin when she gave birth to Jesus.

    Then why mention it at all? You ask if I am stupid??? Why would you bring up a totally irrelevant point. The topic was that the idea of the virgin birth was originally not in the gospel of Mark, which was the first one written, and it wasn’t added until almost 100 years after the supposed birth of Jesus.

    352.DPK, are you stupid? Omniscient and omnipotent do not cancel each other out.

    Um.. yes, they do. If one has perfect knowledge of what will occur in the future, then one cannot possibly change it. Simple as that. If you can explain the dichotomy… take a shot. But if god “knows” an event will occur at a certain pint in time, then he cannot then change that, because that would mean he actually did NOT “know” the event would occur. His knowledge would render him powerless to do anything except what he already knows will happen.

    Now, stop calling people names. It is childish and unbecoming when “A” does it, and you are not as shallow and mean spirited as he is. Practice what you preach.

  169. on 20 Feb 2014 at 1:20 am 169.the messenger said …

    370.DPK, he was in the son form, and therefore was speaking in that pov.

    I understand your confusion, my brother, allow me to enlighten you. Jesus was speaking in third person, and showing us that when we die we are placed into the hands of GOD and we are judged by him. Jesus often taught through example.

    I agree that the name calling must stop, but this is something that we must both agree to do.

  170. on 20 Feb 2014 at 1:29 am 170.DPK said …

    Nice try, but no sale. It would make no sense for Jesus to ask himself to forgive someone or inform himself that he was resigning his spirt to himself as if they were separate entities. You are the one who draws all kinds of inferences from the bible. Clearly you can see that Jesus is plainly informing us by his words that he and god the father are different beings. Show me where in the bible it says ANYWHERE that god says he and Jesus are the same person (or being, such as it is.. Lol)?
    And the rest of your nonsense, no answer, so I assume you cede the points?
    Good, we are finally getting somewhere.

  171. on 20 Feb 2014 at 1:41 am 171.the messenger said …

    372.DPK, in John 20:26-28 the apostle, Thomas, refers to Jesus as GOD.

    Isaiah 9:6 is a prediction in the Tanakh(a part of the old testament) about the birth of Jesus, and it refers to him as “mighty GOD”.

  172. on 20 Feb 2014 at 2:20 am 172.A said …

    “If “A” has some actual evidence that would dispute this”

    lol!! I don’t have to dispute anything you have not proved. Your consensus claim is drivle. Prove it.

    Lets try again.

    “None of Matthew, Mark , Luke or John wrote the gospels that were attributed to them, but the reason to keep the Christian lies going – and add to them – is simply to gain and then keep control over others. (sic)”

    Evidence?

    Oh and the Bible does not claim who the authors are. That is written by theologians! That is the whole issue silly! Saving to save you from more embarrassment Moe! Lol!!!

  173. on 20 Feb 2014 at 3:06 am 173.DPK said …

    372.DPK, in John 20:26-28 the apostle, Thomas, refers to Jesus as GOD.
    Isaiah 9:6 is a prediction in the Tanakh(a part of the old testament) about the birth of Jesus, and it refers to him as “mighty GOD”.

    First off, John was written almost 100 years after the fact.. 2nd, where does either Jesus or god the father say they are the same person? Nowhere. Jesus always refers to god as “his father in heaven” clearly an indication that he is a separate entity, in a separate place. God refers to Jesus as his son, “in whom I am well pleased.” Not, this is me, and I am pleased with myself. Use your brain…. If god wanted you to believe he and Jesus where the same being, he would not go to such extraordinary lengths to present himself as seperate identies, who even talk about each other as different beings. The fact that Thomas supposedly refers to Jesus as a god, doesn’t mean he is the same god! Lol.

  174. on 20 Feb 2014 at 11:22 am 174.freddies_dead said …

    368.the messenger said …

    357.freddies_dead, when a person forgets something the knowledge is still within the person’s mind, but it is hard to access. GOD will still posses the knowledge of our sins, but he will not access it.

    An omnipotent entity will find it hard to access it’s omniscience? Seriously? Your version of God is a big mess of contradictions, partly because of your desire to try and throw out the bad and only keep the good – an admirable action but ultimately doomed as the alleged word of your God doesn’t agree with your claims – but mostly because He’s imaginary. You’d be better off ditching the mental gymnastics – and the God you say you don’t actually need to believe in to attain salvation.

  175. on 20 Feb 2014 at 11:23 am 175.freddies_dead said …

    369.the messenger said …

    357.freddies_dead, GOD always keeps his word.

    Except we know this isn’t true. He doesn’t answer prayers despite promising to do so. Unless you’ve suddenly come up with some evidence that shows intercessory prayer actually works? Something you couldn’t manage on the “Prayer” thread.

  176. on 20 Feb 2014 at 12:38 pm 176.A said …

    “2nd, where does either Jesus or god the father say they are the same person? Nowhere”

    Do atheists ever check anything but atheist blogs? Lol! Atheist theologians……lol!!!

    “I and the father are one”. Jn 10:30

    Jesus states numerous other times “If you have seen the me you have seen the Father”. Also He calls Himself ” I Am” which is a title for God from the OT.

    So Moe, got your evidence yet?

  177. on 20 Feb 2014 at 1:20 pm 177.alex said …

    “I and the father are one”. Jn 10:30”

    perfect example of picking and choosing. it’s been pointed out many times that hesus blurted out different crap, but yet you cling mightily and hopelessly to the one snippet you like.

    no, i’m not going to do your work for you. look it up your damn self and it’s already been pointed out.

    asshole.

  178. on 20 Feb 2014 at 4:09 pm 178.DPK said …

    “I and the father are one”. Jn 10:30

    Ohh.. good.. “A” is back and actually trying to add something other than 3 stooges comments. Good for you! You are right and I am mistaken, Jesus is purported to say in John… the last gospel written about 100 years after the event “I and the Father are one.”

    Now this is the same John account in which the account of the time after Jesus’ death,initially described in Mark as an empty tomb and a mysterious young boy declaring that Jesus would be seen in Galilee had somehow transformed into two angels, blazing with lightening and earthquakes and Jesus having people touch him and his wounds to prove he is real. Also the appearance has magically moved from Galilee to Jerusalem, and the story has been enhanced with details and events never even suggested in Mark.

    Yeah, who would doubt the veracity of that. haha

    And doesn’t your same account of John also say that Jesus said;
    “just as the Father knows ME and I know the Father—and I lay down my life for the sheep.”
    “I have authority to lay it down (his life) and authority to take it up again. This command I received FROM my Father.”
    ““I have shown you many good works from the Father. For which of these do you stone me?”

    You cherry pick one verse where Jesus supposedly says I and the Father are one and ignore all the others in the same context where he clearly speaks of the father as a separate entity.

    Didn’t Jesus also say (about marriage) “FOR THIS REASON A MAN SHALL LEAVE HIS FATHER AND MOTHER, 8AND THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH; so they are no longer two, but one flesh.”? Do you think he meant they actually become the SAME PERSON?

    The limits to your ability to self delude are boundless.
    Now, let’s see about providing some explaination for the seeming impossibility of your god’s existence:

    God is supposedly omniscient, and knows everything. If tomorrow I have the ability to choose between 2 or more options, and god already knows which one I will choose, is there in fact any conceivable scenario in which I could actually choose an option different from what god already knows will occur?

    It is a simple yes or no answer. Either I can, or I cannot. Why is it that no theist is willing to answer this question??

  179. on 20 Feb 2014 at 4:22 pm 179.freddies_dead said …

    380.DPK said …

    It is a simple yes or no answer. Either I can, or I cannot. Why is it that no theist is willing to answer this question??

    Because they have a confessional investment to protect and they know that both answers leave their worldview in tatters – that investment busted like a pre-bailout bank.

  180. on 20 Feb 2014 at 5:08 pm 180.DPK said …

    “they know that both answers leave their worldview in tatters”

    Yes, I know Freddie… It is curious that they will simply ignore the question rather than question their indoctrination. Rather like the telling statement from the recent Bill Nye / Ken Ham debate in which they were asked “What would make you change your mind?” (to the topic of creationism vs evolution) Nye replied, “Evidence”. Ham replied, “Nothing”.
    Says a lot.

    We know these two are too cowardly to answer the question… but there must be other theists out there who are not as afraid of the truth…. How about it? Is there any conceivable scenario in which an individual can possibly choose an option that is different from that which an omniscient god already knows?
    This is either possible, or not possible… which one is it?

  181. on 20 Feb 2014 at 6:13 pm 181.alex said …

    “This is either possible, or not possible… which one is it?”

    a trick question. if god knew that some men are destined for hell, why go ahed with creation? this is where messenger invokes his jedi translation power. god forgot momentarily and forged ahead. oopsie, then god remembered and he switched enternity’s definition to ‘temporary’.

    har!

  182. on 20 Feb 2014 at 6:53 pm 182.DPK said …

    “…a trick question. if god knew that some men are destined for hell, why go ahed with creation?”

    Well, if it is true that god already has a perfect knowledge of everything that has occurred or will occur throughout an infinite time, then he has no choice but to go ahead and “do” what he already knows he “did”. To do anything else would violate his perfect knowledge. If god is indeed omniscient, that makes him nothing more than an actor playing a part already written… hardly omnipotent… actually completely impotent.

    Likewise, as you allude to, if god already knows everything that will happen in our lifetimes, even though it seems to us that we have free will to choose, the reality is that would just be an illusion to us. We could not possibly choose anything other than what god already knows has happened. Therefore, how can we possibly be held accountable for the idea of sin, or anything, really?

    Poor theists, they have a real paradox on their hands. And their answer? Stick their fingers in their ears and say “La,la, la… God can do anything because god can do ANYTHING.” Laughable.

  183. on 20 Feb 2014 at 7:22 pm 183.A said …

    “You are right and I am mistaken”

    Well yeah, that is always the case. Lol!

    So lets revisit another question you fail to answer due to the fact you know very little of what you speak. Let me repost for you”

    “None of Matthew, Mark , Luke or John wrote the gospels that were attributed to them, but the reason to keep the Christian lies going – and add to them – is simply to gain and then keep control over others. (sic)””

    Do we have by evidence of this? Good luck Moe! Lol!!!!

  184. on 20 Feb 2014 at 8:12 pm 184.alex said …

    ““None of Matthew, Mark , Luke or John wrote the gospels that were attributed to them, but the reason to keep the Christian lies going – and add to them – is simply to gain and then keep control over others. (sic)””

    i won’t speak for freddie, but i’ll admit, it’s dubious. just like i think, the big bang is dubious by a factor of about 5%, compared to creationism which in my book is about 100% bull.

    happy? how about the rock solid contradiction of an all knowing god granting free will? t or f?

  185. on 20 Feb 2014 at 8:28 pm 185.DPK said …

    “None of Matthew, Mark , Luke or John wrote the gospels that were attributed to them… Do we have by evidence of this? Good luck Moe! Lol!!!”

    Well, you are confusing me with someone else, but the answer is, yes, there is quite a lot of historical evidence that the gospels attributed to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were not written by people named Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John.
    Do you have evidence to suggest that they actually were? Your doctorate awaits!

    But, I forgot, you “make no claim” so as to carefully avoid having to back up anything you say. So if you make no claim, why do you keep bringing this up in a desperate and pathetic attempt to change the subject? You are so very transparent.
    Let’s try one more time, shall we… ?
    Is there any conceivable scenario in which an individual can possibly choose an option that is different from that which an omniscient god already knows?
    This is either possible, or not possible… which one is it?
    I’m really trying to make this simple for you, but this seems to be a real problem for you, “A”.
    See, I don’t care about who wrote the gospels… they are fairy tales as far as I’m concerned. But, if you have an explanation for the paradox above, I’m very interested. Come on, you’re a science guy… explain it.

  186. on 20 Feb 2014 at 8:49 pm 186.A said …

    “there is quite a lot of historical evidence that the gospels attributed to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were not written by people named Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John.”

    Great lets hear it. I hope its not more lies you and Larry like to throw around

    Don’t forget to provide proof the hoax was used to keep Christianity going.

    Hint: an atheist blog would not pass as a solid source.

    “why do you keep bringing this up”

    so I can learn truth.

    “attempt to change the subject?”

    I didnt bring it up, Larry did. You will need to ask him.

  187. on 20 Feb 2014 at 9:55 pm 187.DPK said …

    As I have said, repeatedly, I don’t care. If you want to review the evidence, do the research. My suspicion is you will simply dismiss or ignore any evidence you don’t like, just as you do for evolution.

    If you don’t care enough to do the research, then don’t. But don’t expect me to provide you with an education LOL. Nice try, but everyone can see though your boorish attempt at diversion, and your schoolyard moronic name calling.

    Now, back to the topic of god and religion in the world, which is what the purpose of this forum is:
    Please explain: Is there any conceivable scenario in which an individual can possibly choose an option that is different from that which an omniscient god already knows?
    This is either possible, or not possible… which one is it?
    I’m really trying to make this simple for you, but this seems to be a real problem for you, “A”.

  188. on 20 Feb 2014 at 10:13 pm 188.alex said …

    “there is quite a lot of historical evidence that the gospels attributed to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were not written by people named Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John.”

    how the fuck does answering this prove your god? if freddie says he’s wrong, does it?

    your bible, the koran, the vedas are all bullshit. mispeaks, errors or even other bullshit i utter will not prove your god. no? here’s another example. the easter bunny murdered Matthew, Mark, Luke and John before they we two years old so that there’s no way they could have penned what they did.

    my bullshit is obvious, but it doesn’t change anything. your bible and god are both crap.

  189. on 20 Feb 2014 at 10:46 pm 189.A said …

    “As I have said, repeatedly, I don’t care.”

    Well, I would believe you but you opened you pie hole and attempted to defend Larry!!

    lol!!! So, the case is more of you cannot defend the lies of Larry and then you bring more lies about what Jesus claims of God.

    Your Questio:

    “Is there any conceivable scenario in which an individual can possibly choose an option that is different from that which an omniscient god already knows?”

    My Response: I don’t care. If you want to review the evidence, do the research. My suspicion is you will simply dismiss or ignore any evidence you don’t like. Lol!!!! I give what I am given.

  190. on 20 Feb 2014 at 10:52 pm 190.alex said …

    “My Response: I don’t care.”

    the big difference is that you’re defending your god with nothing. your stance is that no matter what’s said here, you’re going with your bullshit.

    freddie and dpk can say whatever they want and i don’t have to do anything. our common position is that your god is bullcrap.

    so if you don’t care, why not go fuck yourself?

  191. on 20 Feb 2014 at 11:04 pm 191.alex said …

    all atheists could be liars, criminals, and whatever evil tags you want to anoint them, but it doesn’t change your bullshit foreskin obsessed, jealous of other gods, murdering, forgetful, all knowing, free will giving, burning animal odor loving, skydad.

  192. on 20 Feb 2014 at 11:42 pm 192.DPK said …

    “Is there any conceivable scenario in which an individual can possibly choose an option that is different from that which an omniscient god already knows?”
    My Response: I don’t care. If you want to review the evidence, do the research. My suspicion is you will simply dismiss or ignore any evidence you don’t like. Lol!!!! I give what I am given.

    Unlike you, I HAVE done the research, and the research leads me to conclude that the god that you say is both omnipotent and omniscient is completely, totally 100% impossible. The two properties are mutually exclusive. So god, as you describe him is impossible.

    Now, if you don’t care, why are you here? I think you do care, science guy. I think you have a pathological need to try and convince yourself that your imaginary life after death is somehow not the steaming pile of bull rap that you really know it is.

    You don’t discuss anything in earnest here, so you obviously are not trying to convince anyone else of your point of view, so that just leaves you. Lol. You’re such a pathetic mess.

  193. on 20 Feb 2014 at 11:48 pm 193.A said …

    “leads me to conclude that the god that you say is both omnipotent and omniscient”

    Awesome. Looking gorward to your proof. This should be good! Now using the scientific method proves this phenomena has never and can never be possible.

    Now keep this in mind. You do believe primordial soup can write high information codes in a cell therefore you have acknowledged the seemingly impossible. Got the popcorn……..munch…..munch….

  194. on 20 Feb 2014 at 11:55 pm 194.alex said …

    “The two properties are mutually exclusive.”

    just discussed it with wife and other folks and it didn’t change a thing. i even asked if odin appeared, cured worldwide cancer instantly, moved mountains, etc, it still wouldn’t make any difference. such is the brainwashed.

  195. on 20 Feb 2014 at 11:59 pm 195.alex said …

    ““leads me to conclude that the god that you say is both omnipotent and omniscient”
    Awesome. Looking gorward to your proof.”

    …case closed

  196. on 21 Feb 2014 at 1:08 am 196.the messenger said …

    375.DPK, I understand why you think what you think, and I respect your opinion, but I respectfully disagree.

    If GOD wanted us to believe that Jesus was not GOD, then why would GOD tell the prophet Isaiah to refer to Jesus(in the birth prophecy of Isaiah 9:6) as “mighty GOD”? And why would the apostle Thomas refer to Jesus as GOD?

  197. on 21 Feb 2014 at 1:20 am 197.the messenger said …

    376.freddies_dead, I was explaining that when a human forgets something, the knowledge is not gone from the brain, it is just hard for the human to access. In a similar way, GOD will still possess the knowledge, but he will not access it, although he could easily access it if he wanted too.

  198. on 21 Feb 2014 at 1:42 am 198.DPK said …

    If GOD wanted us to believe that Jesus was not GOD, then why would GOD tell the prophet Isaiah to refer to Jesus(in the birth prophecy of Isaiah 9:6) as “mighty GOD”?
    I dunno, maybe Jesus wasn’t the fulfillment of the prophesy? The jews don’t think so. Why would Jesus say “Into THY hands I commend MY spirit”. Why would he teach people to pray “Our Father, who art in HEAVEN” if he was right fucking in front of them?

    And why would the apostle Thomas refer to Jesus as GOD?
    I don’t know, why is “A” such a butt-hole? If he actually ever even said that, which is doubtful, maybe he thought he was god? The world is full of people who believed in gods who weren’t.

    You are just too funny Messy…………..

    “A” I have proved the impossibility of omniscience and omnipotence co-existing. If you care to disprove it, so us all how God could change what he already knows will occur without violating his perfect knowledge.
    I already have popcorn… nom, nom, nom…. hahahahahaha You’re such a tool, up to your old retarded games. You have nothing………..

  199. on 21 Feb 2014 at 1:52 am 199.the messenger said …

    377.freddies_dead, GOD answers all prayers, but he may not give us the answer we want, but he will give us what we need. He is not some sort of magic butler. He is a father.

  200. on 21 Feb 2014 at 1:55 am 200.the messenger said …

    400.DPK, I thought you said that name calling is childish. Are you going back on your word?

Trackback This Post | Subscribe to the comments through RSS Feed

Leave a Reply