Feed on Posts or Comments 27 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 07 Mar 2014 at 11:47 am 1.alex said …

    hor’s entire argument is shifting the burden of proof. again, let’s say that everything that atheists say here is bullshit. now, how the fuck does that validate the bullshit god? speak up bitch. dna programmer again? i already said atheists are full of shit and now all your diversionary straw shit is gone. whatcha got?

    what, i don’t stand for anything? contraire, dumbass. i stand for the earth being more that 10,000 years old and what about you? you need more standing for something? dna programmer again? i said dunno and you say god? and your proof? what corvette again?

    take away all the atheists assertions and the motherfucker hor is laid bare. the xtian goddit and he can’t be convinced. even if hesus’ little sister is the real deal hor would still be hell arguing with that other dipshit, messenger.

    p.s. how’s that rape shit going, mess motherfucker?

    oh, and for the driveby xtian motherfuckers. i care because i wont stand for bullshit and injustice.

  2. on 07 Mar 2014 at 11:49 am 2.alex said …

    wow, a double post! how the fuck did that happen? dunno. hor: goddidit and he’s the wwgha programmer.

  3. on 07 Mar 2014 at 12:45 pm 3.Sweetness said …

    “I said I will need your help”

    You need my help? I’m drunk, remember? And if it is a DEBATE then we don’t work together. ROTFL!!!. So which is it Frederick the Mouse? Think much? Its your story, so lay it out there. Besides you only regurgitate what others tell you. Don’t be scared…

    Lol!!!!, you don’t even know the definition of a fact or the SM

  4. on 07 Mar 2014 at 1:00 pm 4.alex said …

    “Its your story, so lay it out there”

    still at it, eh? you got got nothing so you keep insisting on pointing out other shit. atheists believe in the turtle? yessir and? your god proof?
    dna programmer is god? prove it. camaros again? ocean swimming?

  5. on 07 Mar 2014 at 1:20 pm 5.Anonymous said …

    little “a”
    Let’s start off with your definition of something you espouse: micro-evolution. I take it to be defined as changes over time in groups of organisms as noted in and reflected in their DNA. These changes can be tracked using comparative genomic analysis. As a matter of FACT, using the molecular clock, we can discover when unique groups of people (races/cultures/etc) emerged. Please add some of your own information here.

    you don’t even know the definition of a fact or the SM

    That’s strange, sweetness. You haven’t challenged any the information I’ve provided.
    We still agree that the chimp and human genome is 99% identical. Humans have existed on planet Earth for much less than one million years.

  6. on 07 Mar 2014 at 5:43 pm 6.DPK said …

    “That’s strange, sweetness. You haven’t challenged any the information I’ve provided.”

    Fun watching him do the theist shuffle, ain’t it?
    Always comes back to the only thing he has… “prove god didn’t do it!” LOL…. Hey Sweety… you never proved sea turtle didn’t do it… I’ve provided every bit as much evidence to support the sea turtle hypothesis as you have for your warrior god / gentle Jesus hypothesis.

    Let’s assume that you are right, and the first DNA required an intelligence to program. Now, aside from the fact that that would beg the question, “how did THAT intelligence arise without a programmer?” let’s look past that for just a second and have you explain to us… did god create the first instruction set for the earliest microbes 3.5 billion years ago and then step back? Or did every new species that arise magically appear one day with DNA variants already programmed?
    We really want to know how you contend it happened, especially since you contend that speciation does not occur.

  7. on 07 Mar 2014 at 5:44 pm 7.Sweetness said …

    “As a matter of FACT, using the molecular clock, we can discover when unique groups of people (races/cultures/etc) emerged. Please add some of your own information here.”

    OK, Prove it.

    “You haven’t challenged any the information I’ve provided.”

    A challenge is only needed when facts are presented. You have proven nada.

    So are we debating or are we working together here on a model? You never cleared up this point.

    LOL!!!!!!!!

  8. on 07 Mar 2014 at 6:15 pm 8.Anonymous said …

    little “a”

    So are we debating or are we working together here on a model? You never cleared up this point.

    Trouble reading and understanding, Sweetpea? Unable to focus and concentrate? SIGH!!!! Another reminder: (from post #520)

    Mouse: “Lets talk common descent and comparative sequence analysis.”

    Sweetpea: OK

    This is becoming a little repetitive. We were going to discuss but now you want a debate. Either way! Just another of your distractions.

    Hey, I asked for YOUR definition on micro-evolution. Where is it, sweetness? Surely you must know what it is since it’s something you espouse. Let me ask you, “science guy”, do you agree with the statement “using the molecular clock, we can discover when unique groups of people (races/cultures/etc) emerged. Please add some of your own information here.”
    IF not, then let me know **WHAT IS MICRO-EVOLUTION?**, in your opinion, of course.

  9. on 07 Mar 2014 at 6:26 pm 9.alex said …

    “A challenge is only needed when facts are presented. You have proven nada.”

    ooh, goody. you found another distraction, eh? you’re too stoopid to look it up, so you challenge it, just like you do with evolution.

    your earlier assertion that your omniscience god gives you free will just demonstrate and confirms your dumbass.

    anybody here can challenge anything, but it doesn’t do shit for your god, does it? i say the turtle can kick you god’s ass, but i can’t prove it. does this prove your god? lol away, motherfucker.

    what? camaro again? ocean swimming? dna programmer? chimp ancestor? macrame evolution?

  10. on 07 Mar 2014 at 6:28 pm 10.Anonymous said …

    oh sweetest little “a”

    A challenge is only needed when facts are presented. You have proven nada.

    I hate it when you flap around in the breeze. We agree on so many facts already:

    FACT 1. Human and chimp genomes are 99% identical
    FACT 2. First lifeforms on Earth were simple and single celled.
    FACT 3. First lifeforms on Earth are from 3,500 million years ago
    FACT 4. The planet Earth is 4,500 million years old.
    FACT 5. Comparative Genomic Analysis can be used to compare how similar two species are. Hey, we did it with chimps and humans.

    I want to build up more facts as we go along. Lucky for me, you are a real “science guy” so none of this information’s new or startles you. How can you say we have nada? Shame on you, Sweetpea. Have you been drinking again? Sober up so we can continue. Let’s work on this. Errrr, I mean let’s debate this!!!! LOL!!!!

  11. on 07 Mar 2014 at 6:52 pm 11.Sweetness said …

    HAHAHAHA, oh freddie the mouse I see cracks forming. Losing it smart feller? Even using my LOLs :)

    “We were going to discuss but now you want a debate. Either way!”

    Let me remind you of your words Frederick the mouse:

    “YOU will continue to avoid debate on the topic”

    Then you turn around and say:

    “You were helping me set up a working and plausible model to explain the origins of humans”

    I don’t think you can find your butt with two hands! lol!!!!!!! I must ask, are you high?

    Anyhow there Frederick the mouse you still have not provided proof for your first…….lol!!!!….fact!

    Let me post it.

    “As a matter of FACT, using the molecular clock, we can discover when unique groups of people (races/cultures/etc) emerged. Please add some of your own information here.”

    I did with My response, prove it! Still waiting.

  12. on 07 Mar 2014 at 7:27 pm 12.Anonymous said …

    little “a”
    I am beginning to think that I may need to start calling you pseudo-science guy.

    “As a matter of FACT, using the molecular clock, we can discover when unique groups of people (races/cultures/etc) emerged. Please add some of your own information here.”

    Too easy. I thought you liked and knew about THE SCIENCES. Maybe not so much.

    I find it interesting how you’ve accepted that our genome is 99% similar to a chimpanzees, yet you have difficulties with small changes in the genomes of human populations. I thought that was what MICRO-EVOLUTION was? Please explain.

    The variations in the genomes within groups of isolated people will accumulate different genetic markers from each other. There is no known mechanism (god or otherwise) that will affect both groups LOCK-STEP so that their genomes remain identical over large periods of time in isolation. Genetic markers unique to the group will form; the longer the period of isolation, the greater the number of markers. We’re talking generations, just to be clear. Think Tay-Sachs or Sickle Cell Anemia here as hereditary diseases within groups of people. (some people use the word “races of people” but, really, we’re all just part of the human race) Anyways, the markers become part of the “cultural genome” of the population. Now how would you use the genetic or molecular clock to look at cultures or groups of people? Why don’t you tell me, Sweetpea? You know more about science than I do. I am just a simple working man. AGAIN: Tell me YOUR definition of **MICRO-EVOLUTION**.

  13. on 07 Mar 2014 at 8:46 pm 13.The messenger said …

    581.freddies_dead, the bible does not punish a woman that calls out for help while being raped, even if she is not heard.

    The bible only punishes the woman if she does not call for help.

    If she cried out for help(heard or not) she will not be punished.

    Lastly, that passage does not command stoning, and it does not say that humans are to carry out the punishment. And lastly, I already proved that the stoning is metaphorical.,

  14. on 07 Mar 2014 at 9:02 pm 14.Sweetness said …

    LOL!!!!!

    This is the proof that using the molecular clock, we can discover when unique groups of people (races/cultures/etc) emerged.” lol!!! Do you know what the Molecular clock is my little freddie-mouse?

    Then you admit we are all just the human race so evidently no speciation is taking place! So what is the point?

    freddie-mouse…….. Try again

    My definition of microevolution is the same as all men who know science. While you google molecular clock (define it) (adding do proteins and nucleic acids evolve at a fixed rate) feel free to look up micro and macro evolution. Its is a good exercise for a working mouse.

    But please, add something of value this time. I mean really, gene markers? hereditary ____? Yes, we know how these work through genetics, thanks!

    I am a very busy man. Move this on quickly. I don’t have time for your silly mousey games……lol!!!!!!!!!!lol!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  15. on 07 Mar 2014 at 9:20 pm 15.DPK said …

    Hey Sweetie…. I googled micro and macro evolution ad this is what I found:

    Microevolution is the changes in allele frequencies that occur over time within a population. This change is due to four different processes: mutation, selection, gene flow, and genetic drift.

    Macroevolution is merely the result of a lot of microevolution over a long period of time.

    Explore: Macroevolution
    Microevolution over time may lead to speciation or the appearance of novel structure, sometimes classified as macroevolution.

    Now, it would seem that you are the only one wasting time here with your “no it’s not” debate technique.
    So let’s see if we can get anything out of you besides the theist shuffle….

    Let’s assume that you are right, and the first DNA required an intelligence to program. Now, aside from the fact that that would beg the question, “how did THAT intelligence arise without a programmer?” let’s look past that for just a second and have you explain to us… did god create the first instruction set for the earliest microbes 3.5 billion years ago and then step back? Or did every new species that arise magically appear one day with DNA variants already programmed?
    We really want to know how you contend it happened, especially since you contend that speciation does not occur.

    Will you avoid this like you avoided the question of how you reconcile god’s omnipotence with his omniscience? I predict so…. but it is so much fun watching you squirm… now you’ve resorted to your “I’m too busy” defense… remember when you were directed to evidence you requested but were to busy to “wade through it”? Yeah, that was classic Hor. Fraud through and through…..

  16. on 07 Mar 2014 at 9:37 pm 16.Sweetness said …

    “Microevolution over time may lead to speciation…”

    lol!!!!!!! Come to rescue Freddie mouse? OK

    See the word “may” in the definition above? That is because it has never been proven using the SM. Guys like you and Frederick the mouse need to read comprehensively and think critically.

    You are welcome to prove it. I’m ready to believe but I require evidence, proof and verification.

    Thanks Dippity Dew!

    lol!!!!

    Prediction: He runs…

    Monday I sincerely hope you guys have something of substance…….lol!!!

  17. on 07 Mar 2014 at 9:59 pm 17.DPK said …

    “That is because it has never been proven using the SM.”

    Ok… I want to learn… let’s assume that changes in allele frequencies that occur over time within a population due to: mutation, selection, gene flow, and genetic drift never amount to speciation. Yet, we see new species arise in the fossil record many many times, and they have commonalities in DNA with prior species, to whom they are not related.

    Let’s assume that you are right, and the first DNA required an intelligence to program. Now, aside from the fact that that would beg the question, “how did THAT intelligence arise without a programmer?” let’s look past that for just a second and have you explain to us… did god create the first instruction set for the earliest microbes 3.5 billion years ago and then step back? Because if that were true then there would still only be microbes, since no new species or traits could have evolved. Just single celled organisms begetting more single celled organisms. So,did every new species that arise magically appear one day with DNA variants already programmed?

    We really want to know how you contend it happened, especially since you contend that speciation does not occur. This would really shed some light on god’s brilliant plan… and don’t forget to provide your evidence, since you are claiming that the overwhelming consensus of science is 100% wrong on this….

  18. on 07 Mar 2014 at 10:04 pm 18.Anonymous said …

    little “a”

    Do you know what the Molecular clock is

    Maybe you know more about it than I do: Wondering if it can be used to look at chimp and human DNA? What do you think, “science guy”? Or maybe it would be Comparative Genomic Analysis which works better?

    I asked for YOUR definition of MICRO-EVOLUTION. Why am I not surprised you’ve evaded the task AGAIN? Sigh……

    When it came to timeframes you ran and then completely failed to state any numbers. Too afraid of the consequences ;-).
    Now you’re coy about simply defining YOUR understanding of MICRO-EVOLUTION, something near and dear to your god idea. I TRIED Googling the micro thing, it doesn’t look good for you. HOW ABOUT MANNING UP for a radical change of pace. But you’ll run, run, run, run -just like the song says. sigh….. Prove me wrong.

    Then you admit we are all just the human race so evidently no speciation is taking place!

    Gsus Krist. No speciation IS TAKING place? WTF does that even mean? Being Homo sapiens does not, however, rule out speciation HAVING TAKEN place at some time in the past. WOW!!!! “science guy”?

    gene markers? hereditary ____? Yes, we know how these work through genetics, thanks!

    Great!! Now we can move to the chimp and find the inner monkey in you. Sorry for wasting your valuable time on what you already know about human genetics.

    But, really, for the discussion/debate to get anywhere: We NEED a definition of MICRO-EVOLUTION, as YOU understand it.

  19. on 07 Mar 2014 at 10:22 pm 19.DPK said …

    “But, really, for the discussion/debate to get anywhere: We NEED a definition of MICRO-EVOLUTION, as YOU understand it.”

    Yeah… for someone who claims to have it all figured out, you are very light on actual content. In fact, your position seems to be completely void of any content other than you cannot conceive how life originated without a god involved. Do you have ANYTHING else, at all?

  20. on 07 Mar 2014 at 11:09 pm 20.Anonymous said …

    DPK

    In fact, your position seems to be completely void of any content other than you cannot conceive how life originated without a god involved.

    And there’s the crux of the problem. Sweetness will not and cannot state a position on even the simplest and most basic of science related topics because it would destroy his god position. He

    Timeframes? Sweetpea response: NONE. Avoid answering. Deflect.
    MICRO-EVOLUTION? Sweetpea response: Stall. Silence. Stall some more.
    At least he’s onboard with the 99% similarity between the human and chimp genomes!!!! An amazing accomplishment, in my opinion.

    My dad happened to be a xtian. He always told me that those people who are looking for the Ark, or spend their days cherry picking what science to use to support their belief in god are not true xtians. He LOVED the sciences…..embraced them all and loved HONESTLY discussing any topic. He KNEW that a belief in a god was 100% an act of faith. Didn’t require any material proof. I understand that.

  21. on 08 Mar 2014 at 12:10 am 21.DPK said …

    “He KNEW that a belief in a god was 100% an act of faith. Didn’t require any material proof. I understand that.”

    I understand that as well, and I can actually respect that. That’s why they call it faith, after all. As Mark Twain said, “Faith is believing in stuff you know ain’t so. ” I have lots of Christian friends, although most are what I’d describe as Sunday Christians. I also have a lot of Jewish friends, many of them are atheist or agnostic, and for them Judaism is more of a culture than a religion. (Personally, I think the holocaust made a lot of Jews realize god was just a completely imaginary construct… But that’s another topic). Many of my Christian friends believe out of social convention more than anything, and disdain wack-o’s like Hor, who frankly, embarrass them. That is why I so enjoy watching him dance and squirm, and the funniest part is he thinks he is making an actual case for his god. The truth is he has probably caused more people to reject theism than any atheist here.

  22. on 08 Mar 2014 at 5:06 am 22.alex said …

    i guess jacoby kindred is not a real xtian. so, along with the morality checklist, where is messenger’s real xtian checklist?

    i want to see if the pope passes it. i suspect the potus won’t pass. or even the other idiot, hor.

  23. on 08 Mar 2014 at 3:50 pm 23.alex said …

    since the idiot messenger won’t publish his list, i’ll start it for him. here’s the draft of messenger’s true test for real xtianity. you must believe, otherwise you’re not a true xtian.

    1) The word eternal in the bible is used to stress the long amount of time that bad people spend in it. Eventually they will be releases and they will be sent to purgatory until they learn kindness and love, then they will go to heaven.

    2) rapists may marry their virgin victims. this may be considered his punishment.

    3) all animals that ever existed, all descended from the animals that were in the ark.

    4) Theoretical physics is not very helpful to humanity. The earth had done fine on its own and we have no need for theoretical physics

    5) This world is full of so much greed, laziness(liberal idiot like Obama who want the government to take care of them), murders, thiefs, and liars(like Obama).

    …more to come… xtian readers? y’all agree to this shit? pipe up..

  24. on 08 Mar 2014 at 3:56 pm 24.DPK said …

    “i guess jacoby kindred is not a real xtian.”

    Judge not, lest ye be not judged. Only Messy, the messenger of god, can declare who is a true christian and who is not. Plus, all he has to do is repent and ask Jesus for forgiveness and he gets to spend eternity in heaven…. I assume heaven for him will be a golden palace full of little girls… LOL……..

    After all, you can’t explain how DNA was first formed, so it must be true, right? Makes sense……

  25. on 08 Mar 2014 at 5:28 pm 25.Anonymous said …

    I feel so bad for whoever created this page. We are called to specifically tell everyone about Gods greatness and you are instead attempting to convince people that he is imaginary. I originally considered it, but your very first proof has a major mistake in it! You can’t just say that little prayer for God to heal everyone of cancer. You are a tiny, worthless, nobody so why should he listen to that prayer. Your evidence is awful especially since he says you must have faith for these prayers and such to actually work. You can’t just up and decide to tell people he is imaginary just because of your little fake prayer you typed up. God is returning any day now! I dont think he’ll be pleased to know that you were trying to drive his people away from him. Matthew 7:13 “Enter through a narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction(eternal burning),and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow is the road that leads to life(eternally), and only a few find it.

  26. on 08 Mar 2014 at 5:59 pm 26.alex said …

    “We are called to specifically tell everyone about Gods greatness and you are instead attempting to convince people that he is imaginary.”

    you are not called, you dumb motherfucker. if god had planned for you to come to this page then he also planned for the atheists to call out your xtian bull fucking shit, how the fuck are we supposed to do something different?

    dumbass, leave the gays and women alone. go take messenger’s xtian test and see if you pass it.

    here’s his latest piles of shit:
    http://goo.gl/vTlyJI
    http://goo.gl/V4C9dN

    see if you agree with his nonsense.

  27. on 08 Mar 2014 at 7:31 pm 27.the messemger said …

    623.alex, if a man rapes a woman that is not married, he is to bind himself to her(through marrage) and serve her for the rest of his life.

    This is not so much a punishment, but a chance for redemption.

  28. on 08 Mar 2014 at 7:33 pm 28.the messemger said …

    Alex, you support evolution, yet you reject my theory that recodnizes evolution of animals. You are strange.

  29. on 08 Mar 2014 at 7:35 pm 29.alex said …

    “if a man rapes a woman that is not married, he is to bind himself to her(through marrage) and serve her for the rest of his life.”

    is this part of your xtian test? if people don’t agree with you on this, are they a true xtian?

    btw. your latest post is added to your pile of shit, here: http://goo.gl/vTlyJI

    spin it all your want, it still says, it lieu of prison, you may marriage the vic, yah?

  30. on 08 Mar 2014 at 7:37 pm 30.alex said …

    “Alex, you support evolution, yet you reject my theory that recodnizes evolution of animals.”

    bind yourself thru marriage, instead of a prison sentence, and you call me strange?

    your pile of shit again: http://goo.gl/vTlyJI

  31. on 09 Mar 2014 at 2:47 am 31.The messenger said …

    633.alex, yes brother, you are strange. You support evolution then you oppose it. You are extremely strange.

  32. on 09 Mar 2014 at 3:25 am 32.DPK said …

    Um… I think it’s the Ark fairy tale that he has a problem with…haha.
    Hey messy, how long ago do you think the flood story supposedly happened?
    How much time do you think it took for however many species that could have fit on a boat to “evolve” into the 9 million species we have today?
    Hahahaha……
    Hey sweetie… Messy says evolution is true… As is the story of Noah’s Ark. Do you agree with him?

  33. on 09 Mar 2014 at 4:10 am 33.The messenger said …

    635.DPK, just wondering(I am not mocking you when I ask this question, I am honestly wondering) does your estiment of 9 million include the aquatic animals?

    To be completely honest I do not know how long ago the flood happened, but I do recognize that it could have happened that way.

  34. on 09 Mar 2014 at 4:31 am 34.DPK said …

    Yes, that would include marine life, because that much rain would have changed ocean waters salinity, ph, temp and chemistry and would have killed off most marine life, in addition to very sensitive coral reefs which have existed for about 250 million years. Plus god said he was going to destroy everything with the flood, so Noah would have had to have taken 2 of every sea creature too… Must have been an impressive aquarium system he had on that boat.

    Now, make an estimate… 6 thousand years, 10 thousand, 50 thousand? I mean it had to have been recent enough that a man would have had tools, and knowledge enough of math and engineering to build a wooden boat 450 feet long… About 1/3rd the length of a modern super carrier. Could it have been a hundred thousand years ago?
    You must have some idea?
    How many generations of creatures do you think it took for them to “evolve” into all the species we have today? Remember, “A” says species never change into new species… That is impossible. Is he wrong?

  35. on 09 Mar 2014 at 2:56 pm 35.alex said …

    “alex, yes brother, you are strange. You support evolution then you oppose it. You are extremely strange.”

    thats because you’re a dumb motherfucker. you don’t understand my simple posts yet you try to be the Sole interpreter of the bullshit, conflicting, idiotic bible?

    since you already know what atheists are and what they do, why not publish your true Xtian Checklist? coz, you know it’s bullshit. you motherfuckers just love to sling that “no true scotsman” shit because it gives you a way out to call out anybody as not being a true xtian.

    here’s your shit list again. your latest turd at the bottom of the pile. http://goo.gl/vTlyJI

  36. on 09 Mar 2014 at 7:44 pm 36.Anonymous said …

    From little “a”:

    IF macro is true, no biggie. My worldview doesn’t change a bit. JUST MORE PROOF A CREATOR EXISTS

    Strange comment, Sweetpea. It sounds like the beginning of your defeat, or an attempt to gently dissipate the fog of cognitive dissonance which you presently operate in. I am wondering how The Theory of Evolution would be “MORE PROOF” of your god or any god? And if it truly were “MORE PROOF” wouldn’t you honestly and objectively investigate…..after all, everyone wants “MORE PROOF” in whatever position they take.

    How could you possibly know in advance that your findings would lead to “MORE PROOF OF A CREATOR”? Is it possible that what you find could weaken or destroy your faith in a god? For you, I doubt it. You are so drunk on the holy spirit that you are never sobering up. You’ve just traded one spirit for another. ;-)

  37. on 09 Mar 2014 at 8:48 pm 37.DPK said …

    No answer from Messy as to how long ago this great flood happened… and how all the species on the earth today managed to “evolve” from the few that could have fit on a 450 foot long wooden boat. I mean “A” says it couldn’t have happened even in 3,500 million years, yet Messy says it happened in perhaps a few thousand. Not to mention how all human life currently on the planet… some 7,000 million of us could have descended from just 6 people, all of the same race and related to one another, in just a few thousand years! Must have been an awful lot of begetting going on…. LOL.
    Not to mention the other problems… like the quantity of water needed to completely flood the earth is estimated at 3 times the total volume of water on the earth today… where did it come from, and where did it go? The atmosphere could not possibly hold enough water vapor to rain the amount of water needed to flood the earth in 40 days. It would be roughly 400 FEET (not inches) of rain per day, everywhere at once. If the atmosphere were to hold that much water, it would need to be over 500 degrees and the temperature and pressure alone would kill everything, including Noah on his magic boat, long before anything could drown.
    I know I know, there is a simple explanation… “god did it” and god can do anything, including having a perfect knowledge of events past present and future, while at the same time having the ability to change it at will, meaning having the power to change events he already has a perfect knowledge of without violating his perfect knowledge.
    Messy, I have always known you are a singularly simple minded person… but seriously????

  38. on 09 Mar 2014 at 9:32 pm 38.alex said …

    messenger’s greatest hits. for the reader’s lols, distilled from http://goo.gl/vTlyJI

    1)Slavery is allowed in the bible.. (messenger likes it, go Confederate States! State Rights, damnit!)

    2)Redemption is a hard process. Getting forgiveness from GOD is an easy thing (hard and easy?)

    3)GOD knows what we will do, but that does not remove mankind’s free will (we are free to do what god knows will happen?)

    4)GOD knows our decisions before we make them because he is highly familiar with us. (see #3)

    5)GOD is so familiar with all of our details that he already knows, without a doubt, how we will react to a certain thing and therefore he knows what decisions will be during a certain situation. (see #3)

    6) the witnesses of the “miracle of the sun” reported to have seen a large disk in the sky as bright as the SUN. Some of them assumed that it was the sun, but that was never confirmed. The sun was obviously not the light that they saw there. (heh heh)

    7)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. (wow!)

    8) the bible does not say anything about donkey’s talking. (ass? read the book, messenger)

    9)my interpretation says that salvation can be reached outside of the church but not outside of GOD, and that hell is not eternal (a messenger original)

    10)he could make himself non omniscient, but he chooses be omniscient. (because he already knew he won’t?)

    11)GOD will still posses the knowledge of our sins, but he will not access it. (he forgets? dat why he kept killing the people?)

    12)Yes the women were being forced to marry or become servants, but that does not mean that rape occurred. (yeah right, no sex expected, yay?)

    13)I never said that “eternal” does not mean forever (see #9, hell is not eternal)

    14)the action of forcing someone to marry someone is not rape (see #12)

    15)The bible only punishes the woman if she does not call for help. (she’s fucked if she’s mute?)

  39. on 09 Mar 2014 at 10:11 pm 39.DPK said …

    “15)The bible only punishes the woman if she does not call for help. (she’s fucked if she’s mute?)”

    Apparently she is also fucked if the rapist says, “If you scream, I’ll kill you.” Oh well, hell for you lady.

    You forgot he also said it is sometimes ok to kill someone, like if they are bad, but it is NEVER ok to tell a lie, even if it means saving someone’s life.
    “I cannot tell a lie Mr. Gestapo Stormtrooper, or Jesus will cry. The jews are hiding in the basement.”
    And it is ok to make someone your slave and FORCE them to work for you and provide for your family, as long as you are unable to work yourself! Hey forget about having to fund social security or disability…. just give everyone who can no longer work their own slave. There are still plenty of pagans around to round up, and after all, god is cool with it.
    He also said you don’t have to believe in god or accept Jesus to go to heaven, just be a good person. But if you don’t believe in god, presumably you better not say anything about it because if you cause someone else to doubt god… well…. eternal hell awaits. But don’t despair, eternity doesn’t last forever, and you’ll still get your happy ending.
    Jesus and God are the same person, but when Jesus spoke to god in the third person, asking him to do things, he was just thinking out loud.
    Where does he come up with this shit…..????

    I remember a while back some drive by theist stopped on this forum in the middle of the discussion and announced she was going to pray for us to find our way back to the love of god and made the statement, “I go to a christian school and I’m pretty sure God never commanded anyone to kill anyone in the bible.” After I suggested she actually READ the bible before she came here to tell us all what is in it, she left, never to return….. THIS is the mentality you deal with when you believe in fairytales.

  40. on 09 Mar 2014 at 11:17 pm 40.alex said …

    more funnies from messenger’s other book http://goo.gl/V4C9dN

    1)GOD will answer all of our prays, if you pray for good things to happen, such as love, world peace, happyness, kindness, and no more decease. (if unaswered, it’s god’s will? and the point of prayer?)

    2)The word eternal in the bible is used to stress the long amount of time that bad people spend in it. Eventually they will be releases and they will be sent to purgatory until they learn kindness and love, then they will go to heaven. (nuff said)

    3)Atheists oppose Christianity and Judaism (only? atheists believe in some other god?)

    4)No one can deny the fact that atheists have a long history of murder and hate, because it is a fact.(sea turtle atheists, including xtians, were not good guys. weren’t there a lot of those)

    5)I am simply stating that atheists share the same immoral mindset and beliefs that hitler and stalin did. (again sea turtle atheists, including xtians, all share the same beliefs?)

    6)I have read the entire bible from cover to cover and I have yet to see a part in the bible when GOD ever “promoted” slavery or murder. (quoting messenger: “Slavery is allowed in the bible..” and murder is so all over the bible, i won’t even quote it. and yes, messenger never heard of the donkey talking)

    7)I never claimed that the earth is only “6000? years old. I know that it is older. FYI, the bible does not state how old the earth is. (he knows better than the bible, which he says doesn’t state how old. add all the generations, and figure it out, hence the young earth stance)

    8)Can you prove that GOD didn’t create the universe? If he didn’t then where did the universe come from. (god of the gaps or goddidit)

    9)Can you prove that GOD didn’t give us life? (argument from stupidity)

    10)Can you prove that GOD didn’t give us laws? (argumentum stupendum)

    11)GOD planned out everything in a specific order for one reason, to teach us right from wrong. Life is a perfect test and it is playing itself out perfectly. (and we have free will in this master plan?)

    12)GOD planned from mankind to mess up, so we could later learn from our mistakes. (planned obsolesense, but lessons learned for some)

    12)GOD does not have an easy job (ha ha, good one. dat why he’s got messenger to interpret for him)

  41. on 10 Mar 2014 at 12:32 am 41.Sweetness said …

    “It sounds like the beginning of your defeat”

    I sure hope so! All I need is evidence/proof that macroecolution has and does take place using the SM.

    Maybe evidence of a fish evolving into a bird? Something really cool we can all see.

    I have never claimed macroevolution cannot happen (one of Dippity Dews childish lies). A Creator would have no problem with such a process. I contend zero proof exists which can withstand the SM. I am ready to believe. Bring it on!

    lol!!!!!

  42. on 10 Mar 2014 at 1:26 am 42.The messenger said …

    637.DPK, if you have a glass of salt water and you pour more water in(fresh water), it does not change the salinity, ph, temp or chemistry. So how would a flood change the salinity, ph, temp or chemistry of the sea water?

    Your claim about the coral reefs 250 million years ago is not relevant in any way, due to the fact that we have no idea when the flood happened.

    GOD specified that only birds and the “creeping things of the ground” were to be taken on the ark. Fish were not included in it.

    I cannot make any estiments on any of those things.

    How do you know if the ark was 450 feet long?

  43. on 10 Mar 2014 at 1:47 am 43.alex said …

    “if you have a glass of salt water and you pour more water in(fresh water), it does not change the salinity, ph, temp or chemistry.”

    dude.

  44. on 10 Mar 2014 at 3:15 am 44.DPK said …

    637.DPK, if you have a glass of salt water and you pour more water in(fresh water), it does not change the salinity, ph, temp or chemistry. So how would a flood change the salinity, ph, temp or chemistry of the sea water?
    Uh, what? Haha.. Failed chemistry I see.

    Your claim about the coral reefs 250 million years ago is not relevant in any way, due to the fact that we have no idea when the flood happened.

    Well, it couldn’t have happened 250 million years ago, because there were no humans 250 million years ago.

    GOD specified that only birds and the “creeping things of the ground” were to be taken on the ark. Fish were not included in it.

    Ok, then we’re did all the current fish and marine animals come from?

    I cannot make any estiments on any of those things.
    How do you know if the ark was 450 feet long?

    Because it gives it’s measurements in the bible… I thought you read it? Lol

  45. on 10 Mar 2014 at 3:46 am 45.Anonymous said …

    little “a”:

    I contend zero proof exists which can withstand the SM

    That’s because YOU don’t understand the SM. You are NOT a scientist; if you were, you’d understand why the Theory of Evolution is accepted everywhere outside the US deep south (aka the bible belt) -Home to the IDiot movement and hillbillies.

    You’re so scientific that you cannot even explain or define (in your opinion, of course) what MICRO-EVOLUTION is. Asking YOU for information about science is the best way to get you to dance around frantically.

  46. on 10 Mar 2014 at 12:53 pm 46.Sweetness said …

    “Ok, then we’re did all the current fish and marine animals come from?”

    Yes Dippity Dew, where did they come from? Did Campbell’s oyster noodle mix just the right way? Lol!!!

    “That’s because YOU don’t understand the SM.”

    Always willing go learn. Give me you definition”

    “Theory of Evolution is accepted everywhere”

    In the US ToE without Gods guidance is the least popular theory. GOD is accepted by a much larger than ToE”. Check out the Gallup poll.

    “Home to the IDiot”

    That would be Seattle, California. The rest is ad homenim. Sigh! The last gasp of a dying man, the hillbilly attack.

    “in your opinion, of course) what MICRO-EVOLUTION”

    I don’t have an opinion. It is the obvious definition. Dippity Dew found it but you cannot? Lol!!!!

  47. on 10 Mar 2014 at 1:47 pm 47.freddies_dead said …

    592.The messenger said …

    581.freddies_dead, Deuteronomy’s anti r*pe laws are not specified to just the Israelites. they apply to all people in the new covenant.

    No messy, we’ve seen how the Bible allows the rape of conquered tribes i.e. those that aren’t Israelites. Plus Deuteronomy is indeed aimed specifically at the Israelite people – it is Moses’ speeches direct to the Israelites on the plains of Moab.

    A lot of groups in ancient times have committed r*pe after concurring a people. But the Israelites did not do that, because GOD specifically prohibited r*pe ,in Deuteronomy.

    Now you’re just ignoring the parts of the Bible – the ones that condone rape – you don’t like. Your cherry picking is duly noted.

  48. on 10 Mar 2014 at 1:48 pm 48.freddies_dead said …

    593.The messenger said …

    581.freddies_dead, where in the bible does it say that “virgin Israelite women” can be r*ped?

    In Deuteronomy 22:28 – 29. Deuteronomy is directed at Israelites specifically. In 28-29 it states quite clearly that a man can rape a virgin woman and then, if he’s caught, all he’ll have to do is pay her father 50 shekels and marry his victim.

    You make crazy claims, but you do not provide proof.

    Oh, you silly old pot you.

  49. on 10 Mar 2014 at 1:50 pm 49.freddies_dead said …

    595 & 615.The messenger said …

    581.freddies_dead, the bible does not punish a woman that calls out for help while being r*ped, even if she is not heard.

    The bible only punishes the woman if she does not call for help.

    If she cried out for help(heard or not) she will not be punished.

    No messy, if no-one hears she is assumed to have not cried out and is stoned to death because of it. If she cried out and no-one heard or the attacker prevented her from crying out is irrelevant – no catchee no cryee according to your Bible.

    Lastly, that passage does not command stoning,

    It really does.

    and it does not say that humans are to carry out the punishment.

    Odd, in verse 21 it states quite clearly that it will be the men of the city who do the stoning of adulterous women, are we to suddenly assume that it won’t be those same men carrying out the stoning of the rape victim who didn’t scream loud enough just 3 verses later? You really are being stupid about this.

    And lastly, I already proved that the stoning is metaphorical.

    No, you haven’t. You’ve simply ignored the passages – such as Deuteronomy 22:21 where it states very specifically that “the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die” – in favour of your own bizarre interpretation that it’s somehow “metaphorical” – that the stones they’re commanded to stone her with aren’t actual stones and she won’t actually die like the verse says she will. I’m pretty sure your Bible has something to say about lying, but maybe that was metaphorical as well, eh?

  50. on 10 Mar 2014 at 4:01 pm 50.DPK said …

    “Ok, then we’re did all the current fish and marine animals come from?”
    “Yes Dippity Dew, where did they come from?”
    We were actually talking about how they came to be AFTER the flood that killed everything on the earth except what was on the ark with good old Capt. Noah. Messy says there were no fish or marine life o the ark…. try to stay on topic there Sweetie Pie. I know it’s hard for you
    “That’s because YOU don’t understand the SM.”
    Always willing go learn. Give me you definition”
    You’ve been offered this before… remember? You refused to “wade though it”. If you want the reader’s digest explanation of the scientific method, and why it supports the theory of common decent, visit talkorigins (dot) org. Check the article by Douglas Theobold titled 29+ evidences for Macro evolution, then come back with your point by point refutation… don’t forget your sources!!!
    But you won’t…. haha
    Hey… your buddy Messy says your full of shit. He says all the species we have on the earth today evolved from the handful that were on the Ark with Noah a few thousand years ago! Isn’t that amazing? One of you has to be be wrong… is it he, or you?

  51. on 10 Mar 2014 at 4:41 pm 51.Sweetness said …

    “We were actually talking about how they came to be AFTER the flood that killed everything on the earth”

    How did they come to be from the start? That might be you answer for both. I think Dippity Dew still believes the Campbell’s soup theory for how fish cane to be. Soup, lightning, chemicals bonding, growing gills, growing funs, wallah!

    And you think building an Ark is absurd!

    lol!!!!!!

    Its funny how everyone claims to know the SM but no one can seem to provide it! Lol!!!!!

  52. on 10 Mar 2014 at 5:03 pm 52.alex said …

    “How did they come to be from the start?”

    the turtle made them. care to refute the holy turtle book? we both know the soup theory is bunk.

    all your non-turtle believers, otherwise known as atheists better recognize, or else!

  53. on 10 Mar 2014 at 5:26 pm 53.DPK said …

    “How did they come to be from the start?”

    Asked and answered, many times. No one knows. You seem to imply that you do. Tell us.

    “That might be you answer for both.”

    “Might be”? LOL… explain it to us.

  54. on 10 Mar 2014 at 11:52 pm 54.alex said …

    “Its funny how everyone claims to know the SM..”

    funny shit aint it? you have no fucking idea, but you won’t look it up.

    and when asked what you think it is, you won’t answer because you have no idea, yet you reject every fucking thing.

    same shit with fossil dating, aint it? your biblical earth age is so far off, you won’t even dare discuss it. so what do you fuckers do? oh, radioactive decay is so unreliable and until the accuracy is spot on, it’s suspect. never mind that even with an error of plus/minus 5 millions years, the biblical shit is nowhere near the age of the dated fossils.

    “DPK, if you have a glass of salt water and you pour more water in(fresh water), it does not change the salinity, ph, temp or chemistry.”

    another messenger gem: http://goo.gl/vTlyJI

  55. on 11 Mar 2014 at 1:11 am 55.The messenger said …

    647.DPK, if you pour fresh water into a cup of salt water, no salt is added, so therefore the salinity stays the same.

    647.DPK, humans know more about the moon than they do about their own planet, so therefore how do you know when humans appeared on the earth?

    647.DPK, the fish on the earth today evolved from the original fish that were around during the flood.

    The Bible does not say that the ark was 450 feet long. It say that that the ark is three hundred cubits.

  56. on 11 Mar 2014 at 1:22 am 56.The messenger said …

    650.freddies_dead, no part of the bible allows rape of conquered people.

    There are no verses that state that those people were raped. And there are no verses that say rape is ok.

  57. on 11 Mar 2014 at 1:27 am 57.The messenger said …

    651.freddies_dead, Deuteronomy 22:28 – 29 does not say that raping Israelite women is ok. it states that IF a Israelite woman is raped, the rapist must marry her and pay her father.

  58. on 11 Mar 2014 at 1:44 am 58.alex said …

    “if you pour fresh water into a cup of salt water, no salt is added, so therefore the salinity stays the same.”

    blindfolded you won’t be able to tell the original cup of salt water from the DILUTED one? you dumb motherfucker.

    “how do you know when humans appeared on the earth?”

    it’s called knowledge, you dumbass. even your cousin hor knows this, but won’t acknowledge. he won’t even admit that he thinks the earth is around 10,000 years. what about you, you dumbfuck? how old is the earth? you believe the 10,000 year old earth, per your bible?

    “There are no verses that state that those people were raped. And there are no verses that say rape is ok.”

    pointed out many times, but your dumbass is incapable. remember the talking donkey you denied?

    again, your shitpile collection: http://goo.gl/vTlyJI

  59. on 11 Mar 2014 at 1:51 am 59.The messenger said …

    652.freddies_dead, that passage does not command her to be stone, and it does not say anything about assuming that she did not cry out or not.

    If no one is around to hear her, but she cries out for help, GOD will not punish her.

  60. on 11 Mar 2014 at 1:54 am 60.The messenger said …

    652.freddies_dead, once again, THE STONING IS NOT LITERAL.

  61. on 11 Mar 2014 at 1:55 am 61.alex said …

    “If no one is around to hear her, but she cries out for help, GOD will not punish her.”

    the nonsense just doesn’t register with you, does it? that’s why you’re a dumb motherfucker. if the woman is mute and she cries out in her mind, your god would supposedly hear her anyways, so what the fuck is the crying out for help for?

    your excuses knows no bounds and once again, it’s in the dumbass messenger joke collection: http://goo.gl/vTlyJI

  62. on 11 Mar 2014 at 1:59 am 62.alex said …

    “652.freddies_dead, once again, THE STONING IS NOT LITERAL.”

    you’ve said before that you weren’t the sole interpreter of the bible, yet you continually spout like you’re some kind of biblical expert.

    what are your credentials and does the catholic church know about your interpretations? write them and send them your shitlist and see what they say. here are your quotes. http://goo.gl/vTlyJI

    don’t be afraid to click on it. it’s all your shit with the original wwgha links. i’m sure you’ve clicked on all those porn links, so don’t be afraid. it’s all your glory in one big collection.

  63. on 11 Mar 2014 at 2:27 am 63.DPK said …

    47.DPK, if you pour fresh water into a cup of salt water, no salt is added, so therefore the salinity stays the same.

    Wrong again messy. Add this to the long list of things you think you know about which you are completely clueless.
    I’d suggest maybe you go back and try to finish high school this time. In the meantime, you have demonstrated the prime requirement for religous belief… Ignorance couple with a willingness to ignore the obvious. LOL

  64. on 11 Mar 2014 at 11:55 am 64.freddies_dead said …

    658.The messenger said …

    650.freddies_dead, no part of the bible allows rape of conquered people.

    There are no verses that state that those people were raped. And there are no verses that say rape is ok.

    Except for the ones I’ve given you of course. You can keep denying what your Holy book says but it’ll do you no good when others can read it for themselves.

  65. on 11 Mar 2014 at 11:56 am 65.freddies_dead said …

    651.freddies_dead, Deuteronomy 22:28 – 29 does not say that raping Israelite women is ok. it states that IF a Israelite woman is raped, the rapist must marry her and pay her father.

    So basically giving men the right to rape virgin Israelite women as long as they’re OK with possibly having to pay for their transgression by buying their victim and marrying her if he’s caught raping her. An utterly disgusting concept that could only come from some backward religion like Christianity.

  66. on 11 Mar 2014 at 11:56 am 66.freddies_dead said …

    661.The messenger said …

    652.freddies_dead, that passage does not command her to be stone, and it does not say anything about assuming that she did not cry out or not.

    If no one is around to hear her, but she cries out for help, GOD will not punish her.

    No, it’s the woman raped in the field who gets a free pass. For the woman in the city, things aren’t so great. For her the passage reads quite clearly: “and ye shall stone them with stones that they die”. That’s a command to stone both the rapist and his victim – her “because she cried not”. It assumes right there that, because she was in the city and no-one heard, there was no cry, regardless of whether the poor woman was able to cry out or not.

  67. on 11 Mar 2014 at 11:57 am 67.freddies_dead said …

    662.The messenger said …

    652.freddies_dead, once again, THE STONING IS NOT LITERAL.

    “When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.”

    I’ve given you chapter and verse from your own Holy book and you choose to deny the words that are allegedly from your God. When a passage states that “the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die” it means exactly that. It does not mean that they will point at her harshly until she’s suitably ashamed of herself. It doesn’t mean they’ll throw jelly at her. It doesn’t mean she’ll be let off with a stern warning. It means the men of her city will throw actual stones at her until she’s actually dead.

    There really is no point continuing this conversation when you insist on denying that words mean what they actually mean.

  68. on 11 Mar 2014 at 2:57 pm 68.freddies_dead said …

    657.The messenger said (to DPK) …

    647.DPK, if you pour fresh water into a cup of salt water, no salt is added, so therefore the salinity stays the same.

    Is the salinity just metaphorical on your world?

    647.DPK, humans know more about the moon than they do about their own planet, so therefore how do you know when humans appeared on the earth?

    Evidence. Surely you’ve heard of it? Or is it all just metaphor on your world?

    647.DPK, the fish on the earth today evolved from the original fish that were around during the flood.

    So you actually believe in hyper-evolution?

    The Bible does not say that the ark was 450 feet long. It say that that the ark is three hundred cubits.

    And a cubit equals? Or are cubits just metaphors as well?

    You are the worst Humpty Dumpty I’ve ever actually encountered. Seen as words mean what you choose them to mean can you please give your definitions of “salinity”, “evidence” and “cubits” in order that we’re able to actually discuss things coherently?

  69. on 11 Mar 2014 at 4:02 pm 69.DPK said …

    “If no one is around to hear her, but she cries out for help, GOD will not punish her.”

    What a guy… he will not punish her for being RAPED! He won’t help her either, huh? Why is he letting her get raped in the first place Messy? Is it a “test” to see if she maybe really wants to be raped? If that’s so, doesn’t god already know that? Speaking of which, since god’s plan determines everything, isn’t her getting raped just a part of god’s plan? If so, why would she cry out for help? That would be going against god’s plan for her.

    So, if you dilute sea water with fresh water that doesn’t change the salinity huh? Did you read that in the bible too?

  70. on 11 Mar 2014 at 10:10 pm 70.The messenger said …

    664.alex, if the woman does not cry out for her(wheither out loud or in her mind) it shows that she has some love and respect for her self, and a desire to stop that awful thing from happening to her.

    If she doesn’t, she is being cowardly or she simply does not care.

  71. on 11 Mar 2014 at 10:17 pm 71.The messenger said …

    668.freddies_dead, the law means that rape is not allowed. But if someone breaks the “no rape law” the rapist is suppose to repent for his crime by binding himself to her(through marriage) and must pay her father money.

    This is not so much a punishment as it is a chance for redemption for the rapist. He must redeem himself by being a good husband to her for the rest of his life.

  72. on 11 Mar 2014 at 10:25 pm 72.The messenger said …

    669.freddies_dead, I understand why you do not understand this. Allow me to help you.

    In biblical times a field was where not many people are, so therefore her voice would not be heard by her fellow citizens. But in a city, people would here her vocal cries and be alerted of the injustice done to her.

    If she is a mute and cries out in her head, she will not be punished, because it is not her fault that she couldn’t be heard.

  73. on 11 Mar 2014 at 10:29 pm 73.The messenger said …

    670.freddies_dead , many times I have presented you with text evidence that proves the stoning commands to be not literal. Yet you ignore all of it and continue to cherry pick verses and interpret them without looking at the surrounding text.

  74. on 11 Mar 2014 at 10:31 pm 74.The messenger said …

    671.freddies_dead, I honestly do not know how much a cubit is. And no, it is not a metaphor, because their is no evidence to suggest or prove that it is metaphorical.

  75. on 11 Mar 2014 at 10:36 pm 75.The messenger said …

    672.DPK, he wont punish her for being raped (because she is the victim, and not at fault), but he will punish her if she does not show defiance(crying out, either in her head or vocal) to the person raping her.

    If the woman does cry out(wheither out loud or in her mind) it shows that she has some love and respect for her self, and a desire to stop that awful thing from happening to her.

  76. on 11 Mar 2014 at 10:40 pm 76.The messenger said …

    668.freddies_dead, disregard comment 673, because I accidentally put he word “NOT” in the following sentence.

    “664.alex, if the woman does not cry out for her”

  77. on 12 Mar 2014 at 2:49 am 77.alex said …

    messenger, go fuck yourself. then for redemption, you can marry yourself, but you must scream in your heart because god knows if you’re sincere and will forgive you. now drink half of a glass of salty water, refill it with fresh water and taste it. did it taste the same? of course it did, because you’re a dumb motherfucker.

  78. on 12 Mar 2014 at 1:25 pm 78.freddies_dead said …

    673.The messenger said …

    668.freddies_dead, the law means that r*pe is not allowed.

    Actually, nowhere in the Bible is there a specific prohibition on rape per se.

    But if someone breaks the “no r*pe law” the r*pist is suppose to repent for his crime by binding himself to her(through marriage) and must pay her father money.

    As stated, there is no specific “no rape law”. Various verses give various commands regarding the sexual mistreatment of women – from those condoning the rape of women of conquered tribes, to the verses which punish attackers who target women who are already promised to other men, to the ones where men who attack women who are not betrothed only need to pay the father and marry their victim if they’re caught.

    Tell me, what was wrong with a commandment that states “thou shall not rape”?

    This is not so much a punishment as it is a chance for redemption for the r*pist. He must redeem himself by being a good husband to her for the rest of his life.

    The morality behind your claim that a rapist is given a chance to repent by marrying his victim and paying the father for sullying his property is truly disgusting. Oh it’s a punishment all right … for the woman. There’s nothing that states he has to be a good husband either, just that he can’t divorce her. Basically it’s a life sentence for the woman. The rapist gets to carry on raping her until one of them dies. It’s pretty much what we expect from pre-scientific goat-herders with little, if any, respect for women.

  79. on 12 Mar 2014 at 1:27 pm 79.freddies_dead said …

    674.The messenger said …

    669.freddies_dead, I understand why you do not understand this. Allow me to help you.

    You condescending prick. I understand it just fine. You’re just pissed that I don’t accept your tortuous mental gymnastics because a simple reading of the text is ample.

    In biblical times a field was where not many people are, so therefore her voice would not be heard by her fellow citizens. But in a city, people would here her vocal cries and be alerted of the injustice done to her.

    Lol, bullshit. Like there aren’t areas in cities where no-one would hear and times when the woman is unable to cry out – through fear or simply because her attacker prevents it. If they’re not caught the woman is assumed to have failed to cry out.

    If she is a mute and cries out in her head, she will not be punished, because it is not her fault that she couldn’t be heard.

    W00t! Mute women rejoice! What about those who aren’t mute but were prevented from crying out? That’s right, it’s a stoning for them … and not a non-literal one either.

  80. on 12 Mar 2014 at 1:29 pm 80.freddies_dead said …

    675.The messenger said …

    670.freddies_dead , many times I have presented you with text evidence that proves the stoning commands to be not literal. Yet you ignore all of it and continue to cherry pick verses and interpret them without looking at the surrounding text.

    You’ve done nothing of the sort, but for giggles lets have a look at the surrounding text in Deuteronomy shall we?

    13 If any man take a wife, and go in unto her, and hate her,

    Well this doesn’t mention stoning being a metaphor…

    14 And give occasions of speech against her, and bring up an evil name upon her, and say, I took this woman, and when I came to her, I found her not a maid:

    Nor does this…

    15 Then shall the father of the damsel, and her mother, take and bring forth the tokens of the damsel’s virginity unto the elders of the city in the gate:

    Nope…

    16 And the damsel’s father shall say unto the elders, I gave my daughter unto this man to wife, and he hateth her;

    Erm, no….

    17 And, lo, he hath given occasions of speech against her, saying, I found not thy daughter a maid; and yet these are the tokens of my daughter’s virginity. And they shall spread the cloth before the elders of the city.

    Still nothing…

    18 And the elders of that city shall take that man and chastise him;

    Ah, so they have other options than stoning then? This is promising…

    19 And they shall amerce him in an hundred shekels of silver, and give them unto the father of the damsel, because he hath brought up an evil name upon a virgin of Israel: and she shall be his wife; he may not put her away all his days.

    We’ve seen financial punishment before. I notice you didn’t claim that was metaphorical…

    20 But if this thing be true, and the tokens of virginity be not found for the damsel:

    Ooo, someone’s in trouble…

    21 Then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father’s house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die: because she hath wrought folly in Israel, to play the whore in her father’s house: so shalt thou put evil away from among you.

    Did you all see the metaphorical stoning in that verse? No, me neither. I saw a commandment to throw stones at a woman until she’s dead but I missed the bit where it was actually a commandment to say things to her that only make her suitably ashamed… maybe they come later eh, messy?

    22 If a man be found lying with a woman married to an husband, then they shall both of them die, both the man that lay with the woman, and the woman: so shalt thou put away evil from Israel.

    So it’s death again, for adultery this time … metaphorical death? I’m not seeing anything to suggest it, are you? Didn’t think so…

    23 If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her;

    Another chance for some non-literal stoning surely?

    24 Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city; and the man, because he hath humbled his neighbour’s wife: so thou shalt put away evil from among you.

    Erm, that definitely reads like a literal stoning to me – nothing in the surrounding text to suggest otherwise … it seems context is pissing on your chips messy.

    25 But if a man find a betrothed damsel in the field, and the man force her, and lie with her: then the man only that lay with her shall die.

    Not literally die surely, messy? It’s metaphorical, yes?

    26 But unto the damsel thou shalt do nothing; there is in the damsel no sin worthy of death: for as when a man riseth against his neighbour, and slayeth him, even so is this matter:

    27 For he found her in the field, and the betrothed damsel cried, and there was none to save her.

    Erm, context isn’t helping that fella, seems like he’s for an actual death then…

    28 If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found;

    Another chance for a non-literal stoning?

    29 Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel’s father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days.

    Oh wait, no. He’s literally getting away with it. Is this what you meant by a non-literal stoning? You know, when stoning isn’t mentioned at all and all he gets is a small fine and the chance to rape the same woman again and again?

    Maybe I’m not cherry picking the verses correctly, messy. You’ll have to give us a crash course on how to cherry pick properly.

  81. on 12 Mar 2014 at 1:30 pm 81.freddies_dead said …

    676.The messenger said …

    671.freddies_dead, I honestly do not know how much a cubit is.

    Lazy. Very lazy. A quick Google gives us the answer. A cubit is approximately 1.5 feet (450mm). Yes it’s not exact because a cubit was defined as the length of the arm from elbow to tip of the middle finger but it’s a reasonable enough approximation. Even if we consider the longer cubit length of 500mm the ark would be somewhere in the range 450 to 500 feet. See? It’s quite easy to look things up so you aren’t ignorant about them, messy. You should try it some time.

    And no, it is not a metaphor, because their is no evidence to suggest or prove that it is metaphorical.

    Just like there’s no evidence to suggest that, when the Bible says “ye shall stone them with stones that they die”, it’s being all metaphorical about it.

  82. on 12 Mar 2014 at 4:35 pm 82.DPK said …

    Freddie… god could very well have been describing a metaphorical cubit, in which case the ark certainly could have been any size. The flood however, was not metaphorical. That really happened. That is why we have rainbows. Are you on drugs?

    LOL….
    Seems even Sweetcakes wishes to distance himself from Messy’s mess of contradictions and mind numbing mental contortions.

  83. on 12 Mar 2014 at 7:03 pm 83.Sweetness said …

    Which is funnier? Atheist interpreting Scripture or alex’s inability to communicate without profanity?

    lol! Its a toss up!

    Do Atheists use Every Atheists guide to the Bible blog for interpretation?

  84. on 12 Mar 2014 at 8:24 pm 84.DPK said …

    No, what is ACTUALLY funny is the idea that the supreme creator of the universe would need the likes of YOU or Messy to explain to us what he ACTUALLY means. That’s a riot!! LOL…….

    D

  85. on 12 Mar 2014 at 9:26 pm 85.alex said …

    i amuse you? you make me puke, dumbass motherfuker. i say some obvious bullshit in here and i guarantee it, the atheists will let me know it. you, on the other hand sit silently by, complicit, while the other motherfucker, messenger, spout off shit after shit and not a peep from you. his shit is so despicable, you just know he’ll never post them publicly on a site where his identity is known.

    atheists interpreting the bible? does that make sense? the fuckhead, messenger tries to jam his shit on an atheist blog, no less and when his crap is refuted using the same bullshit bible, you come back with that whiny, weak, sarcastic shit?

    at least my profanity is directed to dumb motherfuckers. what is the purpose of your xtian regurgitation? convert atheists? or you’re trying muster up the nerve to attempt another fluff job on yourself.

    dumbass.

  86. on 12 Mar 2014 at 10:07 pm 86.The messenger said …

    687.DPK, he does not need us, but he wants us to preach his message so that we and the rest of mankind will better understand it.

  87. on 12 Mar 2014 at 10:10 pm 87.The messenger said …

    680.alex, I see that you are oblivious to all logic and reason, so therefore I will no longer debate with the likes of you and your stupidity.

  88. on 12 Mar 2014 at 10:30 pm 88.alex said …

    “so therefore I will no longer debate with the likes of you and your stupidity.”

    you dumbass. i wouldn’t debate motherfuckers like you anymore than i would debate ufo or yeti believers. at least i have enough common sense to know about salt water dilution which totally just escapes you. you failed the first item in the stupidity test. stop and go home, asshole.

    you apologize for the for stoning bible shit, but yet you steadfastly cling to the notion of rape marriage? why is that? even in the face of other xtians repudiation, you cling on to the shit? is it your secret fantasy? name a church that believes in your fantasy rape marriage? say what? chirp? the church of messenger, flock of one?

    see, this is not debating. this is me heaping a whole lot of shit on your dumbass. now, move along bitch.

  89. on 12 Mar 2014 at 10:47 pm 89.alex said …

    ” It is a savage, sadistic, belief that teaches men to beat their wives (Qur’an (4:34)) and behead all non believers (Qur’an (8:12) – “I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them”). Islam is an abomination. It teaches violence and hate (Qur’an (5:51) – “O you who believe! do not take the Jews and the Christians for friends; they are friends of each other).”

    guess who wrote this shit? not sure if correct, but it doesn’t matter. motherfuckers like messenger quoting the koran is ok with you, but atheists can’t quote the bible?

    well, here is your entire collection of shit, otherwise know as horShit.pdf, uncanny, ain’t.

    readers enjoy hor’s … http://goo.gl/FnWvEP

    curm is probably not him, but you decide.

  90. on 12 Mar 2014 at 11:00 pm 90.The messenger said …

    681.freddies_dead, The bible many times speaks of rapists being punished for their actions. Even though it does not out right say “thou shall not rape” it does display opposition to rape and other awful things.

  91. on 12 Mar 2014 at 11:08 pm 91.alex said …

    “Even though it does not out right say “thou shall not rape” it does display opposition to rape and other awful things.”

    yeah, whatever, motherfucker, but you just can’t let go of that little tasty tidbit, can’t you. a rapist may marry his victim. your exact words:

    “..if a man rapes a woman that is not married, he is to bind himself to her(through marrage) and serve her for the rest of his life.”

    too tasty for you, eh? that’s why you’re a dumb motherfucker. who else believes in this shit?

  92. on 12 Mar 2014 at 11:09 pm 92.The messenger said …

    681.freddies_dead, there no verses in the bible that command the rape of concurred women, or any women for that matter.

    You posted verses about people being concurred and made to follow the Israelites, and then you state that rape was commanded, even though no such command ever took place. You assume that rape was commanded, but you cannot produce a single verse that states any command of rape.

  93. on 12 Mar 2014 at 11:14 pm 93.The messenger said …

    682.freddies_dead, I was not being condescending, and I am not the one that is angry. You are the only one here that is angry. I simply want to help you, but you react with cuss words and hate. You are acting like a bratty child, grow up.

  94. on 12 Mar 2014 at 11:19 pm 94.alex said …

    ” but you cannot produce a single verse that states any command of rape.”

    that’s why you’re a dumb motherfucker. you stated

    “Even though it does not out right say “thou shall not rape”

    granted this following verse is not a command, but it is a bullshit rape loophole, which motherfuckers like you, gleefully (fantasy) point out, but predictably, too cowardly to execute, for obvious reasons.

    “If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her.”

    if the motherfucking god, didn’t want you to rape, why the trivial, inexpensive, nonsensical loophole.

    wonder why the laws of the land do not even resemble your fantasy? it’s good that nobody believes in the shit that motherfuckers like you, do.

    see, this is not a debate. it’s a blistering heap of shit on your deserving stone age, ass.

  95. on 12 Mar 2014 at 11:23 pm 95.The messenger said …

    683.freddies_dead, I have indeed provided proof that the stoning verse are a metaphor.

    Once again I will post the evidence.

    John 8:1-11 reveals that no human, except Jesus, can literally stone a person because we have all sinned at least one in our lives. Therefore the stoning commandments in the old testament must be metaphorical.

    I hope that this time it sticks in your brain.

  96. on 12 Mar 2014 at 11:27 pm 96.alex said …

    “but you react with cuss words and hate. You are acting like a bratty child, grow up.”

    maybe so, but you, otoh, insist on spewing fantasy rape shit that you know would be criminal if carried out. your honor, i, messenger, plead marriage in lieu of incarceration. bileble says so.

    hate? rape and then proposing marriage is beyond hate, it’s despicable and bothersome. that’s why even your homies are silent on this, yet you persist.

    now who’s the brat? you keep insisting on this rape marriage nonsense even when most xtians have abandoned the notion. why? that porn making you feel guilty, is that it?

  97. on 12 Mar 2014 at 11:36 pm 97.alex said …

    “John 8:1-11 reveals that no human, except Jesus, can literally stone a person because we have all sinned at least one in our lives.”

    wrong motherfucker. the original sin is bullshit and you’re using it as a premise to support more fucked up bullshit. it doesn’t say “no stoning”.
    it says you may, but either way, remember this little jewel?

    “It is easier for Heaven and Earth to pass away than for the smallest part of the letter of the law to become invalid.” (Luke 16:17 NAB)”

    you just can’t cancel shit and go around making up more shit. go fuck yourself, dumbass.

  98. on 12 Mar 2014 at 11:38 pm 98.The messenger said …

    684.freddies_dead, I was not being lazy. I am simply saying that we have no idea how long a cubit was back then.

    Before you start babbling again, listen to this.

    During ancient times certain measurements were not always consistent, such as the foot. Since these early people had a hard time with records the measurements were always somewhat off.

    I am simply saying that the modern length of a cubit may not be the exact same as how the ancient civilization’ version.

  99. on 12 Mar 2014 at 11:39 pm 99.The messenger said …

    683.freddies_dead, ps I am not talking about original sin.

  100. on 12 Mar 2014 at 11:40 pm 100.The messenger said …

    683.freddies_dead, I have indeed provided proof that the stoning verse are a metaphor.

    Once again I will post the evidence.

    John 8:1-11 reveals that no human, except Jesus, can literally stone a person because we have all sinned at least one in our lives. Therefore the stoning commandments in the old testament must be metaphorical.

    I hope that this time it sticks in your brain.
    .

  101. on 12 Mar 2014 at 11:54 pm 101.alex said …

    “I was not being lazy. I am simply saying that we have no idea how long a cubit was back then.”

    no, you dumbass. remember your previous post?
    “there are no talking snakes or donkies in the bible.”

    it’s precedent and you can’t hide it. even your own bible shit, you’re too stupid and lazy to go look it up.

    “I am not talking about original sin.”

    yes, you are, you dumbass. you said we all have sinned and you have no proof of this and predictably, you will roll out the original sin.

    “John 8:1-11 reveals that no human, except Jesus, can literally stone a person because we have all sinned at least one in our lives.”

    wrong motherfucker. the original sin is bullshit and you’re using it as a premise to support more fucked up bullshit. it doesn’t say “no stoning”.
    it says you may, but either way, remember this little jewel?

    “It is easier for Heaven and Earth to pass away than for the smallest part of the letter of the law to become invalid.” (Luke 16:17 NAB)”

    you just can’t cancel shit and go around making up more shit. go fuck yourself, dumbass.

  102. on 13 Mar 2014 at 12:08 am 102.The messenger said …

    683..freddies_dead, ps I am not talking about original sin.

  103. on 13 Mar 2014 at 12:21 am 103.alex said …

    “except Jesus, can literally stone a person because we have all sinned at least one in our lives.”

    “I am not talking about original sin.”

    do retards sin? do autistic people sin? do schizos sin? what’s left?

  104. on 13 Mar 2014 at 12:50 am 104.The messenger said …

    706.alex, I see that you are acting mature now. I will resume our debate.

    Sin is sin, wheither or not we know it is a sin.

    So yes, retards, autistic, and schizos people do sin. But GOD shows more mercy to them because most of the time they do not know when they sin.

  105. on 13 Mar 2014 at 1:50 am 105.Sweetness said …

    “alex, I see that you are acting mature now. I will resume our debate.”

    lol!!!!! Good behavior should be rewarded. But can it last? Nah, not likely.

    Have fun

  106. on 13 Mar 2014 at 11:33 am 106.alex said …

    “Sin is sin, wheither or not we know it is a sin.”

    more predictable garbage. you’re a piece of shit whether you know it or not. how’s that? right back at you? where is your proof that everybody sins? none, nada, so it’s business as usual for your ass. more bullshit.

    if retards, autistic, and schizos people do sin and they don’t know, what’s the need for god? you dumb, motherfucker.

    “Good behavior should be rewarded.”

    are you god? then shut the fuck up.

  107. on 13 Mar 2014 at 2:03 pm 107.freddies_dead said …

    684.DPK said …

    Freddie… god could very well have been describing a metaphorical cubit, in which case the ark certainly could have been any size. The flood however, was not metaphorical. That really happened. That is why we have rainbows. Are you on drugs?

    I’m beginning to wish I had some of whatever messy is on…

  108. on 13 Mar 2014 at 2:03 pm 108.freddies_dead said …

    692.The messenger said …

    681.freddies_dead, The bible many times speaks of rapists being punished for their actions.

    And many times it simply condones their actions … your point?

    Even though it does not out right say “thou shall not rape” it does display opposition to rape and other awful things.

    It also displays the support of rape and other awful things. You just choose to hand wave those bits away because you don’t like them.

  109. on 13 Mar 2014 at 2:07 pm 109.freddies_dead said …

    694.The messenger said …

    681.freddies_dead, there no verses in the bible that command the r*pe of concurred women, or any women for that matter.

    You posted verses about people being concurred and made to follow the Israelites, and then you state that r*pe was commanded, even though no such command ever took place. You assume that r*pe was commanded, but you cannot produce a single verse that states any command of r*pe.

    Stop lying about what I have claimed. I never once claimed the Bible commanded rape, rather I pointed out that it condones it in certain circumstances. Women kidnapped after the destruction of their people, forced into marriages and therefore forced to endure rape at the hands of their kidnappers. Virgin girls, raped and then forced to marry their attackers so that they’ll be assualted again and again. Your Bible condones this behaviour. Just like it condones genocide and slavery.

  110. on 13 Mar 2014 at 2:07 pm 110.freddies_dead said …

    695.The messenger said …

    682.freddies_dead, I was not being condescending, and I am not the one that is angry. You are the only one here that is angry. I simply want to help you, but you react with cuss words and hate. You are acting like a bratty child, grow up.

    And there you go being a condescending prick once more. If you can’t handle adult conversations don’t enter into them.

  111. on 13 Mar 2014 at 2:11 pm 111.freddies_dead said …

    697 & 702.The messenger said …

    683.freddies_dead, I have indeed provided proof that the stoning verse are a metaphor.

    Once again I will post the evidence.

    John 8:1-11 reveals that no human, except Jesus, can literally stone a person because we have all sinned at least one in our lives. Therefore the stoning commandments in the old testament must be metaphorical.

    So you admit that at least 1 human can stone people (Jesus is claimed to have been wholly man as well as wholly God – and we’re supposed to ignore the inherent contradiction of course).

    However, I note you’ve completely abandoned the context surrounding John 8:1-11 – the context you adamantly claim makes passages like “stone them with stones that they die” metaphorical.

    Firstly it should be noted that the scribes and Pharisees bought the woman before Jesus not to seek justice. If they’d been looking for justice they’d have taken her to the relevant authorities. You have to remember that the scribes and Pharisees didn’t necessarily accept Jesus’ divinity and were looking to rid themselves of this troublesome rabbi. So they tried to get Jesus to denounce the woman and order her death as the law given to Moses prescribes. Of course that would put Jesus at odds with the Roman authorities at the time, as only they had the right to life and death over their subjects. They made a mistake. The law, as given to Moses, called for the death of both parties involved in adultery – where was the man? After all they’d been caught “in the very act”. Jesus’ pronouncement was quite simply that none of the accusers were in a position to stone this woman as they, themselves were breaking the very law they claimed to be seeking to uphold.

    As you’re fond of pointing out, you cannot simply ignore the context, especially when you’re attempting to build some general principle about your ineligibility to profess judgement. Your misappropriation of the text is duly noted.

    I hope that this time it sticks in your brain.

    Maybe you should worry about your own ignorance before seeking to point out what you believe to be shortcomings in others.

  112. on 13 Mar 2014 at 2:12 pm 112.freddies_dead said …

    700.The messenger said …

    684.freddies_dead, I was not being lazy. I am simply saying that we have no idea how long a cubit was back then.

    Rubbish. We actually have very reasonable ideas about how long a cubit was despite the fact it wasn’t a set figure – based as it was on a length that would differ from person to person. We certainly have a range of sizes within which we know the cubit fell and we can use that range to determine the size of things measured in cubits in the Bible. This includes the ark.

    Before you start babbling again, listen to this.

    Babbling? When you can’t be bothered to even look something up despite your use of the internet you have no right to suggest anyone who puts you right on your ridiculously ignorant claims is babbling.

    During ancient times certain measurements were not always consistent, such as the foot. Since these early people had a hard time with records the measurements were always somewhat off.

    I am simply saying that the modern length of a cubit may not be the exact same as how the ancient civilization’ version.

    And I pointed out that we actually do know what length a cubit was in many ancient civilisations giving us a reasonable range to work with.

  113. on 13 Mar 2014 at 3:23 pm 113.DPK said …

    “I am simply saying that the modern length of a cubit may not be the exact same as how the ancient civilization’ version.”

    See the torturous lengths one must go to to maintain one’s ridiculous delusion? Any sane person would realize that we have a reasonable range of what a cubit is, and that works out to the ark being described as around 450 feet. Now, maybe it was 550 feet, maybe it was 400. In ANY event, any reasonable person would realize that no matter what size is correct, there is no way a wooden boat that size could hold 2 (or 7 depending on which bible version your accept) of every creature on earth, along with enough food to keep them alive for almost a year, along with a way to contain them and keep them from eating each other, etc. etc… and would recognize that the story is nothing but a fable, a fairy tale…
    But Messy cannot accept that. Because it is in the bible, which is 100% true, we must look for mind numbing rationalizations to try to explain it…. maybe a cubit was really 12 miles long back in those days. Maybe there were only 50 species of animals back then, and all the species we have now evolved from them. Maybe when you dilute sea water with 4 times the volume of fresh water, it doesn’t change the salinity or water chemistry that marine life depends on to live.
    A mind is a terrible thing to waste……..

  114. on 13 Mar 2014 at 8:18 pm 114.The messenger said …

    709.alex, hating others is a sin, and I cannot name a single person on the earth that has never felt hate at least once in their lives.

    So yes, everyone(except GOD) has sinned at least once.

  115. on 13 Mar 2014 at 8:20 pm 115.The messenger said …

    710.freddies_dead, I never said any of that, except the part about the flood being literal.

  116. on 13 Mar 2014 at 8:21 pm 116.The messenger said …

    711.freddies_dead, name one verse that says rape is alright.

  117. on 13 Mar 2014 at 8:24 pm 117.The messenger said …

    713.freddies_dead, I am not acting condescending. I was simply giving a description of your behavior.

  118. on 13 Mar 2014 at 8:29 pm 118.The messenger said …

    714.freddies_dead, there is no contradiction, GOD and Jesus are the same person. GOD took human for, but he is still GOD. And GOD is the only person who is allowed to literally stone a person to death.

    Jesus was not entirely human, he was GOD as well. A 100% human is not allowed to literally stone a person.

  119. on 13 Mar 2014 at 8:32 pm 119.The messenger said …

    714.freddies_dead, the scribes and pharessies thought that the stoning verses were literal, but Jesus showed them that none of them were worthy to literally stone a person.

    I did not ignore anything.

  120. on 13 Mar 2014 at 8:37 pm 120.The messenger said …

    714.freddies_dead, Jesus did not say tht they had broken their own law, he simply said that he would give his stone to the first man that tells him that he has never sinned. Having sinned in the past, and realizing that they had no authority to stone the woman, they left on by one. Then Jesus walked over to the woman and forgave her sins, but warned her to not sin.

  121. on 13 Mar 2014 at 8:46 pm 121.Sweetness said …

    “and would recognize that the story is nothing but a fable, a fairy tale…”

    sometimes fairy tales are true…..right Dippity Dew? An ark in a flood……..is it less likely than claiming mankind’s ancestors crawled out of the ocean? And to make it more realistic that the those ancestors were born from lifeless matter? and….. It was all just by chance? Lol!!!!!!

    You who do not believe in fairy tales cast the first stone!!! lol!!!!!!!

  122. on 13 Mar 2014 at 9:28 pm 122.alex said …

    “I cannot name a single person on the earth that has never felt hate at least once in their lives.”

    that’s why you’re a dumb motherfucker. aside from the salt water that cannot be dilluted according to your dumbass, i know at least a couple of autistics that don’t hate. they don’t sin, so you’re wrong again. what? do i smell the bullshit original stink?

    how many times can a motherfucker be wrong?

  123. on 13 Mar 2014 at 9:47 pm 123.alex said …

    “freddies_dead, name one verse that says rape is alright.”

    name one verse that says thou shalt not rape? does this make us even? nope. the options after committing rape has been pointed many times to your ass. do you understand that most of your homies don’t agree with you?

    it says you may marry the victim. no matter how you sugarcoat this nonsense, it’s bull. hear ye, all you unwed men! find yoself a nice looking virgin and violate her and she has no choice but to marry you. you likes this because i suspect you want to do it, but don’t have the balls to do it.

    the bible is chock of thou shalt not’s, but nowhere is rape prohibited. but disgustingly, the bileble states explicitly, the marriage or shekel payoff are the options afterwards.

    you’re right, the bible doesn’t say it, but you agree that marrying the victim is cool. that’s why you persist in anonymously clogging up this blog with your $hit. said before, brave up motherfucker, and go public with your crap.

  124. on 13 Mar 2014 at 9:50 pm 124.alex said …

    “sometimes fairy tales are true…..right Dippity Dew? An ark in a flood……..is it less likely than claiming mankind’s ancestors crawled out of the ocean? And to make it more realistic that the those ancestors were born from lifeless matter?”

    ok, man’s ancestors didn’t crawl out of the ocean. and? what do you offer? shit! that’s what.

    what do i have to offer? refute, bitch. nonsense NOT tolerated.

  125. on 13 Mar 2014 at 10:06 pm 125.alex said …

    “I did not ignore anything.”

    you ignore the fact that salt water can be dilluted.

    you ignore the fact that you’re a lazy beeatch, by not looking up “donkies” and “cubit”.

    you ignore that fact that atheists don’t believe in all gods. remember this?
    “Atheists oppose the one true GOD, and therefore oppose all of his morals.”

    you ignore the fact that there is no moral guide and no one has produced it. remember this?
    “Humans can not possibly produce a moral guide as pure as the bible.”

    you ignore the fact that whoever asserts must produce the proof. i.e. prove that the universe wasn’t created by odin? remember this?
    “where is the proof that GOD did not create the earth?”

    you ignore the fact that elements can be determined just by looking at them. i’m not gonna tell your lazy, dumbass how. look it up, beeyatch!

    and the list is endless, see messenger’s dumbass collection at: http://goo.gl/v6lO0I

  126. on 13 Mar 2014 at 10:18 pm 126.alex said …

    here’s messenger’s m.o.

    cherry pick the bible to support his bullshit. dismiss bullshit bible passages pointed out, as “not literal”.
    proclaim that atheists are all these bad people.
    if you cannot disprove god, god must exist.
    numerous witnesses.

    how is this different from sea turtle adherants?

    sea turtle gospel says this and that.
    sea turtle gospel contradictions are euphemisms.
    hitler, mao-tse tung, crusaders, new world conquerors, ancient romans, huns, et all are all examples of atheist non sea turtle believers.
    there are many sea turtle witnesses.

    did i leave anything out?

    and what’s my m.o.? curse your motherfucking, bullshit serving, ass.

  127. on 13 Mar 2014 at 10:50 pm 127.alex said …

    what’s hor’s m.o.?

    point out some mundane, ridiculous shit that some people believe in, like it’s gonna validate his god nonsense. examples:

    1. something out of nothing. he keeps bringing up this shit like it’s some kind of atheist universal belief.
    2. dna programmer is required and god is it.

    make up some impossible, mutually exclusive situations and demand that atheists prove that it cannot exist. ? an all knowing god gives you free will. you don’t have to be an atheist to know this shit is impossible. spherical cube anyone?

    post with multiple names and when caught, nervously make up some bullshit, like that he is everyone. after getting busted many times, he’s given up posting as somebody else and instead fluffs his moronic buddy, messenger. but he’s careful not to agree with messenger’s obvious stupidity.

    that’s his entire m.o. readers, ye be the judge. check out his entire collection at: http://goo.gl/KCGo6g

    you may not agree with my cursing the motherfucker, but maybe, you’ll see why.

  128. on 13 Mar 2014 at 11:28 pm 128.Sweetness said …

    “nonsense NOT tolerated.”

    Oh please don’t leave. You are great for the theist cause. Besides you need to stay busy so as not to do something foolish. :)

  129. on 14 Mar 2014 at 12:46 am 129.alex said …

    “Oh please don’t leave.”

    nice comeback, motherfucker. i forgot to add to your m.o.

    sarcastic, lols, name calling. makes you feel better but doesn’t do shit for your god, does it?

    am i guilty of same? course, but not in the name of some bullshit.

  130. on 14 Mar 2014 at 12:49 am 130.alex said …

    “stay busy so as not to do something foolish.”

    what? like, me rape a virgin and propose marriage, something like that? i would offer shekels but i don’t have any. the motherfucker, messenger cornered the market. not sure what he’s gonna use them for, you got any ideas?

  131. on 14 Mar 2014 at 12:51 am 131.Anonymous said …

    726.alex, I do not cherry pick verses. I recognize all of the verses.

    You cherry pick stoning verses and forget the surrounding text.

  132. on 14 Mar 2014 at 12:51 am 132.The messenger said …

    726.alex, I do not cherry pick verses. I recognize all of the verses.

    You cherry pick stoning verses and forget the surrounding text.

  133. on 14 Mar 2014 at 12:54 am 133.The messenger said …

    729.alex, none of your comments contain any substance.

    Like a monkey throw poop, you throw cuss words and other crap that you barf up.

  134. on 14 Mar 2014 at 1:00 am 134.alex said …

    “you throw cuss words and other crap that you barf up.”

    so, what did your congregation say when you distributed this shit of yours? http://goo.gl/v6lO0I

    embarassing ain’t it. but it’s archived, you dumb motherfucker. come one, bitch, name one xtian that agrees with you. 4? no? not even one other person? you’re a church of one? come on hor, speak. fluff your homie.

  135. on 14 Mar 2014 at 1:01 am 135.alex said …

    “I recognize all of the verses.”

    cubit, bitch. look it up.

    salt water dilutes, motherfucker. recognize!

  136. on 14 Mar 2014 at 1:04 am 136.alex said …

    “alex, none of your comments contain any substance.”

    of course it doesn’t. what it does, though, is refute your total bullshit.

    marriage after rape is TOTAL bs. not a single sane person believes that and you’re the proof.

  137. on 14 Mar 2014 at 1:32 pm 137.freddies_dead said …

    717.The messenger said …

    710.freddies_dead, I never said any of that, except the part about the flood being literal.

    I never claimed that you did but, since you bought it up, do you have any physical evidence for a global flood? I know it mentions one in your big book of myths but then most religions/cultures have their own flood story. With the total lack of physical evidence for a global flood why should I accept the Bible’s account instead of say the Sumerian one?

  138. on 14 Mar 2014 at 1:32 pm 138.freddies_dead said …

    718.The messenger said …

    711.freddies_dead, name one verse that says rape is alright.

    Already asked and answered – take your pick out of any of the verses which condone rape by granting the Israelites the rights to the virgin women from the tribes they massacred.

  139. on 14 Mar 2014 at 1:33 pm 139.freddies_dead said …

    719.The messenger said …

    713.freddies_dead, I am not acting condescending. I was simply giving a description of your behavior.

    Your unwarranted assumption that your behaviour is somehow better simply because you don’t use certain words is condescending.

  140. on 14 Mar 2014 at 1:35 pm 140.freddies_dead said …

    721.The messenger said …

    714.freddies_dead, the scribes and pharessies thought that the stoning verses were literal, but Jesus showed them that none of them were worthy to literally stone a person.

    Of course they thought the verses were literal. They believed them to be the Law of God given to them through Moses. Are you saying that what Moses told them wasn’t the Law? Why would Moses lie to them? Wouldn’t God have been a bit pissed at Moses for lying after He’d just told Moses that people shouldn’t lie? Your claims make no sense whan we look at context.

    I did not ignore anything.

    Except all of the context that surrounds those verses of course. But then that’s not a surprise as the context shows your claim to be baseless.

  141. on 14 Mar 2014 at 1:36 pm 141.freddies_dead said …

    722.The messenger said …

    714.freddies_dead, Jesus did not say tht they had broken their own law, he simply said that he would give his stone to the first man that tells him that he has never sinned. Having sinned in the past, and realizing that they had no authority to stone the woman, they left on by one. Then Jesus walked over to the woman and forgave her sins, but warned her to not sin.

    Yup, that’s exactly how you ignored the context the first time. Is it supposed to somehow be true if you simply repeat your claim whilst still ignoring the context? What about verse 6 that starts “This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him.”? You gloss over that part without explaining, why? Why would the Pharisees only bring the woman and not the man too? Why would they be trying to tempt Jesus? What does it mean “that they might have to accuse him”? Why did Jesus then ignore the Law He (as God) supposedly handed down to Moses and change things when He had stated that He hadn’t come to change the Law? Your version makes no sense when we look at context.

  142. on 14 Mar 2014 at 5:31 pm 142.Sweetness said …

    “Why did Jesus then ignore the Law He (as God) supposedly handed down to Moses and change things when He had stated that He hadn’t come to change the Law”

    Freddie mouse is getting closer to seeing the significance of the NT………..if only he was willing to learn rather than just looking to be smugly combative……sigh….

    :)

  143. on 14 Mar 2014 at 5:34 pm 143.Sweetness said …

    Suppose the Bible is not what it claims to be.

    Bow have you disproven God?

    Atheist like to go to the Bible since they cannot logically defend the notion of God.

    Same old cowardly tactics…..lol!!!!!

  144. on 14 Mar 2014 at 5:41 pm 144.DPK said …

    Yes, Freddie… don’t you understand? … the writers of the new testament wrote it to fix all the crazy ass shit in the old testament that no one would any longer believe came from a supreme being!

    So, they said that god just changed his all knowing mind about all that slaughtering, rape, stoning, ripping, burning, and blood letting.

    It’s the ultimate do-over. Kind of an insane idea for an omniscient god with omnipotent powers. Seems he would have known he was wrong about all of that stuff before he would need to change his story and switch from jealous warrior god of Israel to gentle Jesus meek and mild.

  145. on 14 Mar 2014 at 7:05 pm 145.DPK said …

    746.Sweetness said …
    “Suppose the Bible is not what it claims to be…”

    You mean suppose it is not the perfect word of a supreme being who is both omniscient and omnipotent? That’s fairly obvious.

    “Bow have you disproven God?”

    It would, simply put, show that the bible is not the perfect word of a supreme being. So, it will have disproven the biblical god as described in the bible. Duh. Are you talking about some OTHER god? Sea turtle perhaps, or Vishnu? If so,you are correct, the bible not being what it claims to be would indeed not disprove any of THOSE gods.

    “Atheist like to go to the Bible since they cannot logically defend the notion of God.”

    Well, as you note, atheists certainly cannot logically defend the notion of god… neither can you, apparently.

    But, like the other example you ran away from showing the impossibility of any creature being both all knowing and all powerful at the same time, we can indeed “logically” demonstrate the impossibility of your specific god. LOL!

    If you want to make claims about what atheists can and cannot logically demonstrate, you need to clearly define who your god is and what is properties are. Is he both all powerful and all knowing? Is he omni-benevolent?

  146. on 15 Mar 2014 at 12:09 am 146.The messenger said …

    738.alex, the only thing that your comments refute is your intelligence.

  147. on 15 Mar 2014 at 12:21 am 147.The messenger said …

    740.freddies_dead, because unlike all of those pagan religions, Christianity and Judaism have survived the test of time and have laid out the moral foundation of the western world.

    You are American right? Well your rights are “GOD given” according to our founding fathers. The fact that GOD gave us these right makes them sacred, and because they are sacred they cannot be changed or taken from us. if these were human given rights, any greedy politician could easily violate our rights and oppress us.

    Our founding fathers believed that “rebellion against tyranny is obedience to god”. I believe that too.

  148. on 15 Mar 2014 at 2:07 am 148.alex said …

    “alex, the only thing that your comments refute is your intelligence”

    then man up, beeyatch. publicly state your righteous position and let’s see how your xtian homies react.

    but you know they’ll laugh at your motherfucking ass. forget this blog. your shit is old, caveman shit, that most xtians won’t even consider.

    but you’ll stay in your anonymous, caveman, world. you’ll keep fucking up this blog, but motherfuckers like me will tireless call out your shit.

    post on, beeyatch.

  149. on 15 Mar 2014 at 2:16 am 149.alex said …

    “because unlike all of those pagan religions, Christianity and Judaism have survived the test of time and have laid out the moral foundation of the western world.”

    wrong again, beeyatch. many religions are older that your bullshit, but as you’ve demonstrated before, you haven’t mastered the elementary skill of looking up shit.

    “You are American right? Well your rights are “GOD given” according to our founding fathers. The fact that GOD gave us these right makes them sacred, and because they are sacred they cannot be changed or taken from us.”

    wrong on all counts. if you’ve been paying attention, american, he’s not. the shit about the founding fathers, you made it up and once again, i’m calling you out on it. strike three, god did not give us these rights.

    see how your bullshit is called out, no? then prove it. you stated it as fact and i say bull, so prove me wrong. your days of proclaiming bullshit is over. all you fuckers have left is anonymously posting your crap. what happened to the john 3:13 signs?

    plez, don’t even try the xtian prosecution shit. i would call out your shit even if you were buddist.

    rage against the bullshit, motherfucker.

  150. on 15 Mar 2014 at 2:32 am 150.Sweetness said …

    “So, it will have disproven the biblical god as described in the bible. Duh.”

    ROTFL;!!!! It proves nothing of the kind! It only proves you don’t like the God of the Bible. Or that you just don’t understand a deity with your finite pea brain. Lol!!!!

    But again, so what? How have you disproven a Creator created and sustains the universe? Hmmmm? I mean you can’t even offer a viable alternative! :)

    lol!!!!

  151. on 15 Mar 2014 at 3:11 am 151.DPK said …

    ROTFL;!!!! It proves nothing of the kind! It only proves you don’t like the God of the Bible.

    Have you been hitting the sauce again, Stan? You said, “suppose the bible is not what it claims to be.” Well, it claims to be the word of god. If it is not what it claims to be then it is Not the word of the god described in it! Your condition… Idiot! Lol

    “Or that you just don’t understand a deity with your finite pea brain. Lol!!!!”

    Again, we were talking about the biblical god, now you are changing the subject to “a deity”. Man up and describe your deity. If it is not the biblical god, then what god are you claiming, and how do you know? Explain.

    “But again, so what? How have you disproven a Creator created and sustains the universe? Hmmmm? I mean you can’t even offer a viable alternative! :)”

    In a absence of any evidence that a “creator” in fact created and sustained the universe, why do I need to present an alternative? You have not disproven that the magic sea turtle created and sustains the universe. You have not disproven that mighty Zeus created and sustains the universe. Lol. Is that your idea of what the scientific method is?

    You are so funny laddie… Tell you what, we have already dismissed the biblical god, tell us about your deity and let’s explore the possibility that he perhaps did create and sustains the universe. Is he omnipotent, omniscient, and Omni- benevolent? Let’s find out if this deity is an actual possibility, or is simply another invented god of the gaps, which you already told us was a silly argument.
    Whatca got, Hor? Nothing again? Lol!

  152. on 15 Mar 2014 at 4:01 am 152.alex said …

    “Whatca got, Hor? Nothing again?”

    take a look at hor’s (a.k.a. sweetness) entire contribution to this article: http://goo.gl/1oxrPO

    you’ll notice that he doesn’t present ONE single argument for his xtian god. atheists present material to refute his crap and his comebacks are always the same. nervous lols, laughs, and name calling. always challenging and demanding answers, but not ONE single argument for his xtian god. basically, his stance is that any atheist explanation is dubious therefore god is the only other choice.

    check it out. it’s legit. original wwgha links included: http://goo.gl/1oxrPO

    time to change your handle, hor.

  153. on 15 Mar 2014 at 3:35 pm 153.DPK said …

    “his stance is that any atheist explanation is dubious therefore god is the only other choice.”

    Exactly, like god wins by default. Then, in order to provide an explanation of how this supposed god works and what he wants from us, they describe a god with properties that are absolutely impossible because they are self exclusive… Like a god who can do anything, but has perfect knowledge of everything that has, or will occur. An all powerful god who is all good, yet created evil and allows it to exist and cause untold suffering… indeed planned it that way. A god who knows in advance every thing that will ever happen for all eternity, but never the less allows us free will to do whatever we choose, and then will punish us for eternity if we choose wrong.
    Then they add to that a list of properties that seem too ridiculous to even consider, unless you happen to be a bronze age goat herder cowering at the sight of a comet or solar eclipse.
    A god so intelligent and powerful so as to create the cosmos and everything in it just from the force of his will, but requires worship and adoration from some creatures living on a tiny, obscure speck in the vicinity of some obscure star among trillions upon trillions of stars. Creatures who have only even existed for a few seconds, cosmologicaly speaking. A god who is all powerful and all loving, yet demands a blood sacrifice in the most brutal, primitive fashion, in order to atone for a “sin” committed exactly as he had planned it to be committed. A god who describes himself as “jealous” and “vengeful” to whom the worst transgression you can commit is worshiping some other god. A god who lives in a state of absolute perfection and goodness, yet who’s fellow celestial inhabitants hated so much that they rebelled against him, fought a war to overthrow him, and had to be cast out of this perfect existence into a place of eternal torment.
    Yeah, that all makes sense……..

  154. on 15 Mar 2014 at 5:57 pm 154.alex said …

    and predictably, hor will challenge atheists to prove how his impossible god cannot exist and the loony loop begins anew. monkey ancestors, dna programmer, macro evolution, ocean swimming, ….. lols in between.

    adam, where are you? i can see you, but i ask anyways coz i’m testing you, even though i already know what you gonna answer. what crazo.

    and then, the dipshit messenger will join the fray, bible this, literal this, atheists, this, marriage for rape, donkies, snakes, salinity, oy! oy! oy! name calling, bleh, bleh.

    …and then hor will ask, what do i bring to the table? i bring shit for you theist motherfuckers and isn’t that god’s plan? i just can’t help myself.

    morons.

  155. on 15 Mar 2014 at 8:36 pm 155.Sweetness said …

    “Well, it claims to be the word of god. If it is not what it claims to be then it is Not the word of the god described in it! Your condition”

    ROTFL! So how has this prove the God of the Bible not true? All we did is, for the moment, assume the Bible is not what it claims. The statement being erroneous does not disprove God! WOW!!!!! Lol!!!!! You are a hoot! That’s like saying a faulty biography of Washington proves Washington did not exist!!! Hahahahahahaha

    “why do I need to present an alternative”

    Because you have whined the same thing. No creator? Give use a possible scenario for creation. Scared? Offer something of value so you can shut up Messenger. Imagine how sweet that would be for you!

    lol!!!

  156. on 15 Mar 2014 at 8:55 pm 156.Sweetness said …

    “Again, we were talking about the biblical god, now you are changing the subject to “a deity”.”

    ROTFL!!!!!!

    Wow!!!!

    OK, um,……..YHWH……in the Bible……IS a deity. LOL!!!!

    Dippity Dew, think about going into a good GED program.

    lol!!!!!

  157. on 15 Mar 2014 at 11:40 pm 157.The messenger said …

    757.alex, I did not make any of those things about America.

  158. on 15 Mar 2014 at 11:41 pm 158.The messenger said …

    740.freddies_dead, because unlike all of those pagan religions, Christianity and Judaism have survived the test of time and have laid out the moral foundation of the western world.

    You are American right? Well your rights are “GOD given” according to our founding fathers. The fact that GOD gave us these right makes them sacred, and because they are sacred they cannot be changed or taken from us. if these were human given rights, any greedy politician could easily violate our rights and oppress us.

    Our founding fathers believed that “rebellion against tyranny is obedience to god”. I believe that too.

    P.s., alex, let fred speak for himself.

  159. on 16 Mar 2014 at 12:24 am 159.alex said …

    “Offer something of value so you can shut up Messenger.”

    you believe that rapists should be allowed to marry their victims? any other xtians here believe this shit? does this shut up the motherfucker, messenger?

    salt water may be dilluted even though the resident idiot doesn’t think so. does this shut up the motherfucker, messenger?

    balaam’s donkey is in the bible, contrary to what the dipshit, messenger claims. does this shut up the motherfucker, messenger?

    every single one of those comments, refuted, just like your shit. there is nothing an atheist can offer you to change your mind because you’re a dumb motherfucker. even if allah showed up and shoved his magic horse up your ass, you still wouldn’t be convinced. how the fuck are atheists supposed to convince your?

    man up and say your shit and back it up, but you won’t because it’ll be back right up in your face.

  160. on 16 Mar 2014 at 12:37 am 160.alex said …

    “alex, let fred speak for himself.”

    nobody here’s stopping freddie, but i work on the computer all the time and your shit is not getting a free pass.

    you spouting off more shit about “god given” rights according to the founding fathers. cite it, bitch and your motherfucking, lazy, ignorant, ass will be exposed yet again.

    …i’m standing by. google, your stupid, lazy, fuck.

  161. on 16 Mar 2014 at 1:25 am 161.The messenger said …

    763.alex, no wonder your crazy, you spend too much time in front of a screen.

    Get a life.

  162. on 16 Mar 2014 at 1:32 am 162.The messenger said …

    763.alex, it is fact that the founding fathers wrote that we have rights given to us by our creator(GOD).

    It is fact that on the Great Seal of the United States (the one that our founding fathers made) it says “rebellion to tyrants is obedience to GOD”.

    I did not lie. Our government is founded by a belief in GOD.

  163. on 16 Mar 2014 at 1:56 am 163.alex said …

    “alex, no wonder your crazy, you spend too much time in front of a screen.”

    you dumb shit. i’m a computer programmer and i work at home. i also run two non profit sites that raise money for the poor. how the fuck do you think, i’m able to gather and post your entire dumbass wwgha post collection?

    “it is fact that the founding fathers wrote that we have rights given to us by our creator(GOD).”

    wrong. if it is, they would have written that in the constitution, wouldn’t they? instead, they added the exclusionary:

    “no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.”

    read motherfucker. ever heard these?
    “Separation of church and state”. used by jefferson and others. think i’m making this shit up? scotus used this phrase many times. first amendement, motherfucker:

    …provides that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”

    i told you to google, you dumb, lazy, motherfucker.

    where you at, hor? spank your bitch, messenger.

    of course, it’s not surprising. the same dumbass, messenger, claims that salt water can’t be dilluted.

    scotus? look it up, lazy fucker.

  164. on 16 Mar 2014 at 3:02 am 164.Sweetness said …

    “Separation of church and state”. used by jefferson and others”

    ROTFL!!!!!! Jefferson was not even in the US when the constitution was written. Remember? If it is not in the constitution it doesn’t matter! Lol!!!!!!

    He did as a younger man write the DI. After some moderation from the Congress, they agreed our rights come……from…….our…….Creator!

    ouch!

    Alex the silver tongue is busted!!!!!

    I’m standing by google because your tripe is not going unchallenged!!

    lol!!!!!!!!!

    Still luv ya Alex. You are a wonderful example for all the kids!

  165. on 16 Mar 2014 at 3:23 am 165.alex said …

    “Jefferson was not even in the US when the constitution was written.”

    where did i say he was in the u.s.? did your google result show the jefferson did say this? did your google result show that others said it? did your google results show the scotus referencing the term? as usual, you got nothing, so you make up shit.

    that’s why allah would never convince you even if he shoved the magical horse up your ass.

    “Remember? If it is not in the constitution it doesn’t matter!” who said that?

    see your m.o. is surfacing again. i call out your lying xtian homie and you make up shit in your feeble, sorry attempt, to shore up your all knowing god. of course, all this lying was planned by your god and you couldn’t help yourself.

    go fuck yourself. ask your sorry god why he insist on making you look like a dumbass fool.

  166. on 16 Mar 2014 at 3:32 am 166.alex said …

    here’s a reminder.

    let’s say i’m wrong about jefferson, the constitution, about the age of the earth, about everything i know.

    what the fuck does that do for your god? hmmm, let’s see? nada, nill, nothing. heard that before, you dumb motherfucker? right back on square one ain’t it. no motherfucking distraction will ever change your bullshit god, unless, of course, you got something?

    let’s hear it. what? corvette, dna programmer, ocean swimming, macarel evolution? obama? what, motherfucker?

    hey, i’m allah. what can i do to convince your ass? how about if i shove mohammad’s magical horse up your ass, would that do it?

    you see? there’s not a thing atheists can say in here, to change your dumbass. nothing. say it beeyatch.

  167. on 16 Mar 2014 at 3:55 am 167.alex said …

    and with all of hor’s postings, what does he bring to the table in support of his god? check it out:
    http://goo.gl/1oxrPO

    nothing, nada. diversion after diversion. the motherfucker posts and posts and atheist refutes his ass every time. as i said before, there is nothing atheists can say or do to convince this dipshit.

    if christ were to show up today, the motherfucker wouldn’t be convinced. let’s see you program the dna, j. assemble the corvette. swim the ocean. freeze the waterfall. camel thru a needle. then we’ll talk.

  168. on 16 Mar 2014 at 5:57 pm 168.Sweetness said …

    “where did i say he was in the u.s.?”

    Oh you NOMALLY bounce from the Constitution to a letter written to the Dansbury Baptist? lol!!!!!

    “did your google result show the jefferson did say this”

    No I read……multiple biographies on most of the POTUS……

    “let’s say i’m wrong about jefferson”

    You are….don’t need to say it :). As a reminder, YOU brought up the Constitution and Jefferson. Don’t bring up subjects above your pay grade…lol!!!!!

    You got taken….go get your GED.

    Cue: Profanity, subject change and rants of anger.

    lol!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  169. on 16 Mar 2014 at 6:19 pm 169.alex said …

    and with all of hor’s postings, what does he bring to the table in support of his god? check it out:
    http://goo.gl/1oxrPO

    nothing, nada. diversion after diversion. the motherfucker posts and posts and atheist refutes his ass every time. as i said before, there is nothing atheists can say or do to convince this dipshit.

    if christ were to show up today, the motherfucker wouldn’t be convinced. let’s see you program the dna, j. assemble the corvette. swim the ocean. freeze the waterfall. camel thru a needle. then we’ll talk.

  170. on 16 Mar 2014 at 6:30 pm 170.alex said …

    ““let’s say i’m wrong about jefferson”

    You are….don’t need to say it :). As a reminder, YOU brought up the Constitution and Jefferson. Don’t bring up subjects above your pay grade…lol!!!!!”

    ok, there ya go folks. i’m wrong and i don’t need to say it, but i will, just to shut the motherfucker up. just to make sure everyone knows i’m wrong. AND hor’s god is still what? bullshit still.

    btw, your homie is the one that brought up the constitution via his founding father’s bullshit, just so you know, but i’m also wrong about that one. and your god is still what? bullshit still.

  171. on 16 Mar 2014 at 7:23 pm 171.DPK said …

    763.alex, it is fact that the founding fathers wrote that we have rights given to us by our creator(GOD).

    The founding fathers were also supporters of slavery who did not think blacks were equal to other humans, and that those rights granted to “us” by a creator were reserved exclusively for white, male, land owners. Lol.
    So what does that prove about the existence of your god? Nothing? And what does it demonstrate about those founding fathers religous beliefs that they went out of their way to make sure the government was never to be influenced by a religion?

    And while we’re on the subject of silly things, is Hor ever going to explain the dichomety of a god who is all knowing, yet all powerful, and also all good?
    Yeah, did,t think so. Instead we get pearls like, “assume the bible is wrong, that still doesn’t disprove god!” Lol!
    Ok, assume Greek Mythology is wrong, that still doesn’t disprove Zeus.
    What a douche.

  172. on 16 Mar 2014 at 7:50 pm 172.alex said …

    “763.alex, it is fact that the founding fathers wrote that we have rights given to us by our creator(GOD).”

    fair enough, i’m wrong about that one.

    i’m also wrong about the earth being older that 10,000 years old.

    i’m also wrong about hor posting using multiple names fluffing hisself.

    … and hor’s god is still bullshit.

  173. on 16 Mar 2014 at 11:17 pm 173.alex said …

    hor’s and messenger’s books are so crappy and voluminous, which made it slow to render, i had to rewrite the shit. so here it is, speedier and sorted with the last posts first:
    http://goo.gl/e6XUnU

    ran into hor’s special gem where he posted as martin and congratulated hisself. here it is again:

    Alex since you have neither you have a lot of free time huh?
    lol!!

    Martin,

    Good one!

    hor’s book is hooked up to this blog, so when hor adds more crap, it’s added to the top of the shit.

  174. on 17 Mar 2014 at 12:00 am 174.The messenger said …

    774.DPK, you are a liar.

    Thomas Jefferson called slavery a “moral depravity” and a “hideous blot”. He hated slavery.

    Although George Washington owned slaves, he treated them with more respect and kindness than most of his neighbors. And he personally opposed slavery, he did not want to cause conflicts within the young country.

    John Adams was a famous abolitionist. He has the title of being the “archest enemy of southern slavery that every existed”.

    You are not educated in U.S.A history, brother DPK.

  175. on 17 Mar 2014 at 12:11 am 175.Angus and Alexis said …

    Citation needed.

  176. on 17 Mar 2014 at 12:36 am 176.alex said …

    “Although George Washington owned slaves, he treated them with more respect and kindness than most of his neighbors. And he personally opposed slavery, he did not want to cause conflicts within the young country.”

    and how the fuck does this prove your god? 2+ billion xtian motherfuckers on the planet and they all believe in bullshit. other than the bible and other bullshit writings and of course, other bullshit xtian witnessess, whatcha got?

    here’s your pile of shit, again. http://goo.gl/e6XUnU

    your latest crap must be light. floats to the top. eat more fiber, motherfucker.

  177. on 17 Mar 2014 at 12:47 am 177.The messenger said …

    778.Angus and Alexis,

    David C. Frederick, “John Quincy Adams, Slavery, and the Disappearance of the Right of Petition,” Law and History Review, Spring 1991, Vol. 9 Issue 1, pp 113-155

    Leonard L. Richards, The slave power: the free North and southern domination, 1780-1860 (2000) p. 44

    Edward G. Lengel (2012). A Companion to George Washington. John Wiley. p. 90.
    13.Jump up ^ Fritz Hirschfeld (1997). George Washington and Slavery: A Documentary Portrayal. University of Missouri Press. p. 74

  178. on 17 Mar 2014 at 12:48 am 178.The messenger said …

    779.alex, stay on subject.

    We are discussing the founding fathers and slavery.

  179. on 17 Mar 2014 at 12:59 am 179.alex said …

    “We are discussing the founding fathers and slavery”

    and? you say, he say, and? your god is still bullshit. you can recite every word uttered by the ff and? your god is still bullshit, moron.

    let’s discuss how your dumbass, like the idea of rapists marrying their victims? this is a fact, motherfucker. hor as well as many xtians distance themselves from this shit, but not you.

    discuss away, motherfucker.

  180. on 17 Mar 2014 at 1:05 am 180.alex said …

    781.The messenger said …

    you’re right, motherfucker, 100%

    except for the salt water part. except for the donkey in the bible part. except for the cubit part. except for the rape marriage part…..

    and most of the shit in here. http://goo.gl/e6XUnU

    your sideshow is pointless. again, what would allah have to do to show you he’s god? what about jesus? what would jesus have to do to show you he’s god?

    what the fuck do you want from atheists in here? if allah couldn’t convince your ass, how the fuck….

  181. on 17 Mar 2014 at 1:25 am 181.Sweetness said …

    “John Adams was a famous abolitionist. He has the title of being the “archest enemy of southern slavery that every existed”.

    Absolutely right Messenger. All the founders were not pro-slavery. Washington was always torn on the subject. But they were not for gay marriage or pro-abortion either so atheists would consider them immoral monsters based on there relative moral code of whatever feels right to them. :)

    Our founders supported:

    Preaching on Sundays in the Congress (sused as a church)
    Bible classes in schools
    Praying before all congressional meetings
    10 Commandments on all courthouses
    Suspension of congress for a Sunday School parade

    So much for the separation of church and state huh? LOL!!!!! The establishment clause was to prevent a state church as the the Anglican church was/is in England. Not to eliminate God from government activities.

  182. on 17 Mar 2014 at 1:41 am 182.alex said …

    “So much for the separation of church and state huh? LOL!!!!!”

    you’re right. creationism in schools is right around the corner. xtian participation will soon be required to hold political office. gay marriage bans are soon to be everywhere. state rights will exercise the slavery option.

    and the proof for your god? nada, zilch. business as usual for your ass: http://goo.gl/e6XUnU

  183. on 17 Mar 2014 at 2:20 am 183.The messenger said …

    Mankind has been a murderous, evil, savage, crazed species that has a history of self destruction and death.

    Humans do not naturally have humility, love for others, kindness, and forgiveness. Our ancestors are hateful idiots. All creatures on the earth are naturally focused on self serves and personal gain. Therefore, kindness, love of others, and generosity is an unnatural thing. I couldn’t have come from earth natives. Therefore I believe that it came from GOD.

  184. on 17 Mar 2014 at 2:23 am 184.DPK said …

    Messy, you know Thomas Jefferson OWNED slaves, right? Lol!

    Not that it males a difference as to the reality of your god. Let’s say the founding fathers were all church going Catholics. So what?

  185. on 17 Mar 2014 at 2:24 am 185.The messenger said …

    784.Sweetness, well spoken, my friend.

  186. on 17 Mar 2014 at 2:24 am 186.alex said …

    “Therefore I believe that it came from GOD.”

    bullshit. all the proof you offer are more bullshit from the bible and bullshit xtian witnesses.

    as evidenced in your shitpile: http://goo.gl/e6XUnU

    can you dilute salt water? donkies/bears/snakes in the bible? rape marriages? what else you got?

  187. on 17 Mar 2014 at 2:27 am 187.The messenger said …

    787.DPK, they were not Catholics. And I do not blame them.

    The catholic church was very corrupt back then.

    I my self am a liberal catholic. I believe that all people can be saved, and hell is not forever. But I do stay joined with the church and most of it’s interpretations of the bible.

  188. on 17 Mar 2014 at 2:31 am 188.alex said …

    “they were not Catholics. And I do not blame them.”

    mormons, lutherans, baptists. does it make any difference what fucked up xtian brand they were? all you got is bullshit. check your shitpile: http://goo.gl/e6XUnU

    your legend grows as your shitpile shows. what the fuck you want from atheists? you’re going to convince us, with what? appeal to authority? hell/heaven? nonxtians are bad?

    you’re too stupid to reason with. tell me, motherfucker. how would you know if jesus showed up? oh, you’d just know? would that be the same shit for allah? you’d just know?

  189. on 17 Mar 2014 at 2:40 am 189.alex said …

    “I believe that all people can be saved, and hell is not forever.”

    missed that little tidbit. damn java build messin me up.

    what a fucking riot. any other xtian motherfucker in here believe this shit? speak up, hor.

    that’s why you’re a dumbass, self proclaimed, xtian representative. a church of uno, motherfucker. here’s your charter. run for office, messy, run.

    1) rapists can marry their victim.
    2) you’ve personally seen heaven.
    3) you put random amounts of sugar in your coffee because it cannot be diluted.
    4) you alone interprets what’s literal in bible

    many more. but my build is finished. no errors. later, motherfucker.

  190. on 17 Mar 2014 at 3:37 pm 190.DPK said …

    790.The messenger said …
    787.DPK, they were not Catholics. And I do not blame them.

    haha.. how very liberal and condescending of you.
    So, they founded our nation on the principal that god gave inalienable rights to white males who were property owners, and other humans could be owned and traded as property. And this gives value to claim of an omnipotent, omniscient god how, exactly???

    “The catholic church was very corrupt back then.”
    Back then!?? LOL… newsflash Messy, the catholic church is still very corrupt. ROTFLOL.

  191. on 17 Mar 2014 at 3:50 pm 191.freddies_dead said …

    751.The messenger said …

    740.freddies_dead, because unlike all of those pagan religions, Christianity and Judaism have survived the test of time and have laid out the moral foundation of the western world.

    Hinduism is older so you can take your longevity fallacy and stick it … sideways. It has nothing to do with the truth of the proposition that God exists.

    And Biblical morality isn’t the foundation of morality for the western world – as you can see, in part, by our inability to stone to death homosexuals and adulterers.

    The Golden Rule – which actually is one of the cornerstones of morality – was understood long before Christianity arose. Christians simply adopted it and incorporated it into their religious mythology.

    You are American right?

    Wrong. I’m English.

    Well your rights are “GOD given” according to our founding fathers.

    Why should I care where the American founding fathers claimed rights came from? This is simply an argument from authority considering the existence of your God is what’s at odds here. Simply claiming your rights come from God says nothing about the existence of said God.

    The fact that GOD gave us these right makes them sacred, and because they are sacred they cannot be changed or taken from us.

    Ignoring the fact that you’ve yet to show that your God exists let alone granted anyone rights, your very own U.S. Bill of Rights shows that your rights can be changed.

    if these were human given rights, any greedy politician could easily violate our rights and oppress us.

    And they do just that, which only shows that they’re not actually “God given”.

    Our founding fathers believed that “rebellion against tyranny is obedience to god”. I believe that too.

    That’s nice for you but it does nothing to support any of the claims you’ve made in this post.

  192. on 17 Mar 2014 at 3:53 pm 192.freddies_dead said …

    787.The messenger said …

    Mankind has been a murderous, evil, savage, crazed species that has a history of self destruction and death.

    And according to your mythology man is made in the image of your God. Good job he’s only imaginary.

    You should read Pinker’s “The Better Angels of Our Nature” to see that violence is declining over time.

    Humans do not naturally have humility, love for others, kindness, and forgiveness.

    Baseless assertion which flies in the face of pretty much every scientific study into the phenomena.

    Our ancestors are hateful idiots.

    Fortunately we’re getting better. If we could remove religion from the equation that would be a massive step forward.

    All creatures on the earth are naturally focused on self serves and personal gain.

    You should look up altruism.

    Therefore, kindness, love of others, and generosity is an unnatural thing.

    Except for all the instances that appear in nature you mean?

    I couldn’t have come from earth natives.

    Finally, something that we agree on.

    Therefore I believe that it came from GOD.

    You’ve singularly failed to demonstrate the existence of your God so fortunately your credulity isn’t my problem.

  193. on 17 Mar 2014 at 7:32 pm 193.Sweetness said …

    “Why should I care where the American founding fathers claimed rights came from?”

    That true Messenger. Our founders were traitors to the Brits……..and Americans kicked the crap out of the Brits….twice Lol!!!!!

    Our founders recognized the divine nature of human rights. Men have a tendency to take those rights from others. Like the Brits attempted to do. Not to mention using a state controlled church to control the people

  194. on 17 Mar 2014 at 9:37 pm 194.alex said …

    “That true Messenger. Our founders were traitors to the Brits..”

    once again, all this hor motherfucker brings to the table is a sideshow. fluffing messenger because his ass has been busted many times. not a single time, does the bitch even attempt to prove his god.

    lols, popcorn, brits, corvette, dna programmer is all the motherfucker thinks about. look, says hor, it’s a frozen macro, ocean, waterfall! don’t believe me? check out his pile of shit at: http://goo.gl/UYo1uS

    it’s all lumped together with the sewage from martin, xenon, bif, science guy, sweetness and the rest of the morons.

    hey martin! i’m martin. good one martin.

    remember this, you lyin bitch?

    “Secondly I am not the hor. They insist I am about 8 different posters, so I play along.”

    your pile of shit at: http://goo.gl/UYo1uS is dyanamic. time to change your name from “sweetness”.

  195. on 17 Mar 2014 at 11:13 pm 195.DPK said …

    “Our founders recognized the divine nature of human rights.”

    Lol. Yes as long as your skin was white and you had a penis and some money.
    If you had none of these your Dininve rights from god didn’t exist. Lol!

  196. on 17 Mar 2014 at 11:53 pm 196.The messenger said …

    791.alex, I have provided proof in the past.

    I am not the “one alone” interpreter of the bible.

  197. on 18 Mar 2014 at 12:07 am 197.The messenger said …

    793.DPK, They founded a country of a belief in GOD, and that GOD gave us rights. These rights were meant for all Americans, white or black.

    Many of the founding fathers opposed slavery, and wanted equal rights for all people.

    The only reason that they did not make slavery illegal, and let white and black men vote together was because they feared that it would start conflict within the newly made nation.

    They opposed women voting because they believed that it was the job of the male to handle those matters. It was not sexist, they just thought it was the role of the male to do such things.

  198. on 18 Mar 2014 at 12:12 am 198.The messenger said …

    798.DPK, women had much influence on the founding father’s decisions. Abigail adams(john adams wife) guided he husband and helped him come to many political conclusions.

  199. on 18 Mar 2014 at 12:25 am 199.The messenger said …

    794.freddies_dead, if the golden rule was around long before Judaism and Christianity started, then why were early human civilizations so hateful and self destructive towards each other?

    A proto form of Judaism was practiced by the first humans, and they learned the golden rule was taught to them by GOD.

  200. on 18 Mar 2014 at 12:25 am 200.alex said …

    “I am not the “one alone” interpreter of the bible.”

    “I my self am a liberal catholic.”

    what the hell is a liberal catholic? just like your absolute morals, it doesn’t exist. just like your true xtian test, it doesn’t exist, but it doesn’t stop you, does it?

    all the shit you spew doesn’t line up with ALL the catholic mantras, which which makes you a self, “one alone” interpreter of the bible.

    does the catholic church/pope share your temporary hell interpretation? does the catholic church/pope share your stance on rapist marrying their victims?

    no? what the fuck does that make you? a church of one, you dumb motherfucker. other than tormenting atheists, what the fuck do you want here? there’s nothing atheists can do or say to change you.

    even if jesus showed up today, how the fuck would you know? you got a checklist, motherfucker? would you use the same checklist for allah? odin?

    here’s your latest shitpile, latest crap on top:
    http://goo.gl/ib8BHO

Trackback This Post | Subscribe to the comments through RSS Feed

Leave a Reply