Elsewhere on the internet...

The League of Reason has some social media accounts! You can find us on Facebook or on Twitter for some interesting links and things.

Your Help Refuting a Blog

Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 3 of 12
 [ 222 posts ] 
Your Help Refuting a Blog
Author Message
thenexttodiePosts: 799Joined: Fri Mar 13, 2015 7:59 pm Gender: Male

Post Re: Your Help Refuting a Blog

[
hackenslash wrote:
thenexttodie wrote:POINT C
Points A and B are sound. They are based on FACT. No one has even attempted to refute them. So unless some one is able to show an actual error I have made, can you all just agree that I am right and that all of you were wrong, at least as far as points A and B are concerned? Then maybe we could move on, without me having to repeat myself over and over again?


Well then, let's take a lookie, shall we?

POINT A
Judges tells about how the Benjimenites raped women.


Bzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz. Thank you for playing.

While the latter part of Judges 21 certainly does talk about the Benjimenites [sic] (how did you mangle the spelling so badly? Never come across the name 'Benjamin', as in 'tribe of'? Ed), you failed to note that the verses cited begin from verse 10. The first 3 verses of that deal with the taking of the 400 virgin girls from Jabeshgilead, thus:

Judges 21 wrote:10 An dey sent l2,ooo kittehs der, an told dem, Go scratch all teh kittehs of Jabeshgilead, an teh girl kittehs and teh baby kittehs too.

11 An do dis too, kill all teh boy kittehs, an teh girl kittehs dat had buttsecks.

12 An dey fownd foar hunnert girl kittehs dat didnt has buttsecks an brawt dem to Shiloh wich is in Kaynin. (Sownds liek Kaynine but der r no dogs der.)


Only someone who knows nothing about the bible would use this to argue that the bible condones rape.


I wouldn't exactly call this condoning rape, but it doesn't appear that anybody in this little drama questions the morality of killing all the men and boys, and any women who weren't virgins, while keeping the virgins for themselves (in fact, the passage talks about young girls, so even hints of paedophilia there, but I won't press that point, because it could well be an issue of translation). Now, I don't know what your thoughts are but, in my book, taking the virgin girls to be wives (as detailed in the preceding passages) with no mention of their consent certainly translates as rape.

The main theme of much of the bible is to show that no matter what God did, no matter what he told people to do, no matter what miracles He did, people almost always rebelled against Him and did evil every time. God did not command this to be done, it was something evil they chose to do on their own.


Total bollocks. A fair bit of the theme of the OT is evil actively commanded by god and Moses*, which bring us nicely to the other alleged point you thought you had:

(Regarding Numbers) The guidelines God gave to the Israelites for the treatment of the women taken from conquered enemies are probably somewhere in Numbers.


Probably? Fucking probably? From somebody who's attempting to set himself up as a fucking authority on what the bible says sufficiently to be able to refute arguments rooted in what it says? Here's a fucking clue for you: It's in that bit of Judges just prior to the bit cited in the post in question, namely Judges 21:1-9.

Judges 21 wrote:1 Srsly, all teh kittehs swarez in Mispeh, sayin, Benjamin no can marrees r girl kittehs.

2 An teh kittehs went to Ceiling Cat's kitteh condo an staid der and mewd.

3 An sed, Srsly Ceiling Cat, y der be wun tribe of kittehs missin in Isreel?

4 An teh necks day all teh kittehs woak up urly an made a pile of stuff.

5 An teh kittehs uf Isreel sed, Wich kittehs dint come heer wif us to Ceiling Cat's kitteh condo? Cuz all teh kittehs had sed if u no come to Ceiling Cat's kitteh condo dayd kill u an send u to Basement Cat, srsly.

6 An teh kittehs uf Isreel sed, Der is wun tribe uf kittehs dats kicked out uv Isreel.

7 But srsly, how dey gunna have wife kittehs? We sed to Ceiling Cat dat dey no can marrees r girl kittehs.

8 An dey sed, Wich is teh kitteh dats aint heer? But nun of teh kittehs frum Jabeshgilead were der to sez "O hai."

9 Cuz der wurrnt dat many kittehs, and nun uv dem were kittehs frum Jabeshgilead.


The problem was i think that God actually commanded them to kill everyone but the Isrealites kept wanting to take the women with them. God said they could marry these women but could not have sex with them while they were grieving and that basically, if it didn't work out then you had to give the woman a bunch of money and that she could not be your slave.


Several things wrong with this. Firstly, if this is your contention, you haver to support it with the relevant text, as I've done above. And yes, I know I've used the text from the Lolcat bible, but that's frankly the level of argumentation you've engaged in and all the fucking respect this book of bollocks actually deserves. Telling us what you think won't cut it. Secondly, since the original contention also included Moses condoning rape, shall we see what the next citation given in the original argument actually says?

Numbers 31 wrote:7 They fited at Midian, as Ceiling Cat tol Moses, and pwned al teh d00dz.8 Som of teh pwnd d00dz was Evi, Rekem, Zur, Hur and Reba—the five laik hed d00dz of Midian. They also pwned Balaam son of Beor with lvl 141 Blade of Savagery.9 Teh Israelites yoinked all teh Midianite women and goatz and stuf.10 Tehy burns all teh towns n stuf wtf.11 Tehy takes all teh booty + teh ppl n goatz,12 Tehy brings all teh booty + teh ppl n goatz 2 Moses and Eleazar teh priest n teh Israelites @ teh camp on teh planes of Moab, by the Jordan cros from Jericho.
[[1]]

13 Moses, Eleazar teh priest and all the big guys was laik wtf.14 Moses were pissed w/ teh mane d00ds taht camed back frm teh fite.

15 N moses was laik, "has sav teh chiks?"16 "check it, tohse chiks gived teh clap to Ceiling Cat's ppl wtf"17 "K, so kil teh n00b lttl boyz 2 deth, n kil al teh sluts taht has secks w/ d00dz. DO NOT WANT"18 "But teh lttl girlz taht has no secks w d00dz can liv so u can has pedo buttsecks w tehm n stuf cuz Ceiling Cat is pedo." nfw


Oh, and as an aside, how many 'women that had not known man by laying with him' (or, as ceiling cat would have it, 'girl kittehs dat didnt has buttsecks') were there?

35 and 32,000 virgin gurlz


Inferno did not know this and tried to argue that because women and plunder were once mentioned in the same sentence, that that somehow equals rape and sex slavery.


Well, since women were treated as chattel, and since the verses in Judges unequivocally talk about what those 'girl kittehs dat didnt has buttsecks' were actually for, I'd say that the charge is warranted. Not only that, can you think of any task that can be performed only by virgin girls for which these girls might have been kept other than fucking them?

Once again, the atheist knows the holy text of the apologist better than the apologist.

hackenslash wrote:Would you like a shot at the fucking title?


I think this post does well at illustrating the mindset of those who are trapped inside the atheists' box.

Perhaps, Hackenslash, if you could be a bit more concise...or maybe someone else can point out to me an arguement you have made here which I have not addressed already.

And yes Hackenslash, I can think of plenty of other tasks for virgin girls to do other than "fucking".
“..the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of doubt, what is laid before him.” Tolstoy
Sun Jun 14, 2015 2:42 am
he_who_is_nobodyBloggerUser avatarPosts: 3338Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 1:36 amLocation: Albuquerque, New Mexico Gender: Male

Post Re: Your Help Refuting a Blog

thenexttodie wrote:After re-reading your last post It seems to me like you are trying to ask me why it's not wrong to eat shellfish, and why eating shellfish not as bad as being a homosexual.


I am glad you went back and re-read my post (I thought it was straightforward). However, you still seemed to miss my query as to what allows you to eliminate the pope as a Real ChristianTM.

thenexttodie wrote:So..where would you like me to start? Even the most novice atheist bible experts should already know the answer to the first part of this question. So lets not pretend you can get away with acting dumb in an attempt to misrepresent.


I never claimed I was a bible expert (or an atheist for that matter). Do you know what they say about making assumptions? All I know is that christians are adamantly against X because the bible says X is wrong. However, the bible also says Y is wrong, yet christians do not make a fuss about Y when people participate in it.

thenexttodie wrote:And actually, that's pretty effing shameful of you. You know that the Bible does not teach that you cant eat shellfish if you want to be a Christian.


Again, I do not know what the bible teaches and I honestly do not care. However, feel free to inform me. Please explain why X and Y are wrong, but christians only seem to be upset about X and not Y.

thenexttodie wrote:So lets see if you will answer this question;
Did you really not know that? Be honest.


Done and done.

In addition, we are all adults here, so you can say the word “fuck”. No one will think any less of you.
_BONES AND FOSSILS = LOVE_
(_'--------------------'_)
(_.--------------------._)
Sun Jun 14, 2015 6:58 am
YIM WWW
InfernoContributorUser avatarPosts: 2298Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 7:36 pmLocation: Vienna, Austria Gender: Cake

Post Re: Your Help Refuting a Blog

thenexttodie wrote:You know that the Bible does not teach that you cant eat shellfish if you want to be a Christian.


Let's be perfectly clear here: The Bible teaches that shellfish is "abhorrent" and that you shouldn't eat it. Christians don't see it as a "rule", but many Jewish denominations use the exact same text and say that it is a rule.

Leviticus 11:12 informs us about unclean animals.

Apparently you didn't know that, otherwise you wouldn't be talking such nonsense.
"Sometimes people don't want to hear the truth because they don't want their illusions destroyed." ― Friedrich Nietzsche

"I shall achieve my objectives through the power... of Science!" --LessWrong
Sun Jun 14, 2015 8:32 am
hackenslashLime TordUser avatarPosts: 2379Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2009 3:43 pm Gender: Cake

Post Re: Your Help Refuting a Blog

thenexttodie wrote:I think this post does well at illustrating the mindset of those who are trapped inside the atheists' box.


Who said I'm an atheist?

Perhaps, Hackenslash, if you could be a bit more concise...or maybe someone else can point out to me an arguement you have made here which I have not addressed already.


Translation: I'm a stupid cunt and I can't refute any of that, because it uses my own text against me, so I'll pretend it doesn't exist

And yes Hackenslash, I can think of plenty of other tasks for virgin girls to do other than "fucking".


Such as?
Sun Jun 14, 2015 9:01 am
hackenslashLime TordUser avatarPosts: 2379Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2009 3:43 pm Gender: Cake

Post Re: Your Help Refuting a Blog

thenexttodie wrote:After re-reading your last post It seems to me like you are trying to ask me why it's not wrong to eat shellfish, and why eating shellfish not as bad as being a homosexual.

So..where would you like me to start? Even the most novice atheist bible experts should already know the answer to the first part of this question. So lets not pretend you can get away with acting dumb in an attempt to misrepresent.


So you don't think that eating shellfish is as bad as being a homosexual? So you do think that being a homosexual is bad? Why?

And actually, that's pretty effing shameful of you. You know that the Bible does not teach that you cant eat shellfish if you want to be a Christian.


It's a proscribed foodstuff, as dictated by mosaic law, the same mosaic law that tells you that it's bad to be a homosexual. What's the problem with pointing that out?
Sun Jun 14, 2015 9:13 am
he_who_is_nobodyBloggerUser avatarPosts: 3338Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 1:36 amLocation: Albuquerque, New Mexico Gender: Male

Post Re: Your Help Refuting a Blog

hackenslash wrote:
thenexttodie wrote:I think this post does well at illustrating the mindset of those who are trapped inside the atheists' box.


Who said I'm an atheist?


hackenslash wrote:Once again, the atheist knows the holy text of the apologist better than the apologist.


;)
_BONES AND FOSSILS = LOVE_
(_'--------------------'_)
(_.--------------------._)
Sun Jun 14, 2015 5:11 pm
YIM WWW
hackenslashLime TordUser avatarPosts: 2379Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2009 3:43 pm Gender: Cake

Post Re: Your Help Refuting a Blog

I was talking about Inferno. Image

:oops:
Sun Jun 14, 2015 6:23 pm
InfernoContributorUser avatarPosts: 2298Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 7:36 pmLocation: Vienna, Austria Gender: Cake

Post Re: Your Help Refuting a Blog

hackenslash wrote:I was talking about Inferno. Image

:oops:


Oh, thanks :)

That begs the question: What are you then?
"Sometimes people don't want to hear the truth because they don't want their illusions destroyed." ― Friedrich Nietzsche

"I shall achieve my objectives through the power... of Science!" --LessWrong
Sun Jun 14, 2015 7:17 pm
hackenslashLime TordUser avatarPosts: 2379Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2009 3:43 pm Gender: Cake

Post Re: Your Help Refuting a Blog

They haven't invented a name for what I am yet. Cunt, probably. :lol:
Sun Jun 14, 2015 7:30 pm
InfernoContributorUser avatarPosts: 2298Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 7:36 pmLocation: Vienna, Austria Gender: Cake

Post Re: Your Help Refuting a Blog

hackenslash wrote:They haven't invented a name for what I am yet. Cunt, probably. :lol:


Funny cunt, then! :lol:
"Sometimes people don't want to hear the truth because they don't want their illusions destroyed." ― Friedrich Nietzsche

"I shall achieve my objectives through the power... of Science!" --LessWrong
Sun Jun 14, 2015 9:03 pm
thenexttodiePosts: 799Joined: Fri Mar 13, 2015 7:59 pm Gender: Male

Post Re: Your Help Refuting a Blog

he_who_is_nobody wrote:I am glad you went back and re-read my post (I thought it was straightforward). However, you still seemed to miss my query as to what allows you to eliminate the pope as a Real ChristianTM.


I don't believe the pope is a Christian. I could be wrong about but my reason for thinking this is that if really were so dedicated to Christ, he would be more interested in spreading biblical doctrine. That's the short answer anyway. What do you think about the pope?

thenexttodie wrote:So..where would you like me to start? Even the most novice atheist bible experts should already know the answer to the first part of this question. So lets not pretend you can get away with acting dumb in an attempt to misrepresent.


he_who_is_nobody wrote:I never claimed I was a bible expert (or an atheist for that matter). Do you know what they say about making assumptions? All I know is that christians are adamantly against X because the bible says X is wrong. However, the bible also says Y is wrong, yet christians do not make a fuss about Y when people participate in it.


I think people sometimes like to play dumb, especially when engaged in a topic that has to do with one's worldview. And I think the reason why people sometimes do this is because they hope it will make it harder for someone else to prove a point.

he_who_is_nobody wrote:Again, I do not know what the bible teaches and I honestly do not care.


I see.

he_who_is_nobody wrote: However, feel free to inform me.


Ok.

he_who_is_nobody wrote: Please explain why X and Y are wrong, but christians only seem to be upset about X and not Y.


So I guess Y = eating shellfish
What is exactly is X?
“..the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of doubt, what is laid before him.” Tolstoy
Mon Jun 15, 2015 6:48 pm
thenexttodiePosts: 799Joined: Fri Mar 13, 2015 7:59 pm Gender: Male

Post Re: Your Help Refuting a Blog

Inferno wrote:
thenexttodie wrote:You know that the Bible does not teach that you cant eat shellfish if you want to be a Christian.


Let's be perfectly clear here: The Bible teaches that shellfish is "abhorrent" and that you shouldn't eat it. Christians don't see it as a "rule", but many Jewish denominations use the exact same text and say that it is a rule.

Leviticus 11:12 informs us about unclean animals.

Apparently you didn't know that, otherwise you wouldn't be talking such nonsense.


The dietary laws given to the Israelites, for more than any other reason, were symbolic. These were God's chosen people and one of the ways god told them to distinguish themselves from the rest was by not eating certain food. Then later these restrictions were lifted to show that their was no longer any need to separate themselves from the gentiles.

I'm pretty sure I'm not the only one who has told you this before.
“..the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of doubt, what is laid before him.” Tolstoy
Mon Jun 15, 2015 8:01 pm
InfernoContributorUser avatarPosts: 2298Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 7:36 pmLocation: Vienna, Austria Gender: Cake

Post Re: Your Help Refuting a Blog

thenexttodie wrote:I don't believe the pope is a Christian. I could be wrong about but my reason for thinking this is that if really were so dedicated to Christ, he would be more interested in spreading biblical doctrine. That's the short answer anyway. What do you think about the pope?


A prime example of the No True Scotsman fallacy.

thenexttodie wrote:The dietary laws given to the Israelites, for more than any other reason, were symbolic.


Says who? Apparently you, but there are serious scholars out there who would disagree with you. Hasidic Jews certainly would disagree. Who are you to claim one reason was symbolic and one was not? You're simply Cherry Picking the bits you like.

thenexttodie wrote:These were God's chosen people and one of the ways god told them to distinguish themselves from the rest was by not eating certain food.


So you don't have to follow them? Well then, I choose not to follow the "ten commandments" because they were for "Gods chosen people", not for me.
Do you see where this Reductio Ad Absurdum.

thenexttodie wrote:Then later these restrictions were lifted to show that their was no longer any need to separate themselves from the gentiles.


Image

thenexttodie wrote:I'm pretty sure I'm not the only one who has told you this before.


You're not. As with all others who came before, you're wrong.
"Sometimes people don't want to hear the truth because they don't want their illusions destroyed." ― Friedrich Nietzsche

"I shall achieve my objectives through the power... of Science!" --LessWrong
Mon Jun 15, 2015 9:13 pm
hackenslashLime TordUser avatarPosts: 2379Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2009 3:43 pm Gender: Cake

Post Re: Your Help Refuting a Blog

thenexttodie wrote:I don't believe the pope is a Christian. I could be wrong about but my reason for thinking this is that if really were so dedicated to Christ, he would be more interested in spreading biblical doctrine.


I see, so you've devoted more time and effort to spreading biblical doctrine than the pope? Are you having a fucking giraffe?

That's the short answer anyway. What do you think about the pope?


I think he's a gullible twit, like all other supernaturalists.

thenexttodie wrote:I think people sometimes like to play dumb, especially when engaged in a topic that has to do with one's worldview. And I think the reason why people sometimes do this is because they hope it will make it harder for someone else to prove a point.


I'll be impressed if you can demonstrate that you've got more than the contents of your anal sphincter to share with us. It isn't looking hopeful thus far.

So I guess Y = eating shellfish
What is exactly is X?


Fuckwitted evasion. You know full well what the comparative is. Even a supernaturalist moron isn't that fucking stupid.

thenexttodie wrote:The dietary laws given to the Israelites, for more than any other reason, were symbolic. These were God's chosen people and one of the ways god told them to distinguish themselves from the rest was by not eating certain food. Then later these restrictions were lifted to show that their was no longer any need to separate themselves from the gentiles.

I'm pretty sure I'm not the only one who has told you this before.


Of course not. Many idiot apologists have trawled the websites of lying fuckwits to find idiotic answers they were too stupid to see the problems with and soiled the forum with them before. Of course, the problem is that these strictures were part of the 'not one jot or tittle' that would pass before all the laws were fulfilled. In other words, this was THE LAW OF YOUR CELESTIAL PEEPING-TOM. You've done precisely fuck all work in supporting the moronic arse-water you came here to infect the forum with and, in fact, all you have achieved is to confirm that you're just another apologetics regurgitator Same bum-custard, different arse.
Mon Jun 15, 2015 9:38 pm
he_who_is_nobodyBloggerUser avatarPosts: 3338Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 1:36 amLocation: Albuquerque, New Mexico Gender: Male

Post Re: Your Help Refuting a Blog

thenexttodie wrote:
he_who_is_nobody wrote:I am glad you went back and re-read my post (I thought it was straightforward). However, you still seemed to miss my query as to what allows you to eliminate the pope as a Real ChristianTM.


I don't believe the pope is a Christian. I could be wrong about but my reason for thinking this is that if really were so dedicated to Christ, he would be more interested in spreading biblical doctrine. That's the short answer anyway. What do you think about the pope?


Well, since you have not given us an objective criterion to distinguish between Real ChristianTM and fake christians, I am going to say the pope is a Real ChristianTM. Again, I am an outsider looking into this. Without an objective criterion, what else should I conclude?

thenexttodie wrote:
he_who_is_nobody wrote:I never claimed I was a bible expert (or an atheist for that matter). Do you know what they say about making assumptions? All I know is that christians are adamantly against X because the bible says X is wrong. However, the bible also says Y is wrong, yet christians do not make a fuss about Y when people participate in it.


I think people sometimes like to play dumb, especially when engaged in a topic that has to do with one's worldview. And I think the reason why people sometimes do this is because they hope it will make it harder for someone else to prove a point.


Is that why you are playing dumb?

thenexttodie wrote:
he_who_is_nobody wrote: Please explain why X and Y are wrong, but christians only seem to be upset about X and not Y.


So I guess Y = eating shellfish
What is exactly is X?


Really? When I originally asked my question I pointed out that the bible is against shellfish and pork. You are the one that brought up homosexuality, since it outrages you. Thus, you are correct that Y is eating shellfish; however, I am having a hard time understanding how you were not able to tell that X was homosexuality since you were the one that brought it up. Unless you are acting dumb since we are engaging on a topic that is dealing with your worldview.
_BONES AND FOSSILS = LOVE_
(_'--------------------'_)
(_.--------------------._)
Mon Jun 15, 2015 10:20 pm
YIM WWW
thenexttodiePosts: 799Joined: Fri Mar 13, 2015 7:59 pm Gender: Male

Post Re: Your Help Refuting a Blog

thenexttodie wrote:I don't believe the pope is a Christian. I could be wrong about but my reason for thinking this is that if really were so dedicated to Christ, he would be more interested in spreading biblical doctrine. That's the short answer anyway. What do you think about the pope?


Inferno wrote:A prime example of the No True Scotsman fallacy.


he_who_is_nobody wrote:Well, since you have not given us an objective criterion to distinguish between Real ChristianTM and fake christians, I am going to say the pope is a Real ChristianTM. Again, I am an outsider looking into this. Without an objective criterion, what else should I conclude?



hackenslash wrote:I see, so you've devoted more time and effort to spreading biblical doctrine than the pope? Are you having a fucking giraffe?


Earlier in this thread I made a passing remark about the pope pretending to be a Christian. At first I thought the only reason why you tools are now hounding me about this comment is because you have not been able to refute any of the other points I have made. But if your really interested I started a new thread on it.
“..the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of doubt, what is laid before him.” Tolstoy
Mon Jun 15, 2015 11:41 pm
he_who_is_nobodyBloggerUser avatarPosts: 3338Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 1:36 amLocation: Albuquerque, New Mexico Gender: Male

Post Re: Your Help Refuting a Blog

thenexttodie wrote:
thenexttodie wrote:I don't believe the pope is a Christian. I could be wrong about but my reason for thinking this is that if really were so dedicated to Christ, he would be more interested in spreading biblical doctrine. That's the short answer anyway. What do you think about the pope?


Inferno wrote:A prime example of the No True Scotsman fallacy.


he_who_is_nobody wrote:Well, since you have not given us an objective criterion to distinguish between Real ChristianTM and fake christians, I am going to say the pope is a Real ChristianTM. Again, I am an outsider looking into this. Without an objective criterion, what else should I conclude?



hackenslash wrote:I see, so you've devoted more time and effort to spreading biblical doctrine than the pope? Are you having a fucking giraffe?


Earlier in this thread I made a passing remark about the pope pretending to be a Christian. At first I thought the only reason why you tools are now hounding me about this comment is because you have not been able to refute any of the other points I have made. But if your really interested I started a new thread on it.



Still acting dumb I see. Well, I will just quote myself back at you. When you stop playing dumb, perhaps you will answer to this.

he_who_is_nobody wrote:Really? When I originally asked my question I pointed out that the bible is against shellfish and pork. You are the one that brought up homosexuality, since it outrages you. Thus, you are correct that Y is eating shellfish; however, I am having a hard time understanding how you were not able to tell that X was homosexuality since you were the one that brought it up. Unless you are acting dumb since we are engaging on a topic that is dealing with your worldview.
_BONES AND FOSSILS = LOVE_
(_'--------------------'_)
(_.--------------------._)
Tue Jun 16, 2015 3:59 am
YIM WWW
hackenslashLime TordUser avatarPosts: 2379Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2009 3:43 pm Gender: Cake

Post Re: Your Help Refuting a Blog

thenexttodie wrote:Earlier in this thread I made a passing remark about the pope pretending to be a Christian. At first I thought the only reason why you tools are now hounding me about this comment is because you have not been able to refute any of the other points I have made. But if your really interested I started a new thread on it.


Ah, so we can add 'too stupid to recognise when my noisome excrement has been smashed back to the stone age whence it came' to the ever-burgeoning list of your deficiencies can we?

Moron.
Tue Jun 16, 2015 6:19 am
hackenslashLime TordUser avatarPosts: 2379Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2009 3:43 pm Gender: Cake

Post Re: Your Help Refuting a Blog

I just re-read the thread from the top, and it's pretty clear we're dealing with a severe case of Morton's Demon here.
Tue Jun 16, 2015 6:42 am
Dragan GlasContributorUser avatar
Online
Posts: 2956Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 1:55 amLocation: Ireland Gender: Male

Post Re: Your Help Refuting a Blog

Greetings,

@ thenexttodie

First, just to be explicit so that there's no doubt about what everyone has been hinting:

Y = eating shellfish/pork;
X = homosexuality

Second, to a hard-line Catholic, Catholics are Christian - all else are heretics who'll burn in Hell for all eternity.

Kindest regards,

James
Image
"The Word of God is the Creation we behold and it is in this Word, which no human invention can counterfeit or alter, that God speaketh universally to man."
The Age Of Reason
Tue Jun 16, 2015 8:52 am
PreviousNext
Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 3 of 12
 [ 222 posts ] 
Return to Philosophy

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests