Home Archives Random Quotes Latest Comments Top 100 Submit Quote Search Log In

Quote# 8791

[On why he bans almost all atheists after a single post on his forum.]

I have to leave at least one atheist on unbanned. People are not banned for putting forth their best effort, but they are banned, as they ought to be, for being belligerent and obstinate in their pride. This explains what happened to those before you who failed. Though you certainly have your pride like Satan that keeps you separated from Jesus and hellbound, some mercy is helpful here towards you.

Troy, Biblocality 316 Comments [12/28/2005 12:00:00 AM]
Fundie Index: 6
WTF?! || meh

1 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 13
Rime

You speak of some refutation, but you never show it, which boasting for the Lord gives glory that you failed as not you nor anyone is able to find fault with the God of the Bible.

I show it. You haven't addressed it. I have, for the time being, addressed only your counter arguements. Otherwise, my arguments would be terribly verbose. That's okay. If you continue down this road of drifting off topic, condescension and insults, I will conclude that you're just here to troll, put a summary of this discussion up and wait until next year to see if you're going to be serious.

Christians don't say the world is not overpopulated. We say it is overpopulated.

Oh really? it's those "silly liberal atheists" who think it is overpopulated.

You can't compare birth control because the technology is far more effective now and you admitted that the previous method was "not a terribly good contraceptive".

Which refutes your argument that contraception was not used in the past, but nothing more. I'll attempt to maintain continuity and just let you do some research.

Fornication and marriage can not be separated as topics, for sex outside marriage is fornication.

Thank you for agreeing with me, but stick to the point, will you? Since extramarital sex has been on the rise since the liberalsim movement after the late 1950's that means fornication is on the rise. And since sin is sin, the exponential growth of conscience according to your worldview isn't exponentially growing. In fact, it's been sinusoidal because Christians and Jews set the precedent of monogamus marriage since 500AD and possibly earlier.

The sin of gluttony in eating habits in USA is expected for it is falling babylon, but for the purposes of Step 1 and the exponential progression of conscience, we can not compare to previous centuries the matter of food and gluttony because we did not have the ability to eat so much food before given our technology today.

Sin is sin, Mr. Brooks. It does not matter about the circumstances.

You're slow to understand this. Other nations are less gluttonous.

No, it's worldwide. That's getting into another sin, though. Greed. I would like to keep my arguments as concise as I can and do not need to factor another one in to make my point.

Compared to the opportunity to eat so much, so many choices, perhaps people should even be fatter than they are, but due to the exponential progression in conscience, they are not.

Again, sin is sin. Obesity is an obvious sign of gluttony. The circumstances of a sin do not matter. Your counterpoint is invalid. I will apply the same thing to abortion. 2.1 million unborn children, sacrificed to the "altar of self," according to your worldivew.

Don't just assume homosexuality is on the rise on a per capita basis. For remember in the Bible, Sodom and Gomorrah were such sinful cities in homosexuality they were completely destroyed. Nothing quite compares to that today. You don't even see San Francisco being nuked for it being a homo city. Even still the homo rate was much less in that city than the cities destroyed in the Bible.

Because so many baby girls are left to die in China due to the "one child rule" and the "male heir" mentality, homosexuality is becoming much more ]commonplace. A recent Statistics Canada survey shows common law marriages and same sex couples to be on the rise. Using a story out of the Bible isn't adding credibility to your argument any more than equating God's wrath to the Montreal Ice Storm of 1998. Or that huge snowstorm that happened in South Dakota weeks before that abortion ban bill was tabled. But I'm not going to follow this tangent any further.

Since you don't respond to the evidence I have given you, you should not be satisfied with not responding to that evidence.

I've responded to pretty much every point of the evidence you have given and can be verified in previous pages. You simply respond to my counterpoints, not my argument as a whole. Which is okay, because you would have to be much more verbose, and I wouldn't want people to get bored with you trying to make a point with a 5000 word essay in the comments section of the website.

It is not your lack of skill that keeps you unsaved, but it is your free-choice to be a bad person with Satan and bound for hell.

My being saved has nothing to do with the discussion. We're trying to validate your proof. We can talk about my being saved later. Just stick to the topic.

The definition of challenge remains used appropriately, why does that offend you? Is it not because you are clinging to your petty self to reject Jesus?

I forgive you, because you misunderstand I'm being offended. If giving a valid definition of challenge bothers you, then I'm content to let you re-define it as you see fit. It's only wrecking your credibility. I'm just trying to help you maintain a valid argument.

Noticing your petty self on a rampage is not me boasting, but it is noticing your sin and telling you about it.

This ad-homninem contributes nothing to our discussion.

There is no need to forgive me as I have done you no harm.

There was no reason to quip "how silly."

Again, continuing down this road of drifting off topic, condescension and insults, I will conclude that you're just here to troll, put a summary of this discussion up and wait until next year to see if you're going to be serious.

9/22/2007 2:42:41 PM

Rime

Oops, I goofed a url tag. Sorry, folks.

And Hawker, you're most welcome. I used to be bad for putting words in people's mouths, I've been trying to end that habit. It feels good to know I've made progress.

9/22/2007 2:46:45 PM

David B.

"If the linear drop is too steep it will go negative which is impossible, hence it is not linear considering the virtually zero child sacrifices today, yet there is still some remnant of it."

Okay, let's keep that in mind. Your argument is since negative is impossible, linear is impossible.

Now look at an exponential decline. Year after year the number tends to, but never reaches, zero. So at some point you are going to have a fraction of a child sacrifice. But it's not possible to fractionally sacrifice a child, so from your own argument against linearity, since an exponential decline would lead to an impossible situation, it can't be true.

"Do understand the point that a linear progression ultimately goes negative, which is impossible, therefore it must be an exponential progression."

I do understand. I also understand that an exponential progression ultimately requires fractions of a sacrifice, which is equally impossible, therefore it must not be an exponential progression either.

"That's just how the calculus works out."

Yes, not in your favour.

That there is a linear relationship going into the past does not imply that there is one going into the future. If I buy a packet of twenty mints in the morning, and eat one mint every twenty minutes, the number of mints will decline linearly to zero and stop. Despite the obvious fact that the number of mints can't go negative, it does not stop there being a linear relationship.

As to the accuracy of the numbers, I'm quite happy for them to be a little rough. Just as long as they demonstrate the exponential relationship you have claimed. Your two published 'data points' might equally imply a linear trend, one that indicates child sacrifices will decline to zero in the very near future. Something to look forward to then.

"Still you don't find fault with what I said, which must frustrate you. Read Step 1, which you admit you didn't realize, about the exponential progression in conscience which is why there cannot be an eternity of the past of cause and effects."

But the only evidence I have for this exponential progression is two vague data points and your say so. This would mean your perfect proof boils down to "God exists because I say so.", which is less than convincing.

Thanks for you time, but I have found fault with your proof, so feel safe to dismiss it. Please note, that nothing in the proof says I have to convince you there is a fault, nor is there any reason to think you are the ultimate arbiter of what is a fault and what is not. I'm sure you don't think so, that would be prideful.

But do let me know if you change your mind about posting those figures.

9/22/2007 3:14:21 PM

A Friend

Rime,

Yet again, as before, you could find no fault with the 4SPFG and 4SMFA.

Why does that upset you that Christians feel the world is overpopulated?

Regarding birthcontrol, you can't compare it, because previous centuries did not have the same technology to make it so easy.

Fornication is no worse now than before. Polygamy rationalized fornication, but today it is frowned upon and often illegal.

You can't compare eating habits because mass production of food was not available before.

We cannot separate your unsalvation from your bad reasoning. It is because your spirit is dead to God, that your mind remains darkened and belligerent.

I understand why you are offended because you feel you have challenged these facts, but you have not as we have seen in this response, so they remain unchallenged.

The funniest thing of all is you say somewhere you have disproven these things but never present that information. People, therefore, should consider you telling a tale that is not real.

May I recommend you stop condescending to Jesus, for He created you and stop trolling, and taking it personally that you are insulted when you are told the truth. Don't pick up Satan's bait.

9/22/2007 3:30:07 PM

A Friend

David B.,

Your fractional sacrifice theory is silly from your petty self in need of deliverance. Take your fractional child and just extend it over a longer period of time so it becomes one child. And any fractional child that never over time becomes one child can be deemed as no more child sacrifices unlike your linear theory where you have negative child sacrifices. That's impossible.

Your own short-lived experience of the number of candies you eat is so small a sample it is deemed irrelevant, but we are talking about the entire existence of humankind observing an exponential progression of conscience that is clearly seen. Since this is the biggest and most encompassin data, it has more strength than how many mints you had today, lol.

In the exponential progression of conscience and drop in child sacrifices it is not just two points you assumed, but there has been a slow drop from 2000 to 1000 BC, steeper from 1000 to 0 BC and for the last 2000 years virtually straight up.

Since you could still find no fault with the 4SPFG and the 4SMFA after all this time, then you know God created you, and to deny it is only to shut your mind down, which is your free-choice to do so.

9/22/2007 3:43:11 PM

David B.

But if you can consider less than one sacrifice is no sacrifices in an exponential scenario, I shall do the same with a linear one.

From your two 'data points' it is quite clear that child sacrifices may have been declining linearly towards a future point where they equal zero, at which point child sacrifices stop. So I do not find your assertion that there is an exponential decline convincing without proper data.

In fact there are an infinite number of progressions that pass through just two points, some of which neither go negative nor lead to fractions of a child sacrificed. Why then are these not considered?

"we are talking about the entire existence of humankind observing an exponential progression of conscience that is clearly seen. Since this is the biggest and most encompassin data, it has more strength than how many mints you had today, lol."

But you will not share this data, so I cannot confirm it behaves as you say it does.

Without data confirming either exponential progression, I cannot verify your 'proof' is correct, therefore I can not consider it proven.

9/22/2007 4:00:32 PM

David B.

"In the exponential progression of conscience and drop in child sacrifices it is not just two points you assumed, but there has been a slow drop from 2000 to 1000 BC, steeper from 1000 to 0 BC and for the last 2000 years virtually straight up"

Sorry, but even assuming that by "up" you meant down (surely, you didn't mean that child sacrifices have increased recently), this progression shows the decline in number of sacrifices increasing with time.

I would suggest you double check, because this looks wrong to me.

9/22/2007 4:06:14 PM

A Friend

David B.,

You can't consider your linear to be less than one child sacrifice as you proposed because eventually your linear that goes negative creates at least one negative child.

Since there are more than two data points this proves the exponential progression and disprove linearity.

The data is well known and documented in antiquity, particular in writings prior to 500 BC, there are lots of child sacrificing going on.

Yes, it is true, from 2000 to 1000 BC child sacrifices dropped slowly. Then from 1000 BC to 0 BC they dropped more rapidly. Then from 0 BC to today it is vertually a curve straight up or straight down depending on which end of the line you are looking from.

Therefore, as usually, you still show you agree with Step 1 of the 4 Step Proof because you can't disprove it.


9/22/2007 4:30:50 PM

A Friend

We just observe the facts and whatever findings they lead us to. Because there is an exponential progression in conscience this curvature tells us there could not be an eternity of the past of cause and effects for Step 1 & Step 4 otherwise you would not still be sinning by now.

If your issue is you don't think there is an eternity of the past of cause and effects anyway, then move onto Step 2 & 3. And if you can't find fault with these two steps, know that God created because the only possibility is the uncreated created.


9/22/2007 4:38:36 PM

David B.

"Yes, it is true, from 2000 to 1000 BC child sacrifices dropped slowly. Then from 1000 BC to 0 BC they dropped more rapidly. Then from 0 BC to today it is vertually a curve straight up or straight down depending on which end of the line you are looking from."

Thanks for confirming that.

You have said (and confirmed) that starting at 2000BC, the number of child sacrifices is getting smaller, and the rate of decrease is getting bigger. Hence eventually the rate of decrease will be greater than the number of child sacrifices and the progression will inevitably go negative.

"You can't consider your linear to be less than one child sacrifice as you proposed because eventually your linear that goes negative creates at least one negative child."

You have just provided figures that show that exactly the same is true of your exponential progression. Therefore I can reject your exponential progression because you yourself have (a) provided the data indicating an increasing rate of decline of child sacrifices, and (b) said that a negative number of child sacrifices is a proof of invalidity.


9/22/2007 4:40:24 PM

A Friend

David B.,

I think you misread something, because I did not say the "rate of decrease is getting bigger", that is bearing false witness; rather, it is increasingly nearing zero exponentially. The curvature is increasingly steeper due to the exponential progression of conscience. You're attempting to be couth, it's embarrassing for you. Since there is no linear with more than one point, and since there cannot be negativite action, you have no argument. Hence, Step 1 remains unchallenged.



9/22/2007 4:50:18 PM

David B.

I would have thought it was obvious that the rate of decline of something couldn't increase indefinitely, because inevitably it would become greater than whatever amount of something there was.

I assumed you were saying there was an exponential decay in the number of child sacrifices, but you have provided and confirmed as true data that indicates this is not so.

9/22/2007 4:51:35 PM

David B.

"I think you misread something, because I did not say the "rate of decrease is getting bigger"

That is a lie.

"Yes, it is true, from 2000 to 1000 BC child sacrifices dropped slowly. Then from 1000 BC to 0 BC they dropped more rapidly."

It dropped slowly, then it dropped more rapidly, the rate therefore increased.

The rate cannot decrease again and remain an exponential progression. Neither can it continue to increase without eventually going negative.

To bad the edit function isn't working, eh?

9/22/2007 4:55:24 PM

David B.

By the way, there's no such year as 0 B.C. The calendar goes directly from 1 B.C to 1 A.D.

9/22/2007 4:57:46 PM

A Friend

David B.,

The exponential curve approaches zero child sacrifices in the future of infinity essentially deemed to be zero. Remember, only God is unique because He is uncreated. He undergoes no such processes.

I never said there is an "exponential decay", for the drop in the number of child sacrifices exponentially is a positive development.

It's true, I never said the rate of decrease is getting bigger. Rather, the rate of decrease is approaching zero. Think of a chart on the horizontal to be time. Think of the vertical axis as child sacrifices per capita with the highest number at the bottom. As you go further along the horizontal axis in time, the line on the chart becomes steeper and stepper. Easy.

Everything I have said remains true. It is just your misreading. It's amazing you are still struggling with this matter, but that is the flesh for ya.






9/22/2007 5:13:57 PM

A Friend

David B.,

In antiquity they did not count the year zero, but we do today. Which just have to take this into account. For obviously, 1 minus -1 equals 2.

9/22/2007 5:19:14 PM

A Friend

David B.,

So you continue to find no problem with Step 1 which proves the uncreated created. Thankyou for your testimony.

9/22/2007 5:20:05 PM

A Friend

It's time to give your life to Christ David B.

9/22/2007 5:22:57 PM

Rime

Yet again, as before, you could find no fault with the 4SPFG and 4SMFA.

This is a discussion. It wasn't over. You would look a whole lot better if you stopped trying to declare victory before the discussion is finished. But far be it for me to try to keep you from making a fool of yourself.

Why does that upset you that Christians feel the world is overpopulated?

I did not say I was upset about it. You stated in comment #311391 on page 5, that Christians believe it to be overpopulated. Since I believe you to posess enough intelligence to reply to my responses, I believe you could remember saying so, but I guess not.

Are you attempting to continue derailing the discussion? You could have let this drop and nothing would have been lost in the argument.

Regarding birthcontrol, you can't compare it, because previous centuries did not have the same technology to make it so easy.

I see you still want to drift off topic. I forgive you. We'll just stick to the proof.

Fornication is no worse now than before. Polygamy rationalized fornication, but today it is frowned upon and often illegal.

Sin is sin. Fornication is extramarital sex. Europe and North America are suffering from a decline of married couples and couples marrying when they're older, and also favoring common-law and same sex relationships, meaning every sex act is fornication. I have provided one bit of proof in comment 312629.

You can't compare eating habits because mass production of food was not available before.

Yes, we can. Sin is sin and its circumstances don't matter. You agree, don't you?

We cannot separate your unsalvation from your bad reasoning. It is because your spirit is dead to God, that your mind remains darkened and belligerent.

The topic is not me. The topic is the proof. I forgive you for your irrelevant remark. We can talk about that after we've discussed the proof.

I understand why you are offended because you feel you have challenged these facts, but you have not as we have seen in this response, so they remain unchallenged.

Offended? If I were offended, I would say so. I forgive you for your mistake.

The funniest thing of all is you say somewhere you have disproven these things but never present that information. People, therefore, should consider you telling a tale that is not real.

If anyone reads the comments section, it can be easily accessed, but I'll throw in the comment numbers to make it easier. Comments 310726, 310802, 310907, 311169, 311356 and 312629. And I forgive you for your attempt to slander. You should be careful about saying things like that. It can ruin your reputation, and I wouldn't want that.

May I recommend you stop condescending to Jesus, for He created you and stop trolling, and taking it personally that you are insulted when you are told the truth. Don't pick up Satan's bait.

The topic is not me. The topic is the proof. I forgive you for your irrelevant remark. We can talk about that after we've discussed the proof.


You didn't address my abortion statement in comment #312629, so that means you agree that it's a child sacrifice to the "god of self," right? Funny how you let points like that drop unaddressed and then accuse me of showing no proof.

It is becoming evident that you just want to waste my time, not discuss the proof (and most of our audience would say "Well DUH!"). You continue to wander off course and in this comment alone made five irrelevant responses. In the last comment you drifted off topic twice and made four irrelevant responses. It is becoming very evident you simply want to waste people's time while maintaining the guise of legitimacy, (which is the best way to troll, but I bet you know that.) You have one more opportunity to address my discussion. If you can't refrain from wandering off topic and making irrelevant comments, I'll post a summary later and I'll see you next year. If you can behave and simply stick to the proof, not start up some conversation about me being saved, I'll continue. That's not unreasonable, is it?

9/23/2007 7:09:24 AM

Darwin's Finches

Shiny mirror award.

9/23/2007 7:15:53 AM

A Friend

Rime,

As any discussion goes it need not go into infinity, so it is reasonable to conclude it is won since you still find no fault with the 4SPFG and the 4SMFA.

The fact still remains Christians believe the world is NOT overpopulated, so you would be bearing false witness saying otherwise.

As USA is falling babylon, you would expect for a time period it will undergo certain transgressions which is a small sample size for nations have been falling throughout the millennia. The important point is to take the biggest picture which is to say polygamy justified fornication before, but today it is frowned upon, so this is an exponential progression in conscience.

You are missing the point. Sin is sin, that is not the issue. The issue is if you are going to be scientific, you can only compare apples to apples. You can't compare sin on computers because there were no computers before. Otherwise you are biased in your data.

It is quite relevant that you have a darkened mind and a dead spirit to God, for this is what causes your irrationality in your words, so it needs be addressed.

An offended person keeps trying to rationalize a lie, so you are offended.

Regarding your comments, 310726, 310802, 310907, 311169, 311356 and 312629, please respond to my response to them. If you choose to repeat yourself, you will only receive the same similar response I gave before. You see I always kingdly respond, hence, by following posts.

By your choice to go to hell, you only slander yourself. Don't blame Christians.

You said I did not respond to your abortion statement in #312629, but I did. See the following responses given.

Please respond to what I said rather than repeat yourself, for that is just the belligerency of an unrenewed mind to do that.

When I post, I am responding directly to what you said, so if it seems off course it is only because you went off course. You know that, but you are just trying to be couth.

9/23/2007 3:45:52 PM

A Friend

Mirrors are interesting, for as you walk in a house of glass with mirrors everywhere they keep reflecting the truth back on you like the 4SPGF and the 4SMFA to show you are going to hell. Just be honest with yourself, you are going to hell for how you respond to Jesus.

9/23/2007 3:47:02 PM

Rime

[size=10]I'm apologizing in advance for not sticking to the proof for this post. I'm taking a break in this post for reasons listed at the end. And for what it's worth, David, your point is clear, but likely never to A Friend. [/size]

As any discussion goes it need not go into infinity, so it is reasonable to conclude it is won since you still find no fault with the 4SPFG and the 4SMFA.

You're an intelligent person, Troy. I can't understand why you don't wait until I say "I agree, I'll sign up on your board soon" or "I give up?" If I kept claiming victory at the beginning of each post, would you not have called me on it? Attempt to denigrate the discussion noted.

The fact still remains Christians believe the world is NOT overpopulated, so you would be bearing false witness saying otherwise.

Now you're contradicting yourself. Page 5 in comment #311391 you say that it is.

My mistake for messing up my sentence, though, and I apologize for it. Just as I have apologized for my other blunders in this quote.

As USA is falling babylon, you would expect for a time period it will undergo certain transgressions which is a small sample size for nations have been falling throughout the millennia. The important point is to take the biggest picture which is to say polygamy justified fornication before, but today it is frowned upon, so this is an exponential progression in conscience.

You're wrong, I included proof in comment #312629 with a link. Extramarital sex is on the rise. It had been in decline with the institution of Judeo-Christain marriage and then before that, cultures like the Roman pagans and Egyptians and African tribals, for example, were pretty proud of their sexual deviancy. Furthermore fornications isn't frowned upon in the secular world. Haven't you been listening to your sources lately? I guess someone forgot to give you the memo about Planned Parenthood.

You are missing the point. Sin is sin, that is not the issue. The issue is if you are going to be scientific, you can only compare apples to apples. You can't compare sin on computers because there were no computers before. Otherwise you are biased in your data.

Sin is sin, thank you for agreeing with me. That being said, we see plenty of new ways to sin and some revival of old ways of sinning. The worldwide obesity epidemic and increase in fornication are definitely on the rise in the secular world, although, to your credit, we are decreasing in most of our violent sins. When we add them all together, because that's what God does, we see that the exponential increase of global conscience is false.

It is quite relevant that you have a darkened mind and a dead spirit to God, for this is what causes your irrationality in your words, so it needs be addressed.

Vague statement about me being irrational. Attempt to provoke noted.

An offended person keeps trying to rationalize a lie, so you are offended.

I guess you'll have to try harder, because I don't feel offended. I certainly would have told you if I were. Attempt to provoke noted.

Regarding your comments, 310726, 310802, 310907, 311169, 311356 and 312629, please respond to my response to them. If you choose to repeat yourself, you will only receive the same similar response I gave before. You see I always kingdly respond, hence, by following posts.

Since I provided a list of quotes, I'll tally up the number of times I've forgiven you for trying to denigrate the topic when I post my summary. I do respond to them, my posts in this quote are pretty distinct. My style here is the "inverse Papabear." I bold your statement, I respond in plain text.

By your choice to go to hell, you only slander yourself. Don't blame Christians.

This doesn't need to be said, it's an attempt to denigrate the discussion.

You said I did not respond to your abortion statement in #312629, but I did. See the following responses given.

You hadn't addressed my statement about abortion being the new child sacrifice since page 5. 2.1 million babies, according to your worldview. Or did you want me to go back to earlier reasons that I overturned? Not that it matters now, but maybe you could clear it up anyway.

Please respond to what I said rather than repeat yourself, for that is just the belligerency of an unrenewed mind to do that.

I have responded to every counterpoint you've made. You know that, so you're just trying provoke, not actually discuss the proof. In fact, my posting style is pretty distinct in this quote. As I mentioned before, it's the "inverse Papabear."

When I post, I am responding directly to what you said, so if it seems off course it is only because you went off course.

An intelligent guy like yourself should know when he's drifting off topic.

You know that, but you are just trying to be couth.

I haven't been trying to be couth. I feel pretty confident I've succeeded. Attempting to denigrate the discussion noted.

Okay, so we're holding the bar at five attempts to provoke a flame war instead of trying to be serious. Since you don't want to discuss like a mature adult, I'm concluding you're just wasting my time. I'll post a summary of points in a few days and see if Mr. Brooks can show some signs of maturity next year. But don't you worry, Troy. If I do accept Jesus as you have asked, I'll be sure to sign up and learn all I can about Biblocality.

[color=red]PLEASE NOTE:[/img] I have concluded that Mr. Brooks is a troll, who's using his four step-perfect proof and initial courteous attitude to eventually enrage people, for whatever enjoyment he gets out of it. His obvious intelligence vanishes at convenient points after a few posts and then lays the unnecessary evangelistic quips aimed at provoking inflammatory responses. I know a lot of you would say "No shit, Sherlock!" But I'd hate to have to make a mistake and write off someone who could be reasoned with.

As for my absence from yBoards, I've forgotten my password and I can't create a new account as of yet. If there are some board members who would like to keep up with me, I have an account under the same name on the Internet Infidels Discussion Board. Send me a PM there, thanks.

9/23/2007 8:11:19 PM

A Friend

Rime,

You have had more than a year of postings, and have been shown wrong each time, so another year will not change things, nor 10 years.

I don't see anywhere on Page 5 in comment #311391 that Christians claim the earth is not overpopulated.

I don't see anywhere in post #312629 that polygamy is on the rise. For example, it was so bad in ages gone by a Pharaoh would have hundreds or thousands of concubines. That is not the case today. So, this is an exponential improvement in conscience. It was not uncommon one husband would have several wives. You just don't see that much at all today. And there were lots of stories in the past about sex with close relatives, but it is totally frowned on today. Don't underestimate the amount of fornicating in the past, because that assumption does not match reality.

It is not vague at all that your spirit is dead to God. The false reasonings I address in your thoughts is because your spirit is dead as the Bible says for the Holy Spirit has not come into your spirit to quicken it with God's life. God won't give you new life as long as you revile His Son. So you have no sensitivity now. You're like a papa bear on the prowl.

You don't have to tell me you are offended, for you show that you are offended by your silly rationales always disproven, repeating yourself and not responding to the big picture given. Stop keying in on your small samples. Open your mind.

The conversation is not denigrated by acknowledging God's Word you are going to hell for rejecting His Son. That is spiritual reality. Receive Christ to be saved.

I responded immediately to your comment about abortions and told you then and again many times you can't compare abortions, because the technology for them did not exist in previous centuries. If you don't want to be scientific, therein lies your problem.

What you are doing is just repeating yourself, and I keep giving you the same response, but you don't reply to my response. That's your problem, because then you would have to admit you approach was wrong. You shouldn't be confident in this erroneous way of being.

I am banned from II because as soon as you talking about the Proof they can't handle it so they ban you.

I was in the sauna today and we got to talking. I said to the person, well nothing in nature happens all by itself, it always has a cause, so there must be an uncreated cause, to which he continue to shut his mind down to deny it, yet could not account for the fact that nothing in nature happens all by itself. This is a form of shutting one's mind down for the devil. The logic is clearly stated, yet they choose to be belligerent and mindless as you would expect from a selfish pawn of Satan. May you not end up in hell with this person.

Praise the Lord!























9/23/2007 9:26:00 PM

A Friend

You need to listen to some Linkin Park to help lead you to Christ.

9/24/2007 1:08:42 AM
1 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 13