You lied about what you were saying "No, it doesn't" about. You originally meant it about just one part about my quote - the part "No, it doesn't" actually makes sense as a response to. After I proved you wrong (and me right) on that, you attempted to claim your "No, it doesn't" referred to only a smaller part of the quote.
Alex Trebek
- Thread starter GK4Herd
- Start date
You lied about what you were saying "No, it doesn't" about. You originally meant it about just one part about my quote - the part "No, it doesn't" actually makes sense as a response to. After I proved you wrong (and me right) on that, you attempted to claim your "No, it doesn't" referred to only a smaller part of the quote.
You're wrong.
My "no, it doesn't" applies to BOTH parts of your statement. Your statement that I was replying to was this:
I'll put it in sentence form: "no, it doesn't" have everything to do with reconciliation and forgiveness, and "no, it doesn't" have absolutely nothing to do with my god showing favoritism to those I pray for.
My "no, it doesn't" applies to BOTH parts of your statement. Your statement that I was replying to was this:
I'll put it in sentence form: "no, it doesn't" have everything to do with reconciliation and forgiveness, and "no, it doesn't" have absolutely nothing to do with my god showing favoritism to those I pray for.
Have your grandchildren explain this to you. Let me dumb it down:
me: "Marshall's basketball success has absolutely nothing to do with its football success."
you: "No, it doesn't."
By saying "No, it doesn't" to the negative in my sentence, you are actually affirming my position. You are agreeing that Marshall's basketball success has nothing to do with its football success. Likewise, when I say "That has absolutely nothing to do with your god showing favoritism," your response of "No, it doesn't" affirms my position.
In other words, saying "No, it doesn't" to the second part of my quote makes absolutely no sense if you were trying to refute it. But we both know you weren't originally trying to refute that.
I don't believe in miracles. I don't believe God chooses to heal one person and let another die. That doesn't even make sense. I pray for strength and peace for the sick. That's a mental strength, to fight their sickness, which I believe is important.
Why not? Both God and Christ were discriminate about who they raised from the dead, why not do the same for the sick?
God only raised 3 from the dead before the time of Jesus.
Jesus only raised 5 (counting the 2 through Peter and Paul) out of all those that were dead at the time.
And many of the saints were raised from the dead at Christ's death.
I give you a lot of shit, but I am not trying to be snarky here.
Who have you seen raised from the dead?
Who has been raised from the dead in any modern time? And I'll take that back all the way to, say, the late 1500s. That way we can get in Francis Bacon and the scientific method.
In all honesty, I am not sure I believe Jesus raised anyone from the dead. I want to believe, but understanding the pathology and effects of death....I am very skeptical.
How many recently dead bodies have you been around? I don't mean in a funeral home. I mean like a couple of hours after death. From liver mortis to rigor mortis time. And then of course the beginning of decomposition.
Neither am I. Particularly when I comment on the this next quote of yours below....
That's one of the saddest things I've ever heard. The Bible, particularly the New Testament, is God's testimony of his Son. And you don't believe God's testimony, and therefore you've made God out to be a liar. By corollary, you make his Son, the Word, to be a liar also, because that Son plainly told us "I am the resurrection." I hope you get this fixed.
How about one that was beaten almost to death, then nailed to a cross, and then probably drained of most of its blood during/after death? Oh, and then the body was wrapped in cloth and laid out for almost 3 full days in warm temperatures?
No way that one is coming back, amirite? Not trying to rail on you, but I have to agree with Greed in his response (I just vomited a little saying that) above. I'm not sure one can believe in Jesus without believing in being raised from the dead.
You seriously do not understand the difference in skepticism and actual denial?
I think skepticism is healthy. If God didn't want us to be skeptics, we would all have an IQ of 70.
1st Corinthians 15 mentions that Jesus had to rise from death before anyone else could...yet the Gospels claim the opposite happened.
On a side note....EG said "liar" again...everyone drink!
Sure do. Skepticism is doubt. It is the absence of faith, and without faith it is impossible to please God.
If God wanted skeptics when it come to his Word, he wouldn't have made faith an absolute requirement to please him.
I don't remember anywhere in the Bible that it says that. It certainly doesn't say that in 1st Corinthians.
Says the guy who couldn't get what he needed from Christianity, so he went and got a second religion.
Yet the Bible tells us of Thomas....
I guess I've been to enough Catholic funerals that it's stuck in my head. Verse 20. What else could first-fruits mean when the topic is resurrection? I guess I could write it off as just another Biblical contradiction...
Says the guy who doesn't believe God in the flesh (Jesus) can resurrect people from the dead. Bottom line....you don't believe ANYTHING the Bible says.
Irrelevant. This occurred before the apostles/disciples had received the Holy Ghost.
Sometimes a dictionary is your friend. Firstfruits is a plural. There are no contradictions in the Bible.
I never said "could not". I said "not sure if he did". Quite a difference. And you still follow Xenu, so whatever.
I'm not sure what that has to do with anything.
I'm not sure what that has to do with the meaning of that verse, when the preceding verses are about the resurrection of Christ himself. I think the context is obvious. Maybe you own a dictionary but not a Bible, given how you were clueless of what I was talking about until I threw in the verse.
oh, that isn't what was stuck in your head at the funerals . . .
GODDAMN YOU ROGER!
and, lest we forget . . .
But we don’t have to follow those commandments anyways. Ya’ know, the whole Old Testament thing.
I know what you said. You attempted to make it seem improbable at best when you started talking about the conditions of the body shortly after death.
And then you lie again, liar.
Until the apostles received the Holy Ghost, many things were not understood/remembered by them.
Firstfruits is plural, which should tell you if you'd checked, that it was talking about more than the resurrection of 1 person. There's nothing wrong with the context, it's what's wrong with you.
Yeah, I was clueless that Jesus had resurrected someone before he, himself, was resurrected.
There are no contradictions in the Bible.
https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=124572693
Acknowledging the contradictions within the Bible doesn’t mean I don’t agree with message and teachings
16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
17 That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.
Yet you claim the OT (that's Old Testament, not Operating Thetan) is null and void under the New Law. If it is ALL instruction in righteousness, then bitches better be bringing their turtledoves to the priest after their period.
John 14:26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.
____Jesus
John 12:16
These things understood not his disciples at the first: but when Jesus was glorified, then remembered they that these things were written of him, and that they had done these things unto him.
You continue to show your ignorance regarding the Bible.
Did you see salvation in the above list of what ALL scripture is profitable for? No, you didn't.
So even the gnostic gospels? Or just the ones that were chosen by man to fit their narrative at the time?
And yet the very next verse says people saw Lazarus alive and bore record of it. So either the Disciples were really a bunch of dumbasses, or maybe the verse is talking about something other understanding really basic shit (like if a dead dude is now alive).
I swear, you are not only a bad example of the Xenu Cult, but you are shit as a Christian as well. "You ignorant fool, you better read the Bible better." How about I not take Bible lessons from an idolater?
Nope. I just saw Xenu in your words.
Go eat some shrimp and pork like the rest of us bad people. Bang some chick on the rag. It's all good.
You know who to blame it all on. That certain poster that hijacks every thread into a religious rant, an anti-Trump dossier, or simply calls everyone a liar. For someone that practices dual religions, one has to wonder if he's sleeping through the services, cause he's not practicing what the preacher is preaching.
The following scripture was offered as proof that the apostles didn't understand much of what was going on in front of them....
John 12:16
These things understood not his disciples at the first: but when Jesus was glorified, then remembered they that these things were written of him, and that they had done these things unto him.
It doesn't make you look any less foolish when you bring your ignorance of not one, but two religions into the thread.
Is it your stupidity, or your inability to refrain from lying, or both, that caused you to post that nonsense.
I retorted with a discussion of context by speaking of the next verse, and you replied to a context discussion using the very same verse you quoted earlier.
Are you kidding me?
I don't think we value you opinion and who you call liars because you practice multiple religions and can't figure it out yourself.
I know that, moron. And I explained why I was using that verse when I used it again.
Using the 17th verse the way you did was so far out of context it was hilarious.
You don't value my opinion because it's truth. You stay as far away from it as possible. You always have.
I'm just trying to Get you through this life altering crisis you're going through. Leah warned it would be tough for you people.
