Arian Foster Breaks Ground By Admitting He Doesn’t Believe In God

[IBlvNTmWrk]

The irony is palpable.

If it were any closer it would be slapping him across the face.

 

[MercyPercy]

The irony is that you miss two very important points, yet call me an idiot.

One: You are drawing the line for everyone else, while accusing others of drawing lines for everyone else. No matter where you draw the line of what should be allowable 'morality legislation', you are drawing that line. Right? And now you're drawing it at the meta-level, of which types of morality should be legislate-able.

Do you have an actual argument against my position regarding harm to person or property, or are you just going to keep arguing the semantics of "morality legislation"? This attempt at deflection by trying to make murder, rape, and theft into moral arguments in the same vein as marriage, blue laws, drug laws, etc, is quite frankly absurd. If you are not equipped to understand the fundamental differences without resorting to your morality handbook, you are certainly not in any position to make those decisions for others.

Which leads me to point number two:

(Two) Christians have a basis of morality that they refer to. You do as well. You're saying that your basis for morality is the only one that should be represented or get representation.

The irony is that, as an atheist, the relative basis for that morality is 'social agreement', but you're trying to stack the social decision for social agreement against people of religious beliefs.

So, I guess that makes you a hypocrite and a bigot.

Such misrepresentation. I would say I'm disappointed, but we've been to this rodeo before and I've come to expect it's how you operate. I'm not saying, nor have ever said, people of religious beliefs don't get a vote, nor should be allowed to speak their minds, nor should they be allowed a part of the legislative process. I specifically said that what needs to go away is the belief that we should be able to, as individuals, legislate the morality of others, as in there needs to be a massive change in the ideology of citizens which favors individual freedoms more than government intrusion into personal lives. I was speaking of such an ideological change that would happen organically, not taking away your representation in government.

But of course, that's that persecution complex. You are simply compelled to feel persecuted. Don't worry, friend. I'm not trying to crucify you.

Let's be clear here. The Constitution is the basis for our legislation. Within that, there will be a lot of discussion and debate about the specifics of what will and can be legislated. One of us is seeking to limit the voices that should have those discussions and debates. Which one is it?

I'm not seeking to limit anyone's voice, as I have already debunked. That was your fabrication, your misunderstanding. I was speaking of a social evolution that I think needs to happen if we want to really be considered a free country. I am more than willing to discuss the actual meat of the debate, the specific laws that I feel are unjust and unnecessary, and the importance of individual's rights. You seem only willing to try and fight over the word morality.

 

[MercyPercy]

Um...

You quoted stats that people are falling away from the faith.

1 Timothy says that in later times, people would fall away from the faith.

You called it crazy BS.

[Your original proposition]
[Your original proposition was predicted]
[The prediction was crazy BS]
equals [Your original proposition was crazy BS?]

Logic, you're doing it wrong...

You know exactly what I'm saying, I refuse to believe even you are this dense.

You write a book that contains a bunch of stuff like resurrections, noah's ark, splitting of the red sea, plagues, and really, we could go on and on.. Is it really that astounding of a prediction to say, "Hey, sometime in the future, people will stop believing this stuff."

You can't sit here with a straight face and say that this is evidence of some great prophecy.

 

[MercyPercy]

What's relevant is that this topic of discussion is completely subjective and opinion based... which means there is no definitive "correct" answer. But you're the only one who fails to recognize that as apparently your opinion is the only one that matters. And now you're doing nothing but projecting.

You might want to re-read one of OC's posts above.

I believe I am correct regarding justice , just like you believe you are correct, so what do we do? We debate and see if we can determine who is more correct. I've never said anything about only my opinion matters, I just said that I believe my opinion is right. So do you want to talk about my position on harm vs. non-harm, and legislating crimes of non-harm, or do you want to keep pretending like I'm somehow preventing you from having a say(as if I could even do that)?

 

[VolsSportsFan]

You know exactly what I'm saying, I refuse to believe even you are this dense.

You write a book that contains a bunch of stuff like resurrections, noah's ark, splitting of the red sea, plagues, and really, we could go on and on.. Is it really that astounding of a prediction to say, "Hey, sometime in the future, people will stop believing this stuff."

You can't sit here with a straight face and say that this is evidence of some great prophecy.

"Later times" is also extremely vague, which goes along with most "predictions" in the Bible. Wars, rumors of wars, famines, droughts.....yeah, real tough to call those since those happen literally every year.

 

[MercyPercy]

"Later times" is also extremely vague, which goes along with most "predictions" in the Bible. Wars, rumors of wars, famines, droughts.....yeah, real tough to call those since those happen literally every year.

You'll find that most works of fiction that include prophecies follow the same exact pattern of vague statements and claims. We have charlatans who, to this day, convince people they can speak to their dead relatives through similar means of vague suggestion. As long as the individual wants to believe strongly enough, any prophecy can be made to look miraculous in the eyes of the suggestible.

 

[VolsSportsFan]

You'll find that most works of fiction that include prophecies follow the same exact pattern of vague statements and claims. We have charlatans who, to this day, convince people they can speak to their dead relatives through similar means of vague suggestion. As long as the individual wants to believe strongly enough, any prophecy can be made to look miraculous in the eyes of the suggestible.

It reminds me of Bill Burr's stand-up on Netflix where he talks about how stupid other religions' beliefs sounded to him, all while he believed just as outrageous things that made perfect sense to him.

 

[MercyPercy]

It reminds me of Bill Burr's stand-up on Netflix where he talks about how stupid other religions' beliefs sounded to him, all while he believed just as outrageous things that made perfect sense to him.

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nRo2Fqbv-V4[/youtube]

 

[Orange_Crush]

Do you have an actual argument against my position regarding harm to person or property, or are you just going to keep arguing the semantics of "morality legislation"? This attempt at deflection by trying to make murder, rape, and theft into moral arguments in the same vein as marriage, blue laws, drug laws, etc, is quite frankly absurd. If you are not equipped to understand the fundamental differences without resorting to your morality handbook, you are certainly not in any position to make those decisions for others.

I've made an actual argument against your position. I'll be more blatant for your benefit. A person's views on morality are heavily defined by the underlying worldviews, so those worldviews will define even such seemingly simple matters as defining a 'victimless crime'.

For instance, is a fetus a human life or an abscess? Our underlying worldviews differ on that, thus we disagree with the definition of whether it is even a crime, much less victimless.

Do you see now how worldviews affect such definitions. The problem is that you (apparently unknowingly) claim that your worldview should be the gold standard and everyone else just needs to piss off.

Such misrepresentation. I would say I'm disappointed, but we've been to this rodeo before and I've come to expect it's how you operate. I'm not saying, nor have ever said, people of religious beliefs don't get a vote, nor should be allowed to speak their minds, nor should they be allowed a part of the legislative process. I specifically said that what needs to go away is the belief that we should be able to, as individuals, legislate the morality of others, as in there needs to be a massive change in the ideology of citizens which favors individual freedoms more than government intrusion into personal lives. I was speaking of such an ideological change that would happen organically, not taking away your representation in government.

I was writing bit tongue in cheek. It's a literary form to make effect. Sorry you couldn't recognize it.

But the fact remains that you're carrying a polemic against those closed-minded religious folks, while making the argument that they need to disappear. It's really quite amazing that you miss your own hypocrisy.

But of course, that's that persecution complex. You are simply compelled to feel persecuted. Don't worry, friend. I'm not trying to crucify you.

Not at all. Which part of: "I think everyone should have their say in our secular society" spelled "persecution complex" to you? Or are you just offended when your hypocrisy is pointed out?



I'm not seeking to limit anyone's voice, as I have already debunked. That was your fabrication, your misunderstanding. I was speaking of a social evolution that I think needs to happen if we want to really be considered a free country. I am more than willing to discuss the actual meat of the debate, the specific laws that I feel are unjust and unnecessary, and the importance of individual's rights. You seem only willing to try and fight over the word morality.

"We'll only be free when everyone believes like me..." Doubling down, eh?

I'll be done now. lol

 

[Orange_Crush]

You know exactly what I'm saying, I refuse to believe even you are this dense.

You write a book that contains a bunch of stuff like resurrections, noah's ark, splitting of the red sea, plagues, and really, we could go on and on.. Is it really that astounding of a prediction to say, "Hey, sometime in the future, people will stop believing this stuff."

You can't sit here with a straight face and say that this is evidence of some great prophecy.

And I'm not sure how you thought my post about prophecy was meant to convince you that the Bible is true. It wasn't a conversation about whether the Bible is true. I was saying: "Why should Christians (who believe the Bible) be surprised, offended, or scared about this? The Bible told us it would happen."

 

[MercyPercy]

I've made an actual argument against your position. I'll be more blatant for your benefit. A person's views on morality are heavily defined by the underlying worldviews, so those worldviews will define even such seemingly simple matters as defining a 'victimless crime'.

A victimless crime remains victimless regardless of whether you think they are morally wrong or not. You must present a victim to disprove this.

So the question becomes, do you think everything you believe is immoral should be illegal? You think swearing is immoral, should we criminalize it? You think cheating is immoral, should we criminalize it? You think porn is immoral, should we criminalize it? You think doing drugs is immoral, should we criminalize it? You think gambling is immoral, should we criminalize it? This is why you can't legislate morality. Your stance should be, if you believe in any kind of personal freedom at all, "I believe it is immoral, but I do not believe I have the right to tell someone they cannot participate in this immoral behavior under threat of persecution."

You are allowed to have your beliefs on morality, and there is nothing stopping you from living your life within the confines of that morality. So why do you want to enforce your morality on others? Where was that in the bible? You keep attempting to show that I am trying to force my morality, which is blatantly false and hilarious. How am I forcing my beliefs on others by allowing them to make these choices for themselves? I'm doing the exact opposite of forcing my beliefs on others. Allowing people to choose how they want to live, as long as they aren't harming anyone else and their property, is not "forcing" anything on anyone, and to suggest otherwise is a farce.

Why do you think you have the authority to tell people what they can't do as long as they aren't harming anyone or their property? Where in the bible does it say, "strongly suggest people follow my morality, but if they don't, get the government to force them to!"

I'll be done now. lol

Say it ain't so!

 

[Orange_Crush]

The irony is that you miss two very important points, yet call me an idiot.

One: You are drawing the line for everyone else, while accusing others of drawing lines for everyone else. No matter where you draw the line of what should be allowable 'morality legislation', you are drawing that line. Right? And now you're drawing it at the meta-level, of which types of morality should be legislate-able.

Which leads me to point number two:

(Two) Christians have a basis of morality that they refer to. You do as well. You're saying that your basis for morality is the only one that should be represented or get representation. The irony is that, as an atheist, the relative basis for that morality is 'social agreement', but you're trying to stack the social decision for social agreement against people of religious beliefs.

So, I guess that makes you a hypocrite and a bigot.

Let's be clear here. The Constitution is the basis for our legislation. Within that, there will be a lot of discussion and debate about the specifics of what will and can be legislated. One of us is seeking to limit the voices that should have those discussions and debates. Which one is it?

A victimless crime remains victimless regardless of whether you think they are morally wrong or not. You must present a victim to disprove this.

So the question becomes, do you think everything you believe is immoral should be illegal? You think swearing is immoral, should we criminalize it? You think cheating is immoral, should we criminalize it? You think porn is immoral, should we criminalize it? You think doing drugs is immoral, should we criminalize it? You think gambling is immoral, should we criminalize it? This is why you can't legislate morality. Your stance should be, if you believe in any kind of personal freedom at all, "I believe it is immoral, but I do not believe I have the right to tell someone they cannot participate in this immoral behavior under threat of persecution."

You are allowed to have your beliefs on morality, and there is nothing stopping you from living your life within the confines of that morality. So why do you want to enforce your morality on others? Where was that in the bible? You keep attempting to show that I am trying to force my morality, which is blatantly false and hilarious. How am I forcing my beliefs on others by allowing them to make these choices for themselves? I'm doing the exact opposite of forcing my beliefs on others. Allowing people to choose how they want to live, as long as they aren't harming anyone else and their property, is not "forcing" anything on anyone, and to suggest otherwise is a farce.

Why do you think you have the authority to tell people what they can't do as long as they aren't harming anyone or their property? Where in the bible does it say, "strongly suggest people follow my morality, but if they don't, get the government to force them to!"




Say it ain't so!

Wow. You are so wrapped up in your own point of view that you don't even recognize--can't even comprehend--the points made from another's POV. It's striking actually.

You can't even conceive of the concept that your definition of 'victimless' could be different than someone else's, based in differing underlying prepositions. I would have thought the abortion example would have, well, exemplified it.

Then, blind to such points, you somehow think that I want a theocracy that outlaws curse words. lol

OK. Carry on.

I would have thought that the bolded sentence in my quoted response would have keyed you in on the fact that I'm against a theocracy.

 

[Deputy Fife]

A bastard child, my mother could have easily chosen abortion, and I'm thankful she didn't. I'm also thankful that she chose to have sex at the exact moment she did, that my dad didn't use a condom or it malfunctioned, and that the exact sperm cell that eventuated in myself won the race.

If she had chosen abortion, I wouldn't exist nor would I have suffered, but my mother would have saved a lot of suffering and financial expense.

Mother Teresa's compassion was very badly calibrated if the killing of first-trimester fetuses disturbed her more than all the other suffering she witnessed on this earth. While abortion is an ugly reality, and we should all hope for breakthroughs in contraception that reduce the need for it, one can reasonably wonder whether most aborted fetuses suffer their destruction on any level. One cannot reasonably wonder this about the millions of men, women, and children who must endure the torments of war, famine, political torture, or mental illness. At this very moment, millions of sentient people are suffering unimaginable physical and mental afflictions, in circumstances where the compassion of God is nowhere to be seen, and the compassion of human beings is often hobbled by preposterous ideas about sin, punishment, and salvation. If you are worried about human suffering, abortion should rank very low on your list of concerns.

While abortion remains a ludicrously divisive issue in the United States, the "moral" position of the Church on this matter is now fully and horribly incarnated in the country of El Salvador. In El Salvador, abortion is now illegal under all circumstances. There are no exceptions for rape or incest. The moment a woman shows up at a hospital with a perforated uterus, indicating a back-alley abortion, she is shackled to her hospital bed and her body is treated as a crime scene. Forensic doctors soon arrive to examine her womb and cervix. There are women now serving prison sentences thirty years long for terminating their pregnancies. Imagine this, in a county that also stigmatizes the use of contraception as a sin against God. And yet this is precisely the sort of policy one would adopt if one agreed with Mother Teresa's assessment of world suffering. Indeed, the Archbishop of San Salvador actively campaigned for it. His efforts were assisted by Pope John Paul II, who declared, on a visit to Mexico City in 1999, that "the church must proclaim the Gospel of Life and speak out with prophetic force against the culture of death. May the continent of hope also be the continent of life!"

Of course, the Church's position on abortion takes no more notice of the details of biology than it does of the reality of human suffering. It has been estimated that 50 percent of all human conceptions end in spontaneous abortion, usually without a woman even realizing she was pregnant. In fact, 20 percent of all recognized pregnancies end in miscarriage. There is an obvious truth here that cries out for acknowledgment: if God exists, He is the most prolific abortionist of all. -Sam Harris

One of the most pernicious effects of religion is that it tends to divorce morality from the reality of human and animal suffering. Religion allows people to imagine that their concerns are moral when they are not - that is, when they have nothing to do with suffering or its alleviation. Indeed, religion allows people to imagine that their concerns are moral when they are highly immoral - that is, when pressing these concerns inflicts unnecessary and appalling suffering on innocent human beings. This explains why Christians like yourself expend more "moral" energy opposing abortion than fighting genocide. It explains why you are more concerned about human embryos than about the lifesaving promise of stem-cell research. And it explains why you can preach against condom use in sub-Saharan Africa while millions die from AIDS there each year.

You believe that your religious concerns about sex, in all their tiresome immensity, have something to do with morality. And yet, your efforts to constrain the sexual behavior of consenting adults - and even to discourage your own sons and daughters from having premarital sex - are almost never geared toward the relief of human suffering. In fact, relieving suffering seems to rank rather low on your list of priorities. Your principal concern appears to be that the creator of the universe will take offense at something people do while naked. This prudery of yours contributes daily to the surplus of human misery.

Consider, for instance, the human papillomavirus (HPV). HPV is now the most common sexually transmitted disease in the United States. The virus infects over half the American population and causes nearly five thousand women to die each year from cervical cancer; the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) estimates that more than two hundred thousand die worldwide. We now have a vaccine for HPV that appears to be both safe and effective. The vaccine produced 100 percent immunity in the six thousand women who received it as part of a clinical trial. And yet, Christian conservatives in our government have resisted a vaccination program on the grounds that HPV is a valuable impediment to premarital sex. These pious men and women want to preserve cervical cancer as an incentive toward abstinence, even if it sacrifices the lives of thousands of women each year.

There is nothing wrong with encouraging teens to abstain from having sex. But we know, beyond any doubt, that teaching abstinence alone is not a good way to curb teen pregnancy or the spread of sexually transmitted disease. In fact, kids who are taught abstinence alone are less likely to use contraceptives when they do have sex, as many of them inevitably will. One study found that teen "virginity pledges" postpone intercourse for eighteen months on average - while, in the meantime, these virgin teens were more likely than their peers to engage in oral and anal sex. American teenagers engage in about as much sex as teenagers in the rest of the developed world, but American girls are four to five times more likely to become pregnant, to have a baby, or to get an abortion. Young Americans are also far more likely to be infected by HIV and other sexually transmitted diseases. The rate of gonorrhea among American teens is seventy times higher than it is among their peers in the Netherlands and France. The fact that 30 percent of our sex-education programs teach abstinence only (at a cost of more than $200 million a year) surely has something to do with this.

The problem is that Christians like yourself are not principally concerned about teen pregnancy and the spread of disease. That is, you are not worried about the suffering caused by sex; you are worried about sex. As if this fact needed further corroboration, Reginald Finger, an Evangelical member of the CDC's Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, recently announced that he would consider opposing an HIV vaccine - thereby condemning millions of men and women to die unnecessarily from AIDS each year - because such a vaccine would encourage premarital sex by making it less risky. This is one of many points on which your religious beliefs become genuinely lethal.

Your qualms about embryonic stem-cell research are similarly obscene. Here are the facts: stem-cell research is one of the most promising developments in the last century of medicine. It could offer therapeutic breakthroughs for every disease or injury process that human beings suffer - for the simple reason that embryonic stem cells can become any tissue in the human body. This research may also be essential for our understanding of cancer, along with a wide variety of development disorders. Given these facts, it is almost impossible to exaggerate the promise of stem-cell research. It is true, of course, that research on embryonic stem cells entails the destruction of three-day-old human embryos. This is what worries you.

Let us look at the details. A three-day-old human embryo is a collection of 150 cells called a blastocyst. There are, for the sake of comparison, more than 100,000 cells in the brain of a fly. The human embryos that are destroyed in stem-cell research do not have brains, or even neurons. Consequently, there is no reason to believe they can suffer their destruction in any way at all. It is worth remembering, in this context, that when a person's brain has died, we currently deem it acceptable to harvest his organs (provided he has donated them for this purpose) and bury him in the ground. If it is acceptable to treat a person whose brain has died as something less than a human being, it should be acceptable to treat a blastocyst as such. If you are concerned about suffering in this universe, killing a fly should present you with greater moral difficulties than killing a human blastocyst.

Perhaps you think that the crucial difference between a fly and a human blastocyst is to be found in the latter's potential to become a fully developed human being. But almost every cell in your body is a potential human being, given our recent advances in genetic engineering. Every time you scratch your nose, you have committed a Holocaust of potential human beings. This is a fact. The argument from a cell's potential gets you absolutely nowhere.

But let us assume, for a moment, that every three-day-old human embryo has a soul worthy of our moral concern. Embryos at this stage occasionally split, becoming separate people (identical twins). Is this a case of one soul splitting into two? Two embryos sometimes fuse into a single individual, called a chimera. You or someone you know may have developed in this way. No doubt theologians are struggling even now to determine what becomes of the extra human soul in such a case.

Isn't it time we admitted that this arithmetic of souls does not make any sense? The naive idea of souls in a Petri dish is intellectually indefensible. It is also morally indefensible, given that it now stands in the way of some of the most promising research in the history of medicine. Your beliefs about the human soul are, at this very moment, prolonging the scarcely endurable misery of tens of millions of human beings.

You believe that "life starts at the moment of conception." You believe that there are souls in each of these blastocysts and that the interests of one soul - the soul of a little girl with burns over 75 percent of her body, say - cannot trump the interests of another soul, even if that soul happens to live inside a Petri dish. Given the accommodations we have made to fath-based irrationality in our public discourse, it is often suggested, even by advocates of stem-cell research, that your position on this matter has some degree of moral legitimacy. It does not. Your resistance to embryonic stem-cell research is, at best, uninformed. There is, in fact, no moral reason for our federal government's unwillingness to fund this work. We should throw immense resources into stem-cell research, and we should do so immediately. Because of what Christians like yourself believe about souls, we are not doing this. In fact, several states have made such work illegal. If one experiments on a blastocyst in South Dakota, for instance, one risks spending years in prison.

The moral truth here is obvious: anyone who feels that the interests of a blastocyst just might supersede those of a child with a spinal cord injury has had his moral sense blinded by religious metaphysics. The link between religion and "morality" - so regularly proclaimed and so seldom demonstrated - is fully belied here, as it is whenever religious dogma supersedes moral reasoning and genuine compassion. -Sam Harris

Humanity has had a long fascination with blood sacrifice. In fact, it has been by no means uncommon for a child to be born into this world only to be patiently and lovingly reared by religious maniacs, who believe that the best way to keep the sun on its course or to ensure a rich harvest is to lead him by tender hand into a field or to a mountaintop and bury, butcher, or burn him alive as an offering to an invisible God. The notion that Jesus Christ died for our sins and that his death constitutes a successful propitiation of a "loving" God is a direct and undisguised inheritance of the superstitious bloodletting that has plagued bewildered people throughout history.
-Sam Harris

 

[marcusluvsvols]

The nature of reality isn't influenced by thoughts and words, and the universe cares not for the intuitions of primates.

Traveling at the speed of light, one could traverse the equator seven and a half times over the course of a single second, but try to reach the nearest visible star from Earth and the journey will take over four years at the same speed while the most distant star would be accessible only after a 13 billion year voyage.

How could I possibly know this and still give credence to anything you say? Your "mountains" are nothing but specious, self-important molehills built at the behest of ignorance and child-like thinking.

This mindset is so hostile to the acquisition of knowledge that it's all I can do to keep from vomiting every time I hear you or William Lane Craig or some other pompous charlatan whine like a spoiled brat when someone dares to advocate for untrammeled science.

No one today argues that water doesn't consist of two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom; it's a safe belief because the founders of religion couldn't possibly have had the knowledge to postulate intuitions as to its exact chemical structure.

What the progenitors of religion, particularly monotheism, could posit was a belief that this planet and humans occupied an important position, that the universe somehow had anthropomorphic characteristics.

To varying degrees and in different ways, people like you have fiercely held to this supreme arrogance. While I never could get an exact read on your beliefs vis-a-vis evolution, it seems as if you're willing to believe that other species evolved but not humans or only in the aspects of it that you deem innocuous.

When it comes to the free will debate, your dogma is incapable of providing any sort of discernible pathway whereby one could begin to have an honest conversation. All we get is more petulant nonsense about how we have free will because we must.

This isn't stupidity, it's abject intellectual dishonesty.

I don't hate you or religion, I hate absolute certainty, and it just so happens that Christianity, through promises, inducements, threats, and the occasional pearl of wisdom, has managed to position itself as the ultimate vaccine against uncertainty.

The social utility of Christianity is only appreciable relative to other forms of systematic dishonesty and irrationality. It's time to kill it.

Poppycock.

 

[marcusluvsvols]

A bastard child, my mother could have easily chosen abortion, and I'm thankful she didn't. I'm also thankful that she chose to have sex at the exact moment she did, that my dad didn't use a condom or it malfunctioned, and that the exact sperm cell that eventuated in myself won the race.

If she had chosen abortion, I wouldn't exist nor would I have suffered, but my mother would have saved a lot of suffering and financial expense.

Poppycock as well.

 

[volprof]

You know exactly what I'm saying, I refuse to believe even you are this dense.

You write a book that contains a bunch of stuff like resurrections, noah's ark, splitting of the red sea, plagues, and really, we could go on and on.. Is it really that astounding of a prediction to say, "Hey, sometime in the future, people will stop believing this stuff."

You can't sit here with a straight face and say that this is evidence of some great prophecy.

It's akin to those people who look at Isaiah and think to themselves how incredible his predictions were to come true in the form of Jesus, when in reality, all it was was the dudes writing the gospels of Jesus, having been fully familiar with the prophecies of Isaiah, fitting their narratives of Jesus to fit the Isaiahian paradigm.

 

[barknoxbrawler]

It's akin to those people who look at Isaiah and think to themselves how incredible his predictions were to come true in the form of Jesus, when in reality, all it was was the dudes writing the gospels of Jesus, having been fully familiar with the prophecies of Isaiah, fitting their narratives of Jesus to fit the Isaiahian paradigm.

False. But keeping looking for the end of rainbow where only its creator can show you where.

 

[volprof]

False. But keeping looking for the end of rainbow where only its creator can show you where.

I'm not looking for the end of the rainbow, because there isn't one. It's only an optical play upon our eyes.

 

[Obsessed]

I'm not looking for the end of the rainbow, because there isn't one. It's only an optical play upon our eyes.

I bet when you walk in a room people bow to your brilliance.

 

[FLVOL69]

I bet when you walk in a room people bow to your brilliance.

It's more likely they burst into fits of uncontrollable laughter..😜

 

[volprof]

I bet when you walk in a room people bow to your brilliance.

Well, it's like this: I may be arrogant, but at least I don't believe in Hell, which would make me both arrogant and sadistic.

 

[Gramps]

Well, it's like this: I may be arrogant, but at least I don't believe in Hell, which would make me both arrogant and sadistic.

Do you think not believing in hell will keep you from opening your eyes in hellfire with a pitchfork up your azz immediately after your human body dies?

 

[BigOrangeTrain]

Do you think not believing in hell will keep you from opening your eyes in hellfire with a pitchfork up your azz immediately after your human body dies?

Come on Gramps, you know that being arrogant and egotistical on Earth is much more important.

 

[volprof]

Do you think not believing in hell will keep you from opening your eyes in hellfire with a pitchfork up your azz immediately after your human body dies?

To tell you the truth, I don't care much for Hell, nor anyone capable of creating it.

 

[Obsessed]

Well, it's like this: I may be arrogant, but at least I don't believe in Hell, which would make me both arrogant and sadistic.

Brilliance I tell you. Brilliance!

I bet you have your degrees hanging on the wall, don't you?

I would....