egg Posted 16 April, 2020 Share Posted 16 April, 2020 No, that's not what he's saying at all. He's saying that right here, right now, people still read and believe in a book written thousands of years ago which promotes all those and more. Christianity could renounce the teachings of the bible but not sure where that would leave Christianity! No he's not. He's given his interpretation of an ancient book. He says that his interpretation is the message that is still being given. He could say that even if his interpretation is correct, that he acknowledges that his interpretation of the book is not the message being given to Christians in village churches by Old men in cloaks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
egg Posted 16 April, 2020 Share Posted 16 April, 2020 Except that MLG hasn't actually said that though has he? What he has said (numerous times) is that those things are written in The Bible - you know that book that Christianity is supposedly based on. The fact that you and all the Priests now chose to ignore all those nasty bits from your sacred texts just makes the whole point of 'being Christian' or 'following Christianity' or whatever you want to call it even more ridiculous - as seemingly you can just pick and choose which bits you want to follow. As opposed to following the apparent word of your God that is written in the Bible. But you know all that and are just being deliberately obtuse and twisting his statement to deflect away from the absolute idiocy of following any type of Religion in this day and age. I find it is a common tactic employed by 'people of faith' when challenged about their completely illogical beliefs. Another one that feels that pursuing religion is "idiocy". Given your prejudice and narrow mindedness I'll ignore you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SFC1906 Posted 16 April, 2020 Share Posted 16 April, 2020 You dont have any clue what you're arguing against, that's the problem. No I think he does actually. You are just willfully misinterpreting what he is saying for your own amusement/sport - because you're a bit of a bellend:). Are you ever going to answer his question with regard to your own beliefs? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weston Super Saint Posted 16 April, 2020 Share Posted 16 April, 2020 Not my standards Weston, MLGs standards. Read the thread to see the point, which you've obviously missed. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the 'point' that MLG stated that the bible promoted rape, violence, bigamy, servitude etc. You then asked him to prove the 'point', to which he posted the 'scriptures' from the bible containing these. You then denied this was acceptable evidence because that was only one part of the book and not the whole 'context'. Unless I'm missing the 'point' in which case, enlighten me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weston Super Saint Posted 16 April, 2020 Share Posted 16 April, 2020 No he's not. He's given his interpretation of an ancient book. He says that his interpretation is the message that is still being given. He could say that even if his interpretation is correct, that he acknowledges that his interpretation of the book is not the message being given to Christians in village churches by Old men in cloaks. Forgive me, I haven't been in a church since I was forced to nearly 30 years ago. Do the old men in cloaks no longer quote from the bible? Do they no longer teach the parables? Do they no longer quote psalms? Or do they do this selectively so that they fit the 'context' that they are looking for, ignoring the less savoury elements of the book - that would be pretty weird if that's the case, what with turkish extoling the virtues of taking the 'whole context' of the book.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Le God Posted 16 April, 2020 Share Posted 16 April, 2020 I've asked you whether you feel that the current message of Christianity is to promote rape and genocide etc. You say that it is. When I ask where and how that message is being distributed you simply refer to the bible. That's an ancient scripture. It's not the current message. You will not find a village priest standing up on a Sunday telling the congregation to rape their neighbour or kill their newborn infant will you. If you seriously think that's the message being given then you're crazy. The Bible is the foundation for the religion. If the village priest is not saying being disobedient to your parents should result in being stoned to death then that priest is making up their own moral code and not following the text at the core of Christianity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turkish Posted 16 April, 2020 Share Posted 16 April, 2020 Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the 'point' that MLG stated that the bible promoted rape, violence, bigamy, servitude etc. You then asked him to prove the 'point', to which he posted the 'scriptures' from the bible containing these. You then denied this was acceptable evidence because that was only one part of the book and not the whole 'context'. Unless I'm missing the 'point' in which case, enlighten me. Yes you are totally missing the point. He provided one line from the bible from a very long story. Like i said based on cherry picking single lines from very long stories or books you could claim that the Godfather films are romantic comedies or Martin Luther Kings was a racist. You need more evidence than that im afaid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turkish Posted 16 April, 2020 Share Posted 16 April, 2020 No I think he does actually. You are just willfully misinterpreting what he is saying for your own amusement/sport - because you're a bit of a bellend:). Are you ever going to answer his question with regard to your own beliefs? I did, it's none of his business. MLG demands EVIDENCE EVIDENCE EVIDENCE all the time, yet the best he can do is misquote or cherry pick few lines with no other evidence. I'm simply asking him to provide the same level of evidence that he demands, not hard. Great contribution to the thread though pal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Le God Posted 16 April, 2020 Share Posted 16 April, 2020 Yes you are totally missing the point. He provided one line from the bible from a very long story. Like i said based on cherry picking single lines from very long stories or books you could claim that the Godfather films are romantic comedies or Martin Luther Kings was a racist. You need more evidence than that im afaid. This is a nonsense argument. Christians say God is 100% loving and kind. One line in the book showing he is not kind is all it requires to show he is not 100% loving and kind. I'd say a global flood genocide wiping out the entire human race apart from one family is a lot more than 1% evil. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weston Super Saint Posted 16 April, 2020 Share Posted 16 April, 2020 Yes you are totally missing the point. He provided one line from the bible from a very long story. Like i said based on cherry picking single lines from very long stories or books you could claim that the Godfather films are romantic comedies or Martin Luther Kings was a racist. You need more evidence than that im afaid. You challenged him to provide evidence and he provided it. The fact that you don't like the way it was provided doesn't make it any less valid as evidence within the book. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Le God Posted 16 April, 2020 Share Posted 16 April, 2020 I did, it's none of his business. What is the harm in saying? MLG demands EVIDENCE EVIDENCE EVIDENCE all the time I'd like to beleive as many true things and as few false things as possible. Evidence is required to do that... or else you live in a delusional fairy tale world of talking snakes, giants, burning bushes and zombies walking the streets of Jerusalem! yet the best he can do is misquote or cherry pick few lines with no other evidence. I'm simply asking him to provide the same level of evidence that he demands, not hard. Christians say God is 100% loving and kind. One line in the book showing he is not kind is all it requires to show he is not 100% loving and kind. I'd say a global flood genocide wiping out the entire human race apart from one family is a lot more than 1% evil. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Window Cleaner Posted 16 April, 2020 Share Posted 16 April, 2020 The Bible is the foundation for the religion. If the village priest is not saying being disobedient to your parents should result in being stoned to death then that priest is making up their own moral code and not following the text at the core of Christianity. Well it's best for them to interpret the text in whatever way they think best. Probably let's them off explaining the incest which must have occurred right from the start. Then again as that preceeded the 10 commandments perhaps they didn't have the "codes". Basically all religious texts as we know them are just full of stuff that just cannot be explained. Which is why most educated folk just brush them aside. It's like Amy totally negating most of the storyline in Raiders of the Lost Ark. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turkish Posted 16 April, 2020 Share Posted 16 April, 2020 This is a nonsense argument. Christians say God is 100% loving and kind. One line in the book showing he is not kind is all it requires to show he is not 100% loving and kind. I'd say a global flood genocide wiping out the entire human race apart from one family is a lot more than 1% evil. Utter garbage as usual. Hitler once said “don't let what other people think, stop you from doing the things you love” that doesn't mean he was a great guy who encouraged everyone he met to do what makes them happy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turkish Posted 16 April, 2020 Share Posted 16 April, 2020 What is the harm in saying? I'd like to beleive as many true things and as few false things as possible. Evidence is required to do that... or else you live in a delusional fairy tale world of talking snakes, giants, burning bushes and zombies walking the streets of Jerusalem! Christians say God is 100% loving and kind. One line in the book showing he is not kind is all it requires to show he is not 100% loving and kind. I'd say a global flood genocide wiping out the entire human race apart from one family is a lot more than 1% evil. It doesn't matter how many times you say the same thing over and over again it doesn't make any of what you are saying to be true, neither does posting endless memes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weston Super Saint Posted 16 April, 2020 Share Posted 16 April, 2020 Utter garbage as usual. Hitler once said “don't let what other people think, stop you from doing the things you love” that doesn't mean he was a great guy who encouraged everyone he met to do what makes them happy. He was the guy that was known for his wider actions wasn't he - jew killing, war, slavery, genocide, rape, etc etc. Odd that you would think him to be not a 'great guy' when the god of the bible you are defending did very similar things Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Le God Posted 16 April, 2020 Share Posted 16 April, 2020 Utter garbage as usual. Hitler once said “don't let what other people think, stop you from doing the things you love” that doesn't mean he was a great guy who encouraged everyone he met to do what makes them happy. Nonsense, a red herring and completely irrelevant. God is supposed to be 100% kind and love. All it takes is one line in his holy book that is him being evil to show he is not 100% kind and loving in the book. Hitler is not a god who is supposed to be 100% kind and loving so it is a complete red herring to use that as an example. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turkish Posted 16 April, 2020 Share Posted 16 April, 2020 You challenged him to provide evidence and he provided it. The fact that you don't like the way it was provided doesn't make it any less valid as evidence within the book. Course it does. Hitler was a great guy. Martin Luther King was a racist. Hitler once said “don't let what other people think, stop you from doing the things you love” Martin Luther King once said the Negro is still languished in the corners of American society Theres my proof. Im right the rest of the world is wrong. Case closed. See what i mean? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turkish Posted 16 April, 2020 Share Posted 16 April, 2020 Nonsense, a red herring and completely irrelevant. God is supposed to be 100% kind and love. All it takes is one line in his holy book that is him being evil to show he is not 100% kind and loving in the book. Hitler is not a god who is supposed to be 100% kind and loving so it is a complete red herring to use that as an example. How is it nonsense? Its exactly the same principle as you're using, take one line and misrepresent it. Then stick your fingers in your ears and repeat yourself hoping somoene changes the subject. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Le God Posted 16 April, 2020 Share Posted 16 April, 2020 Turkish still not grasping that in order to prove someone is not 100% 'X' all you need to do is provide one piece of evidence showing the opposite. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
egg Posted 16 April, 2020 Share Posted 16 April, 2020 Forgive me, I haven't been in a church since I was forced to nearly 30 years ago. Do the old men in cloaks no longer quote from the bible? Do they no longer teach the parables? Do they no longer quote psalms? Or do they do this selectively so that they fit the 'context' that they are looking for, ignoring the less savoury elements of the book - that would be pretty weird if that's the case, what with turkish extoling the virtues of taking the 'whole context' of the book.... Dunno mate. I'm not a church man either, but I would bet my £20k to your 20 pence that the priest would more likely say love thy neighbour, not rape thy neighbour. Re Turkish comments, he's a big boy and can look after himself. That said, his reference to the whole context of the bible is highly relevant. Have a read of that list of deadly sins and then consider just thou shall not kill alongside MLG's belief that the bible promotes killing. Then go a stage further and take an educated guess as to which of those 2 messages the vicar is actually promoting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mystic Force Posted 16 April, 2020 Share Posted 16 April, 2020 If I have a book that says that nothing in the bible is true does that work as evidence? Because that the level of proof being offered in the "pro" camp Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turkish Posted 16 April, 2020 Share Posted 16 April, 2020 Turkish still not grasping that in order to prove someone is not 100% 'X' all you need to do is provide one piece of evidence showing the opposite. It's very simple, taking single lines from stories is not 1 piece of evidence and proves nothing. As usual you dont get it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Le God Posted 16 April, 2020 Share Posted 16 April, 2020 Dunno mate. I'm not a church man either, but I would bet my £20k to your 20 pence that the priest would more likely say love thy neighbour, not rape thy neighbour. Re Turkish comments, he's a big boy and can look after himself. That said, his reference to the whole context of the bible is highly relevant. Have a read of that list of deadly sins and then consider just thou shall not kill alongside MLG's belief that the bible promotes killing. Then go a stage further and take an educated guess as to which of those 2 messages the vicar is actually promoting. He is making up his own moral code if he doesn't use the one outlined in the Bible. If his god existed... wouldn't god be annoyed the priest is ignoring the moral code in the Bible and creating his own? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
egg Posted 16 April, 2020 Share Posted 16 April, 2020 The Bible is the foundation for the religion. If the village priest is not saying being disobedient to your parents should result in being stoned to death then that priest is making up their own moral code and not following the text at the core of Christianity. Bless you MLG. I'll end this with you now, it's tedious. If you haven't got the grace to concede that priests do not promote rape, genocide and infanticide; and seemingly the existence of the deadly sins, then there's no point carrying this on with you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Le God Posted 16 April, 2020 Share Posted 16 April, 2020 It's very simple, taking single lines from stories is not 1 piece of evidence and proves nothing. As usual you dont get it. This is hard work! The global flood genocide 100% proves that the character of god in the Bible is not 100% kind and loving towards humans in the story. If he was 100% kind and loving he wouldn't drown the world's population in a flood! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
egg Posted 16 April, 2020 Share Posted 16 April, 2020 He is making up his own moral code if he doesn't use the one outlined in the Bible. If his god existed... wouldn't god be annoyed the priest is ignoring the moral code in the Bible and creating his own? I refer to my previous post mate. Only an idiot would not be prepared to accept that village priests don't promote rape and killing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Le God Posted 16 April, 2020 Share Posted 16 April, 2020 Bless you MLG. I'll end this with you now, it's tedious. If you haven't got the grace to concede that priests do not promote rape, genocide and infanticide; and seemingly the existence of the deadly sins, then there's no point carrying this on with you. I didn't use the word promote, you claim I did... but I didn't. But the heart of the releigion they preech is the Bible... and the Bible endorses genocide, slavery, sexism, homophobia etc. If the priest chooses not to endorse them then good... they are better than the god describe in the Bible... because the character of god in the Bible does endorse those things! At no point did I say in 2020 churches in England endorse those things... those churches have decided to ignore the bad parts in their horrific holy book and are going against the character of god's wishes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
egg Posted 16 April, 2020 Share Posted 16 April, 2020 I didn't use the word promote, you claim I did... but I didn't. But the heart of the releigion they preech is the Bible... and the Bible endorses genocide, slavery, sexism, homophobia etc. If the priest chooses not to endorse them then good... they are better than the god describe in the Bible... because the character of god in the Bible does endorse those things! At no point did I say in 2020 churches in England endorse those things... those churches have decided to ignore the bad parts in their horrific holy book and are going against the character of god's wishes. Do you accept that priests, who talk about Christianity and the Bible, don't and wouldn't promote or advocate killing another or rape? 1 word only is required - yes or no. Nothing more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Window Cleaner Posted 16 April, 2020 Share Posted 16 April, 2020 I didn't use the word promote, you claim I did... but I didn't. But the heart of the releigion they preech is the Bible... and the Bible endorses genocide, slavery, sexism, homophobia etc. If the priest chooses not to endorse them then good... they are better than the god describe in the Bible... because the character of god in the Bible does endorse those things! At no point did I say in 2020 churches in England endorse those things... those churches have decided to ignore the bad parts in their horrific holy book and are going against the character of god's wishes. Is there not a fairly significant difference between the old testament and the new? Don't the Jews totally disregard the new testament or something like that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Le God Posted 16 April, 2020 Share Posted 16 April, 2020 I refer to my previous post mate. Only an idiot would not be prepared to accept that village priests don't promote rape and killing. What would someone be if they called someone an idiot for saying something they did not say? Because I did not use the word 'promote'! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Le God Posted 16 April, 2020 Share Posted 16 April, 2020 Do you accept that priests, who talk about Christianity and the Bible, don't and wouldn't promote or advocate killing another or rape? 1 word only is required - yes or no. Nothing more. Yes But they are not following the foundation of their religion... because the Bible does endorse those things. So the priest is making up their own moral god which is better than the character of god. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Le God Posted 16 April, 2020 Share Posted 16 April, 2020 Is there not a fairly significant difference between the old testament and the new? What is your point? There are horrifically bad ideas in both the old and new testament. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turkish Posted 16 April, 2020 Share Posted 16 April, 2020 This is hard work! The global flood genocide 100% proves that the character of god in the Bible is not 100% kind and loving towards humans in the story. If he was 100% kind and loving he wouldn't drown the world's population in a flood! It doesn't prove that at all. All it proves is you dont understand why there was a flood and what happened before it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
egg Posted 16 April, 2020 Share Posted 16 April, 2020 Yes But they are not following the foundation of their religion... because the Bible does endorse those things. So the priest is making up their own moral god which is better than the character of god. Hallelujah!! Flowing from that, do you now accept that the current message of Christianity is not one of approval (I'll stop short of promotion as that upset you) of rape, infanticide, and genocide? Again, yes or no. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Le God Posted 16 April, 2020 Share Posted 16 April, 2020 It doesn't prove that at all. All it proves is you dont understand why there was a flood and what happened before it. An inept god who knows the future created a universe that ****ed up, so he decided to start again and created a global flood to commit a genocide. Please explain why that summary is wrong? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Le God Posted 16 April, 2020 Share Posted 16 April, 2020 Hallelujah!! The problem came from you imagining me saying something I didn't. Flowing from that, do you now accept that the current message of Christianity is not one of approval (I'll stop short of promotion as that upset you) of rape, infanticide, and genocide? Again, yes or no. Yes But only because modern Chrisitians are creating their own moral code and ignoring the moral code of god in the Bible. As they are creating their own moral code... they don't need god. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
egg Posted 16 April, 2020 Share Posted 16 April, 2020 The problem came from you imagining me saying something I didn't. Yes But only because modern Chrisitians are creating their own moral code and ignoring the moral code of god in the Bible. As they are creating their own moral code... they don't need god. When I asked you 7 million posts ago if you believed that the current message of Christianity was one supporting rape, and killing, you said yes. I'm glad you've done an about turn but it's a shame that it's taken so much effort. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whelk Posted 16 April, 2020 Share Posted 16 April, 2020 Ohhh what have I missed? Ahh the thread has been a magnet for atheist pr1cks so sure of themselves and desperate to spread their views. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Le God Posted 16 April, 2020 Share Posted 16 April, 2020 When I asked you 7 million posts ago if you believed that the current message of Christianity was one supporting rape, and killing, you said yes. I'm glad you've done an about turn but it's a shame that it's taken so much effort. Read the post again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Le God Posted 16 April, 2020 Share Posted 16 April, 2020 Ohhh what have I missed? Ahh the thread has been a magnet for atheist pr1cks so sure of themselves and desperate to spread their views. 'So sure'? No, atheism is not the claim there are no gods. It is the rejection of theist claims. That is not the same thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whelk Posted 16 April, 2020 Share Posted 16 April, 2020 'So sure'? No, atheism is not the claim there are no gods. It is the rejection of theist claims. That is not the same thing. Do you get invited to many parties? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weston Super Saint Posted 16 April, 2020 Share Posted 16 April, 2020 Dunno mate. I'm not a church man either, but I would bet my £20k to your 20 pence that the priest would more likely say love thy neighbour, not rape thy neighbour. Re Turkish comments, he's a big boy and can look after himself. That said, his reference to the whole context of the bible is highly relevant. Have a read of that list of deadly sins and then consider just thou shall not kill alongside MLG's belief that the bible promotes killing. Then go a stage further and take an educated guess as to which of those 2 messages the vicar is actually promoting. According to turkish, just one line like 'thou shalt not kill' is meaningless..... Besides, doesn't that relate to 'mankind' rather than god himself to whom the rules don't apply - as MLG has been pointing out for days now.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnnyboy Posted 16 April, 2020 Share Posted 16 April, 2020 Oh great three more weeks for this thread to bring the giggles now !! Ding ding round 4 !! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SFC1906 Posted 16 April, 2020 Share Posted 16 April, 2020 I did, it's none of his business. MLG demands EVIDENCE EVIDENCE EVIDENCE all the time, yet the best he can do is misquote or cherry pick few lines with no other evidence. I'm simply asking him to provide the same level of evidence that he demands, not hard. Great contribution to the thread though pal. Well evidence is the normal pre-requisite for defining whether something is true or not so it's not really an outrageous demand is it? Anyway thanks for the endorsement of my post - it means a lot coming from someone like you. Forum Legend and all that. Big hugs and kisses sweet pea - keep up the good fight. And more importantly keep that post count up fella - it really is the ultimate measure of a man. I can only wish that my life was so dull that I could find the time to have meaningless arguments with strangers on the internet:) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SFC1906 Posted 16 April, 2020 Share Posted 16 April, 2020 Another one that feels that pursuing religion is "idiocy". Given your prejudice and narrow mindedness I'll ignore you. How very 'Christian' of you:) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
egg Posted 16 April, 2020 Share Posted 16 April, 2020 Read the post again. I have. You've now agreed that a) priests don't promote rape and the killing of others, and b) that the current message of Christianity is not one of approval of rape, infanticide, and genocide. Well done. You then gave your opinion that Christians are rewriting Christianity and that you believe that Christians "don't need God". I won't have a debate with you about that, but I will highlight the absolute arrogance of you daring to suggest that Christians (I'm not one for the record) "don't need God". If they feel that they do, then leave them to it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
egg Posted 16 April, 2020 Share Posted 16 April, 2020 How very 'Christian' of you:) I ain't a Christian mate. Instead I'm open minded and tolerant of Christians and people of other faiths. I'm also tolerant of atheists and agnostics, but only when they are respectful of the rights of others to pursue faith. I'm intolerant of idiots who dare to suggest that people who have faith are idiots for having it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Le God Posted 16 April, 2020 Share Posted 16 April, 2020 I have. You've now agreed that a) priests don't promote rape and the killing of others, and b) that the current message of Christianity is not one of approval of rape, infanticide, and genocide. Well done. You then gave your opinion that Christians are rewriting Christianity and that you believe that Christians "don't need God". I won't have a debate with you about that, but I will highlight the absolute arrogance of you daring to suggest that Christians (I'm not one for the record) "don't need God". If they feel that they do, then leave them to it. It is not merely an opinion... it is fact. If Christians have decided in the 21st century not to stone to death disobedient children then that is a rewriting of the 10 commandments from the book at the foundation of the religion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Le God Posted 16 April, 2020 Share Posted 16 April, 2020 I ain't a Christian mate. Instead I'm open minded and tolerant of Christians and people of other faiths. I'm also tolerant of atheists and agnostics, but only when they are respectful of the rights of others to pursue faith. It is not three choices... atheism, agnosticism or theism. Everyone is either a theist or an atheist. Agnosticism is a sub-set of atheism. I'm intolerant of idiots who dare to suggest that people who have faith are idiots for having it. If someone believe in invisible pink unicorns and they didn't have evidence, would you think they were idiots? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
egg Posted 16 April, 2020 Share Posted 16 April, 2020 It is not three choices... atheism, agnosticism or theism. Everyone is either a theist or an atheist. Agnosticism is a sub-set of atheism. If someone believe in invisible pink unicorns and they didn't have evidence, would you think they were idiots? Mate, I've got the concessions I wanted from you and highlighted your arrogance in daring to suggest that Christians, in your disrespectful opinion, "don't need God". I'm leaving it there. Have a good evening, and God bless ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now