Top 10 Christian fails 2013

[xmas1997]

You want to see a miracle?
Be the miracle.
You have the power, God given.

[johnsmith]

You want to see a miracle?
Be the miracle.
You have the power, God given.

I read this entire thread (clearly not much going on tonight)...Xmas, if you want to argue the existence of God, you can't always come back to the "he's in me and that's all the proof I need". There isn't anything wrong with believing that, but it does absolutely nothing for you in an online debate about it. Having said that though, this debate was more about dumb little semantics then it was anything else so I guess it doesn't rally matter.

[xmas1997]

I read this entire thread (clearly not much going on tonight)...Xmas, if you want to argue the existence of God, you can't always come back to the "he's in me and that's all the proof I need". There isn't anything wrong with believing that, but it does absolutely nothing for you in an online debate about it. Having said that though, this debate was more about dumb little semantics then it was anything else so I guess it doesn't rally matter.

:lmao
You got that right.
Plus it is always fruitless to argue semantics.
I never saw this as a debate. For me it was always a discussion simply because it consisted of opinions.
And my opinion all along has never changed, that the existence or nonexistence of God can neither be proved nor disproved in an "objective" manner and has absolutely nothing to do with being illogical or logical.
I explained this by saying that to know God, is a purely "subjective" experience.
You said it best when you pointed out that it was a paradox. But you went on to say that because it was a paradox, that that made it inherently irrational or unreasonable.
I just wanted to point out at the end that a paradox is not necessarily unreasonable or irrational, rather that at this point in time it is just unexplainable, and just because something is unexplainable does not make it untrue.
That is where things bogged down into semantics.
If your belief is basically atheistic, I am quite fine with that, mine once was too. However nowadays it is theistic.
But there is no way I could ever explain the whys and wherefores. If I could, then I would.
You claimed because I "would" not that I was evading or some such which was not the case at all.
It was simply a matter that I "could" not because I had not the ability.
And further, I seriously doubt there is anyone alive who can.
I firmly believe that to know God, and the hows and whys involved in that, are totally subjective in nature.

[johnsmith]

:lmao
You got that right.
Plus it is always fruitless to argue semantics.
I never saw this as a debate. For me it was always a discussion simply because it consisted of opinions.
And my opinion all along has never changed, that the existence or nonexistence of God can neither be proved nor disproved in an "objective" manner and has absolutely nothing to do with being illogical or logical.
I explained this by saying that to know God, is a purely "subjective" experience.
You said it best when you pointed out that it was a paradox. But you went on to say that because it was a paradox, that that made it inherently irrational or unreasonable.
I just wanted to point out at the end that a paradox is not necessarily unreasonable or irrational, rather that at this point in time it is just unexplainable, and just because something is unexplainable does not make it untrue.
That is where things bogged down into semantics.
If your belief is basically atheistic, I am quite fine with that, mine once was too. However nowadays it is theistic.
But there is no way I could ever explain the whys and wherefores. If I could, then I would.
You claimed because I "would" not that I was evading or some such which was not the case at all.
It was simply a matter that I "could" not because I had not the ability.
And further, I seriously doubt there is anyone alive who can.
I firmly believe that to know God, and the hows and whys involved in that, are totally subjective in nature.

Ummmm....you realize that I wasn't debating or even discussing this with you right? Why you keep saying "you pointed out..." And "when you said..." I'm not really sure.

Honestly, if you don't even know who you're discussing things with on this site then it explains a lot about you and your posting style. :lmao

[xmas1997]

Ummmm....you realize that I wasn't debating or even discussing this with you right? Why you keep saying "you pointed out..." And "when you said..." I'm not really sure.

Honestly, if you don't even know who you're discussing things with on this site then it explains a lot about you and your posting style. :lmao

Sorry, I was referring to Random Guy. I got you two mixed up, my bad.

[RandomGuy]

I read this entire thread (clearly not much going on tonight)...Xmas, if you want to argue the existence of God, you can't always come back to the "he's in me and that's all the proof I need". There isn't anything wrong with believing that, but it does absolutely nothing for you in an online debate about it. Having said that though, this debate was more about dumb little semantics then it was anything else so I guess it doesn't rally matter.

"he's in me and that's all the proof I need"

Here's an example of someone who looked inside himself, and heard all the proof he needed to go on a shooting rampage:

Navy Yard shooter reported hearing voices through walls
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/09/17/navy-yard-shooting-aaron-alexis/2825749/

I could go on, but when God becomes indistinguishable from any other delusion, that is not very convincing to me.

[RandomGuy]

:lmao
You got that right.
Plus it is always fruitless to argue semantics.
I never saw this as a debate. For me it was always a discussion simply because it consisted of opinions.
And my opinion all along has never changed, that the existence or nonexistence of God can neither be proved nor disproved in an "objective" manner and has absolutely nothing to do with being illogical or logical.
I explained this by saying that to know God, is a purely "subjective" experience.
You said it best when you pointed out that it was a paradox. But you went on to say that because it was a paradox, that that made it inherently irrational or unreasonable.
I just wanted to point out at the end that a paradox is not necessarily unreasonable or irrational, rather that at this point in time it is just unexplainable, and just because something is unexplainable does not make it untrue.
That is where things bogged down into semantics.
If your belief is basically atheistic, I am quite fine with that, mine once was too. However nowadays it is theistic.
But there is no way I could ever explain the whys and wherefores. If I could, then I would.
You claimed because I "would" not that I was evading or some such which was not the case at all.
It was simply a matter that I "could" not because I had not the ability.
And further, I seriously doubt there is anyone alive who can.
I firmly believe that to know God, and the hows and whys involved in that, are totally subjective in nature.

Since this was directed at me:

Believe what you want, its all on you.

I would like to believe as many true things as possible, and as few false things as possible.

The best way to do that is to wait until some evidence presents itself, or there is some good reason to believe something is true.

Not being able, or willing to even try to define something that you think truly exists is ultimately irrational, whether you want to admit it.

[johnsmith]

"he's in me and that's all the proof I need"

Here's an example of someone who looked inside himself, and heard all the proof he needed to go on a shooting rampage:

Navy Yard shooter reported hearing voices through walls
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/09/17/navy-yard-shooting-aaron-alexis/2825749/

I could go on, but when God becomes indistinguishable from any other delusion, that is not very convincing to me.

I agree with you, I was just trying to point out to Xmas that his argument holds absolutely no weight in a debate like the one he was allegedly not trying to have.

[xmas1997]

I agree with you, I was just trying to point out to Xmas that his argument holds absolutely no weight in a debate like the one he was allegedly not trying to have.

On the contrary, I agree with you both partially.

johnsmith, it has no weight as you say in a debate. That is why I was not arguing or debating, rather I was discussing. I thought I made this pretty clear. I will refrain on insulting your intelligence on this, but if you had been following the "discussion" then you would have seen I made this point many times.

Random, I fully understand where you are coming from because once upon a time I was an atheist too in what I believed and disbelieved. And this is why I am more than willing to "discuss" it with you.
But you keep wanting me to define something that I feel is impossible to define. And then you falsely accuse me of not wanting to define it. I made that issue pretty damn clear many times, that I CANNOT define something that I consider undefinable. How many times do I have to make this clear to you before it sinks in?
Not only I CANNOT define God, but I "do not think anyone" can adequately define God.
Do I need to keep repeating this until you get what I am saying?
You seem to think I can, even after I have told you already many times that I cannot. To me, that is what sounds very unreasonable.
You seem to want to make up your own reasons for "why" I cannot, rather than accept the truth which is that I do not have the ability.
And then you want to make up your own reasons for why I do not have the ability.
I am always willing to discuss this topic with you or anyone else, but I think it is impossible to have a debate about it.
Discussions involve "opinions", whereas "debates" involve "facts". Where our "discussion" gravitated into a "debate" was over the rationality or irrationality of the "paradox" of it.
Do you understand?
Now, having explained this, if you continue to make up your own reasons for what I am saying and fail to accept or understand what I am saying after I have told you, then I have no recourse but to conclude that you really do not want to discuss this, but rather you want someone to debate a nebulous subject with.
If that is the case and you cannot accept what I tell you, then you are merely wasting both of our time.

[johnsmith]

On the contrary, I agree with you both partially.

johnsmith, it has no weight as you say in a debate. That is why I was not arguing or debating, rather I was discussing. I thought I made this pretty clear. I will refrain on insulting your intelligence on this, but if you had been following the "discussion" then you would have seen I made this point many times.



As you can see in the post you quoted, I clearly said you were NOT trying to have a debate.


I will have to remember this one for future use with people though....whenever I lose an argument I will just explain politely that I wasn't really arguing, I was just discussing....ya know, the way 6 year olds behave when they've lost at a race, "I wasn't even trying...."

[xmas1997]

As you can see in the post you quoted, I clearly said you were NOT trying to have a debate.


I will have to remember this one for future use with people though....whenever I lose an argument I will just explain politely that I wasn't really arguing, I was just discussing....ya know, the way 6 year olds behave when they've lost at a race, "I wasn't even trying...."

That is your reply?
Is that a mature adult response?
We were not having an "argument". Do you not know how to have a discussion of differing points of view without thinking it is arguing, or that there has to be a winner and a loser of some fictitious message board contest?
That is pretty sad if that is the case with you.
How do you get along with people in real life that way?
Probably pretty thorny.
Because your "conclusion" has no basis in reality and is the furthest from the truth of the matter that you can get.
:lmao

[johnsmith]

I am always ready to discuss or debate subjects like this with anyone except trolls simply because they have no conception of discussions or debates.
.

But in this case it's a discussion because you say so eh Xmas?

[johnsmith]

Do you not know how to have a discussion of differing points of view without thinking it is arguing, or that there has to be a winner and a loser of some fictitious message board contest?



LOL, says the guy that's here to chew bubble gum and bash trolls....but hey, he's all out of bubble gum.

[xmas1997]

But in this case it's a discussion because you say so eh Xmas?

I was having a discussion.
What about you?
All I said was that it was an impossible subject to have a debate over.
Is that so hard for you to understand?

[johnsmith]

I was having a discussion.
What about you?
All I said was that it was an impossible subject to have a debate over.
Is that so hard for you to understand?

Yet there you were, "discussing" it for 9 pages.

[xmas1997]

LOL, says the guy that's here to chew bubble gum and bash trolls....but hey, he's all out of bubble gum.

So your whole intent is to try to make fun of me, troll me?

[xmas1997]

And you mean you can't handle it when someone is genuinely sincere with you and does not feel insecure that he has to make fun of you?

[xmas1997]

Yet there you were, "discussing" it for 9 pages.

You don't like discussions?
It isn't unusual for a discussion to last a hell of a lot longer than that, or are you unfamiliar, or uncomfortable, within a discussion?

[johnsmith]

So your whole intent is to try to make fun of me, troll me?

I'm only doing what you've told everyone you do, bash trolls.

[johnsmith]

And you mean you can't handle it when someone is genuinely sincere with you and does not feel insecure that he has to make fun of you?

Lol....let me know when you're being "genuinely sincere" on this site and I will take note, because it will be the first time.

[johnsmith]

You don't like discussions?
It isn't unusual for a discussion to last a hell of a lot longer than that, or are you unfamiliar, or uncomfortable, within a discussion?

Not with trolls like yourself, that's for sure.

[xmas1997]

By all means, bash trolls then, but with me discuss things.
Unless you are a troll.
Are you?
I'm not.

[xmas1997]

Lol....let me know when you're being "genuinely sincere" on this site and I will take note, because it will be the first time.

I was, and with Random too.
I alwaysd give the benefit of the doubt until you prove yourself to be a troll.

[xmas1997]

You seem to have a problem discussing things with decent people.
How long have you had this problem?

[xmas1997]

And does it stem from a basic insecurity complex, or something much deeper than that?

[johnsmith]

By all means, bash trolls then, but with me discuss things.
Unless you are a troll.
Are you?
I'm not.
You are though....by the definition that you've decided is true, you're absolutely a troll. You start threads about other posters, you're nearly always in the middle of it when there is a multi page argument about nothing, you're constantly baiting people that aren't even in the thread you're posting in, and on and on and on and on.

You're even at the same level of humor as the very people you find unoriginal and lacking creativity. The fact that you only post under one name (allegedly) doesn't help your case either because you're ALWAYS doing what you profess to hate.

Practice what you preach, step away from the Internet and stop trolling...then I will stop "discussing" anything with you and you won't have to deal with me ever again....:toast

[johnsmith]

I was, and with Random too.
I alwaysd give the benefit of the doubt until you prove yourself to be a troll.


You seem to have a problem discussing things with decent people.
How long have you had this problem?


And does it stem from a basic insecurity complex, or something much deeper than that?

See, you're not even very good at it

[xmas1997]

You are though....by the definition that you've decided is true, you're absolutely a troll. You start threads about other posters, you're nearly always in the middle of it when there is a multi page argument about nothing, you're constantly baiting people that aren't even in the thread you're posting in, and on and on and on and on.

You're even at the same level of humor as the very people you find unoriginal and lacking creativity. The fact that you only post under one name (allegedly) doesn't help your case either because you're ALWAYS doing what you profess to hate.

Practice what you preach, step away from the Internet and stop trolling...then I will stop "discussing" anything with you and you won't have to deal with me ever again....:toast

You first.
I plan to keep posting upstairs because I love the Spurs and basketball.
Down here I have curtailed my bashing, not trolling, quite significantly.
I even started a thread that I only posted if at the very beginning and allowing the trolls to have at themselves.
The other subjects I am always willing to have a good discussion withdecent posters as long as they give me the same courtesy.
At the very beginning of this discussion with Random I explained to him that I COULD not debate this subject, but that I could discuss it.
What is your problem with that?

[xmas1997]

See, you're not even very good at it

You come across as trolling.
Do you not understand this, or are you just dense?

[xmas1997]

You fail to realize that I gave you and Random the benefit of the doubt. I have read many of your trolling posts when that is your childish game, but I still tried to give you both the benefit of the doubt in the interest of civility so we could have a discussion.
The areas that became a debate was over semantics, or didn't you get that? Random did.
And I was genuinely still trying to discuss it with you even after it became obvious that all you seemed to really want to do was troll me.
So who was being the adult here?

[johnsmith]

You fail to realize that I gave you and Random the benefit of the doubt. I have read many of your trolling posts when that is your childish game, but I still tried to give you both the benefit of the doubt in the interest of civility so we could have a discussion.
The areas that became a debate was over semantics, or didn't you get that? Random did.
And I was genuinely still trying to discuss it with you even after it became obvious that all you seemed to really want to do was troll me.
So who was being the adult here?

God you're dumb...go look and see who pointed out that you guys were having an argument over semantics.

[Blake]

By all means, bash trolls then, but with me discuss things.
Unless you are a troll.
Are you?
I'm not.

Yes you are.

You're also a huge liar.

[xmas1997]

Yes you are.

You're also a huge liar.

You have absolutely no room to talk.
You are going away the biggest liar, and fool, on ST
And you calling me a liar is the hugest vote of confidence that I tell the truth, on here.

[xmas1997]

God you're dumb...go look and see who pointed out that you guys were having an argument over semantics.

I already explained this to you twice but you are just too dense and contrary to get it.
I explained that the "debate" or argument that our discussion gravitated into centered around the "paradox" issue.
Are you really this dense, or is it that you have a problem with understanding things?
I stand amazed at your level of ignorance. It rivals blake in that regard, and I wouldn't be proud of that if I were you.
:lmao

[Blake]

And you calling me a liar is the hugest vote of confidence that I tell the truth, on here.

you have no clue just how retarded this logic is, do you.

You literally are a retard.

[xmas1997]

you have no clue just how retarded this logic is, do you.

You literally are a retard.

No surprise that the ST village idiot troll does not understand.
That is why everyone on here always has to dumb things down for you.
Yes, you are still clueless.
Nothing to see here folks.
Move along.
:lmao

[RandomGuy]

On the contrary, I agree with you both partially.

johnsmith, it has no weight as you say in a debate. That is why I was not arguing or debating, rather I was discussing. I thought I made this pretty clear. I will refrain on insulting your intelligence on this, but if you had been following the "discussion" then you would have seen I made this point many times.

Random, I fully understand where you are coming from because once upon a time I was an atheist too in what I believed and disbelieved. And this is why I am more than willing to "discuss" it with you.
But you keep wanting me to define something that I feel is impossible to define. And then you falsely accuse me of not wanting to define it. I made that issue pretty damn clear many times, that I CANNOT define something that I consider undefinable. How many times do I have to make this clear to you before it sinks in?
Not only I CANNOT define God, but I "do not think anyone" can adequately define God.
Do I need to keep repeating this until you get what I am saying?
You seem to think I can, even after I have told you already many times that I cannot. To me, that is what sounds very unreasonable.
You seem to want to make up your own reasons for "why" I cannot, rather than accept the truth which is that I do not have the ability.
And then you want to make up your own reasons for why I do not have the ability.
I am always willing to discuss this topic with you or anyone else, but I think it is impossible to have a debate about it.
Discussions involve "opinions", whereas "debates" involve "facts". Where our "discussion" gravitated into a "debate" was over the rationality or irrationality of the "paradox" of it.
Do you understand?
Now, having explained this, if you continue to make up your own reasons for what I am saying and fail to accept or understand what I am saying after I have told you, then I have no recourse but to conclude that you really do not want to discuss this, but rather you want someone to debate a nebulous subject with.
If that is the case and you cannot accept what I tell you, then you are merely wasting both of our time.

You have a perfectly useless concept of God. Defining something as "undefinable" is just silly.

You are welcome to be as silly as you want I guess, but don't represent such things as rational. They aren't. I would reject that as literally being delusional.

[Blake]

You have a perfectly useless concept of God. Defining something as "undefinable" is just silly.

You are welcome to be as silly as you want I guess, but don't represent such things as rational. They aren't. I would reject that as literally being delusional.

uh oh. xmas gunna call you a troll now.

[RandomGuy]

uh oh. xmas gunna call you a troll now.

Not something I woudl take seriously.

Quite frankly, I am a bit more worried about Ukraine and South China sea.

The killing of 23 americans by Russian backed sepratists, using Russian surface to air missiles is a shit-storm that worries the fuck out of me.

[Blake]

Not something I woudl take seriously.

Quite frankly, I am a bit more worried about Ukraine and South China sea.

The killing of 23 americans by Russian backed sepratists, using Russian surface to air missiles is a shit-storm that worries the fuck out of me.

sounds like a Tom Clancy book

[xmas1997]

You have a perfectly useless concept of God. Defining something as "undefinable" is just silly.

You are welcome to be as silly as you want I guess, but don't represent such things as rational. They aren't. I would reject that as literally being delusional.


You are always welcome to your opinion.
Just remember, it is merely an "opinion". And it has absolutely nothing to do with "rationality", no, it is simply an opinion, no more, and no less.




uh oh. xmas gunna call you a troll now.


More lies as per usual.
You're probably going to lie and say that I did not offer you a truce next. and you refused, but the proof is still in the threads, no matter how you try to twist it and distort it.
Your loss. You have only yourself to blame. Go ahead and lie about that too.
:lol

[RandomGuy]

You are always welcome to your opinion.
Just remember, it is merely an "opinion". And it has absolutely nothing to do with "rationality", no, it is simply an opinion, no more, and no less.






More lies as per usual.
You're probably going to lie and say that I did not offer you a truce next. and you refused, but the proof is still in the threads, no matter how you try to twist it and distort it.
Your loss. You have only yourself to blame. Go ahead and lie about that too.
:lol


de·lu·sion·al [dih-loo-zhuh-nl] Show IPA
adjective
1.
having false or unrealistic beliefs or opinions: Senators who think they will get agreement on a comprehensive tax bill are delusional.
2.
Psychiatry. maintaining fixed false beliefs even when confronted with facts, usually as a result of mental illness: He was so delusional and paranoid that he thought everybody was conspiring against him.

If you believe something is true, when it is in fact false, that is the definition of delusional.

You have no evidence to believe X is true, or to independently verify it.

[xmas1997]

If you believe something is true, when it is in fact false, that is the definition of delusional.

You have no evidence to believe X is true, or to independently verify it.

I think you had best go and recheck your definition of "delusional" again because it isn't even close.
Maybe in the "Dictionary of RandomGuy" it is, but that is all.
:lol

[RandomGuy]

I think you had best go and recheck your definition of "delusional" again because it isn't even close.
Maybe in the "Dictionary of RandomGuy" it is, but that is all.
:lol

Feel free to present your alternative.

Define delusional.

[Big Empty]

I agree

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/71/Human_pidegree.jpg
LOL i believe in evolution i do. but man,when i see this, you might as well put Santa Clause as the last man on here

[xmas1997]

Feel free to present your alternative.

Define delusional.

How many dictionary definitions do you want? Will one suffice? Or do I need to quote a bunch?

[RandomGuy]

How many dictionary definitions do you want? Will one suffice? Or do I need to quote a bunch?

Just one you will accept. If you don't like my reality-based definition, feel free to substitute one of your own. I"m good. :D

[RandomGuy]

Believing in something without evidence is irrational.


I agree
[anti-evolution trolling]

Seriously, you are too stupid to understand the theory you are criticizing.

If you weren't so dumb, and or lazy, and would even bother learning the theory you are trying to troll, I might bother.

I will take it all back, and apologize, if you can explain why phylogeny, using concepts of evolution, so closely predicts the fossil record and what is found when we examine genetic lineages?

If you can't, GTFO.

[xmas1997]

Okay, I took the first one I found from the Merriam-Webster dictionary:

de·lu·sion
noun \di-ˈlü-zhən, dē-\

: a belief that is not true : a false idea

: a false idea or belief that is caused by mental illness
Full Definition of DELUSION
1
: the act of deluding : the state of being deluded
2
a : something that is falsely or delusively believed or propagated
b : a persistent false psychotic belief regarding the self or persons or objects outside the self that is maintained despite indisputable evidence to the contrary; also : the abnormal state marked by such beliefs

[RandomGuy]

If you believe something is true, when it is in fact false, that is the definition of delusional.


[No that is not right.]


[Then give me one you think is right.]



Okay, I took the first one I found from the Merriam-Webster dictionary:

de·lu·sion
noun \di-ˈlü-zhən, dē-\

: a belief that is not true : a false idea

okaaaaay.

Let's work with that then. (rolls eyes)

So how do you know something is true? What are your criteria? What is your standard of evidence?

[xmas1997]

okaaaaay.

Let's work with that then. (rolls eyes)

So how do you know something is true? What are your criteria? What is your standard of evidence?

Before I get involved any deeper in this, allow me to ask, is this a discussion, a debate, or a trolling job?
For me, it is a discussion in order to be enlightened in some way and gain a deeper or greater understanding.
I have no desire to be trolled, and I honestly do not think the topic of God can be debated especially since I have already stated many times that I know it to be true "subjectively".
So I suppose an even better question is, what exactly do you want to discuss, just the meaning of "delusion", or something else entirely?

[RandomGuy]

Before I get involved any deeper in this, allow me to ask, is this a discussion, a debate, or a trolling job?
For me, it is a discussion in order to be enlightened in some way and gain a deeper or greater understanding.
I have no desire to be trolled, and I honestly do not think the topic of God can be debated especially since I have already stated many times that I know it to be true "subjectively".
So I suppose an even better question is, what exactly do you want to discuss, just the meaning of "delusion", or something else entirely?

I really don't seriously troll much. I may have a bit of fun poking some people's sensibilities at times, but I try to make it obvious that it what is happening.

I am genuinely trying to show you that your belief in God is a delusion, and irrational.

The fact that you won't define the thing you assert exists should be your first clue. I say won't because you could if you really tried. That you have convinced yourself that the thing you believe in is "undefinable", is simply a mental kluge, and a way that your mind is forcing you to cop out the hard stuff.

Our brains are lazy that way. We know that something is wrong, but we can't quite put our finger on it.

[mouse]

LOL i believe in evolution i do. but man,when i see this, you might as well put Santa Clause as the last man on here


That has always been my point I don't care if you support Darwin God Ala or Alex Jones just get the bullshit out of the textbooks

[xmas1997]

I really don't seriously troll much. I may have a bit of fun poking some people's sensibilities at times, but I try to make it obvious that it what is happening.

I am genuinely trying to show you that your belief in God is a delusion, and irrational.

The fact that you won't define the thing you assert exists should be your first clue. I say won't because you could if you really tried. That you have convinced yourself that the thing you believe in is "undefinable", is simply a mental kluge, and a way that your mind is forcing you to cop out the hard stuff.

Our brains are lazy that way. We know that something is wrong, but we can't quite put our finger on it.


Okay, I will take what you say for what it is worth. It is a typical and common opinion, and one I once shared as well.
But I can say without a shadow of doubt that my belief in God has nothing to do with laziness. I spent years exploring various religions and religious books when I was an atheist in hopes of finding the reasons for why people had what I considered at the time silly notions.
I even used the word "delusional" on occasionally too, before giving up on it as being a waste of time. I studied deep into the esoterical reasons behind it too.
Motivating all of this, other than the obvious, was inspiration for song material. And for the most part, that was all it served me.

But later, a few unexplained and what I can only term as impossible events happened to me causing a chain reaction inside of me that led to some inner revelations.
These "experiences" were "subjective" and could never be explained in laic terms, and especially not to someone like myself at the time, an atheist,.
Even God loving and believing individuals could not grasp it.
I came to realize very clearly that "what was truly wrong" was the way I had deluded myself into thinking the way I had as an atheist for so long.

So if you prefer to think me delusional, then have at it, that is your prerogative, but "it is merely your opinion", one I no longer can share with you, and it does not bother or disturb me in the slightest,
I am content and at peace with all around me.
I do not expect you to believe anything I SAY or WRITE about this in your present state of mind, and especially since you perceive me as being vague, or as you say "unwilling".
I sure as hell didn't back then either, when I thought as you do now, but you and others are always welcome to try to change my mind.

Why?
Because to KNOW, and consequently BELIEVE IN, God, you must first quiet your mind, either willingly or unwillingly, and that is HOW, and more importantly WHEN, you can understand to a tiny extent, and realize, God.
That is why I always say it is an "inner" and very "subjective" experience.
And that is also why I always counsel that if someone really and truly wants to know and experience God, then they MUST look WITHIN themselves, not without and around the universe.
That is the only TRUE way to KNOW of HIM.
Everything else in reality, is illusory.

[Proxy]

^lazy.... maybe. Easy, definitely. But you know that.

[xmas1997]

^lazy.... maybe. Easy, definitely. But you know that.

It is what it is. I am not trying to CONVINCE anyone here of anything. I am also not DEBATING this issue.
I am merely explaining why I believe, and in as much DETAIL as I possibly can so as not to confuse anyone.
And this detail can appear to be "easy", but it really isn't.
It tales time to compose, it takes discriminating thought to use the proper words in order to be coherent, and it takes reexamining contrary viewpoints in order to not remain set in ones' ways.
All of this is neither lazy, nor easy to do.

[Proxy]

if you really didn't care, then you wouldn't have taken the time to type up all that bullshit

[xmas1997]

if you really didn't care, then you wouldn't have taken the time to type up all that bullshit

I never said "I didn't care", those are your words.
And I explained IN DETAIL rather than leave it for someone else' interpretation.
If you think it to be BS, then that says a lot about your "opinion", which apparently is not the most astute around here.

[Proxy]

better the hard truth than the comforting fantasy

[xmas1997]

better the hard truth than the comforting fantasy

Whatever floats your boat.

[RandomGuy]

Okay, I will take what you say for what it is worth. It is a typical and common opinion, and one I once shared as well.
But I can say without a shadow of doubt that my belief in God has nothing to do with laziness. I spent years exploring various religions and religious books when I was an atheist in hopes of finding the reasons for why people had what I considered at the time silly notions.
I even used the word "delusional" on occasionally too, before giving up on it as being a waste of time. I studied deep into the esoterical reasons behind it too.
Motivating all of this, other than the obvious, was inspiration for song material. And for the most part, that was all it served me.

But later, a few unexplained and what I can only term as impossible events happened to me causing a chain reaction inside of me that led to some inner revelations.
These "experiences" were "subjective" and could never be explained in laic terms, and especially not to someone like myself at the time, an atheist,.
Even God loving and believing individuals could not grasp it.
I came to realize very clearly that "what was truly wrong" was the way I had deluded myself into thinking the way I had as an atheist for so long.

So if you prefer to think me delusional, then have at it, that is your prerogative, but "it is merely your opinion", one I no longer can share with you, and it does not bother or disturb me in the slightest,
I am content and at peace with all around me.
I do not expect you to believe anything I SAY or WRITE about this in your present state of mind, and especially since you perceive me as being vague, or as you say "unwilling".
I sure as hell didn't back then either, when I thought as you do now, but you and others are always welcome to try to change my mind.

Why?
Because to KNOW, and consequently BELIEVE IN, God, you must first quiet your mind, either willingly or unwillingly, and that is HOW, and more importantly WHEN, you can understand to a tiny extent, and realize, God.
That is why I always say it is an "inner" and very "subjective" experience.
And that is also why I always counsel that if someone really and truly wants to know and experience God, then they MUST look WITHIN themselves, not without and around the universe.
That is the only TRUE way to KNOW of HIM.
Everything else in reality, is illusory.

How do you distinguish "looking within yourself" from "hearing voices in your head"?

If no one else but you hears the voices, shouldn't that be telling you something?

5wV_REEdvxo

A simple 10 minutes that addresses your assertion that some vague undefined "god" exists.

[RD2191]

Doesn't matter if you believe in God or not. He exists whether or not you believe in him.

[xmas1997]

How do you distinguish "looking within yourself" from "hearing voices in your head"?

If no one else but you hears the voices, shouldn't that be telling you something?

5wV_REEdvxo

A simple 10 minutes that addresses your assertion that some vague undefined "god" exists.

I never said anything about "hearing voices in my head".
But I thought I explained this pretty thoroughly.
You have to quiet your inner dialog. Don't you understand this?
This is not rocket science.

[xmas1997]

Doesn't matter if you believe in God or not. He exists whether or not you believe in him.

There is no way they will ever accept that, Rob.
No offense meant to anyone, but they probably have a hard time trying to figure out why they themselves exist, much more God.
But I agree with you.
What's more, they will most likely find out when they least expect it, although it usually happens when one is seeking.

[Blake]

Doesn't matter if you believe in God or not. He exists whether or not you believe in him.


There is no way they will ever accept that, Rob.
No offense meant to anyone, but they probably have a hard time trying to figure out why they themselves exist, much more God.
But I agree with you.
What's more, they will most likely find out when they least expect it, although it usually happens when one is seeking.

So what do you guys think will happen when you die?

Heaven, hell, reincarnation, non-existence.....?

[xmas1997]

So what do you guys think will happen when you die?

Heaven, hell, reincarnation, non-existence.....?

I don't know what Rob thinks. I can only answer for myself.
Plus I think the answer would be different no matter who you ask, believer and non believer.
Personally, I have no idea what will happen when I die.
As far as I know, no one has died and come back to tell us about it, except Jesus.
And do you remember what was written that Jesus said about it, about what would happen?
Just asking.

[TDMVPDPOY]

the person who publishes the bible every year, should be awarded book of the year every year...

never met god, but made up some bullshit he created the earth in 7 days and other stuff...

what couldve been a love story turn into a cuck story

thats a huge time skip from 0 to adulthood when he begins his journey, u tellin me the writer couldnt make up more shit to brainwashed ppl during those missing years

going around places with 12 guys....12 guys must be doing someshit together to be hanging out that closely, brokeback?

whattabout the 3 days in the t omb, u telling me the writer couldnt come up with bs to spin during those 3 days?

why is there a time skip from his first resurrection to his final death? why didnt he resurrect after numerous deaths since his immortal?

all these fake ass wankers who follow and preach the bible, yet in real life situations dont practice what they preach...lol pedofile priests, wanker pope and leadership cover ups...lmao wankers paradise

[Blake]

I don't know what Rob thinks. I can only answer for myself.
Plus I think the answer would be different no matter who you ask, believer and non believer.
Personally, I have no idea what will happen when I die.
As far as I know, no one has died and come back to tell us about it, except Jesus.
And do you remember what was written that Jesus said about it, about what would happen?
Just asking.

I know the Bible says.

If you are unsure of what happens, why are you bringing up Jesus and the resurrection story?

[xmas1997]

I know the Bible says.

If you are unsure of what happens, why are you bringing up Jesus and the resurrection story?

I answered this above, but will repeat it for you because I know how hard this is for you.
I brought that up because you asked me what I think will happen after I die.
And one of the things I answered was that I did not know.
And another thing I said was that as far as I know, no one knows except Jesus since He was the only One who rose from the dead, unless you count Lazarus, which I don't because he wasn't dead for three days and then arose.
Also because you once said you studied the bible in detail, and so I asked you what Jesus said about it.
Do you understand now?
If so, then what did He say about it, according to you?

[Blake]

Jesus mentions heaven about 140 times so sorry, I'm not gonna run down each verse when you can look it up yourself.

I'm just asking a simple opinion on your beliefs. Why do you get so scared to give an honest answer?

[xmas1997]

Jesus mentions heaven about 140 times so sorry, I'm not gonna run down each verse when you can look it up yourself.

I'm just asking a simple opinion on your beliefs. Why do you get so scared to give an honest answer?

I am not surprised that you still misunderstand what I am saying and making false statements that I am "scared".
That is what you usually do.
But that is okay.
If you say I am scared, then it must mean that I am super scared, because that is what you want to believe.
I can live with the terrible fear that you accuse me of.
It doesn't humiliate me in the slightest.
After all, this is a message board and things said on message boards scare us to pieces, right?



EDIT: I was just wondering that even though as you say that Jesus mentions heaven about 140 times, then what did he specifically say about life after death (heaven only?) after He came back from the dead?

[Blake]

What does your question to me have to do with your belief

[silverblk mystix]

What does your question to me have to do with your belief


Pussy trolls do not answer questions - because it is against troll rules lol - and because they are scared shitless of everything.

Everything.

[xmas1997]

Pussy trolls do not answer questions - because it is against troll rules lol - and because they are scared shitless of everything.

Everything.

But .... but .... but I thought it was me who was scared!

[xmas1997]

What does your question to me have to do with your belief

It is relevant because I need to know what you know in order for me to answer.
It does not matter to me if you believe or not.
I just need to know what Jesus said about "life after death" after He came back from the dead, you know when, the Resurrection.
You said you studied this stuff and that is supposed to be one of the most important parts of the Christian faith.
So I am asking you to tell me what you know of what He said, so I can answer your question in a way that neither of us can become confused.
Simple as that.

[silverblk mystix]

It is relevant because I need to know what you know in order for me to answer.
It does not matter to me if you believe or not.
I just need to know what Jesus said about "life after death" after He came back from the dead, you know when, the Resurrection.
You said you studied this stuff and that is supposed to be one of the most important parts of the Christian faith.
So I am asking you to tell me what you know of what He said, so I can answer your question in a way that neither of us can become confused.
Simple as that.


He can't as stated above -

also -

if he answers - then he can't troll you - and he can be trolled by other trolls -


this is terrifying to pussy trolls.

"oh my - I was trolled - eeeeek!"

[Blake]

He can't as stated above -

also -

if he answers - then he can't troll you - and he can be trolled by other trolls -


this is terrifying to pussy trolls.

"oh my - I was trolled - eeeeek!"

That doesn't make any sense

[Blake]

It is relevant because I need to know what you know in order for me to answer.
It does not matter to me if you believe or not.
I just need to know what Jesus said about "life after death" after He came back from the dead, you know when, the Resurrection.
You said you studied this stuff and that is supposed to be one of the most important parts of the Christian faith.
So I am asking you to tell me what you know of what He said, so I can answer your question in a way that neither of us can become confused.
Simple as that.

No, my knowledge of the Bible has nothing to do with your belief.

You're just chicken shit to state your belief because you're afraid I'm going to laugh at you for it.

It's as simple as that.

[xmas1997]

No, my knowledge of the Bible has nothing to do with your belief.

You're just chicken shit to state your belief because you're afraid I'm going to laugh at you for it.

It's as simple as that.

No, it does make a difference.
If you cannot tell me what you know then we cannot establish any bounderies or guidelines so that there can be no misunderstandings. And it most likely means that you know absolutely nothing about it which would make it a one sided discussion or debate.
Do you understand?
I fully intend to answer your question. And I fully realize that you will probably belittle me for it, try to put me down, laugh, etc. but I don't care if you do that because it will not bother me at all.
But first you have to tell me what you think you know about it so I can give you a response based on what you think you know so that you will be able to understand what I am saying.
Do you understand?
At this point, you have no grounds to say anything because you do not know what I believe about it. If you make fun of me BEFORE you know my answer, then it will just make you look like an arrogant yet ignorant fool.
And we would not want others to think that about you, right?
So kindly answer my question to you so that I can answer yours to me.

[xmas1997]

Since you cannot answer the question, then it must be because you do not know anything about it.
Have you ever heard of it, the Resurrection? Have you ever heard of Easter?
Did you know most Christian faiths are based on it?
I am surprised that this very basic tenet is something you know nothing about or that you have never learned about.
So if I tried to explain what I believe about it, it would just go sailing way over your head, you would have no basis of reference and thus no conception of it whatsoever.
No big deal, a lot of people don't know about this, so do not be embarrassed, or ashamed that you were probably sick that week and missed those crucial lessons.

[RandomGuy]

I never said anything about "hearing voices in my head".
But I thought I explained this pretty thoroughly.
You have to quiet your inner dialog. Don't you understand this?
This is not rocket science.

Did you actually spend 10 minutes on that video? It pretty much addressed the reasoning behind why your assertion is irrational, and why such a belief is ultimately delusional.

It is quick, and concise.

[silverblk mystix]

Since you cannot answer the question, then it must be because you do not know anything about it.
Have you ever heard of it, the Resurrection? Have you ever heard of Easter?
Did you know most Christian faiths are based on it?
I am surprised that this very basic tenet is something you know nothing about or that you have never learned about.
So if I tried to explain what I believe about it, it would just go sailing way over your head, you would have no basis of reference and thus no conception of it whatsoever.
No big deal, a lot of people don't know about this, so do not be embarrassed, or ashamed that you were probably sick that week and missed those crucial lessons.


The entire troll existence is based on never giving out information, discussing anything from their side and only inquiring about your side so they can continue to troll.

Anything coming from their "troll minds" is too terrifying to reveal - because other trolls would have an opening - and they cannot afford this.


Thousands and thousands of posts and years and years of absolutely nothing.

Dare to dream big and be a troll yourself!



:lmao:lmao:lmao

[Blake]

No, it does make a difference.
If you cannot tell me what you know then we cannot establish any bounderies or guidelines so that there can be no misunderstandings. And it most likely means that you know absolutely nothing about it which would make it a one sided discussion or debate.
Do you understand?
I fully intend to answer your question. And I fully realize that you will probably belittle me for it, try to put me down, laugh, etc. but I don't care if you do that because it will not bother me at all.
But first you have to tell me what you think you know about it so I can give you a response based on what you think you know so that you will be able to understand what I am saying.
Do you understand?

I'm not debating you. I'm just asking your belief.

Do you understand?

[RandomGuy]

It is relevant because I need to know what you know in order for me to answer.
It does not matter to me if you believe or not.
I just need to know what Jesus said about "life after death" after He came back from the dead, you know when, the Resurrection.
You said you studied this stuff and that is supposed to be one of the most important parts of the Christian faith.
So I am asking you to tell me what you know of what He said, so I can answer your question in a way that neither of us can become confused.
Simple as that.

Well, first off, I don't think "Jesus" said anything. I reject the assertion that the bible is an historical, accurate account of "Jesus", and only barely assign as more likely than not the possibility of his actual existence in the first place.


When one goes actually hunting for evidence of Jesus with an open mind, and even a modest standard of evidence, one is surprised at one finds.

ik7GRQ9hoVY

[RandomGuy]

Best guess as to the origins of Yahweh, is that he spring out of pantheon of other gods, themselves derived from Babylonian pantheons.

Look outside of Christianity, and put it in the context of the other religions of the time.

kZY2eeozdo8

[RandomGuy]

After you really start reading the bible for the fucked up bits, you recognize just how ridiculous it all is...

kQuyC3eLgVA

[xmas1997]

The entire troll existence is based on never giving out information, discussing anything from their side and only inquiring about your side so they can continue to troll.

Anything coming from their "troll minds" is too terrifying to reveal - because other trolls would have an opening - and they cannot afford this.


Thousands and thousands of posts and years and years of absolutely nothing.

Dare to dream big and be a troll yourself!



:lmao:lmao:lmao

Sure, I understand this. However there are lots and lots of things that blake does not understand, or so he has told us so many times, that what we have said makes no sense to him.
He should not be ashamed of this, but I suspect he is.
I do not care what it is that he BELIEVES, or what he thinks I believe, or even what he THINKS he knows about the subject.
In any case, I will answer his question once I know what he thinks he knows or what he thinks he has learned.
He is the one who claimed he studied it a long time ago. If this was the truth, he should have no problem telling me what he learned about it so that there can be no confusion.
Maybe he forgot what they taught him, or maybe he wasn't telling the truth and knows absolutely nothing, or maybe, and most likely, he did not understand what they told him and that it went right over his head because he did not have the mental capacity to understand it, or maybe your reason is the true reason he cannot answer the question.
Whatever the case may be, I am ready to answer his question as soon as he answers mine because logically one cannot happen before the other.

[xmas1997]

I'm not debating you. I'm just asking your belief.

Do you understand?


I understand fully. Do you? That is the question.
And your original question was not "what do I believe"!
Do you even remember what your question was to me, or do I need to go and quote it for you?
That is okay, I can go do that if it will help clarify it for you so you can answer my question.
And I know this is not a debate, it is a discussion, but I threw the "debate" word in there just in case you were already confused because your responses sounded like you were.



Best guess as to the origins of Yahweh, is that he spring out of pantheon of other gods, themselves derived from Babylonian pantheons.

Look outside of Christianity, and put it in the context of the other religions of the time.

kZY2eeozdo8

I like where you are taking this, but allow me to answer blakes' question first so that there is no confusion.
First he needs to answer mine, if he can.

[RandomGuy]

It goes waaaay further.

_um69RqBpSw

[xmas1997]

It goes waaaay further.

_um69RqBpSw

Random, I would love to get back involved in where you are taking this because it is sincerely intriguing, honestly.
And I really like where you are going with this, plus it is am extention of what we were discussing before.
But I am in the middle of a discussion with blake that has not reached it's conclusion yet because he asked me "what I, and others (you guys) believe will happen when we die?'.
And I need his answer to my question before I can answer his.

[Blake]

I understand fully. Do you? That is the question.
And your original question was not "what do I believe"!
Do you even remember what your question was to me, or do I need to go and quote it for you?
That is okay, I can go do that if it will help clarify it for you so you can answer my question.
And I know this is not a debate, it is a discussion, but I threw the "debate" word in there just in case you were already confused because your responses sounded like you were.




I like where you are taking this, but allow me to answer blakes' question first so that there is no confusion.
First he needs to answer mine, if he can.

Sure, quote my original question.

Sometime in the next ten posts unless you're scared.

[RandomGuy]

Random, I would love to get back involved in where you are taking this because it is sincerely intriguing, honestly.
And I really like where you are going with this, plus it is am extention of what we were discussing before.
But I am in the middle of a discussion with blake that has not reached it's conclusion yet because he asked me "what I, and others (you guys) believe will happen when we die?'.
And I need his answer to my question before I can answer his.

No probs sorry to butt in.

I will go play some Civ IV and listen to news. :D

[xmas1997]

So what do you guys think will happen when you die?

Heaven, hell, reincarnation, non-existence.....?

There you go, blake.
I have no idea why you keep thinking I am scared. This is one of the responses that convinces me you are confused.

[xmas1997]

Now can you answer my question, Blake?


EDIT: Or are you avoiding it, or just busy?

[Blake]

There you go, blake.
I have no idea why you keep thinking I am scared. This is one of the responses that convinces me you are confused.

There's no confusion. It's a simple question. You don't need me to know anything but English to talk about your thoughts on the afterlife. If it helps, just assume I know what you think I need to know.

If you're not gonna answer, you may as well go back to your conversation with RG.

[Blake]

Now can you answer my question, Blake?


EDIT: Or are you avoiding it, or just busy?

Your questions are ridiculous.

[xmas1997]

Your questions are ridiculous.

I am happy to answer your question, but why are you evading mine?
Could it be because you can't?
I guess that is the case.
Once you give me a competent answer so I know that you know what you are talking about, then you will have my answer.
Until then, I and most here will know you never had any intention of having a discussion on a subject that the reality is that you know nothing about.
Pretty simple really.
There is no shame in that.
You can admit it now.

[xmas1997]

There's no confusion. It's a simple question. You don't need me to know anything but English to talk about your thoughts on the afterlife. If it helps, just assume I know what you think I need to know.

If you're not gonna answer, you may as well go back to your conversation with RG.

I told you my condition for answering you.
Namely your answer to one simple question is all it takes.
And after which you will have my answer.
Or you can simply admit that you really don't know anything about the subject.
There is no shame in that either.
You really don't know anything about this, do you?
You were posing all along.
That is fine too.

[xmas1997]

The entire troll existence is based on never giving out information, discussing anything from their side and only inquiring about your side so they can continue to troll.

Anything coming from their "troll minds" is too terrifying to reveal - because other trolls would have an opening - and they cannot afford this.


Thousands and thousands of posts and years and years of absolutely nothing.

Dare to dream big and be a troll yourself!



:lmao:lmao:lmao

Well, SBM, it appears you have been proven correct in your assessment.
Blake knows absolutely nothing about the subject of God yet poses that he does, and just wants to troll as you say.
He claimed he was taught the bible years ago, but cannot answer the most basic question of all concerning Christianity, the Resurrection and what Christ said comes after you die.
This is the most basic tenet of the faith.
It is a simple question too.
How can anyone have a discussion about something when one of the parties knows nothing at all about it?
It becomes a lecture in that case. You may as well have a discussion with a rock, as far as discussions go.
But this does lead to another question, if one does not believe something even though he knows nothing about it, then how can he KNOW that that something does not exist?

[xmas1997]

Blake, I'm still waiting for your answer, so I can answer your question.

There is no shame in never really studying the bible like you said you did.

It is okay to go ahead and admit that you don't know anything about the subject.

[Blake]

I told you my condition for answering you.
Namely your answer to one simple question is all it takes.

You don't need anything from me to give your opinion of the afterlife.

What you need is balls.

[silverblk mystix]

Well, SBM, it appears you have been proven correct in your assessment.
Blake knows absolutely nothing about the subject of God yet poses that he does, and just wants to troll as you say.
He claimed he was taught the bible years ago, but cannot answer the most basic question of all concerning Christianity, the Resurrection and what Christ said comes after you die.
This is the most basic tenet of the faith.
It is a simple question too.
How can anyone have a discussion about something when one of the parties knows nothing at all about it?
It becomes a lecture in that case. You may as well have a discussion with a rock, as far as discussions go.
But this does lead to another question, if one does not believe something even though he knows nothing about it, then how can he KNOW that that something does not exist?


Pretty much a waste of time when dealing with idiot bots -

this is why I only laugh at their idiocy now and for the past couple of years - except - my time investment is pretty much down to zero.

[silverblk mystix]

You don't need anything from me to give your opinion of the afterlife.

What you need is balls.


A pants-shitter and cuck has no room to even mention the word "balls" for the rest of his life.

Fact.



:rollin:rollin:rollin

[johnsmith]

I think Xmas did answer when he said "idk"...that's a pretty fair answer for a question that no one knows I think.


But lol at the "sorry random, I couldn't possibly have two discussions at once even though I'm posting in multiple threads".

[xmas1997]

Sure, quote my original question.

Sometime in the next ten posts unless you're scared.

You asked. I delivered.
Now if you know anything at all about this subject then kindly answer my question, what do you know of what Christ said after He came back from the dead?
After you tell me, if you can, which I sincerely doubt, I will then be able to happily answer your question that you asked me to quote.
There is no delay on my part. We all are waiting on you.
If you do not know anything, then do not be afraid to say so.
Otherwise kindly leave this thread now, so that the rest of us here who have pertinent things to add to the discussion can do so without having to stop constantly in order to explain things to you and without having to dumb things down for you.
Thank you for your cooperation.

[Blake]

You asked. I delivered.

So your answer is "I don't know" and that's it?

If so then why this silly runaround?

[xmas1997]

Blake, you asked me in your post #341 to post your question to me.
I did as you asked in my post #343.
Now kindly do the same for me and answer my question to you.
If you do not not anything, then do not answer my question.
If you do know something, then do the opposite and answer my question.
Make up your mind, or forever hold your peace.
We will all understand if you know nothing at all.
Very simple choice.

[Blake]

I answered your first question, which I answered "140+ times". Then you still asked me another question.

Since there is no relevant point to me answering your questions before you give your opinion, I'm not gonna waste time doing your research for you.

We'll just chalk it up to you being your usual, uneducated chicken shit self and leave it at that.

[xmas1997]

So your answer is "I don't know" and that's it?

If so then why this silly runaround?

Everyone here knows that that was not MY answer to your question,, it was johnsmith.
Are you really that confused already?
Read my post #357
And then once you answer my question, then and only then can I gladly answer your question.
This is not rocket science. You are making this a lot harder than it is, but I understand why.
Your turn now to answer post 357.
Or leave the thread to the rest of us who know how to discuss things without having to deal with your confusion.

[xmas1997]

I answered your first question, which I answered "140+ times". Then you still asked me another question.

Since there is no relevant point to me answering your questions before you give your opinion, I'm not gonna waste time doing your research for you.

We'll just chalk it up to you being your usual, uneducated chicken shit self and leave it at that.

If this is what you truly think, then you are a whole lot more confused than I thought. You are mixing johnsmith up with me now.
And your last sentence is a result of you being frustrated with your own confusion, so I will ignore it for the sake of clarity.
Show me which post where you answered my question.
I don't think you can, because it only exists in your mind and no where else.
There is no shame in that either.

[xmas1997]

Blake there is no research involved in this, it is opinions.
Again, to avoid anymore confusion for you, my question to you was, what do YOU know, not what others know, but what do YOU know of what Christ said about life after death after he came back from the dead?
I do not care what others know or think they know, I only want to know WHAT DO YOU KNOW, blake? I have no idea what YOU in particular knows of it and have been trying to find out from you for a couple of days now.
Why are you afraid?
Can you answer that question once and for all, or if you can't, then leave, so the rest of us can discuss it?
This should be easy for you to do since all the time you say you know so much about it.
Or is it too hard for you?

[xmas1997]

Where is your post where you answered my question, blake?
It doesn't exist, does it?
You don't know anything about this subject do you?

[Blake]

Lol meltdown

[mouse]

Lol meltdown

Link?

[Blake]

Link?

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=233574&page=8&p=7523922#post7523922

[xmas1997]

Lol meltdown

Link?

[xmas1997]

Random, that was some great stuff you linked. I watched every one of them and was thoroughly entertained and intrigued.

I have seen some of those studies before somewhere and it is one reason I never ever take the bible LITERALLY and definitely don't take others' words for TRUTH for things of a religious or spiritual nature.

Plus I will NEVER listen to anything blake has to say on the matter because he has been recently exposed as a fraud and knows absolutely nothing about the subject pro or con.

[Blake]

Plus I will NEVER listen to anything blake has to say on the matter because he has been recently exposed as a fraud and knows absolutely nothing about the subject pro or con.

You never have to because my knowledge of what the Bible says is completely irrelevant to your opinion of what heaven is.

We'll never near what you have to say on it though because you're a chicken shit pussy.

[xmas1997]

You never have to because my knowledge of what the Bible says is completely irrelevant to your opinion of what heaven is.

We'll never near what you have to say on it though because you're a chicken shit pussy.

Another relevant and intelligent remark from the peanut gallery!
Further proof you know nothing at all about it.
:lmao

[RandomGuy]

L7jClyinERY

[xmas1997]

L7jClyinERY

:lmao Loved it! Where do you find this stuff. Hopefully your Christian wife has a good sense of humor, or does she not know?

[RandomGuy]

Random, that was some great stuff you linked. I watched every one of them and was thoroughly entertained and intrigued.

I have seen some of those studies before somewhere and it is one reason I never ever take the bible LITERALLY and definitely don't take others' words for TRUTH for things of a religious or spiritual nature.

Plus I will NEVER listen to anything blake has to say on the matter because he has been recently exposed as a fraud and knows absolutely nothing about the subject pro or con.

The Qualia Soup youtube user is the best of any of the lot, IMO.

Calm, reasoned, simple, respectful, and concise.

https://www.youtube.com/user/QualiaSoup

[RandomGuy]

:lmao Loved it! Where do you find this stuff. Hopefully your Christian wife has a good sense of humor, or does she not know?

DarkMatter2525 does some "over the top" bits, but buried in the satire are a lot of very good points. It is rather biting satire that is NSFW.

As for the religious thing, neither wife nor I were ever particularly religious, but have become comfortable with the "atheist" label in the last few years. I don't mind talking about it, because at some level, once you realize that being religious is harmful, one has a moral duty to point this out.

[xmas1997]

DarkMatter2525 does some "over the top" bits, but buried in the satire are a lot of very good points. It is rather biting satire that is NSFW.

As for the religious thing, neither wife nor I were ever particularly religious, but have become comfortable with the "atheist" label in the last few years. I don't mind talking about it, because at some level, once you realize that being religious is harmful, one has a moral duty to point this out.

I have never been labeled religious, except from some feeble minded individuals on here of course, who shall remain nameless, yet they know who they are.
I am more spiritual than anything, and as far as being a Catholic Christian, that would be the closest religion I ascribe to. I often say I am a "cafeteria Catholic" because I pick and choose what I accept as being the truth.
I thought you said you and your wife have no problems being Christians and being employed in science.
The atheistic fanatics on here would say that is impossible and stupid.
What I find as being somewhat hypocritical and ironic on here is when the atheists claim that the theists "deserve" to be attacked because they have been attacked for so long by the theists. That is a straw man in my eyes.
And this becomes apparent when an atheists sends their kid to a religious institution, and not expect that child to be ripped apart for their beliefs.