If God doesn't exist...

[BreezeWood]

.

answer the question above, have you repentance for your crime christian ... the gale would like to know. without her you are doomed.


neither the religious nor atheist have an inside track for admission to the Everlasting only the Triumph of Good vs Evil will prevail. not chritianity, judaism nor islam; Noah's parable is the religion of the bible. the spoken religion of the Almighty.

.

Sure just as soon as you tell me if you want to abolish Christianity, ok?

.

Sure just as soon as you tell me if you want to abolish Christianity, ok?

those who worship a book of lies is not the problem, the problem begins when they attempt to impose their unjust will on others, that is what a matured society and the U S Constitution attempts to accomplish.


an atheist's Spirit that conquers evil is a candidate for admission to the Everlasting despite the book of lies so for that reason christianity need not be abolished but simply abandoned for those who profess goodness, eternal life and the just authority of the Almighty.

.

I don't worship a book. But would you abolish Christianity if you could?

.

I answered your question, have you repented your crime or not ... seems you could care less about where your book of lies has led its followers or correctly it has been its followers that chose your book.

.

What crime have I committed again? Do you even know what repent means? And no, you didn't answer the question. I would think if you really believed that Christianity were so evil you wouldn't hesitate to ban it or even shout from the rooftops that it should be banned. Heck, you might even want to round them up and destroy them if you really believed they evil. Do you know why they stopped burning witches? Because they realized they weren't witches. If we really believed that there were evil beings whose intent was to do evil, destroying them would be the right thing to do, would it not?

.

Do you know why they stopped burning witches? Because they realized they weren't witches.

- really, it had nothing to do with innocents to begin with ?


christianity is evil as proven repeatedly over the course of history from the period of its canonization going forward - when the Almighty was abandoned ... what is there not to know about repentance than if it has never been utilized.


And no, you didn't answer the question.

certainly did, abandoning the book of lies is the proper solution for all the desert religions ....

.

 

[ding]

Sure just as soon as you tell me if you want to abolish Christianity, ok?

.

Sure just as soon as you tell me if you want to abolish Christianity, ok?

those who worship a book of lies is not the problem, the problem begins when they attempt to impose their unjust will on others, that is what a matured society and the U S Constitution attempts to accomplish.


an atheist's Spirit that conquers evil is a candidate for admission to the Everlasting despite the book of lies so for that reason christianity need not be abolished but simply abandoned for those who profess goodness, eternal life and the just authority of the Almighty.

.

I don't worship a book. But would you abolish Christianity if you could?

.

I answered your question, have you repented your crime or not ... seems you could care less about where your book of lies has led its followers or correctly it has been its followers that chose your book.

.

What crime have I committed again? Do you even know what repent means? And no, you didn't answer the question. I would think if you really believed that Christianity were so evil you wouldn't hesitate to ban it or even shout from the rooftops that it should be banned. Heck, you might even want to round them up and destroy them if you really believed they evil. Do you know why they stopped burning witches? Because they realized they weren't witches. If we really believed that there were evil beings whose intent was to do evil, destroying them would be the right thing to do, would it not?

.

Do you know why they stopped burning witches? Because they realized they weren't witches.

- really, it had nothing to do with innocents to begin with ?


christianity is evil as proven repeatedly over the course of history from the period of its canonization going forward - when the Almighty was abandoned ... what is there not to know about repentance than if it has never been utilized.


And no, you didn't answer the question.

certainly did, abandoning the book of lies is the proper solution for all the desert religions ....

.

So doesn't it make sense to do away with evil, Einstein? Or do you like having evil around? Maybe we should burn them, huh? Would you like that?

metanoia: it means to change one's mind or ways.

 

[ding]

According to the Bible, Jesus was born into this world to save us from the consequences (separation from God) of our sin.

That's not what He said. What Seminary School did you go to again? Was it the Phoenix School of Seminary?

 

[Czernobog]

The sad truth is our standard education system - right up through university - doesn't exactly teach, or encourage critical thinking, or individuality. it teaches students to memorise facts, and figures, and to regurgitate the thoughts, and experiences of other people. It isn't until grad school, and beyond that anyone is ever taught to actually think for themselves.

So how do you explain the fact that the moment I left for university I stopped going to mass and it wasn't until almost 20 years later I started studying religions on my own and determined that Judea/Christianity was the only religion where God was seeking man. While there are many similarities between all religions, the rest are men seeking God.

Since you claim to have attended Seminary school, how are we called to worship God in the Bible?

I can't explain why you would choose to return to ignorance. Only you can explain that.

You are asking the wrong question - either because you didn't understand my account, or because you want to try to prove my account false. You ask how we are called to worship as described by a book that is flawed, irrational, and inconsistent. Could I answer your simplistic query? Could I elucidate about the focus, the fuel, and the decree to worship? Sure. Could I blather on about the purpose of worship, and weave together a narrative using the Books of James, John, Acts, and even Jeremiah? Not a problem. But, why? That is just so much regurgitation of religious indoctrination. When you can move beyond the indoctrination, to ask the questions that actually matter, you let me know.

lol, none of those answers come close. You don't have to guess, He told us. We were told to worship __ _____ ___ _____.

Why was Jesus born into this world? I doubt you know that either.

I wasn't asking you to explain why I returned to my faith. I was countering your argument that critical thinking leads to atheism. In fact, you only think you practice critical thinking. What you really practice is critical theory. They are not the same thing.

The two questions I am asking you are central to your failure in understanding the Bible and the root cause of why you intentionally go out of your way to seek out Christians to mock.

No, they aren't. According to the Bible, Jesus was born into this world to save us from the consequences (separation from God) of our sin. So what? In order for that to matter, one must first accept that we need saving. And the only reason that we "need saving" is because the Bible tells us we do. It is a religion creating an imaginary condition for which it, alone, can provide the imaginary cure.

Before even concerning one's self with that terrible separation from God, first one must know that this God exists. Neither you, nor anyone else has been able to prove that. So, in order to accept the existence ood, I must first suspend reason, and just believe in the existence of a thing for which there is no reasonable evidence.

Your argument fails at its foundation.

The questions you are asking have nothing to do with Seminary - they have to do with grade school Sunday School.

What Seminary school did you go to because you failed on both counts. Why are you guessing? Don't you know that He told us why He was born into this world? Don't you know that He told us how to worship God? Did they offer a prize with their crackerjack diploma?

So, my answer was incorrect? Really? Remind everyone, if you would, what John 3:16, 17 says. I'm sure you have it memorised.

 

[Czernobog]

According to the Bible, Jesus was born into this world to save us from the consequences (separation from God) of our sin.

That's not what He said. What Seminary School did you go to again? Was it the Phoenix School of Seminary?

Really? Again, remind everyone, if you will, what Jesus said in John 3:16 & 17? Unless you are suggesting that Jesus was not the son of God to whom he was referring. In which case, I would be most interested to know to which son of God he was referring.

I mean Jesus said he came for a great many reasons: to being life (John 3:16), to bring conflict (Matt 10:34), to bring peace (14:27), or just to burn it all to the ground (Luke :49).

But most Christians would agree that he came to bring life, and salvation.

 

[ding]

So how do you explain the fact that the moment I left for university I stopped going to mass and it wasn't until almost 20 years later I started studying religions on my own and determined that Judea/Christianity was the only religion where God was seeking man. While there are many similarities between all religions, the rest are men seeking God.

Since you claim to have attended Seminary school, how are we called to worship God in the Bible?

I can't explain why you would choose to return to ignorance. Only you can explain that.

You are asking the wrong question - either because you didn't understand my account, or because you want to try to prove my account false. You ask how we are called to worship as described by a book that is flawed, irrational, and inconsistent. Could I answer your simplistic query? Could I elucidate about the focus, the fuel, and the decree to worship? Sure. Could I blather on about the purpose of worship, and weave together a narrative using the Books of James, John, Acts, and even Jeremiah? Not a problem. But, why? That is just so much regurgitation of religious indoctrination. When you can move beyond the indoctrination, to ask the questions that actually matter, you let me know.

lol, none of those answers come close. You don't have to guess, He told us. We were told to worship __ _____ ___ _____.

Why was Jesus born into this world? I doubt you know that either.

I wasn't asking you to explain why I returned to my faith. I was countering your argument that critical thinking leads to atheism. In fact, you only think you practice critical thinking. What you really practice is critical theory. They are not the same thing.

The two questions I am asking you are central to your failure in understanding the Bible and the root cause of why you intentionally go out of your way to seek out Christians to mock.

No, they aren't. According to the Bible, Jesus was born into this world to save us from the consequences (separation from God) of our sin. So what? In order for that to matter, one must first accept that we need saving. And the only reason that we "need saving" is because the Bible tells us we do. It is a religion creating an imaginary condition for which it, alone, can provide the imaginary cure.

Before even concerning one's self with that terrible separation from God, first one must know that this God exists. Neither you, nor anyone else has been able to prove that. So, in order to accept the existence ood, I must first suspend reason, and just believe in the existence of a thing for which there is no reasonable evidence.

Your argument fails at its foundation.

The questions you are asking have nothing to do with Seminary - they have to do with grade school Sunday School.

What Seminary school did you go to because you failed on both counts. Why are you guessing? Don't you know that He told us why He was born into this world? Don't you know that He told us how to worship God? Did they offer a prize with their crackerjack diploma?

So, my answer was incorrect? Really? Remind everyone, if you would, what John 3:16, 17 says. I'm sure you have it memorised.

Sure...

John 3:16-17New International Version (NIV)

16 For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. 17 For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him.


John 18
37 “You are a king, then!” said Pilate. Jesus answered, “You say that I am a king. In fact, the reason I was born and came into the world is to testify to the truth. Everyone on the side of truth listens to me.”

 

[Czernobog]

I can't explain why you would choose to return to ignorance. Only you can explain that.

You are asking the wrong question - either because you didn't understand my account, or because you want to try to prove my account false. You ask how we are called to worship as described by a book that is flawed, irrational, and inconsistent. Could I answer your simplistic query? Could I elucidate about the focus, the fuel, and the decree to worship? Sure. Could I blather on about the purpose of worship, and weave together a narrative using the Books of James, John, Acts, and even Jeremiah? Not a problem. But, why? That is just so much regurgitation of religious indoctrination. When you can move beyond the indoctrination, to ask the questions that actually matter, you let me know.

lol, none of those answers come close. You don't have to guess, He told us. We were told to worship __ _____ ___ _____.

Why was Jesus born into this world? I doubt you know that either.

I wasn't asking you to explain why I returned to my faith. I was countering your argument that critical thinking leads to atheism. In fact, you only think you practice critical thinking. What you really practice is critical theory. They are not the same thing.

The two questions I am asking you are central to your failure in understanding the Bible and the root cause of why you intentionally go out of your way to seek out Christians to mock.

No, they aren't. According to the Bible, Jesus was born into this world to save us from the consequences (separation from God) of our sin. So what? In order for that to matter, one must first accept that we need saving. And the only reason that we "need saving" is because the Bible tells us we do. It is a religion creating an imaginary condition for which it, alone, can provide the imaginary cure.

Before even concerning one's self with that terrible separation from God, first one must know that this God exists. Neither you, nor anyone else has been able to prove that. So, in order to accept the existence ood, I must first suspend reason, and just believe in the existence of a thing for which there is no reasonable evidence.

Your argument fails at its foundation.

The questions you are asking have nothing to do with Seminary - they have to do with grade school Sunday School.

What Seminary school did you go to because you failed on both counts. Why are you guessing? Don't you know that He told us why He was born into this world? Don't you know that He told us how to worship God? Did they offer a prize with their crackerjack diploma?

So, my answer was incorrect? Really? Remind everyone, if you would, what John 3:16, 17 says. I'm sure you have it memorised.

Sure...

John 3:16-17New International Version (NIV)

16 For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. 17 For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him.

37 “You are a king, then!” said Pilate. Jesus answered, “You say that I am a king. In fact, the reason I was born and came into the world is to testify to the truth. Everyone on the side of truth listens to me.”

So...he lied when he said he came to save the world? he only came to "tell the truth"? Huh.

 

[ding]

According to the Bible, Jesus was born into this world to save us from the consequences (separation from God) of our sin.

That's not what He said. What Seminary School did you go to again? Was it the Phoenix School of Seminary?

Really? Again, remind everyone, if you will, what Jesus said in John 3:16 & 17? Unless you are suggesting that Jesus was not the son of God to whom he was referring. In which case, I would be most interested to know to which son of God he was referring.

I mean Jesus said he came for a great many reasons: to being life (John 3:16), to bring conflict (Matt 10:34), to bring peace (14:27), or just to burn it all to the ground (Luke :49).

But most Christians would agree that he came to bring life, and salvation.

Now that we have settled that, How did Jesus say we were called to worship God?

Are you sure you went to Seminary School?

 

[ding]

lol, none of those answers come close. You don't have to guess, He told us. We were told to worship __ _____ ___ _____.

Why was Jesus born into this world? I doubt you know that either.

I wasn't asking you to explain why I returned to my faith. I was countering your argument that critical thinking leads to atheism. In fact, you only think you practice critical thinking. What you really practice is critical theory. They are not the same thing.

The two questions I am asking you are central to your failure in understanding the Bible and the root cause of why you intentionally go out of your way to seek out Christians to mock.

No, they aren't. According to the Bible, Jesus was born into this world to save us from the consequences (separation from God) of our sin. So what? In order for that to matter, one must first accept that we need saving. And the only reason that we "need saving" is because the Bible tells us we do. It is a religion creating an imaginary condition for which it, alone, can provide the imaginary cure.

Before even concerning one's self with that terrible separation from God, first one must know that this God exists. Neither you, nor anyone else has been able to prove that. So, in order to accept the existence ood, I must first suspend reason, and just believe in the existence of a thing for which there is no reasonable evidence.

Your argument fails at its foundation.

The questions you are asking have nothing to do with Seminary - they have to do with grade school Sunday School.

What Seminary school did you go to because you failed on both counts. Why are you guessing? Don't you know that He told us why He was born into this world? Don't you know that He told us how to worship God? Did they offer a prize with their crackerjack diploma?

So, my answer was incorrect? Really? Remind everyone, if you would, what John 3:16, 17 says. I'm sure you have it memorised.

Sure...

John 3:16-17New International Version (NIV)

16 For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. 17 For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him.

37 “You are a king, then!” said Pilate. Jesus answered, “You say that I am a king. In fact, the reason I was born and came into the world is to testify to the truth. Everyone on the side of truth listens to me.”

So...he lied when he said he came to save the world? he only came to "tell the truth"? Huh.

It is no wonder you flunked out of Seminary School.

 

[Czernobog]

According to the Bible, Jesus was born into this world to save us from the consequences (separation from God) of our sin.

That's not what He said. What Seminary School did you go to again? Was it the Phoenix School of Seminary?

Really? Again, remind everyone, if you will, what Jesus said in John 3:16 & 17? Unless you are suggesting that Jesus was not the son of God to whom he was referring. In which case, I would be most interested to know to which son of God he was referring.

I mean Jesus said he came for a great many reasons: to being life (John 3:16), to bring conflict (Matt 10:34), to bring peace (14:27), or just to burn it all to the ground (Luke :49).

But most Christians would agree that he came to bring life, and salvation.

Now that we have settled that, How did Jesus say we were called to worship God?

We haven't settled that. He lied when he said he came to save the world? {John 3:17}? How about when he said he came to bring the sword (Matthew 10:34) Was he lying then? Was he also lying when he said he came to "bring fire"? (Luke 12:459)

I mean, if the only correct answer to your question is found in John 18:37, then all of those other passages must have been him lying?

 

[Czernobog]

No, they aren't. According to the Bible, Jesus was born into this world to save us from the consequences (separation from God) of our sin. So what? In order for that to matter, one must first accept that we need saving. And the only reason that we "need saving" is because the Bible tells us we do. It is a religion creating an imaginary condition for which it, alone, can provide the imaginary cure.

Before even concerning one's self with that terrible separation from God, first one must know that this God exists. Neither you, nor anyone else has been able to prove that. So, in order to accept the existence ood, I must first suspend reason, and just believe in the existence of a thing for which there is no reasonable evidence.

Your argument fails at its foundation.

The questions you are asking have nothing to do with Seminary - they have to do with grade school Sunday School.

What Seminary school did you go to because you failed on both counts. Why are you guessing? Don't you know that He told us why He was born into this world? Don't you know that He told us how to worship God? Did they offer a prize with their crackerjack diploma?

So, my answer was incorrect? Really? Remind everyone, if you would, what John 3:16, 17 says. I'm sure you have it memorised.

Sure...

John 3:16-17New International Version (NIV)

16 For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. 17 For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him.

37 “You are a king, then!” said Pilate. Jesus answered, “You say that I am a king. In fact, the reason I was born and came into the world is to testify to the truth. Everyone on the side of truth listens to me.”

So...he lied when he said he came to save the world? he only came to "tell the truth"? Huh.

It is no wonder you flunked out of Seminary School.

Actually what is clear is that you never thought about a sigle passage in the Bible, and are content to let others do your thinking for you.

 

[ding]

According to the Bible, Jesus was born into this world to save us from the consequences (separation from God) of our sin.

That's not what He said. What Seminary School did you go to again? Was it the Phoenix School of Seminary?

Really? Again, remind everyone, if you will, what Jesus said in John 3:16 & 17? Unless you are suggesting that Jesus was not the son of God to whom he was referring. In which case, I would be most interested to know to which son of God he was referring.

I mean Jesus said he came for a great many reasons: to being life (John 3:16), to bring conflict (Matt 10:34), to bring peace (14:27), or just to burn it all to the ground (Luke :49).

But most Christians would agree that he came to bring life, and salvation.

Now that we have settled that, How did Jesus say we were called to worship God?

We haven't settled that. He lied when he said he came to save the world? {John 3:17}? How about when he said he came to bring the sword (Matthew 10:34) Was he lying then? Was he also lying when he said he came to "bring fire"? (Luke 12:459)

I mean, if the only correct answer to your question is found in John 18:37, then all of those other passages must have been him lying?

Like I said before, it is no wonder you flunked out of seminary school if you can't understand the distinction. Your problem is that you only look for what something can't be instead of what it is. This is no different than when you claimed that religious influence has only been bad. Or did you forget when you said that there was no baby in the bathwater that there was only dirty water? Your lack of objectivity indicts you.

 

[Czernobog]

According to the Bible, Jesus was born into this world to save us from the consequences (separation from God) of our sin.

That's not what He said. What Seminary School did you go to again? Was it the Phoenix School of Seminary?

Really? Again, remind everyone, if you will, what Jesus said in John 3:16 & 17? Unless you are suggesting that Jesus was not the son of God to whom he was referring. In which case, I would be most interested to know to which son of God he was referring.

I mean Jesus said he came for a great many reasons: to being life (John 3:16), to bring conflict (Matt 10:34), to bring peace (14:27), or just to burn it all to the ground (Luke :49).

But most Christians would agree that he came to bring life, and salvation.

Now that we have settled that, How did Jesus say we were called to worship God?

We haven't settled that. He lied when he said he came to save the world? {John 3:17}? How about when he said he came to bring the sword (Matthew 10:34) Was he lying then? Was he also lying when he said he came to "bring fire"? (Luke 12:459)

I mean, if the only correct answer to your question is found in John 18:37, then all of those other passages must have been him lying?

Like I said before, it is no wonder you flunked out of seminary school if you can't understand the distinction. Your problem is that you only look for what something can't be instead of what it is. This is no different than when you claimed that religious influence has only been bad. Or did you forget when you said that there was no baby in the bathwater that there was only dirty water? Your lack of objectivity indicts you.

You're the one who insisted I was wrong, when I quoted his own words. Or, more accurately, quoted his own words, as recorded in your book of fiction.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

 

[Czernobog]

Here's the bottom line, dingdong; you keep wanting to "educate" me on the message of Jesus, when I made it clear that there isn't even any historical record that this Jesus of yours lived, let alone did the things you religiously believe he did. Why? What purpose do you think that will serve? Until you can objectively prove that God exists, thqt Jesus existed, and that the God that does exist is, in fact, the God described in your book of fiction, Jesus could have told everyone that they should only eat hot dogs, while standing on one foot, and listening to religious hymns in that book of yours, and I wouldn't care, because it is a work. Of. Fiction.

 

[ding]

That's not what He said. What Seminary School did you go to again? Was it the Phoenix School of Seminary?

Really? Again, remind everyone, if you will, what Jesus said in John 3:16 & 17? Unless you are suggesting that Jesus was not the son of God to whom he was referring. In which case, I would be most interested to know to which son of God he was referring.

I mean Jesus said he came for a great many reasons: to being life (John 3:16), to bring conflict (Matt 10:34), to bring peace (14:27), or just to burn it all to the ground (Luke :49).

But most Christians would agree that he came to bring life, and salvation.

Now that we have settled that, How did Jesus say we were called to worship God?

We haven't settled that. He lied when he said he came to save the world? {John 3:17}? How about when he said he came to bring the sword (Matthew 10:34) Was he lying then? Was he also lying when he said he came to "bring fire"? (Luke 12:459)

I mean, if the only correct answer to your question is found in John 18:37, then all of those other passages must have been him lying?

Like I said before, it is no wonder you flunked out of seminary school if you can't understand the distinction. Your problem is that you only look for what something can't be instead of what it is. This is no different than when you claimed that religious influence has only been bad. Or did you forget when you said that there was no baby in the bathwater that there was only dirty water? Your lack of objectivity indicts you.

You're the one who insisted I was wrong, when I quoted his own words. Or, more accurately, quoted his own words, as recorded in your book of fiction.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

Actually the point I was making was that you were not objective if you could not understand the distinction of the two verses and came to the conclusion that Jesus was lying. Either you never made an effort to do so or you lied about going to seminary school.

 

[ding]

Here's the bottom line, dingdong; you keep wanting to "educate" me on the message of Jesus, when I made it clear that there isn't even any historical record that this Jesus of yours lived, let alone did the things you religiously believe he did. Why? What purpose do you think that will serve? Until you can objectively prove that God exists, thqt Jesus existed, and that the God that does exist is, in fact, the God described in your book of fiction, Jesus could have told everyone that they should only eat hot dogs, while standing on one foot, and listening to religious hymns in that book of yours, and I wouldn't care, because it is a work. Of. Fiction.

No. I am not trying to educate you on Jesus. I am proving that you are not objective. I have. no problem with you believing the Bible and Jesus are fictional. You have a problem with me believing they aren't. That's why you troll religious forums. You have a problem with people believing they aren't.

 

[BreezeWood]

.
those who worship a book of lies is not the problem, the problem begins when they attempt to impose their unjust will on others, that is what a matured society and the U S Constitution attempts to accomplish.


an atheist's Spirit that conquers evil is a candidate for admission to the Everlasting despite the book of lies so for that reason christianity need not be abolished but simply abandoned for those who profess goodness, eternal life and the just authority of the Almighty.

.

I don't worship a book. But would you abolish Christianity if you could?

.

I answered your question, have you repented your crime or not ... seems you could care less about where your book of lies has led its followers or correctly it has been its followers that chose your book.

.

What crime have I committed again? Do you even know what repent means? And no, you didn't answer the question. I would think if you really believed that Christianity were so evil you wouldn't hesitate to ban it or even shout from the rooftops that it should be banned. Heck, you might even want to round them up and destroy them if you really believed they evil. Do you know why they stopped burning witches? Because they realized they weren't witches. If we really believed that there were evil beings whose intent was to do evil, destroying them would be the right thing to do, would it not?

.

Do you know why they stopped burning witches? Because they realized they weren't witches.

- really, it had nothing to do with innocents to begin with ?


christianity is evil as proven repeatedly over the course of history from the period of its canonization going forward - when the Almighty was abandoned ... what is there not to know about repentance than if it has never been utilized.


And no, you didn't answer the question.

certainly did, abandoning the book of lies is the proper solution for all the desert religions ....

.

So doesn't it make sense to do away with evil, Einstein? Or do you like having evil around? Maybe we should burn them, huh? Would you like that?

metanoia: it means to change one's mind or ways.

.

So doesn't it make sense to do away with evil, Einstein? Or do you like having evil around? Maybe we should burn them, huh? Would you like that?

who is doing the burning was established in the beginning, you frankly make little sense where morality and precepts are a matter of historical record or for a verifiable course for a life in the Everlasting.

unless of course you actually believe your book of lies rather than the verbal admission of its leading character -

Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani . 'My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me'?

.


.

 

[ding]

I don't worship a book. But would you abolish Christianity if you could?

.

I answered your question, have you repented your crime or not ... seems you could care less about where your book of lies has led its followers or correctly it has been its followers that chose your book.

.

What crime have I committed again? Do you even know what repent means? And no, you didn't answer the question. I would think if you really believed that Christianity were so evil you wouldn't hesitate to ban it or even shout from the rooftops that it should be banned. Heck, you might even want to round them up and destroy them if you really believed they evil. Do you know why they stopped burning witches? Because they realized they weren't witches. If we really believed that there were evil beings whose intent was to do evil, destroying them would be the right thing to do, would it not?

.

Do you know why they stopped burning witches? Because they realized they weren't witches.

- really, it had nothing to do with innocents to begin with ?


christianity is evil as proven repeatedly over the course of history from the period of its canonization going forward - when the Almighty was abandoned ... what is there not to know about repentance than if it has never been utilized.


And no, you didn't answer the question.

certainly did, abandoning the book of lies is the proper solution for all the desert religions ....

.

So doesn't it make sense to do away with evil, Einstein? Or do you like having evil around? Maybe we should burn them, huh? Would you like that?

metanoia: it means to change one's mind or ways.

.

So doesn't it make sense to do away with evil, Einstein? Or do you like having evil around? Maybe we should burn them, huh? Would you like that?

who is doing the burning was established in the beginning, you frankly make little sense where morality and precepts are a matter of historical record or for a verifiable course for a life in the Everlasting.

unless of course you actually believe your book of lies rather than the verbal admission of its leading character -

Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani . 'My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me'?

.


.

So can I count on you to try to abolish Christianity?

 

[Czernobog]

.

I answered your question, have you repented your crime or not ... seems you could care less about where your book of lies has led its followers or correctly it has been its followers that chose your book.

.

What crime have I committed again? Do you even know what repent means? And no, you didn't answer the question. I would think if you really believed that Christianity were so evil you wouldn't hesitate to ban it or even shout from the rooftops that it should be banned. Heck, you might even want to round them up and destroy them if you really believed they evil. Do you know why they stopped burning witches? Because they realized they weren't witches. If we really believed that there were evil beings whose intent was to do evil, destroying them would be the right thing to do, would it not?

.

Do you know why they stopped burning witches? Because they realized they weren't witches.

- really, it had nothing to do with innocents to begin with ?


christianity is evil as proven repeatedly over the course of history from the period of its canonization going forward - when the Almighty was abandoned ... what is there not to know about repentance than if it has never been utilized.


And no, you didn't answer the question.

certainly did, abandoning the book of lies is the proper solution for all the desert religions ....

.

So doesn't it make sense to do away with evil, Einstein? Or do you like having evil around? Maybe we should burn them, huh? Would you like that?

metanoia: it means to change one's mind or ways.

.

So doesn't it make sense to do away with evil, Einstein? Or do you like having evil around? Maybe we should burn them, huh? Would you like that?

who is doing the burning was established in the beginning, you frankly make little sense where morality and precepts are a matter of historical record or for a verifiable course for a life in the Everlasting.

unless of course you actually believe your book of lies rather than the verbal admission of its leading character -

Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani . 'My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me'?

.


.

So can I count on you to try to abolish Christianity?

You are just terrified that someone is going to criminalise your superstition, aren't you?

 

[ding]

What crime have I committed again? Do you even know what repent means? And no, you didn't answer the question. I would think if you really believed that Christianity were so evil you wouldn't hesitate to ban it or even shout from the rooftops that it should be banned. Heck, you might even want to round them up and destroy them if you really believed they evil. Do you know why they stopped burning witches? Because they realized they weren't witches. If we really believed that there were evil beings whose intent was to do evil, destroying them would be the right thing to do, would it not?

.

Do you know why they stopped burning witches? Because they realized they weren't witches.

- really, it had nothing to do with innocents to begin with ?


christianity is evil as proven repeatedly over the course of history from the period of its canonization going forward - when the Almighty was abandoned ... what is there not to know about repentance than if it has never been utilized.


And no, you didn't answer the question.

certainly did, abandoning the book of lies is the proper solution for all the desert religions ....

.

So doesn't it make sense to do away with evil, Einstein? Or do you like having evil around? Maybe we should burn them, huh? Would you like that?

metanoia: it means to change one's mind or ways.

.

So doesn't it make sense to do away with evil, Einstein? Or do you like having evil around? Maybe we should burn them, huh? Would you like that?

who is doing the burning was established in the beginning, you frankly make little sense where morality and precepts are a matter of historical record or for a verifiable course for a life in the Everlasting.

unless of course you actually believe your book of lies rather than the verbal admission of its leading character -

Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani . 'My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me'?

.


.

So can I count on you to try to abolish Christianity?

You are just terrified that someone is going to criminalise your superstition, aren't you?

Not at all. I like to lead people to the logical conclusion of their argument like I did you.