Jump to content

Go pick up a Bible said new House Speaker Mike Johnson


Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, robosmith said:

Scientists who STUDY THE EVIDENCE KNOW. Duh

They weren't around during the dinosaur age, either. But they know A LOT from the EVIDENCE LEFT BEHIND.

Thanks for revealing you don't know ANYTHING about how SCIENCE WORKS. LMAO

Plasma IS AN IONIZED GAS dummy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, robosmith said:

Like I said, DIFFERENT STATE OF MATTER. 

solid, liquid, gas, plasma.

Plasma is IONS. AKA, NOT A GAS until until it cools.  Duh.

Just keep digging your IGNORANT HOLE. LMAO

And AT THE MOMENT OF THIS SUPPOSED BIG BANG IT WAS A GAS... 

 

Duhhhhhhh duhh duhh

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Deluge said:

As long as you don't fuel the woke agenda or break the law, I don't see any issue with that opinion. 

I equate being religious with liking jazz. Liking jazz or whatever genre says nothing about your true character. From my experience, being religious is the same. My paternal grandfather was a Catholic priest from France who just happened to be a pedophile and sadist. At the end of his life.. he admitted that he became aroused by perceived pain and suffering on the behalf of his victim. He could not get erect unless they were crying or in visible and obvious pain. Hence, why he preferred girls that were between the ages of 9 to 12. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, robosmith said:

PLASMA for the first 3 minutes.

Lol.. all SPECULATION bud. 

We live in a world of concepts with LIMITATIONS. 

"The Big Bang event is a physical theory that describes how the universe expanded from an initial state of high density and temperature"

HIGH TEMPERATURE WOULD INDICATE GAS BUDDY BUD BUD

Edited by West
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, impartialobserver said:

I equate being religious with liking jazz. Liking jazz or whatever genre says nothing about your true character. From my experience, being religious is the same. My paternal grandfather was a Catholic priest from France who just happened to be a pedophile and sadist. At the end of his life.. he admitted that he became aroused by perceived pain and suffering on the behalf of his victim. He could not get erect unless they were crying or in visible and obvious pain. Hence, why he preferred girls that were between the ages of 9 to 12. 

I see. So you take one psychotic relative who happens to be Christian and decide ALL Christians are the same? 

You don't meet very many people, do you? 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Deluge said:

I see. So you take one psychotic relative who happens to be Christian and decide ALL Christians are the same? 

You don't meet very many people, do you? 

I do not assume that all Christians are like this.. It simply taught me that you have to really get to know someone. Just finding out that they are religious does not by default tell you that they are moral, ethical, or any positive attribute. Conversely.. someone being atheist does not tell you the full story. Much like Christians.. you have to get to know them 

  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Deluge said:

Then don't make such a stupid comment. 

Do you understand what a blanketing statement is? 

I do but if you could read.. you would understand that the point was that you need to know more information about someone than just if they are religious or not. My paternal grandfather would bounce from town to town after coming to North America. It all started in Swift Current, Saskatchewan strangely enough. Each time, folks giving him the benefit of the doubt because he was a Priest and white. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, impartialobserver said:

I do but if you could read.. you would understand that the point was that you need to know more information about someone than just if they are religious or not. My paternal grandfather would bounce from town to town after coming to North America. It all started in Swift Current, Saskatchewan strangely enough. Each time, folks giving him the benefit of the doubt because he was a Priest and white. 

No you don't, because you're not showing insight. See, you have what is called selective memory. Let's refresh that memory, shall we? 

"I equate being religious with liking jazz. Liking jazz or whatever genre says nothing about your true character. From my experience, being religious is the same. My paternal grandfather was a Catholic priest from France who just happened to be a pedophile and sadist. At the end of his life.. he admitted that he became aroused by perceived pain and suffering on the behalf of his victim. He could not get erect unless they were crying or in visible and obvious pain. Hence, why he preferred girls that were between the ages of 9 to 12. "

Do you see the problem with that post? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Deluge said:

No you don't, because you're not showing insight. See, you have what is called selective memory. Let's refresh that memory, shall we? 

"I equate being religious with liking jazz. Liking jazz or whatever genre says nothing about your true character. From my experience, being religious is the same. My paternal grandfather was a Catholic priest from France who just happened to be a pedophile and sadist. At the end of his life.. he admitted that he became aroused by perceived pain and suffering on the behalf of his victim. He could not get erect unless they were crying or in visible and obvious pain. Hence, why he preferred girls that were between the ages of 9 to 12. "

Do you see the problem with that post? 

Had folks not given him the benefit of the doubt.. his aftermath would have been far lesser. As a counterpoint.. Stephen Paddock (the las vegas shooter) was an atheist. He also was largely apolitical. Folks gave him the benefit of the doubt because he was largely anonymous and spent lots of money. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, impartialobserver said:

Had folks not given him the benefit of the doubt.. his aftermath would have been far lesser. As a counterpoint.. Stephen Paddock (the las vegas shooter) was an atheist. He also was largely apolitical. Folks gave him the benefit of the doubt because he was largely anonymous and spent lots of money. 

It's OK to hate Christians, observer, just be honest about it next time. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Deluge said:

It's OK to hate Christians, observer, just be honest about it next time. ;)

No.. you just never know someone from the outside. Apparently, here is the difference between us two. You see the packaging (being religious, owning a truck, etc) and decide to trust them by default. My life experiences have taught me that the packaging does not tell you the full story. Knowing one aspect of someone tells you virtually nothing. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, impartialobserver said:

No.. you just never know someone from the outside. Apparently, here is the difference between us two. You see the packaging (being religious, owning a truck, etc) and decide to trust them by default. My life experiences have taught me that the packaging does not tell you the full story. Knowing one aspect of someone tells you virtually nothing. 

No, the difference between you and me is that I have chosen a side, and YOU are trying to uphold this pretense of impartiality when it's obvious that you are not impartial. Your little story about Uncle Wackjob who was a Christian priest is evidence of that. Your "experience with religion" is your OWN experience. Just remember that not ALL Christians are sadistic perverts. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Deluge said:

No, the difference between you and me is that I have chosen a side, and YOU are trying to uphold this pretense of impartiality when it's obvious that you are not impartial. Your little story about Uncle Wackjob who was a Christian priest is evidence of that. Your "experience with religion" is your OWN experience. Just remember that not ALL Christians are sadistic perverts. 

I know some Christians who are fine individuals. However, I can decode your game. If someone walked up to you and told you that they were Christian... you automatically (by default) view them as moral, ethical, hard working, etc. and even when they show their flaws.. you look the other way. I have no default and put everyone under the same scrutiny. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, impartialobserver said:

I know some Christians who are fine individuals. However, I can decode your game. 

Sure, NOW you know some Christians who are fine, but only AFTER I had you against the wall with your lead in story. 

There's nothing to decode but your bullshit stance. 

Just be honest next time. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Deluge said:

Sure, NOW you know some Christians who are fine, but only AFTER I had you against the wall with your lead in story. 

There's nothing to decode but your bullshit stance. 

Just be honest next time. 

I have said the same thing each time... you have to know more about someone than just their religion. Apparently.. that's all you have to know. If I would have came out as being Christian, you would be posting about how great of a person that I am.. (albeit knowing nothing about me actually)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, impartialobserver said:

I have said the same thing each time... you have to know more about someone than just their religion. Apparently.. that's all you have to know. If I would have came out as being Christian, you would be posting about how great of a person that I am.. (albeit knowing nothing about me actually)

No, you haven't. 

You still don't see what's wrong with that first post. Would you like some help? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Deluge said:

No, you haven't. 

You still don't see what's wrong with that first post. Would you like some help? 

Just because my first example was about a priest does not mean that there are not others. Cherry picking on your part does not preclude the fact that every one of my posts in this meaningless, worthless discussion has included something about how you need to know more about someone than just their religion. Interesting.. how you have yet to refute my claim that you would by default view someone as a good person if all you know you about them is their religion. Therefore.. I must be correct. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, impartialobserver said:

Just because my first example was about a priest does not mean that there are not others. 

It's the example YOU CHOSE, because the story of your psycho relative is the only example you carry in your front pocket.  

I'm sure you use that story against every Christian you encounter, because you can't stand Christianity. 

Like I said before, it's OK to despise Christians, just be honest about it. 

Edited by Deluge
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Deluge said:

It's the example YOU CHOSE, because the story of your psycho relative is the only example you carry with you. 

I'm sure you use that story against every Christian you encounter, because you can't stand Christianity. 

Like I said before, it's OK to despise Christians, just be honest about it. 

and yet when I visit my in-laws (who are Nazarene), we do prayers at meal time and I go along with it.. So much for hate. 

So in short.. all someone has to do to win your approval is tell you that they are Christian. Simple minded way. Easy to deceive. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, impartialobserver said:

and yet when I visit my in-laws (who are Nazarene), we do prayers at meal time and I go along with it.. So much for hate. 

So in short.. all someone has to do to win your approval is tell you that they are Christian. Simple minded way. Easy to deceive. 

Then why didn't you lead off with that and then talk about the psycho? They seem to be pretty good people, so why not talk about them first? 

Not in short - not even in long. The way to win my approval is through ACTION, not affiliation. Do you understand? 

Edited by Deluge
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,730
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    NakedHunterBiden
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • phoenyx75 earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • lahr earned a badge
      Conversation Starter
    • lahr earned a badge
      First Post
    • User went up a rank
      Community Regular
    • phoenyx75 earned a badge
      Dedicated
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...