- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Squirrelmeister
| Favorite team: | LSU  |
| Location: | |
| Biography: | |
| Interests: | |
| Occupation: | |
| Number of Posts: | 3446 |
| Registered on: | 11/7/2021 |
| Online Status: | Not Online |
Recent Posts
Message
re: Trump administration proposing a $10,000 tax credit for buying a new American made auto.
Posted by Squirrelmeister on 1/16/26 at 8:21 pm to ArcticTiger
quote:
Would not apply for individuals making more than $100,000 or couples making more than $200,000
Welfare redistribution of wealth to the poors. Shameful.
0
re: Maringouin man arrested after firearms stolen from Iberville Parish deer stands
Posted by Squirrelmeister on 1/16/26 at 8:20 pm to LSUA 75
quote:
Similar thing happened to an old man that lived nearby except he had his gun.Nice buck walked in front of him as he was taking a dump. Recoil knocked him backwards onto his pile of crap. He got the deer though.
That’s a story to tell his grandkids and cherish. :lol:
re: Trump administration proposing a $10,000 tax credit for buying a new American made auto.
Posted by Squirrelmeister on 1/16/26 at 8:05 pm to bhtigerfan
quote:
Trump administration proposing a $10,000 tax credit for buying a new American made auto
You’ll need to save that $10k for new main bearings, rod bearings, lifters, camshafts, valve bodies, and clutch packs.
re: Colorado has a Cargill meat plant where 20-30% of the workforce is Somalia immigrants
Posted by Squirrelmeister on 1/13/26 at 10:00 pm to RelentlessAnalysis
quote:
Both state and federal law require reasonable religious accomodations. These folks wanted a short break to make the routine, scheduled prayers required by their religious beliefs, and Cargill refused to give them their breaks on that schedule.
Hank, companies should be able to treat everyone the same and not give special privileges to those who have special delusions of a mythical sky daddy. Equality. Justice. Fairness. Treat everyone in the same job role the same regardless of race, religion, etc. they have animals to slaughter and a process to do it and if the immigrants can’t handle it, they can’t work in that job role, period. If they are illegal, they should be deported immediately, and Cargill should be severely penalized to disincentivize bad behaviors.
quote:
Of course Cargill got sued. Nothing "corrupt" about it.
Dude, you and I and everyone knows the Somalians by and large are corrupt and also the meat packing plants are corrupt. That’s a pile of bad people.
re: Why are so many formerly pro-Hamas dems suddenly calling Hamas a terrorist group?
Posted by Squirrelmeister on 1/11/26 at 4:04 pm to uggabugga
quote:
Clearly the word went out
Operation Mockingbird
re: How much clearance between the ground and your trailer jack?
Posted by Squirrelmeister on 1/10/26 at 8:53 pm to kywildcatfanone
quote:
I only have about 2-3" clearance from the ground when on my truck.
You’re going to rip it off and break stuff.
quote:
Should I try to find a smaller wheel for more clearance?
You should buy a swivel jack with caster. They have a pin that lets the jack rotate 90 degrees. Any trailer supply and even Home Depot carry them.
re: US Directed Energy Weapons
Posted by Squirrelmeister on 1/10/26 at 8:48 pm to TigerMyth36
quote:
Phasers set on stun
Sounds more like a disrupter.
re: The Persians finally show how they feel about Mosques,
Posted by Squirrelmeister on 1/9/26 at 10:58 pm to lake chuck fan
quote:
Man..... lol..... your just such a grandiose douche bag that you possess zero self awareness.
SFP has unpopular legal and political opinions, but he is absolutely correct on this topic. The Israelites and Judahites (and Moabites, Ammonites, Phonecians, Edomites, etc., but not the Philistines nor the tribe of Dan) are simply newer evolved divisions of Canaanites - culturally, linguistically, genetically, and with shared religious traditions.
Yahweh most likely technically wasn’t a Canaanite deity, but was likely from nomads south of Canaan, in the Sinai or south Arabia. In the Bible, Yahweh is repeated represented as coming from Seir, Midian, Horeb, Sinai, and Parab. He was adopted around the time of the Bronze Age collapse by the Edomites, and later adopted by what became the Israelites and Judahites. Yahweh possessed the same powers and attributes of the Canaanite storm deity Baal Hadad, so some Israelites attempted to merge the two, and eventually merged them with Baal’s father El Elyon and with the Israelite goddess Asherah, aka El Shaddai. “Shad” is Hebrew for breast. El Shaddai means something like “breasted god” and always comes up in the Bible with fertility blessings.
The earliest reference to Yahweh was from the Egyptians describing a people group from Sinai or Arabia called the Shasu that they defeated.
That same Yahweh became your Jesus, and Yahweh/Baal’s father El Elyon became Jesus’ father in Christianity.
re: The Persians finally show how they feel about Mosques,
Posted by Squirrelmeister on 1/9/26 at 10:42 pm to High C
quote:
Aren’t the true Persians pagans?
Depends how far back you go, and how you define the term.
Pagan is from the Latin “paganus” which meant something like “a rural dweller”. Some kind of way it morphed among the Christian movement into people who are not Christian or Jewish.
So Persians were “pagans” from when that term developed probably in the second century CE up until they fell to Islam. Christians didn’t consider Muslims pagan, maybe because Muslims themselves were an offshoot of Jewish Christianity.
Persians from around 1000 BCE were Zoroastrians. Their religion formed from Persian polytheism, likely similarly to how Yahweh became exclusively worshipped eventually as a reform of Israelite polytheism itself derived from Canaanite polytheism. So some Israelites began to exclusively worship Yahweh (and merged him with Baal Hadad and El Elyon and Egyptian Aten). Previously in Egypt, Pharoah Amenhotep renamed himself Ahkenaten as a theophoric name for the god he made his subjects worship exclusively- Aten. Jews began to call Yahweh Adoni (Jewish D is equal to Egyptian T) which means “my Aten” when they were scared pronouncing the Tetragrammaton “YHWH” would get them struck dead. As kings of great nations grew in power, they wanted to centralize around one deity and unite their people under a single deity - it meant less conflict and better economies.
What’s so funny is that the Persians - the Zoroastrians - financed the construction of the new temple in Jerusalem after the Persians conquered Babylon and freed the Jewish slaves. In Isaiah 45:1, Cyrus the emperor of Persia is called Yahweh’s messiah. The funny part is that the Christians forgot all this and didn’t realize how much Zoroastrianism influenced Yahwist religions (including what became Christianity and what because Judaism). They may have called them Pagans but without them (and their god Ahura Mazda, the savior figure called the Saoshyant, and the Satan - Angra Mainyu), they would have never invented the concept of Jesus and Satan in the first place.
I think confessional Jewish scholars and maybe Christians too (definitely the secular ones) understand the roots of their religions are owed to the he Persians. Muslims though totally don’t give any credit to them. Muslims understand their roots in Christianity and earlier Yahwism, but deny the Persian roots.
So without the Persians conquering Babylon and then injecting their own ideas into the heads of the newly minted Zadokite priests of the governor Zerubbabel, we wouldn’t have Judaism, Christianity, or Islam as we know them today.
re: The Persians finally show how they feel about Mosques,
Posted by Squirrelmeister on 1/9/26 at 10:10 pm to AlterEd
quote:
Who can you believe if you can't believe the guy named Persian God.
It makes sense that Ahura Mazda would defeat Allah one day.
re: Odd goings on at the Jerusalem Temple AD30 to AD70.
Posted by Squirrelmeister on 1/9/26 at 9:54 pm to Champagne
quote:
Book of Revelation just a book of symbols that don't have relevance in making Real Christian Doctrine
Champagne, I’m replying to this since it is an interesting topic. It is in the same genre and contains shared theology with the 1 Enoch (book of the watchers, book of parables, animal apocalypse, apocalypse of weeks) and the Ascension of Isaiah. It heavily shares theology with Paul’s legitimate 7 letters, plus Ephesians and Colossians, Hebrews, Jude, James, and 1 Peter. All those books I mentioned (except 1 Enoch) calls out Jesus by that name, but never ever once mentions Jesus’ ministry, Galilee, healing the blind and deaf, casting out demons, eating/walking/talking with Jesus, Roman soldiers, Pontius Pilate, Mary, virgin birth (or any birth at all), Jesus riding on a donkey, Jesus’ miracles, Jesus’ parables, or Jesus’ moral teachings. Revelation is a lot of symbols but like the rest of the books I mentioned, its symbols because its visions of the celestial Jesus who was never on earth. In those books I mentioned, not a single one ever says Jesus is “coming back” or “returning”… it’s only that Jesus is “coming”. I’m not sure if that bothers you or not, but as a Catholic I was wondering what you thought about that.
quote:
In closing, referring to our Glorified Body state
I have tried to explain to Foo that Paul wrote that he believed flesh was sinful, and that Christians have corruptible perishable sinful flesh, and buried as that, but will be raised as incorruptible imperishable spirit bodies just as Jesus was (in heaven). It’s in 1 Cor 15:44 for instance. Foo rejects that and says Christians will be resurrected as flesh, not as spiritual bodies - maybe because the gospels conflict with Paul, because of Luke and John’s gospels having Jesus resurrected with flesh and bones and wounds that would have had Paul rolling in his grave. What’s your take?
quote:
I wonder whether that Lamb standing crucified and slain in Heaven
This parallels Paul writing that Jesus was crucified by the archons in heaven, and the writer of Hebrews writing that Jesus was sacrificed in heaven (in the heavenly temple not made by human hands), plus the ascension of Isaiah where Jesus is crucified in heaven by Samael (the god of this world). Paul also talks of that same god of this world but doesn’t use the name Samael. That’s 3 canonical books mentioning Jesus slain in heaven, plus one apocryphal book also with Jesus slain in heaven. Is that not a problem for you?
I’m trying to understand the thought processes from an educated Catholic. Thanks
ETA: I was asking a couple of questions “fellow” churchgoing Catholics the other day about what they think happens when a loved one dies - of course “they’ll go to heaven” was the answer. I said think about the last two lines of the Nicene Creed and asked them to recite it and they were pretty much clueless. I’m aware of the Catechism, but I was wondering what you thought of that, and if you had every given any thought to maybe there was two opposing Christian schools of thought - one where the dead go to heaven to be with Christ, and one where the dead will be resurrected, judged (with the evil ones destroyed) and the good ones living in new spiritual bodies on a newly remade earth instead of in heaven. Thanks
re: The US govt has lost the right to forcibly tax us.
Posted by Squirrelmeister on 1/9/26 at 12:18 pm to FooManChoo
quote:quote:Ah, OK. I'll just throw that one out, then.
The author of 2 Peter is a forgery from the mid to late second century, and the consensus of scholars place that book the very last of our canonical New Testament to be written.
You should. It’s a well known forgery written mid/late second century.
quote:
It's almost as if you are trying to tell Christians what to believe about their own religion based on "scholars" who are anti-Christian from the start.
It’s more about how to not be duped into a false reality. It’s for your benefit.
quote:
Even so, 1 Peter also exists.
I’m not sure what your point there is, Foo. 1 Peter is well known among scholarship to be a pre-gospel letter. There is no mention of the earthly Jesus at all. There’s no firsthand eyewitness claims of anyone seeing Jesus at all, much less on earth. Oh are you talking about 1 Peter 5:1? Yeah that word “witness” is the same word as “martyr” or “one who testifies” so that’s not an eyewitness claims… more like the use of the term Jehovah’s Witness in that the testify the Truth of Jehovah. 1 Peter has no mention of anyone walking, talking, or eating with Jesus, or anything of the sort. They did believe Jesus really existed and really suffered and really died in a real body made of flesh but none of that happened on earth.
quote:
John does claim to be an eye-witness (John 19:35)
Which John? The one who wrote the first ending (20:30) or the second ending (21:35)?
The authors of John write in the first person omniscient sense. They are telling a story from a godlike point of view. It’s not written like an eyewitness to something would have written. And in 19:35, he… well let me just quote it.
quote:
He who saw it has borne witness—his testimony is true, and he knows that he is telling the truth—that you also may believe.
So who is “he”???
I have the answer. And it’s just a couple chapters later. Chapter 21 verse 24…
quote:
This is the disciple who is bearing witness about these things, and who has written these things, and we know that his testimony is true.
Let that sink in. “We” know “his” testimony is true. So whoever is writing chapter 21 is NOT the witness. So if you think the real John wrote chapter 21, then John can’t be the witness spoken of in the third person in chapter 19.
quote:
While James doesn't claim to be an eye-witness, he is said to be one in 1 Cor. 15:7
Paul makes a lot of claims, but we only really have one person claiming to be an eyewitness to Jesus and that is Paul himself.
quote:
Matthew is claimed to be one of Jesus' disciples and was unanimously considered the author of the book of Matthew by the early Church fathers.
You’re getting off track with irrelevant assertions. There is no first hand eyewitness claim of seeing Jesus in our gospel according to Matthew.
quote:
Jude, while also not specifically claiming eye-witness testimony in his letter, says he is the brother of James, who was Jesus' brother.
How may times do we have to go through this that all Christians were believed to be brothers in/with/of Christ and sons of God??? :lol:
quote:
I do not want you to be unaware, brothers, that I have often intended to come to you (but thus far have been prevented), in order that I may reap some harvest among you as well as among the rest of the Gentiles.
quote:
For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers.
quote:
I appeal to you, brothers, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree, and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and the same judgment.
quote:
For I would have you know, brothers, that the gospel that was preached by me is not man’s gospel.
quote:
For we know, brothers loved by God, that he has chosen you,
quote:
For all who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God.
I could go on but there are dozens more passengers of Paul and other early christian writers using the terms brothers or brothers of the Lord or brothers in Christ in a figurative, theology manner and not literal biological brothers.
quote:
The context of the writing determines the meaning. Words are not written in a vacuum.
You are asserting Jesus meant the complete opposite of what is written that he literally said, which is absurd and ridiculous, and you ignore the context of what Jesus said right after that line which is all about how well and how stringent on keeping the commandments they must be.
quote:quote:Why are you addressing me when quoting the article? I didn't write it, but I support it. It's a common response.
You made that up. That’s how that scene plays out in your head. He tells them to take nothing for their journey except a staff…. All that other shite you made up isn’t in evidence.
I didn’t see any links or articles in your reply. You’re right it is a common response amongst apologists that Luke and Mark have different meanings for “airo”. I’ve seen it before - Mark means “take” and Luke means “acquire”. It’s stupid, and it’s not in evidence, and is just bad apologetics but there is no way this ca be reconciled so it just has to stay bad apologetics- well to be honest all apologetics are bad. But this one is very bad.
quote:
So you deny that the same word can be used differently? It happens all the time in Greek. All of the sudden, it doesn't happen when it's inconvenient to your argument
There’s your straw man again. No one is saying one word can’t be used differently. It’s not applicable here because Mark and Luke use the word “airo” in the exact same way or sense or meaning… “to take”. So I’ll back it up with evidence… go and look at all conjugations of that word in both Luke and Mark and they are all “take”. The apologetic argument that Luke uses “airo” to mean “to acquire” falls flat on its face when you look at all the English translations of Luke and that Greek word is translated as “take” and not “acquire”.
Luke’s Jesus says not to take a staff/staffs - using Koine category denial this means a numerical value of literally zero staffs. Mark’s Jesus says to take a staff. It’s a contradiction. Does it change the meaning of the parallel passages? Absolutely not. It’s a trivial detail from a story perspective and theological perspective… but it nevertheless is a contradiction.
It’s only in the last 100-150 or so years that biblical inerrancy even became a thing argued by apologists. This is a new invention by fundamentalists like you.
From Jerome:
quote:
The evangelists differ in the order of events and in the wording, but not in the truth of the events themselves.
Origen:
quote:
The careful reader will notice many discrepancies in the Gospel narratives, especially when comparing John with the other evangelists.
So keep being a jackass and stating pure fiction as fact, making up stories and passing them off as “the Truth”. You’ll never admit your faults and never quit lying.
re: The US govt has lost the right to forcibly tax us.
Posted by Squirrelmeister on 1/7/26 at 5:09 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
Matthew, John, James, Paul, Jude, and Peter were all eye-witnesses to the resurrection Jesus.
The author of 2 Peter is a forgery from the mid to late second century, and the consensus of scholars place that book the very last of our canonical New Testament to be written.
The authors of Matthew, John, James, and Jude all make no mention of being an eyewitness to Jesus or any of the events they narrate in the first person omniscient. Sorry, you are making it up or just parroting apologists who have duped you.
quote:
The New Testament was written by eye-witnesses and those who were able to interview eye-witnesses.
Challenge: Besides the 2 Peter forgery and besides Paul, find a first hand eyewitness writing in the first person that “I” ate, drank, walked with, or saw Jesus.
Do you understand the different between a first hand eyewitness and a second or third hand claim of someone else being an eyewitness? If I told you my brother was abducted by aliens or ate lunch face to face with Bigfoot the same as when Abraham and Moses saw Yahweh face to face, would you believe me?
quote:
I'm explaining to you what Jesus taught. I'm sorry your understanding of the Bible is so poor that you only know what the skeptic websites tell you
Ridiculous, which is why you are deserving of ridicule. “Jesus” says one thing, and you argue he meant the opposite.
quote:
You really need to stop accusing me of making stuff up
Well… stop making stuff up.
quote:
1. In Matthew,
:lol: you straw manning son of a bitch you…
quote:
2. In Mark, Jesus tells them to 'pick up the walking stick that is sitting beside them, start CARRYING it, and then to get moving!'...no hesitation--start walking NOW!
You made that up. That’s how that scene plays out in your head. He tells them to take nothing for their journey except a staff…. All that other shite you made up isn’t in evidence.
quote:
3. In Luke, Jesus tells them the same thing as in Matthew--do not 'make preparations', but Luke has to use a different word that Matthew. Although he uses the same word form as Mark does, the meanings are different--as can be seen from their independent uses of the same word-form.
More made up bullshite. Luke used mark as a literary source (he copied and edited) but kept the same exact Greek verb in the exact same parallel passage. The only difference is the conjugation. Mark is third person subjunctive “they shouldn’t take” verses Luke’s second person imperative “do not (you all) take”. Easy peazy Koine for a Greek scholar like you.
quote:
So Matthew's ktaomai
:rotflmao:
Seriously, you think “don’t take a staff on your journey” and “don’t go get a staff for your journey” mean totally different things. Everyone with sense understands them to be the same in this context, but I’m throwing out Matthew, and have been. I’m giving that to you, even though I think it’s retarded. Take that out of your argument, quit straw manning, and look at it apples to apples between Mark and Luke who both use the same verb for their versions of the same parallel story. Learn the Koine you’ve stated you are supposedly studying (whom I suspect to be another one of your lies).
re: The US govt has lost the right to forcibly tax us.
Posted by Squirrelmeister on 1/7/26 at 1:53 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
Apologists don't need to fully agree on every detail
What it shows is that people who want to believe can’t agree on what to believe.
quote:
Apologists, by definition, seek to defend their version of Christianity and dogmas despite the literal and historical components of scripture and despite scientific evidence
FIFY
quote:
The New Testament accounts and claims about Jesus Christ and the resurrection go back to a time when there were eye-witnesses that were still alive.
And yet Paul is the only one to write “I saw the Lord” and none of the gospel authors claim to be eyewitnesses who wrote in a manner of first person omniscient theological narratives.
quote:
Similarly for the ascent of Mohammed, there were no claimed eye-witnesses, and those that were Mohammed's companions actually debated the nature of his ascent, whether it was physical or spiritual.
Weak man. :lol: You reject Mohammed and Romulus’ eyewitness accounts for reasons that are applicable to Jesus. It’s called being a hypocrite, at which you excel.
quote:
Paul doesn't reject the law
But yet he does, and specifically says Christians are no longer under that “curse”. Meanwhile, Matthew’s Jesus says one must follow every dot and iota to be saved.
quote:
Jesus didn't say we had to keep every speck of the law for our justification until Heaven and Earth pass away.
:rotflmao: God damn Foo, that’s a blatant lie and you and I both know it.
quote:
What He was saying was that God’s Law is divinely given, precise, and authoritative; that every part of it would reach its intended fulfillment; that nothing would be discarded from it prematurely; and that the Law would be upheld—not done away with—through His person and work
:rotflmao: here we go - Foo’s imagination in action
quote:
God's perfect character
All those evil babies deserved to die a torturous death, right? God’s so perfect, he can give conflicting commands that are identical in meaning, like making a married bachelor.
quote:
The English is not the original language, and the Greek allows for the difference between taking what you have, and acquiring something new
I think you know you’re full of shite because you keep bringing up language from Matthew and won’t address what I am saying is between Mark and Luke.
quote:
Given that distinction, the point Jesus was making of leaving immediately and not taking anything they don't need for the trip remains true. Even a child can understand that
Even a child knows a straw man fallacy when he sees it. :lol:
quote:
As far as I'm concerned, you can go ahead and call me any name in the book that you want. I don't want you to for your sake (it's a violation of the 9th commandment), but I'm not offended when you call me names. Frankly, it is an encouragement to me.
Liar, fraud, and deluded.
re: The US govt has lost the right to forcibly tax us.
Posted by Squirrelmeister on 1/6/26 at 12:47 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
You make claims that are both antithetical to the text itself as well as to the understanding of learned Christian apologists for 2,000 years, who haven’t shied away from difficult passages.
Apologists can’t even agree. That’s why we have so many “heretics” in history who were important church fathers and that’s why there’s so many Christian sects today who disagree on historical and theological concepts.
It’s hilarious that you expect someone like me to just believe whatever the apologists assert. Apologists exist not to convince outsiders, but only to validate the people who already believe in something and who really want to believe in that thing. Why aren’t you convinced by Muslim, Jewish, or Hindu apologists, Foo?
quote:
You just can’t possibly accept the responses you receive because your worldview and hardness of heart won’t allow it.
Why don’t you accept the eyewitness accounts of Romulus or Mohammed being lifted up to heaven?
quote:
The examples you’ve provided have been explained time and time again, but you don’t accept them, not because they don’t make sense, but because they don’t make sense TO YOU, because you cannot accept the reasons.
I don’t accept your bullshite retarded excuses, that’s true. :lol:
I place more value over the text of the Bible over Foo’s imagination. Guilty!
quote:
His moral law (the 10 commandments) reflects His holy nature and character.
Is that the law that you reject, because Paul rejects it, but despite “Jesus” saying it must be followed to every dot and iota? That law?
Does that law include beating your slaves or selling your daughters into slavery or making your wife drink poison to see if her fetus will die? Don’t stop at the 10 commandments (either of the three versions :lol:). Include the whole Law - the Torah, what the Jews call the Law.
quote:
When you claim that something is objectively and irrefutably contradictory, you are speaking about the law of non-contradiction, which has a definition that you aren’t abiding by when you make your claim.
No, I’m not talking about laws on non contradiction. This is very basic, Foo. A four year old can understand it. Mark’s Jesus says to take a staff. Luke’s Jesus says not to take a staff (or not to take staffs - either way it is a denial that they should take any number of staffs so that the numerical number of staffs is taken is exactly zero). That’s a contradiction, regardless of your capacity or willingness to invent a story to attempt to reconcile them.
quote:
I don’t expect to convince a spiritually dead person like you that God’s Word is true.
The same excuse Paul used. Pathetic excuses from a pathetic person.
re: The US govt has lost the right to forcibly tax us.
Posted by Squirrelmeister on 1/5/26 at 5:08 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
You haven’t refuted anything of the sort.
I have, at least a dozen times just with you.
quote:
You can’t refute the logical reality of the problem of evil without an objective moral law-giver, because it is a logical problem, not one of mere data.
Whether I can or can’t is moot. No such objective moral law giver exists, not in your holy book (where you do have a law giver, but not one that is objective), and not in our reality. And your fallacious assertions that logically there must be an objective law giver for evil to exist or whatever is not an argument for your specific magic man or the plethora of other magic men of other religions.
“Logically there must be a god, and therefore we know that one god exists and is God in three co-equal, consubstantial, and co-eternal persons and therefore we know the specific scriptures I hold to be authoritative and God-breathed are the Truth because the scriptures say they are…” isn’t a logical or evidence-based assertion and is quite fallacious.
quote:
When I have said this in the past, you have provided examples from the Bible that you think refute God being an objective law-giver.
I have provided you many objective irrefutable verses of “God” or someone speaking on behalf of “God” which contradict, not only between books but chapter to chapter. Objectively, there is no objective standard on morality within the Bible.
quote:
We go back and forth on why you think the examples are proof that He isn’t, and I show how you have totally butchered the context or the claim itself
All you show is yourself denying basic facts, vocabulary, and grammar.
quote:
then you move on to something else
I move on because you can’t admit anything truthful. Your baseless assertions assume as true the very things you try to “prove”. You don’t even understand you are incapable of convincing anyone of anything based on ginning up scenarios in your head that are not in evidence and are usually the least likely explanation.
re: The US govt has lost the right to forcibly tax us.
Posted by Squirrelmeister on 1/5/26 at 7:05 am to FooManChoo
quote:
Not to mention that the absence of God makes life objectively pointless and removes all sense of objective morality, which we assume everyday when we condemn the various atrocities that happen. Without an objective law-giver (God), there is no objective moral law, and therefore there is no objective “right” and “wrong”, and we have no basis to meaningfully condemn things like the Holocaust, or child sex slavery. The best we can do is say that such things are unpleasant, but our opinions have no real moral weight.
Why do you keep repeating these lies? I’ve refuted you time and time again. :lol:
How’s your Koine language learning coming along, Foo?
Have you done any study on the “airo” verb and how to conjugate it present tense - imperative - second person verses present tense - subjunctive - third person?
Have you learned about category negation of nouns both in plural and singular forms?
Hey you know what? Don’t worry about it. Stay ignorant and keep spamming the board with mindless drivel. Don’t ever learn anything new, Foo. Keep it up. That is your M.O.
:cheers:
re: Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil
Posted by Squirrelmeister on 1/1/26 at 7:51 am to dek81572
quote:
Matthew 7: 21-23 21 “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22 On that day many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?’ 23 And then will I declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.’
Nope. The apostle Paul, who never met the earthly Jesus, wrote all that is necessary is faith alone, not works, to be saved. We can use scripture to interpret scripture, by ignoring what Jesus said in favor of Paul’s gospel.
re: The move of Jesus in and amongst Islam is truly a thing to behold these days
Posted by Squirrelmeister on 12/31/25 at 11:52 am to FooManChoo
quote:
I take the time to read every response you give me, no matter how wrong and deluded I think you are.
If you can’t admit “take nothing except a staff alone”, and “do not take a staff” are saying the opposite about the staff specifically, then it shows you’re a troll, or a liar, or you don’t actually give a shite about what the text actually states, or all three, and we can’t even have the first semblance of common ground. I think we’re done here.
re: The move of Jesus in and amongst Islam is truly a thing to behold these days
Posted by Squirrelmeister on 12/31/25 at 11:09 am to FooManChoo
quote:
FooManChoo
I ain’t reading all that shite, Foo. :lol:
re: The move of Jesus in and amongst Islam is truly a thing to behold these days
Posted by Squirrelmeister on 12/31/25 at 10:18 am to FooManChoo
quote:quote:Just wanted to say 'thank you' for taking the time to respond to that conspiracy theorist and perpetual hater of Christ. The more who call him to task on his lies, the better
somethingdifferent
Foo, the something different guy isn’t helping your cause. Your IQ has his beat by a couple of standard deviations. He’s embarrassing himself and you in the process.
Well, carry on with your collective hate and delusions.
:cheers:
Popular
8
