Atheism and humanism are completely contradictory

Author: Conservallectual

Posts

Total: 1,052
Sidewalker
Sidewalker's avatar
Debates: 8
Posts: 2,669
3
2
5
Sidewalker's avatar
Sidewalker
3
2
5
-->
@Double_R
@Shila
Yes, we know. Why do you keep posting this? I already explained to you, literally sentence by sentence, what this means and how it shows that your and Sidewalker's claims about what I said are full of shit.
She’s posting it because she can see you are a liar, everyone can see that, you aren’t fooling anyone. You are a liar, the fact is, no matter how many times you lie about it, it is still a bald-faced lie.
 
Let’s take a look, in context, here’s the lie you were called on, and this time I’m providing the post numbers so you can’t fall back on your standard double down lie about context, this is your lie:

#746
Sidewalker: But as you know, I'll be glad to formally debate your incoherent and illogical claim that faith in God carries the burden of proof.

Double_R: I would debate this claim if I had ever made it and/or believe it. I don’t and never have.
Now it’s time for you to make up lies about only a few of these posts, all from one thread,  where you made the claim that you now say you never made.

#145.
Double_R: This is why the burden of proof is on you to provide evidence for it, because if you want the conversation to be about the god you believe in then you need to propose it first. And the burden is on the person who makes the claim.
Let’s see how you weasel out of this, you claim that if it’s about the God you believe in then the burden of proof is on you, why do you now say you have never claimed “faith in God carries the burden of proof”, that is clearly a lie.

#156
Sidewalker: Almost all adult believers are conceiving of God to be transcendent, this idea of it being a matter of faith and transcendence is not really a secret, Atheists who pretend they don’t know that are either completely uninformed about the subject matter, or have an agenda and this disingenuous misconception is nothing but a tactic.
 
Double_R: This is why the burden of proof is on you to provide evidence for it, because if you want the conversation to be about the god you believe in then you need to propose it first. And the burden is on the person who makes the claim.
I very carefully explained that Belief in God is a matter of faith, and you insist that  “This is why the burden of proof is on you”, why do you now say you have never claimed “faith in God carries the burden of proof”, that is clearly a lie.

#188
Sidewalker: Belief in God is a matter of faith, there is no “burden of proof”.
 
Double_R: Anyone who makes a claim carries with it, a burden of proof.
It couldn’t be any clearer than when I explained it yet again, that belief in God is a matter of faith and you respond that there is a burden of proof, and now you never made the claim “that faith in God carries the burden of proof”, that is a lie. 

#333
Sidewalker: Perhaps your scholarship could include using a dictionary;
 
Faith:
2. strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof:
 
Double_R: This has absolutely nothing to do with anything a I just said.
I even tried to give you the dictionary definition of faith that says that it is not a matter of proof, and you tied to say that faith and proof has absolutely nothing to do with anything you said LOL, I gotta give it to you kiddie, you really do buy into the whole Trumb vibe that says “if you’re gonna lie, then lie big, and do it obviously” LOL, but if you think anyone can’t see through your blatant lies and misrepresentations, you are even more incoherent than we already think.  
 
Face it, you are a liar, and you lie to cover up the fact that you just don’t get the whole logical argument thing, and nobody is fooled. That is why you won’t formally debate, you know you will get your ass handed to you again.









Deb-8-a-bull
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,205
3
2
3
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Deb-8-a-bull
3
2
3
Thats Unless one has actully meet the god. thing. 

Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Double_R
This is the exchange you are being dishonest about:

If, as you claim, asserting God is not a truth statement, it's a subjectrive choice, then why do you throw a tantum and start screaming demands for burden of proof anytime someone asserts belief in God.
The latter is a factual claim and therefore one which, if you believe in basic principals of logic, shoulder a burden of proof
WTF?

That exchange didn’t happen. I just posted the full exchange and showed how the parts of it you conveniently left out were crucial to understanding what I was talking about.
Yes Double_R, this is right out of the Reverend tradsecret  textbook of denial and deceit.  And you can expect this kind of deviousness from sidewalker in the future.


You know damn well I can go find a half dozen more instances where you asserted that Faith in God shoulders a burden of proof just in conversations with me.  It's a primary axiom of your faith, and it's why you made up your pretend definition of atheist, you claim atheism isn't a belief so it doesn't have the BOP, only people who have faith in God carry the BOP, you are astoundingly dishonest.
Says the guy selectively editing our exchanges and then re-posting them even after being shown how blatantly dishonest they were.

Yes Double_R, this is right out of the Reverend tradesecret textbook of denial and deceit.   And you can expect this kind of deviousness from sidewalker in the future.
Sidewalker
Sidewalker's avatar
Debates: 8
Posts: 2,669
3
2
5
Sidewalker's avatar
Sidewalker
3
2
5
-->
@Stephen
This is the exchange you are being dishonest about:

If, as you claim, asserting God is not a truth statement, it's a subjectrive choice, then why do you throw a tantum and start screaming demands for burden of proof anytime someone asserts belief in God.
The latter is a factual claim and therefore one which, if you believe in basic principals of logic, shoulder a burden of proof
WTF?

That exchange didn’t happen. I just posted the full exchange and showed how the parts of it you conveniently left out were crucial to understanding what I was talking about.
Yes Double_R, this is right out of the Reverend tradsecret  textbook of denial and deceit.  And you can expect this kind of deviousness from sidewalker in the future.


You know damn well I can go find a half dozen more instances where you asserted that Faith in God shoulders a burden of proof just in conversations with me.  It's a primary axiom of your faith, and it's why you made up your pretend definition of atheist, you claim atheism isn't a belief so it doesn't have the BOP, only people who have faith in God carry the BOP, you are astoundingly dishonest.
Says the guy selectively editing our exchanges and then re-posting them even after being shown how blatantly dishonest they were.

Yes Double_R, this is right out of the Reverend tradesecret textbook of denial and deceit.   And you can expect this kind of deviousness from sidewalker in the future.
I gave the post links so you could see for yourself that his standard lie about context is just that, a lie.

If you aren't interested in the truth, didn't even bother to look, then your BS opinion is irrelvent.  
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,006
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
-->
@Deb-8-a-bull
Thats Unless one has actully meet the god. thing. 

Matthew 7:7 “Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you. 8 For everyone who asks receives; the one who seeks finds; and to the one who knocks, the door will be opened.
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Sidewalker
This is the exchange you are being dishonest about:

If, as you claim, asserting God is not a truth statement, it's a subjectrive choice, then why do you throw a tantum and start screaming demands for burden of proof anytime someone asserts belief in God.
The latter is a factual claim and therefore one which, if you believe in basic principals of logic, shoulder a burden of proof
WTF?

That exchange didn’t happen. I just posted the full exchange and showed how the parts of it you conveniently left out were crucial to understanding what I was talking about.
Yes Double_R, this is right out of the Reverend tradsecret  textbook of denial and deceit.  And you can expect this kind of deviousness from sidewalker in the future.


You know damn well I can go find a half dozen more instances where you asserted that Faith in God shoulders a burden of proof just in conversations with me.  It's a primary axiom of your faith, and it's why you made up your pretend definition of atheist, you claim atheism isn't a belief so it doesn't have the BOP, only people who have faith in God carry the BOP, you are astoundingly dishonest.
Says the guy selectively editing our exchanges and then re-posting them even after being shown how blatantly dishonest they were.

Yes Double_R, this is right out of the Reverend tradesecret textbook of denial and deceit.   And you can expect this kind of deviousness from sidewalker in the future.
I gave the post links so you could see for yourself that his standard lie about context is just that, a lie.

I read the thread. And in my opinion, it is you are doing all the editing, doctoring and lying. ie blatant dishonesty.  


Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Deb-8-a-bull
@Shila
Deb-8-a-bull wrote: Thats Unless one has actully meet the god. thing. 

Shila wrote: Matthew 7:7 “Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you. 8 For everyone who asks receives; the one who seeks finds; and to the one who knocks, the door will be opened.


No one has ever seen God, but the one and only Son, John 1:18

But as is usual where the scriptures are concerned, John 1:18 contradicts other biblical verses.


Shila wrote: Matthew 7:7 “Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you. 8 For everyone who asks receives; the one who seeks finds; and to the one who knocks, the door will be opened.

A very cruel lie, if you ask me.
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,006
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
-->
@Stephen
--> @Deb-8-a-bull @Shila
Deb-8-a-bull wrote: Thats Unless one has actully meet the god. thing. 

Shila wrote: Matthew 7:7 “Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you. 8 For everyone who asks receives; the one who seeks finds; and to the one who knocks, the door will be opened.


No one has ever seen God, but the one and only Son, John 1:18

But as is usual where the scriptures are concerned, John 1:18 contradicts other biblical verses.


Shila wrote: Matthew 7:7 “Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you. 8 For everyone who asks receives; the one who seeks finds; and to the one who knocks, the door will be opened.

A very cruel lie, if you ask me.
Matthew 7:7 is basic curtesy.
1. ask before you take anything.
2. Seek  hard enough and you  will find it
3. Knock before entering.
Summarized: For everyone who asks receives; the one who seeks finds; and to the one who knocks, the door will be opened.

Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Shila
--> @Deb-8-a-bull @Shila
Deb-8-a-bull wrote: Thats Unless one has actully meet the god. thing. 

Shila wrote: Matthew 7:7 “Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you. 8 For everyone who asks receives; the one who seeks finds; and to the one who knocks, the door will be opened.


No one has ever seen God, but the one and only Son, John 1:18

But as is usual where the scriptures are concerned, John 1:18 contradicts other biblical verses.


Shila wrote: Matthew 7:7 “Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you. 8 For everyone who asks receives; the one who seeks finds; and to the one who knocks, the door will be opened.

A very cruel lie, if you ask me.
Matthew 7:7 is basic curtesy.
What absolute shite!


Sidewalker
Sidewalker's avatar
Debates: 8
Posts: 2,669
3
2
5
Sidewalker's avatar
Sidewalker
3
2
5
-->
@Stephen
Whatever floats your boat kid, you've tried to sell your BOP game to me before too, DR is a coward, do you want to formally debate it?
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,006
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
-->
@Stephen

Shila wrote: Matthew 7:7 “Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you. 8 For everyone who asks receives; the one who seeks finds; and to the one who knocks, the door will be opened.

A very cruel lie, if you ask me.

Matthew 7:7 is basic curtesy.
1. ask before you take anything.
2. Seek  hard enough and you  will find it
3. Knock before entering.
Summarized: For everyone who asks receives; the one who seeks finds; and to the one who knocks, the door will be opened.

What absolute shite!
You lack common curtesy. Matthew 7:7 was written for people like you who felt like absolute shite.
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Sidewalker
do you want to formally debate it?

 Nope. I am quite happy here where I gave give my opinions and where anyone can dive in at will.  And share the sometimes-awkward facts that theist like to avoid.
Such as the universally accepted fact the BOP is on, s/he that makes the claim. That BOP subject has been done to a death on this forum many times.

But please don't be shy, knock yourself out and start a new BOP thread of your own arguing to the contrary if you are in disagreement, you don't need my permission "kid".
Sidewalker
Sidewalker's avatar
Debates: 8
Posts: 2,669
3
2
5
Sidewalker's avatar
Sidewalker
3
2
5
-->
@Stephen
do you want to formally debate it?

 Nope. I am quite happy here where I gave give my opinions and where anyone can dive in at will.  And share the sometimes-awkward facts that theist like to avoid.
Such as the universally accepted fact the BOP is on, s/he that makes the claim.
You are making the claim here, the burden of proof is on you...unless of course,  you are wearing your cape and BOP proof vest.
That BOP subject has been done to a death on this forum many times.

But please don't be shy, knock yourself out and start a new BOP thread of your own arguing to the contrary if you are in disagreement, you don't need my permission "kid".
Nor here to debate, here to play your puerile game, got it. 
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,006
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
-->
@Stephen
--> @Sidewalker
do you want to formally debate it?

 Nope. I am quite happy here where I gave give my opinions and where anyone can dive in at will.  And share the sometimes-awkward facts that theist like to avoid.
Such as the universally accepted fact the BOP is on, s/he that makes the claim. That BOP subject has been done to a death on this forum many times.

But please don't be shy, knock yourself out and start a new BOP thread of your own arguing to the contrary if you are in disagreement, you don't need my permission "kid".
If you don’t want the BOP pick the losing side and go into denial.

zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,074
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
A Zedku for, atheism and humanism are completely contradictory.

Blah

De 

Blah

De 

Blah

de

Blah.
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 357
Posts: 10,641
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
-->
@Sidewalker
"You are making the claim here, the burden of proof is on you...unless of course,  you are wearing your cape and BOP proof vest."

What does clothes have to do with burden of prove?
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,260
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
Sidewalker: Almost all adult believers are conceiving of God to be transcendent, this idea of it being a matter of faith and transcendence is not really a secret, Atheists who pretend they don’t know that are either completely uninformed about the subject matter, or have an agenda and this disingenuous misconception is nothing but a tactic.
 
Double_RThis is why the burden of proof is on you to provide evidence for it, because if you want the conversation to be about the god you believe in then you need to propose it first. And the burden is on the person who makes the claim.
I very carefully explained that Belief in God is a matter of faith, and you insist that  “This is why the burden of proof is on you”, why do you now say you have never claimed “faith in God carries the burden of proof”, that is clearly a lie.
So let's start by understanding the conversation that actually took place.

The link you provided here was not to my post, it was to your post where you quoted something I said to someone else.

Here is my original post:

Post# 145
I did, but then I went on to explain how this shows us that refuting god's existence requires us to start with a clearly defined example, and since everyone will define him differently there is no way any one person can conceive of let alone take a position on the existence of every god proposed.

The point here is twofold; first it explains what atheists are mostly talking about when they say god is not real. That is, they're talking about whatever they are conceiving him to be, not necessarily what you are. This is why the burden of proof is on you to provide evidence for it, because if you want the conversation to be about the god you believe in then you need to propose it first. And the burden is on the person who makes the claim.

It also explains why atheism should not be defined as the belief that God doesn't exist, because no one who holds such a belief could possibly do so while taking into account every god concept. Lack of belief is far more rational and accurate understanding of the position, because that is the one thing every atheist has in common.
This post was in response to Ehyeh's post 143. The topic of conservation was about whether claims that god does not exist can be substantiated and how that plays into the definition of atheism.

So in this one post you managed to take a 3 paragraph reply to someone else, cut out the first and third paragraph, then cut out the first half of the remaining paragraph and post it under your words to make it look like I was responding to you when I wasn't.

But it gets so much worse.

Then you highlight the key words in your post to emphasize how my words should be interpreted, even though you photoshopped my words in from a conversation that had nothing to do with you.

And then you ignore the fact that even in the half paragraph that you surgically edited so you could take out of context, I still explain clearly that I'm talking about those who *make the claim* that a God exists, not those who merely have faith.

And ironically, all of this in an attempt to claim I'm the one lying here about what had been said in this thread.

The dishonesty is beyond parody at this point. I do hope for your sake that you are just trolling because of not I truly feel bad for you.
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,260
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@Stephen
Yes Double_R, this is right out of the Reverend tradsecret  textbook of denial and deceit.  And you can expect this kind of deviousness from sidewalker in the future.
I didn't think he was capable of surprising with how dishonest he is until his last reply. This is absolutely amazing.
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,006
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
-->
@Double_R
-> @Stephen
Yes Double_R, this is right out of the Reverend tradsecret  textbook of denial and deceit.  And you can expect this kind of deviousness from sidewalker in the future.
I didn't think he was capable of surprising with how dishonest he is until his last reply. This is absolutely amazing
At a minimum do you know who you are talking to.

You start out with Sidewalker then jump to Ehyeh and end up with Stephen. But the person you end up agreeing with that Tradesecret is dishonest is Stephen.


Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Double_R
@Shila
-> @Stephen
Yes Double_R, this is right out of the Reverend tradsecret  textbook of denial and deceit.  And you can expect this kind of deviousness from sidewalker in the future.
I didn't think he was capable of surprising with how dishonest he is until his last reply. This is absolutely amazing
do you know who you are talking to.

You start out with Sidewalker then jump to Ehyeh and end up with Stephen. But the person you end up agreeing with that Tradesecret is dishonest is Stephen.

It is none of your business who and when one member engages another or who and when members became agreeable. It appears to me that you simply post for for no other reason but the sake of posting, rendering your posts meaningless and irrelevant to the thread.

  And you need to learn to read what it is you choose to comment on. The agreement I have with Double_R in this case is that Sidewalker is dishonest.

Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,006
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
-->
@Stephen
It is none of your business who and when one member engages another or who and when members became agreeable. It appears to me that you simply post for for no other reason but the sake of posting, rendering your posts meaningless and irrelevant to the thread.

  And you need to learn to read what it is you choose to comment on. The agreement I have with Double_R in this case is that Sidewalker is dishonest.
So you unnecessarily dragged Reverend Tradesecret into your agreement that sidewalker is dishonest.

Read your post:
Yes Double_R, this is right out of the Reverend tradsecret  textbook of denial and deceit.  And you can expect this kind of deviousness from sidewalker in the future.
Double_R drags several others before agreeing with you.

Double_R starts out with Sidewalker then jump to Ehyeh and end up with Stephen. But the person Double_R ends  up agreeing with that Tradesecret is dishonest is Stephen.
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Shila
It is none of your business who and when one member engages another or who and when members became agreeable. It appears to me that you simply post for for no other reason but the sake of posting, rendering your posts meaningless and irrelevant to the thread.

  And you need to learn to read what it is you choose to comment on. The agreement I have with Double_R in this case is that Sidewalker is dishonest.
So you unnecessarily dragged Reverend Tradesecret into your agreement that sidewalker is dishonest.

Nope, I have said sidewalker bares the same deceitful traits as tradesecret.



Read your post:

I know exactly what my post says and mores the point I know what I meant when I wrote it. Obviously, you don't have a fkn clue.


Yes Double_R, this is right out of the Reverend tradsecret  textbook of denial and deceit.  And you can expect this kind of deviousness from sidewalker in the future.
Double_R drags several others before agreeing with you.


You are absolutely shite at reading. If Double_R agrees with me about anything it is that he, like me, believes sidewalker is a blatant deceitful turd. This is NOT TO SAY  that  Double_R also agrees that tradesecret  is also a deceitful turd. Do you see the difference you clown?

Double_R starts out with Sidewalker then jump to Ehyeh and end up with Stephen. But the person Double_R ends  up agreeing with that Tradesecret is dishonest is Stephen.

Yes you have already said this.  So?  What has that got to do with you?  

It is you that cannot keep up and follow a conversation that you too have inserted yourself mid conversation seemingly out of nowhere. Like you have done on pages upon pages of threads on this forum. 

   Start your own thread, you may be able to keep up with that.

Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,006
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
-->
@Stephen
Start your own thread, you may be able to keep up with that.
I am going to start my first thread which is a case for the historical Jesus.

Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Shila
I am going to start my first thread which is a case for the historical Jesus.

 Nice. 
BrotherD.Thomas
BrotherD.Thomas's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,145
3
3
7
BrotherD.Thomas's avatar
BrotherD.Thomas
3
3
7
-->
@Shila

.
Shila,

YOUR QUOTE IN YOUR UNGODLY POST #803 IN GOING AGAINST JESUS' TRUE WORDS AS YAHWEH GOD INCARNATE: "I am going to start my first thread which is a case for the historical Jesus."

What part of the following passages don't you understand as a mere "second class" woman, you Bible fool?!?

“But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp the authority over the man, but to be in silence.” (Timothy 2:12) 

“ But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ and the head of the woman in man. For the man is not of the women; but the woman of the man.” (1Corinthians 11: 3,8 ) 

“I find more bitter than death the woman who is a snare, whose heart is a trap and whose hands are chains. The man who pleases God will escape her, but the sinner she will ensnare.” (Ecclesiastes 7:26)


NEXT SECOND CLASS WOMAN LIKE SHILA THAT GOES DIRECTLY AGAINST JESUS THE CHRIST'S TRUE WORDS WILL BE ...?

.
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@3RU7AL
so, FUNCTIONALLY each person needs to figure out FOR THEMSELVES what they believe is "right" and what is "wrong" ?
Yes, if what they believe aligns with God.
BrotherD.Thomas
BrotherD.Thomas's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,145
3
3
7
BrotherD.Thomas's avatar
BrotherD.Thomas
3
3
7
-->
@Stephen
@Shila


Stephen,

Your quote of "nice" regarding the ungodly act of Shila creating a thread of the historical Jesus, will not be NICE for her in going directly against Jesus' true words relative to the 2nd class woman as I have shown in my post #805!   If Shila creates said thread, LET THE BLOODLETTING TOWARDS HER BEGIN IN THE NAME OF JESUS, PRAISE!

“Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves." (Matthew 7:15)


.
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,006
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
-->
@BrotherD.Thomas
--> @Shila

.
Shila,

YOUR QUOTE IN YOUR UNGODLY POST #803 IN GOING AGAINST JESUS' TRUE WORDS AS YAHWEH GOD INCARNATE: "I am going to start my first thread which is a case for the historical Jesus."

What part of the following passages don't you understand as a mere "second class" woman, you Bible fool?!?

“But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp the authority over the man, but to be in silence.” (Timothy 2:12) 

“ But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ and the head of the woman in man. For the man is not of the women; but the woman of the man.” (1Corinthians 11: 3,8 ) 

“I find more bitter than death the woman who is a snare, whose heart is a trap and whose hands are chains. The man who pleases God will escape her, but the sinner she will ensnare.” (Ecclesiastes 7:26)


NEXT SECOND CLASS WOMAN LIKE SHILA THAT GOES DIRECTLY AGAINST JESUS THE CHRIST'S TRUE WORDS WILL BE ...?
You forget it was women that anointed Jesus.

Interesting Holy Bible Facts

Which Woman Anointed Our Lord Jesus Christ With Oil?
In the Holy Gospels, there are different accounts of women who anointed our Lord Jesus Christ with oil. The first one mentioned is in Luke 7:36-50. The second is mentioned in John 12:1-8. The third is mentioned in Mark 14:3-9 also recorded in Matthew 26:6-13.

+When we look closely into these three accounts, we find that they were actually three separate events that occurred on three separate days in three different places by three different women.


In the New Testament, Jesus Christ reveals Himself as our anointed King, Priest, and Prophet. He is God’s Holy and chosen Son, the Messiah. In fact, Messiah, which literally means “anointed one,” is derived from the Hebrew word for “anointed.” Christ (Gr. Christos) means “the anointed one.”

All this was possible because the women anointed Jesus thus fulfilling the prophesies.

Your scriptural ignorance is very telling.
BrotherD.Thomas
BrotherD.Thomas's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,145
3
3
7
BrotherD.Thomas's avatar
BrotherD.Thomas
3
3
7
-->
@Shila

YOUR LAUGHABLE AND IGNORANT QUOTE REGARDING THAT WOMEN ARE TO REMAIN SILENT!!!: "You forget it was women that anointed Jesus."

So what Bible fool? The 2nd class woman can anoint Jesus until Hell freezes over, but the biblical FACT remains in what Jesus' inspired words thought about women as shown below, period!

AGAIN, What part of the following passages don't you understand as a mere "second class" woman, you Bible fool?!?

“But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp the authority over the man, but to be in silence.” (Timothy 2:12) 

“ But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ and the head of the woman in man. For the man is not of the women; but the woman of the man.” (1Corinthians 11: 3,8 ) 

“I find more bitter than death the woman who is a snare, whose heart is a trap and whose hands are chains. The man who pleases God will escape her, but the sinner she will ensnare.” (Ecclesiastes 7:26)


THINK, YOU IGNORANT BIBLE FOOL WOMAN, ARE YOU SAYING THAT THE PASSAGES AGAINST WOMEN SHOWN ABOVE DO NOT EXIST AND ARE NOT TO BE FOLLOWED?  WELL?  Not only are you saying the Bible contradicts itself, then you have the Satanic audacity to preclude that you are not to follow Jesus' inspired words explicitly shown above which is BLASPHEME! EVERY word of God is flawless; he is a shield to those who take refuge in him.“ (Proverbs 30:5)


As I have stated many times before, you do not belong within this forum, and it would be better for you to establish yourself in a "Christian Children's Religion Forum" instead of being with adults in this forum that have forgotten more about the Bible than you will EVER LEARN about it, understood Shila the 2nd class woman Bible fool?


BE GONE YOU MINION OF SATAN SHILA THAT CONTINUES TO SLAP JESUS IN THE FACE RELATIVE TO HIS TRUE WORDS WITHIN THE SCRIPTURES!


Oh, if you Satanically stay, Jesus and I DARE YOU to create a thread of the "historical Jesus," or are you too SCARED to do so? Huh, little dumbfounded 2nd class woman?!  Boo hoo, little cry-baby Shila!  LOL!


NEXT?

.

Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@BrotherD.Thomas
Your quote of "nice" regarding the ungodly act of Shila creating a thread of the historical Jesus,

 It will come as some relief to me Brother D. Is all we have had from her up to now have been pointless posts that have been for the best part irrelevant to any of the billions of threads that she has taken the time to resurrect from years back. 

In fact, me being an atheist I would like to see her make an original case for an historical Jesus actually existing. 



will not be NICE for her in going directly against Jesus' true words relative to the 2nd class woman as I have shown in my post #805!

 I understand that perfectly Brother D. And after all, she has been adamant that the bible should be taken literally at all times.



  If Shila creates said thread, LET THE BLOODLETTING TOWARDS HER BEGIN IN THE NAME OF JESUS, PRAISE!

Well I believe everyone here rides at their own risk with every comment and claim they make even if it shows them to be complete bible ignorant clowns or exposed as narcissistic "god chosen" pastors or priests with god complexes and suffering from one personality disorder or another.

So let the bloodletting begin. ...

Let's us wait for this new thread.