-->
@cristo71
I was circumcised, if you are curious.
Here Is Why I Dont Believe In Science
Posts
Total:
76
-->
@Best.Korea
Was it a scientist who did it?
-->
@cristo71
Yes. I was circumcised by science. Thats how I know science is evil.
-->
@cristo71
Episode 1: The Fateful Decision
In a small town lived young David, an innocent and carefree boy. One day, his parents made a decision that would alter his life forever – they decided to have him circumcised. Oblivious to the pain and sadness that awaited him, David was taken to the hospital, his heart pounding with uncertainty.
Episode 2: The Cold Operating Room
As the doors of the operating room swung open, a coldness settled upon David's skin. The sterile environment reeked of anxiety, further intensifying his fear. He lay there, trembling, as strangers surrounded him, ready to carry out the irreversible procedure. The beeping machines seemed to mirror the racing of his little heart.
Episode 3: The Surgeon's Blade
With a chilling precision, the surgeon's blade sliced through David's sensitive flesh. A searing pain spread through his entire body, eliciting a blood-curdling scream. His cries echoed off the sterile walls, but it seemed no one cared about his anguish. In that moment, he felt betrayed by his parents, robbed of his autonomy.
Episode 4: The Haunting Memories
Days turned into weeks, but the pain from the circumcision persisted, forever etched into David's memory. Each time he looked down, he was reminded of the agony he endured. He withdrew from his family and friends, haunted by the persistent ache and the cruel fate imposed upon him.
Episode 5: The Dreadful Nightmares
As night fell, David's sleep became tormented by dreadful nightmares. Vivid images of the surgical instruments, stained with his blood, invaded his dreams. He woke up in a cold sweat, his heart pounding, only to be confronted by the reality that he would never truly heal, physically or emotionally.
Episode 6: The Lonely Journey
Growing up, David felt an overwhelming sense of isolation. His peers couldn't comprehend the profound sadness he carried within, the pain they didn't even know was possible. He yearned for companionship, for someone who could understand the depths of his suffering, but he was left to bear the burden alone.
Episode 7: The Masked Smile
David masked his true emotions behind a smile, pretending that everything was fine when it wasn't. He became a master of concealment, hiding his deep-seated sadness behind a façade of normalcy. But underneath it all, the weight of his pain became unbearable, threatening to consume him entirely.
Episode 8: The Cry for Help
Finally unable to bear the burden any longer, David reached a breaking point. He sought solace in therapy, attempting to mend the shattered pieces of his soul. Each session, he laid bare the pain he had carried for years, hoping that the therapist would offer a glimmer of understanding, a path to healing.
Episode 9: The Bittersweet Glimpse
As the therapy sessions progressed, David discovered a group of survivors who had experienced similar pain and trauma from circumcision. They formed a bond, sharing their stories and finding solace in one another's pain. For a fleeting moment, David glimpsed the possibility of healing, of forging a new path together.
Episode 10: The Tragic Legacy
But fate had a cruel twist in store for David. One by one, his newfound friends succumbed to the darkness within, unable to escape the haunting memories that plagued them. The weight of their collective pain became too much to bear, and David was left alone once more, his hopes dashed.
Episode 11: The Final Descent
In the depths of despair, David made a decision that would bring an end to his agony. Overwhelmed by the relentless pain and haunted by the trauma he had suffered, he succumbed to the darkness that had lingered within him for far too long. In his final act, he hoped to find peace, free from the anguish he had endured.
Episode 12: The Lingering Sorrow
The town mourned the loss of David, a boy whose pain had gone unnoticed until it consumed him entirely. His parents, burdened by guilt, were left to grapple with the devastating consequences of their irreversible decision. The tale of David's pain and suffering became a cautionary tale, a haunting reminder of the importance of empathy and understanding.
In the end, David's story serves as a somber reminder of the long-lasting effects of trauma, and how one decision, made without consent, can shape an individual's life forever. It is a chilling tale of pain, loneliness, and the devastating consequences of choices made in ignorance.
AI really can whip up quite a tale…
-->
@cristo71
I had to learn a lot about instructing AI. Its not as simple as "Write me a story about circumcision".
You actually have to try and properly guide AI to make a story using a quality prompt to avoid issues.
-->
@DavidAZ
I told you that you it would not prove anything to you.Or anyone else of sound minded level-headedness.I'm just ignorant right?
I cannot speak for other subjects but you certainly are when it comes to the subject that you preach to others and proclaim to be true; such as the bible.
You have such a bitterness to the things of God that you have to try to destroy everything pertaining to him.
Well from my own understanding , reading and studying of the BIBLE, the god of the BIBLE doesn't display anything worth liking. In fact the god of the BIBLE displays for us every reason to be in fear of him leaving me with no desire to love him.
But you are more welcome to re-educate me on why I have everything wrong about the BIBLICAL god and the BIBLE. I would certainly appreciate it as long as you have the supporting BIBLICAL evidence that proves your assertions and claims .
You never told us why you are so bitter. Why are you just a pissy old man?
🤣
-->
@Tradesecret
As I stated.
Word play and mind games Trade.
One can neither prove nor disprove something that cannot be proved nor disproved.
So logically, if a concept cannot be proved to be correct then disproof is unnecessary.
Similarly, logic infers that if a concept can be proved to be correct then disproof is also unnecessary.
Therefore proof is always the necessary requirement.
Nonetheless, a concept is proof of itself.
Therefore contrary concepts are equally valid.
And so conceptually, GOD is both correct and incorrect.
Science is a tad irrelevant.
In so much as science can only determine the processes of though, but cannot validate an abstract idea.
-->
@Tradesecret
The agnostic premise is this: Nothing about God can be known. And it is a useful statement as it is essentially the starting premise for most scientists and atheists. And even for some theists.This is a self-contradicting statement. It proves God exists on a logical and philosophical level. It says - for those who can't figure out how it is self-contradictory the following:The one thing we can know about God is that we can know nothing about God. It is akin to another famous self-contradiction. There is absolutely no such thing as an absolute.
If you are claiming this proves God exists it would really be helpful to start by defining God.
Beyond that, the agnostic premise is not that nothing about God can be known. This is wrong in two ways:
1) Agnosticism is the position that God's existence is not knowable. This is as I just stated, a position (aka conclusion), not a premise. How one arrived at that conclusion is another question and ultimately unique to each individual.
2) It's a contradictory statement because you structured it that way. When you say nothing about God can be known, you're saying it as if it's a given fact that God exists. Well of course, of one presumes to know that a God exists while also presuming to know that nothing about said God could be known, that sounds like a contradiction. But that position is by definition, not agnosticism or atheism.
Lastly, even if we accept your premise, how does those prove a God exists?
what would be acceptable evidence to prove that such an actual God exists? Who will fit the criteria and the measurements for such an equation? Someone who believes in that God or someone who doesn't. Both persons are going to be either biased in favour or biased against. That is unavoidable and therefore produces a dilemma. There is no such thing as an unbiased person in this situation. Someone who is neutral. It, therefore, means that according to our own scientific methodology that such a study would never achieve an unbiased result.
Bias is not the arrival of a conclusion that differs from someone else's, it's a cognitive phenomenon where one's starting presumptions impair the individual's ability to follow valid and consistent logical processes to it's conclusion. Or more simply, it's what causes one to lead the evidence rather than follow it.
The idea that we begin with a belief, and then find a methodology to fit said belief is itself a description of bias. To claim that is unavoidable is to claim it's not possible to think about this logically.
The evaluation of any existential claim must begin with an epistemological methodology. We then follow that methodology to arrive at our conclusion. If you're arguing that this is biased against God then you're arguing against logic itself, which is untenable.
-->
@Double_R
The agnostic premise is this: Nothing about God can be known. And it is a useful statement as it is essentially the starting premise for most scientists and atheists. And even for some theists.This is a self-contradicting statement. It proves God exists on a logical and philosophical level. It says - for those who can't figure out how it is self-contradictory the following:The one thing we can know about God is that we can know nothing about God. It is akin to another famous self-contradiction. There is absolutely no such thing as an absolute.If you are claiming this proves God exists it would really be helpful to start by defining God.
thanks for the response. I am attempting to prove a god exists. Not any specific god. To define God is flawed on many levels. One reason is - that if I get the definition wrong, and someone proves my definition doesn't exist, doesn't actually prove that God doesn't exist. On the other hand, one wonders why an atheist needs a definition to prove God doesn't exist. That would sound reasonably prejudiced.
But what is god? God is one level a concept and on another level, a super evolved human with supernatural powers, on another level, there are many gods, who are superhuman, and on another level there is the idea of a god who created people with freewill and another one who didn't. For me, the essence of God means authority and creator. I could quote a definition from the shorter or larger catechisms if you wanted. But for me - the definition of God is not actually relevant to the proving of god.
Beyond that, the agnostic premise is not that nothing about God can be known. This is wrong in two ways:1) Agnosticism is the position that God's existence is not knowable. This is as I just stated, a position (aka conclusion), not a premise. How one arrived at that conclusion is another question and ultimately unique to each individual.2) It's a contradictory statement because you structured it that way. When you say nothing about God can be known, you're saying it as if it's a given fact that God exists. Well of course, of one presumes to know that a God exists while also presuming to know that nothing about said God could be known, that sounds like a contradiction. But that position is by definition, not agnosticism or atheism.
I understand that the agnostic view was - "nothing of God can be known". You seem to be suggesting that it is a position and that God's existence is not knowable. I am not sure how that changes things. After all, how does an agnostic form a conclusion that god's existence is not knowable? It requires some form of definition of god, which most agnostics would not want to admit or concede.
Yes, I intentionally put it as a contradictory statement. I admit it and will continue to do so - since it is a self contradictory statement and it proves - ipso facto that god exists. At least on a philosophical level at a 100% level. Well beyond reasonable doubt. Of course - it doesn't prove which god exists.
Lastly, even if we accept your premise, how does those prove a God exists?
I think I explained that again. Still if not satisfactory - ask me again.
what would be acceptable evidence to prove that such an actual God exists? Who will fit the criteria and the measurements for such an equation? Someone who believes in that God or someone who doesn't. Both persons are going to be either biased in favour or biased against. That is unavoidable and therefore produces a dilemma. There is no such thing as an unbiased person in this situation. Someone who is neutral. It, therefore, means that according to our own scientific methodology that such a study would never achieve an unbiased result.Bias is not the arrival of a conclusion that differs from someone else's, it's a cognitive phenomenon where one's starting presumptions impair the individual's ability to follow valid and consistent logical processes to it's conclusion. Or more simply, it's what causes one to lead the evidence rather than follow it.The idea that we begin with a belief, and then find a methodology to fit said belief is itself a description of bias. To claim that is unavoidable is to claim it's not possible to think about this logically.The evaluation of any existential claim must begin with an epistemological methodology. We then follow that methodology to arrive at our conclusion. If you're arguing that this is biased against God then you're arguing against logic itself, which is untenable.
I accept that bias is an issue. It neither proves nor disproves. What it does do is create a situation whereby what truth is - becomes impossible to know. and that unfortunately is an unhelpful scenario. Hence why I suggest that in the case of God and I suspect quite a few other areas as well, such as left and right-wing politics, abortion, etc. requires a different methodology. I don't know how that is going to look - and I suspect you are correct that if it is not done properly -then it begs the question. but sadly bias is there in every person on some subjects. For example, what is the purpose of an athiest wanting to define God? The primary reason is to disprove he exists. Not to explore whether God exists - but to disprove. And that bias sadly needs to be ejected somehow.
I believe one million simulation programmers exist.
-->
@Tradesecret
I could quote a definition from the shorter or larger catechisms if you wanted. But for me - the definition of God is not actually relevant to the proving of god.
If the goal is to have a rational dialog, it is not possible to have a conversation about whether something exists if you don’t define it.
I understand your point about someone proving one aspect of your definition wrong not disproving the concept itself, but without a definition we don’t even know what the concept is. It has to start there. If the person you’re interacting with is being intellectually honest that’s not going to be a significant hindrance.
how does an agnostic form a conclusion that god's existence is not knowable? It requires some form of definition of god, which most agnostics would not want to admit or concede.
I have no idea where you are getting that last part. Again, without a definition there’s nothing to discuss.
Agnostics are not the ones asserting a god, so I don’t understand why you think accepting a definition as provided by the theist asserting it for the sake of conversation is an admission.
But to the first part, agnostics assert that god is unknowable based on the general definition of god most frequently asserted. The details differ tremendously throughout the religious community, but generally speaking a god is said to be an all powerful being that exists outside of space and time. The problem is that we don’t have access to what if anything lies beyond space and time, so without having access to it we could never know if anything could exist there let alone does.
since it is a self contradictory statement and it proves - ipso facto that god exists. At least on a philosophical level at a 100% level.
A contradictory statement is nothing more than a statement that is logically inconsistent with itself. That does not prove the existence of anything.
what is the purpose of an athiest wanting to define God? The primary reason is to disprove he exists. Not to explore whether God exists - but to disprove.
Some atheists may only be interested in disproving your god assertion, that’s irrelevant to the fact that we cannot have a rational discussion about whether something exists without a definition of it.
But to your greater point here, the way we go about removing bias is to focus on our methodology for determining what’s true so that we can check ourselves against it. This is why we study epistemology, logical fallacies, etc. Anyone sincerely interested in truth will recognize that the only thing we should pride ourselves on is our ability to stick to valid logical principals in our evaluations and decision making. i.e. If you can show me the error in my thinking, I’ll correct it regardless of what that means for me or my stated position.
9 days later
-->
@Double_R
Thanks again for your response.
I could quote a definition from the shorter or larger catechisms if you wanted. But for me - the definition of God is not actually relevant to the proving of god.If the goal is to have a rational dialog, it is not possible to have a conversation about whether something exists if you don’t define it.
Ok.
I. There is but one only living and true God, who is infinite in being and perfection, a most pure spirit, invisible, without body, parts, or passions, immutable, immense, eternal, incomprehensible, almighty, most wise, most holy, most free, most absolute, working all things according to the counsel of his own immutable and most righteous will, for his own glory, most loving, gracious, merciful, long-suffering, abundant in goodness and truth, forgiving iniquity, transgression, and sin; the rewarder of them that diligently seek him; and withal most just and terrible in his judgments; hating all sin; and who will by no means clear the guilty.
II. God hath all life, glory, goodness, blessedness, in and of himself; and is alone in and unto himself all-sufficient, not standing in need of any creatures which he hath made, nor deriving any glory from them, but only manifesting his own glory in, by, unto, and upon them; he is the alone foundation of all being, of whom, through whom, and to whom, are all things; and hath most sovereign dominion over them, to do by them, for them, or upon them, whatsoever himself pleaseth. In his sight all things are open and manifest; his knowledge is infinite, infallible, and independent upon the creature; so as nothing is to him contingent or uncertain. He is most holy in all his counsels, in all his works, and in all his commands. To him is due from angels and men, and every other creature, whatsoever worship, service, or obedience he is pleased to require of them.
III. In the unity of the Godhead there be three Persons of one substance, power, and eternity: God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost. The Father is of none, neither begotten nor proceeding; the Son is eternally begotten of the Father; the Holy Ghost eternally proceeding from the Father and the Son. WCF chapter 2.
I'm not sure how that is going to help since I didn't attempt to prove that this God exists. But for me - I am happy to work with this definition.
I understand your point about someone proving one aspect of your definition wrong not disproving the concept itself, but without a definition we don’t even know what the concept is. It has to start there. If the person you’re interacting with is being intellectually honest that’s not going to be a significant hindrance.
As I said above, I think the concept of god is different to the definition of god. And to be honest I think EVEN providing a definition is going to a distraction to what we have been discussing. For I intentionally did not want to define god, since god is for many people a variety of things. This range of definitions is and has been difficult to define for good reason. It is a little bit like many things. For example, the concept of love. Everyone defines love differently. But does the fact that someone define love, and then that definition is refuted, actually deal with what love is? And the answer is no. The idea of love is abstract, not concrete, and therefore definitions need to be vague. the concept of God is abstract or is it concrete? I'd suggest something altogether different, spiritual. Yet that is neither concrete nor abstract and at the same time it is both. Like faith. Faith requires reason to underly it or it turns into mysticism. Blind faith is - stupid or mysticism.
how does an agnostic form a conclusion that god's existence is not knowable? It requires some form of definition of god, which most agnostics would not want to admit or concede.I have no idea where you are getting that last part. Again, without a definition there’s nothing to discuss.
Agnostics cannot admit to a definition of god. If they do then they admit they can know something about god.
Agnostics are not the ones asserting a god, so I don’t understand why you think accepting a definition as provided by the theist asserting it for the sake of conversation is an admission.
agnostics by their very definition are not denying or admitting the existence of god. And yet by their very existence, they are admitting that someone else has a definition of god, of whom they reason they can't possibly know. This last sentence must be true or else their very existence, agnostics is pointless. Also I don't quite understand your last part of your sentence. Would you reword for that me please?
But to the first part, agnostics assert that god is unknowable based on the general definition of god most frequently asserted. The details differ tremendously throughout the religious community, but generally speaking a god is said to be an all powerful being that exists outside of space and time. The problem is that we don’t have access to what if anything lies beyond space and time, so without having access to it we could never know if anything could exist there let alone does.
Ok. that first sentence makes sense. I'm not sure how general it is or how valid it is, but as a sentence and a thought it makes sense. Your second sentence is probably accurate as to a general conception of a monotheistic god. It doesn't apply to the rest of religion. It also doesn't really describe the sense in which most liberal - the general population of the church, would define God. Most liberals would deny God is omniscient and they would deny he is all-powerful. Ask the late Bishop Spong. A good representation of most of the academics and liberals in the Episcopalian, Lutheran, Uniting, and potentially the Roman Catholic Churches. God is not all powerful. I accept that a small amount of evangelical Christians probably hold to this view. those who haven't moved onto universalism. And I also accept that most Muslims would hold to this definition. As to the Jewish folk, that's hard to say. They seem to be more a mix of the Liberals and the Atheists these days. But they certainly in the OT hold to a monotheistic all powerful God.
I would also think that God not only exists outside of time and space but within it as well. Hence, if this part of the Agnostics reasoning - which you indicate it is - then their assumptions are going to always come to the conclusion that nothing within time and space would be able to assist in knowing God. This assumption of course - is an interesting one since it again implies "knowledge" about God.
since it is a self contradictory statement and it proves - ipso facto that god exists. At least on a philosophical level at a 100% level.A contradictory statement is nothing more than a statement that is logically inconsistent with itself. That does not prove the existence of anything.
Yes, it is a statement. yet it does prove something. It is not a scientific proof - it is a philosophical proof. It proves that the concept is valid. or invalid. Otherwise - we would choose not to use statements. And some people do I suppose. Yet reason and logic are one of the axioms of our society. As I said above, I hold to the view that this demonstrates god exists. It doesn't prove or define or show or reveal what god is. I concede that not having a definition therefore makes it very difficult to take that any further since it demonstrates not more than a concept. But it also demonstrates that agnosticism itself is a self-contradiction and that means that people ought to be theists or atheists. Personally, I would prefer to talk to an atheist or a theist. Even if we don't have a concept of definition. An agnostic by definition ought to be one who does not exist. And by their own definition, they actually reduce themselves to one or the other.
what is the purpose of an athiest wanting to define God? The primary reason is to disprove he exists. Not to explore whether God exists - but to disprove.Some atheists may only be interested in disproving your god assertion, that’s irrelevant to the fact that we cannot have a rational discussion about whether something exists without a definition of it.
Things exist - whether we have a definition or not. As I said, take love. take hate. Take any emotion. We can sort of define it. What about conscience. what about courage. Again, all have some kind of definition - but not concrete - not something that can't be refuted. And since they can all be refuted, like evil, then do they cease to exist? What is evil? Is it the absence of good? What is good? reducing everyone to definitions - that are concrete and immovable does not therefore prove it exists.
But to your greater point here, the way we go about removing bias is to focus on our methodology for determining what’s true so that we can check ourselves against it. This is why we study epistemology, logical fallacies, etc. Anyone sincerely interested in truth will recognize that the only thing we should pride ourselves on is our ability to stick to valid logical principals in our evaluations and decision making. i.e. If you can show me the error in my thinking, I’ll correct it regardless of what that means for me or my stated position.
bias is a problem. I don't believe it is possible to remove bias - especially in the area of religion. The question I think needs to move to how do we test or measure religion? The world has lots of different standards for obtaining proof. Even court rooms have - several kinds - beyond reasonable doubt, on the balance of probabilities, etc. there is scientific proof - there is mathematical proof, there is anecdotal evidence, circumstantial evidence, intuition. What is the standard required? And who is going to determine what that is?
-->
@Stephen
@Double_R
.
Stephen, as we truly know and that has been substantiated over time, Miss Tradesecret’s total unchristian like modus operandi in their gender went from a “MAN TO A WOMAN,” and then to “OTHER,” then went to her being 53 years old, then 12 years old, then changed to being 14 years old, Debate Runaway on Jesus' true MO, Bible denier of Jesus being God in the OT, the runaway to what division of Christianity she follows, the pseudo-christian that has committed the Unpardonable Sin, the number 1 Bible ignorant fool regarding the Noah's Ark narrative, SHE SAYS THAT OFFSPRING THAT CURSE THEIR PARENTS SHOULD BE KILLED, states there is FICTION within the scriptures, and is guilty of Revelation 22:18-19, 2 Timothy 4:3, and 1 Timothy 2:12. She obviously had ungodly Gender Reassignment Surgery, Satanic Bible Rewriter, she goes against Jesus in not helping the poor, teaches Christianity at Universities in a “blind leading the blind” scenario, and is a False Prophet, says that Jesus is rational when He commits abortions and makes His creation eat their children, and that Jesus is rational when He allows innocent babies to be smashed upon the rocks, will not debate me on the Trinity Doctrine or the Virgin Birth, has a myriad of EXCUSES not to answer your questions, and says that the Bible contradicts itself, she is a hypocrite, and she is "AN ADMITTED SEXUAL DEVIANT!”
MISS TRADESECRETS QUOTE IN HER UNGODLY POST #73 OF SLAPPING MY CHRISTIAN GOD JESUS IN THE FACE AGAIN: “I'm not sure how that is going to help since I didn't attempt to prove that this God exists.”
WHAT? “Attempt to prove that this God exists?! Our serial killer Jesus as God most certainly exists without question if Miss Tradesecret actually read her JUDEO-Christian Bible and accepted ALL, I repeat, ALL of its Jesus inspired words in proving that Jesus as God most certainly exists without any clap trap questionable statements by Miss Tradesecret which is BLASPHEME!
These biblical passages of many proves that our God exists without any question, period!
1. “For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. (Romans 1:20)
2 "To the choirmaster. A Psalm of David. The heavens declare the glory of God, and the sky above proclaims his handiwork.” (Psalm 19:1)
3. "And without faith it is impossible to please him, for whoever would draw near to God must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who seek him.” (Hebrews 11:6)
MISS TRADESECRETS QUOTE OF QUESTIONING GOD’S TRUE MODUS OPERANDI IN HER POST #73: “For I intentionally did not want to define god, since god is for many people a variety of things.”
How unchristian can you get if Miss Tradesecret doesn’t want to define our God? Jesus H. Christ, how can she be so ungodly when our serial killer Jesus is most certainly defined within the scriptures, and by taking His MO regarding the abortion issue as one of many other disturbing examples by Jesus, is as follows:
JESUS AS GOD MURDERED FETUS’ AND WILL SLAY THE BORN CHILD BECAUSE HE WAS PISSED AT THE PEOPLE OF EPHRAIM:
“As for Ephraim, their glory shall fly away like a bird, from the birth, and from the womb, and from the conception.Though they bring up their children, yet will I bereave them, that there shall not be a man left: yea, woe also to them when I depart from them! Ephraim, as I saw Tyrus, is planted in a pleasant place: but Ephraim shall bring forth his children to the murderer. Give them, O Lord: what wilt thou give? give them a miscarrying womb and dry breasts. All their wickedness is in Gilgal: for there I hated them: for the wickedness of their doings I will drive them out of mine house, I will love them no more: all their princes are revolters.
“Ephraim is smitten, their root is dried up, they shall bear no fruit: yea, though they bring forth, yet will I slay even the beloved fruit of their womb. (Hosea 9:11-16)
JESUS AS GOD PROMISED TO DASH TO PIECES THE INFANTS AND THEIR WOMEN SHALL WITH CHILD SHALL BE RIPPED OPEN WHICH IS BRUTAL BLOODY ABORTION!:
“The people of Samaria must bear the consequences of their guilt because they rebelled against their God. They will be killed by an invading army, their little ones dashed to death against the ground, their pregnant women ripped open by swords.” (Hosea 13:16)
JESUS AS GOD COMMANDS THE MURDERING OF INNOCENT SUCKLING INFANTS!:
“Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.” (1 Samuel 15:3)
Stephen, the TRUE MO of my Jesus as God is very disturbing at times, but this fact and acceptance of said abortion acts by Jesus comes with the territory of being a TRUE Christian like myself when Jesus is God (2 Peter 1:1).
.
-->
@BrotherD.Thomas
I read #73 that you referenced, Brother D.
I can only say it is simple more gobbledygook from a bible dunce trying to come across as intelligent and knowledgeable. I don't believe many here fall for his bullshite anymore. His sycophants have disappeared as has his believability as any type of "authority" on scripture.
-->
@Stephen
Stephen,
YOUR REVEALING AND TRUTHFUL QUOTE REGARDING MISS TRADESECRETS POST #73: "I can only say it is simple more gobbledygook from a bible dunce trying to come across as intelligent and knowledgeable"
Yes, Miss Tradesecret is who she pretend to be. I get banned for alleged wrongful situations, where other members did the same, where most of the them were shown not to be true, and here Miss Tradesecret is allowed to remain upon this very prestigious Religion forum for being so God Damned BIBLE STUPID!!! WTF?! Jesus is NOT smiling!
For the membership, in myself calling Tradesecret a woman is when she showed her gender as a female herewith: https://www.imagebam.com/view/MEB0WX8
Subsequent to Jesus' direct and inspired words and myself ALWAYS in having to correct Miss Tradesecret's Bible Buffoonery®️ then she has the audacity to post this statement in her biography: "Of course I believe I'm right, otherwise I'd believe something else." Whereas, in truth, we can't count the times we have had to Bible school her over the years! LOL!
Subjectively, the only true position that Miss Tradesecret has upon this Religion Forum is; "How not to be a Christian" when she posts!
.