A reasonable blog on atheism, religion, science and skepticism
Follow Patheos Atheist:
From Jesus and Mo:
I just crucified myself the other day. How else are we supposed to forgive people? Without blood being spilled, I refuse to forgive anyone.
By the way, bunnies don’t lay chocolate eggs. That’s just ridiculous.
But yes, blood had to be spilled..
All things have properties, and God’s is his holiness.
We weren’t able to connect with God because God’s holiness cannot stand our sinful nature. Jesus was a sacrifice that had to be made to make humans fitting for God.
Unreasonable it may sound to some people, but it’s unreasonable for Christians to reason with God.
“We weren’t able to connect with God because God’s holiness cannot stand our sinful nature.”
Well, obviously our sinful nature cooties are the problem. And Christ’s blood is the magical anti-cooties bleach that washes us clean, so that we may enter into the sanitized, Howard Hughes-like presence of the omnipotent cootie-detesting creator.
Yup, all makes sense now…
well. a tele-evangelist a while ago explain it as an enema from god… but i think your explain of the “facts” are better
Ah Easter, when we celebrate the solar deity of Jesus. The “sun” “rises” symbolizing the spring equinox – when the sun defeats the darkness and day becomes longer than night. Let’s throw in some fertility symbols (rabbits, eggs) for good measure. Come on crops, grow!
Peeps are also good for other things:
do not blaspheme the blessed easter candy. cadbury eggs are fine! those and marshmallow peeps are the perfect things to eat after the long lenten fasting.
We weren’t able to connect with God because God’s holiness cannot stand our sinful nature. Jesus was a sacrifice that had to be made to make humans fitting for God.
But god is omnipotent, no? So instead of sacrificing his son (who is also himself) he could have just snapped with his fingers and saved us all. Easy as an easter egg.
Unreasonable it may sound to Christians, but it’s unreasonable for Christians to reason with reason. Or something.
Poor Daniel. His theological ignorance makes him get all twisty with rope and ties himself up. Poor Daniel. He thought by participating and doing all the right things and saying all the right things, the things he thought were the right things to do and say, it magically made him a believer. Not!
Sorry Daniel. The bitter pill you swallowed which now washes over you like a brooding juvenile of constant malcontent was manufactured by you, not God, and is the result of your ignorance, not enlightenment as demonstrated here by your ignorance as to why God himself through the second person of the Trinity accomplished our salvation the way he did. But you didn’t even bother to learn those facts.
Guys don’t tell Alex Guggenheim to stop posting here! We need someone with half a brain to debate with! He seems refreshingly smart! Much better than, Jesus is love and in you, type talk right? Alex, stick around and debate with us. We need you. Otherwise we’re no better than a congregation drinking coffee and eating doughnuts after church! Please do explain what you mean when you say:
“Our Lord used sarcasm on more than one occasion”
I would love to hear more about the omnipotent being’s use of sarcasm. Thanks and please keep posting.
Hey, I’m actually curious as to what Alex has to say. Not that I have any say in any of this. Just curious thats all..
Pingback: Chaz’s Lifestream » Blog Archive » Daily Digest for 2009-03-30
You deny the truth of Cadbury’s? HERETIC!
But god and jesus are two personalities in the same entity, right? So god killed himself? And if god was willing to forgive us, why couldn’t he do it without killing himself, since he’s omnipotent? And why are you dodging the chocolate eggs issue?
“. . . it’s unreasonable for Christians to reason with God.”
You worship a god that requires horrific bloody sacrifice to make us “fitting” for him . . . because he is holy. A Jewish man who was hung on a cross 2,000 years ago somehow makes me good enough for god.
Your right. Any Christian that questions that is completely unreasonable. Although excessively eating candy to celebrate a man’s execution is pretty awesome.
“Unreasonable it may sound to some people, but it’s unreasonable for Christians to reason with God.”
So. On top of being petty, vindictive, juvenile, bloodthirsty, savage, and a racist (against his own creation!), you’re saying that your deity is pigheaded and intransigent? If you can’t even reason or engage in some kind of one-on-one exchange with your deity, and it refuses to be moved by anything that its creation (that it allegedly loves–to the point of suicide) says, then what kind of deity are you worshipping? And why would you worship something that, if it were human, we’d have diagnosed with a bevy of personality disorders, charged with a boatload of crimes, put on trial and have had locked away for the protection of humanity?
it’s unreasonable for Christians to reason with God ?
Can you not hear how many shades of st00pid you sound ? – If you cannot hold up to the light, and examine, the way you live your life, you’re no better than a blind buffoon.
Someone should create a website where people can discuss this kind of “unreasonable faith”, it could be called unreasonable fai…..
oh, ok, carry on as you were
There was a photoshop of a children’s book cover I saw (I think it was on SomethingAwful), and the picture was of a chocolate bunny and happy children, and the title of the book was photoshopped to say:
Thanks for dying, Jesus.
THIS CANDY IS AWESOME!
Hail Cadbury, full of cream, the Easter Bunny is with thee; blessed art thou among eggs, and blessed is the result of thy consumption, obesity.
Oh, those eggs are terrible. Gack, that filling is so sickly sweet even thinking about it makes me gag.
No, give me a nice, semi bitter 85% chocolate bunny, with no sugary slime hidden inside.
At least something worthwhile came out of it. I love easter candy.
That is kind of ass-backwards when (if) you really think about it. Gawd, the eternal, omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient creator of the universe is SOOOOOOOOOO offended by the few things that an infinitesimally tiny fraction of His creation does that He can’t “stand our sinful nature.” What the hell does that even mean, anyway? God takes out a Temporary Restraining Order? Actually, such an argument makes God appear to be a very petty, very fragile entity (who can’t be arsed to make His dictates clear to begin with–or even give humanity an updated list of what really cheeses him off) who needs a galactic dose of Effexor.
I agree with Ty.
Slime? Icking ridiculous.
Word. To me, there is something repulsive about those ‘creamy surprise’ or ‘burst of juice’ foods.
For example, Gushers gummies. Disgusting.
Since stumbling across those little horrors, I almost have trouble eating cherry tomatoes.
Remember “Cum Gum”? The nasty gum with the liquid center that squirted white-hot, sinus numbing breath freshener in your mouth?
Man – those eggs are the only good thing about Easter!
Well that and exploding peeps in the microwave.
and wasnt the name “Easter” stolen by the Christians from the Norse Goddess Eastre?
Darn – that just won’t work here in the southern hemisphere because we’re heading into autumn.
What were they thinking?
Oh thats right – according to the bible the earth is flat so the can’t be a southern hemisphere. Hmmm, so this is ‘ell ‘ey?
Oh thats right – according to the bible the earth is flat so there can’t be a southern hemisphere. Hmmm, so this is ‘ell ‘ey?
Now, I disagree again.
I like juice. I don’t like slime.
The juice in Gushers I like. The slime in Cadbury’s I don’t. I see a difference between juice and slime.
Unfortunately our little movement is having another schism…chalk up another heretic.
I am just really put off by the idea of hidden goo. Regardless of kind.
I hate surprises. Especially when they involve mouthfeel.
Cherry tomatoes are out for me. No way. *gag*
That’s debatable. There is some good Easter candy, for sure, but most of it is just plain gut churning.
For discussion of cadbury creme eggs see above. But then there’s the peeps. Oh, how I hate them. Every time I look at a box of them, in their little rank and file, with their fluorescent, angry faces pressed up against the cellophane, I can’t help but see a little sugar army waiting to lay siege to my islets of langerhans.
Ahh, we agree again. Peeps are clearly disgusting. I never got why people liked them? They’re just starch, right?
Peeps are good for one thing: Smores.
I could totally get behind roasting one of those little demons alive, and then smashing him to oblivion between crackers.
yes… *rubs hands together* That’s the “ascended-into-firey-hell-before-arising-the-third-minute-and-sittith-in-my-mouth”-Easter spirit!
oops- ascended should be descended (it’s late!)
I shouldn’t like Cadbury creme eggs for pretty much the reason that everyone outlined; they’re too damn sweet. And yet I do. I love ‘em. I’m pretty sure it was because I had them a lot when I was very young; youthful conditioning and all that.
On the other hand, peeps. Ugh. They ain’t got no reason to live.
Either the Gaelic Ēostre, or the Assyrian Ishtar, depending on who you ask.
RE: Lenten fasting:
That was something I NEVER understood. Growing up in the Church of Christ, we didn’t do such things, so when I met folk who did the whole Ash Wednesday-Lenten fasting bit, I was like, “So…you’re ‘giving up’ something? Why?” Mind you, even though I’d left fundamentalism, I still believed in Invisible Sky Friend and his suicidal son Jeebus, so I wasn’t one to wholly criticize. However, I never could figure out what the fasting had to do with Easter. When people would ask, “What are you giving up for Lent?” I’d smile and say “Not a damned thing.”
I gave up religion for Lent.
re: Lenten Fasting
It’s supposed to be a mini-simulation of Jesus’ forty days of temptation in the wilderness; an exercise of self-restraint.
I’ve never tried fasting for Lent. Even when I was religious, I belonged to a religion which didn’t do these things. But I don’t think it’s silly. In fact, I might try it some time. I suspect a short period of deprivation can be good for the soul (whatever that is).
And the ritual of it is no harm either. Ritual is good, as long as you don’t ascribe too much importance to it or punish others for not joining in.
oops – sorry for the double click
in the southern hemisphere all mouse clicks work in reverse *sheepish grin*
*snort* – I am so going to use that reply next time!!
I’ve told some of my work colleagues that I gave up Catholicism for lent.
It’s cool, because we generally go out for lunch as a group, and everyone else orders some kind of fish dish, and I’m there with a big, sloppy burger, or a steak, or something.
… or if it was *so* offended it could have just siad “the hell with you naughty naughty humans” and created a new lot that would been more confromal
oh please, do educate us
we would all love you to share your infinite wisdom with us
pray do tell why we should believe this absurdly ridiculous fairytale
If the definition of each religious “fact” has varying interpretations among each of the various denominations of Christianity, then how could you say that it is, indeed, a fact?
You should stop posting on his blog!
That would show him!
“[Daniel] thought by participating and doing all the right things and saying all the right things, the things he thought were the right things to do and say, it magically made him a believer. Not!”
I’ll wager that that’s not at all what Daniel thought. I, of course, cannot speak for him, but I’ll wager that what he thought made him a “believer” is that he *believed* Christianity was true. No “magically made” transformations necessary. You believe that something is true; you change your mind. Wow!
Alex, why is it that you come here?
In Russia, mouse clicks YOU.
Are you so lazy as to NOT read Daniel’s “faux” testimony? I thought so or else you would know his claim to a certain brand or school of theological training during is time he “claims” to have been a Christian and the very body of doctrine to which I am referring. These are the religious facts Daniel claims to have eventually repudiated, however it is quite apparent he never bothered to LEARN them.
… or he could tell us the truth
Go Al baby, I DOUBLE DARE you …
Yeah! I double god dare him!
I have read Daniel’s narrative. However, I did not let that trivial information interfere with his presentation of information and arguments.
Also, it’s entirely irrelevant whether he learned them or not, for my personal decision. I have my own experiences and my own knowledge; I can think for myself.
So, you believe that Daniel’s poor knowledge of Christian theology was responsible for his religion failing to make sense to him anymore?
The bottom line is, Daniel has stated numerous times on this blog (as have many of us), that he is willing to evaluate evidence. He has allowed every opportunity for people who believe that the theological arguments are good enough to warrant belief to speak their minds.
However, many posters such as yourself, instead of presenting arguments or evidence for Christianity, descend to a level of pettiness that would probably shame Jesus himself, if he were around.
P.S. — Jesus probably wouldn’t have made fun of my pseudonym either.
Oh, and when you said that you weren’t being uncivil a few days ago — well, you’re being uncivil right now. Why else would you trash my nickname? Why else would you insult Daniel by mocking his testimony?
Facts are stubborn things.
Perhaps someone could explain what exactly I’m so ignorant about regarding Christian theology. Though I’ve read numerous systematic theologies and countless theological books of many flavors, I’m realize I don’t know everything about it. So Alex, feel free to enlighten me about what I so obviously missed in all those years of study.
What I find mostly amusing is I remember arguing the same thing as you against unbelievers when I was a Christian.
You have my old theology all wrong. You seem to think I was so soppy arminian who thought if they went to church enough and “got saved” enough times, they’d go to heaven. On the contrary, I was in the reformed tradition for most of my journey.
However, do appreciate that you didn’t yawn in this comment — but you did have your usual complains and whines.
Our Lord used sarcasm on more than one occasion so the imagined confidence that your “posting name” would be free from parody is just that, imagination (you really should read the Bible if you are going to argue its points). But then, you don’t even believe in our Lord and suddenly you insist there is something he would do in your favor…deliciously ironic!
But let’s look at your rambling. Here is what you said:
“I have read Daniel’s narrative. However, I did not let that trivial information interfere…
Uh, knock knock, hello…wake up teletubbie, the “narrative” is quite relevant and the furthest thing from trivial. His testimony of rejection of Christianity is based IN PART in his theological orientation and its failure. Trivial? LOL it is the basis for his rejection in a significant way in his claim of its failure.
But you do have one point, it was trivial to Daniel in reality, because he FAILED to learn the SOTERIOLOGY of his own sect, ultimately becoming an enlarged ignoramus regarding the very things he parodies but failed to even study, hence his “faux” claim of being a Christian.
So according to you Daniel claims he is willing to examine evidence eh? Well either YOU or DANIEL is a liar or self-deceived and in need of mature pardons regularly. Why? Because he didn’t even bother to learn WHY Christ was born into the human race, its relevancy to humanity’s salvation, the angelic conflict, human history, angelic history and Divine history. How do I know? Because his arguments never get beyond the confusion of why. Any second year believer would know the answers to that and he doesn’t.
Yeah, Daniel is the big investigator, the big listener, the big discoverer, yet he couldn’t even take the time to discover the doctrines he claims he once held to and now rejects and demonstrates so here in his ignorance of why, whether he agrees or not, our Lord lived, died and suffered the way he did for man’s salvation.
Nope, wrong again.
He does the religious justifications for sacrificing Jesus.
He’s just pointing out that they’re stupid, and logically unsupportable.
This is Daniel pointing and laughing at your ludicrous beliefs, not because he doesn’t understand them, but because he does.
I suggested a few words from Jesus because, well, you decided that you wanted to follow him. It was not because he would work in my favor, but because I felt that you were being an enormous hypocrite, which I feel that you continue to be.
Also, when sarcasm is malicious, it crosses a certain line. You are destructive with your comments. Your criticisms are harsh and mostly devoid of serious content — they are hardly constructive.
Also Alex, I meant that Daniel’s narrative is not relevant to *MY* rejection of Christianity. Nice straw man, sir.
“Because he didn’t even bother to learn WHY Christ was born into the human race, its relevancy to humanity’s salvation, the angelic conflict, human history, angelic history and Divine history. How do I know? Because his arguments never get beyond the confusion of why.”
Yeah, I have to admit, it is rather curious that you are calling me a liar. But hey, those who would believe absurdities would commit atrocities, right pal?
You know what, I think Daniel is familiar with all of these things. From your perspective, it may appear that he is mired in “the confusion of why”, but I beg to differ. To me, he is illuminating the absurdity of these religious claims.
Now, you may differ in the assessment of these claims, and posit that they are not absurd. Well, you’re certainly welcome to your opinions in that regard. However, you have had a chance to provide knowledge which would demonstrate that these beliefs are not absurd, and yet you have failed to do so — rather you have chosen to make a caricature of Daniel and other posters instead. I feel that this was a sad choice on your part.
You know something? You have your opportunity right now, and you don’t even realize it. Instead you carp. Nice job.
Alex, how exactly do you know I “FAILED to learn the SOTERIOLOGY of [my] own sect”? On the contrary, I taught sunday school and wrote academic papers and essays on it. I could rattle off the ordo salutis and “defend biblically” why I thought it was in a certain order. I could also explain why others thought it was in a different order.
Do you really think you can possibly know what I did or didn’t know about certain theological issues without asking me?
I find your arrogance astounding and your accusations insulting.
And I have no idea why you are here. You’re not converting anyone, and you’re not making any friends, either. You are routinely insulting. Perhaps it’s time to move along somewhere else?
You mentioned “the angelic conflict, angelic history”. Could you please list all the specific verses about angels (because it was my understanding, you know, having read both the bible and the apocrypha and all, that stories about the history of angels come from OUTSIDE the bible).
Ummmmm… has anyone notices that Alex has yet to answer my direct question about angelic history and the bible????
Actually I had different ideas about this at different times — there are many different perspectives on this in evangelicalism.
At first, I thought I was a Christian because I “asked Jesus into my heart” and had a significant life change. Yes, I believed in Jesus, but I thought the demons believed in him too, and that didn’t save them.
Later, I thought I was a Christian because God elected me and changed me, and that was why I believed (that is, I was a Calvinist).
After that, I decided there was probably no such thing as a “soul” and that the mind and body was all we had. God used natural means (that is, people and the bible) to make himself look so good that we had no choice but to believe. But no supernatural heart surgery or anything like that.
Then I decided the whole thing was a bunch of baloney. Of course, this is a very oversimplified summary of a long journey.
Congratulations the Calvinist did at least teach you to parrot the word “Arminian” when trying to insult someone.
I am neither and you, you Daniel were a sucker for your own intentions and own inventions thinking being “religious” and joining “Christians” on your own terms and some how acquiescing to their requirements made you own.
I don’t buy it for a second.
But Daniel you manifest the minimal, the most elementary understanding of Reformed or any other theology or you wouldn’t post anything presenting yourself in the posture of ignorance regarding WHY our Lord became our Savior in the manner he did. You would at least have the dignity to fairly, rightly and conscionably represent their arguments and your rebuttals. You don’t and the reason why? Because you don’t know them.
Oh Alex, please teach us The True Way. Give us this Secret Knowledge that only you possess and we just don’t and can’t understand. You’re so respectable and kind that I’m sure we’ll all believe whatever you say.
Secret? If you are so “informed” you should know it isn’t a secret.
That was truly excellent! I can’t believe it took phenol to dissolve the peep! Hmmmm… *wonders about twinkies*
Daniel: “At first, I thought I was a Christian because I..”[etc]
I understand all of your reasoning, above. However, in his mocking you..i.e..”poor Daniel”, etc. Guggenheim used the word “believer”; he did not use the word “Christian”.
One can profess that they are a “Christian”(or former Christian), and people can come along and try to dispute it….i.e…”there’s no such thing as an EX-christian!!!”….or….”you were never a True Christian!…..neener, neener!!!”, and so forth. However, one doesn’t *think* they are a “believer”(active); one *knows* it. “Belief” makes you a “believer”. You of course know whether or not you believe a given proposition; no one else can determine that for you. In other words, it was his slip-up when he used the word “believer”, in the above. Nothing shocking, really.
And as I already knew, none of what you said regarding the “Gospel” had to do with the “Gospel”.
DaMan “… or if it was *so* offended it could have just siad “the hell with you naughty naughty humans” and created a new lot that would been more conformal”
lol kinda foolish to imagine god created just one intelligent race in this vast, vast universe isn’t it? Hell this is but one of an infinite number of universes! We are but one of a zillion, zillion intelligent races. A zillion times that, that have already come and gone! We’re just a little smudge on the windshield of all there is. Our entire universe may be dangling precariously from a blade of grass in another world in another universe… (credit to Stephen King, The Dark Tower)
“Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the Earth.”
Sounds sarcastic to me.
As to Alex, I just wonder what drives him to come here and heap very personal abuse upon people he’s never met. It strikes me as very odd. I reminds me of nothing so much as a very precocious fourteen-year-old, in which case the simultaneous disdain and arrogance which he wields comes with the territory and is eminently excusable.
I wouldn’t go so far as to say what he does is ‘debate’, though. “You wanted Argument? This is Abuse. Argument is down the hall.”
“We need someone with half a brain to debate with! He seems refreshingly smart!”
Please tell me that was sarcasm.
Thank you and time permitting I will certainly do so. Yes, our Lord used sarcasm, in fact biting sarcasm to make a point.
Thank you for the invite for a continued dialog and debate. You may not agree with me but…you are at least not interested in just hearing an echo of your own thoughts, nor I for that matter.
Because Successful Troll is Successful. Either that, or this guy’s faith is so weak that he has to loudly remind himself (and others) that No True Chrisian ever de-converts. Especially important for a Calvinian like him, since otherwise it would imply that God (in His Infinite Wisdom) predestined Daniel to join with Christ then go to Hell. Which is just plain shady.
I’d be much more interested in what he had to say if it weren’t laden with insults, that’s all.
thats the problem, he doesnt seem to have anything to say other than “you guys are wrong because I say so”
Its like telling someone that their favorite season is crap.
Thanks…now, it seems even MORE stupid. Unless they’re willing to go trotting off into whatever wilderness happens to be handy and nearby and, um, ACTUALLY fasting 40 days and nights (good luck with that!), then it all seems a bit meaningless to me. But then, people will say, “Oh, but Roger, we can’t possibly do what Jesus did! He was divine!” To that I say: bollocks!
A couple of people told me once they were giving up cursing for Lent. I was so tempted to say, “Well, shit. Good fucking luck with that!”
Ok, I am so using “double god dare him” from now on.
That might explain it, maybe Alex is young. He uses big words in contexts where it seems like he kinda gets the meaning – yet he doesn’t really take his logic anywhere. It would make sense if he were a teenager who did most of his theological reading on from the internet.
Well, you interpret as “heaping” insults and so on upon others, which is precisely why my presence remains a mystery to you. Enlarge your considerations a bit as to my purpose beyond personalized reasons.
This reminds my of how Christians are always moving the goalposts when debating Christians.
From this exchange, it seems some Christians can easily become gnostics – they have some “secret knowledge” about God and theology that us ex-Christians lack – never mind that many of us spent decades attending church 3 or more times a week, being part-time missionaries, even going to a Baptist college to learn to be a youth minister.
You have the christians who, when debating evolution and the big bang, says “Well, couldn’t it be possible that there is some force out there that started it all?” Do they not realize they are arguing against the god of the Bible when saying that?
Then you have the ones who say us ex-christians never TRULY believed, even though I remember vividly the day I felt with all my heart I was a lot sinner in need of a savior, going down tearfully in front of the church, confession I needed Jesus in my life, and striving as hard as possible to develop a relationship with, what at the time I was convinced was a very real and very personal god. Then, twenty years later, when I began to doubt, I feared more than anything that there wasn’t god. It was the greatest fear I have ever faced. I prayed, and prayed, every night for months, that god would easy my doubts, and let me know that he was real and was with me. I prayed until I cried, and I cried until I could cry no more. I never wanted to abandon god, but I had to come to the point where I was honest with myself and say “he doesn’t exist.”
Well, that’s the point of the vast majority of cultural rituals, secular or sectarian. It refreshes the importance of a particular past or formative act without having to go through the whole thing again. It’s like the pledge of allegiance standing in place of the requirement to actually bleed for your country.
Cultures assign meaning through the mechanism of ritual; to the extent that all rituals are “silly” I suppose the Lenten fast is as well, but it doesn’t seem to me much more ridiculous than most of those we don’t give a second thought about.
Summer is crap.
I also think that Alex his own faith is weak so he is overcompensating by pretending that he is a real believer.
Maybe it’s because of the burning suspicion that someone, somewhere, doesn’t agree with him.
“Come to bed, honey.”
“I can’t. Someone is wrong on the Internet!”
Is English not your first language?
Your presence is hardly a mystery. Now, here’s a challenge: present reliable, empirical evidence and proof of the existence of your deity, and I shall give you a fair hearing.
Since all you seem to succeed at doing is piss people off, if you have a larger design, erm…it isn’t being met.
Summer totally sucks. Fall rules. :)
oh for christ’s sake alexandra gogglebrain, please spare us the cryptic allusions
if you have knowledge to share then share it already
if not, go troll somewhere else
“And as I already knew, none of what you said regarding the “Gospel” had to do with the “Gospel”.”
He knows all.
Everyone gather round to worship at the fount of stupidity of Alex.
The hits keep coming from Successful Troll. I bow my head to you, sir. Teach me. Teach me your ways, that I may be lulzier than the lulziest /b/tard.
so much posting … so little debating … so much trolling
c’mon alexsis – have the balls tell us exactly and precisely what you believe in, no cryptic references, no sarcasm, not what others do or don’t believe in your opinion.
just tell us – crystal clear and without imbellishment – what do you believe?
… if you can manage that, then let the debate begin …
until then – *plonk*
Alex kind of reminds me of Ignatius J. Reilly.
Notice that I don’t give Barry the shit that I give John C or Alex.
Barry presents his thoughts in a rational manner. I disagree with him almost always, but I can see the logical framework on which he’s building his ideas. When Barry gives philosophical justifications for his interpenetration of texts/ideas, I actually read and think about what he’s said.
It’s possible to defend the theist position with intelligence.
You don’t HAVE to be a jack ass, you know.
Wow, did spell checker do a number on THAT word.
-You give me shit? You thought your pebbles amounted to even shit? You are kidding…right?
My theory grows stronger.
*nods head in agreement* with Elemenope
I don’t think it is–Do you think Alex has more than half a brain?
He’s worse than the usual run of godbots. Thinks he’s a wit, and he’s half-right.
You’re both screweded-up wrong poopyheads. Winter wrocks. ‘Cos I say so.
Enter your email address:
Delivered by FeedBurner
Follow Patheos on
Copyright 2008-2013, Patheos. All rights reserved.