A Question for S.T.Ranger
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 4 Votes - 2 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
02-06-2012, 10:16 PM
RE: A Question for S.T.Ranger
(02-06-2012 09:59 PM)Jedah Wrote:  
(02-06-2012 09:33 PM)houseofcantor Wrote:  Of course I'm an addict, silly. Now I'm just addicted to Gwyneth Paltrow. Big Grin
Did you check this one yet, bro?

Of course. Don't mean I cannot check it out again. Big Grin

But I am stupidly in love with that poor girl. Every coupla days I search for new Gwynnies. Heart

[Image: klingon_zps7e68578a.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like houseofcantor's post
02-06-2012, 10:37 PM
RE: A Question for S.T.Ranger
(02-06-2012 10:16 PM)houseofcantor Wrote:  
(02-06-2012 09:59 PM)Jedah Wrote:  Did you check this one yet, bro?

Of course. Don't mean I cannot check it out again. Big Grin

But I am stupidly in love with that poor girl. Every coupla days I search for new Gwynnies. Heart

With all due respect, bro.
I have to say she is far away from "girl" for a long time... Evil_monster


BornGwyneth Kate Paltrow
(1972-09-27) September 27, 1972 (age 39)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gwyneth_Paltrow



Old god is dying. Let's embrace the new one~!




Life is too important to be taken seriously.
- Oscar Wilde
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Jedah's post
02-06-2012, 10:43 PM
RE: A Question for S.T.Ranger
He's put so much time and effort into this post, yet has said fuck all. I'm not going to hold my breath waiting for a succinct reply. I must admit I'm interested in the amount of pathology here. I keep wanting to give him a chance to redeem himself, although I guess I should just accept that it's never going to happen.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Mark Fulton's post
03-06-2012, 02:27 AM
RE: A Question for S.T.Ranger
(02-06-2012 10:37 PM)Jedah Wrote:  With all due respect, bro.
I have to say she is far away from "girl" for a long time... Evil_monster

[Image: oh-no-you-diint-emu.jpg]

Been having "a thing" for Kristen Stewart lately, but Gwyneth I just adore foreverz. Big Grin

[Image: klingon_zps7e68578a.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like houseofcantor's post
03-06-2012, 03:04 AM (This post was last modified: 03-06-2012 04:26 AM by Jedah.)
RE: A Question for S.T.Ranger
(03-06-2012 02:27 AM)houseofcantor Wrote:  
(02-06-2012 10:37 PM)Jedah Wrote:  Been having "a thing" for Kristen Stewart lately, but Gwyneth I just adore foreverz. Big Grin

""I (Gwyneth) am the Lord thy God. Thou shalt have no other gods before me."" Big Grin


For real: Gwyneth has a quality that rarely seem among Hollywood actress. I was highly impressed by her performance in "Shakespeare in Love". However, she didn't get many roles to manifest her unique quality recently. She definately deserves something better than IRON MAN.

She is a "girl" Big Grin more than gorgeous and another underrated star in Hollywood.


We r discussing theism, yes? Big Grin

Life is too important to be taken seriously.
- Oscar Wilde
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Jedah's post
03-06-2012, 06:26 AM (This post was last modified: 03-06-2012 06:34 AM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: A Question for S.T.Ranger
Mark Fulton Wrote:ST, I'll ask



Mark Fulton Wrote:you again,



Mark Fulton Wrote:would you please state your views



Mark Fulton Wrote:about the"new covenant?



Mark Fulton Wrote:No more bullshit, excuses, rambling, navel gazing

Mark, one must speak the language of grasshoppers.

And when yer all done with that, S.T., we're waiting to hear about the Johnannine gospel, and Greek Gnosticism.
For EVERY babble quote, 1 external reference is required.

As for "so context is important now " ?
Dude ... that's MY argument from 1st post. You don't know the context. Babble study tell one NOTHING about context. THAT is precisely the problem here.

Thank you for agreeing there is no "doctrine of christ". (There IS no "doctrine of light").

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Bucky Ball's post
03-06-2012, 06:53 AM
RE: A Question for S.T.Ranger
(03-06-2012 03:04 AM)Jedah Wrote:  We r discussing theism, yes? Big Grin

Well, yeah. Wink

Like many theists, ST is professing "good works" brought about by "faith in god." Yet he introduces qualifiers such as "medical supervision" and "if I worked as hard for God as I did for drugs, that'd be something." I don't see how that can be evidence - even of the anecdotal variety - when my experiences due to being in love with Gwyneth are quantitatively similar and qualitatively superior. And as for faith, one time some punk tried to relieve me of my CD player - which my Gwynnies got for me, kinda - by sticking a gun in my face. And I said, I love you Gwynnies! and went after him. That experience was the beginning of my profession of faith, cause I be dying and shit, rather than let someone take my Gwynnies from me. Funny thing is, that I have faith is recognized by all, regardless of religion or lack thereof - which is how it's supposed to be according to the books - there ain't no "different faiths." That's a bunch of claptrap originated by the evangelicals of the nineteenth century who launched a successful campaign to alter the meaning of the word "faith" to mean "religion," much like the homosexuals did with the word "gay."

Thus to me it seems he is not testifying but rather proselytizing. Other than being sweet and adorable, there's noting special, nothing divine, about Gwyneth Paltrow. Whatever benefit accrued through my love of her came from within, not without. Just like a witch who has greater effect with a focus or a familiar, it still ain't the cat that's where it's at, it's the witch. What these theists are doing - Christians most plainly - is committing idolatry.

[Image: klingon_zps7e68578a.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like houseofcantor's post
03-06-2012, 07:07 AM
RE: A Question for S.T.Ranger
(03-06-2012 06:26 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Mark, one must speak the language of grasshoppers.

I was thinking, crickets. A whole lot of chirping to little purpose other than to be annoying. Big Grin

[Image: klingon_zps7e68578a.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes houseofcantor's post
03-06-2012, 07:47 AM
RE: A Question for S.T.Ranger
Okay, since the responses will go unanswered, I will just mention again the statement of Christ in Matthew 26:28 (and corresponding passages) and ask if He is speaking of the New Covenant or not?

It is suggested that Paul originated the concept of the New Covenant, yet, instead of actually looking at what is recorded in the books from which the doctrine is derived, it is merely stated "Paul made it up."



Matthew 26:28

King James Version (KJV)

28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.



One verse. That is alll it takes to call into question the assertion that Paul originated the concept of not only the New Covenant, but the atonement of the Cross.

I have not said "You must believe!" I have only questioned the basis for your belief. I am repeatedly told that I am not only stupid, but ignorant, yet, I have responded to every question and commment in detail, only to be met with more teenage antics.

lol

Do you really think an objective observer of these conversations are going to think you guys have offered intelligent response?

Is it really necessary to divert attention from one thing to another? How much more simple can I make this? Here is the question again: Is the Lord Jesus Christ speaking about the New Covenant or not? It's not a trick question...just a question. If that can be answered, whether yea or nay, then we can talk about it.


May God bless the individual that seems to miss my post ending (<---look guys, set that one up for you...have fun...lol).

I hope all of you have a great day, and will just give a little bit of thought to what has been discussed thus far. It is my hope that by examining the basis of our beliefs we might discover something that we have not previously considered.

GTY
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-06-2012, 07:56 AM
RE: A Question for S.T.Ranger
ST, you're a theist on an atheist board, of course you're gonna take flak. Keep a steady hand on the yoke, you'll get past the AA batteries (or get shot down Tongue), but lookit KC. Not only tolerated but well liked, because he became part of the community rather than being an aloof proselytizer.

So then, no. 'Cause "blood," to peeps back in the day, equated to "spirit" or "life force." They did the science. Something that lives, loses all its blood, ain't living no morez. So, the way I take it, is that this quote's use of the term "blood" is congruent to Paul's call to be "baptized in spirit." I can't believe that peeps think there's some actual vampirism going on here.

[Image: klingon_zps7e68578a.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: