Which version of Christianity is the right one?

[rampant.a.i.]

Written by the victors, no less.

[TheWordsoftheBeast]

(01-03-2014 01:40 PM)kingschosen Wrote:  TheWordsoftheBeast, just want to give you a heads up:

Satanists have probably received the same if not more opposition like theists from the majority of atheists and agnostics here.

Why?

Quote:Expect some opposition eventually if you continue to delve into you Satanism. I also see that you're somewhat of a firecracker, so expect some headbutting, again, if you continue to expound and talk about your system of belief.

I wouldn't have made a decision like embracing Satanism, if I wasn't aware of opposition. Pleasure to be called a firecracker by the way. Hopefully I will catch something on fire.

I wouldn't describe Satanism as a system of belief. I see it as a philosophical position that is as unique and various as each individual. You don't have to believe in anything , especially not the supernatural, to support the Satanist philosophy.

Quote:I know you probably wouldn't be, but I just don't want you to get caught off guard.

I am no stranger to conflict. I doubt it would surprise you that people don't react well to Satanism, or Satanists as a rule. I am thoroughly tested and undefeated.

[Deltabravo]

TWotB
You should just watch Pokemon videos on Youtube. It is at the same level you are at.

Roar!

[TheWordsoftheBeast]

(02-03-2014 12:38 AM)Deltabravo Wrote:  TWotB
You should just watch Pokemon videos on Youtube. It is at the same level you are at.

Roar!

Wow. You're scary, you and your cartoons.

[Drich]

(02-03-2014 12:22 AM)rampant.a.i. Wrote:  Written by the victors, no less.

Didn't quite make it through the op huh?

[Drich]

(01-03-2014 04:36 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  You have tried to turn a discussion about the origin and legitimacy of the Bible into a discussion of what is a primary, secondary or tertiary source...you're just avoiding discussing the real issues.

Legitimacy of source material is the foundation of the discussion you are pretending to have.

If you really want to have this discussion based other sources that source material needs to be scrutinized, and categorized.

Quote:You're also lying by implying your spelling mistakes are deliberate. You also can't be bothered fixing, or getting someone to fix, your grammatical errors.

If you start to stick to the topic, correct your spelling and grammar so we don't have to guess what you're trying to say, and start being honest, we can debate. Otherwise....sod off.

My spelling and grammar errors are legitimate. I truly do not see a issue here. I use to have my secretary or wife proof everything. Do you want to know why I stopped? Because that was not me. This is who I am. This is what I do. When I stopped getting my work proofed, I noticed those who were looking for a way to stop the conversation, but maintain their pride, used my weakness as a panic stop button.

Before, [/quote][/code]when I approached you guys without any perceivable errors I made some serious enemies. People truly hated me because they didnot have an out.

Look at your situation. Provided a list of tertiary references when asked to back my arguments. Looking for an opportunity to discuss line by line each point escalating source material as needed. What did you do? You dumped a 4000 word summary of a collection of tertiary sources you compiled (which btw was not consistent with all that you quoted.)

When confronted with your fallacious reasoning, your misrepresenting of your source material, and offered the opportunity to have a proper discussion.. What did you do? Did you take me up on my offer or did you default to citing my short comings as a viable reason to to bow out? What if I did not have these short comings for you to cite as your reason to bow out? WhT if I kept escalating the discussion beyond your ability or even desire to continue, and your only way out was to concede in one form or another to me?

This way you have a way out and can still maintain the illusion of pride and superiority. All it will cost is some of your integrity.

[cjlr]

(02-03-2014 10:35 AM)Drich Wrote:  When confronted with your fallacious reasoning, your misrepresenting of your source material, and offered the opportunity to have a proper discussion.. What did you do? Did you take me up on my offer or did you default to citing my short comings as a viable reason to to bow out? What if I did not have these short comings for you to cite as your reason to bow out? WhT if I kept escalating the discussion beyond your ability or even desire to continue, and your only way out was to concede in one form or another to me?

I'd just like to take a moment here to bask in the bewildering aura of a delusional mind.

Cognitive dissonance: a hell of a thing.

[rampant.a.i.]

(02-03-2014 09:56 AM)Drich Wrote:  

(02-03-2014 12:22 AM)rampant.a.i. Wrote:  Written by the victors, no less.

Didn't quite make it through the op huh?

Figures a Winston Churchill quote would whizz right over your head.

Also, I can't help but notice you previously claimed your spelling and grammatical errors were inserted "to weed out the dishonest" and in your last post, you claim they're legitimate, and that you "used to have your wife proof read your posts before you posted them."

Tools > Manage Add-Ons > Spelling Correction > Enable Spelling Correction checkbox.

[Mark Fulton]

Drich, read what you've written....slowly.

"If you really want to have this discussion based other sources that source material needs to be scrutinized, and categorised."

"Look at your situation. Provided a list of tertiary references when asked to back my arguments."

"Looking for an opportunity to discuss line by line each point escalating source material as needed."

Seriously....honestly....I'm not going to repeatedly try to make sense out of what you're saying. This is NOT an excuse for not replying to your supposedly superior arguments. This is NOT an attempt to belittle you to "win" an argument. I'm sure I speak for everyone by insisting you get an editor.

[goodwithoutgod]

Nice Mark