Templar crosses. An expression of papal loyalty.
(media.scored.co)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (31)
sorted by:
Removed for rule 1 violation, will be approved upon edit of the first sentence.
I’ll remove the sentence when you also delete the comment to which it’s replying, attacking the person and not the argument. Don’t fucking play games with me. You want rules? I’ll give you rules.
Pretty sure the previous comment was observations between the two of yours history, I don't see how it's an attack.
My request stands.
Read: lies.
Fortunately for the rules, your opinions on this matter aren’t relevant. It’s an attack. Remove it.
You'd be surprised. I recall you thinking you know how those laws work and your assuming that they can't possibly be used to create a universe currently in its 6,018th year. I tell everyone else to work with me to select criteria by which a particular new law of physics can be discerned objectively and undeniably, but they always back down long before we get into full negotiations. If you're interested in constructing a test of laws of physics where you would be willing to submit to its results, let me know.
But somehow, reading your mind, I think you're not referring to miracles generally but only taking a swipe at the number of Swamp Rangers being irrelevant as not affecting the results of your life. So far I'm the only Ranger with a mission on Scored, the same mission in Christ you claim BTW. And I'm very happy with the progress of my work with you. Sometime we can engage another round of mutual learning.
No. I wouldn’t. God created them. You can’t violate them.
Your memory is irrelevant to the immutability of the physical laws of the universe.
Didn’t happen. Try again with actual physical evidence.
Did that. You rejected those laws of physics because they hurt your feelings.
You mean like how you were unable to prove by any metric whatsoever that “the speed of light has changed”? That backing down?
Translation: “Engaging in strawmen because what was written hurt my feelings.”
Oh, so you admit to having sockpuppets.
The God you deny, you mean.
This is an attack on the person, not the argument.
Lotta violations today, my fren, is there something I can do to help you two talk more productively?
Oh, not to complain about your modship, but I don't think he was attacking me, he's relying upon his fallacious interpretation of my past comments that he failed to process correctly last time. IMHO.
Unevidenced complaints against my character fail because they are unevidenced. Evidenced complaints against my character fail because the full evidence acquits me, by God's grace. Win-win.
Ask him for evidence. [The one time he dared to produce a lot of evidence, three of his sources were all literally Hebrew University. But oh look, that link of his was taken down from SearchVoat and unarchived so he'll have to find a new one if he wants to keep quoting the U. To start, the three sources were: Mail, "Huge drop in sperm count could lead to human EXTINCTION: Study reveals 60% drop in fertility since 1970 - driven by the unhealthy Western lifestyle." Guardian, "The infertility crisis is beyond doubt. Now scientists must find the cause." News Target, "CONFIRMED: Sperm count in Western men is HALF what it should be; what is happening to the average American man?"]
Completely incorrect. By way of analogy, an explanation.
“When a person swearing an oath about something (O: in the future, affirming or denying that it will occur) includes the expression ‘in sha’ Allah’ (if Allah wills) before finishing the oath, then the oath is not broken in any event if he thereby intends to provide for exceptions. But if he merely says it out of habit, not intending to make an exception to his oath, or if he says it after having finished swearing the oath, then the exception is not valid (O: because when an oath has been completed, its efficacy is established and not eradicable by a statement of exception).” ~ Reliance of the Traveler, O19.5
Astute readers will notice the strong similarities between this form of lawyerly hairsplitting and that of the jewish Talmud. How does this behavior work in practice? Surah 1 is a supplication Muslims make to Allah (seventeen times a day) to keep them from the path of “those with whom Allah is angry” and “those who have lost their way.” This includes Christians. A Christian who objects to this denigration will be met with, “Surah 1 never mentions Christians,” and be expected to accept this as a refutation of his concerns. In responding this way, a Muslim is practicing tawriya. Though Surah 1 does not mention Christians by name, Muslims know the words “those” in Surah 1 refers to Christians and all others who are not Muslim. Another example is the Muslim response to a greeting of “Merry Christmas!” He might say, “I wish you the best.” You believe he has returned a Christmas greeting or at least reflects your happiness at the general state of the season. In actuality, he has expressed his wish for you to convert to Islam. He wishes the best for you in his subjective, sophistic view–that you will become a Muslim.
And so irrespective of the user’s use of the word ‘God’, it does not mean the same entity as the one in the preexisting conversation.
Actually enforce the actual rules as actually written. Or just ban lies, that way we don’t have to retread the same kike arguments every single fucking second of every single fucking day when they keep spamming disproven bullshit over and over.
If you think I deny Christ, then when I affirm his mission (even as he defines it to you) then you should thank me for stepping in the right direction. If you have no evangel for those who affirm Christ's mission, what evangel do you have?
SwampRangers.com has always admitted to being a membership organization.
Your inability to acknowledge a difference between what is thought and what is said continues, which was my initial point.
Now, perhaps you recognize that the laws of physics as we know them are incomplete and perhaps you recognize that those deeper laws that God has preset, such as the ones he uses for "miracles" and "resurrections", are also part of the laws of physics, but your inability to acknowledge difference between thought and word suggests you don't recognize this either.
If you recognize that the laws as known are incomplete, you'd have no problem with variable lightspeed; but if you believe constant lightspeed is the whole of the law then you'd be surprised, as I said. Of course when we discussed it you hemmed and hawed, sometimes going with millions and sometimes with billions, without indicating what you actually believe. So I'm not sure you want the debate.
The challenge I lay to people is as to new experiments that can be constructed. We can talk that if you like, but you seem to prefer to deal with interpretation of evidence already submitted. To that end I submit that the resurrection of Jesus in 33 AD (with 3D photographic evidence recorded in the Shroud of Turin) demonstrated an exception to currently-known laws of physics. The spontaneous reorganization of the body and soul into the glorified life displayed by Jesus (and a number of others at various times) requires energy from currently-unknown sources and may even require violation of current lightspeed assumptions.
Do you mean the laws as known by God (in which case variable lightspeed need not violate those laws)? Or do you mean the laws as currently known by man (in which case the resurrection does violate those laws)?
Your point is bullshit, yeah.
Please think that gravity doesn’t exist and you can fly if you just wish hard enough.
“If you recognize the laws are incomplete, then you admit 2+2≠4!” ~ the mentally deranged
More bullshit, yeah.
More bullshit, yeah. You were the only one saying, “it doesn’t matter how old it really is as long as it isn’t as old as it’s known to be!”
Did, though.
The jew cries out in pain as it strikes you.