Are you claiming hitler was a liar? Odd. https://media.scored.co/scale/1nFVNNB2rllbJKcF.jpeg
Haven't seen any evidence he is goverment. "troll" By that logic all who don't share our beliefs are trolls.
So you accept the fact there is only one correct worldview?
Point?
An unhealthy constrained environment is best for birth! Cramming people is definitely not a bad and unhealthy environment for giving birth!
Ridiculous argument.
Don't forget when hitler himself ADMITTED to belief in "milliohs of years" idea, proving he didn't trust Genesis.
"Muh KEEEEEEEEEDZ!!!"
What really grinds the gears is his bashing of Kirk.
That is the only reason ever that people would want kids! Only ever bad reasons!
Lol
He is an atheist. Therefore, is anyone surprised about his beliefs or behavior?
The more plausible explanation is 1, she is greedy for the spotlight or 2, whoever is behind this wants to convey a "Stands strong and be united" message.
Asset? More like atheist.
no evidence he is a natalist as you define it
Plenty of things to rebut!
Just in: This X account may have its source rooted in demonrat propaganda.
You?
"blame the Jozz!"
You have the wrong person then.
describes his own posts
What
the Bible absolutely does approve of Digital ID as a way of censorship
What a stretch. And false. Give Verses. You claim to support morality, so THAT must mean you want censorship.
Christianity is great, it provides far more of a bulwark against comminism and nazzism than atheism ever has and could.
Christianity is great. It provides far more of a bulwark against comminism and nazzism than atheism ever has and could.
Isaiah 1:18 : "Come now, and let us reason together,” Says the LORD, “Though your sins are as scarlet, They will be as white as snow; Though they are red like crimson, They will be like wool."
Matthew 23:37 : "And He said to him, “ ‘YOU SHALL LOVE THE LORD YOUR GOD WITH ALL YOUR HEART, AND WITH ALL YOUR SOUL, AND WITH ALL YOUR MIND.’"
1 Peter 3:15 : "but sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts, always being ready to make a defense to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you, yet with gentleness and reverence;"
Also, would you prefer anarchy and moral reletavism?
"I am very surprised that a nonChristian does an unBiblical thing!!!!" JG5 makes shocked face
That's what Christianity does too.
https://openBible.info/topics/freedom
The OPPOSITE.
Didn't historically happen,
and even if it did it wouldn't practically affect a person.
Nor do 90%+ of any other historical facts.
God's Word lives within you and throughout all Creation,
How so? You're starting to admit to General Revelation. Now go full Christian from here on out.
not on paper.
Both. You really think God would limit Himself to vague ephemeral unreliable human feelz and tuck Himself away in people? No no no.
Christians who feel changed after something like Christian baptism, or saying a come to Jesus prayer, created that feeling within themselves (no Jesus no God involved).
If that were so then athiests and agnostics would do that with regularity, too. Also the nature of the change is vastly different, so wrong again.
but if you put forth effort that warm fuzzy feeling
That's only one component. Thanks for admitting you don't really understand a Relationship with God.
We each are God in a divided state. To find God, you must find yourself first.
If humanity made up a religion, it would be that one. Because humans are prideful narcissists.
The resurrection
Of what?
People, like Christians, who base their morality on what God supposedly said in a book, like a Bible, are not capable of grasping that there are no right or wrong choices in life.
It's false. We can grasp it. That belief is, however, an incorrect one. The cabal loves "No gods no masters" beliefs like yours because that very belief power all their evil tyrannical choices, and lets them feel relaxed whilst doing so.
Every experience in life is a learning opportunity.
Yep
"Didn't historically happen" you say.
Tiberius Caesar's historians recorded Pontius Pilate's rule in Judea. Flavius Josephus documents James the brother of Jesus being stoned. Tacitus mentions 'Christus' suffering under Pilate. Even your precious science confirms the Shroud of Turin contains actual crucified man's blood with AB antigens common among Semites. You want evidence? History's drowning in it. The Damascus Road event. 500 eyewitnesses saw the resurrected Christ, many martyred refusing to recant. Archaeological digs keep confirming Luke's minute details: the Pool of Siloam, Pilate's ring found in 1968, Caiaphas' ossuary.
Acts 26:26. First-century Jerusalem wasn't some backwater where you could fabricate miracles unnoticed. The Sanhedrin had every motive to disprove the resurrection yet couldn't produce the body. Roman guards don't abandon posts for hallucinations, and grieving fishermen don't suddenly turn into fearless evangelists over a shared delusion. Ever handled a denarius minted under Tiberius? That's empirical evidence staring you in the face, the very coin Christ referenced when saying 'render unto Caesar.' Archaeology keeps vindicating Luke's precision: the Pavement where Jesus stood before Pilate unearthed in 1871, the Nazareth decree threatening grave robbers from Caesar's era. Your 'no evidence' claim evaporates under scrutiny like morning fog. Why do you accept Tacitus reporting Nero's persecution of Christians but reject his Annals 15.44 confirming Christ's execution? You trust Pliny the Younger's letters about Christians worshipping Christ as God yet dismiss their historicity. The same methods verifying Alexander the Great's existence. Multiple independent sources, enemy attestation, eyewitness accounts, all apply to Jesus. Consider the conversion of Paul the Pharisee who persecuted Christians until Damascus Road. His transformation defies psychological precedent as no zealot abandons prestige to embrace a movement they once slaughtered without overwhelming evidence. His undisputed epistles predate the Gospels, referencing Jesus' resurrection as historical fact while hundreds of eyewitnesses still lived.
You demand 'evidence' while ignoring historiography's basics. The New Testament has more manuscript evidence than Caesar's Gallic Wars. 5,800 Greek manuscripts versus ten for Caesar, some copied centuries later. Yet you believe in Caesar. Hypocrisy much? The John Rylands fragment dates within decades of the original gospel, closer to events than Tacitus' Nero accounts you accept. Your selective skepticism is intellectual dishonesty masquerading as rigor. John 21 records the resurrected Jesus preparing meals, tactile, olfactory proof. Women were first witnesses despite their legal testimony being inadmissible in Jewish courts. The empty tomb narrative persists in early creedal formulas predating the Gospels. 1 Corinthians 15:3-7 quotes oral traditions dating within five years of the crucifixion. Your 'no evidence' stance crumbles under its own weight.
Wen was the last time you interviewed an ancient historian who met Alexander the Great? Yet you accept his existence based on Arrian and Plutarch writing centuries later. Why then reject Josephus' first-century reference to Jesus as 'a wise man who performed surprising deeds'? The difference isn't methodology, it's presupposition. You'll believe twelve men conspired to die for a lie they invented, but reject twelve men dying for a truth they witnessed. That's not skepticism, but psychological implausibility dressed as intellectual superiority.
It looks like you have another belief that humans are an incapable of getting along.
Strawman. Would you like to know the real thing I believe?
And I think you're right in the circumstance in which we find ourselves.
What did I supposedly say?
However if the circumstances were different if the society wasn't subjected to fake religions and fake nations and all the deceptions that are going around then maybe we could be totally different.
Earlier you claimed that people were trying to divide us. Now you say they are trying to unite us.
It's a speculation hypothesis which cannot be disproven or proven.
The Solid Ground is the Creator and His Word.
But it also means that what you said is disproved
Quote it.
I don't think grabbing on traditional religious dogmas makes a person stronger.
...which is why you need the Bible, not men traditions like the catholics.
I think scientific method, logical reasoning, is the strongest form that we can use to understand the world around us,
Isaiah 1:18 : "Come now, and let us reason together,” Says the LORD, “Though your sins are as scarlet, They will be as white as snow; Though they are red like crimson, They will be like wool."
Matthew 23:37 : "And He said to him, “ ‘YOU SHALL LOVE THE LORD YOUR GOD WITH ALL YOUR HEART, AND WITH ALL YOUR SOUL, AND WITH ALL YOUR MIND.’"
1 Peter 3:15 : "but sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts, always being ready to make a defense to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you, yet with gentleness and reverence;"
Like I said before nothing really matters.
So you claim we can't know what the Afterlife is like but you imply we can know this. Absurd.
What you do what you believe will make a difference after you're dead.
True.
Consequences can only be experienced during life as far as we know. To speculate there are consequences in the afterlife as to how you lived your human life, would be a bit ignorant and gullible.
People do know about the afterlife, and some details. Not all of us.
Think about what is right and what is wrong according to an all-knowing all experiencing source of knowledge.
What?
Why would this overwhelming love that people feel when they have near-death experiences care about you r*ing puppies or whatever disgusting thing you did in this life.
Because that's how love works?? Why shouldn't a parent care about something nasty their kid did, for example??
In the end it doesn't matter what you did there is no hell or heaven there is just everything.
What?
Thanks NonChristians! https://i.imgflip.com/aeqc9z.jpg
They were catholic?