[quote]Magicpunch wrote:
I agree. To be fair, ZEB has been courteous to me, but for some reason has taken a severe dislike to you and isn’t acting very adult about things. This is disappointing as I thought that he had some interesting things to say.[/quote]
Give it time. He has to cultivate his hostility, forlifes sexuality makes him an easy target for ZEBs ilk. I’m sure in no time you’ll be referred to as another liberal kid with no life experience.
[quote]Makavali wrote:
[quote]Magicpunch wrote:
I agree. To be fair, ZEB has been courteous to me, but for some reason has taken a severe dislike to you and isn’t acting very adult about things. This is disappointing as I thought that he had some interesting things to say.[/quote]
Give it time. He has to cultivate his hostility, forlifes sexuality makes him an easy target for ZEBs ilk. I’m sure in no time you’ll be referred to as another liberal kid with no life experience.[/quote]
You’ve gotten confused again, that would you not him. Other than age he is your complete opposite. He’s intelligent, thoughtful and always brings something to the table other than cartoons.
At least with me around ZEB now feels it’s necessary to at least pretend to respect people that disagree with him. Ignoring the fact that he called someone thoughtful, intelligent, and a liar in the same thread.
Forlife,
This is the line that you used on 11-29: [quote]Catholics see the virgin Mary and are saved by saints[/quote] Sloth even corrected you on it but you ignored it.
It’s not so much that you said something as ludicrous as Catholics think they are saved by saints. We all, on occasion, misquote something or write something that later on is proven wrong. It was the fact that you tried to deny writing it later on when called out.
And yes your integrity is in question. You can try making a short list of people whom you disagree with but never got personal, but that list does not include TB. I’ve read posts where he has in fact questioned your character because of your twisting of the facts and (in this case) events. Others have had similar experiences with you. When you write one thing and then deny it several posts later there’s just no covering it up, even if you edit your own post. Anyone who would not question such shenanigans is either not very bright or doesn’t have the balls to call a liar when he sees one.
You became so known for these antics that a couple of years ago you were dubbed “Forliar”. I have not mentioned that until recently, but I can’t help but recall how you slithered around lying and posting half truths then. One thing most who debate you can depend on, when your back is up against the wall you will attempt to lie your way out of it.
It would have been no big deal if you just manned up to your mistake and moved on, I even gave you that out. But you couldn’t do that.
It’s a shame you couldn’t change sloth’s retort to your post then you could be rid of that line and could continue to deny it.
You are one of a kind forlife…(shaking head) a real piece of work.
[quote]Makavali wrote:
At least with me around ZEB now feels it’s necessary to at least pretend to respect people that disagree with him.[/quote]
I will have to type s l o w l y as I know you are s l o w. Let’s just get this straight up front. I never respected you or your posts. You add nothing to the site, you’re a clown and not even an entertaining one at that. Can I be any more clear?
On the other hand, the person that you are trying to drag down to your level is a thoughtful individual. I have in fact had friendly PM exchanges with him as I have with many I disagree with on the board.
If you have a problem understanding this you can also PM me and I will be more than happy to explain it further. But try to refrain from sullying the thread any further with your garbage.
[quote]forlife wrote:
I guess you’ve never heard of someone’s life being saved?
[/quote]
You’re now claiming that in a discussion about God, religion and how to save your soul you are saying that Catholics claim their “life” can be saved by Saints? And that you didn’t mean their “soul”. But at least now you’re owning up to saying it.
Congrats forlife you’ve now sunk to a whole new level as you try to twist out of one lie claiming you never made such a statement, to a whole new lie, that you made the statement but it was about saving a persons life not their soul. And this you are saying well aware that I and all who read this know that the topic was specifically about saving souls and nothing to do with anyones life. Uh huh.
Wow.
Someone would have to be a full fledged retard at this point to not see yet one more of your blatant lies.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]Makavali wrote:
At least with me around ZEB now feels it’s necessary to at least pretend to respect people that disagree with him.[/quote]
I will have to type s l o w l y as I know you are s l o w. Let’s just get this straight up front. I never respected you or your posts. You add nothing to the site, you’re a clown and not even an entertaining one at that. Can I be any more clear?
On the other hand, the person that you are trying to drag down to your level is a thoughtful individual. I have in fact had friendly PM exchanges with him as I have with many I disagree with on the board.
If you have a problem understanding this you can also PM me and I will be more than happy to explain it further. But try to refrain from sullying the thread any further with your garbage.
[/quote]
It would be interesting to meet you in person. Not for any physical confrontation or anything, I’m just sure you wouldn’t have the balls to say half the stuff you post to anyones face.
I never said anything about you respecting me. I know you don’t, and I couldn’t care less what some small close minded internet tough guy across the ocean thinks of me. I’m forming my opinion of you based on the information that is available. I can’t read your PMs, nor would I ever want to. What I can read, however, is the garbage to manage to post almost daily in these threads. It amuses me that you think you can say you friendly with someone in one post and then in another say things like:
Calling people liars or being patronizing based on unfounded assumptions about age isn’t really being friendly, it’s being a douche.
Also, it’s hard to further derail this thread when you consider the title of the thread to the more recent posts.
Didn’t want to start a new thread. Question: Could God name the highest number?
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Didn’t want to start a new thread. Question: Could God name the highest number?
[/quote]
Could God microwave a Burrito so hot that he Himself couldn’t touch it?
[quote]Makavali wrote:
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Didn’t want to start a new thread. Question: Could God name the highest number?
[/quote]
Could God microwave a Burrito so hot that he Himself couldn’t touch it?[/quote]
Not exactly a redressing of the big rock question. Moreso “Are things that seem impossible to us possible to God, because we lack the ability to understand things (such as the concept of a highest number)”
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
[quote]Makavali wrote:
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Didn’t want to start a new thread. Question: Could God name the highest number?
[/quote]
Could God microwave a Burrito so hot that he Himself couldn’t touch it?[/quote]
Not exactly a redressing of the big rock question. Moreso “Are things that seem impossible to us possible to God, because we lack the ability to understand things (such as the concept of a highest number)”[/quote]
Ah.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
Forlife,
This is the line that you used on 11-29: [quote]Catholics see the virgin Mary and are saved by saints[/quote] Sloth even corrected you on it but you ignored it.
It’s not so much that you said something as ludicrous as Catholics think they are saved by saints. We all, on occasion, misquote something or write something that later on is proven wrong. It was the fact that you tried to deny writing it later on when called out.
And yes your integrity is in question. You can try making a short list of people whom you disagree with but never got personal, but that list does not include TB. I’ve read posts where he has in fact questioned your character because of your twisting of the facts and (in this case) events. Others have had similar experiences with you. When you write one thing and then deny it several posts later there’s just no covering it up, even if you edit your own post. Anyone who would not question such shenanigans is either not very bright or doesn’t have the balls to call a liar when he sees one.
You became so known for these antics that a couple of years ago you were dubbed “Forliar”. I have not mentioned that until recently, but I can’t help but recall how you slithered around lying and posting half truths then. One thing most who debate you can depend on, when your back is up against the wall you will attempt to lie your way out of it.
It would have been no big deal if you just manned up to your mistake and moved on, I even gave you that out. But you couldn’t do that.
It’s a shame you couldn’t change sloth’s retort to your post then you could be rid of that line and could continue to deny it.
You are one of a kind forlife…(shaking head) a real piece of work.
[/quote]
Quoting the line over and over again doesn’t make it say what you want it to say. Sorta like claiming that your god is going to condemn all of us to hell doesn’t make it so.
I’m done taking your posts seriously. I’ve tried in good faith several times, and you continue with the same antics. If you want to be treated like a clown, fine by me.
[quote]forlife wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
Forlife,
This is the line that you used on 11-29: [quote]Catholics see the virgin Mary and are saved by saints[/quote] Sloth even corrected you on it but you ignored it.
It’s not so much that you said something as ludicrous as Catholics think they are saved by saints. We all, on occasion, misquote something or write something that later on is proven wrong. It was the fact that you tried to deny writing it later on when called out.
And yes your integrity is in question. You can try making a short list of people whom you disagree with but never got personal, but that list does not include TB. I’ve read posts where he has in fact questioned your character because of your twisting of the facts and (in this case) events. Others have had similar experiences with you. When you write one thing and then deny it several posts later there’s just no covering it up, even if you edit your own post. Anyone who would not question such shenanigans is either not very bright or doesn’t have the balls to call a liar when he sees one.
You became so known for these antics that a couple of years ago you were dubbed “Forliar”. I have not mentioned that until recently, but I can’t help but recall how you slithered around lying and posting half truths then. One thing most who debate you can depend on, when your back is up against the wall you will attempt to lie your way out of it.
It would have been no big deal if you just manned up to your mistake and moved on, I even gave you that out. But you couldn’t do that.
It’s a shame you couldn’t change sloth’s retort to your post then you could be rid of that line and could continue to deny it.
You are one of a kind forlife…(shaking head) a real piece of work.
[/quote]
Quoting the line over and over again doesn’t make it say what you want it to say. Sorta like claiming that your god is going to condemn all of us to hell doesn’t make it so.
I’m done taking your posts seriously. I’ve tried in good faith several times, and you continue with the same antics. If you want to be treated like a clown, fine by me. [/quote]
At least you’re not claiming you never said it any longer like you did when I first challenged your ridiculous assertion that Catholics believe saints can save people". Now you’re claiming that you meant their “physical lives”. Keep twisting forlife. Now you’re not going to take ME seriously any longer? HA, well I can see that you believe the best defense to be a good offense. While you’re not man enough to admit you said something outlandish and then tried twice to lie and cover it up, you are smarmy enough to try to turn it around and claim that I’m childish for calling you the liar that you are.
Sucks to get caught doesn’t it?
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
Forlife,
This is the line that you used on 11-29: [quote]Catholics see the virgin Mary and are saved by saints[/quote] Sloth even corrected you on it but you ignored it.
It’s not so much that you said something as ludicrous as Catholics think they are saved by saints. We all, on occasion, misquote something or write something that later on is proven wrong. It was the fact that you tried to deny writing it later on when called out.
And yes your integrity is in question. You can try making a short list of people whom you disagree with but never got personal, but that list does not include TB. I’ve read posts where he has in fact questioned your character because of your twisting of the facts and (in this case) events. Others have had similar experiences with you. When you write one thing and then deny it several posts later there’s just no covering it up, even if you edit your own post. Anyone who would not question such shenanigans is either not very bright or doesn’t have the balls to call a liar when he sees one.
You became so known for these antics that a couple of years ago you were dubbed “Forliar”. I have not mentioned that until recently, but I can’t help but recall how you slithered around lying and posting half truths then. One thing most who debate you can depend on, when your back is up against the wall you will attempt to lie your way out of it.
It would have been no big deal if you just manned up to your mistake and moved on, I even gave you that out. But you couldn’t do that.
It’s a shame you couldn’t change sloth’s retort to your post then you could be rid of that line and could continue to deny it.
You are one of a kind forlife…(shaking head) a real piece of work.
[/quote]
Quoting the line over and over again doesn’t make it say what you want it to say. Sorta like claiming that your god is going to condemn all of us to hell doesn’t make it so.
I’m done taking your posts seriously. I’ve tried in good faith several times, and you continue with the same antics. If you want to be treated like a clown, fine by me. [/quote]
At least you’re not claiming you never said it any longer like you did when I first challenged your ridiculous assertion that Catholics believe saints can save people". Now you’re claiming that you meant their “physical lives”. Keep twisting forlife. Now you’re not going to take ME seriously any longer? HA, well I can see that you believe the best defense to be a good offense. While you’re not man enough to admit you said something outlandish and then tried twice to lie and cover it up, you are smarmy enough to try to turn it around and claim that I’m childish for calling you the liar that you are.
Sucks to get caught doesn’t it?
[/quote]
Holy crap, Zeb.
You are so far off base here. I’m kind of embarrassed for you.
Way to ignore my hijack, you bunch of jerks 
(j/k)
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
[quote]Makavali wrote:
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Didn’t want to start a new thread. Question: Could God name the highest number?
[/quote]
Could God microwave a Burrito so hot that he Himself couldn’t touch it?[/quote]
Not exactly a redressing of the big rock question. Moreso “Are things that seem impossible to us possible to God, because we lack the ability to understand things (such as the concept of a highest number)”[/quote]There are things that, as far as we know are impossible for God, like sin for instance. God cannot sin, cannot lie, cannot be deceived, cannot fail at anything He earnestly desires and cannot violate His own nature fr instance.
Can God make a rock so big He couldn’t move it? No.
Could God name the highest number? Who cares?
Can cancer be cured?
Who cares?
Guys,
People can’t be reasoned out of something they are not reasoned into.
Religion is the scartissue of childabuse.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
[quote]Makavali wrote:
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Didn’t want to start a new thread. Question: Could God name the highest number?
[/quote]
Could God microwave a Burrito so hot that he Himself couldn’t touch it?[/quote]
Not exactly a redressing of the big rock question. Moreso “Are things that seem impossible to us possible to God, because we lack the ability to understand things (such as the concept of a highest number)”[/quote]There are things that, as far as we know are impossible for God, like sin for instance. God cannot sin, cannot lie, cannot be deceived, cannot fail at anything He earnestly desires and cannot violate His own nature fr instance.
Can God make a rock so big He couldn’t move it? No.
Could God name the highest number? Who cares?
[/quote]
I’ll admit that I skip most of your posts, but you said something here that I kind of agree with.
I used to think of god as:
Basically, a very powerful human-like character. It didn’t stop me obeying/worshipping him since I was happy to shirk eating pork if it meant I would get to go to heaven, or not be burned.
The point is, he was capable of harming/helping me and so I obeyed.
I think a lot of religious folk would have a far easier time explaining their god logically if they accepted that he wasn’t all-everything.
Btw. God can’t lie, you say - what if he lied to, say, another god to protect some dude who hadn’t done something wrong? A kind of good lie.
[quote]swoleupinya wrote:
Holy crap, Zeb.
You are so far off base here. I’m kind of embarrassed for you.
[/quote]
Bla bla bla, another atheist siding with his brother. Next time try not to be quite so obvious. You’re not making any more sense here than you did on another thread where you were unable to prove your point.