Welcome to the Universe

Originally posted by sonhouse
How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?

All of them.

Originally posted by Dasa
While a religion allows the slaughter of innocent animals, it only pays lip service to statements of God being righteous, merciful, good, kind, loving and the rest.

Any religion supporting cruelty to its lower creatures is false, and it matters not the many times you speak of love and mercy from God for this God would not condone animal cruelty.

The relig ...[text shortened]... talk of righteousness and love and mercy if you cannot live by it. ( you have to walk the talk)

All hail the gods of the Hindu for their mercy on the cows while the children starve.

Originally posted by josephw
All hail the gods of the Hindu for their mercy on the cows while the children starve.

When there is a flood or typhoon the children and adults and cows suffer.

The hunger problem in India and the world has nothing to do with God, but the greed and bad management of the resources by man. (bad management and bad government by foolish men)

There are enough resources to feed the whole world and have not one person go hungry............but bad management prevents this.

This is what happens when false religion and atheism runs rampant.

In a world governed by true religion no person would go hungry, because men who follow true religion govern wisely and honestly.

Originally posted by josephw
All hail the gods of the Hindu for their mercy on the cows while the children starve.

The point of sparing the cows is that they make milk.

Originally posted by josephw
You're a slippery one ToO.

One day I will corner you. 😉

Since you haven't provided any verses, I'll assume that so far as YOU know, Jesus never declared Himself to be God's "only begotten Son".

So let's see. You made a false assertion, side-stepped my point about your false assertion and now you're calling ME a "slippery one". Does that really seem rational to you?

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Since you haven't provided any verses, I'll assume that so far as YOU know, Jesus never declared Himself to be God's "only begotten Son".

So let's see. You made a false assertion, side-stepped my point about your false assertion and now you're calling ME a "slippery one". Does that really seem rational to you?

Does what seem rational to me? You? Naw!

You make so many twists and turns I doubt that even you know where you're heading.

Originally posted by Dasa
When there is a flood or typhoon the children and adults and cows suffer.

The hunger problem in India and the world has nothing to do with God, but the greed and bad management of the resources by man. (bad management and bad government by foolish men)

There are enough resources to feed the whole world and have not one person go hungry............but bad ...[text shortened]... gion no person would go hungry, because men who follow true religion govern wisely and honestly.

"When there is a flood or typhoon the children and adults and cows suffer."

I guess that means them all?

"The hunger problem in India and the world has nothing to do with God, but the greed and bad management of the resources by man. (bad management and bad government by foolish men)"

I didn't say it had anything to do with your gods. But I tend to agree with the second half of your statement.

"There are enough resources to feed the whole world and have not one person go hungry............but bad management prevents this."

True.

"This is what happens when false religion and atheism runs rampant."

That logically must mean that the religion in India is false since so many of its population live in poverty and starvation.

"In a world governed by true religion no person would go hungry, because men who follow true religion govern wisely and honestly."

Then that must mean that the religions of the west are truer than those of the east since we enjoy so much prosperity.

Screw religion anyway. Religion is for phonies.

Originally posted by josephw
Does what seem rational to me? You? Naw!

You make so many twists and turns I doubt that even you know where you're heading.

Since you seem to need everything spelled out for you:

Does it seem rational for you to call ME a "slippery one" when it's YOU who have made a false assertion and then side-stepped my point about your false assertion?

And to top it off, now you disingenously try to dismiss your irrational actions by falsely calling me irrational and of making "so many twists and turns" when YOU are continuing to do just about anything and everything to avoid the truth.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Since you seem to need everything spelled out for you:

Does it seem rational for you to call ME a "slippery one" when it's YOU who have made a false assertion and then side-stepped my point about your false assertion?

And to top it off, now you disingenously try to dismiss your irrational actions by falsely calling me irrational and of making "so m ...[text shortened]... turns" when YOU are continuing to do just about anything and everything to avoid the truth.

If, as you say, I'm avoiding the truth, then why don't you tell me what the truth is?

Originally posted by josephw
If, as you say, I'm avoiding the truth, then why don't you tell me what the truth is?

C'mon joseph. What do you think you gain by acting so dim?

Here are some examples:
You made a false assertion to avoid the truth.

You side-stepped my point about your false assertion to avoid the truth.

You called me a "slippery one" to avoid the truth.

You falsely called me irrational to avoid the truth about your irrationality.

You falsely accused me of making "so many twists and turns" to avoid the truth about your doing so.

Enough truth for you?

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
C'mon joseph. What do you think you gain by acting so dim?

Here are some examples:
You made a false assertion to avoid the truth.

You side-stepped my point about your false assertion to avoid the truth.

You called me a "slippery one" to avoid the truth.

You falsely called me irrational to avoid the truth about your irrationality.

You fals ...[text shortened]... "so many twists and turns" to avoid the truth about your doing so.

Enough truth for you?

Add, "real good dancer" to the list.

That's what you did. You danced away from the topic. It is your modus operandi.

I could unravel the web you're weaving for you if you'd like.

Originally posted by josephw
Add, "real good dancer" to the list.

That's what you did. You danced away from the topic. It is your modus operandi.

I could unravel the web you're weaving for you if you'd like.

Wow. Yet another irrational post by you. Your posts have demonstrated nothing less than a complete lack of integrity on your part.

You pretty much started "dancing" from the git-go and especially since I made the following post:

Since you seem to be side-stepping the point, I'll spell it out for you even more plainly.

You said, "Commentary perhaps, but entirely consistent with Jesus' own declarations concerning Himself", which is false so far as I know, therefore it is NOT entirely consistent. If you believe that Jesus declared Himself to be God's "only begotten Son" then by all means, provide the verses. Or do you not understand the difference between declaring oneself the "Son of God" and the "only begotten Son" of God?

Or perhaps you've lost sight of the point of my response to JW. If so, then maybe you should go back and reread from my response forward.

Since then all you've managed is the following nonsense as ways of avoiding that post:

You're a slippery one ToO.

One day I will corner you.

Does what seem rational to me? You? Naw!

You make so many twists and turns I doubt that even you know where you're heading.

If, as you say, I'm avoiding the truth, then why don't you tell me what the truth is?

You're the one who "danced away from the topic".

What's it going to take for you to stop with making false assertions and false accuations? Is this what your brand of Christianity teaches you?

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Wow. Yet another irrational post by you. Your posts have demonstrated nothing less than a complete lack of integrity on your part.

You pretty much started "dancing" from the git-go and especially since I made the following post:
[quote]Since you seem to be side-stepping the point, I'll spell it out for you even more plainly.

You said, "Commentary ...[text shortened]... nd false accuations? Is this what your brand of Christianity teaches you?

Add subtle to the list.

Originally posted by josephw
Add subtle to the list.

Do you think your responses to me have been rational? Seriously.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Do you think your responses to me have been rational? Seriously.

You're entertaining ToO. That's why I'm replying to you at all. I know that as soon as I begin to get into a discussion with you it will deteriorate into this. It always does.

It's your fault.

Perhaps we can start a new thread and do a test. Any ideas?