Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
It's your philosophy -- not mine.Try not being so literalistic.
You forget who you're talking to, don't you?Then a mosque would be evidence of Allah. A Hindu temple would be evidence of Shiva. Are you saying that your evidence of God is on the same order as that?
No, that is your misinterpretation of the Bible again. Why would you limit your God in the way that you do? Do you think that he was no different from the Greek Gods? That appears to be your belief.It's your philosophy -- not mine.
I'm not the one going around saying we're mutant, copy errors.
I'm sure you don't either -- but your philosophy says it for you.
Well God wrote about one that did.Actually you have a point. He did write quite a bit about dinosaurs. None of them had navels.
Are we done now, Speedwell?So what? According to your story He must be dust.
Disgusting.
It bothers me that a Christian would willfully misrepresent what other Christians believe just to attempt to gain rhetorical advantage in an internet chatroom.
You forget who you're talking to, don't you?
You don't think Allah and Shiva are real?
How about Thor, Neptune, or Quetzalcoatl?
IMO, Paul Bunyan was a Nephilim who really existed.
Why???Why?
God gets it.We have already discussed that such impossible creatures would destroy evolution. If you don't want the Nobel Prize in biology, I'll gladly take it.
Okay ... thanks.essentialsaltes said:FWIW, Nessie is described as pseudoscience in this college syllabus, along with ESP, antivaxx, GMO-mania...
Are you?Are you a flat earther?
What???You are once again being logically inconsistent. That is why you always lose when you debate.
You asked if churches were evidence for God. That seemed to be you trying to imply that they were. You took it back when you realized that mosques are evidence for Allah by that standard.
We are.
I don't think Raquel would appreciate you dreaming about being with her in her prime.
Would you?
Let/s not quote out of context. That is dishonest. You ignored the part the refuted your nonsense. That too is an admission that you are wrong.Why???
Would it bother you if Madalyn O'hair fantasized about being with you in your prime?
No, you misunderstand your own "logic" once again. By your standards there is the same "evidence" of Allah as the creator of the universe, or Shiva, or any other being, as there is of your God.What???
Allah is real.
A real fallen angel.
Had he not come to Earth and convince Mohammad of his existence, there would be no mosques.
What I'm saying is:
Allah came first -- then the mosques.
No Allah = no mosques.
Ditto for Thor, Shiva, Quetzalcoatl, et alii.
Given Raquel Welch made her name as a model / actor, she's probably more than used to that.
Many of them want that.
Post 74No, you misunderstand your own "logic" once again. By your standards there is the same "evidence" of Allah as the creator of the universe, or Shiva, or any other being, as there is of your God.
When one cannot be consistent in one's argument one loses. You don't get to backtrack and try to change your argument after the fact. Your argument was for a building being evidence for a deity. That has to apply to all deities, not your personal interpretation of what those deities are.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?