And you are being the one to determine the phrase "being normal"?
For God's sake

am i evil

You just did it in the other thread Spider.

I think it's you who seem to have something against me.

I started talking about a scenario of LOVE.

And you wouldn’t stop trying to pervert that into a SIN.

As far as I can see your religion perverts everything into a SIN.

Is that what Christianity is all about?

Evidently it is.

It seems to be the only goal of your religion is to prove that everyone is a sinner.

Fine. So be it.

Nice religion you have there.

It’s too negative for me.

You can keep it all to yourself. Thank you very much.

didn't abra create it

I’m just trying to find something that Christianity does deem to be evil.

Clearly there isn’t much.

Is it normal for someone to lie about another constantly? Is it normal to accuse someone of child abuse and pretend that you didn't? James is a pathological liar. He lies about me and he lies about his lies. That's not normal.

Yes, I am.

You force me on the defensive when you consistently call me a liar.

Actually Spider you are bearing false witness against me and you know it!.

Here’s what Spider does people,…


1. He twists what I say into a perversion that is completely different from what I said.
2. Then I point out that he perverted my words.

By the way, I use the word ‘pervert’ here because that’s precisely what he does. He twists my words to make decent things I say appear to imply perverted thoughts. For example, I speak of love, and he twists that into lust. That’s a perversion of what I had said.

3. Then, when I call him on his act of perverting my words, he accuses me of calling him a ‘pervert’.
4. He demands that I apologize to him.
5. I explain that I never called him a ‘pervert’, I simply said that he perverts all my words.
6. Then he claims that I’m a liar, because I refuse to admit that I called him a ‘pervert’ which I never did in the first place!

He, does this sort of thing all the time! Continuously! This is hallmark.

And then he continues to proclaim that I’m a liar like as if he’s justified in his claim.

He is not justified in his claim.

He knows precisely what he is doing!

Please tell me folks. Is this the typical behavior of a “Christian”?

I am not evil......how does that work for ya

I think you believe your own lies, which is sad. I should have saved your post from last night calling me a pervert. I was stupid not to. It doesn't matter, this isn't a popularity contest. Proving that you insulted me and lied about it later wouldn't do any good.

I knew it all along.

At least Spider own ups to being evil. I have to give him credit for that.

I have seen good people abused by others for their amusement and it is a way of relitivism.Nothings bad everything good.I think its bad when it hurts others.That is my definition.

It wouldn’t have mattered if you’d had. I don’t deny calling you are perverter of words. If I said that you are a ‘pervert’ that’s what I was revering to.

How could I mean anything else? I have absolutely no clue how you conduct yourself sexually. I certainly couldn’t have meant that you are a sexual pervert.

You pervert my words. That’s what I meant, and that’s what you do! I certainly shouldn’t need to apologize for calling you on what you actually do.

I confess to calling you a perverter of words, if that's what you want me to own up to. I make no appologies for that.

That's how I view it too.

If no one is harmed in the process then it can't be all that bad right?

Assuming no one was lied to or cheating on, because that would be HARM even if they didn't know about it.

I mean, it all needs to be honest and consensual. But as long as it's honest and consensual then it's - all systems Go!

You said "pervert". You know it, so you are back tracking here. If you meant "peverter of words", then you should have said that.

ahhhhh schucks thanks abra.......should I be afraid and look over my shoulder.....giggle.


Yanno you need to cut spider some slack abra.....He is a passionate Godly man....and he will never ever back down to you.....never......And what he says about lying and just telling it to fit your needs for that time is really true....and yanno I heart the heck out of ya abra......but I am kidnapping you and taking you on a much needed vacation.....Maybe Tahiti....what do ya think?

Eljay:

I can sympathize with your battle of the flu, both of my sons and I have recently struggled with it also...

Thank you for your consideration. It is appreciated. Your apology is humbly accepted, although it was not necessary, my friend...




In response to your last post which had been addressed to myself:




Perhaps there are as many different personal understandings of a 'God' of creation as there are people who personally relate themselves to the notion.




As a result of your suggestion(s) that I extrapolate my thoughts on 'God' with greater measure, several times I have began, in recent past, to do such a thing. However, it seems that in this particular conversation, perhaps you may be 'jumping the gun', as it were. This observation is based upon a few of the comments which you have recently written that clearly suggest my premise has been confused with my conclusion, which has remained unwritten.

In all actuality, the premise of a 'God' being first is what makes that 'God' monotheistic. This does not, in and of itself, necessarily disregard any existance of Jesus, nor of the Holy Spirit. It merely claims that a 'God' was first, prior to any other realized existance, either ethereal or material.

For a 'God' to have been first, this must be the case, logically speaking.


Regarding this quote from your post:



I do not think one can logically support any given "method of creation", in so much as how a 'God' would or could create. Human understanding of how one creates would have to be imparted into a 'God', and would inevitably lead one to a personification of that 'God', all of which is inherently logically unfounded. This path would just beg for reason(s), intent, and purpose, all of which must apply physiological principles to a purely ethereal existance.

This brings me back to the point of addressing the notion of a 'God' being first. This premise would be able to be built upon, logically speaking, without personification, in order to establish what a 'God' could use if that 'God' was all that existed.

It would then follow, that 'God' used 'God'. No matter how one slices the universal pie. I believe we both agree here, unless the ex nihilo notion has caused you pause.


Let us logically consider then, the previously suggested ex nihilo notion.

If nothing existed then nothing was also 'God', supposing 'God' was all that existed. This would include nothing, or the potential of nothing.

'God' used 'God' is the only logically supported conclusion of what, when presupposing 'God' was first...

This then, should lead one to agree with the next axiom...

'God' is the only thing which can conceive through 'God'.

I believe any other suggestion removes the significance of a 'God', being all that existed prior to any type of creation...


So hopefully you may truly understand why I suggest that the following quote is a bit deceptive in it's contextual nature...



In this discussion, the 'God' of creation would be a conclusion, as opposed to the premise. This logical path will enable one to provide a logical answer concerning the OP, in regards to a monotheistic creator 'God' which came first...




We do not really choose that which is sound in a logical continuation. The only true choice is the premise, which has previously been set, as a 'God' being first... all else must logically follow this accepted premise. I believe the conclusion leads one not to which understanding of a 'God' of creation one chooses to extrapolate thereof, but more specifically, to that which can be logically chosen. Logical support of the previously accepted premise and all of it's following axioms determines a logical conclusion, after, as opposed to before.

Anywhere there are no arachnids will be just fine. It’s not that I don’t like them, but sometimes it’s just nice not to have to see them crawling all over everything.

A religious zealot does not stack up as "A Godly man" in my book.
I have seen his kind of fundamentalism burn crosses on people's lawns. He should stop trying to reform the world and try to be more understanding of himself and others. If he is so "right" as he claims he would not be huffing and puffing trying to prove it all the time, nor would he even waste his time in this kind of discussion.

But Christian fundamentalism and Christianity has gone unchallenged for a long time. They will tell you that they are always under attack. That is just the way they see things. But they feel they are "under attack" when non-Christians complain about conducting public prayer to their God in "Jesus's name" in our schools to our children.

They call that an attack on them, and they really believe that to be the case. It is not. It is simply a protest against them forcing their beliefs (myths) on our children in our schools.

Now that public prayer has been taken out of schools, they cry and complain like a bunch of babies. They don't understand that their's is not the only religion or belief in existence they only believe that theirs is the only truth. They are locked into that mind set that will not allow them to be kind, understanding or forgiving to others. Why? Because the others are all "sinners." They are all "evil."

And didn't God command Joshua to slaughter all the people in the land of Jericho simply because they were evil? Some Christian who feel that they are so right, are actually so wrong they are evil IMHO.

Jeannie

Jeanniebean

ok you got it.......are you ok with sand crabs.....

Ok checking it out....and coming and kidnapping the cutiful abra for a vacation.......so people he won't be around for a bit........OMG What are they going to do without the mighty abracadabra around.......Oh well not my problem.......