Humanity's Punishment: If it was a court case.

[Creed of Heresy]

You're case is refused for irrelevance. The "judgement" is for an eon...

That is what you stated, so to defend my case.

Your Objection: You are attacking the position of relevance. Before I move on, what is the premise you are trying to compare to. In order for parties to have relevance there has to be a defining element that both those parties are pertaining too.

Irrelevant to your post, Blade, but to Catfish, why are you putting "judgement" in quotations as if to correct the PROPER spelling of the word, "judgment?" It's judgment. Not judgement. ...You philistine.

Also "your" spelling is devolving again. Seems to happens when people put the screws to your logic (forgive me, logic, for using you in such a betrayal of your very definition). Calm down bro, breathe, I know the idea of "crybabies" smacking you around in a discussion about your cherry-picked beliefs is hard to stomach for you, but you'll get through it. Stop crying so much at your computer.

Let's not even get into how what you said is a non-sequitur [something you're very good at constantly whipping out I've noticed]...actually, let's.

How is the case irrelevant? How does the judgement being for an eon make the case irrelevant? And what does that even mean?

Seriously if you're gonna refute something, you should probably give a reason and provide some tenability to your case instead of just sneezing non-sequiturs everywhere and expecting people to follow your schizophrenic trains of half-thought.

---

You should quit while you can...

And ignore the possibility to once again expose what a moron you are? Blade, please don't take this guy's advice!

But anyways, what??? Perhaps you should define "parties" for me, because I have no clue what you are trying to say...

Now you know what it's like for every one of us whenever we try to discuss something with you.

[Foxaèr]

Looks like Catty got his panties in a twist about something again.

[Creed of Heresy]

Looks like Catty got his panties in a twist about something again.

This is nothing new.

[catfish]

That is what you stated, so to defend my case.

Your Objection: You are attacking the position of relevance. Before I move on, what is the premise you are trying to compare to. In order for parties to have relevance there has to be a defining element that both those parties are pertaining too.

Irrelevant to your post, Blade, but to Catfish, why are you putting "judgement" in quotations as if to correct the PROPER spelling of the word, "judgment?" It's judgment. Not judgement. ...You philistine.

Also "your" spelling is devolving again. Seems to happens when people put the screws to your logic (forgive me, logic, for using you in such a betrayal of your very definition). Calm down bro, breathe, I know the idea of "crybabies" smacking you around in a discussion about your cherry-picked beliefs is hard to stomach for you, but you'll get through it. Stop crying so much at your computer.

Let's not even get into how what you said is a non-sequitur [something you're very good at constantly whipping out I've noticed]...actually, let's.

How is the case irrelevant? How does the judgement being for an eon make the case irrelevant? And what does that even mean?

Seriously if you're gonna refute something, you should probably give a reason and provide some tenability to your case instead of just sneezing non-sequiturs everywhere and expecting people to follow your schizophrenic trains of half-thought.

You know, it may take you a month or two, but you'll probably realise eventually how wrong you are about so many things...

Non-sequitur? I think you need to learn the definition of that term...

[Creed of Heresy]

...So, as usual, no explanation given. Just vague statements.

Good debating with you, Catfish. As ever, you are completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand other than to take everyone on a tangent.

Nothing new there.

Also, in regards to a non-sequitur...no, I am quite right in its usage. It is when you state something that is an argument in which its conclusion does not follow from its premises. "Case is irrelevant, the judgment is for eons."

That's a non-sequitur. And your refusal to follow up and explain why confirms this. You could always prove me wrong and explain your position, of course, but as it stands, with that mere statement, it is, in fact, a non-sequitur.

[catfish]

...So, as usual, no explanation given.

Good debating with you, Catfish. As ever, you are completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand other than to take everyone on a tangent.

Nothing new there.

Also, in regards to a non-sequitur...no, I am quite right in its usage. It is when you state something that is an argument in which its conclusion does not follow from its premises. "Case is irrelevant, the judgment is for eons."

That's a non-sequitur. And your refusal to follow up and explain why confirms this. You could always prove me wrong and explain your position, of course, but as it stands, with that mere statement, it is, in fact, a non-sequitur.

What? You jump into a challenge to another person, sling crybaby ad-homs around and expect me to respond to you?

You don't sue Ford Motors for not giving you a lifetime warranty when the papers you signed clearly state 5 years. Filing a suit against anything that is not in the original contract is deemed irrelevant.

Case dismissed.

[Foxaèr]

You don't sue Ford Motors for not giving you a lifetime warranty when the papers you signed clearly state 5 years. Filing a suit against anything that is not in the original contract is deemed irrelevant.

I thought god was supposed to be better than a skeezy car salesman.

[Creed of Heresy]

What? You jump into a challenge to another person, sling crybaby ad-homs around and expect me to respond to you?

Oh come now, you can't tell me that getting a taste of your own medicine puts you off THAT much, you crybaby.

You don't sue Ford Motors for not giving you a lifetime warranty when the papers you signed clearly state 5 years. Filing a suit against anything that is not in the original contract is deemed irrelevant.

Case dismissed.

Good, now we're getting somewhere, though for someone who likes to say "you're gonna realize how wrong you are," you're very quick to claim victory before you allow your point to be tested (good thing you're not a scientist; you'd be laughed out of the entire academic community within your first six months). See the thing is, though, I didn't sign any contract with any deity. I distinctly remember, well, not remembering anything before my experience as a human being began. Now, you could make the argument that someone signed for me by proxy (which is clearly what you're trying so do in your typical disjointed fashion), but the thing is, I also did not ever actually sign any paperwork in my existence that made them as such. A person cannot be a legal proxy prior to me signing them to be one.

To continue your (faulty) analogy, in what court of law would my case be dismissed against Ford Motors if I had never signed a warranty contract, because a proxy that I had never signed any responsibility over to had done so in my stead?

Now, I could just be reading your post wrong. You make things very difficult to follow because your thought processes, as I've said before, are very vague and undefined very constantly. Another point you are possibly trying to make, it seems, is that something about the OP is trying to sue against something that is not in the original contract, as it were.

In which case, what part of the OP is the suit against the lifetime warranty, and which part in the bible is the five-year-warranty equivalent? I ask for clarification purposes.

---

Also if anyone else grasps what Catty is saying where I am not, please provide clarification if it's at all possible.

[bladevalant546]

Ehh, I think so far you have not provided a counter claim. To help with definitions the term parties usually means the people involved. To address your objection by your analogy, that analogy does not match the conditions of the defendants case that has been presented. Just as Creed explained, the issue here is punishment by proxy and the problem that the judgment of non affiliated parties are unjustified based on the defined reason in the appeal. If we like to address this then I raise one more appeal and counterclaim that the unbeliever is also not-guilty based on the premise that it is unjust to judge by proxy as well.

In other words, the defense holds objection over ruled.

[catfish]

...
In other words, the defense holds objection over ruled.

LOL, I doubt it.

It's a gross missuse of the justice system for a petty anti-religion rant.

Besides that, do you have any evidence of this supposed judgment?