Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
(September 2, 2016 at 4:58 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote: LOL.... I'll try that, if I ever end up in court!
So you're just going to ignore the reasoning behind that then.
Respectable laws are spelled out and put in place based on reasonable discussion about reality. Law makers do not just throw laws in place "because they said so" unless they are immoral tyrants. A judge rules in a court based on these laws that have been set up before-hand. In a lengthy court case that requires further discussion, evidence is provided to create a decision.
This is very much unlike what you have set up. There's no reasoning. There's only "because I said so" decisions. And then there's you just taking his word for it.
(September 2, 2016 at 5:04 pm)Jesster Wrote: So you're just going to ignore the reasoning behind that then.
Respectable laws are spelled out and put in place based on reasonable discussion about reality. Law makers do not just throw laws in place "because they said so" unless they are immoral tyrants. A judge rules in a court based on these laws that have been set up before-hand. In a lengthy court case that requires further discussion, evidence is provided to create a decision.
This is very much unlike what you have set up. There's no reasoning. There's only "because I said so" decisions. And then there's you just taking his word for it.
And then you claim to love me. Fuck off.
I'm surprised I had to spell that out for you.
If you say so?
Ah. So it has come to one-line non-answers. No need to add anything useful. I will take this as you conceding in the argument until you say otherwise.
(September 2, 2016 at 1:26 pm)Thena323 Wrote: Do you care to expound upon the blasphemy bit? I've never gotten a clear answer from any Christian theist as to what that entails, exactly.
This is an easy one..
first we start with a defination.
In Mark 3 the word is:
βλασφημέω blasphēméō, blas-fay-meh'-o; from G989; to vilify; specially, to speak impiously:—(speak) blaspheme(-er, -mously, -my), defame, rail on, revile, speak evil.
In the beginning of Mark 3:20 forward, The pharisees witnessed a miracle of the Holy Spirit They knew it to be a work of God, but rather than admit God was working in a way not familiar to them they attributed this witnessed miracle to satan.
Now, even in the context of the passage Christ who warns of this sin does not say the Pharisees actually committed this sin. But the assumption is that they did commit this sin as per the definition of the word blasphemeo. If this exegetical assumption is what one is working from, then to blaspheme the Spirit, is to write off, or to cast aside his work and ascribe it to satan.
So then how does this translate to us in modern times and disciples of Christ are long gone and we no longer see demons being cast out?
We look to the final lasting legacy of the Holy Spirit still active today. In that the Holy Spirit calls us to salvation, the Holy Spirit calls us to repentance. And, since we have been offered this oppertunity to repent as long as we live, to blaspheme the Spirit is to live a life that defies this call to repentance, this call to God. Because ultimatly the Spirit is the intercessor/ambassador of the Father. The Spirit's words are the words of the Father, to defame the Spirit is to defame the personal words the Father uses to reach out to you.
So, it would seem that belief is a prerequisite for this blasphemy, by virtue of one acknowledging that it IS the Holy Spirit 'calling', correct? Possibly something along the lines of:
*metaphorical phone rings*
Hey! Is this Holy Spirit?
Yes, this is Holy Spirit. We need to talk.
Yeah...I figured it was you. Well, I don't feel like talking.
Do me a favor. Lose this number...got it?
*hangs up*
It doesn't seem as though an atheist (by definition, at least) would be capable of committing this offense. A God-denier, certainly, but not a non-believer. I asked, because I happened to be wondering about atheists who participate in so-called blasphemy challenges. I'm not sure what would compel an atheist to blaspheme a God he/she doesn't believe in, other than a misunderstanding/misinterpretation of what the word means (in the Biblical context).
And/or a general penchant for cage-rattling, perhaps.
'Cause let's face it; That's always a blast.
Am I right?
first we start with a defination.
In Mark 3 the word is:
βλασφημέω blasphēméō, blas-fay-meh'-o; from G989; to vilify; specially, to speak impiously:—(speak) blaspheme(-er, -mously, -my), defame, rail on, revile, speak evil.
In the beginning of Mark 3:20 forward, The pharisees witnessed a miracle of the Holy Spirit They knew it to be a work of God, but rather than admit God was working in a way not familiar to them they attributed this witnessed miracle to satan.
Now, even in the context of the passage Christ who warns of this sin does not say the Pharisees actually committed this sin. But the assumption is that they did commit this sin as per the definition of the word blasphemeo. If this exegetical assumption is what one is working from, then to blaspheme the Spirit, is to write off, or to cast aside his work and ascribe it to satan.
So then how does this translate to us in modern times and disciples of Christ are long gone and we no longer see demons being cast out?
We look to the final lasting legacy of the Holy Spirit still active today. In that the Holy Spirit calls us to salvation, the Holy Spirit calls us to repentance. And, since we have been offered this oppertunity to repent as long as we live, to blaspheme the Spirit is to live a life that defies this call to repentance, this call to God. Because ultimatly the Spirit is the intercessor/ambassador of the Father. The Spirit's words are the words of the Father, to defame the Spirit is to defame the personal words the Father uses to reach out to you.
So, it would seem that belief is a prerequisite for this blasphemy, by virtue of one acknowledging that it IS the Holy Spirit 'calling', correct? Possibly something along the lines of:
*metaphorical phone rings*
Hey! Is this Holy Spirit?
Yes, this is Holy Spirit. We need to talk.
Yeah...I figured it was you. Well, I don't feel like talking.
Do me a favor. Lose this number...got it?
*hangs up*
It doesn't seem as though an atheist (by definition, at least) would be capable of committing this offense. A God-denier, certainly, but not a non-believer. I asked, because I happened to be wondering about atheists who participate in so-called blasphemy challenges. I'm not sure what would compel an atheist to blaspheme a God he/she doesn't believe in, other than a misunderstanding/misinterpretation of what the word means (in the Biblical context).
And/or a general penchant for cage-rattling, perhaps.
'Cause let's face it; That's always a blast.
Am I right?
The christian "out" for this tactic is to assume that everybody knows god exists and anybody not proclaiming their brand of snake oil as the one true religion is just willfully denying the truth because...reasons.
(September 2, 2016 at 2:59 pm)Jesster Wrote: And again it does not seem like you have read what I have written. Funny how that works. The difference is that you are going way off-topic to a point that I don't care about. I am selecting the parts that are on topic and sticking to them. Let's do that some more.
MY "BIG SIN" THAT CHRISTIANS HAVE A PROBLEM WITH ISN'T A FUCKING CHOICE.
HEY (not) Stupid If you Don't read anything else Read The Following!
Christianity Says SIN IS NOT!!!! A CHOICE. We All Sin All The Time!!!
THE CHOICE IS MAKING THE SIN APART OF WHO YOU ARE, or rebel against it.
We Choose To Either Adopt The Sin, Or Reject It By Repenting Of It. At No Point Do We Ever Say We Can Be Free From It.
All of the 'stuff that was way off topic' explained this!
You btw can not or will not identify as anything or anyone other than your sin!
So when someone speaks negatively about your sin they speak negitivly about you. I am the oppsite. My sin does not define who I am. Yes I am still a slave to sin, but I am not defined by it. I hate my sin, yet still can love and respect myself. In turn I can also show the same grace to others as God has shown me, when the do decide to choose to separate themselves from their sin.
Quote:Oh, unless you want me to choose between that and suicide. Wait, that's a sin too, right?
It is not an unforgivable sin.
Quote:And yet your god (who I will remind you that I don't believe exists, yet you do) shows no love for me anyway. This is called hypocrisy. Can we say hypocrisy, kids?
I'm sorry I'm confused. or either your confused.. What make you think God owes you 'love' as you define it?
Quote: By following with what you think your sky daddy thinks of me (which I think is all in your head anyway) you are reflecting that hate onto me.
What "sky Daddy thinks" of His lost son or daughter is outlined in the story of the prodigal son. Do you know this story? In turn You are right because I support God in what He does I also see you as He sees you. Which is why I am taking the time to try and tell you how to "find your way back home."
Quote:There. That didn't take long.
Of course it didn't.. That is why it is called a strawman argument. If however you with to actually address the points I brought up found in scripture, you might find your 'that was easy argument' does not apply in any way shape or form.
Quote:Now please go back to voting away my rights because of your religious zealotry. Oh, make sure to compare my life to a drug addict's again while you're at it.
Asshat.
The comparison is closer than you think. The only reason I used the example of an Addict is because your 'morality' is ever shifting with very few if any absolutes. But, even if philosophically you can not call addiction to a drug a sin you can't justify or approve the absolute devastation that trying to love an addict rains down on the addict, and the family. This devastation is how God sees all sin. So again even if you can justify and dismiss all sin philosophically, most if not all of us can relate to the pain addiction can cause. And most of can also relate how to seperate the sin/addiction from the love of the family member who is addicted.
first we start with a defination.
In Mark 3 the word is:
βλασφημέω blasphēméō, blas-fay-meh'-o; from G989; to vilify; specially, to speak impiously:—(speak) blaspheme(-er, -mously, -my), defame, rail on, revile, speak evil.
In the beginning of Mark 3:20 forward, The pharisees witnessed a miracle of the Holy Spirit They knew it to be a work of God, but rather than admit God was working in a way not familiar to them they attributed this witnessed miracle to satan.
Now, even in the context of the passage Christ who warns of this sin does not say the Pharisees actually committed this sin. But the assumption is that they did commit this sin as per the definition of the word blasphemeo. If this exegetical assumption is what one is working from, then to blaspheme the Spirit, is to write off, or to cast aside his work and ascribe it to satan.
So then how does this translate to us in modern times and disciples of Christ are long gone and we no longer see demons being cast out?
We look to the final lasting legacy of the Holy Spirit still active today. In that the Holy Spirit calls us to salvation, the Holy Spirit calls us to repentance. And, since we have been offered this oppertunity to repent as long as we live, to blaspheme the Spirit is to live a life that defies this call to repentance, this call to God. Because ultimatly the Spirit is the intercessor/ambassador of the Father. The Spirit's words are the words of the Father, to defame the Spirit is to defame the personal words the Father uses to reach out to you.
So, it would seem that belief is a prerequisite for this blasphemy, by virtue of one acknowledging that it IS the Holy Spirit 'calling', correct? Possibly something along the lines of:
*metaphorical phone rings*
Hey! Is this Holy Spirit?
Yes, this is Holy Spirit. We need to talk.
Yeah...I figured it was you. Well, I don't feel like talking.
Do me a favor. Lose this number...got it?
*hangs up*
It doesn't seem as though an atheist (by definition, at least) would be capable of committing this offense. A God-denier, certainly, but not a non-believer. I asked, because I happened to be wondering about atheists who participate in so-called blasphemy challenges. I'm not sure what would compel an atheist to blaspheme a God he/she doesn't believe in, other than a misunderstanding/misinterpretation of what the word means (in the Biblical context).
And/or a general penchant for cage-rattling, perhaps.
'Cause let's face it; That's always a blast.
Am I right?
I'm not in a position to make any final judgement on what you are or not capable of. Ultimately that is between you and God.
I can tell you what I think. If you grew up in the west, God has called out to you.. Call it a conscience, call it your moral compass call it Jimminnie Cricket it does not matter. but we all have been given an opportunity to want to know or experience more concerning God. Especially each and every member of this forum. (Just on your specific terms and not His) You all are searching for a truth that fits the little box in which you believe the whole universe must yield and work with in. (the box labeled acceptable peer reviewed proof.)
Which was the SAME BOX The Pharisees in Mark 3:20 used to cast out the works of the Spirit that day. They too wanted peer reviewed and accepted proof, before they would acknowledge God. The problem with this version of 'proof'? it gives you control over God. Rather than forces you to acknowledge God on His terms... God must contort Himself to fit your definitions, rather than you be made to seek out His own.
Look at how the last poster I responded to has framed out who God is in her straw man argument. She expects God to be all loving, not just all loving but to her own specific definition of love that includes those she would include. In essence she would dispel any proof of a God who did not conform Himself to her standard... Do you see the problem here? If God must bend to your standard then He ceases to fit the very definition of God (Alpha and Omega) He provided to us!
IF God is Alpha and Omega It means we go to Him on His terms, He will not meet us on ours.
September 3, 2016 at 11:35 am (This post was last modified: September 3, 2016 at 11:36 am by Jesster.)
(September 3, 2016 at 11:10 am)Drich Wrote: Christianity Says SIN IS NOT!!!! A CHOICE. We All Sin All The Time!!!
THE CHOICE IS MAKING THE SIN APART OF WHO YOU ARE, or rebel against it.
We Choose To Either Adopt The Sin, Or Reject It By Repenting Of It. At No Point Do We Ever Say We Can Be Free From It.
All of the 'stuff that was way off topic' explained this!
You btw can not or will not identify as anything or anyone other than your sin!
So when someone speaks negatively about your sin they speak negitivly about you. I am the oppsite. My sin does not define who I am. Yes I am still a slave to sin, but I am not defined by it. I hate my sin, yet still can love and respect myself. In turn I can also show the same grace to others as God has shown me, when the do decide to choose to separate themselves from their sin.
Great. Tangents after misinterpreting me and/or not bothering to try understanding. I don't think you could project any more.
I am not identifying myself as a sinner. Christians are. I am just saying that my lifestyle that Christians often label as sinful is not a choice. There is nothing wrong with who I am and what I do, so there's nothing to repent for. However, Christians will claim that there's something wrong because the voice in their heads tell them there is, yet they won't bother providing any further evidence for why it is actually wrong. They then tell me that I will burn in hell unless I change my so-called "sinful life" and then claim that they love me. No. They (and you) are creating a problem when there is no actual problem. There's no love
(September 3, 2016 at 11:10 am)Drich Wrote: It is not an unforgivable sin.
And yet you give me a choice between two things you call sin and claim I need to beg for forgiveness no matter which one I choose.
(September 3, 2016 at 11:10 am)Drich Wrote: I'm sorry I'm confused. or either your confused.. What make you think God owes you 'love' as you define it?
Yes, you are quite confused about a great many things. I don't think your god owes me anything because I don't believe it exists. You are, however, claiming that there is love and I am saying there's nothing but hypocrisy there.
(September 3, 2016 at 11:10 am)Drich Wrote: What "sky Daddy thinks" of His lost son or daughter is outlined in the story of the prodigal son. Do you know this story? In turn You are right because I support God in what He does I also see you as He sees you. Which is why I am taking the time to try and tell you how to "find your way back home."
Yes, I've read and studied the bible. I don't believe a word of it though, so I don't care. I am perfectly fine where I am and I don't appreciate the passive-aggressive insults in an attempt to manipulate me. I've been in an abusive relationship before and that is one of the most-used tactics. That's not love. It's control.
(September 3, 2016 at 11:10 am)Drich Wrote: Of course it didn't.. That is why it is called a strawman argument. If however you with to actually address the points I brought up found in scripture, you might find your 'that was easy argument' does not apply in any way shape or form.
No, it's not a straw man. I am replying exactly to the Christian approach to me as well as the excuses you personally apply to it. I don't think you know what a straw man argument is.
(September 3, 2016 at 11:10 am)Drich Wrote: The comparison is closer than you think. The only reason I used the example of an Addict is because your 'morality' is ever shifting with very few if any absolutes. But, even if philosophically you can not call addiction to a drug a sin you can't justify or approve the absolute devastation that trying to love an addict rains down on the addict, and the family. This devastation is how God sees all sin. So again even if you can justify and dismiss all sin philosophically, most if not all of us can relate to the pain addiction can cause. And most of can also relate how to seperate the sin/addiction from the love of the family member who is addicted.
Insulting me again with the immoral drug addict comparison? Shove it up your ass, you piece of shit. This is why atheists do not like Christians like you.
September 3, 2016 at 1:34 pm (This post was last modified: September 3, 2016 at 1:35 pm by Athene.)
(September 3, 2016 at 11:31 am)Drich Wrote:
(September 3, 2016 at 4:11 am)Thena323 Wrote:
So, it would seem that belief is a prerequisite for this blasphemy, by virtue of one acknowledging that it IS the Holy Spirit 'calling', correct? Possibly something along the lines of:
*metaphorical phone rings*
Hey! Is this Holy Spirit?
Yes, this is Holy Spirit. We need to talk.
Yeah...I figured it was you. Well, I don't feel like talking.
Do me a favor. Lose this number...got it?
*hangs up*
It doesn't seem as though an atheist (by definition, at least) would be capable of committing this offense. A God-denier, certainly, but not a non-believer. I asked, because I happened to be wondering about atheists who participate in so-called blasphemy challenges. I'm not sure what would compel an atheist to blaspheme a God he/she doesn't believe in, other than a misunderstanding/misinterpretation of what the word means (in the Biblical context).
And/or a general penchant for cage-rattling, perhaps.
'Cause let's face it; That's always a blast.
Am I right?
I'm not in a position to make any final judgement on what you are or not capable of. Ultimately that is between you and God.
I can tell you what I think. If you grew up in the west, God has called out to you.. Call it a conscience, call it your moral compass call it Jimminnie Cricket it does not matter. but we all have been given an opportunity to want to know or experience more concerning God. Especially each and every member of this forum. (Just on your specific terms and not His) You all are searching for a truth that fits the little box in which you believe the whole universe must yield and work with in. (the box labeled acceptable peer reviewed proof.)
Which was the SAME BOX The Pharisees in Mark 3:20 used to cast out the works of the Spirit that day. They too wanted peer reviewed and accepted proof, before they would acknowledge God. The problem with this version of 'proof'? it gives you control over God. Rather than forces you to acknowledge God on His terms... God must contort Himself to fit your definitions, rather than you be made to seek out His own.
Look at how the last poster I responded to has framed out who God is in her straw man argument. She expects God to be all loving, not just all loving but to her own specific definition of love that includes those she would include. In essence she would dispel any proof of a God who did not conform Himself to her standard... Do you see the problem here? If God must bend to your standard then He ceases to fit the very definition of God (Alpha and Omega) He provided to us!
IF God is Alpha and Omega It means we go to Him on His terms, He will not meet us on ours.
I feel like you're saying that the Holy Spirit has already called to the non-believing members of this forum, in which case we've already committed this Holy Spirit blasphemy.
Well, Hell, what's the point, then?
Why bother explaining anything to folks that are most certainly doomed, in your opinion?
No point in wasting your energy on what you believe to be lost causes.
(September 3, 2016 at 11:35 am)Jesster Wrote: Great. Tangents after misinterpreting me and/or not bothering to try understanding. I don't think you could project any more.
...And what if they are not tangents? That would mean you still do not understand or acknoweledge that not only to I recognize your argument I have moved past your points, but you can't.
Quote:I am not identifying myself as a sinner.
Read what I wrote again, I know you can not separate your sin from who you are as a person.
Quote:Christians are. I am just saying that my lifestyle that Christians often label as sinful is not a choice.
Again I know. The sin I have in my life is not a choice. The "Choice" has nothing to do with abstaining from sin!!! Why can't you wrap your head around this?
Are you not reading what I'm actually writing or are you just responding to what you think my argument should be rather than what it is I am actually saying???
Quote:There is nothing wrong with who I am and what I do, so there's nothing to repent for.
That justification... Not the sin but the justification for your sin is the choice I am talking about sport!
Quote: However, Christians will claim that there's something wrong because the voice in their heads tell them there is, yet they won't bother providing any further evidence for why it is actually wrong.
Not true. Evidence is provided, but it is also summarily dismissed. So it is not a matter of lack of evidence it is a matter of lack of desire to identify sin.
Quote:They then tell me that I will burn in hell unless I change my so-called "sinful life" and then claim that they love me. No. They (and you) are creating a problem when there is no actual problem. There's no love
Where have I told you this?
See you are arguing what it is you think I should be saying, not what I have actually said.
(September 3, 2016 at 11:10 am)Drich Wrote: It is not an unforgivable sin.
Quote:And yet you give me a choice between two things you call sin and claim I need to beg for forgiveness no matter which one I choose.
citation please. Where did I say this? Or AGAIN Are you not simply arguing what it is you think my position is rather than what my stated position has always been?
Quote:Yes, you are quite confused about a great many things. I don't think your god owes me anything because I don't believe it exists. You are, however, claiming that there is love and I am saying there's nothing but hypocrisy there.
Where did I say their is love? Or again are you arguing what it is you think my position should be rather than what I have stated?
(September 3, 2016 at 11:10 am)Drich Wrote: Of course it didn't.. That is why it is called a strawman argument. If however you with to actually address the points I brought up found in scripture, you might find your 'that was easy argument' does not apply in any way shape or form.
You Wrote:No, it's not a straw man. I am replying exactly to the Christian approach to me as well as the excuses you personally apply to it. I don't think you know what a straw man argument is.
But again, IS THE CHRISTIAN APPROACH you've been arguing against, what I have been discussing with you?
You 'feel' I been saying:
your sin is a choice
God "loves" you
You will go to Hell if you do not change your actions
That you are like a drug addict.
Would it supprize you if EVERYTHING you think is wrong?
What if I've been saying:
Your sin is NOT a choice
(That you like me are a slave to sin according to scripture)
That God does not love you
(God offers you Agape', not love as you know it)
That you can enter Heaven despite your actions
(Works is not what justifies you before God)
That even if you are to stupid or stubborn to admit to sin being a "thing" No one can argue that the pain a drug addict can bring to a family. And that even if You do have an addict in the family one can learn to still love and separate the actions of the addict from the individual the addiction controls.
(In this sense WE ARE ALL ADDICTS)
No wonder you think I am speaking off topic... You think it is my job to chase after and defend the straw men you have spent a life in hate towards God building, when in fact it is my 'job' to show you that your ideas of 'Christianity' are over inflated and do not represent the values nor the system of forgiveness as outlined in scripture.
How do I know this to be true??? Look at the evidence sport... You are speaking to what you believe Christian values should be, and I have never once even remotely supported what you've outlined my argument to be. You are so far off base your have wrongly assumed that I am speaking off topic...
Here's a thought... Maybe It Is YOU, Who does understand the core principles of what it is you are in full rebellion against.
Quote:Insulting me again with the immoral drug addict comparison? Shove it up your ass, you piece of shit. This is why atheists do not like Christians like you.
I have worked with atheist for almost 10 years... The reason they do not like me (as you are finding out) is because their off the shelf reasoning for disbelief in God gets shot down quickly with me, and to remain in their disbelief, they have to rely on faith to maintain their position of disbelief/Hate. They have to expend the same if not a greater measure of faith required to stay in a state of disbelief than it is required for God to give them all the 'evidence' the need.
September 3, 2016 at 2:27 pm (This post was last modified: September 3, 2016 at 2:29 pm by Drich.)
(September 3, 2016 at 1:34 pm)Thena323 Wrote:
(September 3, 2016 at 11:31 am)Drich Wrote: I'm not in a position to make any final judgement on what you are or not capable of. Ultimately that is between you and God.
I can tell you what I think. If you grew up in the west, God has called out to you.. Call it a conscience, call it your moral compass call it Jimminnie Cricket it does not matter. but we all have been given an opportunity to want to know or experience more concerning God. Especially each and every member of this forum. (Just on your specific terms and not His) You all are searching for a truth that fits the little box in which you believe the whole universe must yield and work with in. (the box labeled acceptable peer reviewed proof.)
Which was the SAME BOX The Pharisees in Mark 3:20 used to cast out the works of the Spirit that day. They too wanted peer reviewed and accepted proof, before they would acknowledge God. The problem with this version of 'proof'? it gives you control over God. Rather than forces you to acknowledge God on His terms... God must contort Himself to fit your definitions, rather than you be made to seek out His own.
Look at how the last poster I responded to has framed out who God is in her straw man argument. She expects God to be all loving, not just all loving but to her own specific definition of love that includes those she would include. In essence she would dispel any proof of a God who did not conform Himself to her standard... Do you see the problem here? If God must bend to your standard then He ceases to fit the very definition of God (Alpha and Omega) He provided to us!
IF God is Alpha and Omega It means we go to Him on His terms, He will not meet us on ours.
I feel like you're saying that the Holy Spirit has already called to the non-believing members of this forum, in which case we've already committed this Holy Spirit blasphemy.
Well, Hell, what's the point, then?
Why bother explaining anything to folks that are most certainly doomed, in your opinion?
No point in wasting your energy on what you believe to be lost causes.
Because as I pointed out in my first post to you, that this is not a one time offer from the Holy Spirit. This offer is extended to you over the course of your life. It is the denial multiplied over a life time that constitutes blaspheme of the Spirit as again the offer is renewed daily till we die.
It took me several years before i myself took God up on this offer. I remained in a state of disbelief for a long long time. But once I considered that maybe the universe/God did not have to work the way I thought God should work and sought Him on His terms rather than mine... Things started to change for me.
![[Image: image.jpg?w=400&c=1]](https://memecrunch.com/meme/34EML/thank-you/image.jpg?w=400&c=1)
Of course it didn't.. That is why it is called a strawman argument. If however you with to actually address the points I brought up found in scripture, you might find your 'that was easy argument' does not apply in any way shape or form.