(February 12, 2013 at 12:08 pm)Aegrus Wrote:

(February 12, 2013 at 11:00 am)missluckie26 Wrote: You had me wondering for a minute if u could be my cousin Tyler but then I realized, "naw he would never say 'hell' anything

Well, this is a bit of an interesting development, as I don't think anyone in my family actually knows that I *can* swear. I don't at all when I'm not sure how people will react to it.

There's a simple solution to this issue; my profile picture is now my face. Is it anyone you recognize?

Oh my god it is you, cousin!!!!!


Just jokin. You aren't him

(February 12, 2013 at 4:58 pm)missluckie26 Wrote:

(February 12, 2013 at 12:08 pm)Aegrus Wrote: Well, this is a bit of an interesting development, as I don't think anyone in my family actually knows that I *can* swear. I don't at all when I'm not sure how people will react to it.

There's a simple solution to this issue; my profile picture is now my face. Is it anyone you recognize?

Oh my god it is you, cousin!!!!!


Just jokin. You aren't him

That's good. That would have been awkward.

(February 12, 2013 at 10:58 am)Drich Wrote: But that is exactly what it means. If troop of girl scouts decides to break off from the offical organization, and sell their own brand of cookies, wear different uniforms, rewrites it own rules and bi-laws, are they still to be considered 'Girl Scouts?' What if they still identify themselves by that name? What if a 37 year old man wanted to call himself a girl scout? Does it make him one? In a word, no.

You still haven't demonstrated to us why your special blend of religion, which ignores all the rules you don't feel like following, is the definitive version. Please do this, before you keep on brashly telling us which groups aren't following proper christian etiquette.

If you can't, then all your assertions boil down to are the rantings of a blowhard with no authority of his own.

Quote:Why? Because there are rules that one must fall under to be considered apart of an organization. You all have been arguing the 'No true scotsmen fallacy' against Christianity so long unchecked you actually believe it. What your arguement does not take into consideration is the fact that Christianity is a organization like any other. As such there are rules and regs that determine who and what are christian. If this group who calls themselves christians does X and X is not a 'sanctioned' Christian behaivor, then its real simple. those who do X do not do it under or for Christianity.

Except no one denomination of christianity can quite agree on what those rules are, and you in particular don't seem to match with any of those sects completely. So, again I ask you: why is your specific version of christianity the only right and correct one? You never seem to answer this question.

Quote:Should Christianity also be responsiable for those people getting the witch hunters high/drunk before sending them out, when clearly Murder is a sin, Drinking, and doing Drugs is a sin?

The Christian Faith has already condemned every part of what these people have done. what more is their to do?

To demonstrate that I don't have a bias in this, at least not one that affects my argument, I will give the Catholic church- and I think the Pope but I can't say for sure just off the top of my head- props for urging sanctions against witchcraft when it causes demonstrable human harm, where those sanctions didn't seem violent themselves. I hope.

Quote: I can explain it to the "educated," the problem is the 'educated' think the know better, and ignore what has been explained:
The bible repersents 2 Different religions. Judism, and Christianity. These are divided by what are known as covenants or "testaments." The Old Testament refers to Judaism, and The New Testament refers to all things Christian.

Done..

Congrats, you've spouted your opinion once again. Now show us why you're credible.

Quote: Actually no. The Evil will try and use 'religion' to mask the evil in their hearts. This is the lesson History teaches. This is the lesson Christ taught. One does not have to be uneducated to be Evil.

It's also a very good way to make good people do bad things, by tricking them into believing they're doing good things.

(February 8, 2013 at 10:36 am)Drich Wrote: Was she a sourcer or whatever they accused her of? Did she present herself that way?

Just saying if that region was known to burn witches then why be a witch? If she was a witch then she knew the risks involved. If a police officer gets shot and killed in a specific community for doing his job, does the BBC or any other self rightous group/person comdemn that whole community? Or do we seek justice by looking for the person or people who comitted the actual crime? Why should this be any different? Oh that's right the 'self righteous are on an ironic witch hunt to persecute the religious!

Drich, I think maybe you're missing the bit where WITCHES DON'T EXIST.

(February 12, 2013 at 8:03 pm)Aegrus Wrote: Drich, I think maybe you're missing the bit where WITCHES DON'T EXIST.

I think he thinks they do: I pulled him up on this exact point a few pages back, and instead of answering me, or assuring me he's living in reality and knows witches don't exist, he just restated his original point.

Actually, restating his original point is all Drich does.

(February 12, 2013 at 8:26 pm)Esquilax Wrote:

(February 12, 2013 at 8:03 pm)Aegrus Wrote: Drich, I think maybe you're missing the bit where WITCHES DON'T EXIST.

I think he thinks they do: I pulled him up on this exact point a few pages back, and instead of answering me, or assuring me he's living in reality and knows witches don't exist, he just restated his original point.

Actually, restating his original point is all Drich does.

He keeps refusing to answer my posts, too. I'm quickly realizing why no one bothers to respond to him with sources and logical discourse.

At least profanity typically gets some sort of answer out of him, even if it's a worthless one.

I've been following this thread, and Drich still hasn't answered the question about whether or not the god of the NT and the OT is the same. It's a simple but intriguing question.