(September 24, 2013 at 10:35 am)catfish Wrote: Says the dumbass who just got done saying that that was never his claim.

Is your reading comprehension seriously that bad? You said that my claim was that deceiver and unbeliever were synonyms. That wasn't my fucking claim, so I reminded you of that.

What I did to arrive at my position was a thing called "reading the passage," which must be quite alien to a guy whose idea of a well thought out rebuttal is the word "stupidity," followed by an emoticon.

(September 24, 2013 at 11:07 am)Airyaman Wrote:

(September 24, 2013 at 10:14 am)catfish Wrote: Stupidity...

Is this what passes for responses around here from theists? OK, so you aren't going to be doing your god any favors...

Nope, just from catfish. You're lucky to get more than one word responses from him, I wouldn't even bother with the thought process it takes to acknowledge his pathetic attempt at self assuredness. He's been proven wrong so many times this is just a formality for you, really.

Well I suppose the name "catfish" actually means something in this case then.

If, by 'means something' you mean retard, and 'this case' you mean fuck him: oh yeah.

(September 24, 2013 at 11:07 am)Airyaman Wrote:

(September 24, 2013 at 10:14 am)catfish Wrote: Stupidity...

Is this what passes for responses around here from theists? OK, so you aren't going to be doing your god any favors...

What did you expect? I asked earlier if you claimed to know the context to which you answered "no".
I showed you your response to my direct question about whether or not you'd read the entire chapter. You claimed to have and that nothing in the context blah blah blah.

I wanted to know if your denial of knowing the context and your incorrect/incomplete information about it was an honest mistake, stupidity or a lie.
Your response makes me think stupidity, but my gut say liar...

---

(September 24, 2013 at 11:17 am)missluckie26 Wrote:

(September 24, 2013 at 11:07 am)Airyaman Wrote: Is this what passes for responses around here from theists? OK, so you aren't going to be doing your god any favors...

Nope, just from catfish. You're lucky to get more than one word responses from him, I wouldn't even bother with the thought process it takes to acknowledge his pathetic attempt at self assuredness. He's been proven wrong so many times this is just a formality for you, really.

Why are you still here when you still haven't provided evidence for your earlier claims. EVERYTHING you have posted since rests on your fallacious assumptions earlier in this thread.
You want something to work with? Try working with that for once.

---

(September 24, 2013 at 11:08 am)Esquilax Wrote:

(September 24, 2013 at 10:35 am)catfish Wrote: Says the dumbass who just got done saying that that was never his claim.

Is your reading comprehension seriously that bad? You said that my claim was that deceiver and unbeliever were synonyms. That wasn't my fucking claim, so I reminded you of that.

What I did to arrive at my position was a thing called "reading the passage," which must be quite alien to a guy whose idea of a well thought out rebuttal is the word "stupidity," followed by an emoticon.

You did not "read the passage" or else you would have understood the sentence structure.
"For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh.

(Many) deceivers are the subject(s), not unbelievers.
These many deceivers are the ones (who) confess not... (still deceivers here, no magical leap to unbelievers)
This is a deceiver and an antichrist. (the deceivers who confesses not...)
See? Nowhere in your verse does it say unbelievers are the anti-christ.

Check mate, now slink away...
God this is too fucking easy.

(September 25, 2013 at 12:08 am)catfish Wrote: Check mate, now slink away...
God this is too fucking easy.

What? Out scripturing atheists makes you proud? Isn't that like out singing the mute? I couldn't be any less intimidated if I lost a bugger eating contest to you. Along with reading scripture I am willing to cede to you supremacy in that arena too.

(September 25, 2013 at 1:44 am)whateverist Wrote:

(September 25, 2013 at 12:08 am)catfish Wrote: Check mate, now slink away...
God this is too fucking easy.

What? Out scripturing atheists makes you proud? Isn't that like out singing the mute? I couldn't be any less intimidated if I lost a bugger eating contest to you. Along with reading scripture I am willing to cede to you supremacy in that arena too.

Ummm, no.
That was an English lesson and you obviously missed my unimpressed face.

(September 25, 2013 at 1:44 am)whateverist Wrote:

(September 25, 2013 at 12:08 am)catfish Wrote: Check mate, now slink away...
God this is too fucking easy.

What? Out scripturing atheists makes you proud? Isn't that like out singing the mute? I couldn't be any less intimidated if I lost a bugger eating contest to you. Along with reading scripture I am willing to cede to you supremacy in that arena too.

Pity the poor schmoe, Whatevs...he just admitted in the shoutbox that he doesn't know who Nat King Cole is! What a hollow shell of a fry he must be.

So we're here to impress you, catty?

(September 25, 2013 at 2:08 am)BadWriterSparty Wrote: So we're here to impress you, catty?

You don't know why you're here?