Am I right to assume, that theists cannot prove that I am not god?

[Godscreated]

Your religious view says atheist, meaning you believe in NO gods, so you can't even believe your a god. Just another reason you are not a god only a faulty human like myself and all of humanity.

GC

Atheism is the absence of belief in supernatural things. But what you as a mortal consider supernatural things is perfectly natural for me. Should you find something inconsistent though, then it is you either not comprehending it since I am not bound to logic or me just fooling you. You just can't prove me wrong can you.

I've already proven you wrong, but here's another, we'll wait to you die.

GC

---

 Your religious view says atheist, meaning you believe in NO gods, so you can't even believe your a god. Just another reason you are not a god only a faulty human like myself and all of humanity.

GC

Well, well humans are more god like than any gods, because we actually do stuff in reality. It can be good or bad, but their is strong evidence that clever apes have an effect upon this planet. Their is zero evidence of an uber-human super monkey though.

EDIT: to add, we don't say their are no gods, we say that no good evidence is provided for that positive claim. The uber-monkey would certainly know how to do that!

 Funny all the other atheist say they do not believe in any god.

GC

[Godscreated]

 Jesus couldn't have sinned, if He had He would not needed to go to the cross. You need to provide those scriptures you speak of. Jesus told the Pharisees that He is the Lord of the Sabbath and the proceeded to ask them why the did necessary work on the Sabbath, why did they?  

GC

---

It just so happens that on a different forum, the idea of transubstantiation was brought up, so I happened to look up the NT verse to better understand what they were talking about and this is what I found:

“And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, blessed and broke it, and gave it to the disciples and said, ‘Take, eat; this is My body.’ Then He took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, ‘Drink from it, all of you. For this is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins’ ”
 
Looking strictly at the food consumed, if this is taken figuratively, then it’s not a sin to eat wheat or wine. If it’s taken literally, then Jesus committed a few sins here. Jews cannot eat human flesh. It’s not kosher. Also, Jews cannot drink any blood from any animal. Humans qualify as land dwelling beings, so we fall under the animal category. We just don’t happen to be kosher animals. Consuming blood is strictly forbidden.

There was bread to eat and wine to drink and neither of these in themselves are sinful and I'm not sure where you got the idea they were. The scriptures call for people not to be drunkards and people were raising and using wheat centuries before Jesus was born. Jesus used the wine to represent His blood and the unleavened bread to represent His flesh. This was used as a symbol of the crucifixion he was to suffer for all of man kind.

Leviticus 7:26 And you shall not eat any blood in any of your dwelling places, whether from birds or from animals. 27. Any person who eats any blood, that soul shall be cut off from its people.

Those Christians who view this as a literal transubstantiation thing must also accept that Jesus committed the sin of drinking blood and eating flesh of a non-kosher animal. There’s an added sin for Jesus because he was the group leader and he encouraged 12 other Jews to commit sins. I’m not sure if that’s 12 individual counts of encouraging 12 Jews to sin, is it 24 sins for encouraging 12 Jews to break 2 sins each, or if it’s all just covered under one single count of encouraging a group of Jews to sin.

Christians are smarter than you are. We realize Jesus drank wine and so did the disciples and Jesus did not eat flesh nor did His disciples. No sin committed. Transubstantiation is the act of substitution, Jesus was/is our substitute for our punishment for sin, just as the wine and bread are substitutes for the blood and flesh, the Catholics have gotten this wrong as many other things.

To understand more about tempting Jews to sin, read Deuteronomy 13. Jesus was said to be a dreamer of dreams (a prophet), yet his prophecies did not come true and he told the Jews to follow a different way. That’s a massive sin right there. The only question I have is how many sins does it count as.

What some may have called Him and who He was/is are two different things. You need to site His prophecies that didn't come to pass.

But maybe you think that Jesus didn’t eat and drink human flesh and blood. –Except he did. How do I know that Jesus himself drank the wine and ate the bread? It’s right there in the text. If Jesus made the blessing, but didn’t eat the bread and drink the wine, then he’s guilty of 2 counts of taking the Lord’s name in vain, as the name of G-d is used in both of those blessings.

Exodus 12:7 You shall not take the name of the Lord, your God, in vain, for the Lord will not hold blameless anyone who takes His name in vain. (Judaica Press)

It clearly says that Jesus blessed the bread and he gave thanks for the wine so if he didn’t follow through and make use of G-d’s name by having taken action for which he called upon the Lord by name, then according to Jewish law, he would be guilty of having committed 2 counts of the sin of taking G-d’s name in vain.

First of all these are not your original thoughts as you are portraying. Second Jesus being God couldn't have taken His name in vain. Third we Christians are smarter than you because we understand what a substitute is. also the Father would not have allowed Jesus to go to the cross if He had sinned and even if He had He would not have raised Him from the dead, because the payment for sin is death. Jesus crucifixion is proof He went to the cross sinless. 
 

But wait! Jesus gave what to his merry men to substitute for his body? Bread?! HUGE FUCKING SIN! That’s such a big sin, that according to Jewish law, if you break this sin, you’re cut off from the Jewish people spiritually.  YOU DO NOT EAT BREAD ON PASSOVER!

Exodus 12:8 the LORD says," They shall eat the flesh (of the lamb) that night, roasted on the fire; with unleavened bread and bitter herbs they shall eat it." You really should study the scriptures own your own, copying others work that is wrong makes you look foolish, dumb even. If you're going to make yourself look foolish you should at least try to get it right. Allowing some one else to do the incorrect work and copying it, well what else can I say. For you leavened bread would be what you should have said. All Jews knew that unleavened bread was to be eaten at the Passover and that was probably all that was available on that day. No use in making a bread that you can't sale, is there. 
  

Exodus 12:18 "In the first month [i.e. Nissan] from the fourteenth day of the month at evening, you shall eat unleavened bread until the twenty-first day of the month at evening."  (Judaica Press)

Matzah is what he should have been eating, not "bread." It’s a different word entirely.  Challah is the word for bread. Matzah is the word for unleavened bread. In English, the distinction between challah and matzah is made by adding the modifier “unleavened” to the word "bread."

That doesn't translate over into the English language and we as Christians know what He was eating as I stated above. So unless you're reading a Hebrew translation of the NT you're barking up the wrong tree and making yourself look the more foolish all the time.

So the question then comes up, do Christians understand the difference between leavened and unleavened bread? Could this just be a misinterpretation on my part?  It’s no misinterpretation. Christians definitely understand that Jesus should have been serving unleavened bread (matzah) at his Seder because their own bible (I’ll use KJV) specifies that on Passover, Jews eat unleavened bread.

Misinterpretation on your part doesn't even begin to state the illogical notions you are stating. You say the Christians knew the difference but then you accuse Jesus of not knowing the Jewish law that he knew well and like I said there more than likely wouldn't have been any leaven bread available that day. Jesus disciples were the ones who prepared the meal, so you have to make a argument hoe thirteen Jewish men could have missed something that was habit for them. You are sounding more ridiculous by the minute.

So…. Why was Jesus serving bread at his Seder? (The answer is that the writers of the NT weren’t Jewish and didn’t understand Jewish law.) But, going by what the NT says, that’s a sin for Jesus for eating leavened bread, it’s another sin for owning leavened bread and it’s however many sins he picks up for encouraging each Jew at the table to break Torah law. 

Okay, food sins are done.

You're the one done well done. You said Christians knew that Jesus was to serve unleavened bread, because the Bible teaches us that, Then you say that because the writers were not Jewish those Christians did not know the difference. So how did it get into the Bible. Prove the writers of the NT were not Jewish, that will be a tall order without the original manuscripts. It's funny you would say they did not know Jewish law when aspects of the Jewish laws are all over the NT.

Let’s move onto human sacrifices. Are human sacrifices accepted in Judaism?

No. Never. In fact, that is the single most abhorrent thing to Jews. The Jewish people spend their entire history leading up to the story of Jesus combating. The suggestion that Jews would sit there and listen to Jesus say that he would be their sacrifice, and that they would support this idea? It would be like every Jew during WW2 getting behind Adolph Hitler’s Final Solution. It’s ridiculous to even suggest. 

Human sacrifice is worse than eating blood, human flesh, saying the lord’s name in vain, and eating bread of Passover. It’s worse than all of those things combined, but to be fair, Jesus isn't committing human sacrifice in this passage. He's only discussing it, and discussing it isn't a sin. But I must point out that in this passage, Jesus is trying to change the sacrificial and atonement system. He’s taking away from the existing Jewish law, and he’s adding his own rules. 

Is that kosher? No.

Deuteronomy 4:2 Do not add onto what I am commanding to you, and do not detract from it...
 
Deuteronomy 13:1 Everything I command you that you shall be careful to do it. You shall neither add to it, nor subtract from it. 

Two more sins for Jesus. One for detracting, and one for adding to the Torah.

Jesus himself said He did not come to change the Law but to fulfill it, do you even know what that means. Jesus came to be the finial sacrifice for all of mankind not just the Jews. Jesus also being part of the truine God gave those laws to Moses and the Israelites. Jesus never changed the law and the Israelites gave up the sacrifice of animal on their own. When the temple fell by the hands of the Romans the Jews scattered and basically dump what they had practiced for centuries. 

This is just what I found this morning when I arbitrarily glanced at one paragraph in the NT. The sins were so numerous that I can't even be bothered to count them. Clearly, one paragraph generates evidence of at least one sin. So to respond to your statement that you can determine that a person isn't a deity because they do or don't sin, then I'd point out that you clearly can't distinguish sin from a hole in the ground and that you think Jesus is god even though he committed some of the most egregious sins of them all in just one paragraph.

 Arbitrarily glance, yeah right. Also didn't you tell me that the Torah wasn't a main concern of the Jews. Jesus never sinned and all you stated is fabricated nonsense because you haven't the slightest ability to rationalize or logically understand the Bible and especially the translation into English. Vast Vision is as guilty of sin as I am, the problem for Vast Vision, no forgiveness yet. You do you have forgiveness of your sin, do you sacrifice offerings to God, do you thank God through the first fruit offerings. You need to look at what your standing is with God before criticizing others.

GC

[The Valkyrie]

Atheism is the absence of belief in supernatural things. But what you as a mortal consider supernatural things is perfectly natural for me. Should you find something inconsistent though, then it is you either not comprehending it since I am not bound to logic or me just fooling you. You just can't prove me wrong can you.

I've already proven you wrong, but here's another, we'll wait to you die.

GC

---

Well, well humans are more god like than any gods, because we actually do stuff in reality. It can be good or bad, but their is strong evidence that clever apes have an effect upon this planet. Their is zero evidence of an uber-human super monkey though.

EDIT: to add, we don't say their are no gods, we say that no good evidence is provided for that positive claim. The uber-monkey would certainly know how to do that!

 Funny all the other atheist say they do not believe in any god.

GC

Jesus supposedly died and then descended to heaven, though the accounts of who the witnesses were, etc., are contradictory.

So the death of someone is not necessarily proof, using that logic, that the person is not a deity.  Perhaps their current form is merely an avatar for a deity, one that will be shed at the death of the current body.

[Aliza]

It just so happens that on a different forum, the idea of transubstantiation was brought up, so I happened to look up the NT verse to better understand what they were talking about and this is what I found:

“And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, blessed and broke it, and gave it to the disciples and said, ‘Take, eat; this is My body.’ Then He took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, ‘Drink from it, all of you. For this is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins’ ”
 
Looking strictly at the food consumed, if this is taken figuratively, then it’s not a sin to eat wheat or wine. If it’s taken literally, then Jesus committed a few sins here. Jews cannot eat human flesh. It’s not kosher. Also, Jews cannot drink any blood from any animal. Humans qualify as land dwelling beings, so we fall under the animal category. We just don’t happen to be kosher animals. Consuming blood is strictly forbidden.

There was bread to eat and wine to drink and neither of these in themselves are sinful and I'm not sure where you got the idea they were. The scriptures call for people not to be drunkards and people were raising and using wheat centuries before Jesus was born. Jesus used the wine to represent His blood and the unleavened bread to represent His flesh. This was used as a symbol of the crucifixion he was to suffer for all of man kind.

Leviticus 7:26 And you shall not eat any blood in any of your dwelling places, whether from birds or from animals. 27. Any person who eats any blood, that soul shall be cut off from its people.

Those Christians who view this as a literal transubstantiation thing must also accept that Jesus committed the sin of drinking blood and eating flesh of a non-kosher animal. There’s an added sin for Jesus because he was the group leader and he encouraged 12 other Jews to commit sins. I’m not sure if that’s 12 individual counts of encouraging 12 Jews to sin, is it 24 sins for encouraging 12 Jews to break 2 sins each, or if it’s all just covered under one single count of encouraging a group of Jews to sin.

Christians are smarter than you are. We realize Jesus drank wine and so did the disciples and Jesus did not eat flesh nor did His disciples. No sin committed. Transubstantiation is the act of substitution, Jesus was/is our substitute for our punishment for sin, just as the wine and bread are substitutes for the blood and flesh, the Catholics have gotten this wrong as many other things.

To understand more about tempting Jews to sin, read Deuteronomy 13. Jesus was said to be a dreamer of dreams (a prophet), yet his prophecies did not come true and he told the Jews to follow a different way. That’s a massive sin right there. The only question I have is how many sins does it count as.

What some may have called Him and who He was/is are two different things. You need to site His prophecies that didn't come to pass.

But maybe you think that Jesus didn’t eat and drink human flesh and blood. –Except he did. How do I know that Jesus himself drank the wine and ate the bread? It’s right there in the text. If Jesus made the blessing, but didn’t eat the bread and drink the wine, then he’s guilty of 2 counts of taking the Lord’s name in vain, as the name of G-d is used in both of those blessings.

Exodus 12:7 You shall not take the name of the Lord, your God, in vain, for the Lord will not hold blameless anyone who takes His name in vain. (Judaica Press)

It clearly says that Jesus blessed the bread and he gave thanks for the wine so if he didn’t follow through and make use of G-d’s name by having taken action for which he called upon the Lord by name, then according to Jewish law, he would be guilty of having committed 2 counts of the sin of taking G-d’s name in vain.

First of all these are not your original thoughts as you are portraying. Second Jesus being God couldn't have taken His name in vain. Third we Christians are smarter than you because we understand what a substitute is. also the Father would not have allowed Jesus to go to the cross if He had sinned and even if He had He would not have raised Him from the dead, because the payment for sin is death. Jesus crucifixion is proof He went to the cross sinless. 
 

But wait! Jesus gave what to his merry men to substitute for his body? Bread?! HUGE FUCKING SIN! That’s such a big sin, that according to Jewish law, if you break this sin, you’re cut off from the Jewish people spiritually.  YOU DO NOT EAT BREAD ON PASSOVER!

Exodus 12:8 the LORD says," They shall eat the flesh (of the lamb) that night, roasted on the fire; with unleavened bread and bitter herbs they shall eat it." You really should study the scriptures own your own, copying others work that is wrong makes you look foolish, dumb even. If you're going to make yourself look foolish you should at least try to get it right. Allowing some one else to do the incorrect work and copying it, well what else can I say. For you leavened bread would be what you should have said. All Jews knew that unleavened bread was to be eaten at the Passover and that was probably all that was available on that day. No use in making a bread that you can't sale, is there. 
  

Exodus 12:18 "In the first month [i.e. Nissan] from the fourteenth day of the month at evening, you shall eat unleavened bread until the twenty-first day of the month at evening."  (Judaica Press)

Matzah is what he should have been eating, not "bread." It’s a different word entirely.  Challah is the word for bread. Matzah is the word for unleavened bread. In English, the distinction between challah and matzah is made by adding the modifier “unleavened” to the word "bread."

That doesn't translate over into the English language and we as Christians know what He was eating as I stated above. So unless you're reading a Hebrew translation of the NT you're barking up the wrong tree and making yourself look the more foolish all the time.

So the question then comes up, do Christians understand the difference between leavened and unleavened bread? Could this just be a misinterpretation on my part?  It’s no misinterpretation. Christians definitely understand that Jesus should have been serving unleavened bread (matzah) at his Seder because their own bible (I’ll use KJV) specifies that on Passover, Jews eat unleavened bread.

Misinterpretation on your part doesn't even begin to state the illogical notions you are stating. You say the Christians knew the difference but then you accuse Jesus of not knowing the Jewish law that he knew well and like I said there more than likely wouldn't have been any leaven bread available that day. Jesus disciples were the ones who prepared the meal, so you have to make a argument hoe thirteen Jewish men could have missed something that was habit for them. You are sounding more ridiculous by the minute.

So…. Why was Jesus serving bread at his Seder? (The answer is that the writers of the NT weren’t Jewish and didn’t understand Jewish law.) But, going by what the NT says, that’s a sin for Jesus for eating leavened bread, it’s another sin for owning leavened bread and it’s however many sins he picks up for encouraging each Jew at the table to break Torah law. 

Okay, food sins are done.

You're the one done well done. You said Christians knew that Jesus was to serve unleavened bread, because the Bible teaches us that, Then you say that because the writers were not Jewish those Christians did not know the difference. So how did it get into the Bible. Prove the writers of the NT were not Jewish, that will be a tall order without the original manuscripts. It's funny you would say they did not know Jewish law when aspects of the Jewish laws are all over the NT.

Let’s move onto human sacrifices. Are human sacrifices accepted in Judaism?

No. Never. In fact, that is the single most abhorrent thing to Jews. The Jewish people spend their entire history leading up to the story of Jesus combating. The suggestion that Jews would sit there and listen to Jesus say that he would be their sacrifice, and that they would support this idea? It would be like every Jew during WW2 getting behind Adolph Hitler’s Final Solution. It’s ridiculous to even suggest. 

Human sacrifice is worse than eating blood, human flesh, saying the lord’s name in vain, and eating bread of Passover. It’s worse than all of those things combined, but to be fair, Jesus isn't committing human sacrifice in this passage. He's only discussing it, and discussing it isn't a sin. But I must point out that in this passage, Jesus is trying to change the sacrificial and atonement system. He’s taking away from the existing Jewish law, and he’s adding his own rules. 

Is that kosher? No.

Deuteronomy 4:2 Do not add onto what I am commanding to you, and do not detract from it...
 
Deuteronomy 13:1 Everything I command you that you shall be careful to do it. You shall neither add to it, nor subtract from it. 

Two more sins for Jesus. One for detracting, and one for adding to the Torah.

Jesus himself said He did not come to change the Law but to fulfill it, do you even know what that means. Jesus came to be the finial sacrifice for all of mankind not just the Jews. Jesus also being part of the truine God gave those laws to Moses and the Israelites. Jesus never changed the law and the Israelites gave up the sacrifice of animal on their own. When the temple fell by the hands of the Romans the Jews scattered and basically dump what they had practiced for centuries. 

This is just what I found this morning when I arbitrarily glanced at one paragraph in the NT. The sins were so numerous that I can't even be bothered to count them. Clearly, one paragraph generates evidence of at least one sin. So to respond to your statement that you can determine that a person isn't a deity because they do or don't sin, then I'd point out that you clearly can't distinguish sin from a hole in the ground and that you think Jesus is god even though he committed some of the most egregious sins of them all in just one paragraph.

 Arbitrarily glance, yeah right. Also didn't you tell me that the Torah wasn't a main concern of the Jews. Jesus never sinned and all you stated is fabricated nonsense because you haven't the slightest ability to rationalize or logically understand the Bible and especially the translation into English. Vast Vision is as guilty of sin as I am, the problem for Vast Vision, no forgiveness yet. You do you have forgiveness of your sin, do you sacrifice offerings to God, do you thank God through the first fruit offerings. You need to look at what your standing is with God before criticizing others.

GC

Oooooh, you sound needlessly agressive in your response. Did I strike a chord with you? So sorry, sweetie pie. I'll try to play more nicely with you in the future.

[Godscreated]

I've already proven you wrong, but here's another, we'll wait to you die.

GC

---

 Funny all the other atheist say they do not believe in any god.

GC

Jesus supposedly died and then descended to heaven, though the accounts of who the witnesses were, etc., are contradictory.

So the death of someone is not necessarily proof, using that logic, that the person is not a deity.  Perhaps their current form is merely an avatar for a deity, one that will be shed at the death of the current body.

 Descended, really. As for the rest of your statement it is not logical.

GC

---

---

There was bread to eat and wine to drink and neither of these in themselves are sinful and I'm not sure where you got the idea they were. The scriptures call for people not to be drunkards and people were raising and using wheat centuries before Jesus was born. Jesus used the wine to represent His blood and the unleavened bread to represent His flesh. This was used as a symbol of the crucifixion he was to suffer for all of man kind.


Christians are smarter than you are. We realize Jesus drank wine and so did the disciples and Jesus did not eat flesh nor did His disciples. No sin committed. Transubstantiation is the act of substitution, Jesus was/is our substitute for our punishment for sin, just as the wine and bread are substitutes for the blood and flesh, the Catholics have gotten this wrong as many other things.


What some may have called Him and who He was/is are two different things. You need to site His prophecies that didn't come to pass.


First of all these are not your original thoughts as you are portraying. Second Jesus being God couldn't have taken His name in vain. Third we Christians are smarter than you because we understand what a substitute is. also the Father would not have allowed Jesus to go to the cross if He had sinned and even if He had He would not have raised Him from the dead, because the payment for sin is death. Jesus crucifixion is proof He went to the cross sinless. 
 

Exodus 12:8 the LORD says," They shall eat the flesh (of the lamb) that night, roasted on the fire; with unleavened bread and bitter herbs they shall eat it." You really should study the scriptures own your own, copying others work that is wrong makes you look foolish, dumb even. If you're going to make yourself look foolish you should at least try to get it right. Allowing some one else to do the incorrect work and copying it, well what else can I say. For you leavened bread would be what you should have said. All Jews knew that unleavened bread was to be eaten at the Passover and that was probably all that was available on that day. No use in making a bread that you can't sale, is there. 
  

That doesn't translate over into the English language and we as Christians know what He was eating as I stated above. So unless you're reading a Hebrew translation of the NT you're barking up the wrong tree and making yourself look the more foolish all the time.


Misinterpretation on your part doesn't even begin to state the illogical notions you are stating. You say the Christians knew the difference but then you accuse Jesus of not knowing the Jewish law that he knew well and like I said there more than likely wouldn't have been any leaven bread available that day. Jesus disciples were the ones who prepared the meal, so you have to make a argument hoe thirteen Jewish men could have missed something that was habit for them. You are sounding more ridiculous by the minute.


You're the one done well done. You said Christians knew that Jesus was to serve unleavened bread, because the Bible teaches us that, Then you say that because the writers were not Jewish those Christians did not know the difference. So how did it get into the Bible. Prove the writers of the NT were not Jewish, that will be a tall order without the original manuscripts. It's funny you would say they did not know Jewish law when aspects of the Jewish laws are all over the NT.


Jesus himself said He did not come to change the Law but to fulfill it, do you even know what that means. Jesus came to be the finial sacrifice for all of mankind not just the Jews. Jesus also being part of the truine God gave those laws to Moses and the Israelites. Jesus never changed the law and the Israelites gave up the sacrifice of animal on their own. When the temple fell by the hands of the Romans the Jews scattered and basically dump what they had practiced for centuries. 


 Arbitrarily glance, yeah right. Also didn't you tell me that the Torah wasn't a main concern of the Jews. Jesus never sinned and all you stated is fabricated nonsense because you haven't the slightest ability to rationalize or logically understand the Bible and especially the translation into English. Vast Vision is as guilty of sin as I am, the problem for Vast Vision, no forgiveness yet. You do you have forgiveness of your sin, do you sacrifice offerings to God, do you thank God through the first fruit offerings. You need to look at what your standing is with God before criticizing others.

GC

---

Oooooh, you sound needlessly agressive in your response. Did I strike a chord with you? So sorry, sweetie pie. I'll try to play more nicely with you in the future.

 Play however you want everyone else does some very nice others nice and most not so nice. Aggressive surely not, well maybe but why not.

GC

[Vast Vision]

I speak through an account that is labeled Atheist and he thinks he proved I am no god. How is that a proof? Is the god you believe in Theist or Atheist? Is he a Theist? Does this mean that your god believes in other gods?

Try again. Still no proof I am not god.

[Nay_Sayer]

That moment when theists say, "but you can't prove god doesn't exists."

I don't think I can prove it. The best I think I can do is demonstrate that you don't fit the description of the Jewish G-d, but even then, we'd both have to agree that the description of G-d comes from Jewish sources.

What's G-d? did you mean God more correctly FSM?
 Are you afraid to type it? if so why?

---

I speak through an account that is labeled Atheist and he thinks he proved I am no god. How is that a proof? Is the god you believe in Theist or Atheist? Is he a Theist? Does this mean that your god believes in other gods?

Try again. Still no proof I am not god.

I accept this and will sacrifice my colander  to both you and his holy noodliness 

[The Valkyrie]

Jesus supposedly died and then descended to heaven, though the accounts of who the witnesses were, etc., are contradictory.

So the death of someone is not necessarily proof, using that logic, that the person is not a deity.  Perhaps their current form is merely an avatar for a deity, one that will be shed at the death of the current body.

 Descended, really. As for the rest of your statement it is not logical.

GC

---

Oooooh, you sound needlessly agressive in your response. Did I strike a chord with you? So sorry, sweetie pie. I'll try to play more nicely with you in the future.

 Play however you want everyone else does some very nice others nice and most not so nice. Aggressive surely not, well maybe but why not.

GC

Yes, I wrote "descended" instead of "ascended".  A simple error does not take away from the rest of my statement.

[Astonished]

 Descended, really. As for the rest of your statement it is not logical.

GC

---

 Play however you want everyone else does some very nice others nice and most not so nice. Aggressive surely not, well maybe but why not.

GC

Yes, I wrote "descended" instead of "ascended".  A simple error does not take away from the rest of my statement.

Think who you're arguing with.

Oh, and this motherfucker is HILARIOUS saying he (and Xtians) are smarter than someone, fucking laugh riot. Should do fucking stand-up. Only it'll be the laughing-at-him kind, not the laughing-with-him kind.

[Inkfeather132]

Jesus supposedly died and then descended to heaven, though the accounts of who the witnesses were, etc., are contradictory.

So the death of someone is not necessarily proof, using that logic, that the person is not a deity.  Perhaps their current form is merely an avatar for a deity, one that will be shed at the death of the current body.

 Descended, really. As for the rest of your statement it is not logical.

GC

---

Oooooh, you sound needlessly agressive in your response. Did I strike a chord with you? So sorry, sweetie pie. I'll try to play more nicely with you in the future.

 Play however you want everyone else does some very nice others nice and most not so nice. Aggressive surely not, well maybe but why not.

GC

Seriously? You're calling her out on an honest mistake when you clearly don't know how to even use a comma? And that's just in these quoted posts here. Earlier, you ended a question with a period. A period! How about you actually reply to her arguments rather than nit-picking her grammar when your own posts are incredibly lazy.