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

[catfish]

Oh, you're dictating which behaviors are punishable? dickwad...

[Mystical]

I..don't even know what to say in response to that, catfish. Well played

[bladevalant546]

I..don't even know what to say in response to that, catfish. Well played

I know to much derp for one brain to handle right? Unless of course I am missing something.....say I want some fried catfish.

[Mystical]

Yeah! That reminds me. Where the hell is my man Tartarus Sauce?!

[catfish]

I..don't even know what to say in response to that, catfish. Well played

I know to much derp for one brain to handle right? Unless of course I am missing something.....say I want some fried catfish.

So much derp you forgot to defend your case's position...

I pointed out how your "case" is irrelevant, perhaps you should look over your briefs and re-file?

[Creed of Heresy]

Ahh yes you objection would hold water. However, the only witness of this perception are the Abrahamic religions. With that said, those are the only reliable witness to his omnipresence. That means we cannot take his omnipotence seriously. However, we have Mr. D as the witness to the fall regardless of the possible malicious intent. We can ascertain that God did have foreknowledge and intent when placing the tree in the garden.

(Okay I am having fun with this, I do fear it might get out of hand.)

You're right it will get out of hand quickly, that's the way some deal with arguments here, they care nothing for the argument they only desire the kudos. If it were to stay serious I would have things to say, but I'm tired of the immature childish ways of our new members, I wish some of the mature ones would come back.

GC

Ye...thou art the one of whom is the most of maturity...ye who dost holdeth most closely upon myths and Santa Clausisms most silly, thou truly dost sayeth from a position of sagely wisdom!

I beggeth. (Means "Please.")

[Mystical]

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

Little Susie, you stop callin your brother a dickwad this instant or you're getting a THOUSAND YEAR-LONG timeout!

Yep.

Makes sense.

Your reply wasn't a reply thus I did not reply maybe you should reply with a reply

[Creed of Heresy]

By the way, one must remember that in the original Hebrew texts from whence the bible spawns, well...Satan was the prosecutor and Yahweh was the judge.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satan#Judaism

You see...Satan didn't become "the devil" until Christianity.

Funny thing, that. Sky-father [sorry, Yahweh...well, same meaning, different words] neglected for millenia to tell his chosen people that there was an eternity of damnation possibly awaiting them for straying...and that there was a devil. Even though Satan DOES show up in the original Hebrew scripts to test mortals...at the behest of Yahweh. So...Satan is NOT the devil, he's an angel acting on Yahweh's orders. But then suddenly Satan is the devil come Jesus-time when this new barbaric cult needed a new means of threatening suffering to those who do not believe, due to the jews realizing "Hey, wait, these Romans who are the dominating force in the world and who worship idols and 'false gods' are not being stricken by fires and floods and famines...WELL, LOOKS LIKE WE NEED A NEW THREAT, ONE NOBODY CAN VERIFY BUT WILL SCARE THE SHIT OUT OF EVERYONE, by using the concept of the afterlife to our advantage!"

As usual we see how the entire mythos falls the fuck apart the moment you look at its founding roots.

[bladevalant546]

So let us examine this judgment to eternal damnation in a court like setting.

<snip>

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.

[catfish]

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.

You should quit while you can...

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