RE: I'm beginning to hate religious people.
May 27, 2011 at 7:16 pm
(This post was last modified: May 27, 2011 at 7:18 pm by Emanuel.)
(May 27, 2011 at 6:47 pm)Napoleon666 Wrote: Oh I read your post.
You said:
"I also said that not believing in Him isn't the sin that gets you condemned"
I said:
"So you're saying I could still go to heaven even though I don't believe god exists?"
If not believing isn't the sin that gets you condemned then technically I can still go to heaven. Prove me wrong judging on what you said.
Yes, you are right. I was trying to say something but I expressed myself incorrectly. Forgive me.
(May 27, 2011 at 6:47 pm)Napoleon666 Wrote: You are asuming the invisible pink unicorn exists. Seen as it is a figment of my imagination (much like your sky daddy) it does not operate within our existance, so it can be any fucking colour I say it is. OKAY!?
So you are admitting that the Invisible Pink Unicorn is made up and isn't part of reality, so it doesn't exist. Good to know.
(May 27, 2011 at 6:47 pm)Napoleon666 Wrote: You have yet to prove the 'TRINITY' exists, so much like the invisible pink unicorn, I think it's a very good comparison.
You guys have not yet provided proof the the Trinity is as contradictory as an Invisible Pink Unicorn. Doubting Thomas said: "If God can be a trinity, then the IPU can be both invisible and pink at the same time". In order for his claim to be valid, be must first prove that the Trinity is truly as contradictory as an IPU. He is basically saying: "If you accept the Trinity as real while it being so contradictory, then I also accept the IPU as real even though it is contradictory." But yet he is only making assumptions. He must defend his position that the Trinity is contradictory with some sort of proof. I may accept his proof as valid or not, but he must present some proof first, and I think we both agree on this. So in this case it is not relevant whether the Trinity or the IPU exist or not. We are dealing with the concepts here.