The Jesus Freaks Will Hate This

[Huggy Bear]

Being relatively new here, I seem to be noticing a pattern in the threads where you are involved Huggy. So as to not get any mixed messages from my comment, I'm merely pointing out the pattern is ONLY in the threads I have read in the three short days I've been here. So I can only speculate as to any other threads you have participated in. But why, and this is my question, does it appear that you have the terrible habit of hijacking every thread you comment on? This thread isn't even on topic any more. Matter of fact, it's changed topic several times now.

I'm guessing, and again, this is mere speculation, that this sort of tactic helps you draw attention away from having to answer any questions pertaining to the topic on hand when you craziness has been called into question. It would also appear that you enjoy being in the spotlight, as long as it fits into your terms and conditions. You seem to me, to be a very confused person.

That is all... back to my reading now.

If you've read this thread and came to the conclusion that I'm the one that took the tread off topic, I really don't have much to say to you....
The discussion was about whether or not Jesus was married.
http://atheistforums.org/thread-31826-po...#pid886968

The thing is, there is proof the above didn't exist, If you're claiming something in the Bible didn't exist, prove it.

Yeah, you shift that burden of proof like nobody will notice, Huggy!

How about a worldwide flood, since there's plenty of contradictory evidence, geologically speaking, for that? Oh, and the resurrection? No possible way that could happen! I mean, I'm not required to do this at all, given the aforementioned shifting of the burden of proof, but it is a relatively trivial question to answer.

As you can see, I'm still on subject, and you also see who takes the conversation off topic.

And this one is good also,
"Huggy condones rape!"
"no wait, I slightly misremembered what he said."
as if accusing someone of condoning rape is a minor mistake...

I actually wouldn't be surprised if this is the case: I remember one of my first interactions with Huggy was on a certain rape-related issue in the bible, and his entire position was that no rape happened because the actual word "rape" was never used in the text, despite the context making it very clear what was happening.

Selective, ridiculous over-literalism is kinda his deal.

Now THAT is a bald faced lie.
We already know you have a selective memory, how about providing the link to support to that claim?

Actually, I did misremember slightly: we weren't talking about rape, but slavery. The word "slave" does not appear, and therefore it cannot be slavery.

Incidentally, you really shouldn't have challenged me on this point, because I'm having genuine trouble picking between instances of you using this exact same argument whenever it's convenient for you. Over multiple topics, in fact: Here's you asserting that the bible doesn't say you can own people as property, because it uses the word "possession" not "property." And here's you, in one of your most ridiculous moments, asserting that a particular homeopathic fraud can't be religious in nature because it's only called the "Jesus Shot," and the word "Christ" is never used.

You actually made the situation far, far worse for yourself than if you'd just shut the hell up and accepted your own idiotic behavior. And what was that about me lying? I found three references to that exact argument coming from you: I guess you were the one lying here, eh?

As you can see, He once again goes way off topic.

---

Going back through the thread, I came across something Ironic.

U mad?

The mating call of the troll.

http://atheistforums.org/thread-31826-po...#pid889197

Ahh... I'm afraid you didn't phrase your answer in the form of a question... so...

Hypocrite,
You're lucky I can no longer use sig's, in a way I guess that's protecting you guys from yourselves.