Jan 20, 2010 -- 12:25AM, ratman wrote:

he said he had a lot of people on ignore  , and i am sure you are one of them . 

Oh, so you are basing your opinions on assumption instead of fact? Would only be the 3,548th time you've done that.

Here, I will make this easy for your simple mind. Here is the sideways remark he made to me not 3 hours ago. If you still don't believe me, here is the link to the discussion: www.myyesnetwork.com/go/thread/view/8229... You're wrong again...big surprise.

GlenninVirginia Posts: 319	Jan 19, 2010 -- 10:46PM, AJFreeway wrote: Does this mean that the gays can't marry now? If so, then I'm happy.     Yes, AJ, tell your boyfriend to "go fish."

Jan 20, 2010 -- 12:35AM, craner7 wrote:

HEY I HAVE A GREAT IDEA! HOW ABOUT DOING AWAY WITH PUTTING IN ALL THIS QUOTES! I THINK WE COULD READ ALONG AND GET WHERE THE CONVO IS GOING MUCH EASIER....BUT THATS JUST ME I GUESS.....AND HEATMISER! NO ONE RE READS ALL THOSE QUOTES...I'D LIKE TO GET TO THE PUNCH LINE FASTER!

    Jan 19, 2010 -- 12:23AM, ratman wrote:


        Jan 18, 2010 -- 11:55PM, Boardroomjimmy "The Dude" wrote:


            Jan 18, 2010 -- 10:26PM, ratman wrote:


            Jan 18, 2010 -- 10:23PM, Boardroomjimmy "The Dude" wrote:


            Jan 18, 2010 -- 10:20PM, ratman wrote:


            Jan 18, 2010 -- 9:02PM, Boardroomjimmy "The Dude" wrote:


            Jan 18, 2010 -- 7:43PM, GlenninVirginia wrote:


            You miss a lot of the "subtleties" in life, don't you?  That's because you're not as smart as you like to think you are.



             

            why, because I don't need faith to dictate to me the things that science and logic do or because I don't take the things the bible says literally?? For all we know you're the unintelligent one for having beliefs based on absolutely nothing.... but I won't judge you on that. They're your beliefs and you're entitled to them.



            and for all we know you are the unintelligent one for making such a pompous ass out of yourself in this thread ... but they are your beliefs and you are entitled to them



             

            how exactly did I make a pompous ass out of myself? please cite specific examples....



         

        "For all we know you're the unintelligent one for having beliefs based on absolutely nothing."   that sounds pretty pompous to me .  



    how does that make me sound pompous?

     

    and I guess you failed to notice glenn's direct insult.... frikkin hypocrite



yeah it was in response to this  'nothing based on faith is a fact... if it was it  wouldn't be faith, it would be science. "  which  is pretty pompous to me



 

so tell me one thing of faith that is based on fact then....

 

see I think what your simple mind is failing to comprehend is that my statement was in no way attacking a person for their personal beliefs. Whatever you want to believe and have faith in is your choice and I will never try to dissuade you to the contrary.... that being said though I 100% stand by my claim that nothing based on faith is fact... if it was it wouldn't be faith, it would be science."

    Jan 19, 2010 -- 2:12AM, Boardroomjimmy "The Dude" wrote:


        Jan 19, 2010 -- 12:23AM, ratman wrote:


            Jan 18, 2010 -- 11:55PM, Boardroomjimmy "The Dude" wrote:


            Jan 18, 2010 -- 10:26PM, ratman wrote:


            Jan 18, 2010 -- 10:23PM, Boardroomjimmy "The Dude" wrote:


            Jan 18, 2010 -- 10:20PM, ratman wrote:


            Jan 18, 2010 -- 9:02PM, Boardroomjimmy "The Dude" wrote:


            Jan 18, 2010 -- 7:43PM, GlenninVirginia wrote:


            You miss a lot of the "subtleties" in life, don't you?  That's because you're not as smart as you like to think you are.



             

            why, because I don't need faith to dictate to me the things that science and logic do or because I don't take the things the bible says literally?? For all we know you're the unintelligent one for having beliefs based on absolutely nothing.... but I won't judge you on that. They're your beliefs and you're entitled to them.



            and for all we know you are the unintelligent one for making such a pompous ass out of yourself in this thread ... but they are your beliefs and you are entitled to them



             

            how exactly did I make a pompous ass out of myself? please cite specific examples....



             

            "For all we know you're the unintelligent one for having beliefs based on absolutely nothing."   that sounds pretty pompous to me .  



        how does that make me sound pompous?

         

        and I guess you failed to notice glenn's direct insult.... frikkin hypocrite



    yeah it was in response to this  'nothing based on faith is a fact... if it was it  wouldn't be faith, it would be science. "  which  is pretty pompous to me



 

so tell me one thing of faith that is based on fact then....

 

see I think what your simple mind is failing to comprehend is that my statement was in no way attacking a person for their personal beliefs. Whatever you want to believe and have faith in is your choice and I will never try to dissuade you to the contrary.... that being said though I 100% stand by my claim that nothing based on faith is fact... if it was it wouldn't be faith, it would be science."



well i wasnt the only one who took it as a smart ass  pompous remark from you . everyone knows you love to throw in smart ass insults into your posts . 

    Jan 19, 2010 -- 8:54AM, ratman wrote:


        Jan 19, 2010 -- 2:12AM, Boardroomjimmy "The Dude" wrote:


            Jan 19, 2010 -- 12:23AM, ratman wrote:


            Jan 18, 2010 -- 11:55PM, Boardroomjimmy "The Dude" wrote:


            Jan 18, 2010 -- 10:26PM, ratman wrote:


            Jan 18, 2010 -- 10:23PM, Boardroomjimmy "The Dude" wrote:


            Jan 18, 2010 -- 10:20PM, ratman wrote:


            Jan 18, 2010 -- 9:02PM, Boardroomjimmy "The Dude" wrote:


            Jan 18, 2010 -- 7:43PM, GlenninVirginia wrote:


            You miss a lot of the "subtleties" in life, don't you?  That's because you're not as smart as you like to think you are.



             

            why, because I don't need faith to dictate to me the things that science and logic do or because I don't take the things the bible says literally?? For all we know you're the unintelligent one for having beliefs based on absolutely nothing.... but I won't judge you on that. They're your beliefs and you're entitled to them.



            and for all we know you are the unintelligent one for making such a pompous ass out of yourself in this thread ... but they are your beliefs and you are entitled to them



             

            how exactly did I make a pompous ass out of myself? please cite specific examples....



             

            "For all we know you're the unintelligent one for having beliefs based on absolutely nothing."   that sounds pretty pompous to me .  



            how does that make me sound pompous?

             

            and I guess you failed to notice glenn's direct insult.... frikkin hypocrite



        yeah it was in response to this  'nothing based on faith is a fact... if it was it  wouldn't be faith, it would be science. "  which  is pretty pompous to me



     

    so tell me one thing of faith that is based on fact then....

     

    see I think what your simple mind is failing to comprehend is that my statement was in no way attacking a person for their personal beliefs. Whatever you want to believe and have faith in is your choice and I will never try to dissuade you to the contrary.... that being said though I 100% stand by my claim that nothing based on faith is fact... if it was it wouldn't be faith, it would be science."



well i wasnt the only one who took it as a smart ass  pompous remark from you . everyone knows you love to throw in smart ass insults into your posts .  



 

really, who else took it as a smart ass pompous remark???? as always I'll ask you to cite specific examples and quotations to back up your claim relevant to the subject being discusses.

    Jan 19, 2010 -- 1:46PM, Boardroomjimmy "The Dude" wrote:


        Jan 19, 2010 -- 8:54AM, ratman wrote:


            Jan 19, 2010 -- 2:12AM, Boardroomjimmy "The Dude" wrote:


            Jan 19, 2010 -- 12:23AM, ratman wrote:


            Jan 18, 2010 -- 11:55PM, Boardroomjimmy "The Dude" wrote:


            Jan 18, 2010 -- 10:26PM, ratman wrote:


            Jan 18, 2010 -- 10:23PM, Boardroomjimmy "The Dude" wrote:


            Jan 18, 2010 -- 10:20PM, ratman wrote:


            Jan 18, 2010 -- 9:02PM, Boardroomjimmy "The Dude" wrote:


            Jan 18, 2010 -- 7:43PM, GlenninVirginia wrote:


            You miss a lot of the "subtleties" in life, don't you?  That's because you're not as smart as you like to think you are.



             

            why, because I don't need faith to dictate to me the things that science and logic do or because I don't take the things the bible says literally?? For all we know you're the unintelligent one for having beliefs based on absolutely nothing.... but I won't judge you on that. They're your beliefs and you're entitled to them.



            and for all we know you are the unintelligent one for making such a pompous ass out of yourself in this thread ... but they are your beliefs and you are entitled to them



             

            how exactly did I make a pompous ass out of myself? please cite specific examples....



             

            "For all we know you're the unintelligent one for having beliefs based on absolutely nothing."   that sounds pretty pompous to me .  



            how does that make me sound pompous?

             

            and I guess you failed to notice glenn's direct insult.... frikkin hypocrite



            yeah it was in response to this  'nothing based on faith is a fact... if it was it  wouldn't be faith, it would be science. "  which  is pretty pompous to me



         

        so tell me one thing of faith that is based on fact then....

         

        see I think what your simple mind is failing to comprehend is that my statement was in no way attacking a person for their personal beliefs. Whatever you want to believe and have faith in is your choice and I will never try to dissuade you to the contrary.... that being said though I 100% stand by my claim that nothing based on faith is fact... if it was it wouldn't be faith, it would be science."



    well i wasnt the only one who took it as a smart ass  pompous remark from you . everyone knows you love to throw in smart ass insults into your posts .  



 

really, who else took it as a smart ass pompous remark???? as always I'll ask you to cite specific examples and quotations to back up your claim relevant to the subject being discusses.

 

 



 

well obviously glenn  did since according to you he hurled an insult at you

    Jan 20, 2010 -- 12:00AM, ratman wrote:


        Jan 19, 2010 -- 11:56PM, AJFreeway wrote:


            Jan 19, 2010 -- 11:53PM, ratman wrote:


            Jan 19, 2010 -- 11:52PM, AJFreeway wrote:


            Jan 19, 2010 -- 11:41PM, ratman wrote:


            Jan 19, 2010 -- 11:30PM, AJFreeway wrote:


            Jan 19, 2010 -- 10:53PM, ratman wrote:


            if i am gonna call someone a name its because there is a valid reason behind it .   and in aj's case   he has proven my statements about him to be true nearly every time he posts



            That's another lie by you. The thread you said that in had absolutely no replies to you from me or anyone else; you just came in there to talk smack and crack a few jokes.

            When you made a fool of yourself in that other thread, the "100 billion dollars of aid" thread, did I call you a dumba$$ because you were wrong?

            If you want fair treatment, don't pretend you are always the innocent party.



            hey i never said i was innocent , i just said that if i do call someone a name its with a valid reason .  and in your case you prove it over and over , and not in just one thread .



            In your case, more than just one person find fault with what you say.



        and more than one person agrees with  what i say about you




     Really? Who?



heatmiser , jimmy, glenn,  and even craner to an extent, for starters



All people you are best friends with...why am I not surprised this is what you put forward? I won't even bother mentioning that half the people you listed have likely said nothing of the sort.

Here's an independent mind...newinn has proven youto be a fool for weeks now. I think that puts this argument to rest.

    Jan 20, 2010 -- 12:04AM, AJFreeway wrote:


        Jan 20, 2010 -- 12:00AM, ratman wrote:


            Jan 19, 2010 -- 11:56PM, AJFreeway wrote:


            Jan 19, 2010 -- 11:53PM, ratman wrote:


            Jan 19, 2010 -- 11:52PM, AJFreeway wrote:


            Jan 19, 2010 -- 11:41PM, ratman wrote:


            Jan 19, 2010 -- 11:30PM, AJFreeway wrote:


            Jan 19, 2010 -- 10:53PM, ratman wrote:


            if i am gonna call someone a name its because there is a valid reason behind it .   and in aj's case   he has proven my statements about him to be true nearly every time he posts



            That's another lie by you. The thread you said that in had absolutely no replies to you from me or anyone else; you just came in there to talk smack and crack a few jokes.

            When you made a fool of yourself in that other thread, the "100 billion dollars of aid" thread, did I call you a dumba$$ because you were wrong?

            If you want fair treatment, don't pretend you are always the innocent party.



            hey i never said i was innocent , i just said that if i do call someone a name its with a valid reason .  and in your case you prove it over and over , and not in just one thread .



            In your case, more than just one person find fault with what you say.



            and more than one person agrees with  what i say about you




         Really? Who?



    heatmiser , jimmy, glenn,  and even craner to an extent, for starters



All people you are best friends with...why am I not surprised this is what you put forward? I won't even bother mentioning that half the people you listed have likely said nothing of the sort.

Here's an independent mind...newinn has proven youto be a fool for weeks now. I think that puts this argument to rest.



you talking about the same newinn that runs away every  time i have confronted him in this forum?!  the same newinn who has gone back on his word to put me on ignore , time and time again??!  dont make me laugh lol   and those people have said exactly what i have said about you .  heck you are on glenn's ignore list  for a reason .  

Good idea, Craner.

Where are you getting your information from? Islam treats Jesus as a prophet, a failed prophet. Christ's Church was built on his Divinity. There was never a single question about that.

Would love to know at what point the Catholic Church, in your head, came to understand Christ's Divinity.

The Apostle's Creed has been around since almost day one, but has been in the following form since 390 AD:

I believe in God, the Father almighty,  
creator of heaven and earth.

I believe in Jesus Christ, God's only Son, our Lord,  
who was conceived by the Holy Spirit,  
born of the Virgin Mary,  
suffered under Pontius Pilate,  
was crucified, died, and was buried;  
he descended into hell
On the third day he rose again;  
he ascended into heaven,  
he is seated at the right hand of the Father,  
and he will come again to judge the living and the dead.

I believe in the Holy Spirit,  
the holy catholic church,  
the communion of saints,  
the forgiveness of sins,  
the resurrection of the body,  
and the life everlasting. AMEN.

Jan 19, 2010 -- 8:38PM, Demonseed wrote:

And many still discuss Buddha, Muhammed, Luther, etc.  Merely discussing a figure from history, does not validate all of the speculation of that figure.  Still, my point is being missed, it is not proof that because Jesus existed and we still talk about him that a Christian God exists without any doubt. 

Of course the founding Fathers picked things that suited their ideology, just as the Church/Vatican did.  It is not a conspiracy, that the church did not accept all of the writings at the time, whether Pagan or true, it makes no difference, they determined what was the word of God and what was not.  In fact, even the Church did not know whether Jesus should have remained a prophet or to become divine.  The Gospels, were not just written by the disciples, others documented the life of Jesus. 

Yet, that is tit for tat, in the respect you are still saying what you believe is fact.  Uncontested belief with the assumption that belief is fact leads to fanaticism. 

 

Jan 19, 2010 -- 7:54PM, T15D23 wrote:

Here is proof. We, for some strange reason, are still talking about a man who was crucified over 2000 years ago.

I guess the founding fathers of the US also picked things that would suit their ideology as well.

Couldn't be further from the truth about the Gospels, will try and help you, back then there were pagans who were mimicking the writings (islam is one of them by the way) or proven by Divine Intervention to be false "gospels." There are no missing Gospels, no conspiracy.

We know there were many who witnessed Christ who gave their lives and were fed to the lions because they refused to deny Christ. So much so that after some 380 years, the Roman Empire embraced it.

Jan 19, 2010 -- 6:06PM, Demonseed wrote:

I am not clear on the 500 witnesses number, but even so, it is still hearsay.  If you really examine the Gospels and how and why they were canonized, the Church basically picked and chose those Gospels that best suited their ideology.  Even so as I stated, any given miracle is not proof of the existance of God.  Miracles can increase personal faith, they can create a mystery, but they can not prove anything. 

I have no issue with accepting a miracle as fact, the issue is presenting a miracle as being a fact.  We believe Jesus rose from the dead 2,000 years ago, but that is a personal choice, to tell someone else that they should also believe it to be true because 2,000 years ago a bunch of people saw it, isn't a valid argument.

 

Jan 19, 2010 -- 8:40AM, bomberhojoe wrote:

Jan 19, 2010 -- 1:17AM, Demonseed wrote:

Yes, Jesus did exist, but all we have to go on as for him being the son of God, is hearsay and Faith.  Many religious icons have actually existed, yet in every instance we have no proof of their divinity. 

Well as far as hearsay, there were over 500 witnesses that saw Jesus after his resurrection.  That's 10 times more people then saw Washington cross the Delaware, yet no one questions if that happened.