Embrace Judeo-Christian culture and values! Is this politician serious?

First topic message reminder :

Embrace Judeo-Christian culture and values! Is this politician serious?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=H2ED8A8RXeY

The apostle’s creed shows that Christianity is based on having to embrace barbaric human sacrifice and the notion that the guilty should be forgiven if a suitable human sacrifice is made to God.

I suggest that having another innocent person suffer for the wrongs you have done, --- so that you might escape responsibility for having done them, --- is immoral. Immoral regardless of the victim volunteering or not which is not the case with Jesus.

That is one of many moral tenets that have caused secular governments to reject Judeo-Christian culture and values.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dx7irFN2gdI

The bible is a compilation of evil acts by a satanic God and no moral man would every push to have Judeo-Christian culture and values implemented as our law. The U.S. is the closes to that ideal and their jail statistics are the most dismal in the free world.

Would you promote Judeo-Christian culture and values?

Regards
DL

Dr, Sheldon,
Satan has challenged God, the result is not yet known.

At face value and according to all known facts the face off is in it's closing stages and will become more apparent when all nations turn against the Jews.

polyglide wrote:Dr, Sheldon,
                Satan has challenged God, the result is not yet known.

                 At face value and according to all known facts the face off is in it's closing stages and will become more apparent when all nations turn against the Jews.

In political terms, God runs a tyranny while Satan runs more of a hands off democracy.

Which one are you rooting for?

Regards
DL

polyglide wrote:Dr, Sheldon,
                Satan has challenged God, the result is not yet known.

                 At face value and according to all known facts the face off is in it's closing stages and will become more apparent when all nations turn against the Jews.

Complete unevidenced gibberish, and not really relevant to the thread topic. You really have no interest in debate or discussion and are simply preaching. Take it to a church pulpit or get a soapbox , but please stop hijacking and ruining these threads.

Greatest I am,
If you explain exactly how you come to the conclusion as stated then I will give a response at the present time I do not know how you come to that conclusion.

Dr, Sheldon,
Everything is apparently gibberish to you unless there are several nutty scientists involved.

You are totally unable to read with any understanding and in my opinion in need of help.

Never having to be in need of the help you obviously require I cannot give or recommend any section of science that could assist you, however, I am sure that it is out there.

As for being personal, I have three times given you the opportunity for both to bury the hatchet and at all times you have retorted in a manner asking for a negative response, so do not blame me, I did warn you.

polyglide wrote:Dr, Sheldon,
                Everything is apparently gibberish to you unless there are several nutty scientists involved.

                You are totally unable to read with any understanding and in my opinion in need of help.

                Never having to be in need of the help you obviously require I cannot give or recommend any section of science that could assist you, however, I am sure that it is out there.

                As for being personal, I have three times given you the opportunity for both to bury the hatchet and at all times you have retorted in a manner asking for a negative response, so do not blame me, I did warn you.

This forum is to discuss religion. Not for you to preach and proselytise.  You never address the topic or the post contents in any cogent way, you continually ignore all questions, you resort to ad hominem in every post, and you then sulk and blame others when they point our how weak your apologetics are.

Best of all I'll bet hard cash you think this is ad hominem and don't have a clue why it is not. Hence your inability to keep your temper when your woefully weak and poorly thought out apologetics are dismantled.  Perhaps you'd prefer a gullible gushing audience,  but since this site is primarily atheistic one wonders why on earth you come here if you have no interest in listening to the opinions of atheists on your beliefs?

polyglide wrote:
[...] according to all known facts [...]

Really? You will have to provide some justification for this statement. I express it as "according to some made up ideas" in the absence of any proper evidence.

Norm Deplume wrote:

polyglide wrote:
[...] according to all known facts [...]

Really? You will have to provide some justification for this statement. I express it as "according to some made up ideas" in the absence of any proper evidence.

Such absolutes don't seem to offer him any pause at all, he claimed to be 100% certain about his god's existence after all. What need has a polymath such as Polyglide for tedious epistemological arguments that will only slow his omniscience down?

DR, Sheldon,
If all on the site are of one mind, just what is the point.

polyglide wrote:Dr, Sheldon, Everything is apparently gibberish to you unless there are several nutty scientists involved.

Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:Not at all, it's mainly your posts that I find are gibberish. I believe I was perfectly clear on this as well.

               
polyglide wrote: You are totally unable to read with any understanding and in my opinion in need of help.

Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:Duly noted, the irony of course is this claim is made by you against everyone who rjects your bizarre fantasies, odd that.    

polyglide wrote: Never having to be in need of the help you obviously require I cannot give or recommend any section of science that could assist you, however, I am sure that it is out there.

Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:You have enough to contend with in trying to raise your execrable grammar spelling and punctuation above the level of the average infant, so lets leave scientific help alone for now shall we. Though it's reassuring you now wish to defer to science, though oddly this attitude is oddly incongruous alongside your arrogant dismissal of teh scientific world when it dares disagree with aspects of your bronze age superstition.

polyglide wrote: As for being personal, I have three times given you the opportunity for both to bury the hatchet and at all times you have retorted in a manner asking for a negative response, so do not blame me, I did warn you.

Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:Nonsense you ignored everything I'd posted, simply repeated your earlier claims, and when I pointed this out you attacked me immediately with childish insults. I'm afraid you have proved again and again that you simply don't know the difference between deriding an argument and using petty childish ad hominem, and it's my opinion you simply never will. I am not blaming you for anything, I'm merely pointing out that you are incapable of intelligent adult discussion as you lose your temper every time someone disagrees with your puerile claims. You don't possess even the most basic understanding of logical fallacies or when you are basing an argument on them. Your English is execrable, and so all too often your posts are incomprehensible as a result of this and your rambling unevidenced claims.

You are as a few have pointed out scientifically illiterate, as your post have shown repeatedly. You are often arrogant to the point of pugnacity, yet seem to think this is justified if anyone dare dispute your beliefs, so again this forum is an odd destination for you to air those beliefs, and you seem to naively think that if you believe something and claim it in a post that no one should point out that the claim is puerile erroneous nonsense. Like your claim that scientists have scientifically refuted evolution, a laughably stupid claim, and yet you have no idea how stupid the claim is or why, even though it's been spelled out to you several times. Best of all you claimed to possess expert debating skills, the mind boggles as to where you got that idea from but it's right up there with many of the claims you've made on here, and none of the reasons for this are good.

If you ever addressed properly and honestly the content of anyone's posts I might be inclined to believe that you actually had some interest in debating the thread topics, but you're on endless repeat, and are simply proselytising. Though mainly I suspect this is because your arguments are so woefully inadequate that it's easier for you to quote dogma or religious texts, or parrot creationist polemic you've read but don't understand, than actually think about what others have written.

polyglide wrote:DR, Sheldon,
                If all on the site are of one mind, just what is the point.

Is that a question? No one has claimed the site is of one mind anyway so it'd be a pointless question anyway. As far as I can see the claim that we should embrace Judeo-Christian religions is rather dismantled by your post today claiming that murdering a child was justified if its parents didn't share the murderers beliefs and thus the child had embraced Satan, which you claimed justified OT genocide. Given the current climate I find such ideas deeply worrying, and as good a reason as any to avoid such religious beliefs at all costs, let alone base our laws and morals on them.

Dr, Sheldon, ?.

polyglide wrote:Dr, Sheldon, ?.

What?

polyglide wrote:Greatest I am,
                   If you explain exactly how you come to the conclusion as stated then I will give a response at the present time I do not know how you come to that conclusion.

Is your God an elected God for heaven?

Can he be deposed by popular acclaim?

Most say no to both and that means that Heaven is a tyranny.

Satan does not make any demands while your God does.

Will you answer my question honestly now?

I imagine that you prefer to live in a democracy here on earth and not a tyranny.

What makes you think you will enjoy the tyranny of heaven where any evil thought will get you sent to hell just as what your myths say will happen to Satan and his followers?

Regards
DL

Greatest I am,
My belief is that heaven will be on earth.

I do not know what will happen to Satan, God will decide.

There is no doubt at the moment man is making hell on earth for many people, not God but mankind and through choice.

God does not make demands he gives choices.

The Old Testament is irrelevant as far as I am concerned as regards present day mankind.

It is of the times concerned and I am sure that any action taken by God was both warranted and in the most appropriate manner.
Today all mankind has to do is believe in Jesus and act accordingly.

polyglide wrote:There is no doubt at the moment man is making hell on earth for many people,

I doubt it actually, life is quite obviously better for more humans now than at any time in human history by most measurable standards.

On the whole we're better fed due to industrialised agriculture, we're safer than we've ever been despite the problems we face in some parts of the world. We live far longer lives on the whole, due to better health care and the advances in science, that have also eradicated many terrible diseases.

Polyglide wrote:The Old Testament is irrelevant as far as I am concerned as regards present day mankind.

That's not what you said earlier, you seem very inconsistent  on this OT thing, and I can't help noticing it's discarded rather conveniently when it suits. Then referenced and quoted at other times, talk about having your cake and eating it.

Polyglide wrote:It is of the times concerned and I am sure that any action taken by God was both warranted and in the most appropriate manner.

How can genocide and the murdering of children and babies ever be justified, do you even hear what you're saying? Is it any wonder people want to reject such beliefs if this is where they lead.

Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD wrote:
How can genocide and the murdering of children and babies ever be justified, do you even heard what you're saying? It is any wonder people want to reject such beliefs if this where they lead.

[*redacted verb*] the faithful, [*redacted verb*] the committed, the dedicated, the true believers; [*redacted verb*] all the sure and certain people prepared to maim and kill whoever got in their way; [*redacted verb*] every cause that ended in murder and a child screaming.

Iain M Banks, Against A Dark Background

(The redacted verb is the same in each case, starts with 'f' and is four letters long,)

We should have paid attention when he advocated the ten commandments as a panacea for all humanity's ills. You can't help noticing that not one of them mentions protecting children, equal rights, rejecting misogyny racism or rape, a bad start you'd think anyone would notice in the 21st century.

polyglide wrote:Greatest I am,
                    My belief is that heaven will be on earth.

                    I do not know what will happen to Satan, God will decide.

                    There is no doubt at the moment man is making hell on earth for many people, not God but mankind and through choice.

                    God does not make demands he gives choices.

                     The Old Testament is irrelevant as far as I am concerned as regards present day mankind.

                      It is of the times concerned and I am sure that any action taken by God was both  warranted and in the most appropriate manner.
                      Today all mankind has to do is believe in Jesus and act accordingly.

                     

                       

So you want to live in a tyranny on earth.

Yet you say God gives choices.

In a tyranny the only choice is to do as ordered by the tyrant. When in Eden, he gave command, not choices.
He said though shalt not eat of it. Please explain.


As to Jesus.

Do you refute this statement?

Having another innocent person suffer for the wrongs you have done, --- so that you might escape responsibility for having done them, --- is immoral. That immorality does not change even if Jesus would have volunteered, which he did not do.

1Peter 1:20 0 He was chosen before the creation of the world, but was revealed in these last times for your sake.

I look forward to your reply.

Regards
DL

Greatest I am wrote: In a tyranny the only choice is to do as ordered by the tyrant. When in Eden, he gave command, not choices. He said though shalt not eat of it. Please explain.

Interesting one this, as we hear a great deal from Christians about free will. If as Polyglide claims humans are granted free will, then the ten commandments is something of a contradiction, "thou shalt not" appears quite a few times, in what way is that indicative of free will? As you say it smacks of the kind of freedom that tyrannies and dictatorships boast of. Of course theists will reject this, and rationalise that you are offered the choice of doing what is wrong or right, but if something is forbidden then is there any real choice? Also the ten commandments themselves have never struck me as particularly moral, especially in a contemporary context. Again they spend (waste?) a lot of commandments demanding obedience to a deity that purportedly gives us free will, whilst ignoring things like protecting children, equal rights, prohibiting egregious things like misogyny, racism, homophobia, or how about forbidding war? Instead we get thou shalt not covet??? A fairly harmless indulgence when compared to the scourge of warfare which the Judeo-Christian god seems to positively revel in. Not one mention of outlawing paedophilia, makes me wonder if RCC priests have one eye on this loophole into heaven?

I really can't take it very seriously as these laws quite obviously were entirely conceived by humans (men), and the morals in them reflect the morals of that time, and in no way show anything that requires, or could be expected only from, an omniscient being.

Greatest I am wrote:

snowyflake wrote:Frankly, gnostic christianity is no better than any other religion where you believe something that has no evidence to support it..

We do not believe anything without evidence. That put's us a cut above Most mainstream religions without even looking at the most important part of religion which is morality.

As a non-misogynous and non-homophobic Universalist religion, --- as compared to Christianity, if you do not see our better moral position then you would be right that it does not matter.

If you care about morals then you will see the benefits of Gnostic Christianity.

Regards
DL

You can have hold those moral positions without all the hokum, Greatest. You don't need it.

Snowyflake wrote:
You can have hold those moral positions without all the hokum, Greatest. You don't need it.

There might be a good argument that not possessing a priori beliefs and being weighed down with dogma and doctrine might help someone make more morally objective choices.

Sorry Greatest, subjective personal experience is not evidence of anything other than subjective personal experience. Just because others share a personal experience does not mean it is real or truthful. Humans are prone to self-deception and self-delusion and there is no better example of this than with religious belief. Which is why you all congregate to reinforce each others' beliefs.

I have no problem with people's religious beliefs per se. If believing in hokum gets you through the day who am I to judge it? However, when you and other believers start banging on that what you believe is 'truth' and 'real' and you have no evidence for it (other than subjective personal experience) I object quite strongly to this. I also object to the divisiveness of religion and your preaching on various forums around the internet is evidence of this. You consider your belief to be morally superior to all other christian beliefs which automatically puts you in opposition to others.

Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD wrote:

Greatest I am wrote: In a tyranny the only choice is to do as ordered by the tyrant. When in Eden, he gave command, not choices. He said though shalt not eat of it. Please explain.

Interesting one this, as we hear a great deal from Christians about free will. If as Polyglide claims humans are granted free will, then the ten commandments is something of a contradiction, "thou shalt not" appears quite a few times, in what way is that indicative of free will? As you say it smacks of the kind of freedom that tyrannies and dictatorships boast of. Of course theists will reject this, and rationalise that you are offered the choice of doing what is wrong or right, but if something is forbidden then is there any real choice? Also the ten commandments themselves have never struck me as particularly moral, especially in a contemporary context. Again they spend (waste?) a lot of commandments demanding obedience to a deity that purportedly gives us free will, whilst ignoring things like protecting children, equal rights, prohibiting egregious things like misogyny, racism, homophobia, or how about forbidding war? Instead we get thou shalt not covet??? A fairly harmless indulgence when compared to the scourge of warfare which the Judeo-Christian god seems to positively revel in. Not one mention of outlawing paedophilia, makes me wonder if RCC priests have one eye on this loophole into heaven?

I really can't take it very seriously as these laws quite obviously were entirely conceived by humans (men), and the morals in them reflect the morals of that time, and in no way show anything that requires, or could be expected only from, an omniscient being.

Well put. My kingdom for such eloquence.

Your education shows as compared to my lack of it.

Regards
DL

snowyflake wrote:

Greatest I am wrote:

We do not believe anything without evidence. That put's us a cut above Most mainstream religions without even looking at the most important part of religion which is morality.

As a non-misogynous and non-homophobic Universalist religion, --- as compared to Christianity, if you do not see our better moral position then you would be right that it does not matter.

If you care about morals then you will see the benefits of Gnostic Christianity.

Regards
DL

You can have hold those moral positions without all the hokum, Greatest. You don't need it.

This is true. I do not but most do need the hokum of an organized church.

Have you not noticed that even atheist are forming churches as they know they have to appease our groupish instincts and if they do not for their children, many will gravitate the immoral mainstream religions.

Links upon request.

Regards
DL

Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD wrote:

Snowyflake wrote:  
You can have hold those moral positions without all the hokum, Greatest. You don't need it.

There might be a good argument that not possessing a priori beliefs and being weighed down with dogma and doctrine might help someone make more morally objective choices.

Absolutely. Or a theology like Gnostic Christianity that encourages the study of issue.

1 Thesalonian 5;21 Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.

A Gnostic Christian will live by that quote and judge all dogma and tradition.

Christians, as you indicate will not and just sheepishly follow tradition and dogma and end by embracing barbaric human sacrifice and the punishment of the innocent instead of the guilty.

Part of the reason Christianity is morally corrupt.

Regards
DL

snowyflake wrote:Sorry Greatest, subjective personal experience is not evidence of anything other than subjective personal experience. Just because others share a personal experience does not mean it is real or truthful. Humans are prone to self-deception and self-delusion and there is no better example of this than with religious belief. Which is why you all congregate to reinforce each others' beliefs.

I have no problem with people's religious beliefs per se. If believing in hokum gets you through the day who am I to judge it? However, when you and other believers start banging on that what you believe is 'truth' and 'real' and you have no evidence for it (other than subjective personal experience) I object quite strongly to this. I also object to the divisiveness of religion and your preaching on various forums around the internet is evidence of this. You consider your belief to be morally superior to all other christian beliefs which automatically puts you in opposition to others.

Indeed. Most religions are divisive. Not Gnostic Christianity. We are Universalists and are into rapprochement.

As to what I do in moral terms. Yes I go against Christianity and point out our better moral position on things.

Proverbs 3:12
For whom the Lord loveth he correcteth; even as a father the son in whom he delighteth.

Why should I not show my love and better theology to those who are so far below my standard?

Is it not everyone's duty to try to move our civilization and its laws forward and to kill poor moral thinking?

Regards
DL

snowyflake wrote:Sorry Greatest, subjective personal experience is not evidence of anything other than subjective personal experience. Just because others share a personal experience does not mean it is real or truthful. .

I am just curious a bit on this.

How many eye witnesses to something do you need before you determine that something was real?

So far you indicate even two eye witnesses to a crime, you would ignore, and if in a jury, you would not condemn an accused.

How many witnesses before you condemn?

Regards
DL

greatest wrote:Have you not noticed that even atheist are forming churches as they know they have to appease our groupish instincts and if they do not for their children, many will gravitate the immoral mainstream religions.

I think an atheist church is like herding cats. Everyone has their own ideas but one thing you don't hear too much about is atheists going around killing each other or others for not thinking as they do. Atheists are using reason to work out the world. They aren't believing in third eyes or other hokum that can be scientifically (or psychiatrically) explained.

greatest wrote:How many witnesses before you condemn?

Personally, I don't trust eye witness accounts and many people have been condemned wrongly for eye witness testimony. People can believe but unless there is other corroborating evidence to support eye witness testimony (like forensic evidence) then I am inclined to be sceptical.

I've been fooled many times myself and been proven wrong so while I use my senses to navigate this old world, I don't necessarily trust them all the time. Especially if it's not reasonable or sensible and by all accounts your belief system is not reasonable or sensible. And my knowledge of science, the human body and the brain, I don't believe there is any evidence to suggest there is any experience outside of the tangible that is real.

People want to believe because they want to be more than they are. They find it hard to accept that their lives are short and within a generation or two, most are forgotten. That is our life and so it is so important to me to be realistic, to search out the truth of things and not get sucked up into the airy fairy nonsense of belief just because it might make me feel better about life by deluding myself. Sorry, I'm a hardline realist and anything else is hokum. Unless there is solid reproducible evidence for anything else, and I have never encountered any in 56 years, I'm inclined to think that life is what it really is - short. So we ought to make the best of it, be happy, moral individuals and do right by others, be kind and considerate and compassionate. Learn. I can't see that anyone needs anything else but this.

polyglide wrote:Satan has challenged God, the result is not yet known.

Assuming you could actually evidence this or even tried, where is the logic in claiming there is any doubt about the outcome between a being with limited power and a being with limitless power? It's exactly this kind of irrational illogical claim, based as it is on zero evidence, that makes the beliefs they are based on so obviously spurious. Satan, like god, like all gods, is a fiction created by the human imagination to plug gaps in our knowledge, and it's no mere confidence that as science expands our knowledge exponentially and more people throughout the world receive an education that religious beliefs like these are challenged more and more openly, and more and more often.

polyglide wrote: God does not make demands he gives choices.

1. You shall have no other gods before Me.
2. You shall not make idols.
3. You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain.
4. Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.
5. Honor your father and your mother.
6. You shall not murder.
7. You shall not commit adultery.
8. You shall not steal.
9. You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.
10. You shall not covet.

Those look like demands to me, I see no mention of choice at all.

Polyglide wrote:The Old Testament is irrelevant as far as I am concerned as regards present day mankind.

Why would a being with limitless intelligence and power waste all that time and effort communicating an irrelevance? This another of those grandiose and totally unevidenced claims you love to make, what marks them out apart from the lack of any attempt at proper evidence is that they are nearly always so obviously logically inconsistent  and thus spurious. Either the OT is the immutable word of an omniscient omnipotent deity, or its a bronze age human superstition, for once it's you who is claiming the latter.

polyglide wrote:snowyflake, perhaps we should consider your own shortcommings.

Missed this, another gem.

snowyflake wrote:

greatest wrote:Have you not noticed that even atheist are forming churches as they know they have to appease our groupish instincts and if they do not for their children, many will gravitate the immoral mainstream religions.

I think an atheist church is like herding cats. Everyone has their own ideas but one thing you don't hear too much about is atheists going around killing each other or others for not thinking as they do. Atheists are using reason to work out the world. They aren't believing in third eyes or other hokum that can be scientifically (or psychiatrically) explained.

greatest wrote:How many witnesses before you condemn?

Personally, I don't trust eye witness accounts and many people have been condemned wrongly for eye witness testimony. People can believe but unless there is other corroborating evidence to support eye witness testimony (like forensic evidence) then I am inclined to be sceptical.

I've been fooled many times myself and been proven wrong so while I use my senses to navigate this old world, I don't necessarily trust them all the time. Especially if it's not reasonable or sensible and by all accounts your belief system is not reasonable or sensible. And my knowledge of science, the human body and the brain, I don't believe there is any evidence to suggest there is any experience outside of the tangible that is real.

People want to believe because they want to be more than they are. They find it hard to accept that their lives are short and within a generation or two, most are forgotten. That is our life and so it is so important to me to be realistic, to search out the truth of things and not get sucked up into the airy fairy nonsense of belief just because it might make me feel better about life by deluding myself. Sorry, I'm a hardline realist and anything else is hokum. Unless there is solid reproducible evidence for anything else, and I have never encountered any in 56 years, I'm inclined to think that life is what it really is - short. So we ought to make the best of it, be happy, moral individuals and do right by others, be kind and considerate and compassionate. Learn. I can't see that anyone needs anything else but this.

Then you are short sighted and have not dithered out why the vast majority have been doing what they are doing.

As to the third or single eye, as I said, it is just your higher mind and science is right into that.

https://www.ted.com/talks/iain_mcgilchrist_the_divided_brain

Regards
DL

polyglide wrote:snowyflake, You obviously put a very different interpretation and emphasis on this matter than any intelligent person does. A perversion is just that, it can cover numerous activities and if you put any sygnificance to it that is not intended then that is a shortcomming of your own.

Another insult and another hilarious own goal. Pride really does come before a fall it seems.

Dr, Sheldon.
Your inability to understand anything other than your own often absurd opinions justifies my remarks regarding your understanding of what is written and meant.

Although something is not correct in spelling in no way negates it's meaning and only a cretin would think so.

polyglide wrote:Dr, Sheldon.
Although something is not correct in spelling in no way negates it's meaning and only a cretin would think so.

Although something is not correct in shelling in no day negates it's moaning and only a cretan would think so.

Is it really so obvious that the above is the same as your sentence?

Incidentally the last part of your post is an example of the potioned will phallacy.

polyglide wrote:Dr, Sheldon.
                Your inability to understand anything other than your own often absurd opinions justifies my remarks regarding your understanding of what is written and meant.

                Although something is not correct in spelling in no way negates it's meaning and only a cretin would think so.

Another childish insult from you as you're incapable of anything else it seems. The second sentence is very true, though of course I never claimed otherwise, so again we see you obfuscate with yet another straw man argument. This is no surprise to anyone of course as my point was obvious to anyone with even the most rudimentary grasp of English, ruling you out yet again it seems. You made yet another petty childish and derisory remark about the intelligence of another poster because you haven't the intelligence to respond to Mrs Snowyflake's posts, and in that very response you made the kind of childish spelling and grammar errors that prompted my response.

Now what is it you keep saying? "If you can't take it then don't dish it out."

Now I know you clearly aren't bright enough to grasp this, but we can all plainly see from this latest tantrum of yours how out of your depth you are, as your childish insults indicate. I'd genuinely feel sorry for you if your posts didn't show clearly what a nasty arrogant piece of work you really are when your puerile beliefs are challenged with reason and intelligence.

Now, do you want to discuss the topic at hand or exchange insults? Either way I'm fairly certain you are way out of your depth, but I'm game for either. Though I'd rather discuss the topic of the thread.

Norm Deplume wrote:

polyglide wrote:Dr, Sheldon.
Although something is not correct in spelling in no way negates it's meaning and only a cretin would think so.

Although something is not correct in shelling in no day negates it's moaning and only a cretan would think so.

Is it really so obvious that the above is the same as your sentence?

Incidentally the last part of your post is an example of the potioned will phallacy.

"potioned will phallacy"

Very very funny, thank you Norm.  

polyglide wrote:
God does not make demands he gives choices.

Dr Sheldon Cooper
1. You shall have no other gods before Me.
2. You shall not make idols.
3. You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain.
4. Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.
5. Honor your father and your mother.
6. You shall not murder.
7. You shall not commit adultery.
8. You shall not steal.
9. You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.
10. You shall not covet.

Those look like demands to me, I see no mention of choice at all.

Perhaps you could address this post instead of throwing insults? Or perhaps not, as we've all seen how unusually reticent you become when your claims are refuted with evidence.

Dr, Sheldon,
They are not demands, they suggest the things that are in the best interests of mankind and for his benifit.

There is no mention of must not.