Search Results
7/25/2025, 5:35:11 PM
>>511329901
Yeah because whites who are aware are the ones who shame other whites for not allowing people who are completely foreign to them pour into their country to take advantage of them and their customs. How very bigoted.
Your gaslighting is crap. Really needs work.
Yeah because whites who are aware are the ones who shame other whites for not allowing people who are completely foreign to them pour into their country to take advantage of them and their customs. How very bigoted.
Your gaslighting is crap. Really needs work.
7/25/2025, 1:38:01 PM
>>511312978
When he’s saying “keep my word” it’s literally implying that all you had to do to love him was believe him. I’m guessing that’s what the book means when it says his burden is light.
When he’s saying “keep my word” it’s literally implying that all you had to do to love him was believe him. I’m guessing that’s what the book means when it says his burden is light.
7/25/2025, 12:21:18 AM
>>511266781
See, the problem with this particular field of arguementation is that atheists project the idea that they think they’re God onto him when they examine the text. Which is why when they pick up on what he does using a perfect moral law, their own subjective relative opinion of him is going to be terrible because they will never assume that he’s doing it for good reason.
Roman’s 9 talks about all of this crap, the text dismisses the claim that God does infact show favoritism for Jacob over Esau when the basis for choosing had nothing to do with them, it had everything to do with what God had planned. This completely negates the point atheism uses by appealing to emotion, where Satan is clearly trying to get you to come together with the world against God just because God picked Jews to establish the context for Christ and so that’s you’d know the difference between religion and believing the gospel.
If you were God, and you had to provide the context for man to understand why things had to be the way they are, exactly how do you go about doing it?
You respond with a limited relative opinion. Most likely appealing to your race, culture whatever.
That was his point in doing all the work for you, because you’re incapable of meriting what he alone could provide and most people do not want to admit this because it destroys your pride. He does all of this because he HATES pride on the fact that it literally enabled this clusterfuck you call the world to occur.
So in short, I’m not worshipping dick clippers who self righteously assert they’re gods chosen, when they don’t actually believe in him and are merely religious retards using the law to arrogate what the book says is a title that only belongs to believers of Jews and gentiles. Gods plan for the Jews is to have them go through the end times to help spread the gospel after the church gets removed from the context to send the first warning shot across unbelievers.
See, the problem with this particular field of arguementation is that atheists project the idea that they think they’re God onto him when they examine the text. Which is why when they pick up on what he does using a perfect moral law, their own subjective relative opinion of him is going to be terrible because they will never assume that he’s doing it for good reason.
Roman’s 9 talks about all of this crap, the text dismisses the claim that God does infact show favoritism for Jacob over Esau when the basis for choosing had nothing to do with them, it had everything to do with what God had planned. This completely negates the point atheism uses by appealing to emotion, where Satan is clearly trying to get you to come together with the world against God just because God picked Jews to establish the context for Christ and so that’s you’d know the difference between religion and believing the gospel.
If you were God, and you had to provide the context for man to understand why things had to be the way they are, exactly how do you go about doing it?
You respond with a limited relative opinion. Most likely appealing to your race, culture whatever.
That was his point in doing all the work for you, because you’re incapable of meriting what he alone could provide and most people do not want to admit this because it destroys your pride. He does all of this because he HATES pride on the fact that it literally enabled this clusterfuck you call the world to occur.
So in short, I’m not worshipping dick clippers who self righteously assert they’re gods chosen, when they don’t actually believe in him and are merely religious retards using the law to arrogate what the book says is a title that only belongs to believers of Jews and gentiles. Gods plan for the Jews is to have them go through the end times to help spread the gospel after the church gets removed from the context to send the first warning shot across unbelievers.
7/22/2025, 7:56:46 PM
>>511064896
God deals with the OT Jews quite harshly actually. Understandably, but clearly not enough for you. Even though this would evidently imply that they’re not his people by virtue of having specific genes, but rather whether or not you B E L I E V E.
God deals with the OT Jews quite harshly actually. Understandably, but clearly not enough for you. Even though this would evidently imply that they’re not his people by virtue of having specific genes, but rather whether or not you B E L I E V E.
7/21/2025, 5:11:57 AM
>>510938151
Very compelling retorts, now tell me how to debunk apples existing with skepticism. Because I’ve seen a militant professor at a college I went to do it to retort another zealous professor arguing about morality regarding Israel.
Needless to say the one using skepticism’s point was illustrating that you don’t need to be Jewish to rationalize stupid shit and make absurd claims. He used double negatives regarding Israel’s existence using the text and the pro Israel professor couldn’t retort it because the basis for the ‘debate’ had nothing to do with proving either side right. The professors point was that people who use skepticism using a neat little trick with presuppositions to force the debate into the context where the opposing side has to prove to the person that holds a contrary opinion that his opinion is wrong when the basis for doing so has nothing to do with rationalism to begin with, it’s a complete distraction.
They both went on to say that atheism is untenable because 9/10 the ‘debates’ are just atheists deploying skepticism and refusing to acknowledge context in order to dismiss evidence. Neither of the professors were theists, they were agnostic and the point of why they admitted that was because atheism has turned into some ambiguous militant slop theology where man bases his moral decisions on the basis that there is no god rather than trying to improve relative to his environment.
It wasn’t a California community college either, I went to a Tennessee CC.
Basically, skeptics are children and their arguementation shows complete disregard for taking the situation seriously and merely pretend to care while hiding behind a pedantic thin veneer of decorum, when you can tell they have emotional grudges against religion in general.
Let me know when you have the audacity to say I don’t know, that’s when your balls have dropped.
Very compelling retorts, now tell me how to debunk apples existing with skepticism. Because I’ve seen a militant professor at a college I went to do it to retort another zealous professor arguing about morality regarding Israel.
Needless to say the one using skepticism’s point was illustrating that you don’t need to be Jewish to rationalize stupid shit and make absurd claims. He used double negatives regarding Israel’s existence using the text and the pro Israel professor couldn’t retort it because the basis for the ‘debate’ had nothing to do with proving either side right. The professors point was that people who use skepticism using a neat little trick with presuppositions to force the debate into the context where the opposing side has to prove to the person that holds a contrary opinion that his opinion is wrong when the basis for doing so has nothing to do with rationalism to begin with, it’s a complete distraction.
They both went on to say that atheism is untenable because 9/10 the ‘debates’ are just atheists deploying skepticism and refusing to acknowledge context in order to dismiss evidence. Neither of the professors were theists, they were agnostic and the point of why they admitted that was because atheism has turned into some ambiguous militant slop theology where man bases his moral decisions on the basis that there is no god rather than trying to improve relative to his environment.
It wasn’t a California community college either, I went to a Tennessee CC.
Basically, skeptics are children and their arguementation shows complete disregard for taking the situation seriously and merely pretend to care while hiding behind a pedantic thin veneer of decorum, when you can tell they have emotional grudges against religion in general.
Let me know when you have the audacity to say I don’t know, that’s when your balls have dropped.
7/18/2025, 9:57:20 AM
>>510701464
Liberals were right about 90’s liberals?
So democrats are right about the democrats of tommorow? So democrats are right about conservatives but don’t know what the fuck a Republican is and haven’t seen one since maybe 1964.
Liberals were right about 90’s liberals?
So democrats are right about the democrats of tommorow? So democrats are right about conservatives but don’t know what the fuck a Republican is and haven’t seen one since maybe 1964.
7/17/2025, 3:59:36 AM
>>510592193
You have to be more corn than human to give even the most minuscule fuck about what this fake gay ass society thinks about you
You have to be more corn than human to give even the most minuscule fuck about what this fake gay ass society thinks about you
Page 1