Nighthawk

It's not stupid if you don't like animation.

Fine, see ya in Hell.

Why do people pretend Vanilla Ice was the only white rapper before Eminem and the Beastie Boys never existed?

I couldn't say with certainty. There's much left to evaluate. I know it's a place where God is not, and a horrible realm of sorrow. As I've been saying, this may be a result of God's absence and only that, or it may be inflicted by God, but another reason to doubt this which I didn't mention is the very fact of his absense. It seems perhaps... an awkward arrangement for God to have a hand in the maintenace and operation of a place specifically desiged to be seperate from him. Keep in mind that as of now, there is nowhere that God is not. Hell is unique in that regard. There is much more that I've considered along the line of Hell, but I don't know if now if the time to delve into it. As far as a parole system, I could say a few things. Using the analogy, there are some crimes which have no parole, and some I'm sure you'd agree where it's not warranted. I don't know if you have children, but if you did, suppose somebody kidnapped them... kept them locked in a basement and molested them every day for a few years and eventually tortured them to death. I don't think you'd want them to ever be paroled, you'd probably think any punishment was too good for them, and if there was a Hell you'd probably want them to stay there forever. So, the punishment fits the crime and some crimes are worse than others. The worst of crime, however, if you apply the correct perspective, is rejection of God. To know God and all he has done, which though some may claim not to, but are without excuse (back to Romans there, valuable passage), places a person under such an unpayable debt that Hell is the only appropriate penalty. On the other hand, God has something better than parole, a complete pardon. Not only do you not go to Hell, you get paradise and you have to do nothing to get it. It's free and all you have to do is accept. You have your whole life to do it. Turning such an unimaginably merciful and generous offer down is part of the ultimate evil of rejection. Now, as far as sin goes, because you've alluded to it before, sin is not an act, it's more of a state of being. Things like whose holes you stick your dick into, God is not sentencing you to Hell for that, you're going anyway. Salvation is freely offered to everyone, and what sends you to Hell is rejecting it. That's the only thing that sends you to Hell. The other things, like hole sticking and so forth, are things God tells you for your own good. Again, 1 Corinthians 6 is good for this. Verse one says "All things are lawful but not all things are beneficial." This means that if you accept the gift of salvation, you can do anything you want. Yes, you can lead any kind of life you like, and you'll still go to heaven. But it's not beneficial even though they're not unsaving you. The things God tells you not to do will leave you worse off in the long run. He tells you for your own good, to help you.

No, but I do find it funny that you said creationists always go right back to Darwin when nobody here has done that. I also find it funny when "evolutionists" trot out carbon dating as some supposed disproof of creation when it has absolutely no bearing on the subject. I also find it funny that for all the bluster and pomp you sheep have thrown around, you've done nothing to demonstrate your theory's superiority over mine. If it's really so obvious, I've made you look like fools to an extreme degree by holding and winning this debate. The most offensive thing about atheism, or more generally, humanism, and one of the things I wished to expose with this thread, if the veneer of intellectualism, falsely so called. An atheist pretends to be intellectually superior to a theist, a champion of reason and logic, when the opposite is closer to the truth. This isn't really about God, it's about people, because most religious folk are the same way, with slightly altered smoke and mirrors. There are some atheists with admirable insight and intellect, who are genuine thinkers, just as there are some theists in the same category. The majority, and what we've seen here from a few individuals, is a lot of rhetoric without much substance. Reading a book does not make you intelligent. It may make you knowledgable, but to feel as if you have accomplished something by absorbing what someone else has presented you is a security blanket at best, a monkey with a shotgun at worst. You blindly accept evolution because you've been told it's the 'smart' thing to do. Even if it was a viable theory to someone at sometime, your belief is so strong and so sure because it's what you wanted to hear at the right time. It saddens me because future generations will look back on the past 100 years or so as painfully and hilariously ignorant. You tear down the Bible possesing absolutely no knowledge of it at all. It is so deep, I can scarecly believe it when it gets playfully cast aside as worthless fairy tale. You could spend years delving into the smallest parts of it. It's complexity is unknowable.This alone is more evidence of it's divine inspiration than it has leveled against it. If I could have you remember one things, it's this: True intelligence begins with realizing how much you don't know. The very fact that I told you this should present you with convincing evidence that your viewpoint needs to be evaluated, because I'm significantly smarter than you.

Well, Stern's Imus' bitch then.

I think you mean he exposed himself "as" being truly stupid.

He's never written a good ending once (well, maybe once, but most people would disagree with me) except on short stories. The longer it is, the worse the ending is, therefore, something this long should have a terrible ending. Perfect.

I'm not. I'm saying it's worth looking into.

What, like Straight Outta Compton had some incredible production? It's my favorite song ever, but the production was no big shit. Unless you mean the whole album... but then you could say largely the same thing. And you have to give Yella his due there. Chronic was the peak of Dre's production.

Eh, maybe a little. Also, Culture Club shamelessly ripped off Dead or Alive. They're still awesome.

I said I wouldn't discuss Revelation because there's lots of things in it that won't make sense until later. The flame never went out in Gehenna either. How should I know? That's what you said God should do instead of Hell. Well, for one it's not talking about Hell. Lazarus was there (you mixed up the story before, so I'll point out that Lazarus was the good one), able to converse with the rich man and theoretically touch his tongue with his finger, so it couldn't have been Hell. Also, the story not really happening doesn't mean Hell is a real place either. There is a reason to call into question the nature of Hell. The word is Gehenna which as I've said was the dump outside Jerusalem. Jesus used this word, to a Jewish audience who knew Gehenna as a dump and only a dump, where the fire never goes out. Now why would they see any reason to interpret it as another realm when they knew very well the place mentioned? It can't mean for us today what it never meant for them then.

Maybe. We won't know until we're dead, and then we'll understand so it won't matter. Right there shows the invalidity of this argument. There's no baptismal requirement for salvation. I know all the verses you'll quote. Think please, if nothing else, I've demonstrated that I know the Bible well, do not operate under the assumption that I don't know these verses. First, tell me what baptism is and quote the verses you feel state it as a requirement for salvation. It does imply that babies go to heaven as I will show, and they do not believe. This demonstrates a differing standard. Context is everything, and in this case, the context is all of the Bible. This is a willfully ignorant approach. Nothing besides going to him when he dies makes much sense in the context of the chapter. No intelligent person would make a statement such as this.

God, chaosrage is stupid. This is one of the lamest arguments I've ever been in, but I'll keep responding because if I stop he'll think he won. There is no before. The rest of your argument is false anyway. Even if you had no choice by your definition, you would have had a choice. Everyone else understands this, why can't you? Look dummy, if God can't do something, he doesn't try to do it. What he does, he can. Do I have to make it simpler? Now tell me where else it was used in the Bible... (I'm tired of doing all your research for you) And you claim to be intelligent? God did come down and show himself, and they didn't believe. I'm not only talking about Jesus either, though that's an excellent example. He would be forced to do that because he's God and if you reject him you damn well deserve it. Any other opinion is ignorance of the nature of God. Anything less than eternal torment is incomprehendable mercy, but that's just ow nice he is. No it isn't. The fact that it happened demonstrates that it isn't. Oh, you personally did this? I'm afraid I'm going to have to tell you a wizard did it. Then again, God created Adam as a grown man, and plants of fruit bearing age. It's created maturity. What you said is BUTT ignorant by the way, but you can dig your own hole. I did several times. Anyone wanting to jump to your defense may feel free. Dumbest statement of the thread. You've just negated your solid sky argument. I'm getting a headache thinking of how you'll try to say you didn't, so please let it go. Sure thing, chief. You'd like that, wouldn't you? The day anything you say goes over my head will be the day I die. Your argument here went over your own head. You've just admitted that you can't prove the Bible wrong, because it's rules supercede the laws of naturality, a point I've been trying to pound into your head for a while now. That's not where the burden of proof is. As you yourself alluded to, God himself came down from Heaven and said "Follow me." and people still didn't. Do you think that by meticulously seeing how every nuance of the Bible plays out logically, in the end you'll say "Well, I guess it is right. I'm yours, Lord." Everthing in the universe is not hanging in the balance of a textbook. I have aimed to demonstrate that the Bible is no less a valid viewpoint than the atheistic alternative and a more valid viewpoint than other religions. I guarantee that you won't understand that. So I can be as smart as you? First, so what? If you're having a conversation about it that's the absolute least I'd expect. Second, there are. You need to read more than Genesis to see them. Third, I'm not your mom. I promote thought, not lecture. The fact that you're still arguing this is making you look very very stupid to people who actuallly know what they're talking about. WHOOSH! And your basis for thinking it's literal is because you want it to be literal. But you're wrong, and if you had comprehended the Bible when you read it, you would understand why. First, read the entire book of Psalms, then the entire book of Job. Ponder. Then read the entire book of Isaiah. Ponder. Then tell me what you think. Who gives a shit about Popes? Charlie Manson thought he was appointed by the Beatles. That doesn't mean he was anymore than the Popes were by God. You're arguing semantics with English. Why do I even bother? Way to ignore the rest of what I said, by the way. Your second statement is foolish. By this logic, labeling someone as righteous is labeling them as sinless. Number one, this isn't a Christian society. Number two, I'm widely believed to not be a Christian. Number three, there's Christians in India just like there's Hindus here. Number four, you've validated that I would be wrong. Good. Number five, your assesment of my upbringing is false. Number six, the Hindu god and Zeus do not have merciful provisions forsuch an occurence like the Christian God does as in the passage in Romans about there being no excuse. So they are flawed gods. He doesn't have to, but if he wasn't an asshole, he should want to. He'd be justified in killing you and sending you to Hell for that... but he doesn't, cause he's not an asshole.

Culture Club is awesome.

Janet Leigh just died also, so you can say two.

The scariest artist I know is Diamanda Galas. She plays the piano and sings in a very original, skin crawling voice. Maybe sort of like Billie Holliday if I had to compare her to someone. Anyway, The Litanies of Satan is probably her most disturbing album. Old Testament prophecy and Latin. But everything she does, from her collection of negro spirituals to the records that are just screaming with no musical accompaniment are disturbing on some level.

Weird, cause I just said yesterday, "I bet Rodney Dangerfield will be dead within a couple days." It's not a big deal really, can't say you didn't see it coming. He was alright though.

Vinyl's overrated, which I say as someone who has some. Get the White Album though, cause that's cool.

Shut up, bitch.

By the way, the truth behind this situation is that people would still say Incy, except that now he's a prick they're afraid he'll make fun of them and that really hurts sometimes so they don't say it. Agent gets mentioned because people wish they could be like him. A slick back motherfucker not even giving a fuck. But few people are like that, except me. Agent said he wanted to hook up with me and huff ether one time, so beyond you wanting to be like him, he wants to be like me. Nobody likes Banky anymore because he used to be associated with me and now he's not. He severed ties when people realized I was better than him.

Football isn't really for athletes, it's for crazy people and bad motherfuckers. Probably 30% of my worst injuries sustained/worst I ever hurt somebody stories come from when I played football.

Dumbest thread ever.

You know, saying "fo sheez" was really pretty stupid.

I'd totally slit your throat, but it would probably make me cum, so it's sort of the same thing.