09 Aug 2007, 6:01 am
09 Aug 2007, 6:02 am
09 Aug 2007, 6:05 am
09 Aug 2007, 6:06 am
Ragtime wrote:
I like to live my life without having to be kicked into a corner every time someone asks my views on gays! But we don't all get what we want. Before I tell you all my views, I always prepare to be blasted with your rude anti-Christic intollerence, and it always comes through as expected. 
But you're the one who starts off with this homophobic Bible BS. So you're practically asking for it. Whereas I don't walk around with a sign on my back asking Christians to come and preach to me.
09 Aug 2007, 6:08 am
Ragtime wrote:
Sopho wrote:
Ragtime wrote:
Precisely "how" they're better at sucking cock is inelocutable, of course, but I think it's still true.
How could you ever know that?
How could YOU ever know that God doesn't exist?
I don't have any way of 'knowing' there is no God. I've said that on here before. There are differences between weak atheism and strong atheism. Even Richard Dawkins has stated that there's no way of proving the non-existence of a god, because of the nature of it.
09 Aug 2007, 6:09 am
greenblue wrote:
Ragtime wrote:
Sopho wrote:
Ragtime wrote:
Precisely "how" they're better at sucking cock is inelocutable, of course, but I think it's still true.
How could you ever know that?
How could YOU ever know that God doesn't exist?
I also ask that question
How can you know that God doesn't exist
and
How can you know that God does exist.
It's up to Ragtime to answer the second one. I don't claim to know a god doesn't exist.
Sedaka
Veteran
Joined: 16 Jul 2006
Age: 44
Gender: Female
Posts: 4,597
Location: In the recesses of my mind
09 Aug 2007, 9:38 am
Sopho wrote:
Ragtime wrote:
Sopho wrote:
Ragtime wrote:
Precisely "how" they're better at sucking cock is inelocutable, of course, but I think it's still true.
How could you ever know that?
How could YOU ever know that God doesn't exist?
I don't have any way of 'knowing' there is no God. I've said that on here before. There are differences between weak atheism and strong atheism. Even Richard Dawkins has stated that there's no way of proving the non-existence of a god, because of the nature of it.
that's because scientists know you cannot prove something with a negative result....... you need a positive control... which is impossible in this case...
09 Aug 2007, 9:43 am
Kilroy wrote:
even if there is a god Ragtime-I still wont worship him
he says I am evil
if thats so-eff him
he says I am evil
if thats so-eff him
I'm fine with that.
Sedaka
Veteran
Joined: 16 Jul 2006
Age: 44
Gender: Female
Posts: 4,597
Location: In the recesses of my mind
09 Aug 2007, 9:44 am
Sopho wrote:
greenblue wrote:
Ragtime wrote:
Sopho wrote:
Ragtime wrote:
Precisely "how" they're better at sucking cock is inelocutable, of course, but I think it's still true.
How could you ever know that?
How could YOU ever know that God doesn't exist?
I also ask that question
How can you know that God doesn't exist
and
How can you know that God does exist.
It's up to Ragtime to answer the second one. I don't claim to know a god doesn't exist.
all anyone can say to the second question (and ragtime has many times) is that they feel it in their heart... that wondrous joy that is god
but my question is... then how do i have that feeling? i somehow manage to find solace and peace and joy even in the midst of my tempests...
but he's said something to the effect (some other time) that people can have these feelings but that it is not of god.
that im not so sure about... cause then what's the point of god... heaven?
i dont care about the christian heaven... and was actually kinda disgusted when ragtime started describing how great heaven was and did so in a very materialistic way... jeweled stairways... bla bla bla
why would dead people care about having jewels and (not having sex, for one thing!)
09 Aug 2007, 9:46 am
greenblue wrote:
Ragtime wrote:
But see, it doesn't even say that. Nor does it ever say to hate women.
The Bible doesn't say hate women, but it reflects the time and the culture when women were considered inferior, explain this:
Quote:
Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.
But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.
For Adam was first formed, then Eve.
And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.
Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.
1 Timothy 2:11-15
But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.
For Adam was first formed, then Eve.
And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.
Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.
1 Timothy 2:11-15
Ragtime wrote:
Compare that with the Koran, which recommends wife beating for their disobedience (I've seen the verses). You're straining to put hatred of women in the Bible -- don't you think that's a sign it's not there? Whereas, the Koran gives you all the hatred you'll ever need in a lifetime, and much more! 
And it orders its followers to kill homosexuals, unlike the Bible, which does away with that necessity in the New Testament. It even tells them to kill anyone who even disagrees with Islam. Yet virtually everyone on WP goes easy on the Koran, but hates the Bible. 
It's just such hypocrisy!
And it orders its followers to kill homosexuals, unlike the Bible, which does away with that necessity in the New Testament. It even tells them to kill anyone who even disagrees with Islam. Yet virtually everyone on WP goes easy on the Koran, but hates the Bible. It's just such hypocrisy!Isn't the Torah part of the Koran?
Aren't a few muslism regimes based in the Torah, which you know is also part of our Bible, to kill homosexuals?
Quote:
If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.
Leviticus 20:13
Leviticus 20:13
Yes, and you ignore my point about the New Testament.
09 Aug 2007, 10:16 am
09 Aug 2007, 10:19 am
Sedaka wrote:
Ragtime wrote:
Sedaka wrote:
Ragtime wrote:
Sedaka wrote:
calandale wrote:
greenblue wrote:
As you stated before, how do you know for a fact that women suck better than men? lol
Because being straight one can feel better when a woman does to you than a man, that's not a fact, it's a subjective view, because you are just seeing this in one single point of view, that of a straight man.
Because being straight one can feel better when a woman does to you than a man, that's not a fact, it's a subjective view, because you are just seeing this in one single point of view, that of a straight man.
Indeed, I've rather heard the opposite.
take that seinfield show for example.... they stick with their team cause they have access to the equipment WAY more... so how can women compete in that arena
Because God made them to match with men, hello... It's obvious, if you just open your eyes.
so how does this support your conclusions that women are better at sucking cock?
yet another point on which you shift your views at the first sign of dissention
Precisely "how" they're better at sucking cock is inelocutable, of course, but I think it's still true.
Perhaps a formal series of trials should be arranged...
And you're now doing the opposite of what you told Kilroy to do. You're being unnecessarily abusive in your language. How will he learn?
so first say women are better at it
then after my seinfield quote you say duh guys ar better at it...
now you go BACK to saying women are better
you have a very odd concept of logic... and i didnt ask how women are better... i asked how does saying men are better (see the bold) support your previous saying that women are better... plz read
and what in that quote was uneccesarily abusive?
and in general..... i am not attacking religion nor gays... just your logic
No, I meant that women are made to match with men. I see where the wording confused you. Women always have been better at felatio than men, and always will be, IMHO.
09 Aug 2007, 10:22 am
09 Aug 2007, 10:24 am
09 Aug 2007, 10:30 am
09 Aug 2007, 10:31 am
