Total Posts:107|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

why was pork n shellfish immoral in OT?

linate
Posts: 1,137
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2018 11:43:19 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
OT old testament.

the thread about the sabbath sparked this thread. it seems pretty obvious that such random and pointless rules like no pork or shellfish are not doctrines from God, but rather man. is there anyone who says these were God's rules? and why would it be not okay for someone and then later okay - what's the rationale for why it's not consistent?

i read on the net someone say pork was unhygenic so there might have been that as a reason. but did pork suddenly become hygenic when Jesus came? nope. this is a rationalization.

it is painfully obvious these are man made random stupid rules that people treated as if they were from God, and now modern religious types just rationalize it.
dee-em
Posts: 10,593
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2018 11:49:20 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/18/2018 11:43:19 AM, linate wrote:
OT old testament.

the thread about the sabbath sparked this thread. it seems pretty obvious that such random and pointless rules like no pork or shellfish are not doctrines from God, but rather man. is there anyone who says these were God's rules? and why would it be not okay for someone and then later okay - what's the rationale for why it's not consistent?

i read on the net someone say pork was unhygenic so there might have been that as a reason. but did pork suddenly become hygenic when Jesus came? nope. this is a rationalization.

it is painfully obvious these are man made random stupid rules that people treated as if they were from God, and now modern religious types just rationalize it.

God is such a joker. He knows full well that pork and shellfish are some of the best things to eat. He was just having a laugh but the Jews took it seriously.
Lying and/or abusive trolls on permanent ignore: ethang5, skipsaweirdo, dsjpk5, Polytheist_Witch, Studio-B, TKDB, Factseeker, graceofgod.
linate
Posts: 1,137
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2018 11:54:09 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
the OT says this was from God, so at least fundamentalists can't say it wasn't from God...

"""Keep all my decrees and laws and follow them, so that the land where I am bringing you to live may not vomit you out. 23 You must not live according to the customs of the nations I am going to drive out before you. Because they did all these things, I abhorred them. 24 But I said to you, "You will possess their land; I will give it to you as an inheritance, a land flowing with milk and honey." I am the Lord your God, who has set you apart from the nations.
""You must therefore make a distinction between clean and unclean animals and between unclean and clean birds. Do not defile yourselves by any animal or bird or anything that moves along the ground"those that I have set apart as unclean for you. 26 You are to be holy to me because I, the Lord, am holy, and I have set you apart from the nations to be my own."
linate
Posts: 1,137
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2018 11:59:45 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
i would throw the old testament sabbath rules in this category. if there was fluff being peddled in the OT in the form of shellfish and all kinds of other zany rules, that probably explain why there was a pointless zany rule the sabbath. if it was so important to not work the sabbath that the death penalty was in effect, it doesnt make sense to suddenly think it's okay- there's no rationale for a change. i would rather say Jesus was correcting the old testament.... Jesus' understanding of the sabbath i can get behind, but to say such inconsistency is from God doesn't make sense.
linate
Posts: 1,137
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2018 12:23:38 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
people on the net are saying pork was unhealthy... but that doesn't look like the reason given in the bible, and there are all kinds of other animals that were 'clean' that don't seem much different than pork and shellfish.

"And the pig, because it has a cloven hoof that is completely split, but will not regurgitate its cud; it is unclean for you. You shall not eat of their flesh, and you shall not touch their carcasses; they are unclean for you.
"R01;Leviticus 11:7

"You shall not eat any abomination.
These are the animals that you may eat: ox, lamb, and kid,
gazelle, deer, and antelope, ibex, chamois, bison, and giraffe.
And every animal that has a split hoof and has a hoof cloven into two hoof sections, [and] chews the cud among the animals that you may eat.
"R01;Deuteronomy 14:3"6
Polytheist_Witch
Posts: 4,423
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2018 12:28:40 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/18/2018 12:23:38 PM, linate wrote:
people on the net are saying pork was unhealthy... but that doesn't look like the reason given in the bible, and there are all kinds of other animals that were 'clean' that don't seem much different than pork and shellfish.

"And the pig, because it has a cloven hoof that is completely split, but will not regurgitate its cud; it is unclean for you. You shall not eat of their flesh, and you shall not touch their carcasses; they are unclean for you.
"R01;Leviticus 11:7

"You shall not eat any abomination.
These are the animals that you may eat: ox, lamb, and kid,
gazelle, deer, and antelope, ibex, chamois, bison, and giraffe.
And every animal that has a split hoof and has a hoof cloven into two hoof sections, [and] chews the cud among the animals that you may eat.
"R01;Deuteronomy 14:3"6

You are so stupid.
bulproof
Posts: 36,669
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2018 1:02:00 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/18/2018 12:47:02 PM, Polytheist_Witch wrote:
I hope you tards feel the same way about Buddhist vegetarians. Oh wait you don't, bigot tards.
You don't understand the English language, obviously.
Polytheist_Witch
Posts: 4,423
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2018 1:14:20 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/18/2018 1:02:00 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 6/18/2018 12:47:02 PM, Polytheist_Witch wrote:
I hope you tards feel the same way about Buddhist vegetarians. Oh wait you don't, bigot tards.
You don't understand the English language, obviously.

Bigot tard says what?
ethang5
Posts: 19,121
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2018 2:46:28 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/18/2018 11:50:03 AM, Polytheist_Witch wrote:

You people can't be this stupid.

They aren't PW. They use stupidity as a debate tool. Which of course means they are in fact, that stupid.
bulproof
Posts: 36,669
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2018 2:48:55 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/18/2018 2:46:28 PM, ethang5 wrote:
At 6/18/2018 11:50:03 AM, Polytheist_Witch wrote:

You people can't be this stupid.

They aren't PW. They use stupidity as a debate tool. Which of course means they are in fact, that stupid.

Where as you and polyfilla have no choice, stupidity is all you have.
Polytheist_Witch
Posts: 4,423
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2018 2:50:20 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/18/2018 2:48:55 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 6/18/2018 2:46:28 PM, ethang5 wrote:
At 6/18/2018 11:50:03 AM, Polytheist_Witch wrote:

You people can't be this stupid.

They aren't PW. They use stupidity as a debate tool. Which of course means they are in fact, that stupid.

Where as you and polyfilla have no choice, stupidity is all you have.

Eat raw pork and get back to us if you can. LOL, tard.
bulproof
Posts: 36,669
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2018 2:52:02 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/18/2018 2:46:28 PM, ethang5 wrote:
At 6/18/2018 11:50:03 AM, Polytheist_Witch wrote:

You people can't be this stupid.

They aren't PW. They use stupidity as a debate tool. Which of course means they are in fact, that stupid.
Only one contradiction in this short passage of intestinal gases, well done thang.
Bwuahahahahahaha
bulproof
Posts: 36,669
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2018 2:54:23 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/18/2018 2:50:20 PM, Polytheist_Witch wrote:
At 6/18/2018 2:48:55 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 6/18/2018 2:46:28 PM, ethang5 wrote:
At 6/18/2018 11:50:03 AM, Polytheist_Witch wrote:

You people can't be this stupid.

They aren't PW. They use stupidity as a debate tool. Which of course means they are in fact, that stupid.

Where as you and polyfilla have no choice, stupidity is all you have.

Eat raw pork and get back to us if you can. LOL, tard.
Thanks for your support, I thought witches knew about fire? Oh that's right you don't know about anything.
ethang5
Posts: 19,121
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2018 3:10:40 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/18/2018 11:43:19 AM, linate wrote:

OT old testament.

the thread about the sabbath sparked this thread.

I will show you Gentle Reader how the fake lies. His M.O. so to speak. Observe.

it seems pretty obvious that such random and pointless rules....

First he places his subjective opinion on real things and pretends his opinion is fact in reality. He offers no reasoning or logical argumentation. Just assertion he thereafter pretends is established fact.

..like no pork or shellfish are not doctrines from God, but rather man.

See how he jumps from his assertion to his conclusion? The doctrine is pointless thus not from God. No logic. No reason. Just assertion. But he's not done. Watch....

..is there anyone who says these were God's rules? and why would it be not okay for someone and then later okay - what's the rationale for why it's not consistent?

Now he asked why its not consistent AFTER he has concluded it isn't from God. Why should we assume it cannot change? He doesn't say. He just assumes it true. No logic. No reasoning. He wants the theist to provide a rationale for "why it's not consistent" when he has not established that it even should be "consistent". The entire argument thus far is devoid of logic or any coherant reasoning.

i read on the net someone say pork was unhygenic so there might have been that as a reason. but did pork suddenly become hygenic when Jesus came? nope. this is a rationalization.

Next, he will mention a rebuttal, claim to neutralize it, and assume again that his point is established, all without argument or logical reasoning. Just assertion.

it is painfully obvious these are man made random stupid rules that people treated as if they were from God,....

Now, after stating his opinions, he claims they are "painfully obvious" (to whom?) as not from God.

..and now modern religious types just rationalize it.

And the fake concludes his argument, never having debated a single rebuttal, or supported one assertion.

This is the stupidity that passes for thinking with these idiots. After this, his idiot buddies post uncritical replies asserting the same stupid assumptions and pretending they are fact.

Make a serious post with credible rebuttals and the fake will run away to create yet another thread using the same logicless stupidity. Rinse and repeat.

Can the class say fake? I thought it could.
bulproof
Posts: 36,669
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2018 3:30:35 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/18/2018 3:10:40 PM, ethang5 wrote:
At 6/18/2018 11:43:19 AM, linate wrote:

OT old testament.

the thread about the sabbath sparked this thread.

I will show you Gentle Reader how the fake lies. His M.O. so to speak. Observe.

it seems pretty obvious that such random and pointless rules....

First he places his subjective opinion on real things and pretends his opinion is fact in reality. He offers no reasoning or logical argumentation. Just assertion he thereafter pretends is established fact.

..like no pork or shellfish are not doctrines from God, but rather man.

See how he jumps from his assertion to his conclusion? The doctrine is pointless thus not from God. No logic. No reason. Just assertion. But he's not done. Watch....

..is there anyone who says these were God's rules? and why would it be not okay for someone and then later okay - what's the rationale for why it's not consistent?

Now he asked why its not consistent AFTER he has concluded it isn't from God. Why should we assume it cannot change? He doesn't say. He just assumes it true. No logic. No reasoning. He wants the theist to provide a rationale for "why it's not consistent" when he has not established that it even should be "consistent". The entire argument thus far is devoid of logic or any coherant reasoning.

i read on the net someone say pork was unhygenic so there might have been that as a reason. but did pork suddenly become hygenic when Jesus came? nope. this is a rationalization.

Next, he will mention a rebuttal, claim to neutralize it, and assume again that his point is established, all without argument or logical reasoning. Just assertion.

it is painfully obvious these are man made random stupid rules that people treated as if they were from God,....

Now, after stating his opinions, he claims they are "painfully obvious" (to whom?) as not from God.

..and now modern religious types just rationalize it.

And the fake concludes his argument, never having debated a single rebuttal, or supported one assertion.

This is the stupidity that passes for thinking with these idiots. After this, his idiot buddies post uncritical replies asserting the same stupid assumptions and pretending they are fact.

Make a serious post with credible rebuttals and the fake will run away to create yet another thread using the same logicless stupidity. Rinse and repeat.

Can the class say fake? I thought it could.
How is the chopped liver you substitute for argument going these days thang? If this is your finest liver then you are always losing still.
Thang and his strawman and lies always fail, poor fellow.
linate
Posts: 1,137
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2018 3:59:19 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/18/2018 3:10:40 PM, ethang5 wrote:
At 6/18/2018 11:43:19 AM, linate wrote:

OT old testament.

the thread about the sabbath sparked this thread.

I will show you Gentle Reader how the fake lies. His M.O. so to speak. Observe.

it seems pretty obvious that such random and pointless rules....

First he places his subjective opinion on real things and pretends his opinion is fact in reality. He offers no reasoning or logical argumentation. Just assertion he thereafter pretends is established fact.

..like no pork or shellfish are not doctrines from God, but rather man.

See how he jumps from his assertion to his conclusion? The doctrine is pointless thus not from God. No logic. No reason. Just assertion. But he's not done. Watch....

..is there anyone who says these were God's rules? and why would it be not okay for someone and then later okay - what's the rationale for why it's not consistent?

Now he asked why its not consistent AFTER he has concluded it isn't from God. Why should we assume it cannot change? He doesn't say. He just assumes it true. No logic. No reasoning. He wants the theist to provide a rationale for "why it's not consistent" when he has not established that it even should be "consistent". The entire argument thus far is devoid of logic or any coherant reasoning.

i read on the net someone say pork was unhygenic so there might have been that as a reason. but did pork suddenly become hygenic when Jesus came? nope. this is a rationalization.

Next, he will mention a rebuttal, claim to neutralize it, and assume again that his point is established, all without argument or logical reasoning. Just assertion.

it is painfully obvious these are man made random stupid rules that people treated as if they were from God,....

Now, after stating his opinions, he claims they are "painfully obvious" (to whom?) as not from God.

..and now modern religious types just rationalize it.

And the fake concludes his argument, never having debated a single rebuttal, or supported one assertion.

This is the stupidity that passes for thinking with these idiots. After this, his idiot buddies post uncritical replies asserting the same stupid assumptions and pretending they are fact.

Make a serious post with credible rebuttals and the fake will run away to create yet another thread using the same logicless stupidity. Rinse and repeat.

Can the class say fake? I thought it could.

i notice in your tirade you never once decideded to defend the practices. i'm sure if they made sense you would have been quick to do so, but deep down you know they don't make sense.... you are too spiritually stunted to care for the truth, so you just play a bunch of stupid games instead, your MO.

so why are they immoral in the old testament and not after jesus came? is it because pigs are more unhealthy than antelope and other animals? is it because Jesus died for our sins, and thus somehow that makes pork not immoral anymore even though it must have obviously was immoral before? you've truly left me grasping at straws to make sense of these stupid rules.

i think ethan tells himself he's not like a pharisee because he no *longer* follows a bunch of stupid rules like they would...... never mind the fact that he still defends them fully as they were.
i know he says women must wear hats in church cause st paul said so in the new testament.... so it's not like ethan's not a present day pharisee anyway.
linate
Posts: 1,137
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2018 4:09:14 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
why would "God" say this in the old testament and then the next thing in the new testament?

""You must therefore make a distinction between clean and unclean animals and between unclean and clean birds."

"What God has made clean, you shall not call unclean".

the common understanding of that new rule is that animals aren't unclean.... but if that's the case, why did God tell us to call some of them unclean? did he change his mind? it looks like God was correcting them in hte new testament... it doesn't say "you shall no longer call unclean".
i think it's easiest to say the old testament, as usual.... just got this stuff wrong, and it misquoted God as saying all that stuff.
linate
Posts: 1,137
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2018 4:16:07 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
all the apologetics are saying the clean animals are healthy to eat but not so with the unclean. how can anyone seriously suggest there is a real difference here?

Clean animals: land animals that chew the cud and have a divided hoof, such as cattle, deer, goats, and sheep; seafood with both fins and scales, such as bluegill, grouper, and cod; certain birds, including chickens, doves, and ducks; and even some insects, such as grasshoppers and locusts.

Unclean animals: land animals that either do not chew the cud or do not have a split hoof, such as pigs, dogs, cats, horses, donkeys, and rats; seafood lacking either fins or scales, such as shellfish, lobster, oysters, and catfish; some birds, such as owls, hawks, and vultures; and other animals, such as reptiles and amphibians.
ethang5
Posts: 19,121
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2018 4:18:57 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/18/2018 3:59:19 PM, linate wrote:
At 6/18/2018 3:10:40 PM, ethang5 wrote:

OT old testament.

the thread about the sabbath sparked this thread.

I will show you Gentle Reader how the fake lies. His M.O. so to speak. Observe.

it seems pretty obvious that such random and pointless rules....

First he places his subjective opinion on real things and pretends his opinion is fact in reality. He offers no reasoning or logical argumentation. Just assertion he thereafter pretends is established fact.

..like no pork or shellfish are not doctrines from God, but rather man.

See how he jumps from his assertion to his conclusion? The doctrine is pointless thus not from God. No logic. No reason. Just assertion. But he's not done. Watch....

..is there anyone who says these were God's rules? and why would it be not okay for someone and then later okay - what's the rationale for why it's not consistent?

Now he asked why its not consistent AFTER he has concluded it isn't from God. Why should we assume it cannot change? He doesn't say. He just assumes it true. No logic. No reasoning. He wants the theist to provide a rationale for "why it's not consistent" when he has not established that it even should be "consistent". The entire argument thus far is devoid of logic or any coherant reasoning.

i read on the net someone say pork was unhygenic so there might have been that as a reason. but did pork suddenly become hygenic when Jesus came? nope. this is a rationalization.

Next, he will mention a rebuttal, claim to neutralize it, and assume again that his point is established, all without argument or logical reasoning. Just assertion.

it is painfully obvious these are man made random stupid rules that people treated as if they were from God,....

Now, after stating his opinions, he claims they are "painfully obvious" (to whom?) as not from God.

..and now modern religious types just rationalize it.

And the fake concludes his argument, never having debated a single rebuttal, or supported one assertion.

This is the stupidity that passes for thinking with these idiots. After this, his idiot buddies post uncritical replies asserting the same stupid assumptions and pretending they are fact.

Make a serious post with credible rebuttals and the fake will run away to create yet another thread using the same logicless stupidity. Rinse and repeat.

Can the class say fake? I thought it could.

i notice in your tirade you never once decideded to defend the practices.

Defend it from what? You never attacked it.

i'm sure if they made sense you would have been quick to do so, but deep down you know they don't make sense....

Omniscient now are we? If your case is so tight, why are you so afraid of debate?

you are too spiritually stunted to care for the truth, so you just play a bunch of stupid games instead, your MO.

So you say. I spelled out your stupidity. You think anyone disagreeing with you is spiritually stunted. But you never have an argument. You never address points. You never support your comments. The stunted one is you.

so why are they immoral in the old testament and not after jesus came? is it because pigs are more unhealthy than antelope and other animals? is it because Jesus died for our sins, and thus somehow that makes pork not immoral anymore even though it must have obviously was immoral before? you've truly left me grasping at straws to make sense of these stupid rules.

Perhaps your problem is that dispite admitting being ignorant, you have called the rules stupid. This lets me know you aren't interested in reasoned debate. You are a fake. I will use you to make points to the Gentle Readers. Debate with you is pointless, you aren't interested in debate.

i think ethan tells himself he's not like a pharisee because he no *longer* follows a bunch of stupid rules like they would...... never mind the fact that he still defends them fully as they were.

Right. The fake can't debate, but will throw up comments to no one in particular like an autistic moron. I defended nothing. All I did was show the lack of thinking in your lame post. And you can't address that, so you play your silly game.

i know he says women must wear hats in church cause st paul said so in the new testament.... so it's not like ethan's not a present day pharisee anyway.

And since you have declared my position for me, there is no need to debate. Right fake?

You are vacuous.
linate
Posts: 1,137
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2018 4:22:18 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/18/2018 4:18:57 PM, ethang5 wrote:
At 6/18/2018 3:59:19 PM, linate wrote:
At 6/18/2018 3:10:40 PM, ethang5 wrote:

OT old testament.

the thread about the sabbath sparked this thread.

I will show you Gentle Reader how the fake lies. His M.O. so to speak. Observe.

it seems pretty obvious that such random and pointless rules....

First he places his subjective opinion on real things and pretends his opinion is fact in reality. He offers no reasoning or logical argumentation. Just assertion he thereafter pretends is established fact.

..like no pork or shellfish are not doctrines from God, but rather man.

See how he jumps from his assertion to his conclusion? The doctrine is pointless thus not from God. No logic. No reason. Just assertion. But he's not done. Watch....

..is there anyone who says these were God's rules? and why would it be not okay for someone and then later okay - what's the rationale for why it's not consistent?

Now he asked why its not consistent AFTER he has concluded it isn't from God. Why should we assume it cannot change? He doesn't say. He just assumes it true. No logic. No reasoning. He wants the theist to provide a rationale for "why it's not consistent" when he has not established that it even should be "consistent". The entire argument thus far is devoid of logic or any coherant reasoning.

i read on the net someone say pork was unhygenic so there might have been that as a reason. but did pork suddenly become hygenic when Jesus came? nope. this is a rationalization.

Next, he will mention a rebuttal, claim to neutralize it, and assume again that his point is established, all without argument or logical reasoning. Just assertion.

it is painfully obvious these are man made random stupid rules that people treated as if they were from God,....

Now, after stating his opinions, he claims they are "painfully obvious" (to whom?) as not from God.

..and now modern religious types just rationalize it.

And the fake concludes his argument, never having debated a single rebuttal, or supported one assertion.

This is the stupidity that passes for thinking with these idiots. After this, his idiot buddies post uncritical replies asserting the same stupid assumptions and pretending they are fact.

Make a serious post with credible rebuttals and the fake will run away to create yet another thread using the same logicless stupidity. Rinse and repeat.

Can the class say fake? I thought it could.

i notice in your tirade you never once decideded to defend the practices.

Defend it from what? You never attacked it.

i'm sure if they made sense you would have been quick to do so, but deep down you know they don't make sense....

Omniscient now are we? If your case is so tight, why are you so afraid of debate?

you are too spiritually stunted to care for the truth, so you just play a bunch of stupid games instead, your MO.

So you say. I spelled out your stupidity. You think anyone disagreeing with you is spiritually stunted. But you never have an argument. You never address points. You never support your comments. The stunted one is you.

so why are they immoral in the old testament and not after jesus came? is it because pigs are more unhealthy than antelope and other animals? is it because Jesus died for our sins, and thus somehow that makes pork not immoral anymore even though it must have obviously was immoral before? you've truly left me grasping at straws to make sense of these stupid rules.

Perhaps your problem is that dispite admitting being ignorant, you have called the rules stupid. This lets me know you aren't interested in reasoned debate. You are a fake. I will use you to make points to the Gentle Readers. Debate with you is pointless, you aren't interested in debate.

i think ethan tells himself he's not like a pharisee because he no *longer* follows a bunch of stupid rules like they would...... never mind the fact that he still defends them fully as they were.

Right. The fake can't debate, but will throw up comments to no one in particular like an autistic moron. I defended nothing. All I did was show the lack of thinking in your lame post. And you can't address that, so you play your silly game.

i know he says women must wear hats in church cause st paul said so in the new testament.... so it's not like ethan's not a present day pharisee anyway.

And since you have declared my position for me, there is no need to debate. Right fake?

You are vacuous.

you said i never attacked it.... but i did say " it seems pretty obvious that such random and pointless rules like no pork or shellfish are not doctrines from God, but rather man. "

that is where you come in to defend the practices are from God as written, and then give some reasons the rules make sense.
linate
Posts: 1,137
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2018 4:33:26 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
you say i avoid debate, but i can't lay this out any simpler than i have in this thread for a debate. you have a reading comprehension problem, and/or you need to see a psychologist or something to fix your mental problems.
ethang5
Posts: 19,121
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2018 4:41:04 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/18/2018 4:22:18 PM, linate wrote:
At 6/18/2018 4:18:57 PM, ethang5 wrote:

Make a serious post with credible rebuttals and the fake will run away to create yet another thread using the same logicless stupidity. Rinse and repeat.

Can the class say fake? I thought it could.

i notice in your tirade you never once decideded to defend the practices.

Defend it from what? You never attacked it.

i'm sure if they made sense you would have been quick to do so, but deep down you know they don't make sense....

Omniscient now are we? If your case is so tight, why are you so afraid of debate?

you are too spiritually stunted to care for the truth, so you just play a bunch of stupid games instead, your MO.

So you say. I spelled out your stupidity. You think anyone disagreeing with you is spiritually stunted. But you never have an argument. You never address points. You never support your comments. The stunted one is you.

so why are they immoral in the old testament and not after jesus came? is it because pigs are more unhealthy than antelope and other animals? is it because Jesus died for our sins, and thus somehow that makes pork not immoral anymore even though it must have obviously was immoral before? you've truly left me grasping at straws to make sense of these stupid rules.

Perhaps your problem is that dispite admitting being ignorant, you have called the rules stupid. This lets me know you aren't interested in reasoned debate. You are a fake. I will use you to make points to the Gentle Readers. Debate with you is pointless, you aren't interested in debate.

i think ethan tells himself he's not like a pharisee because he no *longer* follows a bunch of stupid rules like they would...... never mind the fact that he still defends them fully as they were.

Right. The fake can't debate, but will throw up comments to no one in particular like an autistic moron. I defended nothing. All I did was show the lack of thinking in your lame post. And you can't address that, so you play your silly game.

i know he says women must wear hats in church cause st paul said so in the new testament.... so it's not like ethan's not a present day pharisee anyway.

And since you have declared my position for me, there is no need to debate. Right fake?

You are vacuous.

you said i never attacked it.... but i did say " it seems pretty obvious that such random and pointless rules like no pork or shellfish are not doctrines from God, but rather man. "

This is you posting an ignorant opinion with no support. Your opinions need no opposition from me.

that is where you come in to defend the practices are from God as written, and then give some reasons the rules make sense.

When you make a cogent argument that the practices are not from God as written, I may rebut. You dtupidly think the burden is on the theist to rebut you silly assumptions. You have to reason out your claims. Simply stating them does not mean they have been established or deserve rebuttal.

Plus, as is your way, you dodged ever point in my first post. You are an enemy of Christ. Your intent is not debate. All you want is to insert doubt, and will not address rebuttals but use them to sow more doubt.

Thus I cut you off at the knees. I don't play your game. I was trained for moron trolls like you.
bulproof
Posts: 36,669
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2018 4:49:23 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
why was pork n shellfish immoral in OT?
None of you godists has even approached this question, show the courage of your convictions, or is that what you are already doing?
Polytheist_Witch
Posts: 4,423
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2018 5:03:02 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/18/2018 2:54:23 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 6/18/2018 2:50:20 PM, Polytheist_Witch wrote:
At 6/18/2018 2:48:55 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 6/18/2018 2:46:28 PM, ethang5 wrote:
At 6/18/2018 11:50:03 AM, Polytheist_Witch wrote:

You people can't be this stupid.

They aren't PW. They use stupidity as a debate tool. Which of course means they are in fact, that stupid.

Where as you and polyfilla have no choice, stupidity is all you have.

Eat raw pork and get back to us if you can. LOL, tard.
Thanks for your support, I thought witches knew about fire? Oh that's right you don't know about anything.

Cause you can't get sick by cooking pork poorly. Fire, oven or not you stupid tard fu@k,
bulproof
Posts: 36,669
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2018 5:05:35 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/18/2018 4:41:04 PM, ethang5 wrote:
At 6/18/2018 4:22:18 PM, linate wrote:
At 6/18/2018 4:18:57 PM, ethang5 wrote:

Make a serious post with credible rebuttals and the fake will run away to create yet another thread using the same logicless stupidity. Rinse and repeat.

Can the class say fake? I thought it could.

i notice in your tirade you never once decideded to defend the practices.

Defend it from what? You never attacked it.

i'm sure if they made sense you would have been quick to do so, but deep down you know they don't make sense....

Omniscient now are we? If your case is so tight, why are you so afraid of debate?

you are too spiritually stunted to care for the truth, so you just play a bunch of stupid games instead, your MO.

So you say. I spelled out your stupidity. You think anyone disagreeing with you is spiritually stunted. But you never have an argument. You never address points. You never support your comments. The stunted one is you.

so why are they immoral in the old testament and not after jesus came? is it because pigs are more unhealthy than antelope and other animals? is it because Jesus died for our sins, and thus somehow that makes pork not immoral anymore even though it must have obviously was immoral before? you've truly left me grasping at straws to make sense of these stupid rules.

Perhaps your problem is that dispite admitting being ignorant, you have called the rules stupid. This lets me know you aren't interested in reasoned debate. You are a fake. I will use you to make points to the Gentle Readers. Debate with you is pointless, you aren't interested in debate.

i think ethan tells himself he's not like a pharisee because he no *longer* follows a bunch of stupid rules like they would...... never mind the fact that he still defends them fully as they were.

Right. The fake can't debate, but will throw up comments to no one in particular like an autistic moron. I defended nothing. All I did was show the lack of thinking in your lame post. And you can't address that, so you play your silly game.

i know he says women must wear hats in church cause st paul said so in the new testament.... so it's not like ethan's not a present day pharisee anyway.

And since you have declared my position for me, there is no need to debate. Right fake?

You are vacuous.

you said i never attacked it.... but i did say " it seems pretty obvious that such random and pointless rules like no pork or shellfish are not doctrines from God, but rather man. "

This is you posting an ignorant opinion with no support. Your opinions need no opposition from me.
You're right thang, your god actually didn't make these rules. If he did he is as ignorant as the men who actually made them.

that is where you come in to defend the practices are from God as written, and then give some reasons the rules make sense.

When you make a cogent argument that the practices are not from God as written, I may rebut. You dtupidly think the burden is on the theist to rebut you silly assumptions. You have to reason out your claims. Simply stating them does not mean they have been established or deserve rebuttal.
The argument is cogent when assessed by someone with an intellect greater than that of a brain damaged garden slug. If your god wrote that crap then the garden slug wins.

Plus, as is your way, you dodged ever point in my first post. You are an enemy of Christ. Your intent is not debate. All you want is to insert doubt, and will not address rebuttals but use them to sow more doubt.
You provided no points. Your god, if he made those rules, is incredibly stupid.

Thus I cut you off at the knees. I don't play your game. I was trained for moron trolls like you.
Get your money back, your "trainers" ripped you off. You couldn't defeat your stupid god in a debate.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.