MovieChat Forums > God's Not Dead 2 (2016) Discussion > Atheist infestation returns to board.......

Atheist infestation returns to board....motive obvious.


So you atheists watched GND and GND2, and now you've returned to complain about it?

or

You didn't watch the films but came here to rant about religion?

So which is it?

IMDb provides you fools with amble warning about what the films are about and you're here to complain about your wasted time?

lol

No. You're here to vent your militant atheist protest over religion and pro-Christian films. You go from one pro-Christian/religion board to the next. Boo hoo

And that protest isn't going to stop GND3 from coming out either.

reply

Heaven forbid people discuss topics that interest them. Pun intended.

reply

Heaven forbid people discuss topics that interest them.


Day after day, and for years?

reply

You didn't watch the films but came here to rant about religion?


Have you finally got round to seeing GND like the rest of us have kurt, or are you too busy celebrating the fact that your hero Trump got voted in and now the right wing controls all of America?

Also, should I never discuss a film I don't particularly like and should discussion boards simply be renamed as appreciation boards, where only those who love something discuss it?

reply

Have you finally got round to seeing GND like the rest of us have kurt,


Actually I have both films recorded at home.

your hero Trump got voted in and now the right wing controls all of America?


I voted for Clinton as the rest of the Democrats did. More proof that you skim comments and don't read them.

Also, should I never discuss a film I don't particularly like and should discussion boards simply be renamed as appreciation boards, where only those who love something discuss it?


You're on IMDb to protest religion.

You've never discussed pro-Christian films.

You're here to protest religion and berate Christians.

reply

Actually I have both films recorded at home.


And I have wings made of lead and can fly really fast!

I voted for Clinton as the rest of the Democrats did. More proof that you skim comments and don't read them.




You're on IMDb to protest religion.


You're still not using 'protest' correctly and I've never spoken particularly negatively about religion.

You've never discussed pro-Christian films.


Are you about to go all Navaros and claim GND isn't a pro-Christian film?

You're here to protest religion and berate Christians.


Much like 'protest' you're also not using 'berate' correctly. You're also not a Christian, nor are you willing to advocate Christianity, so you should probably stop speaking on behalf of a religion you've got no part of.

reply

Your post is so immature that it's not even worth responding to.

reply

Still playing at being mature are we kurt? Remember, you're god knows the truth and that you're a childish little bigot, no amount of pretending otherwise is going to change that.

Anyway I assume it's safe to say you haven't ever bothered taking those English lessons I suggested to you months ago, you know, the ones that would have had you using words correctly?

reply

Still playing at being mature are we


You certainly are. There is no "we" here, cupcake.

you're god knows the truth


My God knows how to correct spelling. 'Your' is the word you're looking for here. And in this case, if you're referring to the Christian God I believe in, then a capital letter would be appropriate.

it's safe to say you haven't ever bothered taking those English lessons I suggested to you months ago, you know, the ones that would have had you using words correctly?





How ironic.

reply

You certainly are. There is no "we" here, cupcake


Still refusing to understand how the English language works are we?

My God knows how to correct spelling.


The last bastion of the moron with nothing worthwhile to say, pick up on a grammatical error.

if you're referring to the Christian God I believe in, then a capital letter would be appropriate.


I do believe you once gave me free reign to not capitalise. Remember how you said you don't capitalise Hell because it means nothing to you and doing so gives it importance? I do, and in this instance God is the exact same thing for me. Also, while we're here, if you're going to pick up on someone's poor grammar (ie. a mistake) then you should probably understand that in the context with which I used the words 'your god' there is absolutely no need to capitalise anything. So in that particular instance the word I was looking for was 'god' with a small 'g', fairy cake.

reply

My God knows how to correct spelling.


The last bastion of the moron with nothing worthwhile to say, pick up on a grammatical error.



Actually it's further proof of you're intentionally trying to berate Christianity.


I was looking for was 'god' with a small 'g', fairy cake.



Translation: Religion is fairy tales. More proof that you come to IMDb boards to ridicule people of faith.


You asked for the proof, and you conveniently provided it.

reply

Actually it's further proof of you're intentionally trying to berate Christianity.


A slight grammatical error about the word your (mistakenly written as you're) is 'proof' of 'berating Christianity' how exactly?

Translation: Religion is fairy tales. More proof that you come to IMDb boards to ridicule people of faith.


Just so I've understood you correctly, you're saying that grammatical errors are 'proof of berating Christianity', not that it should bother an anti-theist such as yourself, whilst using the correct grammar is 'proof of ridiculing people of faith'? It would appear you've invented some sort of anti-logic with which you can get angry at non believers for every little thing, regardless of what it is. Imagine that.

You asked for the proof, and you conveniently provided it.


What 'proof' did I ask for and when? If it was proof that you're an idiot who'll claim the sky isn't blue if an atheist says it is then I've seen plenty of that, and it wasn't me who provided it.

reply

A slight grammatical error about the word your (mistakenly written as you're)


Your first constructive and useful comment this week.

reply

What 'proof' did I ask for and when?


Could you please just answer a question that's asked of you for once.

reply

what question

reply

The question in my post. Take a look at this symbol '?', if that's at the end of some words then it means a question has been asked.

reply

Take a look at this symbol '?', if that's at the end of some words then it means a question has been asked.





A slight grammatical error about the word your (mistakenly written as you're) is 'proof' of 'berating Christianity' how exactly?



Again...yes. I made a mistake typing you're when it should have been your.

reply

What are you on about man? Just answer the bloody question and stop avoiding it.

reply

I agree.
I've seen so many atheists on many different Christian sites. They just love mocking Christians and calling them stupid, closed minded and many other immature names.
They have 0 respect.
Then, when we tell them about God or Jesus and explain Scripture the right way, they whine about us 'forcing Christianity down their throats'.
Well, boo-hoo. What did they expect a Christian to talk about on a CHRISTIAN site?
They have free will. They don't have to click the site.
I never click on sites written by the late Hitchens, Dawkins or any other atheist site
They can talk about atheism but they don't want
us saying anything about Christianity; what WE
believe.
Atheists are always saying that they don't let
religion rule/run their lives, yet they can't shut
up about it; they still won't stop clicking
Christian sites to say something idiotic.
If they really don't believe as we do, then they should move along to sites that think as they do.
Atheists really need to grow up.
If you really don't care about Christianity, prove
it by keeping your mouth shut about it. Be
mature enough to leave it alone.
If I'm talking about Jesus or the Bible with a
friend or family, whether on social media or in
person and I didn't invite you into our
conversation, then keep your 2¢ go yourself.
Believe me, we don't want to hear it.

reply

I've seen so many atheists on many different Christian sites. They just love mocking Christians and calling them stupid, closed minded and many other immature names.


Exactly, thank you. 😁

reply

The majority of atheists I've seen on the IMDB boards, which admittedly isn't a huge number (though I am one) actually like to discuss religious ideas. Your entire post is based on the presumption they don't, so unsurprisingly the majority of the assumption that you've made based on that initial starting point are quite misplaced, but I'll happily pick up on a few.

They have 0 respect.

I respect your right to believe whatever you want, but that's as far as that respect needs to extend.

What did they expect a Christian to talk about on a CHRISTIAN site?

IMDB isn't a Christian site.

I never click on sites written by the late Hitchens, Dawkins or any other atheist site

Which suggests that while others are perhaps more open minded and look to explore alternate views of their own and seek challenge, you'd rather not risk having your bubble burst. Challenging your worldview is a good thing. I have a friend whose Christian faith was strengthened after reading Dawkins.

If they really don't believe as we do, then they should move along to sites that think as they do.

Again, very close minded. Encouraging people to exist in a confirmation bias bubble can have disastrous effects. I'd argue the polarisation in the UK and the US is partly caused by this.

If you really don't care about Christianity, prove
it by keeping your mouth shut about it.

Most atheists I've seen do care about Christianity and religion in more general, they just have a different opinion on it to you.

Be mature enough to leave it alone.

Because someone might get upset reading an opinion that differs from theirs? Maybe if you find public forums difficult you should leave them alone instead.

reply

https://www.facebook.com/TheFunnyRepublicanJesus/photos/a.739941052723167.1073741829.739436346106971/1172464136137521/?type=3&theater


IMDB isn't a Christian site.


Seems like deviates invests a lot of time telling us religious people to get off his lawn. Weren't these pro-Christian films made for people of faith?

I respect your right to believe whatever you want, but that's as far as that respect needs to extend.


I question the first half of that comment. The fact that you've trolled on pro-Christian board for years says otherwise.

Most atheists I've seen do care about Christianity and religion in more general


Oh barf...should I copy and post their vile comments again?


https://www.facebook.com/TheFunnyRepublicanJesus/photos/a.739941052723167.1073741829.739436346106971/1096231057094163/?type=3&theater

reply

Seems like deviates invests a lot of time telling us religious people to get off his lawn.

Actually Kurt, it's you telling people to stay off the lawn. I just reminded you that it's a public lawn meant for everyone.

I question the first half of that comment. The fact that you've trolled on pro-Christian board for years says otherwise.

I've taken part in discussions. At times I've made fun of the nonsense certain people have come out with. It's hardly trolling.

Oh barf...should I copy and post their vile comments again?

You pick a Facebook group made with the purpose of satirising (albeit poorly) Christianity as your example? That's textbook confirmation bias, Kurt.

reply

Actually Kurt, it's you telling people to stay off the lawn. I just reminded you that it's a public lawn meant for everyone.


baloney

At times I've made fun of the nonsense certain people have come out with. It's hardly trolling.


Liar. You go to pro-Christian boards to pick fights. You're trolling and your comment history proves it.

You pick a Facebook group made with the purpose of satirising (albeit poorly) Christianity as your example?


Are you accusing this board and other pro-Christian film boards of satire discussion pools?

reply

baloney

To paraphrase you Kurt, your post history suggest otherwise. Hell, this thread alone shows you're more worried about who's allowed on the lawn.

Liar. You go to pro-Christian boards to pick fights.

Example?

Are you accusing this board and other pro-Christian film boards of satire discussion pools?

No, clearly that's not even close to what I just said.

reply

Hell, this thread alone shows you're more worried about who's allowed on the lawn.


You're comparing my one post to the three dozen hate posts from rabid atheists on this board?! Are you joking?

Example?


Your entire comment history really makes a statement. What have you done on IMDb other than chastise religion?

reply

You're comparing my one post to the three dozen hate posts from rabid atheists on this board?! Are you joking?

Are you seriously trying to claim that you've only ever made one post questioning why atheists are 'on your lawn' as you seem to want to put it?

Your entire comment history really makes a statement.

That's not an example. If my entire comment history 'makes a statement' then finding an example should be easy.

reply

Are you seriously trying to claim that you've only ever made one post questioning why atheists are 'on your lawn' as you seem to want to put it?


I'm not the unsatisfied customer here, remember? I basically liked this film? Do I go over to the film boards for movies you like spreading anger and contempt?


Are you kidding me? I'm looking over your comments about GND and GND 2 since 2012. Is there a comment in that mess that has anything positive to say about pro-Christian films, religion or God? I see an endless wasteland of contempt for all the above.

reply

I'm not the unsatisfied customer here, remember? I basically liked this film?

Are you intentionally not addressing the question because you know that you have got testy many times about atheists 'invading your boards'?

Do I go over to the film boards for movies you like spreading anger and contempt?

I don't know, the only time I looked at your post history I saw that weird behaviour you were involved in on the Kristen Stewart boards. I'm not interested in seeing what else you get up to after that.

Are you kidding me? I'm looking over your comments about GND and GND 2 since 2012. Is there a comment in that mess that has anything positive to say about pro-Christian films, religion or God? I see an endless wasteland of contempt for all the above.

More claims, still nothing to back it up. I'll keep waiting.

reply

Are you intentionally not addressing the question because you know that you have got testy many times about atheists 'invading your boards'?


I never said the boards belonged to me and you can't find a quote to copy and post proving your hysterical assertion.

My point, being in the interest of polite behavior: was to question why you, cosmo and Film obsess over these very average films, when the fans clearly liked the films just fine.

Example: Would you go over to the Hallmark board and ridicule the fans of that network? Because the production style of this film really isn't all that different. You don't go over to the Hallmark board for a very clear reason.

[Religion]...it pisses you off.

the only time I looked at your post history I saw that weird behaviour you were involved in on the Kristen Stewart boards.


Weird behavior? Lets go over the talking points since you brought it twice now after allegedly reading my comments. I liked Kristen in four films. I think she was the wrong choice for the five Twilight sage films. I think her acting needs some improvement, although I was very impressed with Woody Allen's 'Cafe Society' which was a delight, and Kristen did great. And her male fans wanted to date her, until I explained to them that she's in love with another woman. Really deviates? I'm weird for typing those comments? Because half the people on the board agreed with me.

I'm not interested in seeing what else you get up to after that.


Fine. I'm on the 'Lucifer' TV series board, the Exorcist 2016 TV series board, and intend to make my way over to a number of other film and TV boards.

You brought it up, cupcake.

I'll keep waiting.


Just re-read your own comments. You have nothing nice to say about these pro-Christian films or religion.

reply

in the interest of polite behavior


 Now that's funny!

You don't go over to the Hallmark board for a very clear reason.


I know this wasn't aimed at me, before you go off on one about having a private conversation on a public board again, and I certainly don't talk for deviates, but as I was mentioned in your post I will interject. The Hallmark channel has had exactly no impact on my life at all, nor has is it ever attempted to have any involvement in my life. I cannot say the same about religion. It wouldn't surprise me if that's at least partially similar to deviates and every other atheist, certainly British ones.

Let's play a game of spot the difference. This thread:

Weird behavior? Lets go over the talking points since you brought it twice now after allegedly reading my comments. I liked Kristen in four films. I think she was the wrong choice for the five Twilight sage films. I think her acting needs some improvement, although I was very impressed with Woody Allen's 'Cafe Society' which was a delight, and Kristen did great. And her male fans wanted to date her, until I explained to them that she's in love with another woman.


'Atheists purposely rate down Christian films' thread:

Lets go over the talking points since you brought it twice now after allegedly reading my comments.

I liked Kristen in four films.

I think she was the wrong choice for the five Twilight sage films.

I think her acting needs some improvement, although I was very impressed with Woody Allen's 'Cafe Society' which was a delight, and Kristen did great.

And her male fans on the Stewart board wanted to date her, until I explained to them that she's in love with another woman.


You truly have run out of originality haven't you? So which one of us 'brought it twice now'?

reply

his wasn't aimed at me, before you go off on one about having a private conversation on a public board again, and I certainly don't talk for deviates, but as I was mentioned in your post I will interject. The Hallmark channel has had exactly no impact on my life at all,

I'll be honest, I thought they made cards.

reply

I never said the boards belonged to me and you can't find a quote to copy and post proving your hysterical assertion.

Your projection aside, I think we can both agree you have asked something along the lines of 'Why are you here?' multiple times, often to the same people after they've given you an answer multiple times. If that's not to be interpreted as you getting testy about people visiting the boards (as well as this entire thread you started about it, and let's be honest it's not the first one you've done) then how exactly should it be?

My point, being in the interest of polite behavior

Pull the over one Kurt, no one is going to buy that.

Example: Would you go over to the Hallmark board and ridicule the fans of that network?

I couldn't name one thing produced by the Hallmark network, so it seems unlikely I'd ever visit such a board. I should also point out that your question is based on the faulty premise that I visit these boards to ridicule people. You've been given the opportunity to back that up plenty of times and I'm still waiting.

[Religion]...it pisses you off.

You're a fan of sporting metaphors, so try this one - 'Swing and a miss'.

Weird behavior?...I'm weird for typing those comments?

I'm not going to repeat what Cosmo has already written, but thanks for demonstration of your selective memory.

Fine. I'm on the 'Lucifer' TV series board, the Exorcist 2016 TV series board, and intend to make my way over to a number of other film and TV boards.

Did you not read the post you quoted? I'm really not as interested in playing internet Stasi as you are.

Just re-read your own comments. You have nothing nice to say about these pro-Christian films or religion.

Not even your subtle moving of the goalposts allowed you to present any evidence? How strange. Interesting that you seem to have demoted my stance from 'trolling' and 'contempt' to now not having something nice to say. If you continue to soften your view at the same rate, we'll probably be approaching something close to the truth in the next 9 or 10 posts.

reply

you have asked something along the lines of 'Why are you here?' multiple times,


Didn't we establish that you live on these boards to ridicule? No one ordered you to leave. Now you're projecting delusional assumptions.

Pull the over one Kurt


Is that a Brit expression?

I couldn't name one thing produced by the Hallmark network,


It's not my fault you live in the U.K., but you are commenting (for years now) on American film production projects. You claimed the GND films were barely shown in the U.K. and now you claim these films are your just cause. lol Weird.

based on the faulty premise that I visit these boards to ridicule people.


I haven't seen a single person of faith back you on that claim. Baloney deviates.
"Pull the over one, no one is going to buy that."

I'm not going to repeat what Cosmo has already written


Your IQ would drop if you did.

I'm really not as interested in playing internet Stasi as you are.


You started it. Scroll up and see your own antagonism.

continue to soften your view at the same rate... truth in the next 9 or 10 posts.


I didn't inquire about your fantasy world.

reply

Didn't we establish that you live on these boards to ridicule?

No. You've been given ample opportunity to back up that assertion but unsurprisingly we're still waiting. But it's all talk and no trousers at the moment.

No one ordered you to leave.

I never said I was ordered, just that your hostility could be interpreted as an attempt to informally police the boards. You're fluttering the dovecotes for no reason here, but then you've been flogging this dead horse for a while now.

Is that a Brit expression?

Yes it is, my old china.

You claimed the GND films were barely shown in the U.K. and now you claim these films are your just cause

Where did I say that? Here's a clue - I didn't. You asked why I don't comment on the Hallmark boards. I know nothing about them. Nothing to do with 'your just cause'. You've gone a bit chicken jalfrezi now.

I haven't seen a single person of faith back you on that claim. Baloney deviates.

And you're the only one to levy it at me, so put that in your pipe.

You started it. Scroll up and see your own antagonism.

Your brought up post history. All I did was comment I wasn't interested in what you do after seeing your antics on the Kristen Stewart board.

I didn't inquire about your fantasy world.

Now if I was really here to ridicule I'd have a field day with that. There's enough there to cobble dogs with.

reply

You've been given ample opportunity to back up that assertion but unsurprisingly we're still waiting.


Maybe it would be easier for you to cite all the positive things you've had to say in two years regarding: 1) GND and GND2 2) Then highlight all your positive comments about religion. Because even this thread is riddled with your usual ridicule (as example).

But it's all talk and no trousers at the moment.


'All hat an no horse is the expression', perv.

just that your hostility could be interpreted as an attempt to informally police the boards.


Not hostility, but instead embarrassment in your inability to answer the question. Why do you haunt this board when you dislike the films and religion? It's not a hostile inquiry. lol

You've gone a bit chicken jalfrezi now.


Out of all the obscure things you know, it's now claimed that you know nothing about the Hallmark channel. And I should believe that claim?
http://www.digitalspy.com/tech/news/a271434/hallmark-channel-to-rebrand-as-universal/

All I did was comment I wasn't interested in what you do after seeing your antics on the Kristen Stewart board.


Checking up my comment history on the Stewart board, is checking up on my history and then you pretend to not be curious. Not to mention not comprehending the discussion, assuming you even read anything. lol

your antics


Define the antics if you knew what was going on.

Now if I was really here to ridicule I'd have a field day with that.


Your field day of ridicule goes all the way up your postings. Thanks for supplying the evidence you requested.



reply

Maybe it would be easier for you to cite all the positive things you've had to say in two years regarding

So you want to make a claim and not have to back up, instead act as if it's true until someone proves you wrong? Well at least you're consistent in your shifting of the burden of proof.

'All hat an no horse is the expression', perv.

Just because you're ignorant of the phrase doesn't mean it's not a commonly used one in England. The fact your mind went to the gutter when you saw the word 'trousers' says far more about you.

Not hostility, but instead embarrassment in your inability to answer the question.

But I have answered it. More than once. But the Stasi keep returning to check my papers are in order.

Out of all the obscure things you know, it's now claimed that you know nothing about the Hallmark channel.

I know 'obscure things' that have some relevance to my life, even if only loosely related. I've obviously had to no reason to experience the delights of the Hallmark Channel. Without checking I couldn't even tell you if they have a channel in the UK.


Checking up my comment history on the Stewart board, is checking up on my history and then you pretend to not be curious.

I only ever looked at your history in a tongue in cheek response to you doing it to many people on the other board. Stones and glasshouses, Kurt.

Define the antics if you knew what was going on.

Hold up Kurt. I've asked you numerous times to back up your claims that I only come here to ridicule and you've refused to do so. Why should even consider doing so if you won't bother?

Your field day of ridicule goes all the way up your postings. Thanks for supplying the evidence you requested.

But I didn't ridicule, so once again you're lacking that evidence.


reply

So you want to make a claim and not have to back up, instead act as if it's true until someone proves you wrong? Well at least you're consistent in your shifting of the burden of proof.


Wouldn't this be an example of you attempting to ridicule a person of faith? Did you like this film or even watch it?

Just because you're ignorant of the phrase doesn't mean it's not a commonly used one in England. The fact your mind went to the gutter when you saw the word 'trousers' says far more about you.


well being without trousers in America could get you arrested.
Normal in the U.K.?

I've obviously had to no reason to experience the delights of the Hallmark Channel. Without checking I couldn't even tell you if they have a channel in the UK.


Why is that my problem? It's a Christian friendly channel. We have more than one Christian friendly channel in the U.S. You people have Benny Hill. Not my fault. And since you brought up Brexit, did atheists vote to exit or was that the non-existent Brit Conservative Christians?

I only ever looked at your history in a tongue in cheek response to you doing it to many people on the other board.


Four Stewart groupies doesn't equal "many people", Mr. Exaggerationist.

Another example of your ridicule hobby.

I've asked you numerous times to back up your claims that I only come here to ridicule and you've refused to do so. Why should even consider doing so if you won't bother?


which comments in your post weren't ridicule? lol geez deviates

But I didn't ridicule, so once again you're lacking that evidence.



After calling me a goose stepper...

But the Stasi keep returning to check my papers


yeah no ridicule...

Just because you're ignorant


"Ridicule? I see no evidence of ridicule."


reply

Wouldn't this be an example of you attempting to ridicule a person of faith?

You're mistaking your taking of offensive for ridicule. I simply stated an observation of your consistency.

well being without trousers in America could get you arrested.
Normal in the U.K.?
[quote]
As long as you've got pants on I don't think you'd be arrested, but that might be lost in translation as well.

[quote]Why is that my problem?

What are you on about? You were having trouble believing I didn't know what the Hallmark channel. It's not your problem or mine, it's simply an explanation.

You people have Benny Hill

UK 1 USA 0. Out of interest is your knowledge and view of the UK based purely on the 60s and 70s?

And since you brought up Brexit, did atheists vote to exit or was that the non-existent Brit Conservative Christians?

I really can't tell if you're seriously implying there was a significant religious influence on the voting of the Brexit referendum...

Another example of your ridicule hobby.

Again, you taking offensive is not the same as me ridiculing. You're more than welcome to feel offended though.

which comments in your post weren't ridicule? lol geez deviates

Bit of a cop out, Kurt. Still no evidence then? I'll keep waiting.

After calling me a goose stepper...

I compared your regular checking of people's post histories to the Stasi, yes. I don't think this needs explaining but it's an exaggeration for comedic effect. In any case, the NPA were the goose steppers.

yeah no ridicule...

It's funny how thin skinned you are, considering the vitriol you dish out. I don't think such a joke counts as ridicule, but as I've said before you're entitled to feel offended. I'm equally entitled to say 'So what?'





reply

You're mistaking your taking of offensive for ridicule. I simply stated an observation of your consistency.


No you were simply being cheeky again, and bringing these arguments on yourself.

You were having trouble believing I didn't know what the Hallmark channel.


Actually I was calling you a liar, but so much for subtlety.

Out of interest is your knowledge and view of the UK based purely on the 60s and 70s?


No, what your fellow Brits seems to stream on their FB pages all the time, does make me wonder.

I really can't tell if you're seriously implying there was a significant religious influence on the voting of the Brexit referendum...


Then think real hard. Did atheists as a voter block support it, and of the people who did - any ideas how Christian conservatives voted? Is the question really that tough, cupcake?

Again, you taking offensive is not the same as me ridiculing. You're more than welcome to feel offended though.


More examples of 21st century Brit politeness?

'Sorry if you feel offended, because you shouldn't since I say so, but you're welcome to feel offended anyway.' Do you live in a cave on that island?

Bit of a cop out, Kurt. Still no evidence then? I'll keep waiting.


Did you type any ridicule in your post I'm responding to? lol You couldn't be that dense.

In any case, the NPA were the goose steppers.


Lots of goose steppers in countries all around the world, if you require a social studies lesson today.

It's funny how thin skinned you are


I'm use to you, cosmo and Film. No skin thickness required. It's just an average day with you three.


reply

No you were simply being cheeky again

So is it cheeky or ridicule?
Actually I was calling you a liar, but so much for subtlety.

Because I've not heard of your precious Hallmark Channel? You're really making this whole resisting ridicule thing difficult. Maybe, just maybe the Hallmark channel isn't that big. EDIT: A quick Google search shows it's called the Universal Channel over here. Feel free to ignore that fact if it's inconvenient to the narrative you're constructing.

No, what your fellow Brits seems to stream on their FB pages all the time, does make me wonder.

Ah, this must be the part where you claim your limited experience with British people trumps those people that live there.

Then think real hard. Did atheists as a voter block support it, and of the people who did - any ideas how Christian conservatives voted? Is the question really that tough, cupcake?

It's not tough, it's just a stupid question. The more important question is 'Is it even relevant?' Religion wasn't demographically significant to the vote.

'Sorry if you feel offended, because you shouldn't since I say so, but you're welcome to feel offended anyway.'

1) I never apologised for the offence you feel. 2) I never said you shouldn't feel offended, just pointed out the fact you feel offended isn't relevant.

Did you type any ridicule in your post I'm responding to?

You tell me, it's a good opportunity for you to finally back up your original point.

Lots of goose steppers in countries all around the world, if you require a social studies lesson today.

Ugh, does this really need to be explained? The Stasi (the group I jokingly compared you to) were the Secret Police in East Germany. They didn't goose step. For one it's a little bit difficult to remain secret if you do. The National People's Army were the East German goose steppers.

I'm use to you, cosmo and Film. No skin thickness required. It's just an average day with you three.

Then why kick off every time someone says something you don't like when you're one of the most vitriolic people on these boards? You're clearly not as comfortable with it as you claim.

reply

So is it cheeky or ridicule? [/q[quote]

You qualify for both. Good catch.

[quote]Because I've not heard of your precious Hallmark Channel? You're really making this whole resisting ridicule thing difficult. Maybe, just maybe the Hallmark channel isn't that big. EDIT: A quick Google search shows it's called the Universal Channel over here. Feel free to ignore that fact if it's inconvenient to the narrative you're constructing.


You claimed that you knew nothing about it, and now you're an expert on the subject. No surprise there.

Ah, this must be the part where you claim your limited experience with British people trumps those people that live there.


Actually I talk to Brits every day and read their news. Brexit: who do you blame for that again? lol


It's not tough, it's just a stupid question. The more important question is 'Is it even relevant?' Religion wasn't demographically significant to the vote.


I'm going to ask you again, and try not to lie your way out of it. We know there are Christian conservatives in the U.K., because your PM is a conservative, and I think she believes in God. How did the Christians conservatives vote on Brexit. Just answer the question.

just pointed out the fact you feel offended isn't relevant.



LOL Well how thoughtful of you to say so. Jackass.

You tell me, it's a good opportunity for you to finally back up your original point.


"1) I never apologised for the offence you feel. 2) I never said you shouldn't feel offended, just pointed out the fact you feel offended isn't relevant.
"

You do it daily.

The Stasi (the group I jokingly compared you to) were the Secret Police in East Germany. They didn't goose step.


How thoughtful of you to compare me to the East German secret police.

Jackass.

Then why kick off every time someone says something you don't like when you're one of the most vitriolic people on these boards? You're clearly not as comfortable with it as you claim.


Well...I'm funny that way when you compare me to people who committed crimes against humanity on an insane scale.








reply

You claimed that you knew nothing about it, and now you're an expert on the subject. No surprise there.

I didn't claim to be an expert, I said I did a quick search on google. If that's YOUR bar for an expert then I'm a little concerned.

. Brexit: who do you blame for that again? lol

I don't remember ever discussing with you who I 'blame' for Brexit, so why 'again'?

We know there are Christian conservatives in the U.K., because your PM is a conservative, and I think she believes in God. How did the Christians conservatives vote on Brexit. Just answer the question.

Once again, it's a stupid question. The Conservative Party were the figure heads of both the remain and leave campaigns. Conservatives, whether Christian or not, were split on the issue.

LOL Well how thoughtful of you to say so.

No problem, I have no idea why you think your emotions have any relevance to the discussion. You're welcome to feel offended, but it's not an argument in itself.

"1) I never apologised for the offence you feel. 2) I never said you shouldn't feel offended, just pointed out the fact you feel offended isn't relevant.
"

You do it daily.

There's no ridicule there, they're both facts. The first is fairly straightforward - I didn't apologise nor see the need to just because you're offended but pretty much nothing. The second point is simply telling you you can't expect your feeling of offence to trump the reality of the situation. I appreciate you finally attempting to present evidence though.

How thoughtful of you to compare me to the East German secret police.

I thought someone who gets a kick out of talking about atheists 'sniveling on their deathbeds' would appreciate a joke. I guess it's different if you're the target though, right?

Well...I'm funny that way when you compare me to people who committed crimes against humanity on an insane scale.

I compared your love of surveillance to theirs, yes. Again, your sensitivity about a joke (which incidentally is relatively tame compared to some of things you've said about other people) is not really a relevant argument. You'd much rather cry foul over way something is phrased rather than deal with what's being said.

That being said, I'm sure the Stasi would be impressed by the US's spying and interrogation techniques.

reply

I didn't claim to be an expert, I said I did a quick search on google. If that's YOUR bar for an expert then I'm a little concerned.


Are you done pretending that you know nothing about Hallmark? No awards for your performance. I'm not impressed.

I don't remember ever discussing with you who I 'blame' for Brexit, so why 'again'?


I don't blame you for refusing to answer the question. You Brit atheists are in total denial that Christian conservative Brits put a conservative in the PM office and gave them control, and you refuse to admit that Christian conservative nationalists are responsible for Brexit. I completely understand deviate weasel.

Christian or not, were split on the issue.


hog wash


I thought someone who gets a kick out of talking about atheists 'sniveling on their deathbeds' would appreciate a joke. I guess it's different if you're the target though, right?


The atheists will be sniveling on their deathbeds. It's a statement of fact. They have no evidence of nothingness after death. Whereas I'm waiting for you to explain the funny side of imprisonment and torture. You're just getting stranger each month.

I'm sure the Stasi would be impressed by the US's spying and interrogation techniques.


Was that another funny for today?

reply

There's some classic right kurt here. Waffle about mostly irrelevant nonsense, throw in a few insults and feign being a victim. You're nothing if not predictable.

reply

Are you done pretending that you know nothing about Hallmark?

 This is absurd, even for you Kurt.

I don't blame you for refusing to answer the question. You Brit atheists are in total denial that Christian conservative Brits put a conservative in the PM office and gave them control, and you refuse to admit that Christian conservative nationalists are responsible for Brexit. I completely understand deviate weasel.


1) Just over a third of those who voted in the 2015 General Election voted for the Conservative Party. Before making generalisations about the British populace as you have in this and numerous other posts, it's probably worth you understanding how our [broken] electoral system works.
2) We don't vote for a PM, but the leader of the Conservatives at the time of said election supported the Remain vote. The current Prime Minister Theresa May also campaigned to remain.
3) Brexit was not a Christian v non-Christian vote, nor did a specifically Christian Vote swing things. Many political analysts actually argued the most significant aspect was the old Labour heartlands voting to rid themselves of what they saw as a political elite ignoring them.
4) If you disagree, substantiate your claim. It would make a change.
5) Weasel is a pretty lame insult, even by your standards. Must try harder.

hog wash

Not really. Christianity wasn't the issue. Age, ethnicity and social class were far bigger factors. Any implication of Christian vote is instantly exaggerated by these more relevant factors.

Whereas I'm waiting for you to explain the funny side of imprisonment and torture.

Looks awfully like you just avoided the point you that you enjoy laughing about atheists sniveling on their deathbeds. But to address your point - I was making fun of your surveillance tactics. I never accused you of torture, even if some of these conversations with you are more painful than waterboarding.

Was that another funny for today?

No, it's a genuine statement. The US has incredible surveillance techniques, and US citizens should be more concerned about it. Just as there should have been more uproar in the UK with regards to Theresa May's Snooper's Charter.

reply

This is absurd, even for you Kurt.


The only guy on IMDb who hasn't heard of the Hallmark Channel. Fill your boots. or whatever

We don't vote for a PM, but the leader of the Conservatives at the time of said election supported the Remain vote


yes I'm well aware of that. And where did all those conservative come from? They're non-existent, correct?

And again...you attempted to claim there are no Christian conservatives impacting Brit politics. lol how stupid.

Many political analysts actually argued the most significant aspect was the old Labour heartlands voting to rid themselves of what they saw as a political elite ignoring them.


Good for them. And a majority of conservatives wanted no part of it as well.

ust as there should have been more uproar in the UK


Your Brit leaders love surveillance and drone strikes. Please don't go into denial again.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-36150807

reply

The only guy on IMDb who hasn't heard of the Hallmark Channel.

Why don't you go and do one of your weird polls somewhere and prove that? It's incredible arrogance on your part that you can't believe someone wouldn't know some obscure speck of American culture.

And again...you attempted to claim there are no Christian conservatives impacting Brit politics.

Good grief, it's like duller version of Groundhog Day. The last time we discussed Christian Conservatives I didn't deny their existence, I just said their impact was limited. You struggled with that idea then too. Same goes for Brexit. Christianity wasn't a motivating factor. A huge amount of research has been done in to the vote, so pardon me if your baseless assumptions don't really count for much.

Good for them. And a majority of conservatives wanted no part of it as well.

'Conservatives' is not always the same as 'Christian Conservatives', so be careful not conflate the two.

Your Brit leaders love surveillance and drone strikes. Please don't go into denial again.

Seriously Kurt - learn to read. What I wrote was critical of the current PM and a new surveillance law. You're trying to start an argument where there isn't one...again.

reply

Why don't you go and do one of your weird polls somewhere and prove that?


Here's my really weird poll. I asked other Brits on other boards if they'd heard of the Hallmark channel and they said yes. But it's not called Hallmark in the U.K. They've seen some of the same 'made for Hallmark TV movies' I was referring to.

It's not complicated, and you're busted for telling lies again.

reply

Every time you tell a lie the baby Jesus cries.

reply

I asked other Brits on other boards

Link?

It's not complicated, and you're busted for telling lies again.

You're busted for showing you don't know how evidence works.... again.

reply

Four Stewart groupies doesn't equal "many people", Mr. Exaggerationist.

Another example of your ridicule hobby.


Something said to you does not equal "Christians" or "people of faith", Mr. Hypocrite.

A prime example of your idiocy and hypocrisy.

reply

You ballsed up there deviates, you're supposed to respond with: 'Who's we, your imaginary audience?', and then feel all smug about your own ignorance. Sort it out man!

reply

Ha, I got sidetracked throwing British idioms his way with him apparently having never heard 'pull the over one' before. I'll do better next time.

reply

Hey, it made for an entertaining read so it's all good. And you know full well that kurt was completely befuddled about most, if not all, of them.

reply

completely befuddled


no, I just figured you were incoherent as usual.

reply

no, I just figured you were incoherent as usual.


kurt, you're confused again, maybe it's time for your bed eh. My post wasn't in regard to anything that I said, so it's not surprising you found it incoherent as you've seemingly fabricated something I've written, even though I haven't.

reply

You're babbling again.

reply

Tell you what kurt, instead of you getting all incorrectly high and mighty, as per usual, how about you focus on the fact that once again you messed up? How could I be "incoherent as usual" during a discussion between you and deviates? More importantly why can't you follow very simple line of discussion and stop yourself from getting confused?

reply

I have no idea what your post is ranting about, and I don't think you know either.

Once again...your IQ is dropping fast.

reply

I have no idea what your post is ranting about


Let me help - that's exactly his point. What he's written isn't complicated but you seem to have become confused as to who you're talking to and who said what.

reply

Your Buddy cosmo is totally incoherent as usual. I can't feel insulted by an adult male Brit who acts like a six year old on the play ground.

reply

your IQ is dropping fast.


For someone who can't follow a very simple conversation thread and doesn't understand the mistake they've made, even after it's been very clearly spelt out, you probably shouldn't accuse others of having a 'poor IQ'.

I have no idea what your post is ranting


You have no idea or you refuse to take any notice because it means accepting that you made a mistake, and your misplaced ego won't allow you to accept that you messed up? Also, still not a rant. Please try again.

I don't think you know either.


Allow me to dumb it down a bit more for you:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3WSe9ugpXIw

reply

He coherently explained to you that you're not following these conversations properly. Don't blame someone else for your own shortcomings.

reply

you're not following these conversations properly


Apparently I'm not agreeing with everything he types "properly", is the real issue. That's assuming that somewhere in the mess he calls 'opinion' that he can type a coherent talking point to begin with. Most of his comments are senseless blather, egotistic non-sense and trite observations.

"Oh you don't use any words correctly".

Well Cosmo, I can't say it was my idea for you to follow me from one film board to another. I'll assume he'll be mouthing off on the GND 3 board as well. Having not watched that film either.

reply

Apparently I'm not agreeing with everything he types "properly", is the real issue.

It really isn't. Simply following the conversation would show that, but let me help you out with this particular occasion.

I was having a conversation with you -> Cosmo comments to me that the slang used would have left you 'befuddled' -> You then denied being befuddled, assuming that Cosmo had just been incoherent again. Problem is, I made the post not Cosmo.

It's really is easy to follow a conversation, IMDB takes the hard work out of it.

"Oh you don't use any words correctly".

Well Cosmo, I can't say it was my idea for you to follow me from one film board to another. I'll assume he'll be mouthing off on the GND 3 board as well. Having not watched that film either.

More evidence you struggle with the whole conversation thing on IMDB. Reply to Cosmo with this, not me.

reply

You then denied being befuddled, assuming that Cosmo had just been incoherent again. Problem is, I made the post not Cosmo.


Which makes no difference since it's all the same atheistic blather anyway. Did you have something constructive to type today?

It's really is easy to follow a conversation


...or basically ignore its boring drone, as the case may be.

Reply to Cosmo with this, not me.


I only respond to that hack when it amuses me to do so, and lately he's been a bore.

So deviates: Once GND 3 is released, how many GND films will you have viewed? Which boards will you comment on? Do you think you'll win over any converts to atheism? lol


{{{{{{ crickets }}}}}}}


No really deviates. Happy Pearl Harbor Day, or...we Saved your Brit Butts Day. 

reply

we Saved your Brit Butts Day.


Would that be the same as 'Happy we joined the Global war that had been running for a couple of years but we were too scared to join in until we got an excuse to use a couple of deplorable weapons when they were arguably not needed day'? Sorry I'm supposed to laugh like a manic conservative like you did aren't I? But hey, 'Happy' day that loads of people died I guess. Good job you're not a Christian isn't it.

Go on kurt, you know you want to get yourself up on your invisible high horse made of bigotry.

reply

we Saved your Brit Butts Day

I didn't realise you were Russian.

reply

Apparently I'm not agreeing with everything he types "properly", is the real issue.


As deviates has informed, this is not the point. For starters I wouldn't expect you to agree with anyone who isn't making some sort of insult towards atheists, at least that's what past experiences have taught me.

That's assuming that somewhere in the mess he calls 'opinion' that he can type a coherent talking point to begin with. Most of his comments are senseless blather, egotistic non-sense and trite observations.


Seriously man, how can you accuse someone else of being 'egotistic' when you can't even just put your hands up and accept that you made a slight mistake in your previous post? Do you really think anyone is buying your nonsense when you try to claim stuff like this or is it purely just to convince yourself that you've not done anything wrong?

I can't say it was my idea for you to follow me from one film board to another.


Must we go over this yet again? I posted on here largely thanks to Digs, though you also helped bringing it to the attention of GND1. In fact I recall you making a thread asking everyone to migrate over to here. You have replied to me in threads on RFS and Film General which had nothing to do with you but was during your obsessive period with my posting history, posts by you that I never responded to I might add. By my count that makes no (that's 0) boards that I've followed you on against 2 (read it: TWO) boards to you've not only followed me onto but specifically sought me out on. How's your maths kurt?



P.s. There's no correlation between religion and the Brexit vote and despite having heard of it I've got no idea what the Hallmark channel does, nor had I ever heard of the Universal channel which apparently is what it's called over here.

reply

I didn't realise you were Russian.




How soon they forget the Lend-Lease policy. The Russians got free weapons of war too.

You're welcome.

reply

It says so much about you that you think lending a few weapons trumps the sacrifices made by 24 million people. The lend-lease wasn't charity either, the US got resources in exchange and even just the Soviets at the end of the war.

I'm guessing you don't want too talk about war profiteering though, otherwise you'd have to broach the awkward subject of Americans selling resources to the Nazis

reply

Oh, now the Americans are war profiteers. Kind goes hand in hand with contempt for religion too.

lending a few weapons


"A total of $50.1 billion (equivalent to $660 billion today) worth of supplies was shipped, or 17% of the total war expenditures of the U.S.[2] In all, $31.4 billion went to Britain, $11.3 billion to the Soviet Union, $3.2 billion to France, $1.6 billion to China, and the remaining $2.6 billion to the other Allies. Reverse Lend-Lease policies comprised services such as rent on air bases that went to the U.S., and totaled $7.8 billion; of this, $6.8 billion came from the British and the Commonwealth. The terms of the agreement provided that the materiel was to be used until returned or destroyed. In practice very little equipment was returned. Supplies that arrived after the termination date were sold to Britain at a large discount for £1.075 billion, using long-term loans from the United States. Canada operated a similar program called Mutual Aid that sent a loan of $1 billion and $3.4 billion in supplies and services to Britain and other Allies." Wikipedia

ingratitude
[in-grat-i-tood, -tyood]

1.
the state of being ungrateful; unthankfulness.

lending a few weapons


No deviates. It wasn't a bag full of pistols.

reply

Oh, now the Americans are war profiteers.

Initially, yes. And the profiteering, although not by the government was continued on further in to the war. The US did contribute a lot of weapons with the lend-lease program, but pretending that there wasn't any profiteering is laughable.

the state of being ungrateful; unthankfulness.

Not ungrateful, just a little put off by the arrogance that seems to come with a rather one sided US history education.

No deviates. It wasn't a bag full of pistols.

What a shock, Kurt taking a quote out of context. My point was the weapons wouldn't have mattered without the Russians. The closest they came to defeat was at the end of 1941, and it wasn't US resources that helped them out then.

reply

but pretending that there wasn't any profiteering is laughable.


Then maybe you Brits should have purchased your weapons somewhere else other than the U.S. if you felt that way, after getting yourselves into two world wars. The whining doesn't impress me. And to bring you up to speed with current events, your island purchased an American aircraft carrier filled with F-35 jets. Are you aware of that? Do you know what that will cost? Did I force your people to make that purchase? You really need some perspective, slow learner. You people should've built your own carrier in Scotland and purchase Super Hornets for it. That would have been a lot cheaper.


Not ungrateful, just a little put off by the arrogance that seems to come with a rather one sided US history education.


I'm well aware that Brits lost many men in the World Wars. I'm not ungrateful for that. But if you had hardware issues, your country should have purchased from the Canadians.

The closest they came to defeat was at the end of 1941, and it wasn't US resources that helped them out then.


By the end of 1941 the first delivery of military trucks was sent to Russia.

Honestly, the Americans didn't start the world wars. And we get bi*ched at for not being interventionists before the world wars. But when a war breaks out these days, half the planet wants us to intervene and the other half accuses us of being imperialist interventionists. Hopefully Trump will keep us out of other people's wars.

reply

after getting yourselves into two world wars.

What the actual *beep* is that supposed to mean? Stepping in to defend Belgium's neutrality and then finally deciding to go to War against the Nazis. You want to make that sound like we got ourselves in to trouble? What a weird attitude. The worst thing we did in the lead up to WW2 was not getting involved sooner.

And to bring you up to speed with current events, your island purchased an American aircraft carrier filled with F-35 jets.

Why is it you think I'm happy or support everything Britain does?


I'm well aware that Brits lost many men in the World Wars. I'm not ungrateful for that. But if you had hardware issues, your country should have purchased from the Canadians.

I think you're intentionally missing the point. You have this arrogance that America somehow won the war by itself, but suddenly feel put out when someone points out that's bollocks.

By the end of 1941 the first delivery of military trucks was sent to Russia.

The more significant supplies in '41 were sent and delivered by the Brits, they needed tanks as they'd lost thousands. US supplies weren't that significant at that point, they become so later.

Honestly, the Americans didn't start the world wars. And we get bi*ched at for not being interventionists before the world wars.

Actually, people object to you acting like the US won the war by itself.

But when a war breaks out these days, half the planet wants us to intervene and the other half accuses us of being imperialist interventionists.

Yes, generally some people support and others oppose war. That's life, not sure why you think that's relevant.

Hopefully Trump will keep us out of other people's wars.

Good luck with that.

reply

The worst thing we did in the lead up to WW2 was not getting involved sooner.


Are you freaking high? The worst thing you Brits and French did was to allow Hitler to rearm Germany. Are you nuts?

You want to make that sound like we got ourselves in to trouble?


That's exactly what you did. Every aspect of the peace agreement after WW1 was completely blown off. You Europeans did it to yourselves by doing nothing.


Why is it you think I'm happy or support everything Britain does?


Instead of getting sassy with me, I suggest you do your homework.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_F-35_Lightning_II_procurement

You have this arrogance that America somehow won the war by itself,


You wouldn't have won the war without America getting into the war. At no point did I ever type: 'America somehow won the war by itself'. That's enough of that.

The more significant supplies in '41 were sent and delivered by the Brits, they needed tanks as they'd lost thousands. US supplies weren't that significant at that point, they become so later.


The first shipment of trucks didn't cross the Pacific and reach Russia until 1942. Arrangement for the lend lease were made in '41.

Actually, people object to you acting like the US won the war by itself.


If I had actually said that America won the war by itself, I would have been mad also. You need to take a breath and clear your head.

Again: Britain and Russia would have lost the war, or the war would have ended in 1950, if Pearl Harbor hadn't put us in the war.

That's life, not sure why you think that's relevant.


Because you were the one that had numerous tantrums over American interventionism after WW2, and American isolationism before the world wars.



reply

Are you freaking high? The worst thing you Brits and French did was to allow Hitler to rearm Germany. Are you nuts?

Yes, appeasement. We're talking about the same thing you prat.

That's exactly what you did. Every aspect of the peace agreement after WW1 was completely blown off. You Europeans did it to yourselves by doing nothing.

Yes, let's not mention the part played by Woodrow Wilson and the US in that, that's too awkward for you.

Instead of getting sassy with me, I suggest you do your homework.

What part of the last comment THAT YOU QUOTED did you not understand? I already know about this and don't agree with everything my country does. FML, you're attempting to have several arguments here that don't exist.

At no point did I ever type: 'America somehow won the war by itself'. That's enough of that.

But what you said amounted to that and you've been pretty dismissive of the contributions of others. The US were vital on the Western Front in particular later in the war. But there wouldn't have been a Western Front left if it weren't for the Brits and French. The war on the Western Front couldn't have been won without the Russians fighting in the East. The latter of those points seems to be an uncomfortable truth for far too many people. It's so simplistic to frame it in the way you have that it no longer represents the reality of the war.

The first shipment of trucks didn't cross the Pacific and reach Russia until 1942. Arrangement for the lend lease were made in '41.

More support for my point that when when Russia was closest to defeat, it was British tanks that were provided.

If I had actually said that America won the war by itself, I would have been mad also. You need to take a breath and clear your head.

When you come in with statements like 'We save your butts in WWII' you're fractions away from saying exactly that.

Because you were the one that had numerous tantrums over American interventionism after WW2, and American isolationism before the world wars.

Ah, this will be another one of those moments where you make a claim then fail to back it up. I'm willing to wait for the evidence of these tantrums over American interventionism. Have I been critical of Americans invading certain countries? Sure. All US involved wars though? No. Would you not agree that some wars your country (and mine) have been involved in have been just, and others have been unwarranted or at the least the wrong cause of action?

reply

Yes, let's not mention the part played by Woodrow Wilson and the US in that, that's too awkward for you.


Wilson was the one that got us into your world war. No history books on your island?


But there wouldn't have been a Western Front left if it weren't for the Brits and French. The war on the Western


There wouldn't have been any front or war at all if you Brits and your French pals would've disarmed Hitler. You keep attempting to blame the U.S. for your problems. Scared of the Ruhr were you?

It's so simplistic to frame it in the way you have that it no longer represents the reality of the war.


So the terms of the surrender agreement after WW1 means nothing to you.

More support for my point that when when Russia was closest to defeat


It was Stalin that signed a pact with Hitler to divide Russia, and you again attempt to blame the U.S. You're shameless. Stalin was another jackass.

Ah, this will be another one of those moments where you make a claim then fail to back it up. I'm willing to wait for the evidence of these tantrums over American interventionism. Have I been critical of Americans invading certain countries? Sure. All US involved wars though? No. Would you not agree that some wars your country (and mine) have been involved in have been just, and others have been unwarranted or at the least the wrong cause of action?


It was your PM that totally backed the idiot Bush when he decided to invade Iraq. (Blair backed interventionism) And now there is the push to get Americans to go to Syria to save their Syrian butts. (isolationism is branded as bad now)

reply

Wilson was the one that got us into your world war. No history books on your island?

Plenty, but ours include the inter-war period too.

There wouldn't have been any front or war at all if you Brits and your French pals would've disarmed Hitler. You keep attempting to blame the U.S. for your problems. Scared of the Ruhr were you?

Christ you're acting slow today. I've already mentioned Appeasement, keep up.

So the terms of the surrender agreement after WW1 means nothing to you.

You mean the terms primarily negotiated by the US, Britain and France?

It was Stalin that signed a pact with Hitler to divide Russia


Divide Russia? Do you mean Poland?

and you again attempt to blame the U.S.

I've not blamed the US for anything, I've just refused your exaggerations.

Stalin was another jackass.

Usually you over-exaggerate, but for the first time I can remember you've done the opposite.
It was your PM that totally backed the idiot Bush when he decided to invade Iraq.

For once, read what I've written - "your country (and mine)". This must be the fourth or fifth argument you've tried to start in last few posts where there isn't one. You still seem to be under the assumption I'm not critical of the UK government.

reply

Appeasement, keep up.


I'm aware of that. Again for the record, I don't support appeasement. Got it?



You mean the terms primarily negotiated by the US, Britain and France?


Actually the terms of surrender agreement was dominated by Britain and France.

Germany was forbidden to rearm.

Divide Russia? Do you mean Poland?


Correct. My mistake.

I've just refused your exaggerations.



I've refuted your blame game.

This must be the fourth or fifth argument you've tried to start in last few posts where there isn't one. You still see


Actually you brought up these talking point issues, when you took issue with my comments. You brought this on yourself.

reply

I'm aware of that. Again for the record, I don't support appeasement. Got it?

 I never said you did.

Actually the terms of surrender agreement was dominated by Britain and France.

The terms of surrender were a compromise between all three countries, ending in a result no one was happy with. Wilson's own illness contributed to the lack of US influence, it wasn't by choice.

I've refuted your blame game.

What blame game would that be? The one where I suggested Britain and France failed to prevent WWII through appeasement?

Actually you brought up these talking point issues, when you took issue with my comments. You brought this on yourself.

I didn't bring up the war in Iraq, you did.
I didn't bring up the current British importing of military hardware, you did.
The one I did raise was Appeasement, which somehow you managed to quote yet still ignore.


reply

Actually you provoked all these topic discussions, and now you're going into your tiresome denials.

The one I did raise was Appeasement, which somehow you managed to quote yet still ignore.


And this comment above makes no sense.

reply

Actually you provoked all these topic discussions, and now you're going into your tiresome denials.

I'm not all that fussed what you think, the evidence above is to the contrary. You repeatedly brought up arguments that were out of place and actually non-existent.

And this comment above makes no sense.

Sure it does, let me make it simple for you. I made a point referring to the failure of Appeasement. You then quote that bit and go off on one: 'Are you high? lol lol the worst thing you did was allow Germany to rearm lol lol'. I might have missed some lols, it's hard to recall. Basically we agreed but you still wanted an argument.

reply

arguments that were out of place and actually non-existent.


Like what?

Appeasement


The appeasement policy was lead by your Prime Minister. Leave Wilson out of it, was my point, Mr. Selective Amnesia. Try and follow the discussion. The failure to attack Germany and destroy their rearming was clearly your nation's fault. I couldn't care less who you disagreed with in public policy.

reply

he appeasement policy was lead by your Prime Minister. Leave Wilson out of it, was my point

Seriously - read the conversation. I didn't drag Wilson in to any discussion of Appeasement, you've falsely assumed that.

Try and follow the discussion

Oh, I'm following it. And you're currently making up connections that aren't there. Read back through the entire thread, you'll see.

The failure to attack Germany and destroy their rearming was clearly your nation's fault.

Yes, Britain and France. I've already said that. If you'd like to repeat anything else I've said back to me, please don't bother.

reply

I didn't drag Wilson in to any discussion of Appeasement, you've falsely assumed that.


You bashed a political scientist and president who apparently knew better than your leadership.

Read back through the entire thread, you'll see.


Your thankless rants were sickening enough the first time.

reply

As a child did you spend a lot of time with your fingers in your ears going "lalala can't hear you" every time someone tried to correct you on something?

reply

You bashed a political scientist and president who apparently knew better than your leadership.

I didn't 'bash' Wilson, I was critical of him, Lloyd George and Clemenceau. As are a lot of historians. In fact I pardoned Wilson a little due to his illness, but the American administration is still open to criticism.

Your thankless rants were sickening enough the first time.

Apparently you were too busy being sick to actually understand them. At least that explains things.

reply

American administration is still open to criticism.


for what? Wanting to create the League of Nations? lol Geez deviates.

actually understand them.


There's nothing to understand other than the propaganda you call history with the extremist liberal Brit slant.

reply

for what? Wanting to create the League of Nations? lol Geez deviates.

No, I've already mentioned what I was criticising them for. Try reading a post for once. I'm more than happy to move on the League of Nations if you'd like?

There's nothing to understand other than the propaganda you call history with the extremist liberal Brit slant.

 Let's compare. What I said acknowledge the contributions made by the US, Brits, French and Russians (as well as others) to the allies' victory in WWII. I also mentioned how all the above contributed in some small way to the conditions that made war possible. Your version on the other hand absolves the US entirely, and paints them as the heroes saving everyone's butts, as you put it. Yours is looking far more like propaganda than mine.

reply

Glance over the history of that era and look at all the ships, weapons and resources the U.S. provided Britain, Russia and even France. Then picture what that war would have been like with no America.

A weak confederacy in the southeastern U.S., a weak New England republic, and numerous other independent nations with little or nothing to offer. How different history would have been.

heroes saving everyone's butts


With out all those resources what would have happened?

reply

So like I said, you want to focus on all the great stuff and not consider a more balanced and accurate version of history. Thanks for confirming.

reply

So like I said, you want to focus on all the great stuff and not consider a more balanced and accurate version of history.


Great cop out to avoid the issue and the question. Apparently the Brits would have won the war without the Americans. Got it.

So why was Churchill so interested in getting America into the war?

No wait...that's not addressed in the 'accurate version of liberal Brit History'.

reply

Great cop out to avoid the issue and the question.

 I imagine the irony is completely lost on you.


Apparently the Brits would have won the war without the Americans. Got it.

So why was Churchill so interested in getting America into the war?

Show me where I said that. Here's a clue - you think I did, but I didn't.


No wait...that's not addressed in the 'accurate version of liberal Brit History'.

Did you even read what I wrote? Where I credited all four major allies with significant contributions to the victory? The bit you're getting hung up on is the criticism. It appears you can't take criticism of yourself OR your country.

reply

I imagine the irony is completely lost on you.


I can see the truthful response was completely lost on you.



Glance over the history of that era and look at all the ships, weapons and resources the U.S. provided Britain, Russia and even France. Then picture what that war would have been like with no America.

A weak confederacy in the southeastern U.S., a weak New England republic, and numerous other independent nations with little or nothing to offer. How different history would have been.


Show me where I said that


Then you know what you need to type, don't you.

Where I credited all four major allies with significant contributions to the victory? The bit you're getting hung up on is the criticism. It appears you can't take criticism of yourself OR your country.


Once again.,......if North America would have been too weak to contribute. You'd be speaking German. Next time the Brit empire gets hosed, I think you people should be on your own.

You're welcome.

reply

I can see the truthful response was completely lost on you.

Oh, I don't doubt you think what you believe is the truth Kurt.

Then you know what you need to type, don't you.

Seeing as your response makes very little sense, no.

Once again.,......if North America would have been too weak to contribute. You'd be speaking German. Next time the Brit empire gets hosed, I think you people should be on your own.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-jY_WWFGfzS8/UtwuiVuIXZI/AAAAAAAAAF4/Vex0A-sVHig/s1600/missingthepoint-1.gif

reply

https://homoeconomicusnet.files.wordpress.com/2013/10/20131013-114232.jpg


that's already. Most of your points are lost in translation as well.

keep writing those history books that Britain, with single handed effort won the war.

got it.

reply

Most of your points are lost in translation as well.

The fact you haven't understood it doesn't really mean a lot. And as if to prove my point:

keep writing those history books that Britain, with single handed effort won the war.

I said literally the opposite to this.

Thanks for the Thomas Paine quote. I hope you study it for a while, maybe even understand it.

reply

The fact you haven't understood it doesn't really mean a lot.


OK lets try it again: If the U.S. hadn't sent over the destroyers and Lancer bombers and other equipment, how long would it have taken for Britain to fall? Think it over and respond this time. I'll give you another chance.

Did the Sherman tanks come in handy in North Africa?

Thanks for the Thomas Paine quote. I look forward to you actually understanding it.


I'll wait for your response and administer medicine or last rites.

reply

OK lets try it again

I've already answered that Kurt, many posts ago. More evidence you don't read a word people send to except to get in to an argument (often where there isn't one). Either that or so you can start calling people pedophiles. Are we to expect that to be a regular thing now?

I'll wait for your response and administer medicine or last rites.

Ha, by accident you've just confirmed you're the one thinking without reason.

reply

Either that or so you can start calling people pedophiles. Are we to expect that to be a regular thing now?


If they defend the perverts that want to screw Kristen Stewart you can expect it.

Ha, by accident you've just confirmed you're the one thinking without reason.


You're projecting again.

reply

If they defend the perverts that want to screw Kristen Stewart you can expect it.

She's an adult, you f'ing idiot. Are you going to also accuse every sexual partner she has of being a pedophile too? Get a grip and stop being a *beep*

You're projecting again.

Re-read the Thomas Paine quote, read what you wrote and then get back to me when you've worked it out.

reply

http://images.enstarz.com/data/images/full/9603/kristen-stewart.jpg

This is what you're defending. ^


http://www.celebzz.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/kristen-stewart-at-a-photoshoot-in-la_1.jpg

'A' list "woman" actor to you? ^

lol


Are you going to also accuse every sexual partner she has of being a pedophile too?


No just the male groupies that don't realize she has a lesbian partner.

reply

'A' list "woman" actor to you? ^

Ah, so you're not content with calling people pedophiles, you also want to run her down too. This says so much about you, Kurt.

No just the male groupies that don't realize she has a lesbian partner.

So you're an inconsistent @ss too. Good to know. FYI - based on your recent behaviour: https://i.ytimg.com/vi/X3vJQHCOSSU/maxresdefault.jpg

reply

you also want to run her down too.


She looks run down most of the time, and no, I don't think great roles should be thrown at her just because she was in the Twilight films. Seems to me that you're the sheep puppet that Hollywood makes casting decisions for.

So you're an inconsistent *beep* too. Good to know.


Because I'm one of six guys on the Stewart board that doesn't want to screw her?


Maybe you should be posting your defense of her on the correct board?

reply

She looks run down most of the time, and no, I don't think great roles should be thrown at her just because she was in the Twilight films. Seems to me that you're the sheep puppet that Hollywood makes casting decisions for.

I've never seen one of her films, but then unlike you I don't watch films based on teen romance novels. I have no idea if she can act or not, nor do I care. Tip for future reference - use 'sheep' or 'puppet'. Using both sounds stupid.

reply

I've never seen one of her films,


Whilst it's obviously more of a Julianne Moore film, you should watch Still Alice, it's really good.

reply

FFS kurt, even in the slightly unflattering pictures of her that you've chosen she still looks like someone in their 20s. Maybe leave the house once in a while and see what people really look like.

reply

Interesting. You're British? Not European? Does that mean you voted to leave the EU? Or did you vote to stay?

You know that some Bible scholars believe that America is the tribe of Manasseh And Britain is the tribe of Ephraim spoken of in Genesis?

https://youtu.be/Ylx6adChAR0

And that separating from the EU is fulfillment of end time prophecy.

Galena

*Free speech opinion w/ pseudonym internet moniker w/o malice for debate and discussion🌈

reply

You know that some Bible scholars believe that America is the tribe of Manasseh And Britain is the tribe of Ephraim spoken of in Genesis?


The moment someone says "some scholars" and then cites a link to YouTube, you know you are dealing with a total nutcase for whom real scholarship is a foreign country.

reply

Wow! Are you calling me a nutcase? Whoa! Buddy.... Did I offend you? Or are you just hateful to the core? Seriously, I just opened the post, and the venom spewing out was palpable. I suppose I'll just have to put you on ignore too, but it's troubling the angst your post seems to display. I mean, how could any RATIONAL human being make the connection between someone posting a YouTube video and having no real scholarship? Thanks for your concern, but I'm actually pretty good at research. .

More troubling is that you just charged at a complete stranger (like a viper) without provocation like a feral animal. What on Earth in your life could have turned your soul so rotten that you would have to join a board like this to try (in vain, sorry sweetie ) to take down others mentally? I have represented people who come from abusive homes or really bad childhoods, and even I don't see that kind of behavior. In fact, I often see some of them walking out of their jail cells holding a Bible. Looking for answers and repentance. Humble.

But you? I saw a few of your posts. Clearly, you see yourself with knowledge superior to others. That's pretty funny, as I bet you'd be pretty surprised (and leveled to the core quite frankly) if you were able to view the results of say (a secret survey) gauging what the folks around you really think of you. I bet your heart would race, and you would start sweating, and deep in your soul you would feel a burning panic, because somewhere down the line you managed to convince yourself that people around you actually admire your cutiting haughty pretentious and dare I say it, bizarre, superiority complex.

That is, the image which I am confident you want to display to the world is that you are smarter than others. But why? Of course it is so you can be admired and respected by others. But, my guess ( oh sorry pumpkin do I not have scientific data for you?) is that those around you merely tolerate you. Deep down I bet you know it is true. Sadly, upping the ante on the obnoxious snark will not endear you to others. Until you are left in the corner with no one but yourself "auto convinced" ( my new phrase) that you are smarter than the rest of the inferior humans eh? Lol  oh dear...

Such a short comment jam packed with such angst to hurt. Without provocation or facts... Like you want to hurt someone, anyone, because you can't get a handle on what ails you inside? Like, you are angry at the world because the world failed you? Sorry, you're not going to get better or feel better trying to hurt others. It will just eat you up inside. You would be better off facing whatever it is that makes you like this.

Regardless of your spiritual beliefs, you seem to have some serious issues to contend with that you would be soooooooooooooo hateful as to attack others like this just engaging in a normal conversation. And, it's on a board where the movie is Christian, made by Christians, with a Christian audience. Which means that you are so miserable inside that you feel the need to inject pain wherever you can eh? Let's hope that it's just limited to inane and innocuous jabs on this board, and whatever demons lie inside you are being satisfied and fed by your snarky comments here so that you don't physically hurt any people or animals in your life.

What a truly sad life you must live. Too bad for you, but we all have free will and you make the evil choices to be what you are, so it is what it is. May you go in peace on your quest to convince humanity that you are the best there sport. 

Galena




*Free speech opinion w/ pseudonym internet moniker w/o malice for debate and discussion🌈

reply

[deleted]

Well, well, looks like I scratched a nerve, there.

Paragraph after psychotic paragraph psychoanalyzing a person you don't know (which pretty much confirmed that my intuitions about your mental clarity were spot on), and not one citation to a genuine, serious, scholarly source defending this utterly goofy idea about the bible referencing America and Britain.

Hate to break it to you, Lena: the kinds of "scholars" who write that kind of tripe are an utter embarrassment to every serious theologian out there. And the type of morons who lap it up an an embarrassment to every serious Christian.

But feel free to live in your made up fairy tale world. No one will stop you. Just know that folks with genuine education and intelligence are either laughing at you or feel sorry for you.

reply

Hate to scratch a nerve? No sweet pea. Of course you don't hate that. You love to randomly attack complete strangers. Makes you feel worthy inside. Right? Nothing else does. Eh? That's the point. You live for that. You have nothing else to live for. This kind of behavior gives you self worth it appears. Very sad. Hoping and hoping that someone will get hurt by your venom. It's really sick. I bet everyone leaves you. Might want to change your attitude if you want them to stay.

Only very angry people who deep down hate themselves love to scratch nerves. Love to hurt people's feelings and be a horse's @$$. That was the point. I have enough degrees to not let someone like you to hurt my feelings darling. I've been swimming with sharks in my profession for decades. You're nothing but a heel nipper.

It's that you feel the need to do it which gets my sympathy believe it or not. You seem like a clueless lost soul hiding behind a desire to prove you are smart as a way to prove to the world you have worth. Possibly because you get no attention any other way, is what is tragic, sweet pea. But that's the point, why launch useless venom at folks which really does no lasting damage to them while it just destroys your OWN soul? I guess if you believe you have no soul, it's a good excuse though.


Take care and good luck. I'm leaving too sweetie. See? Just as easy as that. You're gone and on ignore. .

Galena



*Free speech opinion w/ pseudonym internet moniker w/o malice for debate and discussion🌈

reply

I bet everyone leaves you.


Not everyone is so trigger happy with the ignore button, sweet pea. If you have been swimming with sharks then you ought to be able to deal with a few heel nips.



I'm well aware that railing does no good kurt2000

reply

swimming with sharks then you ought to be able to deal with a few heel nips.


I'll take that as an open confession that board militant atheists that ridicule for "entertainment" are shark mentalities.

Thank you for playing: 'You Just Stepped In It'.

reply

I'll take that as an open confession that board militant atheists that ridicule for "entertainment" are shark mentalities


It hardly ought to be necessary to point out to you that the 'swimming with sharks' here was being considered in contrast to a 'few heel nips'.

And you are still using 'militant atheist' as a swear word even when, as usual, it is pointed out to you how meaningless it is. Which is just the thing a fundamentalist would do.



I'm well aware that railing does no good kurt2000

reply

And you are still using 'militant atheist' as a swear word even when, as usual, it is pointed out to you how meaningless it is. Which is just the thing a fundamentalist would do.


I could exchange the term militant atheist for tantrum if that's more agreeable with you?

But tantrum doesn't explain motive. Militant atheist does.

reply

I could exchange the term militant atheist for tantrum if that's more agreeable with you?


Calling someone 'a tantrum' will be hard to make sense of, unless of course you are using it as a collective noun.

But tantrum doesn't explain motive. Militant atheist does.


Only if the person concerned wishes the violent overthrow of religion, say, and considers it pernicious.



I'm well aware that railing does no good kurt2000

reply

Calling someone 'a tantrum' will be hard to make sense of, unless of course you are using it as a collective noun.


militant atheist tantrum then. thank you.

Only if the person concerned wishes the violent overthrow of religion, say, and considers it pernicious.



The explanation and definition below is correct. You can be a militant atheist, and yet be non-violent.



Militant atheism - Conservapedia


Recently the term militant atheist has been used to describe adherents of the New Atheism movement,[11] which is characterized by the belief that religion "should not simply be tolerated but should be countered, criticized and exposed."[12]



Footnotes

11) "order that was at war with the old order" (1987, 590).”
↑ Jump up to: 11.0 11.1 11.2 Ian H. Hutchinson. Ian Hutchinson on the New Atheists. BioLogos Foundation. Retrieved on 29 September 2011. “Ian Hutchinson tells us in this video discussion that New Atheism -- a term used to describe recent intellectual attacks against religion -- is actually a misnomer. It is better, he says, to call the movement “Militant Atheism”. In fact, the arguments made by New Atheists are not new at all, but rather extensions of intellectual threads which have existed since the late 19th century. The only unique quality of this movement is the degree of criticism and edge with which its members write and speak about religion. According to Hutchinson, the books written by New Atheists in the past decade simply restate many of the same arguments which have emanated from atheist thinkers for decades. The militant edge of these arguments is what makes “New” Atheism unique and elevates it to a level of popularity within a subset of the population. It is because these Militant Atheists show no respect at all for religion, says Hutchinson, that they are receiving status as a new movement.”

12) Multiple references:
Simon Hooper. The rise of the 'New Atheists'. Cable News Network (CNN). Retrieved on 10 March 2011. “What the New Atheists share is a belief that religion should not simply be tolerated but should be countered, criticized and exposed by rational argument wherever its influence arises.”
Amarnath Amarasingam. Religion and the New Atheism (Studies in Critical Social Sciences: Studies in Critical Research on Religion 1). Brill Academic Publishers. Retrieved on 10 March 2011. “For the new atheists, tolerance of intolerance (often presented in the guise of relativism of multiculturalism) is one of the greatest dangers in contemporary society.”
Stephen Prothero. God Is Not One: The Eight Rival Religions That Run the World--and Why Their Differences Matter. HarperOne. Retrieved on 10 March 2011. “For these New Atheists and their acolytes, the problem is not religious fanaticism. The problem is religion itself. So-called moderates only spread the "mind viruses" of religion by making them appear to be less authoritarian, misogynistic, and irrational than they actually are.”


reply

Militant atheism - Conservapedia

Do you really expect anyone to take the defintion serously when you're quoting from Conservapedia, the Young Earth Creationist/Christian fundamentalist version of Wikipedia? Search for evolution on that website. Enjoy.

reply

Perfectly acceptable definition.

You don't control the English language.

reply

Wow! Your ENTIRE post is replete with control issues, sweetheart. First of all, you don't get to censor my speech, so I'll say swim with sharks if I care to. You don't get to decide if I worship God, so I will go ahead and do that. And, it makes no difference to me on any level whatsoever whether you consider me a this or that or whether you attribute malice or not to any of my comments. I wasn't put on this Earth to serve you, anyone like you, or please you, get your approval, or even care for a second what you think of me.

But I wish you well. I truly do. Take care. 

Galena


*Free speech opinion w/ pseudonym internet moniker w/o malice for debate and discussion🌈

reply

Your ENTIRE post is replete with control issues, sweetheart.


Bwahahahaha!!!


Oh how true. The guy he annoyed on the Religion board nicknamed him Muppet.

Film said he doesn't want to hear about hell any more because it doesn't exist. Out of sight - out of mind. With the emphasis on 'out of mind'.

reply

You don't control the English language.


He may not control it, but he understands it a darn sight better than you do. The actual point deviates was making however was entirely correct though, nobody takes Conservapedia seriously. It's a joke of a website, to the point that I'm still not entirely convinced it's not satirical.

reply

militant atheist tantrum then. thank you.


Which still doesn't make sense as a collective noun one person is not a collection. Unless now you think I am having a tantrum, in which case you will need to quote by way of substantiation. Have you thought this through?

Much as we all see Conservapedia as a balanced, objective and respected source, here are some alternatives.

Atheism which is actively hostile to religion I would call militant. To be hostile in this sense requires more than just strong disagreement with religion - it requires something verging on hatred and is characterized by a desire to wipe out all forms of religious belief.
- Julian Baggini, Atheism: A Very Short Introduction


My dictionary defines [militant] as "aggressive or vigorous, especially in support of a cause." But the word is used all too freely in the feebler sense of "holding or expressing views which are unpopular or which I don't like." Fore example, when Richard Dawkins is asked about this religious beliefs and replies "I'm an atheist, and i have no time for religion," he is at once accused by tabloid newspapers and other commentators of being a "militant atheist." So, if you find yourself writing this word, stop and think whether it has any clear meaning, or whether you are just using it as a swearword."
- R.L. Trask, Mind the gaffe: the Penguin guide to common errors in English


So once again, militant atheists essentially a derogatory neologism called upon against any and all nonbelievers who won't just shut up about it (and is, as a result, a snarl word primarily directed against vocal New Atheists). But if it make you feel better to label all your opponents as being essentially the same, then go for it. But I can only keep telling you that I at least (and one suspects this applies to most if not all of those who oppose you and your ilk here) do not want to wipe all forms of religion, do not advocate aggressive action and do not think religion is pernicious. But it really is time to move on, lol. In future whenever you use this term as a swear word I will refer you back to this post, just to save time. Some of us have better things to do than continually bat away your obsessions.

I'm well aware that railing does no good kurt2000

reply

The guy he annoyed on the Religion board nicknamed him Muppet


Perhaps we can think of a nickname for you kurt since you set so much store by them?

Film said he doesn't want to hear about hell any more because it doesn't exist


Please quote where I said this.



I'm well aware that railing does no good kurt2000

reply

Perhaps we can think of a nickname for you kurt since you set so much store by them?


I thought 'right wing Xian fundamentalist' was the nickname you gave me.

Please quote where I said this.



Nearly every time I said you're going to fry in hell for refusing to believe in God.

Your response: There is no hell, so I won't fry.

reply

I thought 'right wing Xian fundamentalist' was the nickname you gave me.


That is not a nickname but more of an ironic description. But even so it is fair to say that you are socially conservative and, bearing in mind that one characteristic of fundamentalists being that they take the Bible as literally true, it does appear you think the existence of hell, fire and all as literal.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Please quote where I said this.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------




Nearly every time I said you're going to fry in hell for refusing to believe in God. Your response: There is no hell, so I won't fry.


Again: please quote where I assert that there cannot be any hell.



I'm well aware that railing does no good
kurt2000

reply

Wow! Your ENTIRE post is replete with control issues, sweetheart.


Sorry, I am not your sweetheart. You are of course, entitled to your opinion. But whatever, clearly you have experience of 'control issues'.

First of all, you don't get to censor my speech


I am not censoring your speech. In fact it is quite interesting, if continually condescending. It is not of a tone such as one would find in the words of your Christ.

I'll say swim with sharks if I care to


You can naturally do as you wish, but your stance would be more worthy of respect if didn't quickly reach for 'ignore', as you have done here very recently, when the biting starts.

it makes no difference to me on any level whatsoever whether you consider me a this or that or whether you attribute malice or not to any of my comments


Which is odd, since you have begun here by condemning 'control issues' lol

I wasn't put on this Earth to serve you, anyone like you, or please you, get your approval, or even care for a second what you think of me.


I am delighted that you realise that we are all individuals. That is the first step.

But I wish you well. I truly do. Take care


Passive-aggression can be very effective, can it not? Have fun.


I'm well aware that railing does no good kurt2000

reply

No pumpkin, you are not MY sweetheart. Didn't say that sport. Lol. . Condescending? Oh...okay...

Reach for ignore button. Yep.. Guilty as charged sugarplum...

Once again, not an iota of a duty to take abuse or be controlled or censored by folks on a chat board. Nor, am I inclined to worry about what they think of me. But, I always find it amusing/interesting when someone like yourself charges back (as a verbal attack) "oh when you said X, that's not very Christlike, so you can't be a Christian, blah, blah, blah". Especially when that is the very reason folks like yourself come here to begin with. To start picking off Christians...

Kurt, if you're reading, I'm convinced the two (2) ONLY reasons the atheists come to a board like this (1) they like the sport of being able to see what abuse they can hurl at Christians without response and (2) if they get a response, so they can abuse some more by saying they are not Christians because the vile abuse was not tolerated, embraced, and loved to begin with.

It's a sickness I believe. And, the Bible says, the love of money is at the root of evil. I believe the desire to "control" the hearts and minds of others is right up there too. Hitler was guilty of it as well. But, at the moment of death in those gas chambers, the one thing that Hitler wanted above else, was for those Jews to go to their death, thinking of HIM, terrified of HIM, in their very last breaths.

But, he was a failure. Because beyond a shadow of a doubt in my mind, the Jews, as they were standing there shivering, waiting for the gas to come down on them, we're NOT thinking of Hitler, but rather were looking to God for comfort etc in their last breath. Hitler=control freak=failure.

I think many (if not all) of the atheists on this board suffer from the same syndrome. The pathetic desire to control others. Clearly they reject the idea of a governing God, because they don't want to consider the idea that someone else is in control for all of eternity. The irony of course is that, they, swimming in their tiny little fishbowl here, desperately try to find a way to get folks to listen to THEM, to get that THEY are all knowing, and smart, and more times than not, should be in control.

With every word that Film types (for instance "I'm not YOUR sweetheart" when in fact I never suggested a thing nor would I ever) it is more and more apparent how uncomfortable Film is with not being in control of everyone around him.

People control in all types of ways. We see the Hitlers on one end of the spectrum. Mass genocide. Then we have your domestic batterers. Then we have the attention cravers who show up at parties drunk and ruin it for everyone. Or the boyfriend/girlfriend that cheats or flirts with others JUST to keep their significant other constantly thinking about them (because God help us if the control freak goes 10 seconds without everyone in the room worrying about and focusing on them). Then you have the person who constantly gets into trouble so that friends, family, spouses, can keep bailing them out, etc. Don't relax and get on with it folks, as the control freak will soon reappear to monopolize your time and thoughts. Or at least will try. LOL. 

And just when things go quiet for a while, the control freak gets anxious because s/he does not feel the world is revolving around him or her anymore, so s/he engages in another shenanigan or does or says something jerky to get "all eyes back on them"

And atheists, in general, I believe want to be thought of as super intelligent, plugged into some knowing the rest of us haven't figured out yet. But from my perspective, it's just the inability to let things go in life and surrender to the simple idea that they are not in control. Never have been. Never will be.

I think so many atheists reject God for the simple reason they have this Earthly personality flaw. Blah blah blah analytical bs aside, these folks just simply cannot stand folks around them worshipping God when deep down they feel THEY should be the center of attention as well as the universe.

Hence, why these folks come here. It's like "attention crack" for a lot of atheists I believe. Come to a place where you know Christians are trying to discuss God and Christian movies, and just start nipping at their heels and throwing pebbles at them so as to say "Yoo-hoo I'm here...give me some attention! I'm starving for attention...I have no where else to go for quick cheap and easy attention so over here....look see....Yoo-hoo...."

Why on Earth would any STRANGER care if I love God? If I am a fundamentalist? If I saw these people on the street, NONE of them would even know it's me Galena. So, it's not about anything more that trying to find a place (for these folks) to assert themselves into conversations between people who want to worship God and talk positively about God, so they can bite off a little bit of "attention heroin" for themselves.

You know it Kurt and I know it Kurt. If any of them are meant to find God and believe in Jesus, it will happen as Gods plan, but I know that nothing I can do or say will make that happen. I just think some of the militant atheists here are here for sport without good intentions. And sadly so...

Galena
*Free speech opinion w/ pseudonym internet moniker w/o malice for debate and discussion🌈

reply




This was not you then?

Your ENTIRE post is replete with control issues, sweetheart


Perhaps you are calling me sweetheart on behalf of someone else. Which is rather presumptuous. And what would I do with you once you were under my 'control'? Get your secret family recipe for cookies?

Condescending? Oh...okay...


QED.

once again not an iota of a duty to take abuse or be controlled or censored by folks on a chat board


Once again you say this; it might seems the reiteration is for your benefit than for anyone else who might care. And one still wonders where the 'censorship' comes in - that would appear to be more likely, in effect one someone who puts another on ignore here so no more can be read from a source.

, I always find it amusing/interesting when someone like yourself charges back (as a verbal attack) "oh when you said X, that's not very Christlike, so you can't be a Christian, blah, blah, blah".


I didn't say you can't be a Xian. I said that your tone was not Christ-like. One imagines your Christ would be the standard to aim at.

Especially when that is the very reason folks like yourself come here to begin with. To start picking off Christians...


You are, naturally, entitled to your opinion. But, as I have reminded kurt several times, I find the education and entertainment far more appealing. Since Christians often end up squabbling over issues of doctrine themselves, they do a pretty good job of 'picking themselves off' without my help.

Kurt, if you're reading, I'm convinced the two (2) ONLY reasons the atheists come to a board like this (1) they like the sport of being able to see what abuse they can hurl at Christians without response and (2) if they get a response, so they can abuse some more by saying they are not Christians because the vile abuse was not tolerated, embraced, and loved to begin with


kurt has quite a record in personal abuse and insult - which means he is certainly the expert to ask about such things lol

the love of money is at the root of evil. I believe the desire to "control" the hearts and minds of others is right up there too. Hitler was guilty of it as well. But, at the moment of death in those gas chambers, the one thing that Hitler wanted above else, was for those Jews to go to their death, thinking of HIM, terrified of HIM, in their very last breaths... I think many (if not all) of the atheists on this board suffer from the same syndrome. The pathetic desire to control others


Seeing as I do not use the Holocaust to make trivial points during disputations this must pass without comment except to say the comparison is in bad taste to say the least.

Clearly they reject the idea of a governing God, because they don't want to consider the idea that someone else is in control for all of eternity... But from my perspective, it's just the inability to let things go in life and surrender to the simple idea that they are not in control


Oh yes, and you are the one who rejects being controlled. Got it.

With every word that Film types (for instance "I'm not YOUR sweetheart" when in fact I never suggested a thing nor would I ever) it is more and more apparent how uncomfortable Film is with not being in control of everyone around him.


No, I am just uncomfortable being called 'sweetheart' by someone I don't know.

atheists, in general, I believe want to be thought of as super intelligent, plugged into some knowing the rest of us haven't figured out yet


But here your inferiority complex is showing. No one automatically assumes you are not intelligent, let alone wants to 'control you' nor do they assume high intelligence on their own behalf. (There is however a correlation between educational achievement and prevalence of fundamentalist or traditional religious beliefs.) Unless it a god who tells you what to believe and, you say apparently is the ultimate controller. Perhaps you ought to re examine your fears and address them to see from whence they spring as they are being aimed at the wrong target.

"Yoo-hoo I'm here...give me some attention! I'm starving for attention...I have no where else to go for quick cheap and easy attention so over here....look see....Yoo-hoo...."


Is that why you wrote such a long and convoluted reply all about your theories of the atheistic personality & etc lol? Isn't a string of assertions of what you think, and how you see others, doing exactly that - just drawing attention?

Why on Earth would any STRANGER care if I love God? If I am a fundamentalist?


Since this is the first time this has arisen I am not sure why you would think this is so important to anyone, other of course than making yourself seem important enough to care about - by declaring what no one has asked for. You can love whatever or whoever you want. Just not me, darling.

If any of them are meant to find God and believe in Jesus, it will happen as Gods plan,


It may also be your God's plan to have faith tested and strengthened by opposition. It might also be a different god's plan to use atheists to see your preferred candidate fight for credibility. And there may be no plan at all, whether to 'control' you or 'pick you off', that there is a touch of the Christian persecution complex - an experience, after all that your Christ told you to expect - so that you protest too much.

But I am naturally glad you like GND2. That makes at least two of you, if we exclude imaginary mailing companions.


I'm well aware that railing does no good kurt2000

reply

No, I don't feel it is God's plan to have my faith tested and strengthened by opposition. Opposition doesn't challenge my faith. But I do feel that atheists misunderstand what is meant by Matthew 5:38-48

What did Jesus mean when He said not to resist an evildoer, and to instead turn the other cheek (Matthew 5:39)?

In Matthew 5:38-41 , Jesus made three radical statements. First, He said that a person should turn the other cheek when someone strikes him. Second, He declared that His followers should give those who sue them more than they are asking. Third, He said that a person conscripted by a Roman officer to carry a load for 1 mile should offer to go 2 miles. Does this mean that we should never resist when somebody attacks us? Should we let everyone take advantage of us?

This can’t be what Jesus meant. After all, Jesus denounced the Pharisees who attacked Him ( Matthew 23 ), and objected when He was struck by one of the officers of the high priest ( John 18:22-23). Further, He advised His disciples to take measures to defend themselves ( Matthew 10:16; Luke 22:36-38 ). He also declared that they shouldn’t worry beforehand about how they should respond to their enemies’ charges, because He would give them the right words to say so that their adversaries wouldn’t be able “to contradict or resist” them ( Luke 21:14-15 ).

Similarly, the apostle Paul aggressively defended himself against his enemies, asserting his rights as a Roman citizen, and making it clear to his attackers that there could be consequences if he were unlawfully harmed ( Acts 23:1-3; 25:14-27 ).

What Jesus asks of His followers is not passivity, but surrender of the right to personal revenge. His three radical examples make His point about the attitude we should have toward those who wrong us. Rather than getting even, we should be willing to go to the opposite extreme. We need to be ready to humble ourselves for the kingdom of God. We need to understand that vengeance isn’t ours, but the Lord’s ( Romans 12:19 ).

The natural human tendency has been to seek the emotional satisfaction of revenge for perceived injury ( Genesis 4:8 ). Our instinctive response to any kind of injury is hatred and desire for vengeance. This is why Jesus made it so clear in His Sermon on the Mount that not only outward murder but also inward hatred is subject to God’s judgment ( Matthew 5:22-23 ).

The Old Testament law placed limitations on vengeance ( Exodus 21:23-25 ). Although, the “eye for an eye” provision of the Mosaic law has often been misunderstood as requiring vengeance, its actual purpose was to place limitations on it. The law prescribed that punishment must fit the crime. The law wouldn’t permit taking a life in revenge for an insult or a minor injury. If an eye were put out, only an eye could be taken; if a tooth, only a tooth.

Jesus went much further than the law, making it clear that He wasn’t merely calling for more limitations on vengeance. In Matthew 5:38-48 , He implied that we must give up personal vengeance altogether. But as illustrated above by both Jesus and Paul, there is a difference between confronting evil and seeking personal revenge. It is possible to confront evil with a desire for the redemption of its perpetrator. We are called to love a sinner while confronting his sin, but when we seek vengeance we are motivated by hatred—a desire to make someone suffer for what they have done to us.

If Matthew 5:38-48 were taken literally at all times, we would have to let everyone take advantage of us. Turning the other cheek would become an encouragement for evil. This isn’t what Jesus had in mind. His vivid examples illustrate His disciples’ need to give up any sense of entitlement to personal revenge, to be purged of the motivation of personal vengeance. By asking them to turn the other cheek, Jesus meant that His disciples should be motivated by love and a desire for the redemption and forgiveness of offenders—even when opposing their actions
. You also mention not being Christ-like. I would point out Jesus, in defending God, showed aggression and in fact his rebellion against mans attempt to degrade his Father''s temple got him crucified
. Jesus cleanses the Temple

Matthew 21:12-13

12 And Jesus entered the temple and drove out all who sold and bought in the temple, and he overturned the tables of the money-changers and the seats of those who sold pigeons. 13 He said to them, “It is written, ‘My house shall be called a house of prayer,’ but you make it a den of robbers.”
Was Christ bring Christ-like according to your misguided understanding? By overturning the tables of merchants? He did it because they were disrespecting God. He had no inclination to spare their feelings did he....

So it is a huge misconception by atheists that Christians are supposed to sit by silently as God is ridiculed. What atheists don't get about the turn the other cheek verse, is that it just teaches that vengeance is for God, not the human Christian. No duty to accept abuse but the idea is to reject feelings of revenge. You still have a duty to stand up for God. Just as Jesus did with the money changers. Just as Grace did in the movie as well.

Galena

*Free speech opinion w/ pseudonym internet moniker w/o malice for debate and discussion🌈

reply

I know Lena claims to have me on ignore, frankly it's a wonder she's left anyone other than kurt visible given how frequently she goes for the ignore button, but I had fully forgotten just how crazy that lady is.

Oh and kurt, if you want to see what a rant actually looks like then don't let her passive aggression fool you, she rants on practically every post she makes.

reply

You don't control the English language.

But creationists and fundamentalists do? Your desperation to maintain 'militant atheist' as a legitimate term is obvious, it's your go to pejorative. But much like the definitions you've posted they reek of double standards. What does a Christian or Muslim need to do to gain the prefix 'militant'?

Purposefully misusing words in this way to discredit your perceived opposition is a dishonest tactic, Kurt. It's as bad as calling all those who voted Brexit or Trump 'racist' or 'Nazis'.


Take the definition piece by piece:

Militant atheism - Conservapedia


Recently the term militant atheist has been used to describe adherents of the New Atheism movement,[11] which is characterized by the belief that religion "should not simply be tolerated but should be countered, criticized and exposed."[12]

So someone is militant for holding a belief? Complete nonsense.

Footnotes

11) "order that was at war with the old order" (1987, 590).”
↑ Jump up to: 11.0 11.1 11.2 Ian H. Hutchinson. Ian Hutchinson on the New Atheists. BioLogos Foundation. Retrieved on 29 September 2011. “Ian Hutchinson tells us in this video discussion that New Atheism -- a term used to describe recent intellectual attacks against religion -- is actually a misnomer. It is better, he says, to call the movement “Militant Atheism”. In fact, the arguments made by New Atheists are not new at all, but rather extensions of intellectual threads which have existed since the late 19th century. The only unique quality of this movement is the degree of criticism and edge with which its members write and speak about religion. According to Hutchinson, the books written by New Atheists in the past decade simply restate many of the same arguments which have emanated from atheist thinkers for decades. The militant edge of these arguments is what makes “New” Atheism unique and elevates it to a level of popularity within a subset of the population. It is because these Militant Atheists show no respect at all for religion, says Hutchinson, that they are receiving status as a new movement.”

Firstly, that's not true of me or the majority of atheists I know. Secondly, you're now defining 'militant atheist' as someone who doesn't respect religion. Again, this is absurd use of the word 'militant'. You show very little respect for non-believers, does that make you militant too?

12) Multiple references:
Simon Hooper. The rise of the 'New Atheists'. Cable News Network (CNN). Retrieved on 10 March 2011. “What the New Atheists share is a belief that religion should not simply be tolerated but should be countered, criticized and exposed by rational argument wherever its influence arises.”

So wanting religion to be held to the same standard as other ideologies is 'militant' now?

Amarnath Amarasingam. Religion and the New Atheism (Studies in Critical Social Sciences: Studies in Critical Research on Religion 1). Brill Academic Publishers. Retrieved on 10 March 2011. “For the new atheists, tolerance of intolerance (often presented in the guise of relativism of multiculturalism) is one of the greatest dangers in contemporary society.”

'New atheists'? This isn't new, this idea has existed for a long time. It refers to the paradox of tolerance. As Popper put it:

"Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them...We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant."

This isn't anti-religious, in fact in many instances it is about protecting religious groups.

Stephen Prothero. God Is Not One: The Eight Rival Religions That Run the World--and Why Their Differences Matter. HarperOne. Retrieved on 10 March 2011. “For these New Atheists and their acolytes, the problem is not religious fanaticism. The problem is religion itself. So-called moderates only spread the "mind viruses" of religion by making them appear to be less authoritarian, misogynistic, and irrational than they actually are.”

Again, doesn't apply to me, but this involves calling someone 'militant' for holding a belief. I'll ask again, what does a Christian or Muslim have to do to be called militant?

reply

you're now defining 'militant atheist' as someone who doesn't respect religion.


Not being an advocate of religion is the same as not respecting religion, much like kurt the militant.

You see this kurt^, this is how one abuses the English language properly.

reply

No, I don't feel it is God's plan to have my faith tested and strengthened by opposition


Oddly enough, James for one didn't see fit to add your name as an exclusion to a general rule when he wrote:

Count it all joy, my brothers, when you meet trials of various kinds, for you know that the testing of your faith produces steadfastness. And let steadfastness have its full effect, that you may be perfect and complete, lacking in nothing. [1:2-4]


But then I guess you know God's plan better.

Thanks for the huge cut 'n' paste btw. It is always good to see someone thinking for themselves rather than just carrying things over.

Opposition doesn't challenge my faith.


Then why do you sound defensive? First apparently I am seeking to control you, then JC has a right to get angry and so allows you to as well (does this mean you demand equality in crucifixion too?) and then you demand the right to defend a god when it is ridiculed. All this in two or three messages, wow.

I would point out Jesus, in defending God, showed aggression and in fact his rebellion against mans attempt to degrade his Father''s temple got him crucified


Indeed, and as we all know your Jesus did not come to bring peace. And was also mighty angry at fig trees. And as Ecclesiastes tells us, there is a time for everything but this does not mean that everything is for every time.

So it is a huge misconception by atheists that Christians are supposed to sit by silently as God is ridiculed


When I complain about your robust defence of your preferred supernatural candidate, then be sure and raise this point again.

You still have a duty to stand up for God.


Excellent. Let's see you dutifully stand up. So when we read:

I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things. [Isiah 45:7]
and, then, that Rev 4:8 also tells us that God "takes pleasure in all things", what is the best way to stand up for something which takes pleasure in evil?

Do you need a crutch?


I'm well aware that railing does no good kurt2000

reply

I don't know God's plan. I just don't feel challenged by opposition to God (or at least yours for purpose of this conversation or any other non believers that I can remember). My faith is steadfast just fine.

I feel your attempts to undermine God here are akin to heel nipping. I thought we established that earlier. Just my opinion. You are entitled to yours. You can opine I'm defensive. It's all good. No problem. And yes I believe you have a problem with the need to control, but that's not my problem either. That's yours. I don't have to live with you, or speak to you, or even read your posts if I don't want. Your flaw doesn't really bother me. Just pointing it out there sport. I'm confident others have in your life have done the same. So don't act so horrified or surprised.

Galena

*Free speech opinion w/ pseudonym internet moniker w/o malice for debate and discussion🌈

reply

No, I don't feel it is God's plan to have my faith tested and strengthened by opposition. Opposition doesn't challenge my faith. But I do feel that atheists misunderstand what is meant by Matthew 5:38-48

What did Jesus mean when He said not to resist an evildoer, and to instead turn the other cheek (Matthew 5:39)?

In Matthew 5:38-41 , Jesus made three radical statements. First, He said that a person should turn the other cheek when someone strikes him. Second, He declared that His followers should give those who sue them more than they are asking. Third, He said that a person conscripted by a Roman officer to carry a load for 1 mile should offer to go 2 miles. Does this mean that we should never resist when somebody attacks us? Should we let everyone take advantage of us?

This can’t be what Jesus meant. After all, Jesus denounced the Pharisees who attacked Him ( Matthew 23 ), and objected when He was struck by one of the officers of the high priest ( John 18:22-23). Further, He advised His disciples to take measures to defend themselves ( Matthew 10:16; Luke 22:36-38 ). He also declared that they shouldn’t worry beforehand about how they should respond to their enemies’ charges, because He would give them the right words to say so that their adversaries wouldn’t be able “to contradict or resist” them ( Luke 21:14-15 ).

Similarly, the apostle Paul aggressively defended himself against his enemies, asserting his rights as a Roman citizen, and making it clear to his attackers that there could be consequences if he were unlawfully harmed ( Acts 23:1-3; 25:14-27 ).

What Jesus asks of His followers is not passivity, but surrender of the right to personal revenge. His three radical examples make His point about the attitude we should have toward those who wrong us. Rather than getting even, we should be willing to go to the opposite extreme. We need to be ready to humble ourselves for the kingdom of God. We need to understand that vengeance isn’t ours, but the Lord’s ( Romans 12:19 ).

The natural human tendency has been to seek the emotional satisfaction of revenge for perceived injury ( Genesis 4:8 ). Our instinctive response to any kind of injury is hatred and desire for vengeance. This is why Jesus made it so clear in His Sermon on the Mount that not only outward murder but also inward hatred is subject to God’s judgment ( Matthew 5:22-23 ).

The Old Testament law placed limitations on vengeance ( Exodus 21:23-25 ). Although, the “eye for an eye” provision of the Mosaic law has often been misunderstood as requiring vengeance, its actual purpose was to place limitations on it. The law prescribed that punishment must fit the crime. The law wouldn’t permit taking a life in revenge for an insult or a minor injury. If an eye were put out, only an eye could be taken; if a tooth, only a tooth.

Jesus went much further than the law, making it clear that He wasn’t merely calling for more limitations on vengeance. In Matthew 5:38-48 , He implied that we must give up personal vengeance altogether. But as illustrated above by both Jesus and Paul, there is a difference between confronting evil and seeking personal revenge. It is possible to confront evil with a desire for the redemption of its perpetrator. We are called to love a sinner while confronting his sin, but when we seek vengeance we are motivated by hatred—a desire to make someone suffer for what they have done to us.

If Matthew 5:38-48 were taken literally at all times, we would have to let everyone take advantage of us. Turning the other cheek would become an encouragement for evil. This isn’t what Jesus had in mind. His vivid examples illustrate His disciples’ need to give up any sense of entitlement to personal revenge, to be purged of the motivation of personal vengeance. By asking them to turn the other cheek, Jesus meant that His disciples should be motivated by love and a desire for the redemption and forgiveness of offenders—even when opposing their actions
. You also mention not being Christ-like. I would point out Jesus, in defending God, showed aggression and in fact his rebellion against mans attempt to degrade his Father''s temple got him crucified
. Jesus cleanses the Temple

Matthew 21:12-13

12 And Jesus entered the temple and drove out all who sold and bought in the temple, and he overturned the tables of the money-changers and the seats of those who sold pigeons. 13 He said to them, “It is written, ‘My house shall be called a house of prayer,’ but you make it a den of robbers.”
Was Christ bring Christ-like according to your misguided understanding? By overturning the tables of merchants? He did it because they were disrespecting God. He had no inclination to spare their feelings did he....

So it is a huge misconception by atheists that Christians are supposed to sit by silently as God is ridiculed. What atheists don't get about the turn the other cheek verse, is that it just teaches that vengeance is for God, not the human Christian. No duty to accept abuse but the idea is to reject feelings of revenge. You still have a duty to stand up for God. Just as Jesus did with the money changers. Just as Grace did in the movie as well.

Galena

*Free speech opinion w/ pseudonym internet moniker w/o malice for debate and discussion🌈

reply

I don't know God's plan.


So, when you say then that

No, I don't feel it is God's plan to have my faith tested and strengthened by opposition


You could be wrong. I don't care either way, but any certainty you have appears just a matter of convenience. I would have thought that you would instead have welcomed the tribulation and trials of having your faith challenged generally, especially since as the Bible tells you that you ought to

Count it all joy, my brothers, when you meet trials of various kinds [James 1:2]


but then one notices how my asking why, going by scripture how your God evidently takes pleasure in evil was not answered, so that's a big opportunity for joy missed, right there lol. And, come to that, isn't the constant refrain by the faithful that the trials of life are just sent 'to make them stronger'?

I just don't feel challenged by opposition to God (or at least yours for purpose of this conversation or any other non believers that I can remember).


I am, naturally, pleased that you never feel challenged. But your constant reiteration of this point seems a little defensive.

I feel your attempts to undermine God


So you don't feel challenged - but God does? Has He told you?

You can opine I'm defensive. It's all good. No problem.


Yes, that's right: you don't feel challenged. God does. Got that.

And yes I believe you have a problem with the need to control, but that's not my problem either.


You still need to explain why I would need to 'control you'.

I don't have to live with you, or speak to you, or even read your posts if I don't want.


And yet, here you are...

Your flaw doesn't really bother me. Just pointing it out there sport. I'm confident others have in your life have done the same. So don't act so horrified or surprised.


You are entitled to your opinions as you have kindly agree with me. But condescension is not flattering. Please try and avoid it. Sport.





I'm well aware that railing does no good kurt2000

reply

You could be wrong. I don't care either way,


And that's really all you need to know about Film, Lena.


He doesn't care. He's just here for the "entertainment" of ridicule.


God evidently takes pleasure in evil was not answered, so that's a big opportunity for joy missed, right there lol.


And...he claims that he doesn't insult or ridicule. Busted...again.



You are entitled to your opinions as you have kindly agree with me. But condescension is not flattering. Please try and avoid it. Sport. - FilmFlaneur


my new signature. thank you. lol

reply

I don't care either way,
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



And that's really all you need to know about Film, Lena.


Kurt, you ought to appreciate the difference between an unbeliever, quite logically, not really caring about the perceived plans of another's supposed god, against not caring about the implications of belief and how it is reflected, another thing entirely - and incidentally would be most unlike me. Lena said both that she thinks she knows her god's plan and then told me that she doesn't. Her confusion is instructive but such a paradox of credulity is not something I really ponder over enough to waste time, which was my point.

He's just here for the "entertainment" of ridicule.


The ridicule felt by all those who have written to you, but on whose behalf you do not write? But I see you remain entertaining, right from the start of a new and educational year.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
God evidently takes pleasure in evil was not answered, so that's a big opportunity for joy missed, right there lol.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



And...he claims that he doesn't insult or ridicule.


Sarcasm, like irony, here evades you. But since you have told me that you don't feel ridiculed, and also that you apparently don't speak on behalf of those purported Christians, (who unfortunately have yet to express themselves openly) one is puzzled who feels 'offended' here. Your friend Lena, for instance certainly doesn't seem much bothered:

It's all good. No problem. ... I don't have to live with you, or speak to you, or even read your posts if I don't want. ... it makes no difference to me on any level whatsoever whether you consider me a this or that ... etc etc


I wonder how she feels about you making out of something a 'problem' when she has none?

As for 'standing up' for her god instead, which she constantly trails as something not to be shied away from or traduced, all I have seen so far is her telling me this. When I pose a specific instance - that of her god taking pleasure in everything created which would include evil - answer comes there none. Hmmmm.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You are entitled to your opinions as you have kindly agree [sic] with me. But condescension is not flattering. Please try and avoid it. Sport. - FilmFlaneur
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



my new signature. thank you. lol


Sadly, it is too long for a signature kurt, this while I did not even say the first sentence so it is an unfortunate straw man again lol; also you need to watch the spelling; this while my closing 'Sport' was an ironic reflection of your friend's style - which you would have noticed if you had read closely. For the record I do not usually call anyone 'sport' (or 'sweetheart'). See how irony works?

I'm well aware that railing does no good kurt2000

reply

Film,

Not knowing Gods ultimate plan for my life is not the same thing as being certain beyond a shadow of a doubt that your impotent heel nipping on issues of faith have no bearing whatsoever on my faith. I think you give yourself too much persuasive credit...at least where Christians are concerned. Just my opinion. I think maybe you have convinced yourself you have yourself some good arguments there against the existence of God. To me, it's nonsense. Nonsense does not give me any pause whatsoever.

Galena

*Free speech opinion w/ pseudonym internet moniker w/o malice for debate and discussion🌈

reply

Her confusion is instructive but such a paradox of credulity is not something I really ponder over enough to waste time


Translation: Stupid Christians

but on whose behalf you do not write?


Translation: He doesn't think I should communicate with Christians.


Sarcasm, like irony, here evades you.



Any people of faith would call your comments insults.


Your friend Lena, for instance certainly doesn't seem much bothered:


She ignores much of your blather.

making out of something a 'problem' when she has none?


You just ridiculed her for having "problems". lol

that of her god taking


Translation: Her mythical sky god.

Sadly, it is too long for a signature kurt


Works for me.





"But condescension is not flattering. Please try and avoid it." - FilmFlaneur

reply

No, I don't feel it is God's plan to have my faith tested and strengthened by opposition. Opposition doesn't challenge my faith


The more you repeat this the more defensive you sound. And why would anyone's ideas not benefit from a little challenging now and again?

Thanks again for another long cut 'n' paste. One imagines how thinking for oneself can be challenging...

I would point out Jesus, in defending God, showed aggression and in fact his rebellion against mans attempt to degrade his Father''s temple got him crucified


Indeed and as we are told he did not come to bring peace, did He? He also got very cross with fig trees.

So it is a huge misconception by atheists that Christians are supposed to sit by silently as God is ridiculed ... You still have a duty to stand up for God.


But you avoid this by 'not feeling challenged'... right.



I'm well aware that railing does no good kurt2000

reply

Thanks again for another long cut 'n' paste. One imagines how thinking for oneself can be challenging...


Indeed and as we are told he did not come to bring peace, did He? He also got very cross with fig trees.



No self awareness this week, Film?




"But condescension is not flattering. Please try and avoid it." - FilmFlaneur


reply

No self awareness this week, Film?


A fair enough point lol, but one remark from this end is hardly to the same degree as the continual faux self-effacement and condescension we see from Lena who admitted as such:

I don't have to live with you, or speak to you, or even read your posts if I don't want. Your flaw doesn't really bother me. Just pointing it out there sport ... Condescending? Oh...okay




I'm well aware that railing does no good kurt2000

reply

I don't have to live with you, or speak to you, or even read your posts if I don't want. Your flaw doesn't really bother me. Just pointing it out there sport ... Condescending? Oh...okay


Relief....lol

"But condescension is not flattering. Please try and avoid it." - FilmFlaneur

reply

Not knowing Gods ultimate plan for my life is not the same thing as being certain beyond a shadow of a doubt that your impotent heel nipping on issues of faith have no bearing whatsoever on my faith


If you don't know your god's ultimate plan then you cannot know, for instance, that your faith being challenged by such as I is not part of that plan. Scripture clearly anticipates challenges of differing degrees: believers are warned to expect persecution while, as I have shown, James told believers to take 'joy' when they encounter trials and tribulation. If none of this was God's plan, then why would it be allowed for?

I think you give yourself too much persuasive credit...at least where Christians are concerned.


I don't claim to have ever persuaded a believer to lose their faith. Certainly not you, lol. By and large those I encounter are just not open-minded enough. For instance, could you tell me what would serve to falsify your chosen deity?

To me, it's nonsense. Nonsense does not give me any pause whatsoever.


That's the difference between you and me, I guess. I think nonsense, especially when presented as truth should always be questioned, or we would still be burning witches. That is not to say that I am necessarily correct in the judgements I make but, as Socrates said, the unexamined life is not worth living.

I'm well aware that railing does no good kurt2000

reply

Translation: Stupid Christians


These are your words, not mine lol. I merely point up the inherent contradiction in someone not knowing God's plan while being assured that I could not be of it. Incidentally, I see I have just had to again.

He doesn't think I should communicate with Christians


Don't tell me what I don't think.

Any people of faith would call your comments insults.


But since you say you do not speak for others, while Lena doesn't care, and you have told me you are not insulted, this is moot. Also if you think questioning faith and issues of scripture 'insulting' you need to get out more. But then you have always been thin-skinned when it suits. This while issues of pot calling kettle black remain.

She ignores much of your blather


Or has no answer to my questions, rather.

You just ridiculed her for having "problems". lol


Please quote where I mention her 'problems' especially when I said

I wonder how she feels about you making out of something a 'problem' when she has none?



You will see how I used inverted commas for 'problems'. And, er, I thought you weren't speaking on behalf of others?


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
that of her god taking
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Translation: Her mythical sky god.


Again: your words, not mine. However it is fair to say that down the millennia there have been quite a few of these worshiped, and one imagines that even you don't believe in very nearly all of them.

Sadly, it is too long for a signature kurt
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Works for me.


I am glad something does.


I'm well aware that railing does no good kurt2000

reply

I merely point up the inherent contradiction in someone not knowing God's plan while being assured that I could not be of it.


If you don't believe in God, you're not going to be a part of his plan, but instead, will fry in hell. It really is that simple.

"But condescension is not flattering. Please try and avoid it." - FilmFlaneur

Don't tell me what I don't think.



I never suggested that you think before typing.


this is moot


Continue to declare everything to be moot. That's the imaginary world in your head for things you don't want to deal with.

But since you say you do not speak for others


Actually I quote what others have told me. I never stated that I speak for others. This is another imaginary subject rolling around in your mind, and not a reflection of truth or reality.

while Lena doesn't care,


Then why are you alleged to be quoting her?

and you have told me you are not insulted


Actually I stated that I'm use to your insults, but don't let that stop you from practicing your fiction writing here.

Also if you think questioning faith and issues of scripture


Not believing in God or his word will not get you into Heaven. His rules - not mine.

been thin-skinned when it suits


"But condescension is not flattering. Please try and avoid it." - FilmFlaneur


Whatever muppet.

has no answer to my questions


You rejected the answers because you didn't agree with our answers, remember? Truth coming back to haunt you?

Please quote where I mention her 'problems' especially when I said

while Lena doesn't care


Would you like to be her agent?

I thought you weren't speaking on behalf of others?


lol















reply

I don't know what sort of translator programme you're using kurt but your current one seems to be getting things very wrong. Maybe turn off the 'look for insults where there are none' setting first?

reply


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't have to live with you, or speak to you, or even read your posts if I don't want. Your flaw doesn't really bother me. Just pointing it out there sport ... Condescending? Oh...okay
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Relief....lol


Again, your word not mine. I value disputation as it can be educational and entertaining as you well know. Lena apparently wants to be aloof and yet defend her god at the same time, which will be some balancing trick, the eagerness to see of which has prompted me to confront her.



I'm well aware that railing does no good kurt2000

reply

entertaining


Translation: Sadistic


Lena apparently wants to be aloof and yet defend her god at the same time, which will be some balancing trick, the


Translation: 'It's all Lena's fault. She wanted to provide her own perspective by telling me about God, and I don't believe in her mythological sky god.'

the eagerness to see of which has prompted me to confront her.



Translation: 'It's my job to kick her in the arse for being a Jesus freak nuisance to society, but I'll shoulder the burden.'




"But condescension is not flattering. Please try and avoid it." - FilmFlaneur

reply


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
entertaining
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Translation: Sadistic


Again: your word not mine.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lena apparently wants to be aloof and yet defend her god at the same time, which will be some balancing trick, the
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Translation: 'It's all Lena's fault. She wanted to provide her own perspective by telling me about God, and I don't believe in her mythological sky god.'


Is this you not speaking on behalf of others again? LOL And you still haven't told me how many sky gods out of mythology you don't believe in. It seems unfair to condemn someone for a process you entertain yourself.

a Jesus freak nuisance to society


I don't think she will like your description of her here, perhaps you better write to her and explain?


I'm well aware that railing does no good kurt2000

reply

Again: your word not mine.


Your intent - not mine.

Is this you not speaking on behalf of others again? LOL


So you're claiming I'm not allowed to quote Christians or acknowledge their reactions to your ridicule without being accused of being their self appointed spokesperson? lol



Here I'll quote you:
"And you still haven't told me how many sky gods out of mythology you don't believe in."

Does this quote mean I'm trying to speak on your behalf, just because I quoted you?

And "sky god's I don't believe in"? Does this confirm your laughter of Christians who believe in God? Just wondering.

That was a question by the way.

reply

If you don't believe in God, you're not going to be a part of his plan, but instead, will fry in hell. It really is that simple.


That would not be true, since God's 'plan' apparently includes a fate for sinners. In fact why a loving god would send someone to eternal torment as part of his scheme of things is a paradox believers have often struggled with.

It really is that simple.


And if you believe hell is literally true then that is one characteristic of fundamentalism. Fundamentalism, let it be said flies aircraft into buildings. Science flies people to the moon.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Don't tell me what I don't think.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


I never suggested that you think before typing.


Condescension is not flattering. Please try and avoid it.

Continue to declare everything to be moot.


No, it was just in conncection to one of your last points (that if you are not speaking on behalf of others then what any others would, you think say, is moot) But who knows what will follow such insights?

That's the imaginary world in your head for things you don't want to deal with.


I see irony continues to elude you. Does the devil still have horns and a pitchfork?

I quote what others have told me


Which is plain incorrect. I cannot remember a single instance when you have used a direct quote from another writing to you to support yourself.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
But since you say you do not speak for others
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I never stated that I speak for others.


Since one will observe that above I say exactly the opposite then you really need to read more closely lol.

This is another imaginary subject rolling around in your mind, and not a reflection of truth or reality.


Still having problems with irony, I see...


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
while Lena doesn't care,
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Then why are you alleged to be quoting her?


Perhaps because she claims to be aloof and yet at the same time to not be shy in defending her god. At the moment she is just absent. Perhaps you ought to accept that she is now gone from here and you and your god are back to being on your own?

and you have told me you are not insulted
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Actually I stated that I'm use [sic] to your insults


QED then. But then again, if you don't feel insulted, then why are you always so rude and angry? Just a character flaw?

Not believing in God or his word will not get you into Heaven. His rules


But being a confessed sinner will? Have you told God that it is ok, expecially since you will just repent at the end and He will most likely just accept it?

muppet.


A pleasure speaking to you, as always, kurt. I forgive you. Again.

You rejected the answers because you didn't agree with our answers, remember


So what was the answer to the two main questions: that my interrogations and questionings might be, in the event, part of God's plan, that big idea for us, which she admits she does not know (and, btw as James 1:2-3 suggests, my - any - trenchant trial of her faith ought to bring utmost 'joy'?) Or, then: why God created evil and apparently takes pleasure in it as He does with all of Creation, at least according to the words of scripture? Any idea?

Would you like to be her agent?


Why? Are you leaving your post already?



I'm well aware that railing does no good kurt2000

reply


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Again: your word not mine.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Your intent - not mine.


You are naturally, fully entitled to your opinion. I guess that makes you masochist, since you keep coming back for more, huh?

So you're claiming I'm not allowed to quote Christians or acknowledge their reactions to your ridicule without being accused of being their self appointed spokesperson? lol


Since I have not claimed that you can't quote other faithists (which, one notes, you have yet to do anyway) or 'acknowledge reactions' (even when supposedly provided in secret lol) then this is another strawman. But you are doing exactly which you say you are not: something that's disingenuous, or at least forced - especially as you are not a Christian and have said that you are not yourself insulted. Go figure. As a compulsion it appears to be something psychological.

If you merely quoted your new friend that would be one thing (you haven't). But during her (wholly expected) absence now, you appear at least emphasising and inventing my supposed comments to make points for her. EG, Your two 'translations', that I apparently said

Translation: 'It's all Lena's fault. She wanted to provide her own perspective by telling me about God, and I don't believe in her mythological sky god**.'

Translation: 'It's my job to kick her in the arse for being a Jesus freak nuisance to society, but I'll shoulder the burden.'


Where the point is that I am misrepresented on her behalf at a time when she herself apparently wishes to remain aloof (while er, defending her God at the same time) Since she has not contributed since, it is that you are just finding a convenient vehicle for your own outrage, not reflecting hers. So, QED.

So hadn't you better wait to see what she actually says?

And "sky god's I don't believe in"? Does this confirm your laughter of Christians who believe in God? Just wondering. That was a question by the way.


Since it was you who first introduced the terms "mythological/ mythical sky god" (**as we can see above, although you have used the words before) you can hardly blame me for asking how many of these you do not believe in. I thought, after all, that not believing in other gods was part and parcel of what was demanded by the Christian God? Perhaps I am wrong in asking you to confirm things? So how many do you believe in? One? None? All? These are all questions by the way.



I'm well aware that railing does no good kurt2000

reply

Dude, chill! I'm a Christian and a hardcore movie buff and i watch Atheist Movies, so why can't they watch our Movies?!

Atheists still have freedom of speech just like we have, they can be on this board and say whatever they've gotta say. You do you, and let them do them!

Peace Out. ✌

reply

Dude, chill


who's dude?


so why can't they watch our Movies?!


I have no legal means to stop them.

Ever see the commercial where one raccoon asks another raccoon to taste what he's been eating because it's "disgusting"?

"I don't want to try it if it's disgusting".

Welcome to the boards for pro-Christian films.

Atheists still have freedom of speech just like we have


And no filter to stop the noise pollution.

and say whatever they've gotta say. You do you, and let them do them!


"gotta"? They've been on these boards for years board for years venting.

reply