namelesstavern.net

Narrock wrote:

Zanchief wrote:If the rapture's coming a lot of people are going to be in for a rude awakening.

I can pretty much guarantee that you will be left behind (unless privately you believe that Jesus is your personal savior, and that you're enormous assholism here on the NT is just a bizarre facade).

Narrock wrote:Yeah, because I flaunt my Christianity and ram it down everybody's throat here, almost with every post too!

vonkaar wrote:

Narrock wrote:

Zanchief wrote:If the rapture's coming a lot of people are going to be in for a rude awakening.

I can pretty much guarantee that you will be left behind (unless privately you believe that Jesus is your personal savior, and that you're enormous assholism here on the NT is just a bizarre facade).

Narrock wrote:Yeah, because I flaunt my Christianity and ram it down everybody's throat here, almost with every post too!

Well at least you saw my sarcasm, Vonk. You know I hardly ever talk about Christianity that much anymore... at least not in comparison to the past.

I've mentioned this before, but it's amuing enough that I'll mention it again.

There are actually lawyers and insurance companies that are making money RIGHT NOW off "The Rapture".

How, you ask?

Well, the lawyers will, for a hefty fee, help you write your will with a Rapture clause inserted. The Insurance companies will sell you Life Insurance with a similar Rapture clause.

The reason being, if you're bodily assumed up into heaven, technically you're not "dead". So, normal laws for wills & life insurance wouldn't apply. So, if you're convinced you're one of The Chosen, best get those rapture riders, if you want to provide for all of your godless relatives who aren't being raptured with you!



-Arlos

Some people think 2012 will be a very important, and possibly catastrophic, year for mankind.

I laugh at people who proclaim apocalyptic dates.

For reference, see; The Millerites and what was known as "The Great Disappointment".

-Arlos

Narrock wrote:Your English skills suck.

This does not make any sense:

and agreed to a contracted bet where to collect, you have to die

If you don't see it then you're either just playing retarded, or you are retarded.

quick, use your l33t charter oak sk33lz and correct it, providing the exact English grammar rules that have been broken

Tikker wrote:

Narrock wrote:Your English skills suck.

This does not make any sense:

and agreed to a contracted bet where to collect, you have to die

If you don't see it then you're either just playing retarded, or you are retarded.

quick, use your l33t charter oak sk33lz and correct it, providing the exact English grammar rules that have been broken

I don't even know where to begin to fix it... it's so bizarre of a "sentence."

Here's yours in its entirety:

yet you're the one who thinks the invisible man will save his soul, and agreed to a contracted bet where to collect, you have to die~

Here it is done correctly:

Yet you're the one who thinks the invisible man will save his soul, and agreed to a contracted bet (where to collect) you have to die.

Or this would work too:

Yet you're the one who thinks the invisible man will save his soul, and agreed to a contracted bet, where to collect, you have to die.

Or even this:

Yet you're the one who thinks the invisible man will save his soul, and agreed to a contracted bet, where to collect... you have to die.

So in summation, the sentence was completely incoherent to you, because it was lacking a comma?

Tikker wrote:So in summation, the sentence was completely incoherent to you, because it was lacking a comma?

At first glance, yes. But after reading it 3 or 4 times out loud I finally got what you were trying to say. Here's a Christmas idea for you. Maybe you should treat yourself to it:

http://www.englishgrammar101.com/Default.aspx

alot of christians are going to be pissed of when they go to heaven and discover that their god is a jew

dammuzis wrote:alot of christians are going to be pissed of when they go to heaven and discover that their god is a jew

No, their savior is a Jew while their God is an atheist.

Get ready for the rapture and hone your sinner-smiting skills at the same time:

http://pc.gamespy.com/pc/left-behind-et ... 684p1.html

"Violence has consequences -- even justified violence,"

What is justified violence?

Thou shall not kill... Unless they're a Jew.

i love how a religious discussion got turned into an english lession and a pissing contest at the same time.

Evermore wrote:i love how a religious discussion got turned into an english lession and a pissing contest at the same time.

it was never really a religious discussion, as much as a backhanded way for athiests to take money from people who believe in invisible men

Tikker wrote:

Narrock wrote:

The Kizzy wrote:Yes because it matters.

I know it's silly. Tikker really is a retard sometimes.

Yeah, I'm the retard in this situation

yet you're the one who thinks the invisible man will save his soul, and agreed to a contracted bet where to collect, you have to die~

Yet you're arrogant enough to think you know everything as well, and know without any doubt there is no "invisible man".

I sense some ignorance from both sides of this fence and you both smell like shit.

feel free to offer proof of said invisible man, until then it's laughable

Feel free to offer proof of the nonexistence of said invisible man?

Because until then, you're a fucking arrogant moron.

Proof is the burden of the believer.

Jay wrote:Proof is the burden of the believer.

both statements still apply, Tikker's belief in no invisible man and others belief in said invisible man. Both still have to prove one side or the other.

It's like due process. Proof is in the burden of the prosecution while the defendant only has to debunk what the prosecution says as opposed to "proving" their innocence. Innocent until proven guilty. God is fake until proven real. My proof is that no man on earth can give an accurate and consistent account that they have encountered god.

No, that's the point, neither side has to "do" anything.

Tikker thinks he's better than someone for believing x.

Mindia thinks he's better than someone for believing y.

x and y are beliefs and it is impossible for either of you to "prove" otherwise.

I am just slightly more amused by Tikker because he thinks he knows everything that is and was about our existence and flaunts it like a badge.

Mindia isn't a prick about it.

Jay wrote:It's like due process. Proof is in the burden of the prosecution while the defendant only has to debunk what the prosecution says as opposed to "proving" their innocence. Innocent until proven guilty. God is fake until proven real. My proof is that no man on earth can give an accurate and consistent account that they have encountered god.

Far too basic of an application to something so complex.

You believe there is no higher power simply because dumbass human beings can't "prove" it to you?

So in your world, faith is the defendant, having to prove their innocence while in others lives, the belief in no god is the defendant, I really dont think either need to prove anything - if you find that a belief in god or a lack of belief in god makes you a better person to others around you then great ( world could use more of that ) , no real reason to be a prick about it.

Harrison wrote:
Tikker thinks he's better than someone for believing x.

what I believe or don't believe(or what you believe) has nothing to do with why I think I'm better than you~