Comments on: Cat Fight Between Banderas And Shirley Phelps-Roper

By: sidfaiwu

sidfaiwu — Wed, 16 Apr 2008 14:29:47 +0000

Clearly, Joseph Ravitts, you don’t know your religion’s history all that well. The did not write the Bible at the First and Second Councils of Nicea. No one, including Dan Brown, is making that claim. But the councils did decide which versions of Christianity were canon and which were apocryphal. They also decided which books made it into the canonized Bible and which were excluded. There are many, many other Christian books that predate Constantine that were considered just as legitimate as the ones found in today’s Bible.

By: Joseph Ravitts

Joseph Ravitts — Wed, 16 Apr 2008 02:44:27 +0000

The story of Emperor Constantine putting the Bible together is convenient for helping Dan Brown sell novels; but it is as much a fiction as those novels. Plenty of copies survive of Christian writings which date back well before Constantine was even born, and these writings consistently acknowledge canonical New Testament books as being legitimate Scripture.

By: marky mark and the funky bunch

marky mark and the funky bunch — Fri, 25 Jan 2008 05:23:08 +0000

Sweat baby sweat baby sex is a Texas drought
Me and you do the kind of stuff that only Prince would sing about
So put your hands down my pants and I’ll bet you’ll feel nuts
Yes I’m Siskel, yes I’m Ebert and you’re getting two thumbs up
You’ve had enough of two-hand touch you want it rough you’re out of bounds
I want you smothered want you covered like my Waffle House hashbrowns
Come quicker than FedEx never reach an apex just like Coca-Cola stock you are inclined
To make me rise an hour early just like Daylight Savings Time

Do it now
You and me baby ain’t nothin’ but mammals
So let’s do it like they do on the Discovery Channel
Do it again now
You and me baby ain’t nothin’ but mammals
So let’s do it like they do on the Discovery Channel
Gettin’ horny now

By: marky mark and the funky bunch

marky mark and the funky bunch — Fri, 25 Jan 2008 05:20:09 +0000

cos baby well be in the drive in in the old mans ford behind them bushes until im screamin for more down the basement and lock the cellar door and baby talk dirrty to me fuck me suck me put it in my ass

By: god

god — Fri, 25 Jan 2008 05:13:26 +0000

u are the ones who are the ball lickers u will lick our balls and suck on our asscracks

By: Sick of Sickos

Sick of Sickos — Thu, 16 Nov 2006 16:18:04 +0000

I dare this bitch to get out of the USA if we are so doomed.

By: J

Fri, 13 Oct 2006 00:13:03 +0000

” As I said, both belief in the existence of God and disbelief in the existence of God can be rational provided both appeal to evidence and make claims that are meaningful. Evidence isn’t always obviously “conclusive.” Sometimes a piece of evidence will “point” in a certain direction without itself necessitating a particular conclusion….

Obviously there is no universally overwhelmingly indisputably conclusive evidence that God exists. You don’t dispute this. And neither do I. We are in fact NOT overwhelmed with indisputably conclusive proof of God’s existence. So it follows that “if” (note the conditional) God were to exist, he cannot have overwhelmed us with indisputably conclusive evidence of his existence. If he did provided such evidence, we’d be overwhelmingly and indiputably convinced by it. But we’re not overwhelmingly convinced. So it follows: “if” God exists, his existence is compatible with our not being overwhelmingly convinced that he exists.”

-A guy named Tom

A, I am not trying to convert anyone. Would you agree with what has been said there by this guy named Tom?

By: A

Thu, 12 Oct 2006 23:19:55 +0000

The transition from chritian through to atheist is a continuous spectrum of the strength of conviction of people. There are no distinct areas where you could say agnostic ends and atheism begins just like you cannot say exactly where green ends and yellow begins on the electromagnetic spectrum. Thank you, Your Father.

What difference does it make to your arguement what my beliefs are? If you are right, you’re right and your arguement will prove it. So show me what you’ve got, J. Convert me!

By: Your Father

Your Father — Thu, 12 Oct 2006 05:33:26 +0000

FYI, Atheism does not mean that you claim there is absolutely no possibility of a god. There are two types, strong atheism, which is believing there is no god, and weak atheism, which is not believing in god. A subtle, but important difference.

If you were wondering, I’m a “weak” atheist.

By: J

Thu, 12 Oct 2006 05:29:56 +0000

Before that, i want to ask what your beliefs are. It sounds like you are probably agnostic or atheist. For the purpose of debate, it is important to clear up what you are. For the purpose of debate, if Atheist, you make claim that there is absolutely no possibility of a God; if agnostic, you make the claim that you are not sure but there is a possibility just not enough evidence to substantiate the claim that there is.