by Schizm 85 Replies latest watchtower bible
Schizm's a big fat chicken liver. He dodged my question to him concerning his comments comparing God killing babies.......to man putting another man to death because the badman was a killer and rapist. Who's hiding now Schizm?....Big chicken liver!
I'm thinkin your hoping to get to heaven and getting a job at being gods executioner.........god help us!
Gumby
Heh,
You guys keep stringing schitzo along. His posts remind me of crazy Homer, in the episode where he acts like an insane bum so people will give him money.
Homer: Coke and Pepsi are the same thing! Wake up, everybody! (laughs crazily)
IPSec
Schism again shows dazzling brilliance:
: You're attempt at confusing the picture ain't working, Gumby. All who read this thread can see what you're up too. You're exactly what I suspected all along, a big fat JOKESTER.
Trolls love attention, particularly through the use of ad hominems. There is one guarantee that comes along with those who use them: they have no real arguments.
Farkel
Schizzo,
POLE: Were Noah's three adult sons only saved because they had a righteous parent? Did it have nothing to do with them being righteous?
SCHIZM: Yes, all of Noah's sons were saved by being under the umbrella of their righteous father. Take Ham for example: If Ham had been a "righteous" person he wouldn't have disrespected his father after he had unknowingly disrobed himself while in an accidentally-induced intoxicated state.
Ok. I get it. Ham was a lousy bastard. But his daddy was righteous so God decided not to kill Ham even though he was adult and married at that time. In fact, he would never cease to be a child of Noah, would he?
On the other hand, God killed thousands of innocent children who weren't mature enough to make the right decision just because they happened to have wicked parents.
Now you're accusing God of nepotism.
Pole
Pole.....don't expect an answer from Schizm on Saterday mornings. He spends his saterdays at yard sales trying to pursuade witnesses to listen to him and his newfound ideas. Then he goes home and pops a few mushrooms, then he comes here..... Poor sick bastard.
Gumby
Ok - I maddly looked up the word nepotism
Jehovah definately doesn't need to be accused - he is! Didn't he give his "chosen" people - his "wife like organization" a job???? Hell ya - they were kept busy killing Canaanites
nepotism
n : favoritism shown to relatives or close friends by those in power (as by giving them jobs)
Pole,
SCHIZM: Yes, all of Noah's sons were saved by being under the umbrella of their righteous father. Take Ham for example: If Ham had been a "righteous" person he wouldn't have disrespected his father after he had unknowingly disrobed himself while in an accidentally-induced intoxicated state.Ok. I get it. Ham was a lousy bastard. But his daddy was righteous so God decided not to kill Ham....
Ham was doing okay until after the Flood was over and then he became guilty of having committed an unrighteous act, something that neither of his brothers would have done.
I'm not going to hold your hand and help you through this forever. You need to learn to think for yourself.
.
Now you are contradicting yourself for the n-th time on this thread. If Ham was doing ok before the Flood then why did you use the adult, married Ham as an example of a child saved due to his parents righteousness? Why did you mention the fact that Ham committed a serious sin after the Flood in arguing that Ham was only saved thanks to his father's righteousness? You came up with this example.
You haven't answered any of my questions really. If you can't understand my questions, don't pretend you do.
I've had enough of your trollish ignorance. Either you are as mentally challenged as you seem or you're a troll, or you have an emotional problem with sticking to myths which can't be defended. There are actually some bright sides of our discussion. Your views in this matter are basically Watchtower views. Anyone reading this thread had the opportunity to see their utter stupidity.
Best wishes otherwise,
Pole
Now you are contradicting yourself for the n-th time on this thread. If Ham was doing ok before the Flood then why did you use the adult, married Ham as an example of a child saved due to his parents righteousness? Why did you mention the fact that Ham committed a serious sin after the Flood in arguing that Ham was only saved thanks to his father's righteousness?
Gawd man, you're as blind as a bat! There's no sense in anyone trying to reason with you, as it's easy to see what your agenda is: You're dead set against the WTS and anyone that holds to anything it teaches. Someone with a state of mind like you have cannot be reasoned with.
I've had enough of your trollish ignorance. Either you are as mentally challenged as you seem or you're a troll
Right back at ya. Actually, I got my fill of you the instant you came into this thread. You've had absolutely nothing to say that was on topic. So, so-long Polecat.
Schizm
.
Gawd man, you're as blind as a bat! There's no sense in anyone trying to reason with you, as it's easy to see what your agenda is: You're dead set against the WTS and anyone that holds to anything it teaches. Someone with a state of mind like you have cannot be reasoned with.
LOL. Great reply Schmizm. Ironically, I hope this thread gets many views, dude.
No sense in anyone arguing with me, since I'm dead set against the WTS and anyone that holds to anything it teaches.
LOL.
Cheers,
Pole
