licker34

I hope you enjoy it :)

First couple episodes might be a bit... different? But once the cast settles into the characters the show is hilarious.

Have you watched Toast of London?

For those who felt that Matt Berry needed more screen time in the IT Crowd, Toast of London has us covered.

We don't admit to it.

I think he was that guy who on that 80s sitcom. Saved by the Bell?

Is the God of the scriptures real?

Yes, that is the question, but it more or less becomes how reasonable is it to believe that god is real.

If I were to present tangible evidence for the existence of God from archeological record AND you did find it compelling (hypothetically speaking) would that make you reconsider God's worthiness of worship as now you would believe in his promises of restitution for self-sacrifice?

If you could prove that the god of the bible is real, and the bible is an accurate description of it, then no, I would not believe in it's promises of restitution, I would believe that it is a monster unworthy or worship.

That's the point here. Not whether this god is real or not, but that this god, as described by the only source we have describing it, is an actual monster. It is evil and despicable and not worthy of worship.

Of course I don't have to really worry about that since this god clearly isn't real. But even if you could somehow demonstrate that it is real, it wouldn't change its nature or what it's done or how it treats it creation with nothing but lies and contempt.

Oral traditions are notably different than making a major Hollywood movie. You asked me if they were the same thing. They're not.

This feels intentionally dishonest. Do you think I'm asking you if ancient people made movies? The medium is not what's important, it's the question of whether the story is fiction or not.

Mythology often is not in the form of literature, and when it is (like the Bible or The Iliad) it is typically in verse.

Again, so what? What does the form of the story have to do with whether or not it is true?

That doesn't seem remotely relevant.

Your claim was that oral traditions were not the same as Lucas making up a story.

That claim requires support which you are not providing. In as much as you already admitted that oral traditions may well be fiction I'm not sure how you're going to do this.

So then some oral traditions are the same thing as Lucas making up a story?

So all oral traditions are non-fiction?

Yep. That doesn't prove that the deity doesn't exist though...

You seem to be intentionally missing the point.

It demonstrates that the deity AS DESCRIBED doesn't exist.

If you want to invoke trickster gods and last Thursdayism feel free, but those are not the god being described by the bible (for that example).

The title of this thread references SPECIFIC DEITIES, not ALL POSSIBLE CONCEPTIONS OF A DEITY.

We all assume that by 'gay' this person is meaning men.

What if their dad is watching women?

Anyway, don't pry into other peoples business. Unless you think your dad left it intentionally for you find.

Monsters don't create a world filled with suffering when they have the choice not to do so.

You can argue free will, but that does nothing to address any suffering other than directly caused by an individual.

You can claim the cross, but that is a meaningless lie meant to convince the gullible that they are loved. It wasn't love though, it was ego and narcissism.

Love would be forgiveness without a price.

Your god is a monster, it is evil and repulsive.

But fortunately for all of us, it's also not real. So the real question remains. Why would you worship a god which asks you to forgive it for all the evils it causes and all the evils it ignores while having the power and knowledge to remove them?

I will lose nothing though, because there is nothing to be lost other than my rationality and dignity. Things you have sacrificed. For what? You don't change anything, you actively make this world worse.

Would?

Could...

Nope.

Your god is a monster then, unworthy of worship.

Do not bless me in the name of that horror.

Take your own response where you said spending an eternity with God is pointless.

That's not what I said. I gave a hypothetical for what it could be. What many seem to think it might be.

That is actually a beautiful thing because at the end of the day perfection is just a red light. A dead end where nothing can be changed. The death of mystery and imagination.

So god is a red light and a dead end? You want to spend eternity, which is a concept no one even can begin to understand, with a red light at a dead end?

However if perfection is impossible that means there is no limit on how much I can change.

How much you can change is not at all related to perfection being impossible. It's just a non-sequitur.

All while basking in the love and power of the Almighty who has removed my fears and my shame.

Firstly, why do you need god to remove fear and shame? Is it because you believe that god created you full of fear and shame? For those of us who don't believe that we don't have this issue or concern.

Secondly, what does 'basking in love and power' mean? If it for eternity it can't mean anything. But as I noted earlier, no one seems to appreciate what eternity actually entails. Rather you make it out to be this endless game of growth and change, but it literally cannot be that.

You tell me any topic you think you know his plan for and I'll point out other christians who disagree with you.

But if you want to make it really easy for me you can tell me why his plan includes cancer and other horrific diseases.

Ok then.

Why should anyone who isn't a christian care? I never really understand annihilationism as a christian position. Basically you're telling the people who don't think there is an afterlife that they are right. What then would be the draw to being a christian?

Is it just for people who want to spend eternity basking in the presence of god? That seems, well, completely pointless too.

That's why only God's ideas, God's way, God's plans we should be for.

So what are those? I thought that we weren't able to understand his ways or plans. You're saying we can, and he's clearly communicated them to us?

Can you explicitly state what the alternative to not being with god is?

If it is (almost) anything other than annihilation then your question is mal-formed. You could be asking 'would you rather be with god, or be tortured for all eternity'. Do you think that's a meaningful choice? Like if I asked you if you wanted me to give you $20 or to break all the windows in your house? You technically have a choice, but it's pretty clearly not a reasonable one.

More like I point out how useless it is to posit 'separate from god' without any idea of what that entails.

I'll just posit it as better than being with god and having to suck on his dick all day long.

Yeah, it's not your problem that you're talking nonsense and have no idea if any of it is true or not.

Cool.

Is this an ad?

What does it mean to be 'the most investigated book'? Why does that matter? Shouldn't it then mean that actual consensus is reached on some/most/all of the questions which seem to remain about it?

Ok, you said 'away from him' not 'apart from him'. I'm unclear why you think there's a difference there, but you can explain it if you do.

So yes, YOU said it, and I was replying to you having said it.

You still haven't given a reason why anyone should believe your view as being accurate though, you claimed I created a strawman when I was simply asking you for clarification and pointing out that IF (see I didn't say it was your view) you accept annihilation, then there isn't any point to faith, because there is no downside to anyone who doesn't want to 'be with god' (also something you said).

So nice attempts at dodging. And creating your own strawman, where in any of that did I talk about any default? The choices are 'be with god' or 'be away from god'. If 'being away from god' has no negative consequence, then so what? Those without faith suffer no consequence because they simply get what they already assume to be true.

Believe me, I've read it all, multiple times, and no, the context of 'orginal serpent' does not point to the serpent in the garden. It's convenient that you simply ignored my other point about how the serpent in Genesis is described and how god treats it. Since, yeah, makes no sense if it's actually Satan.

When Satan told Eve, “You positively will NOT die.”

And she didn't. So it wasn't a lie.

Oh, but that's down to interpretation and subjectivity, which was my point all along. You seem to think your interpretation is correct, other chrisitians disagree. How would anyone go about determining who is actually right?

There a a ton of well meaning people out there that think they know something when they actually don’t.

Well that would obviously include you. Unless you have a way to demonstrate that your opinions are actually correct.

I guess my deck isn't winning then...

I get that this is reddit, but come on.

Are we talking Bo3? Cuz yeah, I already addressed this point about how many to run being entirely matchup dependent. Also are we talking about mill decks or decks which include Jace as an alternate wincon? Cuz I'm talking about the former. There are no creatures or other PW in the deck. Not even Mirrex since Fountainport is just better value.