[Godstud]

The definition I gave you is about as accurate as it gets. Thanks.

[Hindsite]

The definition I gave you is about as accurate as it gets. Thanks.

But the Spirit explicitly says that in later times some will fall away from the faith, paying attention to deceitful spirits and doctrines of demons,
(1 Timothy 4:1 NASB)

[Godstud]

So that's your excuse for worshiping Trump?





I care not for your scripture reading. You might as well be reading your horoscope to me. It's as meaningful.

[Hindsite]

So that's your excuse for worshiping Trump?

I only worship the God of the Holy Bible. I admire President Trump.

I care not for your scripture reading. You might as well be reading your horoscope to me. It's as meaningful.

Then why do you even quote scripture, since it is meaningless to you?
The following scripture should also be meaningless to you:
The fool has said in his heart, There is no God.
(Psalm 14:1)

I classify you as an atheist.

[Godstud]

Deranged Donald is no one to admire.

@Hindsite How else am I supposed to communicate with someone who dismisses science and reason if not with the only medium they seem to value?

I classify you as a fool.

[Hindsite]

Deranged Donald is no one to admire.

@Hindsite How else am I supposed to communicate with someone who dismisses science and reason if not with the only medium they seem to value?

I classify you as a fool.

I don't dismiss science and reason. You just don't use any.
I classify myself as a near genius.
HalleluYah

[Godstud]

[quote+"hindsite"]I don't dismiss science and reason. You just don't use any. [/quote]Keep telling yourself that.

[Hindsite]

]Keep telling yourself that.

Thanks, I will.
HalleluYah

[Deutschmania]

Where did the Quran come from?

PROOF Allah is Satan: From the words of Muhammad

. In response , http://www.angelfire.com/bug/answering/allahorigin.htm , from a Christian standpoint https://www.equip.org/article/allah-does-not-belong-to-islam/ , https://christiananswers.net/q-eden/allah.html , sources alleging that both the Judaeo-Christian God and the Islamic Allah are alike derived from Mesopotamian religion https://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/biblianazar/esp_biblianazar_jehovah04a.htm , https://oyc.yale.edu/sites/default/files/canaanite-religion.pdf , http://earth-history.com/Various/Canaanite-gods.htm P.S. As to the original subject matter of this thread , veils have been used from times of antiquity , even before the rise of Islam , including among Christians . https://www.suppressedhistories.net/articles/veil.html , https://www.racked.com/2016/12/20/13988300/head-scarves-history-hijab-gele

[SSDR]

. In response , http://www.angelfire.com/bug/answering/allahorigin.htm , from a Christian standpoint https://www.equip.org/article/allah-does-not-belong-to-islam/ , https://christiananswers.net/q-eden/allah.html , sources alleging that both the Judaeo-Christian God and the Islamic Allah are alike derived from Mesopotamian religion https://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/biblianazar/esp_biblianazar_jehovah04a.htm , https://oyc.yale.edu/sites/default/files/canaanite-religion.pdf , http://earth-history.com/Various/Canaanite-gods.htm P.S. As to the original subject matter of this thread , veils have been used from times of antiquity , even before the rise of Islam , including among Christians . https://www.suppressedhistories.net/articles/veil.html , https://www.racked.com/2016/12/20/13988300/head-scarves-history-hijab-gele

It came from my butt hole

[Deutschmania]

It came from my butt hole

. What do you mean ? Are you just trying to be snotty ? If so , I don't think that's very nice of you .

[Hindsite]

. :?: What do you mean ? Are you just trying to be snotty ? If so , I don't think that's very nice of you .

She means it is a bunch of shit.

[QatzelOk]

But the Spirit explicitly says that in later times some will fall away from the faith, paying attention to deceitful spirits and doctrines of demons,
(1 Timothy 4:1 NASB)

I only worship the God of the Holy Bible.

Is that the only book you've ever read about the End Times of a civilization?
Because they always die, these fake constructs. These ideology-driven things called civilizations.
Because of this, there are a lot of other texts about "end times" out there.

The Prince, by Machiavelli
The Muqadima, by Ibn Khaldun
Everything by Robert Burns (the end of Gaelic culture)
The Origins of Totalitarianism, Hannah Arendt
Diogenes and the Cynics of Greece
Many First Nations leaders, like Crazy Horse
Google "end times" and "civilization collapse" and you'll find many more.

The Abrahamic "End Time" story is just there to convince people that "God will take care of everything" so you don't have to do anything to change the balance of power in your society. This is a message from the Elite - the Literati who wrote our religious texts. And "End Time" texts were a very popular marketing tool of religions because they have a lot of gravitas and touch on the worst type of death of all - extinction.

But to only read the Abrahamic stories of this important subject is to reduce your knowledge to a few hundred years of Abrahamic PR. It's like getting all your knowledge about nutrition from a 20-hour series of Pepsi commercials.

[Hindsite]

Is that the only book you've ever read about the End Times of a civilization?

The Holy Bible is the book I trust for truth. Anything contrary, I consider are from false teachers.
Praise the Lord.

[Rich]

I have explained this to you before, but let us do this again:

I do not reply to you because your arguments are based on a nonfactual and ahistorical paradigm where facts are ignored.

Ah so you shouldn't mind if I point out to other posters, that the very fact that you're debating them, means you consider their arguments are based on a factual historical paradigm. This is essentially the same as before. You claimed you don't reply to my arguments, because you don't respect them. I have therefore chosen to point out that when you debate with someone page after, page, that must mean according to your logic that you have immense respect for the arguments of your interlocutor.

This is not a personal matter for me. I admire your partisan tenacity, I admire your ideological conscientiousness and linguistic productivity, but believe me I do not envy those with whom you choose to debate. No I am compelled to not let you get away with this tactic because it is just one tiny part of the left's attempt to shut down and silence the far centre. The left are not trying to stop neo nazis and violent racist thugs as they claim, but to silence the far centre and intimidate the centre left and centre right into capitulating to their Cultural Marxist agenda.

[Pants-of-dog]

:lol: Ah so you shouldn't mind if I point out to other posters, that the very fact that you're debating them, means you consider their arguments are based on a factual historical paradigm. This is essentially the same as before. You claimed you don't reply to my arguments, because you don't respect them. I have therefore chosen to point out that when you debate with someone page after, page, that must mean according to your logic that you have immense respect for the arguments of your interlocutor.

No, that is bad logic. The reasons why I interact with others have nothing to do with you.

This is not a personal matter for me. I admire your partisan tenacity, I admire your ideological conscientiousness and linguistic productivity, but believe me I do not envy those with whom you choose to debate. No I am compelled to not let you get away with this tactic because it is just one tiny part of the left's attempt to shut down and silence the far centre. The left are not trying to stop neo nazis and violent racist thugs as they claim, but to silence the far centre and intimidate the centre left and centre right into capitulating to their Cultural Marxist agenda.

And this is why I do not debate you.

As far as I can tell, this is just stuff you made up.

[Rich]

No, that is bad logic. The reasons why I interact with others have nothing to do with you.

It has everything to do with me. This is a public debating forum, everything posted is the concern of every one. Everyone has the right to comment on who you, me or anyone else chooses to reply to, and everyone has the right to comment on who we choose not to reply to.

And this is why I do not debate you.

As far as I can tell, this is just stuff you made up.

Ah so if you debate with someone, that means that you can tell that they haven't just made stuff up? Sorry, but I don't think you can escape this one without a humiliating climb down. Ignoring the arguments of the far centre might well have been a sensible tactical move, but telling me that you were doing it was a fatal mistake. The truth is that avoid responding to far centre arguments, because you know they are effective. You avoid debating them because of their weight, not their lack of weight.

[Pants-of-dog]

It has everything to do with me. This is a public debating forum, everything posted is the concern of every one. Everyone has the right to comment on who you, me or anyone else chooses to reply to, and everyone has the right to comment on who we choose not to reply to.

Again, MY reasons for MY choices as to whom I reply to have nothing to do with you.

Ah so if you debate with someone, that means that you can tell that they haven't just made stuff up? Sorry, but I don't think you can escape this one without a humiliating climb down. Ignoring the arguments of the far centre might well have been a sensible tactical move, but telling me that you were doing it was a fatal mistake. The truth is that avoid responding to far centre arguments, because you know they are ineffective. You avoid debating them because of their weight, not their lack of weight.

Again, this is simply stuff you seem to have made up.

[Hindsite]

Again, MY reasons for MY choices as to whom I reply to have nothing to do with you.

Again, this is simply stuff you seem to have made up.

In other words, Pants-of-dog has been defeated.
Praise the Lord.

[QatzelOk]

...the very fact that you're debating them, means you consider their arguments are based on a factual historical paradigm.

I hate this strawman structure: This fact [b]means[/b ]this other fact.

Usually, in this structure, the problem is that THIS FACT does not necessarily mean THE OTHER FACT at all.
The writer is just too lazy to consider all the other possible possible causes for the first fact.

Yes, Pants is debating people, but this doesn't mean that Pants considers their arguments are based on factual historical paradigms (whatever that means). He could be debating other people for a whole host of other reasons. And the laziness of forced conclusions shuts down arguments with obtuse ignorance and lack of imagination or empathy.