i sort of figured that might be the case, but the joke still needed to be told. i regret nothing
Men don't worry about their reputation but a women does.
Stick to the topic or leave. I didn't say I wasn't banning people. Go back and read it again. I simply gave my definition of what a successful discussion means to me. Don't do something to violate the terms laid out in the thread and you won't get banned. It's not that tough especially when you consider everyone remaining has managed to navigate the topic successfully.
There you go again. You just did it again. That is a logical fallacy. You don't give up on a bad idea that is for sure. The problem is that bad ideas are always bad ideas.
>>"Are you asking about the reason or about the purpose?"<<
Youre right I meant in the sense that the laws being proposed are not passed. Sorry
Clearly, it is you who gets an "F" for not citing a f'n thing! Now, take your more than apparent tolling elsewhere given you also get an "F" for not making your trolling less obvious.....Goodbye!
But who will they blame for all their troubles if there are no dreaded "others" left to blame?
harder for a man to attract a lot of women than it is for a woman to attract a lot of men
My company has offices in Malmo, apparently the Jihadi capital of Europe (According to Fox News) It's strange though, that on my monthly visits the Islamic fundamentalists all seem to be away.
Maybe they need to be muzzled and eliminated.
I think we should try a little experiment. Instead of Christian bakers refusing to cater same sex weddings, how about they serve all weddings equally with the caveat that a portion of the profits made from catering all weddings will be donated to NOM. It would be interesting to see who refuses do to business with whom in that scenario, wouldn't it?
Well, it?s more of a uterus thing than a vagina thing. And more of a paws on than a paws off thing, to keep the metaphors straight.
Still stupid-shaming as there is no shortage of stupid.
Because blind people having driver's licenses imposes a HUGE danger to literally everyone on and off the road.
That's true. Majority though
never used the word "abomination" once in this thread dearest.
Immediate turn-off if you call my vag pudding pie.
That is a false statement. Perhaps you mean that the majority of scholars "whose opinion you know," say that. For you obviously do not personally know every scholar, nor do you know the opinion of every scholar. There are likely many more scholars whom you do not even know exist; and, it is possible that they have a different opinion than the one you promote.
According to these articles for one...
I'm getting a very 'spammy' vibe from you. Should I be concerned?
If I were creating a religion, I'd probably write something like that too.
Gee. If only the Bible consisted of more than one chapter. And if only there were some mention of God's sovereignty in it. And if only those writing and reading this particular chapter could have been so familiar with the concept that they would automatically understand this particular verse in light of God's sovereignty rather than removing it totally from everything they understood about God and thus concluding that God must really not be very powerful if He exists at all.
I don't even have a smartphone. I threw mine out. The buttons were not made for a man of my stature. Everytime I tried writing a word, I got a gobbledygook of letters and numbers instead. Trying to type everything with your pinky gets old fast.
That "2000 years of scholarship" is being overturned, by modern methods. When it is not Christians trying to prove Christianity and college educated historians doing the investigation, it doesn't go so well for them.