Originally posted by SuzianneConcentrate on what does make sense to you.
Well, the reason for this is the incredible amount of similarity between your belief and the Trinity doctrine. "Only the names have been changed", etc....
And then you sit there and try to beat the crap out of the Trinity doctrine. That's what makes no sense to me.
Its a shorter list.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieStyles and mindsets can appear to be similar enough to possibly be the same person, but I doubt FMF and Duchess are the same person.
you think Duchess and FMF are one and the same?
I've recently noticed how divegeester and CalJust appear to have the same unique (identical?) take on Christianity, but this alone isn't enough to point to the two being the same person. I do find it curious though that neither of them fit into any denominational category I'm aware of... other than perhaps the little known church of "Our Lady of I Am Right and You are Wrong" or "Church of Whatever I Want Christ to Be." Also known as the "Church of the Later Day Anything Goes Doncha Know."
Denominational subsets of this unique offshoot of traditional Christianity are also known as "Disciples of Because I Said So!" and "Who Cares What You Thinkists".
Yeah, that's right... I've done my homework.
Their holy book is based on the original King James version published in 1611 and is barely understandable except for anyone living during the 1600s, and it includes a fifth gospel entitled The Gospel according to Darwin... and all of the footnotes refer to commentary written by Richard Dawkins.
Originally posted by lemon lime"Their holy book is based on the original King James version published in 1611 and is barely understandable except for anyone living during the 1600s, and it includes a fifth gospel entitled The Gospel according to Darwin... and all of the footnotes refer to commentary written by Richard Dawkins."
Styles and mindsets can appear to be similar enough to possibly be the same person, but I doubt FMF and Duchess are the same person.
I've recently noticed how divegeester and CalJust appear to have the same unique (identical?) take on Christianity, but this alone isn't enough to point to the two being the same person. I do find it curious though ...[text shortened]... according to Darwin... and all of the footnotes refer to commentary written by Richard Dawkins.
I'll have to take exception to that sir! I've read numerous other translations and I find the KJV the easiest to read and understand, and, if you'd like, I can prove the KJV is the most accurate, and in keeping with the most reliable manuscript evidence available. It's not any one translation that's the problem necessarily, but the user.
I don't care what robbie says about it! 😉
I suspect it is possible that there may be one or two individuals posting in this forum that are playing double.
1 edit
Originally posted by josephwyou were unable to prove it before and I doubt you are able to prove it now. You could not even tell us what its based upon and what original manuscripts were available to the translators. You cannot read Hebrew or Greek and have no way of determining the accuracy of a single word.
[b]"Their holy book is based on the original King James version published in 1611 and is barely understandable except for anyone living during the 1600s, and it includes a fifth gospel entitled The Gospel according to Darwin... and all of the footnotes refer to commentary written by Richard Dawkins."
I'll have to take exception to that sir! I've read ...[text shortened]... possible that there may be one or two individuals posting in this forum that are playing double.[/b]
Originally posted by robbie carrobieWhat have you ever proved other than you are a jerk?
you were unable to prove it before and I doubt you are able to prove it now. You could not even tell us what its based upon and what original manuscripts were available to the translators. You cannot read Hebrew or Greek and have no way of determining the accuracy of a single word.