NicholasMarks #fundie

NicholasMarks #fundie religionethics.co.uk

Don't get too excited Floo...there is a difference between the females who accept Biblical truth and those that don't...likewise the male.

The wife should be subjective to the husband...the husband subjective to Jesus and Jesus subjective to Almighty God. So maybe Paul wasn't so far out...It's outside the faith where this doesn't work so well because domination and bullying seems to be the norm.

This is why, outside Biblical truth there is so much turmoil...because tearing at each others emotional strength to claim dominance leads to a spiritual vacuum...still...who cares about the kids...other than Jesus Christ, that is.

49 comments

old comment by Senomaros

The wife should be subjective to the husband...the husband subjective to Jesus and Jesus subjective to Almighty God

I don't think you know what "subjective" means.

It's outside the faith where this doesn't work so well because domination and bullying seems to be the norm.

I dunno, what you just described sounds n awful lot like domination and bullying to me.

This is why, outside Biblical truth there is so much turmoil...

My atheist parents have been together for 30 years and still have a really happy marriage. My (nonpracticing) Sikh grandparents have been married for well over 50 years and are also doing great, so what was that about how non-Christian marriages suck? Meanwhile, conservative Christians are more likely than others to divorce...

old comment by Shephard Solus

"The wife should be subjective to the husband"

In what way? What qualities change based upon her husband and why?

"It's outside the faith where this doesn't work so well because domination and bullying seems to be the norm. "

Ah yes. "It's different when we do it because Jesus" argument number 4^347.

"This is why, outside Biblical truth there is so much turmoil"

Really? You're really going to pretend that the church hasn't been violently divided over that exact thing throughout the whole of it existence?

And learn how to use a fucking period. Native English-speaking children learn how to do so as young as three. At your age, you have no excuse for failing to meet that same degree of accomplishment.

old comment by Anon-e-moose

In that case what about the entire 'Christian Bible', Jerky?

If you're not prepared to read one specific section of it, for fear of the consequences of your entire 'doctrine' - one man as it is, as yours that is custom-made & is just one of over 30,000 denominations out there: all of which say that theirs is the 'Truth' and you're just a hellbound pagan - least of all your entire 'Beliefs', then you have no right to cherry-pick from specific titbits of Scripture to justify your homophobia, misogyny or other forms of subjective bigotry.

Deborah (Judges 4 & 5, Hebrews 11:32-34). Esther.

Either your 'Lord' has changed his mind about everything you object to via Romans 13:1-5, or the entirety of your 'Christian Bible' has no relevance to anyone in the 21st Century.

We know why you think the way you do about 1 Timothy 5:23, in the way you don't about, say, 1 Timothy 2:12 or Leviticus 18:22 & 20:13; which you merely heard from a preacher, like the sheeple you are, Jerkoid.

Because if you dared actually read your 'Christian Bible': Properly, you would be the Atheist I am today.

My father - a hardcore Atheist - caught me reading a Bible, when I was in my teens. He said 'You keep on reading, son!', and he never interrupted me or dissuaded me in any way.

Thanks dad & Isaac Asimov. It was the best education I'd ever received.

And that was by my reading your 'Christian Bible': cover to cover. Something you daren't do, Jerkoff.

Otherwise you'd be able to answer Dr. Razark's question. But the fact you didn't means that you've never actually read your 'Christian Bible', [i]Properly[/i], as per Isaac Asimov.

And as per Dr. Razark, I can further prove you've never actually read your 'Christian Bible': but what about Matthew 10:14?

Read that. Study what the word of your 'Lord' says. Understand it's meaning. If you dare.

That is, if Jerko actually owns a 'Christian Bible', Dr. Razark.

old comment by Anon-e-moose

And therefore your entire 'Christian Bible' is a non-sequitur, Jerky. Indeed: what about you and your obviously non-existent 'God'?

Certainly your 'Christian Bible's absolute irrelevance to anyone else in the 21st Century, including everyone here in FSTDT.

So why are you here, Jerko? Name one convert to your... 'unique' brand of hyper-Calvinism in all the time you've infected FSTDT.

Like I say: a custom-made one-man denomination: just one joining another 30,000 out there. All of whom say that they have the 'Truth', and you're the hellbound pagan.

...and like I say, Dr. Razark, Jerkoid could always open his now extremely dusty 'Christian Bible' to Matthew 10:14, if the answer to my question is the only one possible. But then... (check one):

[ ] He daren't, because then how would he justify his right to even think of being here?

[ ] He hasn't read a 'Christian Bible' to know about your non-sequitur because he doesn't have one.

Choose wisely, Jerkoff.

old comment by SpukiKitty

Jerry has come clean!

Thanks, troll!

It was obvious from the get-go. We weren't born yesterday.

You fail as a troll. Too obvious. We are bemused by you and only engage you to TROLL YOU!

We win!

@The Crimson Ghost
I'm well-aware of that....
image
image
....I won't deprive Chris of the right to cross-dress but Chris needs to work on it better. He looks ridiculous.
Chris claims to be a transwoman but I don't know if "Christine" is legit. I don't know if I should refer to Chris as "Christine/she/her". I support transpeople but with Chris-Chan, I don't know if Chris is really a woman or simply a man who wants to be a woman (in a weird scheme to get, 'china').

I regularly check out "CWCiki".

NicholasMarks #fundie religionethics.co.uk

49 comments

Confused?