How Jesus became god'... from not being one. Bart Ehrman.

[Picaro]

He was looking for reasons not to believe which is why he studied textual criticisms (whatever that is) in graduate school and then made a career out of it.

Completely wrong, did you just make that up? He was a devout Christian who wanted to read and understand the word of God. Only much later did he question his faith and it had nothing to do with textual criticisms (the study of the history and context of the Bible).

He found he could sell books if he bashed Da Evul Xians.

Maybe but this is still a Christian country and I doubt very many Christians are running out to buy his books. Unfortunately.

That's because they're rubbish. People should only buy objective books on history, not screeds by angry deviants and neo-pagans.

 

[BreezeWood]

Erhman has been refuted so many times it's a wonder anybody would run around claiming he's some great 'scholar'. Darrell Bock alone has shut him down literally every time Bock bothered to critique his books, as well as Elaine Pagels and the rest of the fake 'scholars' from the Gnostic revivalist scam. The Peanut Gallery can start with Bock's The Missing Gospels, a work explaining to lay people from a secular point of view why the various popular modern claims of the original orthodoxy being 'falsified' is rubbish and nonsense by merely using textual analysis and historical records. From there it gets very easy to prove the Erhman claims are total rubbish.

.

- from a secular point of view why the various popular modern claims of the original orthodoxy being 'falsified' is rubbish and nonsense by merely using textual analysis and historical records.

there is no original orthodoxy from the 1st century the falsification is the orthodoxy made up in the 4th century.

the same example applies, sicko -

Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.
.
forgeries and fallacies brought to your attention previously. the same pattern for all three desert religions - the ten commandments etched by the Almighty never existed.

 

[ding]

Am I criticizing anyone? Am I saying I was better? Am I suggesting it should have been done differently? No.

Your judgement is to accept genocide, pain, and suffering. That is your right.

In my judgement, those things are wrong. Is there a good reason that is the only way things can be designed to be? None that I can see. Now do you understand?

Holy shit, there you go again with your dishonest arguments.

No, I don't understand. You start with an argument you don't believe to arrive at what you do believe. Totally illogical. Doesn't make any sense at all. It's a self fulfilling prophecy that ass ***** logic and reason.

P.S. and you are still judging God. So just to be clear, you believe you know better than the creator of existence, right?

 

[ding]

Laws are logical. They exist for reasons. One of which is to establish order from chaos.

I think you have it backwards, you've reversed cause and effect. Establishing order from chaos is the effect of the laws, it is not the cause. Laws exist and because they do they create order from chaos.

No. I haven't got it backwards. Establishing order from chaos is the effect of the laws. See no reversing cause and effect. Order from chaos is the reason the laws exist. Their purpose is to produce beings that know and create.

 

[BreezeWood]

Laws are logical. They exist for reasons. One of which is to establish order from chaos.

I think you have it backwards, you've reversed cause and effect. Establishing order from chaos is the effect of the laws, it is not the cause. Laws exist and because they do they create order from chaos.

No. I haven't got it backwards. Establishing order from chaos is the effect of the laws. See no reversing cause and effect. Order from chaos is the reason the laws exist. Their purpose is to produce beings that know and create.

.

No. I haven't got it backwards. Establishing order from chaos is the effect of the laws. See no reversing cause and effect. Order from chaos is the reason the laws exist. Their purpose is to produce beings that know and create.

.
that's because cyclical events establish the laws - big bang.
.

Their purpose is to produce beings that know and create.

.
- all beings know and create.

 

[ding]

Laws are logical. They exist for reasons. One of which is to establish order from chaos.

I think you have it backwards, you've reversed cause and effect. Establishing order from chaos is the effect of the laws, it is not the cause. Laws exist and because they do they create order from chaos.

No. I haven't got it backwards. Establishing order from chaos is the effect of the laws. See no reversing cause and effect. Order from chaos is the reason the laws exist. Their purpose is to produce beings that know and create.

.

No. I haven't got it backwards. Establishing order from chaos is the effect of the laws. See no reversing cause and effect. Order from chaos is the reason the laws exist. Their purpose is to produce beings that know and create.

.
that's because cyclical events establish the laws - big bang.
.

Their purpose is to produce beings that know and create.

.
- all beings know and create.

The only time you have ever been right about anything is when you realized you were wrong about everything.

 

[BreezeWood]

Laws are logical. They exist for reasons. One of which is to establish order from chaos.

I think you have it backwards, you've reversed cause and effect. Establishing order from chaos is the effect of the laws, it is not the cause. Laws exist and because they do they create order from chaos.

No. I haven't got it backwards. Establishing order from chaos is the effect of the laws. See no reversing cause and effect. Order from chaos is the reason the laws exist. Their purpose is to produce beings that know and create.

.

No. I haven't got it backwards. Establishing order from chaos is the effect of the laws. See no reversing cause and effect. Order from chaos is the reason the laws exist. Their purpose is to produce beings that know and create.

.
that's because cyclical events establish the laws - big bang.
.

Their purpose is to produce beings that know and create.

.
- all beings know and create.

The only time you have ever been right about anything is when you realized you were wrong about everything.

.

The only time you have ever been right about anything is when you realized you were wrong about everything.

.
what being other than yourself does not - know and create ... after all your instances you must have at least one example. surly.

 

[james bond]

No, it's not possible to believe in both evolution and creation because of the age of the Earth. No rock or fossil could last billions of years, let alone millions as there are chemical, weathering, aging, pressure, and other factors that affect the planet.

.
the 4th century christians and sicko's rely on purposeful delusion to manifest an artificial reality they themselves have very little understanding for other than for their self directed irresistible sense of importance.
[/QUOTE]

You continue to be wrong as you are one of the sickos and part of the delusional who reads the wrong books. Being a sicko and delusional drives you to the wrong conclusions. It really is hilarious to think atheism can be right with the science of atheism. One of things that belongs to the common sense of science is something cannot come from nothing. This is part of the scientific method and demonstrable. From it we find that the universe had a beginning. In every case where something had a beginning, we find that there was a cause. The best cause for the universe having a beginning is God.

 

[james bond]

You are judging other 'creators' by using yourself as a yardstick.

What has the universe produced? Burning spheres of hydrogen? Spinning balls of rock, ice, and gas? On earth the universe has produced many more plants than animals, many more bacteria and beetles than any other species, more non-intelligent animals than intelligent ones. So what do we know about the universe?

It is delusional asf to think the universe itself produced or created something. We already discussed the universe is both space and time and that could not have started by itself in nature. It had to be supernatural.

 

[james bond]

It's worse than that. I never prayed for it but I still got that pony.

You were one of the lucky ones. I didn't pray for a pony b/c I grew up in San Francisco. I prayed for a bicycle and got a bicycle.

Maybe but this is still a Christian country and I doubt very many Christians are running out to buy his books. Unfortunately.

I readily admit to being an admirer of Ehrman. I've read a number of his books and listened to more than a few podcasts and videos. I just stumbled on an entire website devoted to debunking what Ehrman has written. I look forward to viewing some of the videos there.

There wouldn't be much point to Christians running out to buy his books. We can listen to him in debates against Christian apologists, the Bible, Christianity, and Jesus and his teachings.

Are you now you're claiming you bought Bart Ehrman's books and even paid for his blog? It would be a sign that you back up what you believe in no God/gods. Doubtful. You don't really believe in anything.

Even after shutting off, Voyager 1 and 2 will continue to drift out in interstellar space; they will both pass by other stars in about 40,000 years, according to NASA. Voyager 1 will come within 1.6 light-years of AC+79 3888, a star in the constellation Camelopardalis. Voyager 2 will fly by within 1.7 light-years of Ross 248; in 296,000 years, it will also come within 4.3 light-years from Sirius, which is the brightest star in Earth's sky.

Voyager 1 and 2 may never get captured by a star and zip around the universe, little changed, literally forever.

I doubt you know what the significance is of the Voyager probes let alone how the human eye is complex. I mean what do you care haha?

 

[zaangalewa]

...

I personally am not a Trinitarian. The Trinity is NEVER mentioned in the Bible but is something theologians came up with it to explain the Father, Son, Holy Spirit relationship. Sadly, Christian have warred among themselves over the "Trinity" for centuries and do so today.

As I said in an earlier post, the important thing for humans is not the relationship between the Father and Son, BUT our relationship to God as sinners and the GRACE offered us by the sacrifice of His Son.

All Christians are baptized in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, how the Christ told us to do. Are you baptized?

 

[zaangalewa]

true theist do not require a particular deity for anything -

you just deny the spiritual content of physiology that does not conform to your christian bible ... and obviously have never surmounted adversity to acquire an inalterable victory. to know the difference.

Why would I need a deity to explain physiology? Many subjects can be explained without one. A deity comes in with religion and with the study of origins of life and our universe in terms of science. Also, when we discuss objective morality.

With physiology, we find how our bodies work except there are differences between how western and eastern beliefs developed. Also, what we know today and believe is much different from the past. What are you going to add with your evolutionary physiology?

What is the physiology of schizophrenia?

A problem in the transmitter substances in the metabolism of the brain - specially the substance dopamin is a problem in this context. In general have about 50% of all human beings during their lifetime a minimum of 1 schizophrenic boost. It's by the way wrong that schizophrenic people are more dangerous than others. They are as criminal and/or violent as anyone else.

Wrong as usual. 1 percent of humans typically are effected with schizophrenia, not to say that 50 percent of the people in your family are not effected though.

Jesus the clueless are clueless

The relative number of schizophrenic people is in all societies of the world the same. Indeed we can use the ideas and behavior of a society in context with its schizophrenic people and their work for this people for a measurement of the quality of a society. And without any doubt about 50% of all people have a minimum of one time in their life a schizophrenic boost: worldwide.

And to the absolute impertinent typical US-American asshole in you, which is full of hate and idiotic political propanda let me say: I never use alcohol and/or drugs and I am very very careful with medicine. I use medicine only in cases it is important to do so. And wether it is important to use medicine or not is not deciding me.

And you are right: the clueless are clueless. But no one needs Jesus to find this out. To be an idiot is enough to find out this "wisdom".

Again on Earth 1 percent of people have schizophrenia like you do

true theist do not require a particular deity for anything -

you just deny the spiritual content of physiology that does not conform to your christian bible ... and obviously have never surmounted adversity to acquire an inalterable victory. to know the difference.

Why would I need a deity to explain physiology? Many subjects can be explained without one. A deity comes in with religion and with the study of origins of life and our universe in terms of science. Also, when we discuss objective morality.

With physiology, we find how our bodies work except there are differences between how western and eastern beliefs developed. Also, what we know today and believe is much different from the past. What are you going to add with your evolutionary physiology?

What is the physiology of schizophrenia?

A problem in the transmitter substances in the metabolism of the brain - specially the substance dopamin is a problem in this context. In general have about 50% of all human beings during their lifetime a minimum of 1 schizophrenic boost. It's by the way wrong that schizophrenic people are more dangerous than others. They are as criminal and/or violent as anyone else.

Wrong as usual. 1 percent of humans typically are effected with schizophrenia, not to say that 50 percent of the people in your family are not effected though.

Jesus the clueless are clueless

The relative number of schizophrenic people is in all societies of the world the same. Indeed we can use the ideas and behavior of a society in context with its schizophrenic people and their work for this people for a measurement of the quality of a society. And without any doubt about 50% of all people have a minimum of one time in their life a schizophrenic boost: worldwide.

And to the absolute impertinent typical US-American asshole in you, which is full of hate and idiotic political propanda let me say: I never use alcohol and/or drugs and I am very very careful with medicine. I use medicine only in cases it is important to do so. And wether it is important to use medicine or not is not deciding me.

And you are right: the clueless are clueless. But no one needs Jesus to find this out. To be an idiot is enough to find out this "wisdom".

Schizophrenia Symptoms, Patterns and Statistics and Patterns

Schizophrenia is not a terribly common disease but it can be a serious and chronic one. Worldwide about 1 percent of the population is diagnosed with

www.mentalhelp.net

Again 1 percent have schizophrenia, which is a permanent disease not a boost whatever the hell that is

no comment

 

[zaangalewa]

...

Evolution is irrelevant because nothing can not evolve, and life is not nothing like Darwin believed

Whatelse than "idiotic" is someone able to say to such "arguments"?

 

[zaangalewa]

...

No. I haven't got it backwards. Establishing order from chaos is the effect of the laws. See no reversing cause and effect. Order from chaos is the reason the laws exist. Their purpose is to produce beings that know and create.

Natural laws have no purpose. Gravity binds you on Earth, because you produce gravity on your own. That's all.

 

[zaangalewa]

What do I not know in this context?

That life happened by accident. If the design of matter preordained life, then it's no accident. It's predetermined.

"Accident" is also predeterminated. With space, time and energy came also all natural laws. We know now since about 100 years that "accident" has not only to do with mistakes of our perception or logic. It is part of quantum mechanics. The experiment "Schrödingers cat" for example bases on real accident. It's very nice, that we do not have to look always for a reason why something happens what's bad or good. But this means not that always everything is only accidental. Someone can have the evil intention for example to shoot someone down, he can make a plan and realize this plan. Then nothing is accidental in this context.

Life is not predestined in sense of the theory of evolution. That's one of the strange things. Freedom (=chance) is predestined. And somehow is life a growing of the degrees of freedom.

Predestined in the sense that it was inevitable through and by the laws of nature.

The natural law evolution says not that life has inevitably to come into this universe here. Why do you think so? Because the natural law evolution existed since the very first moment of the universe, like all other natural laws?

If I take a look at our planet than I see some life - sometimes also desserts, water desserts in the oceans, ice desserts. Difficult situations for life. And the planet Earth is in the middle of a habitable zone of a stable star in a nearly circular orbit. Only a little paradox inclination of the Earth axis in the double planet system Earth and Moon causes seasons. ... Hmm ... what to say about other places in the universe? I don't know. His idea is full of romance - but seems not to be plausible.,

George Wald: Life and Mind in the Universe

I do not have the time now in the moment to read this link to Mr. Elijah Wald. I don't know this man and I do not like to meet him now in the moment.

We do not know whether other universes exist or not. And as it looks like we never will be able to know this.

Everything is manifested through consciousness. I think, therefore, I am.

Many think and therefore they are idiots.

PS: Multi-cellular organisms - that's what we normally call "life" - started to exist since about 1/2 to 3/4 of a billion years. The Earth is much older - and if it is true that we are the "crown of gods creation" - what I believe - then we are fully responsible for all and every life on planet Earth.

Intelligence as in beings that know and create are the pinnacle of creation. Consciousness is the most complex thing the universe has produced.

Or it has "produced" (evolved) many things which are much more complex. How to know this? If you take a look at the color red for example then you will have indeed a very complex psychological background. Same with the color blue. The strange thing in this context is the total different quality of blue and red within our psychological world - while it is in the physical world all around us for example a very little difference in the wavelength of electromagnetic waves. Physically for example we all will die - we can see the dead bodies of others - but psychologically we never will die, because we lose our perception before we are dead. So in case it exists a life after death, then we will not remember our own death.

Anyone who would scoff at or dismiss this has never really thought it through.

Are you sure you have thought "it" through, (whatever this "it" is in your mind)?

 

[esalla]

Actually simpleton dna and life are the same thing as all life is dna based

Man u is tupid

Has this always been the case? Maybe not. The first thing that was "life" (subject to natural selection and evolution) may have been much simpler than DNA. There are self-replicating molecules and proteins (prions) that may have preceded DNA life.

They would have to had two things; long chains that mimicked proteins and they would have had to fold themselves in exactly the correct sequence. You might as well call it a miracle.

Maybe, we'll likely never know for sure what happened. Before there was life there may well have been molecules that were capable of taking atoms in their environment and adding them to the end of their own chain. As the chains grew they'd occasionally break with the sub-pieces starting the process anew. Growth and reproduction. Natural selection would then kick in and enhance the process. Call it a miracle or call it evolution.

One of the strangest arguments against God or intelligent design, two separate belief systems, behind DNA is how the system of DNA could've formed randomly. The evos believe that it is the result of self-organization via evolution. If that's true, then they should be able to provide more examples for it as it happens today. Another complex system is the eye. Evos cannot duplicate either of it given the basic components. They can't do it even if the parts were model pieces and were asked to put it together. However, when presented with the argument that it is based on a designer with intelligence behind it, then they will deny it. Yet, this is exactly the type of argument that SETI uses and when it helps their cause, they will allow it and even call the search for it as scientific. It really is hypocrisy at its worst. Us in creation science have to put up with it all the time.

What happens with these complex systems are that they are like recording devices. We can put recordings of intelligence into these systems if we know how they work. It's like recording music on tape via analog method or on disk via a digital method. These microorganisms could just be another recording format as their cells are arranged in a systematic way. Yet, evos will never admit due to their atheist beliefs that this was due to an intelligence behind it. We have to have intelligence to figure out how it works and to see how they were formed since they are microscopic. Yet, it had to have happened by self-arrangement or some other BS explanation.

Anyone who thinks the human eye represents intelligent design has never studied it. It is deeply flawed and would look very different if it was built from the ground up and not just assembled from existing pieces by evolution.

Nothing ever designed by humanity will last as long as the human eye..................................

We'll never know for certain but I'd put my money on Voyager 2.

The human eye is already many millions of years old and there are 15 billion of them going strong

Even after shutting off, Voyager 1 and 2 will continue to drift out in interstellar space; they will both pass by other stars in about 40,000 years, according to NASA. Voyager 1 will come within 1.6 light-years of AC+79 3888, a star in the constellation Camelopardalis. Voyager 2 will fly by within 1.7 light-years of Ross 248; in 296,000 years, it will also come within 4.3 light-years from Sirius, which is the brightest star in Earth's sky.

Voyager 1 and 2 may never get captured by a star and zip around the universe, little changed, literally forever.

Again simpleton the humans are already millions of years older than the voyager probes, so if the human race vanished today it would be millions of years until the probe could pass the human race in age

But hey, it made the first star trek movie really sucky didn't it

So please take your DiLithium crystal pills

 

[esalla]

true theist do not require a particular deity for anything -

you just deny the spiritual content of physiology that does not conform to your christian bible ... and obviously have never surmounted adversity to acquire an inalterable victory. to know the difference.

Why would I need a deity to explain physiology? Many subjects can be explained without one. A deity comes in with religion and with the study of origins of life and our universe in terms of science. Also, when we discuss objective morality.

With physiology, we find how our bodies work except there are differences between how western and eastern beliefs developed. Also, what we know today and believe is much different from the past. What are you going to add with your evolutionary physiology?

What is the physiology of schizophrenia?

A problem in the transmitter substances in the metabolism of the brain - specially the substance dopamin is a problem in this context. In general have about 50% of all human beings during their lifetime a minimum of 1 schizophrenic boost. It's by the way wrong that schizophrenic people are more dangerous than others. They are as criminal and/or violent as anyone else.

Wrong as usual. 1 percent of humans typically are effected with schizophrenia, not to say that 50 percent of the people in your family are not effected though.

Jesus the clueless are clueless

The relative number of schizophrenic people is in all societies of the world the same. Indeed we can use the ideas and behavior of a society in context with its schizophrenic people and their work for this people for a measurement of the quality of a society. And without any doubt about 50% of all people have a minimum of one time in their life a schizophrenic boost: worldwide.

And to the absolute impertinent typical US-American asshole in you, which is full of hate and idiotic political propanda let me say: I never use alcohol and/or drugs and I am very very careful with medicine. I use medicine only in cases it is important to do so. And wether it is important to use medicine or not is not deciding me.

And you are right: the clueless are clueless. But no one needs Jesus to find this out. To be an idiot is enough to find out this "wisdom".

Again on Earth 1 percent of people have schizophrenia like you do

true theist do not require a particular deity for anything -

you just deny the spiritual content of physiology that does not conform to your christian bible ... and obviously have never surmounted adversity to acquire an inalterable victory. to know the difference.

Why would I need a deity to explain physiology? Many subjects can be explained without one. A deity comes in with religion and with the study of origins of life and our universe in terms of science. Also, when we discuss objective morality.

With physiology, we find how our bodies work except there are differences between how western and eastern beliefs developed. Also, what we know today and believe is much different from the past. What are you going to add with your evolutionary physiology?

What is the physiology of schizophrenia?

A problem in the transmitter substances in the metabolism of the brain - specially the substance dopamin is a problem in this context. In general have about 50% of all human beings during their lifetime a minimum of 1 schizophrenic boost. It's by the way wrong that schizophrenic people are more dangerous than others. They are as criminal and/or violent as anyone else.

Wrong as usual. 1 percent of humans typically are effected with schizophrenia, not to say that 50 percent of the people in your family are not effected though.

Jesus the clueless are clueless

The relative number of schizophrenic people is in all societies of the world the same. Indeed we can use the ideas and behavior of a society in context with its schizophrenic people and their work for this people for a measurement of the quality of a society. And without any doubt about 50% of all people have a minimum of one time in their life a schizophrenic boost: worldwide.

And to the absolute impertinent typical US-American asshole in you, which is full of hate and idiotic political propanda let me say: I never use alcohol and/or drugs and I am very very careful with medicine. I use medicine only in cases it is important to do so. And wether it is important to use medicine or not is not deciding me.

And you are right: the clueless are clueless. But no one needs Jesus to find this out. To be an idiot is enough to find out this "wisdom".

Schizophrenia Symptoms, Patterns and Statistics and Patterns

Schizophrenia is not a terribly common disease but it can be a serious and chronic one. Worldwide about 1 percent of the population is diagnosed with

www.mentalhelp.net

Again 1 percent have schizophrenia, which is a permanent disease not a boost whatever the hell that is

no comment

No comment because I am clearly running with the ball

 

[alang1216]

Am I criticizing anyone? Am I saying I was better? Am I suggesting it should have been done differently? No.

Your judgement is to accept genocide, pain, and suffering. That is your right.

In my judgement, those things are wrong. Is there a good reason that is the only way things can be designed to be? None that I can see. Now do you understand?

Holy shit, there you go again with your dishonest arguments.

No, I don't understand. You start with an argument you don't believe to arrive at what you do believe. Totally illogical. Doesn't make any sense at all. It's a self fulfilling prophecy that ass ***** logic and reason.

P.S. and you are still judging God. So just to be clear, you believe you know better than the creator of existence, right?

Assuming God exists (do I always have to start off with that?) and He is perfect, I certainly see lots of imperfection in this world. I'd judge He's not living up to his potential. Would creation fall apart if there were no viruses?

 

[zaangalewa]

true theist do not require a particular deity for anything -

you just deny the spiritual content of physiology that does not conform to your christian bible ... and obviously have never surmounted adversity to acquire an inalterable victory. to know the difference.

Why would I need a deity to explain physiology? Many subjects can be explained without one. A deity comes in with religion and with the study of origins of life and our universe in terms of science. Also, when we discuss objective morality.

With physiology, we find how our bodies work except there are differences between how western and eastern beliefs developed. Also, what we know today and believe is much different from the past. What are you going to add with your evolutionary physiology?

What is the physiology of schizophrenia?

A problem in the transmitter substances in the metabolism of the brain - specially the substance dopamin is a problem in this context. In general have about 50% of all human beings during their lifetime a minimum of 1 schizophrenic boost. It's by the way wrong that schizophrenic people are more dangerous than others. They are as criminal and/or violent as anyone else.

Wrong as usual. 1 percent of humans typically are effected with schizophrenia, not to say that 50 percent of the people in your family are not effected though.

Jesus the clueless are clueless

The relative number of schizophrenic people is in all societies of the world the same. Indeed we can use the ideas and behavior of a society in context with its schizophrenic people and their work for this people for a measurement of the quality of a society. And without any doubt about 50% of all people have a minimum of one time in their life a schizophrenic boost: worldwide.

And to the absolute impertinent typical US-American asshole in you, which is full of hate and idiotic political propanda let me say: I never use alcohol and/or drugs and I am very very careful with medicine. I use medicine only in cases it is important to do so. And wether it is important to use medicine or not is not deciding me.

And you are right: the clueless are clueless. But no one needs Jesus to find this out. To be an idiot is enough to find out this "wisdom".

Again on Earth 1 percent of people have schizophrenia like you do

true theist do not require a particular deity for anything -

you just deny the spiritual content of physiology that does not conform to your christian bible ... and obviously have never surmounted adversity to acquire an inalterable victory. to know the difference.

Why would I need a deity to explain physiology? Many subjects can be explained without one. A deity comes in with religion and with the study of origins of life and our universe in terms of science. Also, when we discuss objective morality.

With physiology, we find how our bodies work except there are differences between how western and eastern beliefs developed. Also, what we know today and believe is much different from the past. What are you going to add with your evolutionary physiology?

What is the physiology of schizophrenia?

A problem in the transmitter substances in the metabolism of the brain - specially the substance dopamin is a problem in this context. In general have about 50% of all human beings during their lifetime a minimum of 1 schizophrenic boost. It's by the way wrong that schizophrenic people are more dangerous than others. They are as criminal and/or violent as anyone else.

Wrong as usual. 1 percent of humans typically are effected with schizophrenia, not to say that 50 percent of the people in your family are not effected though.

Jesus the clueless are clueless

The relative number of schizophrenic people is in all societies of the world the same. Indeed we can use the ideas and behavior of a society in context with its schizophrenic people and their work for this people for a measurement of the quality of a society. And without any doubt about 50% of all people have a minimum of one time in their life a schizophrenic boost: worldwide.

And to the absolute impertinent typical US-American asshole in you, which is full of hate and idiotic political propanda let me say: I never use alcohol and/or drugs and I am very very careful with medicine. I use medicine only in cases it is important to do so. And wether it is important to use medicine or not is not deciding me.

And you are right: the clueless are clueless. But no one needs Jesus to find this out. To be an idiot is enough to find out this "wisdom".

Schizophrenia Symptoms, Patterns and Statistics and Patterns

Schizophrenia is not a terribly common disease but it can be a serious and chronic one. Worldwide about 1 percent of the population is diagnosed with

www.mentalhelp.net

Again 1 percent have schizophrenia, which is a permanent disease not a boost whatever the hell that is

no comment

No comment because I am clearly running with the ball

no comment

 

[zaangalewa]

Am I criticizing anyone? Am I saying I was better? Am I suggesting it should have been done differently? No.

Your judgement is to accept genocide, pain, and suffering. That is your right.

In my judgement, those things are wrong. Is there a good reason that is the only way things can be designed to be? None that I can see. Now do you understand?

Holy shit, there you go again with your dishonest arguments.

No, I don't understand. You start with an argument you don't believe to arrive at what you do believe. Totally illogical. Doesn't make any sense at all. It's a self fulfilling prophecy that ass ***** logic and reason.

P.S. and you are still judging God. So just to be clear, you believe you know better than the creator of existence, right?

Assuming God exists (do I always have to start off with that?) and He is perfect, I certainly see lots of imperfection in this world.

Do you? Why is the moon a circle?

I'd judge He's not living up to his potential. Would creation fall apart if there were no viruses?