atreyu wrote:Should prayer be banned in school as a cheating measure on exams?
Seems unfair if you pray for the answers and pass or get a higher grade than those that worked their butts of studying that would certainly be an unfair advantage?
16 pages in less than 2 days! 
:!: Christian con snowflakes sure are easy to wind up, even with OBVIOUS silliness.
Damn, those LNF folks need to pray for some brains; probably won't work. I've prayed a few times myself. It usually goes like this; "god, please, I'll never drink again...."Vrede too wrote: ↑Sun Aug 18, 2019 12:55 pm http://www.libertynewsforum.com/cgi-bin ... 65915370/0atreyu wrote:Should prayer be banned in school as a cheating measure on exams?
Seems unfair if you pray for the answers and pass or get a higher grade than those that worked their butts of studying that would certainly be an unfair advantage?
For the record: I am not atreyu and don't even have an LNF account. I just lurk when I want some comic relief.
Seems like such an easy question for religious moralists to answer. It's rather dumbfounding they cannot. Speaks to their morals. :confusion-shrug:Vrede too wrote: ↑Sun Aug 18, 2019 12:55 pm http://www.libertynewsforum.com/cgi-bin ... 65915370/0atreyu wrote:Should prayer be banned in school as a cheating measure on exams?
Seems unfair if you pray for the answers and pass or get a higher grade than those that worked their butts of studying that would certainly be an unfair advantage?
For the record: I am not atreyu and don't even have an LNF account. I just lurk when I want some comic relief.
I barely skimmed the first and last pages. 16 total and they never answered? That's funny.bannination wrote: ↑Sun Aug 18, 2019 9:21 pmSeems like such an easy question for religious moralists to answer. It's rather dumbfounding they cannot. Speaks to their morals. :confusion-shrug:
It's what we say, too. The point was never to stop prayer, it was to stop government-sponsored prayer.
Seawolf wrote:Well, since this is now about trolling, I think I have said all I can say to the romper room gal. I will let you kids play.atreyu wrote:Eyewitness accounts? Where would I read those?
It was about trolling with atreyu's OP. Her/his god shorted Seawolf on brain power.
... Almost all modern scholars reject the authenticity of this passage in its present form, while the majority of scholars nevertheless hold that it contains an authentic nucleus referencing the execution of Jesus by Pilate, which was then subject to Christian interpolation and/or alteration....Seawolf wrote:... The earliest reference for the existence of Jesus outside Christian tradition is found in Antiquities of the Jews, written around 93 CE by Josephus (37-c.100 CE), a Roman Jewish scholar.
"At that time lived Jesus, a holy man, if man he may be called, for he performed wonderful works, and taught men, and joyfully received the truth. And he was followed by many Jews and many Greeks. He was the Messiah. (Antiquities, 18.3)"
... According to the 18th-century historian Edward Gibbon, early Christians (second half of the second century and first half of the third century) believed that only Peter, Paul, and James, son of Zebedee, were martyred. The remainder or even all of the claims of martyred apostles do not rely upon historical or biblical evidence.Seawolf wrote:... One has to ask, why would 11 men go to their death rather then renounce Jesus raised from the dead. Their life would have been spared if they had simply stated this was not true. That is a reasonable question to ask.
Oh goody, another drama queen flounce away.Seawolf wrote:This is about all I am going to give you
Bad idea, see above.Seawolf wrote:if you REALLY want to know, I would state you need to do your own research....
Ulysses wrote:Well, that huffy departure didn't last long.
Great minds . . . Neither did this one:Ulysses wrote:Well, that huffy departure didn't last long.
Page 27.Seawolf wrote:This is about all I am going to give you
I posted this before, I'll try again. Apparently the last attempt was not approved.bannination wrote: ↑Sun Aug 18, 2019 9:21 pmSeems like such an easy question for religious moralists to answer. It's rather dumbfounding they cannot. Speaks to their morals. :confusion-shrug:Vrede too wrote: ↑Sun Aug 18, 2019 12:55 pm http://www.libertynewsforum.com/cgi-bin ... 65915370/0atreyu wrote:Should prayer be banned in school as a cheating measure on exams?
Seems unfair if you pray for the answers and pass or get a higher grade than those that worked their butts of studying that would certainly be an unfair advantage?
For the record: I am not atreyu and don't even have an LNF account. I just lurk when I want some comic relief.
I won't presume to speak for atreyu or bannination and I only skimmed the LNF topic in question, but I will note that there can be differing opinions as to whether a question has really been answered or whether it's been dodged.PeacefulPartier wrote: ↑Wed Sep 11, 2019 3:24 pmI posted this before, I'll try again. Apparently the last attempt was not approved.
Why do you think there was no explanation when the 2nd reply addressed the issue appropriately?
Yep, that was slow. I wasn't taking it personal. I was just confused as to why such a simple post wasn't being approved.Vrede too wrote: ↑Fri Sep 13, 2019 9:57 amI won't presume to speak for atreyu or bannination and I only skimmed the LNF topic in question, but I will note that there can be differing opinions as to whether a question has really been answered or whether it's been dodged.PeacefulPartier wrote: ↑Wed Sep 11, 2019 3:24 pmI posted this before, I'll try again. Apparently the last attempt was not approved.
Why do you think there was no explanation when the 2nd reply addressed the issue appropriately?
Looks like your 3 posts have now been approved. The process was instituted for rookies due to spamming and other issues. Since we're a low volume forum and he's a busy guy, our admin, bannination, does not check in every day. Don't take the delays personally. If you continue posting here before too long you'll get a permanent, blanket approval and your posts will appear immediately.
I'm almost positive that it just hadn't been looked at and had nothing to do with the content. We're pretty tolerant of all content other than real world stalking, doxing and threats. Pretty much anything, anything else goes.PeacefulPartier wrote: ↑Fri Sep 13, 2019 12:47 pmYep, that was slow. I wasn't taking it personal. I was just confused as to why such a simple post wasn't being approved.
I'm not certain, but it looks like you may have gotten that permanent, blanket approval. Welcome aboard. Yep, apologies I'm usually faster than that -- but a couple other spammers had signed up at the same time you had and you got lost in the shuffle. You should not have any restrictions anymore.PeacefulPartier wrote: ↑Fri Sep 13, 2019 12:47 pmYep, that was slow. I wasn't taking it personal. I was just confused as to why such a simple post wasn't being approved.Vrede too wrote: ↑Fri Sep 13, 2019 9:57 amI won't presume to speak for atreyu or bannination and I only skimmed the LNF topic in question, but I will note that there can be differing opinions as to whether a question has really been answered or whether it's been dodged.PeacefulPartier wrote: ↑Wed Sep 11, 2019 3:24 pmI posted this before, I'll try again. Apparently the last attempt was not approved.
Why do you think there was no explanation when the 2nd reply addressed the issue appropriately?
Looks like your 3 posts have now been approved. The process was instituted for rookies due to spamming and other issues. Since we're a low volume forum and he's a busy guy, our admin, bannination, does not check in every day. Don't take the delays personally. If you continue posting here before too long you'll get a permanent, blanket approval and your posts will appear immediately.
After a 2 week hiatus:
Related...they seem to think that if they could show him to be generally anti-Trump that his testimony would be discredited. It doesn't occur to them that even if you suspect his motive, his testimony is still subject to verification and it doesn't matter what his perspective is. With their usual irony deficiency, they don't seem to realize that Trump's own effort to spread dirt on Biden should - by their standards - make Trump's story suspect.GoCubsGo wrote: ↑Wed Nov 06, 2019 11:07 pm Can anyone explain LNF 's (and RWNJ in general) strange obsession with the whistleblower?
They seem to think that outing him/her/them and getting them to testify is going to be some sort of game changer and won't let go, like a dog to a bone. I can't wrap my head around it.
Yep, it's confusion and distraction, despite POSPOTUS, Rudy and Mulvaney having already confessed, and the call memo and other witnesses having already proved the crimes. Also, it's all meant to discourage and intimidate different witnesses, which is a crime more serious than outing a whistleblower. Finally, I think they know that they're screwed and are desperately thrashing around just praying that some of the shit they throw at the walls will stick.O Really wrote: ↑Thu Nov 07, 2019 1:10 amRelated...they seem to think that if they could show him to be generally anti-Trump that his testimony would be discredited. It doesn't occur to them that even if you suspect his motive, his testimony is still subject to verification and it doesn't matter what his perspective is. With their usual irony deficiency, they don't seem to realize that Trump's own effort to spread dirt on Biden should - by their standards - make Trump's story suspect.GoCubsGo wrote: ↑Wed Nov 06, 2019 11:07 pmCan anyone explain LNF 's (and RWNJ in general) strange obsession with the whistleblower?
They seem to think that outing him/her/them and getting them to testify is going to be some sort of game changer and won't let go, like a dog to a bone. I can't wrap my head around it.