How big is God's penis?

NarcolepticSun
Posts: 108
Joined: 2007-02-18
User is offlineOffline
How big is God's penis?

Some theist must have an answer for my asinine question...


wavefreak
Theist
wavefreak's picture
Posts: 1825
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
The perfect size.

The perfect size.


BGH
BGH's picture
Posts: 2772
Joined: 2006-09-28
User is offlineOffline
wavefreak wrote: The

wavefreak wrote:
The perfect size.

 LOL, wavefreak.

 

Actually it probably friggin huge, did you read where he pissed on the earth back in genisis, it flooded the whole damn place. 


AReasonableLu
AReasonableLu's picture
Posts: 66
Joined: 2007-06-20
User is offlineOffline
  wavefreak wrote: The

 

wavefreak wrote:
The perfect size.

 

So my ex wasn't created in God's image?  That seems unfair.  Wink

“The four most over-rated things in life are champagne, lobster, anal sex and picnics.”
-Christopher Hitchens

"I don't believe in God, but I'm afraid of Him."
-Gabriel Garcia Marquez


Susan
Susan's picture
Posts: 3561
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
I freely admit that it's

I freely admit that it's just not something I've ever give thought to.

 


Susan
Susan's picture
Posts: 3561
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
By the way, if there were a

By the way, if there were a god, you'd probably piss HER off by asking that question.

 


LosingStreak06
Theist
LosingStreak06's picture
Posts: 768
Joined: 2007-05-22
User is offlineOffline
My God doesn't have one.

My God doesn't have one.


Rave
Posts: 114
Joined: 2007-03-02
User is offlineOffline
wavefreak wrote: The

wavefreak wrote:
The perfect size.

Perfect for who? 


ParanoidAgnostic
ParanoidAgnostic's picture
Posts: 402
Joined: 2007-05-20
User is offlineOffline
I am gladly agnostic on this

I am gladly agnostic on this issue, and since his followers tell me he's not fond of sodomy I dont have much to be paranoid about.

Oh, a lesson in not changing history from Mr. I'm-My-Own-Grandpa!


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15885
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Just as an aside and food

Just as an aside and food for thought for the well intended "pollitically correct" people reading the title of this post. Please dont comment on this post, it is merely intended for you to think about.

"How big is God's penis" I garuntee is seen by many Christians as "hate speech". I see it as criticism of the god concept and the absurdity of a disimbodied being getting a girl prenant. What if the majority of Christians passed laws banning things they saw as "hatefull".

JUST FOOD FOR THOUGHT FOR THE PC PEOPLE OUT THERE, PLEASE CONTINUE WITH THE THREAD AND DO NOT COMMENT ON THIS POST.

It's only intent is to get you to think about how good intent often does end up with bad results people never think about. 

BACK ON TOPIC NOW,

The title of the thread alone demonstrates the absurdity that a magical being created us in his immage. Knowing what we know about the human body it is infinately most likely that WE created deities in our immage. If "God" does not have genitalia like human men, then what demonstrable experiment can we conduct showing how a disimbodied being impregnated a girl? It reqires two sets of DNA weither we are talking about standerd penitration all the way to artifical means. So "God did it" is a completly insufficitant explination as to HOW this happend and is nothing but a mytholoical claim.

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


wavefreak
Theist
wavefreak's picture
Posts: 1825
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote: Just as an

Brian37 wrote:

Just as an aside and food for thought for the well intended "pollitically correct" people reading the title of this post. Please dont comment on this post, it is merely intended for you to think about.

"How big is God's penis" I garuntee is seen by many Christians as "hate speech". I see it as criticism of the god concept and the absurdity of a disimbodied being getting a girl prenant. What if the majority of Christians passed laws banning things they saw as "hatefull".

JUST FOOD FOR THOUGHT FOR THE PC PEOPLE OUT THERE, PLEASE CONTINUE WITH THE THREAD AND DO NOT COMMENT ON THIS POST.

It's only intent is to get you to think about how good intent often does end up with bad results people never think about.

BACK ON TOPIC NOW,

 

It seemed obvious to me that it was a tongue-in-cheek question implying the physicality of god was problematic.  

 

 

Quote:

The title of the thread alone demonstrates the absurdity that a magical being created us in his immage. Knowing what we know about the human body it is infinately most likely that WE created deities in our immage. If "God" does not have genitalia like human men, then what demonstrable experiment can we conduct showing how a disimbodied being impregnated a girl? It reqires two sets of DNA weither we are talking about standerd penitration all the way to artifical means. So "God did it" is a completly insufficitant explination as to HOW this happend and is nothing but a mytholoical claim. 

 

Your flaw in this is that there is no requirement for an omnipotent god to ejaculate into Mary to cause the pregnancy. A theist that accepts omnipotence only has to say that god created the required DNA the same way the universe was created - ex nihilo.

My brand of theism DOES have problems with a virgin conception. Since I don't consider supernatural a valid concept, then any creation of a viable embryo would be subject to material laws. I could still invoke "unknown laws" to allow for god to create an embryo, but that is not a postion sustainable in a debate. 

 


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
Isn't this like asking what

Isn't this like asking what color the tooth fairy's hair is?


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15885
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
wavefreak wrote: Brian37

wavefreak wrote:
Brian37 wrote:

Just as an aside and food for thought for the well intended "pollitically correct" people reading the title of this post. Please dont comment on this post, it is merely intended for you to think about.

"How big is God's penis" I garuntee is seen by many Christians as "hate speech". I see it as criticism of the god concept and the absurdity of a disimbodied being getting a girl prenant. What if the majority of Christians passed laws banning things they saw as "hatefull".

JUST FOOD FOR THOUGHT FOR THE PC PEOPLE OUT THERE, PLEASE CONTINUE WITH THE THREAD AND DO NOT COMMENT ON THIS POST.

It's only intent is to get you to think about how good intent often does end up with bad results people never think about.

BACK ON TOPIC NOW,

 

It seemed obvious to me that it was a tongue-in-cheek question implying the physicality of god was problematic.

 

Quote:

The title of the thread alone demonstrates the absurdity that a magical being created us in his immage. Knowing what we know about the human body it is infinately most likely that WE created deities in our immage. If "God" does not have genitalia like human men, then what demonstrable experiment can we conduct showing how a disimbodied being impregnated a girl? It reqires two sets of DNA weither we are talking about standerd penitration all the way to artifical means. So "God did it" is a completly insufficitant explination as to HOW this happend and is nothing but a mytholoical claim.

 

Your flaw in this is that there is no requirement for an omnipotent god to ejaculate into Mary to cause the pregnancy. A theist that accepts omnipotence only has to say that god created the required DNA the same way the universe was created - ex nihilo.

My brand of theism DOES have problems with a virgin conception. Since I don't consider supernatural a valid concept, then any creation of a viable embryo would be subject to material laws. I could still invoke "unknown laws" to allow for god to create an embryo, but that is not a postion sustainable in a debate.

 

Your flaw is your unwillingess or "his"(if I was willing to pretend his existance was real) Yours or his unwillingess, take your pick, to demonstrate HOW this happens. "All powerfull" is merely a convieniant excuse not to provide an answer.

Since you or "he" havent poneyed up with anything but "I can do what I want" I am under no obligation to buy what you are selling. 

God dit it is the same as Allah did it is the same as Yahwey did it is the same as my pink unicorn doing it. 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


wavefreak
Theist
wavefreak's picture
Posts: 1825
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote: Your flaw

Brian37 wrote:

Your flaw is your unwillingess or "his"(if I was willing to pretend his existance was real) Yours or his unwillingess, take your pick, to demonstrate HOW this happens. "All powerfull" is merely a convieniant excuse not to provide an answer.

Since you or "he" havent poneyed up with anything but "I can do what I want" I am under no obligation to buy what you are selling.

God dit it is the same as Allah did it is the same as Yahwey did it is the same as my pink unicorn doing it.

 

So you want me to make up some shit?  OK.

 

God manipulated the vacuum and caused the instantiation of a universe in Mary's womb. God can do this because since he created this universe he can create others. He then used the equivalency of matter and energy to transform  the energy rich environement of this infant universe into atoms compatable with this universe. Once the atoms were in hand, he chemically manipulated them into the  DNA for Jesus' genome. Extracting that DNA form this mini-universe, he injected it into one of Mary's ova, remembering of course to remove the DNA already there. Then he snuffed out this new universe before it entered the inflationary phase and caused Mary's uterus to explode.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15885
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
wavefreak wrote: Brian37

wavefreak wrote:
Brian37 wrote:

Your flaw is your unwillingess or "his"(if I was willing to pretend his existance was real) Yours or his unwillingess, take your pick, to demonstrate HOW this happens. "All powerfull" is merely a convieniant excuse not to provide an answer.

Since you or "he" havent poneyed up with anything but "I can do what I want" I am under no obligation to buy what you are selling.

God dit it is the same as Allah did it is the same as Yahwey did it is the same as my pink unicorn doing it.

 

So you want me to make up some shit? OK.

 

God manipulated the vacuum and caused the instantiation of a universe in Mary's womb. God can do this because since he created this universe he can create others. He then used the equivalency of matter and energy to transform the energy rich environement of this infant universe into atoms compatable with this universe. Once the atoms were in hand, he chemically manipulated them into the DNA for Jesus' genome. Extracting that DNA form this mini-universe, he injected it into one of Mary's ova, remembering of course to remove the DNA already there. Then he snuffed out this new universe before it entered the inflationary phase and caused Mary's uterus to explode.

YOU ARE SO CLOSE TO GETTING IT!

Quote:
So you want me to make up some shit?

NO, I dont. My point is something you have never considered and are unwilling to consider.

YOU are already making this stuff up because someone sold you this made up stuff.

If you dont know HOW "god/deity/supernatural being" does something, what makes you think that "my deity did it" is any less made up?

No we dont want you making stuff up, our point is that you are already doing it by trying to pass a "claim" off as fact.

"I have 1 billion dollars" there, simply because I said it, it must be true? Come on, it must be because I uttered it.

"All powerfull" is a made up concept that humans merely like believing.

You merely incert pre packaged answer based in mythology and believe it to be true.

Otherwise if all you had to do is utter something for it to be real then I would be a billionair by proxy of mere utterance.

So, you admit you dont know how. Fine. But I like my evidence to have more meat on it than "I dont know".  If I dont know something I dont default to making up an invisable sky daddy by any name of any religion.

We do know that it takes DNA to make biological life. We can also demonstrate how the DNA merges to become a new life.

So if we were to assume for pretend's sake that such a being exists it should be a peice of cake for an "all powerfull being" to demonstrate HOW  "he" did it it insted of saying, "I dont owe you any explination". 

I am under no intelectuall obligation to buy something merely because someone claims it anymore than you'd be under an intelectual obligation to believe that I am a billionair simply because I claim I am. 

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


wavefreak
Theist
wavefreak's picture
Posts: 1825
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

NO, I dont. My point is something you have never considered and are unwilling to consider.

YOU are already making this stuff up because someone sold you this made up stuff.


 

You just don't see that I am leading you around by the ring in your nose. Look through all of my posts. You will not find one that supports the virgin birth.

{edit - fixed quote} 


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15885
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
wavefreak wrote: Brian37

wavefreak wrote:
Brian37 wrote:

NO, I dont. My point is something you have never considered and are unwilling to consider.

YOU are already making this stuff up because someone sold you this made up stuff.


 

You just don't see that I am leading you around by the ring in your nose. Look through all of my posts. You will not find one that supports the virgin birth.

{edit - fixed quote}

WTF?

Ok Thomas Jeffersonn, so you dont believe in the virgin birth, is that what you are saying? How is the logic in my post any less valid?

"God got a girl prengant" CLAIM

"I am a billionair" CLAIM

"God can do what he wants" CLAIM

"Allah did it" CLAIM

" I am married to Cyndi Crawford" CLAIM

"I can fart a Lamborginni out of my butt" CLAIM

"All powerfull"CLAIM

All those sentances are utterances. You are stuck on detail when I am explaining the fallacy of motif. The motif and running theme is all those sentances are naked assertions with nothing to back them up.

"All powefull" is a claim and a naked assertion with nothing to back it up.

For the same reason you'd be skeptical about my claim of being a billioniar I am skeptical about any claim of "all powerfull".

The "virgin birth" or "god's penis" are mere demonstrations of absurdities and so is "all powerfull".

Stop focusing on the words and focus on the pattern.

The pattern in all those sentances above have one common theme "CLAIM".

For anyone of those sentances to be true they would have to go beyond mere utterance. THAT IS MY POINT

You suddenly backpeddling saying, "I said nothing about the virgin birth" is a dodge.

"All powerfull" is a claim and is in the same mythological catigory no matter what label you give it. The only way to justify "all powerfull" is to "make shit up".

It is easy to justify anything when the blind dont see the goal posts moving. Your problem with me is that I am not blind. 

 

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


wavefreak
Theist
wavefreak's picture
Posts: 1825
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote: wavefreak

Brian37 wrote:
wavefreak wrote:
Brian37 wrote:

NO, I dont. My point is something you have never considered and are unwilling to consider.

YOU are already making this stuff up because someone sold you this made up stuff.


 

You just don't see that I am leading you around by the ring in your nose. Look through all of my posts. You will not find one that supports the virgin birth.

{edit - fixed quote}

WTF?

Ok Thomas Jeffersonn, so you dont believe in the virgin birth, is that what you are saying? How is the logic in my post any less valid?

 

You don't see it yet, do you? You can't refute an irrational claim with logic. It doesn't matter how logical you are. As soon as you ask how, anybody that believes inthe virgin birth can say whatever they want. I mimicked the response of an evangelical and you go ballistic. I can almost see some Christians saying "lets go piss off some athiests today" and you reflexively obliging them. You can't even say "virgin birth" without invoking all the baggage that goes along with it. And once that baggage enters the picture, logic is completely useless.

You may or may not have spent significant time around evangelicals. If you have then you know they ASSUME atheism is wrong (and evil) and anything it states is incorrect by default. There is no logic clear enough to combat that. Evangelicals don't NEED proof that god exists. That belief overrides and underpins everything. 

So you need to realize something about me. I am NOT an evangelical, and I get some perverse enjoyment out of poking the bear.

 Consider yourself poked. 


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15885
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
wavefreak wrote: Brian37

wavefreak wrote:
Brian37 wrote:
wavefreak wrote:
Brian37 wrote:

NO, I dont. My point is something you have never considered and are unwilling to consider.

YOU are already making this stuff up because someone sold you this made up stuff.


 

You just don't see that I am leading you around by the ring in your nose. Look through all of my posts. You will not find one that supports the virgin birth.

{edit - fixed quote}

WTF?

Ok Thomas Jeffersonn, so you dont believe in the virgin birth, is that what you are saying? How is the logic in my post any less valid?

 

You don't see it yet, do you? You can't refute an irrational claim with logic. It doesn't matter how logical you are. As soon as you ask how, anybody that believes inthe virgin birth can say whatever they want. I mimicked the response of an evangelical and you go ballistic. I can almost see some Christians saying "lets go piss off some athiests today" and you reflexively obliging them. You can't even say "virgin birth" without invoking all the baggage that goes along with it. And once that baggage enters the picture, logic is completely useless.

You may or may not have spent significant time around evangelicals. If you have then you know they ASSUME atheism is wrong (and evil) and anything it states is incorrect by default. There is no logic clear enough to combat that. Evangelicals don't NEED proof that god exists. That belief overrides and underpins everything.

So you need to realize something about me. I am NOT an evangelical, and I get some perverse enjoyment out of poking the bear.

Consider yourself poked.

If you knew me you would know that I am a bull in a china shop.

I like being poked (not in a opressive sense|) more like "Where are my chewtoy's"

Look, you hold the title "theist" under your name. My point is still the same. If you utter the word "God/deity/Thor/supernatural/ouiji board/ vampire) I am going to challenge you.

Yea, you did poke me and I did respond. But what you have not done is provide evidence for the "God/god/diety/supernatural/all powerfull" claim you make.

Poke me all you want, just dont have me arrested for telling you you are full of shit. You are right, poking me does make my lip twitch, and the only way to stop it is PROVIDE EVIDENCE.

I dont care if you were claiming that you could turn dog crap into gold. 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


wavefreak
Theist
wavefreak's picture
Posts: 1825
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

If you knew me you would know that I am a bull in a china shop.

I like being poked (not in a opressive sense|) more like "Where are my chewtoy's"

Look, you hold the title "theist" under your name. My point is still the same. If you utter the word "God/deity/Thor/supernatural/ouiji board/ vampire) I am going to challenge you.

Yea, you did poke me and I did respond. But what you have not done is provide evidence for the "God/god/diety/supernatural/all powerfull" claim you make.

Poke me all you want, just dont have me arrested for telling you you are full of shit. You are right, poking me does make my lip twitch, and the only way to stop it is PROVIDE EVIDENCE.

I dont care if you were claiming that you could turn dog crap into gold.

 

Cool.

The image of your lip twitching makes me grin. You shouldn't encourage me that way.

 

I also understand the evidentiary requirement. That is why I rarely make actual claims about reality. I readily admit that my "evidence" for theism is based on personal experiences that can't be scientifically reproduced. I can't invoke those experiences as evidence. So I believe what I believe because I have had some experiences that defy logical explanation. Defy as in WTF just happened? If I ever run into something that qualifies as evidnce on a scientific level, be assured I will share it.

 

Now where's that stick? I think I see a bear that needs poking.

 

 

 


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15885
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
wavefreak wrote: Brian37

wavefreak wrote:
Brian37 wrote:

If you knew me you would know that I am a bull in a china shop.

I like being poked (not in a opressive sense|) more like "Where are my chewtoy's"

Look, you hold the title "theist" under your name. My point is still the same. If you utter the word "God/deity/Thor/supernatural/ouiji board/ vampire) I am going to challenge you.

Yea, you did poke me and I did respond. But what you have not done is provide evidence for the "God/god/diety/supernatural/all powerfull" claim you make.

Poke me all you want, just dont have me arrested for telling you you are full of shit. You are right, poking me does make my lip twitch, and the only way to stop it is PROVIDE EVIDENCE.

I dont care if you were claiming that you could turn dog crap into gold.

 

Cool.

The image of your lip twitching makes me grin. You shouldn't encourage me that way.

 

I also understand the evidentiary requirement. That is why I rarely make actual claims about reality. I readily admit that my "evidence" for theism is based on personal experiences that can't be scientifically reproduced. I can't invoke those experiences as evidence. So I believe what I believe because I have had some experiences that defy logical explanation. Defy as in WTF just happened? If I ever run into something that qualifies as evidnce on a scientific level, be assured I will share it.

 

Now where's that stick? I think I see a bear that needs poking.

 

 

 

So you are not an evangelical. So the fuck what?

I smell dodges left and right here.

"Theist" under your name indicates a belief in a super natural being. Or was that a mistake?

Captain Pinaple is insistant on selling me the idea that the universe is a giant disimbodied brain. Please tell me how your personal claim of not being an evangelical should demand that I should not react with the same lip twitch with him that I give you upon your claim WHICH YOU HAVE YET TO DEFINE OR DEMONSTRATE?

Like I said you can no more prove your "all powerfull being" than any other superstition that has come down the pike. Yes, my lip twitches. But what you dont want to do is consider that YOU baught a lie and that my lip twitches for damned good reason.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


wavefreak
Theist
wavefreak's picture
Posts: 1825
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote: wavefreak

Brian37 wrote:
wavefreak wrote:
Brian37 wrote:

If you knew me you would know that I am a bull in a china shop.

I like being poked (not in a opressive sense|) more like "Where are my chewtoy's"

Look, you hold the title "theist" under your name. My point is still the same. If you utter the word "God/deity/Thor/supernatural/ouiji board/ vampire) I am going to challenge you.

Yea, you did poke me and I did respond. But what you have not done is provide evidence for the "God/god/diety/supernatural/all powerfull" claim you make.

Poke me all you want, just dont have me arrested for telling you you are full of shit. You are right, poking me does make my lip twitch, and the only way to stop it is PROVIDE EVIDENCE.

I dont care if you were claiming that you could turn dog crap into gold.

 

Cool.

The image of your lip twitching makes me grin. You shouldn't encourage me that way.

 

I also understand the evidentiary requirement. That is why I rarely make actual claims about reality. I readily admit that my "evidence" for theism is based on personal experiences that can't be scientifically reproduced. I can't invoke those experiences as evidence. So I believe what I believe because I have had some experiences that defy logical explanation. Defy as in WTF just happened? If I ever run into something that qualifies as evidnce on a scientific level, be assured I will share it.

 

Now where's that stick? I think I see a bear that needs poking.

 

 

 

So you are not an evangelical. So the fuck what?

I smell dodges left and right here.

"Theist" under your name indicates a belief in a super natural being. Or was that a mistake?

Captain Pinaple is insistant on selling me the idea that the universe is a giant disimbodied brain. Please tell me how your personal claim of not being an evangelical should demand that I should not react with the same lip twitch with him that I give you upon your claim WHICH YOU HAVE YET TO DEFINE OR DEMONSTRATE?

Like I said you can no more prove your "all powerfull being" than any other superstition that has come down the pike. Yes, my lip twitches. But what you dont want to do is consider that YOU baught a lie and that my lip twitches for damned good reason.

 

Supernatural is a broken concept.

Omnipotetence is logically non-sensical.

Omniscience suffers the same problems.

Evolution strikes me as an elegant explanation for the origins of life. 

My god belief is based on experiences that defy any other explanation other than there is something bigger and more powerful "out there". These experiences would make more sense if I was a schizophrenic, but, perhaps more maddeningly, I am not. Nor am I bi-polar or fall into any of the other delusionary categories of mental disorders. Trust me on this. I have been formally evaluated for these things and it always comes out the same. I am somewhat neurotic and prone to depression but otherwise totally and boringly sane.  I experienced things that are so totally fucking "out there" that it shattered my conceptions of what is real. If I could figure out a way to induce these exeperiences in others I would do so in a second.  But I can't.

 

I don't know what the universe is. I only know what I have learned and what I have experienced.

 


Gauche
atheist
Gauche's picture
Posts: 1565
Joined: 2007-01-18
User is offlineOffline
NarcolepticSun wrote: Some

NarcolepticSun wrote:
Some theist must have an answer for my asinine question...

I have one even more asinine.

Could god have a penis so big that even he couldn't piss out of it? 

There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15885
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
wavefreak wrote: Brian37

wavefreak wrote:
Brian37 wrote:
wavefreak wrote:
Brian37 wrote:

If you knew me you would know that I am a bull in a china shop.

I like being poked (not in a opressive sense|) more like "Where are my chewtoy's"

Look, you hold the title "theist" under your name. My point is still the same. If you utter the word "God/deity/Thor/supernatural/ouiji board/ vampire) I am going to challenge you.

Yea, you did poke me and I did respond. But what you have not done is provide evidence for the "God/god/diety/supernatural/all powerfull" claim you make.

Poke me all you want, just dont have me arrested for telling you you are full of shit. You are right, poking me does make my lip twitch, and the only way to stop it is PROVIDE EVIDENCE.

I dont care if you were claiming that you could turn dog crap into gold.

 

Cool.

The image of your lip twitching makes me grin. You shouldn't encourage me that way.

 

I also understand the evidentiary requirement. That is why I rarely make actual claims about reality. I readily admit that my "evidence" for theism is based on personal experiences that can't be scientifically reproduced. I can't invoke those experiences as evidence. So I believe what I believe because I have had some experiences that defy logical explanation. Defy as in WTF just happened? If I ever run into something that qualifies as evidnce on a scientific level, be assured I will share it.

 

Now where's that stick? I think I see a bear that needs poking.

 

 

 

So you are not an evangelical. So the fuck what?

I smell dodges left and right here.

"Theist" under your name indicates a belief in a super natural being. Or was that a mistake?

Captain Pinaple is insistant on selling me the idea that the universe is a giant disimbodied brain. Please tell me how your personal claim of not being an evangelical should demand that I should not react with the same lip twitch with him that I give you upon your claim WHICH YOU HAVE YET TO DEFINE OR DEMONSTRATE?

Like I said you can no more prove your "all powerfull being" than any other superstition that has come down the pike. Yes, my lip twitches. But what you dont want to do is consider that YOU baught a lie and that my lip twitches for damned good reason.

 

Supernatural is a broken concept.

Omnipotetence is logically non-sensical.

Omniscience suffers the same problems.

Evolution strikes me as an elegant explanation for the origins of life.

My god belief is based on experiences that defy any other explanation other than there is something bigger and more powerful "out there". These experiences would make more sense if I was a schizophrenic, but, perhaps more maddeningly, I am not. Nor am I bi-polar or fall into any of the other delusionary categories of mental disorders. Trust me on this. I have been formally evaluated for these things and it always comes out the same. I am somewhat neurotic and prone to depression but otherwise totally and boringly sane. I experienced things that are so totally fucking "out there" that it shattered my conceptions of what is real. If I could figure out a way to induce these exeperiences in others I would do so in a second. But I can't.

 

I don't know what the universe is. I only know what I have learned and what I have experienced.

 

You dont know what the universe is. That is the wrong attitude. There is alot we dont know about the universe, but there is also alot we do know

 The univers is an an object, not a projection of human wishes and is completly dissimalure to the human body or brain. 

You'd be better served to obstain from "feelings of awe" or "fear" defaulting to superstition because you are in lack of an answer.

I am quite sure your "experiances" were intense and felt real. But that only means that those "experiances" are something you felt were real.

Being in "awe" of something or being in "fear" of something should not default to the person giving up and incerting an answer which is what you did.

"I felt something intense" is the only honest thing you can say.

I have feelings of awe and intensity or fear but realize that it is me doing it, not some magic disimbodied anything doing it. I react to my environment based on my emotions, not magic. 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


wavefreak
Theist
wavefreak's picture
Posts: 1825
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:   You dont

Brian37 wrote:

 

You dont know what the universe is. That is the wrong attitude. There is alot we dont know about the universe, but there is also alot we do know

The univers is an an object, not a projection of human wishes and is completly dissimalure to the human body or brain.

You'd be better served to obstain from "feelings of awe" or "fear" defaulting to superstition because you are in lack of an answer.

I am quite sure your "experiances" were intense and felt real. But that only means that those "experiances" are something you felt were real.

Being in "awe" of something or being in "fear" of something should not default to the person giving up and incerting an answer which is what you did.

"I felt something intense" is the only honest thing you can say.

I have feelings of awe and intensity or fear but realize that it is me doing it, not some magic disimbodied anything doing it. I react to my environment based on my emotions, not magic.

 

Who said anything about awe or wonder? I said "defy logical explanation". I'm not even sure why I'm bringing this shit up, especially to some one as subtle and nuanced as you. Honestly, sometimes my life would be alot simpler without having to intgegrate these "experiences" into my world view and quite frankly sometimes it pisses me off. Loosely translate that into "Why the fuck didn't you just leave me alone, god?" 


Lee Vegas
Lee Vegas's picture
Posts: 28
Joined: 2006-09-26
User is offlineOffline
Gauche

Gauche wrote:

NarcolepticSun wrote:
Some theist must have an answer for my asinine question...

I have one even more asinine.

Could god have a penis so big that even he couldn't piss out of it?

 

Or perhaps god's penis is so big even he can't get it up.

 

LV 

"The time appears to me to have come when it is the duty of all to make their dissent from religion known."
- John Stuart Mill

http://theistsanonymous.blogspot.com/


Booclay
Booclay's picture
Posts: 47
Joined: 2007-04-16
User is offlineOffline
it must have been atleast

it must have been atleast big enough to reach down from heaven and impregnate mary.  this means men aren't created in gods image!  Christianity Debunked!

“We make our world significant by the courage of our questions and by the depth of our answers.” – Carl Sagan


ParanoidAgnostic
ParanoidAgnostic's picture
Posts: 402
Joined: 2007-05-20
User is offlineOffline
Brian37, read the name, not

Brian37, read the name, not just the "Theist" tag beneath it. Wavefreak is one of the most clear thinking people on this board (possibly the most clear thinking theist) When I have seen him post something ridiculous it has always been a parody of someone else's position and a lot of the time it is a parody of the position of various other theists.

I have not seen Wavefreak assert that everyone should believe as he does, I don't think I've even seen him offer a definition of his faith. He seems to accept that his beliefs are not something he can demonstrate or proove logically. His case seems to be simply that he believes in something, for his own reasons. What's wrong with that?

Oh, a lesson in not changing history from Mr. I'm-My-Own-Grandpa!


wavefreak
Theist
wavefreak's picture
Posts: 1825
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
ParanoidAgnostic

ParanoidAgnostic wrote:

Brian37, read the name, not just the "Theist" tag beneath it. Wavefreak is one of the most clear thinking people on this board (possibly the most clear thinking theist) When I have seen him post something ridiculous it has always been a parody of someone else's position and a lot of the time it is a parody of the position of various other theists.

I have not seen Wavefreak assert that everyone should believe as he does, I don't think I've even seen him offer a definition of his faith. He seems to accept that his beliefs are not something he can demonstrate or proove logically. His case seems to be simply that he believes in something, for his own reasons. What's wrong with that?

 

Check is on the way ... 


JCE
Bronze Member
JCE's picture
Posts: 1219
Joined: 2007-03-20
User is offlineOffline
Gauche

Gauche wrote:

NarcolepticSun wrote:
Some theist must have an answer for my asinine question...

I have one even more asinine.

Could god have a penis so big that even he couldn't piss out of it?

Isn't that called acid rain? 


NarcolepticSun
Posts: 108
Joined: 2007-02-18
User is offlineOffline
MattShizzle wrote: Isn't

MattShizzle wrote:
Isn't this like asking what color the tooth fairy's hair is?

Essentially, yes. I mainly wanted to know if theists believed their god(s) had genitalia... and if so... what do they think of their diety's genitals?


NarcolepticSun
Posts: 108
Joined: 2007-02-18
User is offlineOffline
Gauche

Gauche wrote:

NarcolepticSun wrote:
Some theist must have an answer for my asinine question...

I have one even more asinine.

Could god have a penis so big that even he couldn't piss out of it?

lol... only... what if his bladder is "infinitly" big? :-P 


NarcolepticSun
Posts: 108
Joined: 2007-02-18
User is offlineOffline
Lee Vegas wrote: Gauche

Lee Vegas wrote:
Gauche wrote:

NarcolepticSun wrote:
Some theist must have an answer for my asinine question...

I have one even more asinine.

Could god have a penis so big that even he couldn't piss out of it?

 

Or perhaps god's penis is so big even he can't get it up.

 

LV

lol... hmm... but what if god can get it up? Does god use "protection" when he gets his lay? 


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15885
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
ParanoidAgnostic

ParanoidAgnostic wrote:

Brian37, read the name, not just the "Theist" tag beneath it. Wavefreak is one of the most clear thinking people on this board (possibly the most clear thinking theist) When I have seen him post something ridiculous it has always been a parody of someone else's position and a lot of the time it is a parody of the position of various other theists.

I have not seen Wavefreak assert that everyone should believe as he does, I don't think I've even seen him offer a definition of his faith. He seems to accept that his beliefs are not something he can demonstrate or proove logically. His case seems to be simply that he believes in something, for his own reasons. What's wrong with that?

 

Quote:
What's wrong with that?

| never said he was trying to say  that he is saying that we should believe what he does. If you had been paying attention every single time we ask him what his belief is, he dodges. When we ask him to define what HIS god is, he dodges.

No one said he was saying we had to believe what he does. I am saying that HE is in the same boat as all the others.

He's already admited to "super natural" being a broken concept. So whatever he wants to claim to believe shouldnt be called "god".

He still has yet to define it or provide evidence for it. "I am not like those other theists" doesnt tell us what he believes.

If you want me to put it bluntly, Wavefreak's claims have the same credibility and the same amount of evidence as any other deity claim. That is what I am saying.

He has the right to believe what he wants, but I am under no intelectuall obligation to buy what he is selling NO MATTER WHAT HE CALLS IT, unless and untill there is substanciated evidence for the claim. He has not done that and is in the same boat as all the others. He just simply thinks he isnt. 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


wavefreak
Theist
wavefreak's picture
Posts: 1825
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
Brian37

Brian37 wrote:

He's already admited to "super natural" being a broken concept. So whatever he wants to claim to believe shouldnt be called "god".

Basically you are saying the only thing that should be allowed to have the label "god" must include the property "super-natural". Then as soon as something diverges in the slightest from your rigidity you cry foul. This is nothing more than a straw man fallacy. You insist on a definition that it easy to destroy. Same with your "god sperm in a petri dish" and killing people so they can be raised form the dead.

 

[MOD EDIT - fixed quotes] 

 


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15885
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
wavefreak wrote:

wavefreak wrote:
Brian37 wrote:

He's already admited to "super natural" being a broken concept. So whatever he wants to claim to believe shouldnt be called "god".

Basically you are saying the only thing that should be allowed to have the label "god" must include the property "super-natural". Then as soon as something diverges in the slightest from your rigidity you cry foul. This is nothing more than a straw man fallacy. You insist on a definition that it easy to destroy. Same with your "god sperm in a petri dish" and killing people so they can be raised form the dead.

 

Delusional people thrive off ambiguity, it allows them to move the goal posts when backed into a corner. You can call "god" your carpet or your garden rake or "the force" for all I care. You still have not definded it or provided evidence for it. That puts you squarely in the same boat as any other deity claim "super natural" or not.

Why call anything god in the first place? "god" or "God" is a discription of athropromorphising human qualities and projecting those human qualities onto an object wanting to believe it has a greater version of our immage. You are not doing anything differently than anyone else now that believes or any other person or culture in the past that has claimed a deity(limited in power or unlimited). No one has ever proven any deity to exist in human history. The deities end up becoming myths when newer cultures come up with something else to replace them and are just as hokie to believe and replace the old myth with a new one.

Why call anything "god". We know what a human is. Anything outside a human body that is not a human body is not human. So claiming that other objects be they a volcano, or sun or moon or the entire universe being "human like" is absurd.

Why not call nature nature without calling it god? Why not just say that there are varing degrees of potential and kenetic energy in the universe, study it and observe it without treating it like it has some human qualities?

And yet still another post where you complain about me criticising you and waste yet another oportunity to wow us with your evidence.

[MOD EDIT - fixed quotes] 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


wavefreak
Theist
wavefreak's picture
Posts: 1825
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote: And yet

Brian37 wrote:

And yet still another post where you complain about me criticising you and waste yet another oportunity to wow us with your evidence.

 

I don't give a fuck if I wow you. I don't care if I can or can't convince you of anything. I'm not proselytizing atheists. I don't expect ANYTHING from you. You're supremely frustrated because I won't play your game.  You want me to articulate things I don't fully understand. It's not going to happen.  You spend a tremendous amount of energy trying to get something out of me that isn't even in me. You can't deal the fact that I have far many more questions than I have answers. Your problem is that you don't ask me interesting questions. Maybe if you try to have a conversation with me something positive would come out of it.


JCE
Bronze Member
JCE's picture
Posts: 1219
Joined: 2007-03-20
User is offlineOffline
wavefreak wrote: Brian37

wavefreak wrote:
Brian37 wrote:

And yet still another post where you complain about me criticising you and waste yet another oportunity to wow us with your evidence.

 

I don't give a fuck if I wow you. I don't care if I can or can't convince you of anything. I'm not proselytizing atheists. I don't expect ANYTHING from you. You're supremely frustrated because I won't play your game. You want me to articulate things I don't fully understand. It's not going to happen. You spend a tremendous amount of energy trying to get something out of me that isn't even in me. You can't deal the fact that I have far many more questions than I have answers. Your problem is that you don't ask me interesting questions. Maybe if you try to have a conversation with me something positive would come out of it.

Awww...man!  I was hoping to come in here and find that you two had kissed and made up already!  You guys should join forces and go pick on some real theists.  

Come on...I mean, come on.  (Free drink for anybody that can reference that line.) 


wavefreak
Theist
wavefreak's picture
Posts: 1825
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
jce wrote: wavefreak

jce wrote:
wavefreak wrote:
Brian37 wrote:

And yet still another post where you complain about me criticising you and waste yet another oportunity to wow us with your evidence.

 

I don't give a fuck if I wow you. I don't care if I can or can't convince you of anything. I'm not proselytizing atheists. I don't expect ANYTHING from you. You're supremely frustrated because I won't play your game. You want me to articulate things I don't fully understand. It's not going to happen. You spend a tremendous amount of energy trying to get something out of me that isn't even in me. You can't deal the fact that I have far many more questions than I have answers. Your problem is that you don't ask me interesting questions. Maybe if you try to have a conversation with me something positive would come out of it.

Awww...man! I was hoping to come in here and find that you two had kissed and made up already! You guys should join forces and go pick on some real theists.

Come on...I mean, come on. (Free drink for anybody that can reference that line.)

 

Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles 


JCE
Bronze Member
JCE's picture
Posts: 1219
Joined: 2007-03-20
User is offlineOffline
wavefreak wrote: Teenage

wavefreak wrote:
Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles

Nope, but you are close!  Smile

It is from a cartoon.... 


BGH
BGH's picture
Posts: 2772
Joined: 2006-09-28
User is offlineOffline
jce wrote: Come on...I

jce wrote:

Come on...I mean, come on. (Free drink for anybody that can reference that line.)

I will not give it away, but it is actually:

"Like come on, like come ON!" 


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15885
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
wavefreak wrote: Brian37

wavefreak wrote:
Brian37 wrote:

And yet still another post where you complain about me criticising you and waste yet another oportunity to wow us with your evidence.

 

I don't give a fuck if I wow you. I don't care if I can or can't convince you of anything. I'm not proselytizing atheists. I don't expect ANYTHING from you. You're supremely frustrated because I won't play your game. You want me to articulate things I don't fully understand. It's not going to happen. You spend a tremendous amount of energy trying to get something out of me that isn't even in me. You can't deal the fact that I have far many more questions than I have answers. Your problem is that you don't ask me interesting questions. Maybe if you try to have a conversation with me something positive would come out of it.

No you won't wow us because you cant "wow" us.

Just the oposite. I wont play your game.

Its not that I dont askyou intresting questions. It is that I am not easly distracted and dont get sucked into flim flam.

What is it you want me to ask you that you'd find interesting. "How wonderfull is your god?" "How good does he make you feel?" 

Here's what you need to do which you are not doing. 

"I claim deity x is true"

"Here is my evidence for my claim"

You dont like my questions because you are only intrested in hearing "isnt that nice" or "how wonderfull". 

You dont owe me a thing. But if you say you believe in a god then I am going to question your claims about that god(no matter what you want to call it or what atributes you give it) 

Quote:
You want me to articulate things I don't fully understand.

NO, but that is what you are doing. 

You claim a "god" claim to know some things but not others and still have yet to define what this god is. You have yet to demonstrate it's existance at all.

You are basically using a term "god" to discribe something you like to believe but have no evidence for. Of course you dont "fully understand" this god, because it has to remain in the gaps for you to justify it. Thats why you dont talk about it other than mention you believe in one. That is why you say " I dont owe you any explination".

As long as you justify it in your head it must be real?

No, you dont have to convince me. But if you are not trying to convince anyone here, not just me, then dont mention your god at all. On this form people ask questions, people criticise and even blaspheme. The only way to silence these critics is to provide evidence. 

 

Quote:
You can't deal the fact that I have far many more questions than I have answers.

What do you think lead me down the road to my atheism? Because "god" caused more questions than it answered when I incerted the concept into a gap.

When you go to start your car and turn the key, and it doesnt start, you dont assume that the first cause is your neighbor steeling it. Out of all the possibilities being the problem, you probibly start by checking the battery cables, then the battery, then the gas level, then the starter.

What you would not do is pull the transmission the first time your car doesnt start.

You have chosen to incert "god" in, allbeit it your own, which you still have yet to explain. You have chosen to incert this "god" into every gap of where you amit you dont have an answer. That is not only presumptive, but precludes you from finding an actual answer.

"I dont have all the answers so therefore my god exists".

You are saying that to yourself otherwise you would not be claiming that your god exists. 


"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


wavefreak
Theist
wavefreak's picture
Posts: 1825
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote: No you

Brian37 wrote:

No you won't wow us because you cant "wow" us.

 

No. I really don't care if I wow you or not.

 

Quote:

 

Its not that I dont askyou intresting questions. It is that I am not easly distracted and dont get sucked into flim flam.

Well you certainly haven't asked or said anything that I find interesting.

 

Quote:

 

What is it you want me to ask you that you'd find interesting. "How wonderfull is your god?" "How good does he make you feel?"

Here's what you need to do which you are not doing.

 

And this is your mistake. I only need to do this if I want to satisfy your requirements for whatever the hell it is your banging away at. But I am utterly selfish about it. I don't have to satisfy you. I only have to satisfy me.

 

Quote:

"I claim deity x is true"

"Here is my evidence for my claim"

You dont like my questions because you are only intrested in hearing "isnt that nice" or "how wonderfull".

Huh?

If that's what I wanted I would ask my mother.

 

Quote:

You dont owe me a thing. But if you say you believe in a god then I am going to question your claims about that god(no matter what you want to call it or what atributes you give it)

You haven't questioned anything. All you've done is try to brow beat me into submission.

 

Quote:

Quote:
You want me to articulate things I don't fully understand.

NO, but that is what you are doing.

You claim a "god" claim to know some things but not others and still have yet to define what this god is. You have yet to demonstrate it's existance at all.

 

I claimed that I believe god exists. I have never claimed I knew what that meant.

 

Quote:

You are basically using a term "god" to discribe something you like to believe but have no evidence for. Of course you dont "fully understand" this god, because it has to remain in the gaps for you to justify it. Thats why you dont talk about it other than mention you believe in one. That is why you say " I dont owe you any explination".

 

The evidence I have for my belief is not logical and utterly personal, the details of which I would not share on the open internet. You want a petri dish with god sperm in it. You want verifiable, scientific proof. I ain't got any.

 

 

Quote:

As long as you justify it in your head it must be real?

I have experienced many things, all of them real. Some of those experiences defy logical and scientific explanation. But again, I am NOT going to share these things on the open internet.

 

Quote:

No, you dont have to convince me. But if you are not trying to convince anyone here, not just me, then dont mention your god at all. On this form people ask questions, people criticise and even blaspheme. The only way to silence these critics is to provide evidence.

So far, it seems that you're the only that has their panties in a bunch. It seems like others here are quite content to let me work through all this at my own pace. If the entire membership of this forum were as up in my face as you I'd have left already.

Quote:

Quote:
You can't deal the fact that I have far many more questions than I have answers.

What do you think lead me down the road to my atheism? Because "god" caused more questions than it answered when I incerted the concept into a gap.

 

I happen to like questions. I'm not afraid to ask them. It got me kicked out of a few churches, but that's the way it goes.

 

Quote:


"I dont have all the answers so therefore my god exists".


 

This is so completely wrong.

The experiences in my life have led me to believe that god exists. The answers that I lack are regarding why this is so even in the face of logic and science. What you would find especially galling is that the most negative experience in my life came at the hands of theists. Give my personal history it would make more sense if I hated theists with a black hearted rage. And yet I don't. It really is quite a conundrum.


NarcolepticSun
Posts: 108
Joined: 2007-02-18
User is offlineOffline
oh good grief, children....

oh good grief, children.... simmer down - simmer down Sticking out tongue

 We're suppose to be discussing God's genitals here... not belittling one another like we have the brains of genitalia...


ParanoidAgnostic
ParanoidAgnostic's picture
Posts: 402
Joined: 2007-05-20
User is offlineOffline
You didn't expect this to

You didn't expect this to turn into a pissing contest?


Rave
Posts: 114
Joined: 2007-03-02
User is offlineOffline
jce wrote: Come on...I

jce wrote:
Come on...I mean, come on. (Free drink for anybody that can reference that line.)

Jimmy - South Park, episode 702 "Krazy Kripples".

"This is the real world, stupid." - Charlie Brooker

"It is necessary to be bold. Some people can be reasoned into sense, and others must be shocked into it. Say a bold thing that will stagger them, and they will begin to think." - Thomas Paine


simple theist
Theist
Posts: 259
Joined: 2007-05-28
User is offlineOffline
BGH wrote: wavefreak

BGH wrote:

wavefreak wrote:
The perfect size.

LOL, wavefreak.

 

Actually it probably friggin huge, did you read where he pissed on the earth back in genisis, it flooded the whole damn place.

This post is a perfect example of what I mean by atheist knowing nothing about Christianity.  


Jacob Cordingley
SuperfanBronze Member
Jacob Cordingley's picture
Posts: 1484
Joined: 2007-03-18
User is offlineOffline
If God is everywhere then

If God is everywhere then surely his penis counts for a large percentage of that everywhere. Perhaps something like the local group (of galaxies) is actually occupied by God's dick.


wavefreak
Theist
wavefreak's picture
Posts: 1825
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
Jacob Cordingley wrote: If

Jacob Cordingley wrote:
If God is everywhere then surely his penis counts for a large percentage of that everywhere. Perhaps something like the local group (of galaxies) is actually occupied by God's dick.

 

Well, a pantheist would say that everything is god so that makes us all a dick. 


BGH
BGH's picture
Posts: 2772
Joined: 2006-09-28
User is offlineOffline
simple theist wrote:

simple theist wrote:
BGH wrote:

wavefreak wrote:
The perfect size.

LOL, wavefreak.

 

Actually it probably friggin huge, did you read where he pissed on the earth back in genisis, it flooded the whole damn place.

This post is a perfect example of what I mean by atheist knowing nothing about Christianity.

HI THERE SIMPLE THEIST!!!

Or should I call you simpleton? Are you a complete twit or do you just play one on message boards?

This post was a JOKE, please feel free to look up the definition.

 

Here's you:

Sad

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

                                                                Here's The Point:

                                                                        --> Smiling

 

You completely missed it. 


Jacob Cordingley
SuperfanBronze Member
Jacob Cordingley's picture
Posts: 1484
Joined: 2007-03-18
User is offlineOffline
Thinking about it, God

Thinking about it, God doesn't need to pee or have sex, the genitals are an invention of his for the Earthly domain only.