|
|

Oh boy! This will be fun to watch

just joking. he is my
and soul.






LOL
........hot doesnt even describe that creature from heaven....intensifys when you are a horn doggy too 


BTW, nice avatar and nice back shot.
Trouble is, it ain't finished yet.
and I completely agree....
So yes, everyone is driven by fear in some way and to some degree.
)
)
). She just happens to be very popular (especially with the women), followed by St. Joseph, St. Peter, St. Jude and name sake Saints and all the thousands of others. In fact Catholics commonly will ask for "all the heavenly hosts to join in prayer" for dire emergencies and special catastrophic kinds of issues (like world peace and aversion of natural disasters, war etc.); this includes all the Saints, the angelic beings (Cherubim, Archangels etc.) it is seen as communion and fellowship between heaven and earth not seperate deity worship.
).
lol
on.

... and 6 pages later it's still going on.
Not by a long shot.
I gave up on what people thought about me a long time ago. What you think about me is not nearly as important as what I think about me. Remember that and you'll live a happier life.


(now it’s fun.). You can’t redundantly argue in terms of probabilities without reinforcing my “uncertainty” concept. It’s remarkably similar to the notion of a “benefit of the doubt” in our justice systems isn’t it? But since you previously presented for consideration Gnosticism as a religion (yet another tired example of a god with petty human like emotions - i.e. jealousy) in much the same way the ancient Greeks & Romans did with their false religion (e.g. Zeus, the whole mount Olympus contingent and their human like emotions and antics) you are once again guilty of a non sequitur and inconsistent philosophical basis. You can’t on the one hand complain that it’s improbable that a god would have petty human emotions while simultaneously expecting anyone to accept your premises that Gnosticism is a viable consideration in your prior post. Sorry you just don’t have any credibility with me (on this topic).


(now it’s fun.). You can’t redundantly argue in terms of probabilities without reinforcing my “uncertainty” concept. It’s remarkably similar to the notion of a “benefit of the doubt” in our justice systems isn’t it? But since you previously presented for consideration Gnosticism as a religion (yet another tired example of a god with petty human like emotions - i.e. jealousy) in much the same way the ancient Greeks & Romans did with their false religion (e.g. Zeus, the whole mount Olympus contingent and their human like emotions and antics) you are once again guilty of a non sequitur and inconsistent philosophical basis. You can’t on the one hand complain that it’s improbable that a god would have petty human emotions while simultaneously expecting anyone to accept your premises that Gnosticism is a viable consideration in your prior post. Sorry you just don’t have any credibility with me (on this topic).

What have you got to gain? To me the choice would be simple.