Jesus Christ the King of Kings has declared war on the US Supreme Court.

[Excalibur]

You do.

That's rubbish.

 

[Excalibur]

So where are the moderators? Shouldn't someone, I don't know, moderate this thread?

Just lock it and ban this person. We all know he's a troll. (You have someone claiming to be Jesus for crying out loud) and is making threats. Just ban him and close this thread instead of talking to him and prolonging this.

Nonsense.

 

[jonathan180iq]

That's rubbish.

Your own quote is rubbish?

 

[SomeRandom]

But what you said is beside the point.
Regardless of what the law says in America, Supreme Court Judges would still pay the price for their sin against men, and against God.
So that's the only thing you need to be concerned about.

So? Don't we all according to Abrahamic religions?

 

[McBell]

That's rubbish.

Interesting corner you have backed yourself into.

 

[George Manuel Oliveira]

No, I think you should repent; because I am Jesus.

I can send all of America to hell if I want.

Do you have any evidence that you are "Jesus"? Where is your proof?

Its funny, I too used to claim to be the fallacious, mythical, supernatural "Jesus," but one day I realized that I can just be Myself- George Manuel Oliveira!

I would suggest you check your self into a mental hospital, but you might have to say you're suicidal to get admitted. You just might need to take a small pill to help balance your chemicals in your brain. At least 25% of the population are on medication, so its not that big of a deal, in My opinion.

Most of the people are NOT going to believe that you are Jesus Christ, not even the Christians either: so unless you plan on starting a cult, whats the point? People are going to undermine you, because some of them see you a prey for the internet wolves.

Now, let Me tell you why I used to believe I am Christ:

I am now going to tell you nothing but FACTS:

Its a fact that My Name is "George Manuel Oliveira".

Its a fact that the initials for My Name is G.M.O..

Its a fact that GMO stands for Genetically Modified Organism.

Its a fact that My initials, GMO, backwards is OMG.

Its a fact that OMG stands for Oh My God.

Its a fact that My Name, George Manuel Oliveira, means "Farmer God is with us, olive tree".

Its a facts that in "Romans 11:16-26", the Bible mentions the "olive tree" many times.

Its a Biblical fact that Jesus said he would have a "new Name", if you read "Revelation 3:12".

Its a fact that My mothers name is Mary, and the Bible says that Christs mothers name was Mary.

Its a fact that My fathers name is Nuno. It is known that, "Mary knew no man." My dads name, Nuno, sounds exactly like saying the words "knew no". So if you use semantics, it sounds exactly the same if you say, "Mary knew no man," or "Mary... Nuno- man".

Its an empirical fact that I have many predictions, or prophecies, for the future.

Its an empirical fact that I have many paralells to the New Testament... and I can show this later if people want.

These are all irrefutable, demonstrable, empirical facts.

Any questions?

Poll: Do you want to meet the Christ with the "NEW Name"? OMG! | ReligiousForums.com

~PEACE~

 

[George Manuel Oliveira]

Just another wannabe christ poser. This guy didn't even tell us his evidence for his claim.

But you guys shouldn't be so hard on him, according to Wikipedia, if you look up messiah complex, you will see that as many as 10% of the population have a messiah complex.

So, when the population reaches 10 billion people, as many as 1 billion people will have a type of messiah complex, ha.

There will be plenty of people claiming to be (insert favorite diety here), but you should tell them to show you the evidence to back up their claims.

I at least have plenty of reasons for My personal subjective beliefs!

~PEACE~

 

[FunctionalAtheist]

In April 2012, the Supreme Court said that police and prison guards have a 'right' to strip search people for the most trivial offence such as "unpaid parking tickets". So now, it's not only murderers who can be strip searched, but even the most trivial offence can take away a persons's Fourth Amendment Rights.

However, we know that God's second commandment is that we should "love our neighbour" in Matthew 22:37-40; Mark 12:30-31 & Luke 10:27. But strip searching without a good reason means that you have broken God's commandment to "love your neighbour". Because such inhumane treatment is degrading and humiliating; and it shows lack of love for your fellow human. Therefore, we know that police and prison guards who carry out strip searching are guilty of SIN. Also, the Supreme Court Judges who authorised this are also guilty of SIN by breaking God's commandment. Because strip searching people without sufficient cause to do so is a serious violation of human rights.

Such a procedure by police and prison guards is inexcusable; because other Western countries also have their own War on Drugs, and they are equally concerned about security issues in prisons, but in no European country will you find such inhumane treatment for the most trivial offence.

Therefore, Supreme Court Judges who have authorised such human rights violation will themselves be judged before the Judgement Seat of Christ and Great White Throne Judgement. (2 Corinthians 5:10; Matthew 25:31-46; Revelation 20:11-15)

Despite being Judges, they have still committed human rights violation and sinned against men, and against God; which will have serious repercussions on the day of judgement.

God does not condone, nor accept Supreme Court Judges who have committed such sin against their fellow humans. Such are "persona non grata" who will have no right to Eternal life in God's kingdom.

Do you agree that Supreme Court Judges will be brought to account for their sin against men, and against God; and they will be thrown into the lake of fire on judgement day?

Do you agree that Supreme Court Judges who authorised this deserve to be completely utterly destroyed in the lake of fire?

P.S. Such a law is inexcusable because it doesn't happen in England, nor anywhere else in the Anglo-sphere. Sexual perverts such as they are must be brought to account for their crimes on the day of judgement. (Matthew 13:40-42, 25:41; Revelation 20:15, 21:8)

Your OP is riddled with so many inconsistencies it is impossible to address in civil manner.

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

However, this will be left to the moderators to decide; but it's not for you to say what is acceptable, and what is not on here.

My opinion may not influence the admins, nor influence what is deleted or not at the end of the day. But I can still say it.

Edit > Personally, I don't think that it's "preaching"; but it's de facto declaration of war, so the Supreme Court will know where exactly they are stood in relation to God and Christ. (John 1, 5:22, 5:27-30, 10:30, 14:6; Matthew 13:40-42, 25:41; Revelation 20:15, 21:8)

So assuming that my God is real, it means that all of those people are going to end up DEAD.
They will BURN in the lake of FIRE.

Christianity prospers most profoundly in a war-like context; where its adherents get to polarise any debate into some kind of fight or struggle where those who hold dissenting views are evil by default.

This is what throws so many off Christianity. Your religion has such a hard time living and let live.

 

[George Manuel Oliveira]

My opinion may not influence the admins, nor influence what is deleted or not at the end of the day. But I can still say it.



Christianity prospers most profoundly in a war-like context; where its adherents get to polarise any debate into some kind of fight or struggle where those who hold dissenting views are evil by default.

This is what throws so many off Christianity. Your religion has such a hard time living and let live.

Don't forget (radical) religions like Islam, because its not just Christianity!

~PEACE~

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

Don't forget (radical) religions like Islam, because its not just Christianity!

~PEACE~

Excalibur was not quoting from the Koran so this is of little relevance. And the tu quoque fallacy doesn't help either.

 

[George Manuel Oliveira]

Excalibur was not quoting from the Koran so this is of little relevance. And the tu quoque fallacy doesn't help either.

Are any religions not fallacious? In other words, are any religions based on 100% facts?

What does tu quoque fallacy mean?

Thanks!

P.S. I am like a quarter Scottish!

~PEACE~

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

Are any religions not fallacious? In other words, are any religions based on 100% facts?

That's not what I was getting at - I wasn't trying to highlight the truth value of one religion over another. I'll explain more further down.

What does tu quoque fallacy mean?

It's some language (Latin, I think) for "what about you". It's a term for when Person A attempts to defeat Person B's argument by turning their own point back on them. It's a fallacy because it doesn't actually further the discussion, nor does turning B's point back on them reduce the validity of what B is saying in the first place.

As a hypothetical example: Mrs Jones is talking to Mrs Watson about how she is worried that Mrs Watson has a problem with alcohol. Mrs Watson drinks a lot at dinner, she carries some in her handbag; it looks like she might be addicted. Mrs Watson replies by accusing Mrs Jones of being addicted to cannabis and how she doesn't have the right to lecture anyone on vices or bad habits.

The tuquoque fallacy can be called here because Mrs Watson's point raised about Mrs Jones' cannabis smoking doesn't actually address the fact she drinks to excess.


I hope that helps.

 

[George Manuel Oliveira]

That's not what I was getting at - I wasn't trying to highlight the truth value of one religion over another. I'll explain more further down.



It's some language (Latin, I think) for "what about you". It's a term for when Person A attempts to defeat Person B's argument by turning their own point back on them. It's a fallacy because it doesn't actually further the discussion, nor does turning B's point back on them reduce the validity of what B is saying in the first place.

As a hypothetical example: Mrs Jones is talking to Mrs Watson about how she is worried that Mrs Watson has a problem with alcohol. Mrs Watson drinks a lot at dinner, she carries some in her handbag; it looks like she might be addicted. Mrs Watson replies by accusing Mrs Jones of being addicted to cannabis and how she doesn't have the right to lecture anyone on vices or bad habits.

The tuquoque fallacy can be called here because Mrs Watson's point raised about Mrs Jones' cannabis smoking doesn't actually address the fact she drinks to excess.


I hope that helps.

Thank you.

I have a question: can you find any fallacies in the facts that I stated about Myself, a few posts ago?

~PEACE~

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

Thank you.

I have a question: can you find any fallacies in the facts that I stated about Myself, a few posts ago?

~PEACE~

I didn't say you had stated fallacies about yourself. The tu quoque fallacy can be applied to objects of arguments that aren't people - as is the case here. I was talking about Christianity's inherently intolerant nature and you interjected with...

Don't forget (radical) religions like Islam, because its not just Christianity!

~PEACE~

... the above statement is a tu quoque fallacy because (this is how it seems from my perspective) you're suggesting that Christianity must not be mentioned unless we talk about other violent religions like Islam - even though I haven't denied Islam is intolerant. Your point of mentioning Islam here is fallacious because it doesn't actually address my point on Christianity, it attempts to sideline the discussion on the grounds of 'it is not just Christianity that is intolerant' and it looks like an attempt to excuse Christianity's intolerant theology because Islam's is also intolerant.

 

[George Manuel Oliveira]

I didn't say you had stated fallacies about yourself. The tu quoque fallacy can be applied to objects of arguments that aren't people - as is the case here. I was talking about Christianity's inherently intolerant nature and you interjected with...



... the above statement is a tu quoque fallacy because (this is how it seems from my perspective) you're suggesting that Christianity must not be mentioned unless we talk about other violent religions like Islam - even though I haven't denied Islam is intolerant. Your point of mentioning Islam here is fallacious because it doesn't actually address my point on Christianity, it attempts to sideline the discussion on the grounds of 'it is not just Christianity that is intolerant' and it looks like an attempt to excuse Christianity's intolerant theology because Islam's is also intolerant.

Okay, I am sure that you are more versed in fallacies than Me.

I wasn't trying to do anything other than make a point.

But, as you said, you "didn't say that I didn't state any fallacies about" Myself. So that is good. Because facts are not fallacies.

I am not the most astute person at logic, so its good for Me to learn. Thanks!

~PEACE~

 

[averageJOE]

But I don't have to "endear" myself to Americans. I will probably never set foot on US soil.

I don't care about America at all.

So then you can stop all your whining, complaining, and empty threats.

 

[SilverOrb]

No, I think you should repent; because I am Jesus.

I can send all of America to hell if I want.

Well this all got interesting fast.

 

[JacobEzra.]

A dead man declared war?

This shall be fun

 

[JacobEzra.]

No, I think you should repent; because I am Jesus.

I can send all of America to hell if I want.

Do it!

I dare ya! No! I DOUBLE DARE YA! HA