Search results

I'm gonna wager that he can't...

Yeah, I'm just terrified dude. Go look up something on GAB...

Why not? Hey, maybe you can answer as to the point of this thread. Look, it's pretty darned obvious that many a pompous blowhard and far right puritanical dipstick would consider a woman to be a slut if she had any sort of sexual encounter outside of marriage so that's kind of a given. Why...

Seriously Jefferson, has The Gateway Pundit not let you down enough times already?!

"Good" to see that Trump looked just as creepy back then as he does now...

I don't use the term Jefferson so it's kinda moot for me. What's yours and what's the actual point of this thread?

Is it fair to say that the MAGA crowd have a collective IQ of 4.7 or is that being a bit too generous?

What is even the point of this thread?

Well hey there, you feel free to call women who have the gall to have sex outside of marriage such a term all ya like then eh? Good for you!

What makes it a viable one?

I've just finished a college course where there were two Ukrainian women on it after having had to flee from their country. One of them is married and her husband had to stay behind, not to fight as he's deemed medically unfit but as a first aider and also to help with catering supplies for...

Well, you can bank on him to rant on like a mad man on too many energy drinks anyway...

Considering how much you've bought into all sorts of crackerjack conspiracy junk then this is more than a little rich. You're quick to blast anything that derives from any Western media source (at least non loop the loop ones) but so keen to lap up anything that presents Putin or China in a more...

Don't have one. Stupid term anyway really. I realize that some pompous prudes and puritans seem to define women who have sex with more than one person outside of wedlock as being so but then that sort of rubbish can be discarded accordingly. What's yours out of curiosity?

God can do whatever He wants JR, figure that one out. He could likely choose both simultaneously while making a tutti frutti and feeding 4 billion people with a carton of eggs and 17 muffins. When are you gonna get that your - and my - human understanding of time does not remotely apply to God?

Garbage. Your freedom isn't affected whether God knows the future or not unless you're programmed to act via the hyper Calvinist route or some such. You carry on declaring what God can and can't know though.

So, you haven't got a quote of mine that says any such thing as you've accused me of then have you? Else, where is it? Misrepresenting people is hardly edifying JR and you should either acknowledge that you've nowt on the score or retract. Exhaustive foreknowledge isn't remotely the same thing...

Learn to use 'spellcheck' dude... Newsflash: You don't get to determine what is actually determined through a narrow frame of reference. Or maybe God is a magician when He does anything outside of your limited scope? Turning water into wine? Wow, that's magic and then some, right?

Is it "magical" to you if a thousand years is like a day to God and the same in reverse? Maybe Jesus feeding the five thousand with some bread and fish was metaphor perhaps? Changing water into wine etc? God isn't limited to a human perspective or understanding where it comes to time. Knowing...

Well of course the threads still here to read, what, was it gonna go somewhere else? Got a quote of mine that says that God needs to know the future in order to say something yet? I would wish you good luck on the score but you'd need more than that. They're only mutually exclusive to those...