Matthew Le God

That is a primary school playground level of an answer. 'He did it first Miss'

Why should you tip toe around a belief system with such abhorrent commands at its core? I've had discussions with beleivers outside the forum about it despite you claiming otherwise. The CoE have cherry picked the scripture to such an extent it is now about strawberry jam and summer fates.

I think you will find you bumped the thread this weekend, not me.

Many claim that God is 'all knowing', in which case he would be aware of what level of proof is required to satisfy every human on the planet. If he does exist, he has chosen not to provide the level of proof he knows it would take and instead opted for a system of an old book that was translated and mistranslated into multiple languages and allows for schisms to occur, that is a pretty inept way of communicating a message.

If they do then they don't understand what burden of proof means. Because it cannot be circular... i.e. the old book is true because the old book says it is true.

You are yet again showing a fundamental misunderstanding of my position. I don't claim there is no God, I don't think any God claim has met it's burden of proof. There is a difference between those two positions and you and others in this thread fail to grasp this. That is not being convinced about being right, as I have not made a claim.

1) You didn't counter any of the post. 2) I have had these discussions with JWs in the street. So you are wrong.

1) You think he'd reply? 🤔 2) JWs are just brainwashed, Westboro Baptist Church in that photo take it to a whole new level. Are you suggesting I should fly out to them and have a Louis Theroux chat with them?

1) How do you realistically propose I talk to him? A moral duty based on what? 2) You claimed 'I bet you'd never dare confront a 'believer', I said I have with JWs in the street. That counts and it wins your bet.

1) That isn't a realistic suggestion. 2) I have talked to JW's in the street standing by their bookstands about it. Of course we hit a brick wall and they couldn't provide anything other than a circular argument... 'The book is true because the book says it is true'.

They are based on festivals that pre-date Christianity. It is not 'just like' if there is no religious element involved. Giving presents is not exclusive to Christians, eating chocolate is not exclusive to Christians. The duck rape thread is going around in circles again! 😉😁

I've never said 'all Christians support genocide'. But to a degree they do, they choose to bend over backwards trying to make excuses how a global flood isn't genocide. Or that killing the first born Egyptian babies is not evil etc etc.

That is completely and utterly flawed. So what if I find the bad bits, you have failed to see it in the context it is done for. When I've talked about God of the Bible committing genocide, supporting slavery, sexism etc, that is to show that the claim made by many Christians that God is 100% good. All it requires is to find even one evil thing God has done to show he is not 100% kind and loving. It is very easy to find many things from the scripture to show it is not 100%.

1) Your first sentence makes no sense what so ever as a reply to my post. I was pointing out to you that the archbishop was cherry picking from the scripture and leaving out the horrendous parts. 2) Name a conspiracy theory you think I believe in.

Nope, even during the opening 20 minutes we had more of the ball and more shots.

It was not a battering by Burnley in the first half. We had 67% possession and 14 shots in the 1st half. Sure we fucked up defensively for the two goals, but it was not a battering from Burnley like you claimed.

Are you incapable of posting without attempts at petty, personal and inaccurate insults? 🙄

Not sure how this helps you. Hardly a surprise that a CoE archbishop conveniently ignores the nasty bits of the book and rewrites the good bits to appeal to Church of England followers. CoE archbishop cherry picking shocker!

Why? It was a foul by Walker-Peters, but him being fouled before should see it overruled. There was no reason for the Burnley player to have his hands on Walker-Peters apart from to gain an unfair advantage.

I'd have taken off Armstrong and Walcott and replaced with Djenepo, Minamino or Tella to keep us on the front foot. And Ings off, Adams on.

Switching to a three centre back system put us on the back foot and invited pressure. Should have stuck with the 4222, but it did ultimately see us win.

That didn't keep the score down, hitting the post is an off target shot.

Our wage offer isn't likely to be the issue. If a CL level team wants him, he'll likely go and you couldn't blame him getting a last big payday.

No he didn't. Just because he gave away a penatly it doesn't outweigh all the positive offensive and defensive work he did. He was constantly stretching Burnley and was solid defensively.

Battering would be controlling possession and peppering the goal with shots. Burnley were not doing that even during the time they were 2-0. By half time Saints had far more shots and 67% of possession.