Matthew Le God

Like Hojbjerg, Reed's contract also expires in 2021. If we can't get £20m for Hojbjerg we won't get it for Reed.

Not sure how you worked that out. You are jumping to conclusions that the terms of the loan mean Saints can't say no.

You are going to pray(talk) to an invisible deity who you have a personal relationship with!?

I'm getting that framed regardless of context!

I've already told you that I'm happy to be shown to be wrong on this when I said... "If someone like @Raging Bull is able to provide good proof of the God he believes in then I would change my view. He hasn't come remotely close to doing so however and he seems oblivious to previous rebuttals to his claims and he uses circular arguments of using an old book to prove the claims of the same old book."

@Raging Bull Forget the Bible for a minute. Can you see why it is a problem to use a book that is not the Bible to justify the contents of the same book? For justification you need external confirmation. Now let's apply that to the Bible... you keep using the Bible to justify the contents of the Bible! You've never been able to provide external confirmation of the claims of the Bible. You always use a circular argument and that is deeply flawed.

What away kit does have a relationship with the club? Would be pretty dull if we had a mainly yellow (and blue) away kit every season. No harm mixing it up. Plus the current one has blue and yellow on it. The yellow away kit obsession some Saints fans have appears to be largely down to the FA Cup win. Variety is the spice of life! You can't get more traditional that your first ever style of kit and our first ever style of kit is a sash. Again if we had red and white stripes every season it would get pretty boring and they'd be hard to sell. If selling shirts wasn't the motivation we'd have the exact same shirt for many years. No harm mixing up the style of the home shirt with stripes some years, 1980s style Keegan era shirts other years and a sash shirt occasionally.

Is that @Raging Bull and @whelk using the Bible to justify the Bible?

No they aren't. If someone like @Raging Bull is able to provide good proof of the God he believes in then I would change my view. He hasn't come remotely close to doing so however and he seems oblivious to previous rebuttals to his claims and he uses circular arguments of using an old book to prove the claims of the same old book.

The shirt, shorts and socks all have both shades of blue on them to tie them in to each other.

You are correct! Some people in this thread keep stating I've said things I haven't. At no point did I say there is no afterlife... I said there is no good evidence to believe there to be an afterlife. Those two things are not the same. Same applies to God, I haven't said there is no God in this thread... I said there is no good evidence to believe in a God. I will say certain descriptions of God are bullshit because they are contradictory and can't be true. For example a 100% kind and loving God is not compatible with a God who endorses rape, genocide and slavery like the one of the Bible does.

Aston

1) Your statement appears to presume God exists. You can't have aggression towards something that you think has not been proved to exist. 2) If he did exist then he deserves aggression towards him and not worship. He endorses slavery, rape, genocide etc. That is not an entity deserving of unbridled worship. You keep making excuses for him... but he is a horrific character in that old book. 3) Your point about Russia is bizarre. Russia is a human construct that evolved from early states. That whole topic came up when you were trying to give examples of prophecy. It is fundamentally flawed to use the Bible to support the Bible in prophecy. I outlined why it is a circular argument which you appear to have ignored. It is deeply flawed and you have the cheek to call me 'not very bright'! It is you that hasn't grasped how an old book cannot be evidence of prophecy that is later fulfilled in the same book. 4) You call me 'not very bright', yet you appear to take the Bible very literally. You are a man who appears to think talking snakes, burning bushes, global genocidal floods, walking on water, water into wine etc etc literally happened! 🙄

1) As I just showed above. You misunderstand and misquote me. Catholics and Protestants make up their own view of purgatory, but that is them cherry picking and creating a religious schism of their own. 2) Are you claiming for definite an after life exists? Is it outside space and time? Because existence by definition is temporal and physical and so cannot exist outside time and space. That would be an oxymoron.

I don't know how many more times I need to say this to you..!. I have not said there is no afterlife! 🙄 What I have said is that there is no credible evidence available to me that shows there is an afterlife. There is a significant difference between those two positions and you keep claiming I've said the former... when I haven't! 🙄

It does not work. It is flawed! They are not being asked about the same piece of evidence. They are provided with different bits of evidence and then asked about their own bit of evidence. So it is a nonsense analogy to the situation and point you were failing to make.

Free will is logically impossible if a creator God is all knowing and all powerful. We've been through that already! 😉

1) I've now refuted your point that there are no Abrahamic differences regarding the afterlife. That is clearly not true and you've even provided evidence to show that is the case. 2) 'Fundamental underpinning' - What is that then?

God been talking to you again? How do you know you weren't hallucinating?

Your coin analogy does not work. Please give another.

A schism is a difference in opinion or belief. The differing views on purgatory isn't the cause of a schism, it is the schism. Another afterlife difference between the Abrahamic religions is the Houri. No mention of Christians being accompanied by numerous virgins in heaven, only in Islam.

No it wouldn't. It really does not work as an analogy. It is flawed and irrelevant.

It shows a schism about the afterlife that you said did not exist. Then you went and found evidence it does exist! Doing my job for me!