jfl so many cucks on this site...

[Deleted member 119732]

You didn't comprehend what i wrote.

are you retarded

 

[Deleted member 119732]

You didn't comprehend what i wrote.

You based your entire argument off of "False gods exist, the bible mentions it then it claims they are false" It did not claim they do not exist just that they are not real, it intentionally says "so-called" because they are called "Gods or so" by their followers, then claimed they are false because they are, people believing in them does not make them true

 

[JeanneDArcAlter]

are you retarded

 

[Deleted member 119732]

View attachment 3526237

"saar you just don't understand saar allah is very rael saar I smart please"

 

[JeanneDArcAlter]

You based your entire argument off of "False gods exist, the bible mentions it then it claims they are false" It did not claim they do not exist just that they are not real, it intentionally says "so-called" because they are called "Gods or so" by their followers, then claimed they are false because they are, people believing in them does not make them true

Weeeellllll i already addressed that mate.
I wrote my previous replies with that in mind.
If i state
"X is false, as indeed x is true"
does sound a bit like im changing my mind right? Rather than stating "it is true that x is false"
If Paul wanted to convey "it is true that x is false" then he should have written "as indeed there are many false Gods

 

[JeanneDArcAlter]

Weeeellllll i already addressed that mate.
I wrote my previous replies with that in mind.
If i state
"X is false, as indeed x is true"
does sound a bit like im changing my mind right? Rather than stating "it is true that x is false"
If Paul wanted to convey "it is true that x is false" then he should have written "as indeed there are many false Gods

But then again paul isnt divine but obviously we could assume the will of God was working through him as it does with all bible authors

 

[Deleted member 119732]

Weeeellllll i already addressed that mate.
I wrote my previous replies with that in mind.
If i state
"X is false, as indeed x is true"
does sound a bit like im changing my mind right? Rather than stating "it is true that x is false"
If Paul wanted to convey "it is true that x is false" then he should have written "as indeed there are many false Gods

id does say "False gods are false", where is the "False gods are true" part???

 

[JeanneDArcAlter]

id does say "False gods are false", where is the "False gods are true" part???

... "As indeed there are many Gods"
the next thing your gonna say is "but he is implicty saying that while assuming its false" then im gonna bring up how he couldve just written "As indeed there are many false Gods"

 

[Deleted member 119732]

... "As indeed there are many Gods"
the next thing your gonna say is "but he is implicty saying that while assuming its false" then im gonna bring up how he couldve just written "As indeed there are many false Gods"

the verse says For even if there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth, "SO-CALLED" if I say I am something it doesn't mean I am, you may have trouble understanding since you are obviously not an english native but a jeet, the verse clearly specifies they are not real gods, the verse you are using is not even in the bible

 

[JeanneDArcAlter]

the verse says For even if there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth, "SO-CALLED" if I say I am something it doesn't mean I am, you may have trouble understanding since you are obviously not an english native but a jeet, the verse clearly specifies they are not real gods, the verse you are using is not even in the bible

We're sort of going in circles here but ill repeat it anyways
I already accounted for that
If i state x is false in the first clause then x is true in the second clause
It would be much more plausible to assume im literally meaning x is true rather than that x being false being true
If i were to mean otherwise i were to have specifically written that it is true x is false

 

[Deleted member 119732]

We're sort of going in circles here but ill repeat it anyways
I already accounted for that
If i state x is false in the first clause then x is true in the second clause
It would be much more plausible to assume im literally meaning x is true rather than that x being false being true
If i were to mean otherwise i were to have specifically written that it is true x is false

nigga it never says thar can't you read

 

[JeanneDArcAlter]

nigga it never says thar can't you read

Never says what?

 

[Deleted member 119732]

Never says what?

nigga are you trolling

 

[JeanneDArcAlter]

nigga are you trolling

Are we on the same page?