http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BdxB3T1hgw0

This guy's gonna need to befriend a bunch of hookers before his parents get 
home.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
     Is God willing to prevent phrogams, but not able?
       Then he is not omnipotent.
     Is he able, but not willing, to prevent phrogams?
       Then he is malevolent.

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>      Is God willing to prevent phrogams, but not able?
>        Then he is not omnipotent.
>      Is he able, but not willing, to prevent phrogams?
>        Then he is malevolent.

  What is a "phrogam"? The dictionary nor even google seems to know.

  In any case, I think that's called a false dichotomy.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>>      Is God willing to prevent phrogams, but not able?
>>        Then he is not omnipotent.
>>      Is he able, but not willing, to prevent phrogams?
>>        Then he is malevolent.
> 
>   What is a "phrogam"? The dictionary nor even google seems to know.

Clearly God is willing *and* able to prevent phrogams, then, yes?

>   In any case, I think that's called a false dichotomy.

Clearly, since God actually did prevent phrogams. :-)

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
     Is God willing to prevent phrogams, but not able?
       Then he is not omnipotent.
     Is he able, but not willing, to prevent phrogams?
       Then he is malevolent.

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> Warp wrote:
> > Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> >>      Is God willing to prevent phrogams, but not able?
> >>        Then he is not omnipotent.
> >>      Is he able, but not willing, to prevent phrogams?
> >>        Then he is malevolent.
>
> Clearly God is willing *and* able to prevent phrogams, then, yes?
>
> >   In any case, I think that's called a false dichotomy.
>
> Clearly, since God actually did prevent phrogams. :-)
>


It took me a long time to get your movie reference, but I got it.

Christianity, at least, doesn't make much sense at all without a Cross.

Post a reply to this message

gregjohn wrote:
> It took me a long time to get your movie reference, but I got it.

I have no idea what movie you think I'm talking about.

> Christianity, at least, doesn't make much sense at all without a Cross.

Most cases of loving omnipotent dieties don't make sense, let alone ones 
that encourage human sacrifice.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
     Is God willing to prevent phrogams, but not able?
       Then he is not omnipotent.
     Is he able, but not willing, to prevent phrogams?
       Then he is malevolent.

Post a reply to this message

> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BdxB3T1hgw0

Wow, someone got it on video.  I saw it in the news a few days ago but they 
only had the photos of it in the water.  I guess if you drive around a car 
like that in traffic chances are someone is going to be filming you most of 
the time.  At least he didn't hit anyone.

Post a reply to this message