Ah no. I didn't misquote this.

Go to the 16 second mark thank you very much.

Including rimfire was to point out that just because it is a rifle doesn't mean it is more powerful than a handgun.

Good video. But...

"The speed of an assault weapon is substantially higher than the speed of a handgun".

No. The velocity of the projectile from a centerfire rifle is generally much higher than that of a centerfire pistol. It does not matter if the rifle is semi-automatic or not. The velocity of the projectile from a rimfire rifle is also generally much higher than that of a centerfire pistol. But rimfire rifles have very low projectile weights and deliver substantially less energy, have substantially less momentum, have generally smaller projectile diameters, and hence are much less lethal than centerfire pistols.

Some projectiles are designed to tumble. Most projectiles for disrupting flesh are designed to flatten out (and not fragment).

Lol, I clearly told you that I'd be away for about a month and I'd reply to your forthcoming reply post (it was obviously forthcoming at the time).

"Anger issues". Lol, good try turning it around there. I'm not the one who jumped into this thread foaming at the mouth. As above - I clearly wrote I'd be back about now.

"upset". Lol! You do know what "lol" means, right? I'm sure you can see it all over my posts. That's what I'm doing. I'm laughing at you.

I'm talking to the only person that matters in this conversation. You.

"So, I'm just going to wish you the best and move on."

Like I wrote, "Yeah, good luck with that." The reason I wrote that is because you're too predictable.

"Once again (non-sarcastically) best of luck to you."

And once again, I'm calling bullshit on that.

BTW - I may be gone for a while again. I'll be back though. Don't spaz out on me again when I come back.

Right, I'm back.

Was that it? Was that the best you have? Jesus, I was hoping for something a little better than that. I had high hopes for you indeed.

Care to point out those baseless assumptions?

"I understand challenges to your beliefs can be disorienting"

Fucking lol. Baseless assumptions much? You'd have to know my beliefs (and clear as day you don't) to even start to be a challenge to it. I even gave hints about my beliefs.

Don't be surprised when you blindly attack and make incorrect assumptions about someone that it comes right back at you. Also, keep in mind I love arguing. If that isn't obvious then I don't know what is. I could do this all day.

I don't think you're being sarcastic. I think you're trying to exude some sense of superior reasoning because you abandoned your religion. I think you're projecting your own insecurities onto other people to try to prop up your ego. I think you're angry at religion and are looking for religious people to dump your bile on (and it doesn't matter if they aren't religious - as long as you get to attempt to attack them it's all good to you) and that is pretty shitty of you.

"I'm just going to wish you the best and move on."

Yeah, good luck with that.

Lol, anyway - did you get my point yet? The one about Tradition and Sola Scriptura? It was an important point. I even gave an example of it... I'm waiting with bated breath.

Incoherent to you maybe. Rambling no (my comments should roughly match up line for line as replies to your text - I didn't use quotes). Struck a nerve? No. But it looks like you've got a lot to say for someone who doesn't care for religion.

Almost nobody can remember all they read. This is not a unique claim. I'm guessing you aren't familiar with more than one major denomination - so don't speak on behalf of the others. You're pretty hung up on me needing to have remembered this thing in particular? Sorry but I didn't know this - that's why I asked (ffs). In this regard you're weak at being compassionate. I'm sorry, what is it you think I'm defending? My words? They don't need defence mate. They stand on their own.

I'd have to have some bullshit to quit it. I didn't try to shut down @newtboy (pointing out a truth of his own admission is not shutting him down - got that Mr. Reason?) and I certainly haven't been shut down myself (surprise motherfucker - I'm right here). That you can't understand the fairly straight forward last post shows a lot about you.

"To answer in all seriousness your subsequent questions:"

You missed several questions. Four in fact. I expected as much.

"The back bone of my religion" You're at it again. The retard is strong in you.

I'm not explaining away God's omnipotence. I'm making a fairly straight argument that he's not omnipotent (as in all powerful). I've used the straight forward translation of the word (the simplest argument is that omnipotent also means greatly (not all)) powerful and the refutation of your defence that he is in fact all powerful. This isn't some apologist thing, or defence of some fucked up part of the bible. I'm taking what you believe is a fundamental part of Christianity and attempting to take it down a notch. Hey, why do you think that is? (come on, say the opposite of the obvious, do it, show me how retarded you can be)

It's only a house of cards if you're not willing to give it even the slightest credence (which with your rabid atheism is unfortunately self-admittedly true). That's a great pity. Thousands of years of human culture dismissed in an instant because you're too headstrong (or butt-hurt) to give it a second thought. So much for reason.

Maybe you're not familiar with the 20th century and the clusterfuck of death that surrounded governmental experimentation (of which rejection of religion was a fundamental tenet). Look, I'm happy for you to attempt a no government society where your reason and compassion will lead everyone into quiet nirvana. But you'll be one of the first to be taken advantage of by some cold ruthless cunt who doesn't possess those abilities.

No, I seriously doubt you wish me the best. Your tirade against me demonstrates that. Hopefully you'll realise soon that you're not an Übermensch. And almost everything you now know is wrong (I sincerely hope you know that - it's a fundamental scientific tenet that we are always getting closer to the truth - wiping away the untruths we know - and yes there is research on this).

I do thank you for at least attempting to overcome your own obvious cognitive dissonance in sincerely wishing me peace at the end. It reminds me so much of people who claim to have a religion of peace after their brothers blow some people up. Lol.

Next up. SDGundamX with what he's sure will this time be the final blow as all bow before him with his unassailable reason and compassion that nobody else can possibly challenge.

Bye for a while. I've literally got work now and won't be back for about 28 days. I will be back though. Talk then.

LOL. Dumbest assumption of the month. No seriously.

I'm not "telling @newtboy that he doesn't know anything about it except for hearsay" - I'm pointing out what he has already admitted (hopefully you can see the difference). If I've read the bible and don't remember 100% of it (fucking please - I was clear that my knowledge wasn't eidetic) and you compare it to someone who hasn't read it at all - then that is a false equivalence. If you're going to try and call out some form of hypocrisy, you should probably get your argument right.

Pick any book you've read and I'll find something you don't know in it. I won't suddenly argue that "you don't know what it actually says", because that is not true. You would have limited knowledge, like every human, on every topic that has ever been.

Has your self-confessed atheism brought you peace? Are you an angry atheist? Are you vegan? Lol. I'm guessing that you googled every verse you quoted. So how much of the knowledge is yours?

As above - the bible read by itself without the context of Tradition becomes untenable. And literal interpretations are often incorrect.

No, I didn't argue that those verses you quoted don't say something along the lines of him being all powerful - they clearly do. I don't have issue with that. They say what they say.

I'm making my own analysis and argument of your examples (not referring to the verses), and the verses (separate from your examples). Do you have a problem with that? Are you calling the Bible fact? Or are you saying that the definitive interpretation of those passages is what you say it is and that is the "fact"? Or that those passages say what they say (and this is the fact) regardless of whether they are true or not? Not that you're unclear or anything.

I see you agree with my statements. Yet you go and make all these assumptions. Go figure.

Hey I'm sure whatever system you come up with will be heaps better than anything that's gone before. I hear all the 20th century attempts worked out really well.

Thanks for taking the time to answer. Why would I want to re-read the BIBLE (I capitalised it because really, it makes no difference)? I wrote AFAIK. I didn't say it did not say it. I specifically asked for this information in case anyone else had it (which I made clear).

It seems only very old translations say omnipotent (i.e. king james, third millenium). All new translations have "Lord God Almighty". Almighty is a synonym to omnipotent.

http://www.biblestudytools.com/revelation/19-6-compare.html

Judging sins (i.e. knowing what happens in a limited situation) is not omniscience.

Creating the universe, while powerful, is not omnipotent.

I.e. your examples fit the second meaning of omnipotent/almighty, which is "greatly powerful".

Now, Matthew 19:26 is interesting because it is actually a quote from Jesus. That's the new closest thing to omnipotent for me. EDIT: no, thinking about it, he might be saying "it's possible", as in it has a probability of happening.

EDIT 2: Very importantly, reading the Bible by itself causes these very problems. I mentioned the Orthodox Tradition above - where they have an oral and written history that defines the interpretation so that people don't make up their own shit (like I do all the time - lol).

@newtboy 's original comment may stand in your eyes. But you don't get to dictate whether it is a fact or not. But more importantly than that - what comment are you referring to? I don't see him having written what you are paraphrasing.

In which case you don't know anything about the bible except for hearsay. You don't have much to argue then...

Simple question:

Where in the bible does it say God is omnipotent?

I ask because as far as I know it doesn't. It speaks of his power, mystery, understanding all being great. But it doesn't say he is omnipotent. The closest you'll probably get is in Jeremiah where he has a high opinion of God saying "nothing is too hard for you".

No. It's not an instruction directed at us.

The bible wasn't written as a book. It is a compilation of discrete articles, written at different times, in different places, by different authors, that are venerated by the church.

Importantly, as I explained above, the Orthodox church (the original church) and the Catholic church (the first schism) have a written and oral Tradition that outlines the meaning of everything (specifically to avoid this situation).

Yes indeed! The full quote has a specific meaning: that women should stay silent in church as per the law. This was the law of the land at the time and is strange for Paul to say since he supposedly held the law (Mosaic Law) in disdain. His particular instructions were only intended for the people he was speaking to. He didn't forsee that some person would attempt, two millenium later, to apply those intructions to a foreign situation.

Very importantly, only recently in history have some versions of Christianity abandoned what is called Tradition and started taking the word of the bible as its own contextual source (sola scriptura). The Orthodox and Catholic churches have Tradition and it lays down a continual (2000 year old) framework for which to interpret the bible and other aspects of the religion.

I'm not a scholar in this area so I don't know a lot, perhaps someone else can chime in.

TLDR - the verse has been taken out of context.

"You are safe in Chicago". Wow... no exaggeration there.

It's not that hard. Copy Australia and have free public health for everyone.

Build a wall? I think they mean, continue the wall that already exists over about a third of the border.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexico%E2%80%93United_States_barrier