>>19342338

No, I asked a question about who "THEY" are, which you still haven't answered. and in the context of that i asked a question, which wasn't even meant to be serious. If you were a rational human being, you would understand that.

>Look here for an authoritative answer what a question is

Are you ChatGPT?

>"You keep arguing FOR translations"

No.

>You do.

>You want to argue about "originals" and translations.

So which one is it now?

See, you are irrational and are acting confused.

"FOR translations"- your original CLAIM

or now

"argue ABOUT originals and translations".

WHICH ONE IS IT?

Neither of these are true.

all I'm asking for is which is the correct one to go for, taking no sides. you even started it. and factual proof for the answer, which you haven't given, instead you go on about "truth", which is a joke by now.

>There is no "official" bible or translation.

So who warned about "the translations" again?

>>19342444

>I told you Catholics

Where?

your quote.

"The catholic church claims to have created the bible. That bible warns against THEM."

So according to you "the bible" of the Catholic church warns against "The Catholics"?

Or did you mean the catholic church, which wouldn't be THEM, but in this context itself?

Are you drunk?

Are you ChatGPT?

>>19342444

>I told you Catholics

All of last bread (23754): Ctrl-f "Catholics" - ZERO HITS

Why are you lying?

>>19342557

hubris

>>19342581

>catholic church

>the Catholics

not the same

are you drunk?

And "THEM" in that context would be wrong.

You should use THEMSELVES.

and you also claimed you said "Catholics", which you clearly didn't (which are the believers, the sheeple, similar to you), not the "Catholic church" which is the head.

>>19342592

You claimed Catholics in here, which is a lie and incorrect.

The Catholic church is an INSTITUTION, Catholics are let me use your authoritative authority, ChatGPT:

What's a Catholic?

"a member of the Roman Catholic Church."

How many Catholics?

"around 1.3 billion believers"

Therefore what you wrote makes not even any sense.

>>19342634

So now you are going full retard.

Let's use your redefinition of "Catholic church" on your previous post.

"The catholic church claims to have created the bible. That bible warns against THEM."

So what you actually wrote (your own definitions ) is that

THE CATHOLICS (1.3 billion people!) claim to have created the bible."

wow, 1.3 billion people claim to have created the bible. When did they do that?

>>19342651

Your redefinitions are ridiculous now, troll.

First you try to redefine questions.

Now you even try to redefine "catholic church".

Begone.

You are the liar in here.

"I told you CATHOLICS"

not found ONCE last bread.

"but but I meant the catholic church"

fucking liar.

"uhhh catholic church is catholics"

lie on top of a lie

next up

"uhhh catholics are all satanists"

"uhhh all catholics, wait did I say all? I only meant a few catholics"

but they are satanists

"uhhh I mean catholics actually means satanists"

>>19342701

>deflection

>let's forget about my redefinitions and my lies, and my other lies about your claims that weren't claims at all

>Catholics are the catholic church btw.

bs

Catholics are the sheeple, like you.

Catholic church is the head, which controls the sheeple and the narrative..

Catholic church is the TV, or your bible

Catholics are the consumers, like yourself.

it's not a difficult concept, you know.

even ChatGPT would understand that after a few posts.

>>19342728

>Catholics this

>Catholics that

let's ask YOUR authoritative authority:

aka stop with your lies, liar.

>>19342754

>Jesus came

and we are back at square one with your nonsense.

>but but old books

no proof

>but but I feel it

no proof

>but but truth

no proof

>but but just use all translations

not making any sense

>but everything is truth

"don't kill"

"don't murder"

is not the same, one is only a subset of the other, but both can't be true at the same time.

>but but they can for sure

btw. does it say human? It doesn't, which implies animals too

>noooo, that can't be. it means humans only. I love to eat meat.

commandment violation detected, kek

>>19342768

>truth

so is it truth that your God recommends genital mutilation of children?

Or was that edited in by Catholics or the Catholic church, whatever redefinition of words you are currently into.

>>19342787

>you see my God actually didn't mean literally kill, but meant soul killing, and thus I'm not guilty of killing animals, because when I physically kill, I don't kill the soul

>wait, that was edited in by Catholics

>so you see my God is fine with the killings

>>19342806

inspired by true[tm] events

brought to you by Jerry Bruckheimer

>>19342821

>tradition

>reminder

If I use a belt on you, that should also count as a "reminder", you fucking child molester.

>>19342827

i'm actually taking the "don't kill" serious, not because I think the bible is real and Jesus was real, but because to me it makes sense to not kill anyone, which includes animals.

if you ignore that commandment, but still pretend to think the bible or scripture or whatever the fuck is real, then you are a chief violator of commandments.

You are of course fine with genital mutilation of children, so you are already lost.

btw. were these commandments edited in by "Catholics" as well?

>>19342850

>no u

I can't stand genital mutilation, especially the ones done to children.

I think it's sick and twisted.

you call that a "reminder" and "tradition" and DARE to say that I would be the child molester, despite you doing that all on your own.

you are evil.

>>19342881

>defeated death

so wait a moment.

Jesus is God.

God created everything including "death"

God is all powerful and therefore invincible and ever lasting

And now you claim that "Jesus" (God) "defeated death"?

zero sense

>>19342888

<what it is

It is not a "tradition", it's evil shit.

> I never said I did it or support it.

why did you change "GENITAL MuTILAtION" into "CIRCUMCISION" you lying fucker?

That WORD CHANGE is everything I need to know about an evil fucker like you.

>I never SAID I did it or support it

Words have meanings, and it's telling that you say "I never SAID". No one gives a shit what you said, but someone not supporting GENITAL MUTILATION would not rename it, call it "tradition" and then even go the "I didn't say that I support it" route. They would call it genital mutilation of children and state that they do not support it.

And what I actually asked if "your god recommends genital mutilation of children?", which you ignored once again, because you would have to answer "yes, my God does, which is why I call it tradition and a reminder".

>>19342901

You want to redefine some more words?

Oh boy your God "defeated" his own creation.

Hey, I can also have an ant farm and then kill the ants with ease. Am I great, or am I great or what?

>Jesus doesn't mean God in this context

>It means uhhhh defeated means uhhhh

So he never died?

>he defeated

Can't defeat something that you aren't even vulnerable to

>but you see Jesus would have died

So he's still alive today?

>no

So he didn't defeat death?

>uhhhh

>>19342967

No, I was talking about GENITAL MUTILATION, you evil fuck head.

>it's a form

Fuck you.

>I never SAID

say that you do not support it and that you disagree with your God on that topic.

>>19342970

>He defeated death for mankind.

Last time I checked people still died.

What happened?

>TL;DR

>>19342980

Your claim

>death defeated

>for mankind even

reality:

>people still dying

(you)

>uhhh you see it's the Catholic church

>without them there wouldn't be death anymore

>Mankind means that not everyone dies every 5 years

>Mankind means man-kind, the kindness of man, not humanity hurr

>>19343003

>Does the bible

which edition/translation?

>if the correct term is used, it's not genital mutilation anymore

>if someone kills me in my sleep and cals it slumber, it's not murder anymore, it's just a slumber party

>btw. it's the catholic church that does it!!!

>it's tradition

>it's just like that

KMAO

werid that you don't say that you don't support it.

KMAO

liar

>>19343017

>They are not dead but asleep.

KMAO

>and then they are buried and animals eat their bodies while they are asleep

>after that they wake up and say what the fuck happened to my body???

>Let me redefine all words

Nice try there, liar

>that way I define what scripture says

Nice try there, liar

>for example genital mutilation isn't genital mutilation, it's just a little snip, but not genital and not mutilation

>my new word redefinition makes sure of it

You sound like a full grown satanist.

>>19343035

>redefines the word "dead" as well

I guess people that are "not dead" are simply "not physically alive" anymore, but not dead.

And you know that because

>because of my books written by humans of course

Of course.

>>19343056

>asks question about "the bible"

>target needs more details

>complains

schizo

>I wont say anything one way

So you fully support it, sicko.

No one that doesn't support it would have the fuckin audacity to rename it.

It's genital mutilation, you fucking freak.

>>19343070

>you see the spirit is not dead dead

>and dead doesn't mean body dead, but spirit dead

>therefore dead people are not really dead

continues to redefine words

>see the kingdom of God

>you see the old book here proves it

no proofs

>we're going through growing pains

more fiction, without any proofs

>but I feel it

so commit suicide, and come back

>>19343080

>my book says it!!!

>so it must be true

no proofs

>I understand it

You are redefining words as soon as your posts stop making sense.

I redefine understand as in being a full schizo, but yes I now agree with your claim.