many millions were murdered in the name of your god
in your bible… how many people do you believe were “justly” killed?
if someone makes a fake video of you being sodomized by a donkey wouldnt you feel harmed?
I don’t believe anyone was killed in Jesus’ Name. Can you provide some historical evidence of such an event?
There really is no way to put a number of deaths on this since I don’t even know how many documented deaths there are. While I am somewhat curious about it, I certainly don’t expect you to give me an answer since you hold the opinion that the Bible is fictional, which makes me wonder why you would even entertain the notion that there were real deaths documented.
Not if he’s feeling pleasured, dingdong.
of course not, there is no proof of your jesus existing
you asked:
my answer to the question of how many were “justly” killed is none while you are more interested in the number of deaths… i think that answers which believes encourage and advocate aggression and violence 
then he could still feel harmed/jealous because it isnt him in that video…
And you want me to believe millions of people were murdered in His Name? You want me to believe grown-ass men murdered in the name of a flying pink elephant? No wonder women are starting to take over executive positions all over the world. You’ve lost your proverbial marbles.
I think it demonstrates that you don’t even know the number of people murdered.
Did you just align harm with jealousy? You’re a flocking weirdo.
a flying invisible pink elephant but yes correct
its not important to me since one is too many
correct again, you are on a roll
I’m sorry. I don’t understand how these people murdered anyone if they don’t exist. I find that quite bizarre.
Strange. If it’s not important to you, why do you care that one is too many?
Yeah, it would help if you were, too.
just because people believe in imaginary things doesnt mean those people dont exist and do bad things in the name of that invisible pink flying elephant
because all lives matter
You mean like Matthew, Mark, Luke and John?
So it is important to you?
Sure, but if someone makes a fake video of some guy who never existed being sodomized by a donkey, I would not feel harmed. That’s the better analogy.
who are they? what are their last names? who were their parents? their kids? or are there any other known relatives known of any of them?
the exact amount is not important
that nobody gets killed should be important to anyone that likes to see more humanity
you dont, but you should because he looks exactly like you or another human being with a different name
Oh, nonsense, Nico. Art has always had its doppelgangers. Some guy out there looks like Charles Manson and some girl looks like Mona Lisa. It’s the nature of humanity.
You’re just trying to rationalize the obvious inconsistency of demanding unlimited free speech and expression, while wanting to ban this gross art form. You are now seeking to redefine free speech and expression and art to somehow exclude this crap in order to make yourself feel better, which is predictable, common and entirely unconvincing. I, on the other hand, remain entirely consistent: I don’t care at all about your free speech rights and would ban this crap because it’s gross.
the nature of most humans may not be nice but the nature of humanity is to care about all humans
lol you just view freedom of expression and speech as the same thing while i dont and you have trouble accepting that 
Disciples of the Lord?
Didn’t their last names coincide with their trade?
I don’t know. Who did they murder?
A minute ago even one was too many.
exactly, nobody knows anything about them that can be verified or brought up as proof
no idea, history records come up empty
yes and it still is or at least to me
Their testimony is the only truth I need.
Then how do you know they were murdered?
Well, dang, Nico! You’re confusing me. If one is too many, why isn’t it important?
i have no idea why you think that i know your imaginary people were murdered?
i think you are confusing yourself, perhaps you can read this again:
No, you’ve changed your definition to accommodate this issue. We have discussed freedom of expression vs freedom of speech several times in the past and you were ALWAYS consistent that the two were equal. When the Asshelmets posted photoshops of Dana, you were clear: freedom of speech. When Grim posted photos of my mother, you were clear: freedom of speech. When he posted a gif of Saddam Hussein being hanged, you were clear: freedom of speech.
Now you’re grossed out (quite rightly) by these photorealistic child porn art images and you’re desperately trying to twist your narrative around to accommodate banning it. I’m far more logical and consistent: ban it because it’s gross. Screw your freedom of speech.
lol dana, grim and the asshelmets…thats a blast from the past
that doesnt sound like me at all and i think you are most likely mistaken and probably took some of my comments about their words being free speech as all of their post including pics being free speech
perhaps you can post some screenshots or logs of that lol