Patrick and Duke still pretending to be stupid.

[ala...@hotmail.co.uk]

A while ago I asked these two bible-bots if they actually believed in
the biblical Adam and Eve, the talking snake, and the original sin
story in the wholly babble.

All they have done is lie and deny, they appear to be pretending to be
too stupid to understand the question.

If they assert that the whole A&E story was allegorical, then it must
follow that everything based on it is also allegorical (i.e., complete
BS)

Duke and Paddy. A yes or no answer, please. Did Adam and Eve and the
serpent exist as real living creatures, and did they do and say all
the things attributed to them in the bible?

[•RLMeasures]

In article
<9a8ee0d9-3b43-4113...@i5g2000pbj.googlegroups.com>,

ala...@hotmail.co.uk wrote:

> A while ago I asked these two bible-bots if they actually believed in
> the biblical Adam and Eve, the talking snake, and the original sin
> story in the wholly babble.
>
> All they have done is lie and deny, they appear to be pretending to be
> too stupid to understand the question.
>
> If they assert that the whole A&E story was allegorical, then it must
> follow that everything based on it is also allegorical (i.e., complete
> BS)

• There are over 50 authors. If one of them wrote fiction does that mean
that they all did?

>
> Duke and Paddy. A yes or no answer, please.

• good luck Alan. IME they seldom go there -- especially "Duke".

[duke]

On Mon, 18 Mar 2013 19:15:26 -0700 (PDT), ala...@hotmail.co.uk wrote:

>A while ago I asked these two bible-bots if they actually believed in
>the biblical Adam and Eve, the talking snake, and the original sin
>story in the wholly babble.
>
>All they have done is lie and deny, they appear to be pretending to be
>too stupid to understand the question.

??? Then you must be living in a cave. Did you not like my answer. Is that
why?

>If they assert that the whole A&E story was allegorical, then it must
>follow that everything based on it is also allegorical (i.e., complete
>BS)

No, that's VERY wrong. The "story line" itself addresses issues such as the
creation of the universe 13.7 billion years ago. Who was around to make such an
observation?

>Duke and Paddy. A yes or no answer, please. Did Adam and Eve and the
>serpent exist as real living creatures, and did they do and say all
>the things attributed to them in the bible?

Can you tell me the diameter of the star furthermost from the center of the
Andromedia Galaxy? No, you can't. That information is not available to you.
And so is the classification of Gen 1-11 as allegorical vs fact.

Basically, we can say that Gen 1-11 is allegorical, but that does't eliminate
certain elements as fact. The name "a_dam" means "mankind". The name "eve"
means "mother of mankind". The serpent is the lowest of creatures and closest
to earthly things in crawling on it's belly, hence furthermost from the spirit..

Is a flood of world wide proportions possible before, or maybe it was just a
local flood. When was such a flood. At one time, Mt. Everest was no more than
a speed bump. It wouldn't take much volume of water to cover it.

My own bible, as I've stated many times, clearly states that Gen 1-11 is NOT a
scientific statement of God's creation of all things including mankind but
instead a faith statement written after 2 Kings.

.


The dukester, American - American

********************************************
Repeal Obama
You simply can't fix stupid.
********************************************

[raven1]

On Mon, 18 Mar 2013 19:15:26 -0700 (PDT), ala...@hotmail.co.uk wrote:

>All they have done is lie and deny, they appear to be pretending to be
>too stupid to understand the question.

What on Earth makes you think they're pretending?

[duke]

Why don't you give me a try so you can decide for yourself? Heeheehee.

[Syd M.]

On Mar 19, 8:10 am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Mar 2013 07:51:13 -0400, raven1 <quoththera...@nevermore.com> wrote:

> >On Mon, 18 Mar 2013 19:15:26 -0700 (PDT), alan...@hotmail.co.uk wrote:
>
> >>All they have done is lie and deny, they appear to be pretending to be
> >>too stupid to understand the question.
>
> >What on Earth makes you think they're pretending?
>
> Why don't you give me a try so you can decide for yourself?  Heeheehee.
>
>

He did. That's why he's an unbeliever, idiot.

PDW

[Patrick]

ala...@hotmail.co.uk wrote:

>A while ago I asked these two bible-bots if they actually believed in
>the biblical Adam and Eve, the talking snake, and the original sin
>story in the wholly babble.
>All they have done is lie and deny, they appear to be pretending to be
>too stupid to understand the question.

Actually, I posted a very detailed account about how literary styles
are different from author to author. The actual story of the Adam and
Eve chronicle is an allegory. And what was alex's response?
He whined that some of the explanation came from a Christian source.
He didn't address the actual content.
He whined that I didn't answer his question.

>If they assert that the whole A&E story was allegorical, then it must
>follow that everything based on it is also allegorical (i.e., complete
>BS)

Why?
Perhaps albert doesn't understand stories with moral intent.
Is he so stupid that he cannot comprehend this?

>Duke and Paddy. A yes or no answer, please. Did Adam and Eve and the
>serpent exist as real living creatures, and did they do and say all
>the things attributed to them in the bible?

OK, I'll answer this.... as soon as you answer a question for me:
Did your mom ever punish you for the things you did to your pet?

Yes or no.
No explanations, alvin... Just yes or no.
Cough it up, ass-wipe.
I am waiting.
C'mon... be a man....

[Patrick]

On Tue, 19 Mar 2013 07:51:13 -0400, raven1

Ohhh, robin.... have I been ignoring you too much lately?

[James]

duke <duckg...@cox.net>

Hello Duke, you seem to have a lot of faith, why not increase your
accuracy of it. God's creation account happened as it said.

For example, Jesus believed in the literal creation account. Mt 19:4,

"And He answered and said, "Have you not read, that He who created
them from the beginning made them male and female,"" (NASB)

Jesus believed in a world-wide flood, and Noah and the ark. Mt
24:38,39,

"38. "For as in those days which were before the flood they were
eating and drinking, they were marrying and giving in marriage, until
the day that Noah entered the ark,
39. and they did not understand until the flood came and took them
all away; so shall the coming of the Son of Man be." (NASB)

Jesus handpicked apostle, Paul, believed in the literal snake in Eden.
2 Co 11:3,

"But I am afraid, lest as the serpent deceived Eve by his craftiness,
your minds should be led astray from the simplicity and purity of
devotion to Christ." (NASB)

The apostle John identified that snake as Satan the Devil. Re 12:9,

"The great dragon was hurled down--that ancient serpent called the
devil, or Satan, who leads the whole world astray. He was hurled to
the earth, and his angels with him." (NIV)

Thus we have good credible witnesses that the Genesis account of
creation is literal and happened just as it is presented.


James
John 4:23,24
www.jw.org

[Ken]

Here's an observation....They're aren't pretending!

[Uncle Vic]

duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote in
news:u9hgk8d0fdu6qq97g...@4ax.com:

> On Mon, 18 Mar 2013 19:15:26 -0700 (PDT), ala...@hotmail.co.uk wrote:
>
>>A while ago I asked these two bible-bots if they actually believed in
>>the biblical Adam and Eve, the talking snake, and the original sin
>>story in the wholly babble.
>>
>>All they have done is lie and deny, they appear to be pretending to be
>>too stupid to understand the question.
>
> ??? Then you must be living in a cave. Did you not like my answer.
> Is that why?
>
>>If they assert that the whole A&E story was allegorical, then it must
>>follow that everything based on it is also allegorical (i.e., complete
>>BS)
>
> No, that's VERY wrong. The "story line" itself addresses issues such
> as the creation of the universe 13.7 billion years ago.

Chapter and verse, please. I couldn't find that information anywhere in
your holy book.

> Who was
> around to make such an observation?

Nobody, which means it was fabricated, probably in an attempt to explain
things that could not yet be explained correctly. Nice shot, Duke, right
in the foot.

>
>>Duke and Paddy. A yes or no answer, please. Did Adam and Eve and the
>>serpent exist as real living creatures, and did they do and say all
>>the things attributed to them in the bible?
>
> Can you tell me the diameter of the star furthermost from the center
> of the Andromedia Galaxy? No, you can't. That information is not
> available to you. And so is the classification of Gen 1-11 as
> allegorical vs fact.
>
> Basically, we can say that Gen 1-11 is allegorical, but that does't
> eliminate certain elements as fact. The name "a_dam" means "mankind".
> The name "eve" means "mother of mankind". The serpent is the lowest
> of creatures and closest to earthly things in crawling on it's belly,
> hence furthermost from the spirit..
>
> Is a flood of world wide proportions possible before, or maybe it was
> just a local flood. When was such a flood. At one time, Mt. Everest
> was no more than a speed bump. It wouldn't take much volume of water
> to cover it.

Mt. Everest is over 60 million years old. Which means Noah and family
pre-dated mankind by about 58 million years.

BWAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! At least you're not trying to put dinosaurs on
the boat!

>
> My own bible, as I've stated many times, clearly states that Gen 1-11
> is NOT a scientific statement of God's creation of all things
> including mankind but instead a faith statement written after 2 Kings.

OK, so the "fall from grace" never actually happened. Which means there
is nothing to be saved from, and your godman is nothing but a failed
martyr, of Marvel Comics proportions.

Four paragraphs and you still haven't answered the question. Do you
believe the characters in Genesis were real?

--
Uncle Vic
aa# 2011

"Don't you spend any time at all finding out the facts?"
[Earl Webber - 3/9/13)

Visit my You Tube Channel!
http://www.youtube.com/user/Vicman6311?feature=mhee

[Uncle Vic]

James <1ri...@windstream.net> wrote in
news:2rugk8lkfpcg4vl97...@4ax.com:

> Thus we have good credible witnesses that the Genesis account of
> creation is literal and happened just as it is presented.

Really? Someone was alive (and knew how to write) to witness the creation
of man? And you people say God doesn't do parlor tricks...

[Christopher A. Lee]

On Tue, 19 Mar 2013 11:09:13 -0400, James <1ri...@windstream.net>
wrote:

>Thus we have good credible witnesses that the Genesis account of
>creation is literal and happened just as it is presented.

Are you honestly this stupid or just doing it to seem stupid?

Although it has long since ceased to matter, the result is the same.

[Uncle Vic]

Patrick <pbark...@woh.rr.com> wrote in
news:ullgk8tii5ma4vp8e...@4ax.com:

> ala...@hotmail.co.uk wrote:
>
>>A while ago I asked these two bible-bots if they actually believed in
>>the biblical Adam and Eve, the talking snake, and the original sin
>>story in the wholly babble.
>>All they have done is lie and deny, they appear to be pretending to be
>>too stupid to understand the question.
>
> Actually, I posted a very detailed account about how literary styles
> are different from author to author. The actual story of the Adam and
> Eve chronicle is an allegory.

OK. This means to me that you don't believe the stories in Genesis are
historical. Yet you somehow still believe in divine reward and
punishment, without the understanding that if Genesis were anything but a
historical account, the entire foundation of the Christian Religion is
pulverized. Interesting.

And what was alex's response?
> He whined that some of the explanation came from a Christian source.
> He didn't address the actual content.
> He whined that I didn't answer his question.
>
>
>
>>If they assert that the whole A&E story was allegorical, then it must
>>follow that everything based on it is also allegorical (i.e., complete
>>BS)
>
> Why?
> Perhaps albert doesn't understand stories with moral intent.
> Is he so stupid that he cannot comprehend this?

"Believe in me or burn in hell" is moral intent? Interesting.

>
>
>
>
>>Duke and Paddy. A yes or no answer, please. Did Adam and Eve and the
>>serpent exist as real living creatures, and did they do and say all
>>the things attributed to them in the bible?
>
> OK, I'll answer this.... as soon as you answer a question for me:
> Did your mom ever punish you for the things you did to your pet?

You are confusing fantasy with reality again.

[Christopher A. Lee]

On Tue, 19 Mar 2013 11:23:44 -0500, Uncle Vic <so...@noway.com> wrote:

>Patrick <pbark...@woh.rr.com> wrote in
>news:ullgk8tii5ma4vp8e...@4ax.com:
>
>> ala...@hotmail.co.uk wrote:
>>
>>>A while ago I asked these two bible-bots if they actually believed in
>>>the biblical Adam and Eve, the talking snake, and the original sin
>>>story in the wholly babble.
>>>All they have done is lie and deny, they appear to be pretending to be
>>>too stupid to understand the question.
>>
>> Actually, I posted a very detailed account about how literary styles
>> are different from author to author. The actual story of the Adam and
>> Eve chronicle is an allegory.
>
>OK. This means to me that you don't believe the stories in Genesis are
>historical. Yet you somehow still believe in divine reward and
>punishment, without the understanding that if Genesis were anything but a
>historical account, the entire foundation of the Christian Religion is
>pulverized. Interesting.

No original sin so it tumbles like a house of cards.

[�RLMeasures]

In article
<fcac5c92-0b85-413e...@n2g2000yqg.googlegroups.com>, Ken
<flak...@aol.com> wrote:

� chortle. Duke is definitely not pretending.

[Rockinghorse Winner]

On Tue, 19 Mar 2013 11:23:44 -0500, Uncle Vic <so...@noway.com> wrote:

> Patrick <pbark...@woh.rr.com> wrote in
> news:ullgk8tii5ma4vp8e...@4ax.com:


> > ala...@hotmail.co.uk wrote:
> >
> >>A while ago I asked these two bible-bots if they actually
believed in
> >>the biblical Adam and Eve, the talking snake, and the original sin
> >>story in the wholly babble.
> >>All they have done is lie and deny, they appear to be pretending
to be
> >>too stupid to understand the question.
> >
> > Actually, I posted a very detailed account about how literary
styles
> > are different from author to author. The actual story of the
Adam and
> > Eve chronicle is an allegory.


> OK. This means to me that you don't believe the stories in Genesis
are
> historical. Yet you somehow still believe in divine reward and
> punishment, without the understanding that if Genesis were anything
but a
> historical account, the entire foundation of the Christian Religion
is
> pulverized. Interesting.

Christianity doesn't depend on a particular interpretation of the
literary genre of any book in scripture.

> And what was alex's response?
> > He whined that some of the explanation came from a Christian
source.
> > He didn't address the actual content.
> > He whined that I didn't answer his question.
> >
> >
> >
> >>If they assert that the whole A&E story was allegorical, then it
must
> >>follow that everything based on it is also allegorical (i.e.,
complete
> >>BS)
> >
> > Why?
> > Perhaps albert doesn't understand stories with moral intent.
> > Is he so stupid that he cannot comprehend this?


> "Believe in me or burn in hell" is moral intent? Interesting.

Where are you getting this interpretation of Genesis? Certainly not
from Genesis!

> >
> >
> >
> >
> >>Duke and Paddy. A yes or no answer, please. Did Adam and Eve and
the
> >>serpent exist as real living creatures, and did they do and say
all
> >>the things attributed to them in the bible?
> >
> > OK, I'll answer this.... as soon as you answer a question for me:
> > Did your mom ever punish you for the things you did to your pet?


> You are confusing fantasy with reality again.


> --
> Uncle Vic
> aa# 2011


> "Don't you spend any time at all finding out the facts?"
> [Earl Webber - 3/9/13)


> Visit my You Tube Channel!
> http://www.youtube.com/user/Vicman6311?feature=mhee

--
Terry

[Christopher A. Lee]

On Tue, 19 Mar 2013 09:53:02 -0700, Rockinghorse Winner
<badass....@gmx.com> wrote:

>On Tue, 19 Mar 2013 11:23:44 -0500, Uncle Vic <so...@noway.com> wrote:

>> OK. This means to me that you don't believe the stories in Genesis
>> are historical. Yet you somehow still believe in divine reward and
>> punishment, without the understanding that if Genesis were anything
>> but a historical account, the entire foundation of the Christian Religion
>> is pulverized. Interesting.
>
>Christianity doesn't depend on a particular interpretation of the
>literary genre of any book in scripture.

Yet you still believe much of that bullshit, for which it is the only
source.

Including original sin.

You can't have it both ways.

At least _try_ to be honest for a change.

>> And what was alex's response?
>> > He whined that some of the explanation came from a Christian
>> > source.
>> > He didn't address the actual content.
>> > He whined that I didn't answer his question.
>> >
>> >>If they assert that the whole A&E story was allegorical, then it
>> >>must follow that everything based on it is also allegorical (i.e.,
>> >>complete BS)
>> >
>> > Why?
>> > Perhaps albert doesn't understand stories with moral intent.
>> > Is he so stupid that he cannot comprehend this?

Has Ratpick never heard of original sin?

>> "Believe in me or burn in hell" is moral intent? Interesting.
>
>Where are you getting this interpretation of Genesis? Certainly not
>from Genesis!

So there's no salvation from original sin, imbecile?

It's the foundation of Christianity.

[duke]

On Tue, 19 Mar 2013 11:09:13 -0400, James <1ri...@windstream.net> wrote:

>Thus we have good credible witnesses that the Genesis account of
>creation is literal and happened just as it is presented.

He was a man who hid his divinity. Of course he believed.

[duke]

On Tue, 19 Mar 2013 11:10:49 -0500, Uncle Vic <so...@noway.com> wrote:

>duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote in
>news:u9hgk8d0fdu6qq97g...@4ax.com:
>
>> On Mon, 18 Mar 2013 19:15:26 -0700 (PDT), ala...@hotmail.co.uk wrote:
>>
>>>A while ago I asked these two bible-bots if they actually believed in
>>>the biblical Adam and Eve, the talking snake, and the original sin
>>>story in the wholly babble.
>>>
>>>All they have done is lie and deny, they appear to be pretending to be
>>>too stupid to understand the question.
>>
>> ??? Then you must be living in a cave. Did you not like my answer.
>> Is that why?
>>
>>>If they assert that the whole A&E story was allegorical, then it must
>>>follow that everything based on it is also allegorical (i.e., complete
>>>BS)
>>
>> No, that's VERY wrong. The "story line" itself addresses issues such
>> as the creation of the universe 13.7 billion years ago.
>
>Chapter and verse, please. I couldn't find that information anywhere in
>your holy book.

You don't have a copy of my Catholic Study Bible.

>> Who was
>> around to make such an observation?

>Nobody, which means it was fabricated, probably in an attempt to explain
>things that could not yet be explained correctly. Nice shot, Duke, right
>in the foot.

Allegorical.

>>>Duke and Paddy. A yes or no answer, please. Did Adam and Eve and the
>>>serpent exist as real living creatures, and did they do and say all
>>>the things attributed to them in the bible?
>>
>> Can you tell me the diameter of the star furthermost from the center
>> of the Andromedia Galaxy? No, you can't. That information is not
>> available to you. And so is the classification of Gen 1-11 as
>> allegorical vs fact.

>> Basically, we can say that Gen 1-11 is allegorical, but that does't
>> eliminate certain elements as fact. The name "a_dam" means "mankind".
>> The name "eve" means "mother of mankind". The serpent is the lowest
>> of creatures and closest to earthly things in crawling on it's belly,
>> hence furthermost from the spirit..
>>
>> Is a flood of world wide proportions possible before, or maybe it was
>> just a local flood. When was such a flood. At one time, Mt. Everest
>> was no more than a speed bump. It wouldn't take much volume of water
>> to cover it.

>Mt. Everest is over 60 million years old. Which means Noah and family
>pre-dated mankind by about 58 million years.

There you go.

>BWAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! At least you're not trying to put dinosaurs on
>the boat!

>> My own bible, as I've stated many times, clearly states that Gen 1-11
>> is NOT a scientific statement of God's creation of all things
>> including mankind but instead a faith statement written after 2 Kings.

>OK, so the "fall from grace" never actually happened. Which means there
>is nothing to be saved from, and your godman is nothing but a failed
>martyr, of Marvel Comics proportions.

Is it so much for you to accept that the presentation identified the naturally
Occurring propensity to sin in mankind.

>Four paragraphs and you still haven't answered the question. Do you
>believe the characters in Genesis were real?

If you don't get it now, you never will. There is no way any person can state
one way or the other which issue is literal and which is allegorical. But my
money is on allegorical.

[Patrick]

On Tue, 19 Mar 2013 11:23:44 -0500, Uncle Vic <so...@noway.com> wrote:

>Patrick <pbark...@woh.rr.com> wrote in
>news:ullgk8tii5ma4vp8e...@4ax.com:
>
>> ala...@hotmail.co.uk wrote:
>>
>>>A while ago I asked these two bible-bots if they actually believed in
>>>the biblical Adam and Eve, the talking snake, and the original sin
>>>story in the wholly babble.
>>>All they have done is lie and deny, they appear to be pretending to be
>>>too stupid to understand the question.
>>
>> Actually, I posted a very detailed account about how literary styles
>> are different from author to author. The actual story of the Adam and
>> Eve chronicle is an allegory.
>
>OK. This means to me that you don't believe the stories in Genesis are
>historical. Yet you somehow still believe in divine reward and
>punishment, without the understanding that if Genesis were anything but a
>historical account, the entire foundation of the Christian Religion is
>pulverized. Interesting.

You really are good at great leaps, aren't you?
The Bible is not a science book.
Much like science or any other discipline that takes itself seriously
biblical exegesis is a study that will continually grow and evolve. So
where is the final copy? You won't find one, ever. Our understanding
of the Bible will evolve as our understanding of Science, History and
dozens of other disciplines grow and evolve with it.

>And what was alex's response?
>> He whined that some of the explanation came from a Christian source.
>> He didn't address the actual content.
>> He whined that I didn't answer his question.
>>
>>
>>
>>>If they assert that the whole A&E story was allegorical, then it must
>>>follow that everything based on it is also allegorical (i.e., complete
>>>BS)
>>
>> Why?
>> Perhaps albert doesn't understand stories with moral intent.
>> Is he so stupid that he cannot comprehend this?
>
>"Believe in me or burn in hell" is moral intent? Interesting.

Is that what I said?
Interesting.
I don't even think Jesus ever said that.

>>>Duke and Paddy. A yes or no answer, please. Did Adam and Eve and the
>>>serpent exist as real living creatures, and did they do and say all
>>>the things attributed to them in the bible?
>>
>> OK, I'll answer this.... as soon as you answer a question for me:
>> Did your mom ever punish you for the things you did to your pet?
>
>You are confusing fantasy with reality again.

Not even.

[raven1]

On Tue, 19 Mar 2013 09:53:02 -0700, Rockinghorse Winner
<badass....@gmx.com> wrote:

Plenty of Christians seem to think it does.

[Patrick]

Christopher A. Lee wrote:

>>Christianity doesn't depend on a particular interpretation of the
>>literary genre of any book in scripture.
>
>Yet you still believe much of that bullshit, for which it is the only
>source.

No, it isn't.
Stop lying.
-------------------

>Including original sin.
>You can't have it both ways.

Don't want it both ways.
---------

>At least _try_ to be honest for a change.
>
>>> And what was alex's response?
>>> > He whined that some of the explanation came from a Christian
>>> > source.
>>> > He didn't address the actual content.
>>> > He whined that I didn't answer his question.
>>> >
>>> >>If they assert that the whole A&E story was allegorical, then it
>>> >>must follow that everything based on it is also allegorical (i.e.,
>>> >>complete BS)
>>> >
>>> > Why?
>>> > Perhaps albert doesn't understand stories with moral intent.
>>> > Is he so stupid that he cannot comprehend this?
>
>Has Ratpick never heard of original sin?

Patrick says that he has heard of it.
Next question.

>
>>> "Believe in me or burn in hell" is moral intent? Interesting.
>>
>>Where are you getting this interpretation of Genesis? Certainly not
>>from Genesis!
>
>So there's no salvation from original sin, imbecile?
>It's the foundation of Christianity.

Prove it.

[Christopher A. Lee]

Christianity depends on salvation from original sin. which requires a
literal reading of Genesis.

Including Reeking Hearse Whiner's version.

[Syd M.]

On Mar 19, 12:53 pm, Rockinghorse Winner <badass.super...@gmx.com>
wrote:

> On Tue, 19 Mar 2013 11:23:44 -0500, Uncle Vic <so...@noway.com> wrote:

> > Patrick <pbarker...@woh.rr.com> wrote in
> >news:ullgk8tii5ma4vp8e...@4ax.com:

So, your a literalist, then?

PDW

[Syd M.]

On Mar 19, 1:16 pm, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Mar 2013 11:09:13 -0400, James <1ri...@windstream.net> wrote:
> >Thus we have good credible witnesses that the Genesis account of
> >creation is literal and happened just as it is presented.
>
> He was a man who hid his divinity.  Of course he believed.
>
>

So, it's obvious that he didn't believe, then.

PDW

[Rockinghorse Winner]

No, Christianity provides salvation from personal sin. Original sin
is a doctrine that explains why humanity is so messed up. :b

> Including Reeking Hearse Whiner's version.

--
Terry

[Christopher A. Lee]

On Tue, 19 Mar 2013 13:37:03 -0700, Rockinghorse Winner
<badass....@gmx.com> wrote:

>On Tue, 19 Mar 2013 10:54:10 -0700, Christopher A. Lee
><ca...@optonline.net> wrote:
>> On Tue, 19 Mar 2013 13:48:10 -0400, raven1
>> <quotht...@nevermore.com> wrote:

>> >>Christianity doesn't depend on a particular interpretation of the
>> >>literary genre of any book in scripture.
>> >
>> >Plenty of Christians seem to think it does.
>
>> Christianity depends on salvation from original sin. which requires
>> a literal reading of Genesis.

It al;so depends on the fictional virgin birth, crucifixion and
resurrection. Or aren't these mentioned in the books of the NT?

>No, Christianity provides salvation from personal sin. Original sin

No, Christianity provides nothing but "cures" for the imaginary things
it previously made its believers scared of.

>is a doctrine that explains why humanity is so messed up. :b

It is complete and utter bullshit, made up by ignorant primitives.

Whether you like it or not, Christianity's foundation was salvation
from original sin.

The lie is that everybody is a sinner because of that, when it's
merely a fairy story.

As is personal sin.

[Patrick]

On Tue, 19 Mar 2013 14:06:33 -0700, Christopher A. Lee

<ca...@optonline.net> wrote:

>On Tue, 19 Mar 2013 13:37:03 -0700, Rockinghorse Winner
><badass....@gmx.com> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 19 Mar 2013 10:54:10 -0700, Christopher A. Lee
>><ca...@optonline.net> wrote:
>>> On Tue, 19 Mar 2013 13:48:10 -0400, raven1
>>> <quotht...@nevermore.com> wrote:
>
>>> >>Christianity doesn't depend on a particular interpretation of the
>>> >>literary genre of any book in scripture.
>>> >
>>> >Plenty of Christians seem to think it does.
>>
>>> Christianity depends on salvation from original sin. which requires
>>> a literal reading of Genesis.
>
>It al;so depends on the fictional virgin birth, crucifixion and
>resurrection. Or aren't these mentioned in the books of the NT?

Make up my mind.

[Budikka666]

On Mar 19, 6:27 am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:

> On Mon, 18 Mar 2013 19:15:26 -0700 (PDT), alan...@hotmail.co.uk wrote:
> >A while ago I asked these two bible-bots if they actually believed in
> >the biblical Adam and Eve, the talking snake, and the original sin
> >story in the wholly babble.
>
> >All they have done is lie and deny, they appear to be pretending to be
> >too stupid to understand the question.
>

> ??? Then you must be living in a cave. Did you not like my answer. Is that
> why?

Yo never give an answer because you have neither the guts nor faith,
nor do you have the facts as your record shows.

> >If they assert that the whole A&E story was allegorical, then it must
> >follow that everything based on it is also allegorical (i.e., complete
> >BS)
>

> No, that's VERY wrong. The "story line" itself addresses issues such as the

> creation of the universe 13.7 billion years ago. Who was around to make such an
> observation?

Where does it mention 13.7 billion years, liar? The story actually
depicts some 6,000 years as made clear in the *detailed genealogies*
contained in the pentateuch and listed in Matthew and Luke. Why is it
you *always* *run* *away* when you're confronted with that, coward?

> >Duke and Paddy. A yes or no answer, please. Did Adam and Eve and the
> >serpent exist as real living creatures, and did they do and say all
> >the things attributed to them in the bible?
>

> Can you tell me the diameter of the star furthermost from the center of the
> Andromedia Galaxy? No, you can't. That information is not available to you.
> And so is the classification of Gen 1-11 as allegorical vs fact.

So your god is useless again, huh? Thanks for the admission.

> Basically, we can say that Gen 1-11 is allegorical, but that does't eliminate
> certain elements as fact. The name "a_dam" means "mankind".

No, it doesn't It was actually a name. It has been perverted to mean
'humankind' over time:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam

The name "eve"
> means "mother of mankind".

No, it doesn't, it means 'source of life':
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eve

No wonder you *ran* *away* when you challenged me to debate scripture
and I accepted! lol!

The serpent is the lowest of creatures and closest
> to earthly things in crawling on it's belly, hence furthermost from the spirit..

Lie. There are bacteria living deep down in Earth's crust. But the
writers of the bible knew nothing about them because there was and is
no actual god to tell them. They just made it all up.

> Is a flood of world wide proportions possible before, or maybe it was just a
> local flood. When was such a flood. At one time, Mt. Everest was no more than
> a speed bump. It wouldn't take much volume of water to cover it.

LIE. Everest was a massive mountain long before any humans arrived on
Earth, and yov've been told this. In fact this is *another* debate
from which you *fled* when I challenged you.

> My own bible, as I've stated many times, clearly states that Gen 1-11 is NOT a
> scientific statement of God's creation of all things including mankind but
> instead a faith statement written after 2 Kings.

No one in their right mind believes it is, but Jesus believed it was
if we're to believe the NT fiction, and 40% of the USA adult
population believe it is: so how come you never join us atheists when
we take on the young Earth creationists? Why do you always join them
instead of setting them straight?

Huh?

Because you're a weasel coward that's why.

Keep running Duke Box.

Budikka

[nature bats_last]

On Mar 18, 7:15 pm, alan...@hotmail.co.uk wrote:
> A while ago I asked these two bible-bots if they actually believed in
> the biblical Adam and Eve, the talking snake, and the original sin
> story in the wholly babble.
>
> All they have done is lie and deny, they appear to be pretending to be
> too stupid to understand the question.

;

> If they assert that the whole A&E story was allegorical, then it must
> follow that everything based on it is also allegorical (i.e., complete
> BS)

;

> Duke and Paddy. A yes or no answer, please. Did Adam and Eve and the
> serpent exist as real living creatures, and did they do and say all
> the things attributed to them in the bible?

Oh, Dook has already said that there was no
Adam and Eve.



NBL

[duke]

On Tue, 19 Mar 2013 11:09:13 -0400, James <1ri...@windstream.net> wrote:

>>My own bible, as I've stated many times, clearly states that Gen 1-11 is NOT a
>>scientific statement of God's creation of all things including mankind but
>>instead a faith statement written after 2 Kings.

>Hello Duke, you seem to have a lot of faith, why not increase your
>accuracy of it. God's creation account happened as it said.

Jesus specifically assigned the Papacy to be the teachings authority to all
mankind. I think I'll stick with the Catholic Chruch on that one.

>For example, Jesus believed in the literal creation account. Mt 19:4,
>"And He answered and said, "Have you not read, that He who created
>them from the beginning made them male and female,"" (NASB)
>Jesus believed in a world-wide flood, and Noah and the ark. Mt
>24:38,39,

It was part of Jewish religious faith. Why would he even spend time thinking
otherwise?

>"38. "For as in those days which were before the flood they were
>eating and drinking, they were marrying and giving in marriage, until
>the day that Noah entered the ark,
> 39. and they did not understand until the flood came and took them
>all away; so shall the coming of the Son of Man be." (NASB)
>
>Jesus handpicked apostle, Paul, believed in the literal snake in Eden.
>2 Co 11:3,
>
>"But I am afraid, lest as the serpent deceived Eve by his craftiness,
>your minds should be led astray from the simplicity and purity of
>devotion to Christ." (NASB)
>
>The apostle John identified that snake as Satan the Devil. Re 12:9,
>
>"The great dragon was hurled down--that ancient serpent called the
>devil, or Satan, who leads the whole world astray. He was hurled to
>the earth, and his angels with him." (NIV)
>
>Thus we have good credible witnesses that the Genesis account of
>creation is literal and happened just as it is presented.

13.7 billion years is a lot of time to address.

[duke]

And we're kicking butt to boot.

[duke]

On Tue, 19 Mar 2013 20:53:55 -0700 (PDT), nature bats_last <seqk...@gmail.com>
wrote:

Much less a talking snake.

[duke]

On Tue, 19 Mar 2013 11:23:44 -0500, Uncle Vic <so...@noway.com> wrote:

>Patrick <pbark...@woh.rr.com> wrote in
>news:ullgk8tii5ma4vp8e...@4ax.com:
>
>> ala...@hotmail.co.uk wrote:
>>
>>>A while ago I asked these two bible-bots if they actually believed in
>>>the biblical Adam and Eve, the talking snake, and the original sin
>>>story in the wholly babble.
>>>All they have done is lie and deny, they appear to be pretending to be
>>>too stupid to understand the question.
>>
>> Actually, I posted a very detailed account about how literary styles
>> are different from author to author. The actual story of the Adam and
>> Eve chronicle is an allegory.
>
>OK. This means to me that you don't believe the stories in Genesis are
>historical. Yet you somehow still believe in divine reward and
>punishment, without the understanding that if Genesis were anything but a
>historical account, the entire foundation of the Christian Religion is
>pulverized. Interesting.

Totally false. The story of A&E is allegorical to the nature of man to sin
against God. Take out A&E, and our sinful nature is still with us. Look at
yourself as example.

>And what was alex's response?
>> He whined that some of the explanation came from a Christian source.
>> He didn't address the actual content.
>> He whined that I didn't answer his question.
>>
>>
>>
>>>If they assert that the whole A&E story was allegorical, then it must
>>>follow that everything based on it is also allegorical (i.e., complete
>>>BS)
>>
>> Why?
>> Perhaps albert doesn't understand stories with moral intent.
>> Is he so stupid that he cannot comprehend this?
>
>"Believe in me or burn in hell" is moral intent? Interesting.
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>Duke and Paddy. A yes or no answer, please. Did Adam and Eve and the
>>>serpent exist as real living creatures, and did they do and say all
>>>the things attributed to them in the bible?
>>
>> OK, I'll answer this.... as soon as you answer a question for me:
>> Did your mom ever punish you for the things you did to your pet?
>
>You are confusing fantasy with reality again.

[James]

Uncle Vic <so...@noway.com>

>James <1ri...@windstream.net> wrote in
>news:2rugk8lkfpcg4vl97...@4ax.com:
>
>> Thus we have good credible witnesses that the Genesis account of
>> creation is literal and happened just as it is presented.
>
>Really? Someone was alive (and knew how to write) to witness the creation
>of man? And you people say God doesn't do parlor tricks...

God doesn't have to 'trick' anyone. Jesus was with God when God
created Adam and Eve. (see Ge 1:26; 3:22) Thus we have an eyewittness
account.

James
John 4:23,24
www.jw.org

[Christopher A. Lee]

On Wed, 20 Mar 2013 09:49:20 -0400, James <1ri...@windstream.net>
wrote:

>Uncle Vic <so...@noway.com>
>>James <1ri...@windstream.net> wrote in
>>news:2rugk8lkfpcg4vl97...@4ax.com:
>>
>>> Thus we have good credible witnesses that the Genesis account of
>>> creation is literal and happened just as it is presented.
>>
>>Really? Someone was alive (and knew how to write) to witness the creation
>>of man? And you people say God doesn't do parlor tricks...
>
>
>God doesn't have to 'trick' anyone. Jesus was with God when God
>created Adam and Eve. (see Ge 1:26; 3:22)

Where did you demonstrate this hypothetical god and the equally
hypothetical Jesus before rudely and stupidly presuming them where you
know it's just so much bullshit?

> Thus we have an eyewittness
>account.

Why don't you wither learn what an eyewitness is, or to stop lying?

>James
>John 4:23,24
>www.jw.org

Idiot.

[Uncle Vic]

James <1ri...@windstream.net> wrote in
news:plejk8d0e67npd3c4...@4ax.com:

Actually two, and they contradict one another.

[Uncle Vic]

James <1ri...@windstream.net> wrote in
news:2rugk8lkfpcg4vl97...@4ax.com:

> Hello Duke, you seem to have a lot of faith, why not increase your
> accuracy of it. God's creation account happened as it said.
>

> For example, Jesus believed in the literal creation account. Mt 19:4,
>
> "And He answered and said, "Have you not read, that He who created
> them from the beginning made them male and female,"" (NASB)
>
> Jesus believed in a world-wide flood, and Noah and the ark. Mt
> 24:38,39,

If Jesus is God, why would he have to believe in these things if he caused
them?

[Uncle Vic]

duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote in
news:4d7hk89fjlgmn63bk...@4ax.com:

> On Tue, 19 Mar 2013 11:10:49 -0500, Uncle Vic <so...@noway.com> wrote:
>
>>duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote in
>>news:u9hgk8d0fdu6qq97g...@4ax.com:
>>
>>> On Mon, 18 Mar 2013 19:15:26 -0700 (PDT), ala...@hotmail.co.uk
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>A while ago I asked these two bible-bots if they actually believed
>>>>in the biblical Adam and Eve, the talking snake, and the original
>>>>sin story in the wholly babble.
>>>>
>>>>All they have done is lie and deny, they appear to be pretending to
>>>>be too stupid to understand the question.
>>>
>>> ??? Then you must be living in a cave. Did you not like my answer.
>>> Is that why?
>>>
>>>>If they assert that the whole A&E story was allegorical, then it
>>>>must follow that everything based on it is also allegorical (i.e.,
>>>>complete BS)
>>>
>>> No, that's VERY wrong. The "story line" itself addresses issues
>>> such as the creation of the universe 13.7 billion years ago.
>>
>>Chapter and verse, please. I couldn't find that information anywhere
>>in your holy book.
>
> You don't have a copy of my Catholic Study Bible.

Your holy book says the world was created 13.7 billion years ago?

But we know that is not true, why do you believe it is?

>
>>BWAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! At least you're not trying to put dinosaurs
>>on the boat!
>
>>> My own bible, as I've stated many times, clearly states that Gen
>>> 1-11 is NOT a scientific statement of God's creation of all things
>>> including mankind but instead a faith statement written after 2
>>> Kings.
>
>>OK, so the "fall from grace" never actually happened. Which means
>>there is nothing to be saved from, and your godman is nothing but a
>>failed martyr, of Marvel Comics proportions.
>
> Is it so much for you to accept that the presentation identified the
> naturally Occurring propensity to sin in mankind.

What that boils down to is merely a matter of opinion. One man's sin is
another man's righteousness.

>
>>Four paragraphs and you still haven't answered the question. Do you
>>believe the characters in Genesis were real?
>
> If you don't get it now, you never will. There is no way any person
> can state one way or the other which issue is literal and which is
> allegorical. But my money is on allegorical.

Ah, so you don't believe in a literal Genesis with a real talking snake,
and two humans who had no parents, were born as adults, "sinned", and
were kicked out of "the garden"? A literal A & E is required in order
for "original sin" to have actually happened, and without them there
could have been no "original sin", and all religions that rely on it to
necessitate "salvation" teeter off their foundations and crash to the
ground.

Evolution shows us that there was no Adam & Eve as "first humans" created
thousands of years ago (instead of evolving over a few million years, as
the evidence proves.

Bummer, dude.

--
Uncle Vic
aa# 2011

AA Quotemeister

[Uncle Vic]

Rockinghorse Winner <badass....@gmx.com> wrote in
news:almarsoft.3251...@news.astraweb.com:

When you try to equate it with reality it does.

>
>> And what was alex's response?
>> > He whined that some of the explanation came from a Christian
> source.
>> > He didn't address the actual content.
>> > He whined that I didn't answer his question.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >>If they assert that the whole A&E story was allegorical, then it
> must
>> >>follow that everything based on it is also allegorical (i.e.,
> complete
>> >>BS)
>> >
>> > Why?
>> > Perhaps albert doesn't understand stories with moral intent.
>> > Is he so stupid that he cannot comprehend this?
>
>
>> "Believe in me or burn in hell" is moral intent? Interesting.
>
> Where are you getting this interpretation of Genesis? Certainly not
> from Genesis!
>

It's not an interpretation. Genesis is full of imaginary, magical
nonsense. If you want to show that salvation from original sin is
necessary, the absurd stories in Genesis must be proven literally true.
Which is not possible since the very first two chapters contradict one
another, and it goes downhill from there.

Why do you think it is a sin to think this way? Every believer they lose
represents a decline in income, and that's the only observation one can
make without diving into fantasyland.

--
Uncle Vic
aa# 2011

AA Quotemeister

[Uncle Vic]

Patrick <pbark...@woh.rr.com> wrote in
news:g69hk8pkmdekmccpj...@4ax.com:

Reading for comprehension isn't your forte, is it?

--
Uncle Vic
aa# 2011

AA Quotemeister

[Uncle Vic]

Rockinghorse Winner <badass....@gmx.com> wrote in

news:almarsoft.6363...@news.astraweb.com:

>> Christianity depends on salvation from original sin. which requires
>> a literal reading of Genesis.
>
> No, Christianity provides salvation from personal sin. Original sin
> is a doctrine that explains why humanity is so messed up. :b
>

Only a part of humanity is messed up, and is comprised of people trying to
function in the real world while harbouring crazy beliefs that they can't
separate from reality.

Unfortunately for the rest of us, this is a very large portion of the
world's population.

[Uncle Vic]

Patrick <pbark...@woh.rr.com> wrote in
news:8m8hk8hqg9oho0s2j...@4ax.com:

>>> Actually, I posted a very detailed account about how literary styles
>>> are different from author to author. The actual story of the Adam
>>> and Eve chronicle is an allegory.
>>
>>OK. This means to me that you don't believe the stories in Genesis
>>are historical. Yet you somehow still believe in divine reward and
>>punishment, without the understanding that if Genesis were anything
>>but a historical account, the entire foundation of the Christian
>>Religion is pulverized. Interesting.
>
> You really are good at great leaps, aren't you?

I'm just trying to find some consistency in your fairy stories.

> The Bible is not a science book.

Right, it's a fantasy book that believers attempt to meld with reality.
And it's absolutely hilarious watching you and duke madly pound your
hammers to make the square peg fit a round hole.

> Much like science or any other discipline that takes itself seriously
> biblical exegesis is a study that will continually grow and evolve.

Like a bad rumor. Unless you believe rabbits chew their cud, that is.

> So
> where is the final copy? You won't find one, ever. Our understanding
> of the Bible will evolve as our understanding of Science, History and
> dozens of other disciplines grow and evolve with it.

Changing the stories won't make them true. The only discipline that
grows and evolves in matters biblical is an intelligent person's
skepticism.

>
>
>>And what was alex's response?
>>> He whined that some of the explanation came from a Christian source.
>>> He didn't address the actual content.
>>> He whined that I didn't answer his question.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>If they assert that the whole A&E story was allegorical, then it
>>>>must follow that everything based on it is also allegorical (i.e.,
>>>>complete BS)
>>>
>>> Why?
>>> Perhaps albert doesn't understand stories with moral intent.
>>> Is he so stupid that he cannot comprehend this?
>>
>>"Believe in me or burn in hell" is moral intent? Interesting.
>
> Is that what I said?
> Interesting.
> I don't even think Jesus ever said that.

Mark 16:16 "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that
believeth not shall be damned."

How do you define "damned", Patrick?

--
Uncle Vic
aa# 2011

"Don't you spend any time at all finding out the facts?"
[Earl Webber - 3/9/13)

[Patrick]

Perhaps (since you jumped in) you would like to prove that Original
Sin is the foundation for Christianity.

[Uncle Vic]

duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote in
news:ps6jk851vadiacbcn...@4ax.com:

> On Tue, 19 Mar 2013 11:23:44 -0500, Uncle Vic <so...@noway.com> wrote:
>
>>Patrick <pbark...@woh.rr.com> wrote in
>>news:ullgk8tii5ma4vp8e...@4ax.com:
>>
>>> ala...@hotmail.co.uk wrote:
>>>
>>>>A while ago I asked these two bible-bots if they actually believed
>>>>in the biblical Adam and Eve, the talking snake, and the original
>>>>sin story in the wholly babble.
>>>>All they have done is lie and deny, they appear to be pretending to
>>>>be too stupid to understand the question.
>>>
>>> Actually, I posted a very detailed account about how literary styles
>>> are different from author to author. The actual story of the Adam
>>> and Eve chronicle is an allegory.
>>
>>OK. This means to me that you don't believe the stories in Genesis
>>are historical. Yet you somehow still believe in divine reward and
>>punishment, without the understanding that if Genesis were anything
>>but a historical account, the entire foundation of the Christian
>>Religion is pulverized. Interesting.
>
> Totally false. The story of A&E is allegorical to the nature of man
> to sin against God. Take out A&E, and our sinful nature is still with
> us. Look at yourself as example.

What sinful nature, duke? I've sinned against some fantasy pixie I don't
believe in in the first place? If that's true, then you've sinned against
Allah, Krishna, Zarathustra, Horus, and Quezalcoatl. Not to mention
hundreds of different versions of "Jesus". And those are only a few of the
hells you'll be visiting, all at once, since you believe some kind of life
follows the death of the organ which gives you life, and you have no
evidence whatsoever that your god exists.

--
Uncle Vic
aa# 2011

AA Quotemeister

[Rockinghorse Winner]

It is decidedly not nonsense. It is an extremely rich and well
crafted fable that places Israel's troubles (it was probably written
about the time of the Babylonian exile) , and by extension the
mystery of human suffering, within a time line that links the whole
human race to a common destiny.

If you want to show that salvation from original sin is
> necessary, the absurd stories in Genesis must be proven literally
true.

It actually doesn't. The evidence for original sin
is the human condition itself. The Christian concept of original sin
ties the common origin of all humanity in God to the universal gospel
message of God's love. The story in Genesis conveys a religious
truth: the sinfulness of man and his yearning for a lost innocence.

> Which is not possible since the very first two chapters contradict
one
> another, and it goes downhill from there.


> Why do you think it is a sin to think this way? Every believer
they lose
> represents a decline in income, and that's the only observation one
can
> make without diving into fantasyland.

It is that skepticism, that merry go round of despair, that Christ
came to deliver us from.

> --
> Uncle Vic
> aa# 2011


> AA Quotemeister


> Visit my You Tube Channel!
> http://www.youtube.com/user/Vicman6311?feature=mhee

--
Terry

[Christopher A. Lee]

On Wed, 20 Mar 2013 10:06:02 -0700, Rockinghorse Winner
<badass....@gmx.com> wrote:

>On Wed, 20 Mar 2013 10:56:54 -0500, Uncle Vic <so...@noway.com> wrote:
>> Rockinghorse Winner <badass....@gmx.com> wrote in
>> news:almarsoft.3251...@news.astraweb.com:

>> It's not an interpretation. Genesis is full of imaginary, magical
>> nonsense.
>
>It is decidedly not nonsense. It is an extremely rich and well
>crafted fable that places Israel's troubles (it was probably written
>about the time of the Babylonian exile) , and by extension the
>mystery of human suffering, within a time line that links the whole
>human race to a common destiny.

It's complete and utter bullshit about talking snakes, fantasies about
a magical superbeing creating everything, major events that are
manifestly impossible like a global flood, etc.

> If you want to show that salvation from original sin is
>> necessary, the absurd stories in Genesis must be proven literally
>true.
>
>It actually doesn't. The evidence for original sin
>is the human condition itself.

How so, imbecile?

Christianity gets original sin from Genesis.

No matter how many dishonest believers try transparently to
rationalise it as something else.

> The Christian concept of original sin
>ties the common origin of all humanity in God

What "common origin of all humanity in God" are you lying about?

> to the universal gospel
>message of God's love.

What "universal gospel message" of what hypothetical "God's" equally
hypothetical "love" are you babbling about, question-begging moron?

> The story in Genesis conveys a religious
>truth:

Why do you liars lie that what are merely your religious beliefs you
know only Christians share, ate "truth", liar?

> the sinfulness of man

What "sinfulness of man" are you lying about?

> and his yearning for a lost innocence.

Then stop masturbating.

>> Which is not possible since the very first two chapters contradict
>> one another, and it goes downhill from there.

Couldn't answer this?

>> Why do you think it is a sin to think this way? Every believer
>> they lose represents a decline in income, and that's the only
>> observation one can make without diving into fantasyland.

That's only part of it.

It's a self-propagating meme - he was brainwashed in childhood
to be a mindlessly stupid, unthinking zombie.

And he will marry someone who is the same, and brainwash their future
children with it.

>It is that skepticism, that merry go round of despair,

What "merry go round of despair" are you lying about, pathological
liar?

> that Christ

WHAT FUCKING CHRIST IN THE REAL WORLD BEYOND YOUR RELIGION, imbecile?

>came to deliver us from.

Idiot.

[walksalone]

James <1ri...@windstream.net> wrote in
news:plejk8d0e67npd3c4...@4ax.com:

> Uncle Vic <so...@noway.com>
>>James <1ri...@windstream.net> wrote in
>>news:2rugk8lkfpcg4vl97...@4ax.com:

Followups set.

>>> Thus we have good credible witnesses that the Genesis account of
>>> creation is literal and happened just as it is presented.
>>
>>Really? Someone was alive (and knew how to write) to witness the
>>creation of man? And you people say God doesn't do parlor tricks...
>
>
> God doesn't have to 'trick' anyone. Jesus was with God when God

First it needs to exist. Evidence, you have none that is not contrived
to excuse your lack of willingness to learn.

> created Adam and Eve. (see Ge 1:26; 3:22) Thus we have an eyewittness
> account.

Erm, you do realise the creation of a pair of slaves is not what one can
call an independent witness. Besides, humans were created as
replacements for the gods that had to work. Long before Adam & Eve, the
second creation of humans in Genesis.

> James
> John 4:23,24

Try this on for size. Granted you can not accept it, that part of your
desire to know has been excised.

Actually, no account of the creation of the world is found in the
Atrahasis Epic. It is concerned exclusively with the story of man and his
relationship with the gods, which is hinted at in the beginning
statement, "When the gods, manlike . . ." The introduction describes the
situation at the outset of the story, when the world had been divided
between three major deities of the Sumerian-Akkadian pantheon.

A.R. Millard analyzed this "New Babylonian Genesis" text.8 The quotations
in the following section are found in his article.
The gods took one hand in the other,
They cast the lot, made division!
Anu went up to heaven.
Enlil ... the earth to his subjects.
The lock, the bar of the sea,
They gave to Enki, the prince.

In this text, Anu is the god of heaven, Enlil the god of the earth, Enki
is the ruling king. The introductory description of the world situation
in the Atrahasis Epic depicts the junior gods laboring at the behest of
the senior deities. Note that the gods are like men.
When the gods, manlike,
Bore the labor, carried the load,
The gods' load was great,
The toil grievous, the toil excessive.
The great Annunnaku, the Seven,
Were making the Igigu undertake the toil.

The underlying idea of the Atrahasis Epic and the other Babylonian
Creation stories is that man was made to free the gods from the toil of
ordering the earth to produce their food. The gods instructed the Mother-
goddess (Nintu) to:
Create a human to bear the yoke.
Let him bear the yoke, the task of Enlil,
Let man carry the load of the gods.
Let them slaughter one god,
So that all the gods may be purified by dipping.
With his flesh and blood
Let Nintu mix clay.
So let god and man be mingled
Together in the clay.
After she had mixed the clay
She called the Anunna, the great gods.
The Igigu, the great gods,
Spat upon the clay.
Mami opened her mouth
And said to the great gods,
You commanded me a task
And I have finished it.
I have removed your toil
I have imposed your load on man.

Basic Purpose of the Atrahasis Epic
Priest-scribes "created" a caste-system with the king on top in the god's
image, and they themselves as administrators of the god's kingdom.
(Common) man was "created" to support the whole system. The point is, the
king throughout all the ancient near east was presented as "son" of the
local god, his "image" on earth. Therefore, all service done the king was
service done to the gods. All religion (including creation legends) was
contrived as an "opiate of the people" (see: "Who Were the Sons of God in
Genesis 6").

> www.jw.org

That explains much. My condolences. BTW followups have been set.
Should you not know what they are, they keep the next message in the
participants group, or in groups such conversation is hopefully on topic.
The recovery goup does not need your attempts to verify your confusion
about gods, nor does the atheist group.
BTW, why are you posting from the catholic group if you use jw.org. The
catholics, yes there is more than one variety have better apologetics.
The leadership may be equal, but apologetics? Now there the JW group
neds more practice.

walksalone who has long ceased to be dumbfounded at the planet crushing
ignorance of the average xian try to impress themselves, & as a side
line, the atheists, by pretending to know or understand their fractured
fairy tale.

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?"
-Epicurus

ca-300 Gr.

[duke]

On Wed, 20 Mar 2013 10:45:33 -0500, Uncle Vic <so...@noway.com> wrote:

>duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote in
>news:4d7hk89fjlgmn63bk...@4ax.com:
>
>> On Tue, 19 Mar 2013 11:10:49 -0500, Uncle Vic <so...@noway.com> wrote:
>>
>>>duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote in
>>>news:u9hgk8d0fdu6qq97g...@4ax.com:
>>>
>>>> On Mon, 18 Mar 2013 19:15:26 -0700 (PDT), ala...@hotmail.co.uk
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>A while ago I asked these two bible-bots if they actually believed
>>>>>in the biblical Adam and Eve, the talking snake, and the original
>>>>>sin story in the wholly babble.
>>>>>
>>>>>All they have done is lie and deny, they appear to be pretending to
>>>>>be too stupid to understand the question.
>>>>
>>>> ??? Then you must be living in a cave. Did you not like my answer.
>>>> Is that why?
>>>>
>>>>>If they assert that the whole A&E story was allegorical, then it
>>>>>must follow that everything based on it is also allegorical (i.e.,
>>>>>complete BS)
>>>>
>>>> No, that's VERY wrong. The "story line" itself addresses issues
>>>> such as the creation of the universe 13.7 billion years ago.
>>>
>>>Chapter and verse, please. I couldn't find that information anywhere
>>>in your holy book.
>>
>> You don't have a copy of my Catholic Study Bible.
>
>Your holy book says the world was created 13.7 billion years ago?

The bible doesn't say a thing about it. Science says it.

>>>> Is a flood of world wide proportions possible before, or maybe it
>>>> was just a local flood. When was such a flood. At one time, Mt.
>>>> Everest was no more than a speed bump. It wouldn't take much volume
>>>> of water to cover it.

>>>Mt. Everest is over 60 million years old. Which means Noah and family
>>>pre-dated mankind by about 58 million years.
>> There you go.
>But we know that is not true, why do you believe it is?

My point. The biblical account would have to be 60 million years old min to be
true for Noah.

>> Is it so much for you to accept that the presentation identified the
>> naturally Occurring propensity to sin in mankind.
>What that boils down to is merely a matter of opinion. One man's sin is
>another man's righteousness.

No, it is not. God spoke, man listens or else.

>>>Four paragraphs and you still haven't answered the question. Do you
>>>believe the characters in Genesis were real?
>>
>> If you don't get it now, you never will. There is no way any person
>> can state one way or the other which issue is literal and which is
>> allegorical. But my money is on allegorical.

>Ah, so you don't believe in a literal Genesis with a real talking snake,
>and two humans who had no parents, were born as adults, "sinned", and
>were kicked out of "the garden"?

No logical reason to accept it.

> A literal A & E is required in order
>for "original sin" to have actually happened, and without them there
>could have been no "original sin", and all religions that rely on it to
>necessitate "salvation" teeter off their foundations and crash to the
>ground.

Nope, an allegorical story does not eliminate the message it provides.

>Evolution shows us that there was no Adam & Eve as "first humans" created
>thousands of years ago (instead of evolving over a few million years, as
>the evidence proves.

There is no evidence.

>Bummer, dude.

Not for me.

[duke]

On Wed, 20 Mar 2013 11:50:43 -0500, Uncle Vic <so...@noway.com> wrote:

>duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote in
>news:ps6jk851vadiacbcn...@4ax.com:
>
>> On Tue, 19 Mar 2013 11:23:44 -0500, Uncle Vic <so...@noway.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Patrick <pbark...@woh.rr.com> wrote in
>>>news:ullgk8tii5ma4vp8e...@4ax.com:
>>>
>>>> ala...@hotmail.co.uk wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>A while ago I asked these two bible-bots if they actually believed
>>>>>in the biblical Adam and Eve, the talking snake, and the original
>>>>>sin story in the wholly babble.
>>>>>All they have done is lie and deny, they appear to be pretending to
>>>>>be too stupid to understand the question.
>>>>
>>>> Actually, I posted a very detailed account about how literary styles
>>>> are different from author to author. The actual story of the Adam
>>>> and Eve chronicle is an allegory.
>>>
>>>OK. This means to me that you don't believe the stories in Genesis
>>>are historical. Yet you somehow still believe in divine reward and
>>>punishment, without the understanding that if Genesis were anything
>>>but a historical account, the entire foundation of the Christian
>>>Religion is pulverized. Interesting.
>>
>> Totally false. The story of A&E is allegorical to the nature of man
>> to sin against God. Take out A&E, and our sinful nature is still with
>> us. Look at yourself as example.

>What sinful nature, duke?

To tell God no, that you'll decide right v wrong and not he.

> I've sinned against some fantasy pixie I don't
>believe in in the first place? If that's true, then you've sinned against
>Allah, Krishna, Zarathustra, Horus, and Quezalcoatl. Not to mention
>hundreds of different versions of "Jesus".

I'm going with the one and only.

> And those are only a few of the
>hells you'll be visiting, all at once, since you believe some kind of life
>follows the death of the organ which gives you life, and you have no
>evidence whatsoever that your god exists.

[Syd M.]

On Mar 20, 6:25 pm, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Mar 2013 11:50:43 -0500, Uncle Vic <so...@noway.com> wrote:

> >duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote in

> >news:ps6jk851vadiacbcn...@4ax.com:
>
> >> On Tue, 19 Mar 2013 11:23:44 -0500, Uncle Vic <so...@noway.com> wrote:
>

> >>>Patrick <pbarker...@woh.rr.com> wrote in
> >>>news:ullgk8tii5ma4vp8e...@4ax.com:

>
> >>>> alan...@hotmail.co.uk wrote:
>
> >>>>>A while ago I asked these two bible-bots if they actually believed
> >>>>>in the biblical Adam and Eve, the talking snake, and the original
> >>>>>sin story in the wholly babble.
> >>>>>All they have done is lie and deny, they appear to be pretending to
> >>>>>be too stupid to understand the question.
>
> >>>> Actually, I posted a very detailed account about how literary styles
> >>>> are different from author to author.  The actual story of the Adam
> >>>> and Eve chronicle is an allegory.
>
> >>>OK.  This means to me that you don't believe the stories in Genesis
> >>>are historical.  Yet you somehow still believe in divine reward and
> >>>punishment, without the understanding that if Genesis were anything
> >>>but a historical account, the entire foundation of the Christian
> >>>Religion is pulverized.  Interesting.
>
> >> Totally false.  The story of A&E is allegorical to the nature of man
> >> to sin against God.  Take out A&E, and our sinful nature is still with
> >> us.   Look at yourself as example.
> >What sinful nature, duke?
>
> To tell God no, that you'll decide right v wrong and not he.
>
> > I've sinned against some fantasy pixie I don't
> >believe in in the first place?  If that's true, then you've sinned against
> >Allah, Krishna, Zarathustra, Horus, and Quezalcoatl.  Not to mention
> >hundreds of different versions of "Jesus".
>
> I'm going with the one and only.
>
>

You mean, your going with what you want to hear.

PDW

[duke]

On Wed, 20 Mar 2013 07:24:10 -0700, Christopher A. Lee <ca...@optonline.net>
wrote:

Our eye witness was God almighty himself.

[duke]

On Wed, 20 Mar 2013 10:02:43 -0500, Uncle Vic <so...@noway.com> wrote:

>James <1ri...@windstream.net> wrote in
>news:plejk8d0e67npd3c4...@4ax.com:
>
>> Uncle Vic <so...@noway.com>
>>>James <1ri...@windstream.net> wrote in
>>>news:2rugk8lkfpcg4vl97...@4ax.com:
>>>
>>>> Thus we have good credible witnesses that the Genesis account of
>>>> creation is literal and happened just as it is presented.
>>>
>>>Really? Someone was alive (and knew how to write) to witness the
>>>creation of man? And you people say God doesn't do parlor tricks...
>>
>>
>> God doesn't have to 'trick' anyone. Jesus was with God when God
>> created Adam and Eve. (see Ge 1:26; 3:22) Thus we have an eyewittness
>> account.

>Actually two, and they contradict one another.

I reviewed these and see no contradiction. Can you advise?

[Uncle Vic]

duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote in
news:7lplk8d1n0pbqhci7...@4ax.com:

> On Wed, 20 Mar 2013 10:02:43 -0500, Uncle Vic <so...@noway.com> wrote:
>
>>James <1ri...@windstream.net> wrote in
>>news:plejk8d0e67npd3c4...@4ax.com:
>>
>>> Uncle Vic <so...@noway.com>
>>>>James <1ri...@windstream.net> wrote in
>>>>news:2rugk8lkfpcg4vl97...@4ax.com:
>>>>
>>>>> Thus we have good credible witnesses that the Genesis account of
>>>>> creation is literal and happened just as it is presented.
>>>>
>>>>Really? Someone was alive (and knew how to write) to witness the
>>>>creation of man? And you people say God doesn't do parlor tricks...
>>>
>>>
>>> God doesn't have to 'trick' anyone. Jesus was with God when God
>>> created Adam and Eve. (see Ge 1:26; 3:22) Thus we have an eyewittness
>>> account.
>
>>Actually two, and they contradict one another.
>
> I reviewed these and see no contradiction.

Of course you don't. You've been programmed to believe there are no
contradictions in the bible. Even the contradictions aren't
contradictions.

> Can you advise?

No. You simply can't fix stupid.

--
Uncle Vic
aa# 2011

BAAWA

AA Quotemeister

[Uncle Vic]

duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote in
news:5gdkk8t84qcbr62sq...@4ax.com:

Science says the world was created 13.7 billion years ago? You're a
liar.

No need to read any further.

--
Uncle Vic
aa# 2011

BAAWA

[Uncle Vic]

Patrick <pbark...@woh.rr.com> wrote in
news:mkpjk8h7aoeolt97k...@4ax.com:

>>>>
>>>>So there's no salvation from original sin, imbecile?
>>>>It's the foundation of Christianity.
>>>
>>> Prove it.
>>>
>>
>>Reading for comprehension isn't your forte, is it?
>
> Perhaps (since you jumped in) you would like to prove that Original
> Sin is the foundation for Christianity.
>
>

It isn't? Then what are you being saved from? God's wrath? Why is he mad
at you, Patrick?

--
Uncle Vic
aa# 2011

BAAWA

[Uncle Vic]

Rockinghorse Winner <badass....@gmx.com> wrote in

news:almarsoft.8392...@news.astraweb.com:

> It is that skepticism, that merry go round of despair, that Christ
> came to deliver us from.

Then could you ask him, for me, if he wouldn't mind EXISTING?

--
Uncle Vic
aa# 2011

BAAWA

[Uncle Vic]

duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote in
news:undkk8ljss22a30r7...@4ax.com:

>>>>> Actually, I posted a very detailed account about how literary styles
>>>>> are different from author to author. The actual story of the Adam
>>>>> and Eve chronicle is an allegory.
>>>>
>>>>OK. This means to me that you don't believe the stories in Genesis
>>>>are historical. Yet you somehow still believe in divine reward and
>>>>punishment, without the understanding that if Genesis were anything
>>>>but a historical account, the entire foundation of the Christian
>>>>Religion is pulverized. Interesting.
>>>
>>> Totally false. The story of A&E is allegorical to the nature of man
>>> to sin against God. Take out A&E, and our sinful nature is still with
>>> us. Look at yourself as example.
>
>>What sinful nature, duke?
>
> To tell God no, that you'll decide right v wrong and not he.

Ah, so to avoid sin, one must become a slave. Gotcha.

BTW, can you do me a favor and argue in terms of reality please? All this
god-talk is confusing me, when it comes from different sources harbouring
different opinions.

--
Uncle Vic
aa# 2011

BAAWA

[Patrick]

Uncle Vic <so...@noway.com> wrote:
Patrick <pbark...@woh.rr.com> wrote in

>>>>>So there's no salvation from original sin, imbecile?
>>>>>It's the foundation of Christianity.
>>>>
>>>> Prove it.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Reading for comprehension isn't your forte, is it?
>>
>> Perhaps (since you jumped in) you would like to prove that Original
>> Sin is the foundation for Christianity.
>
>It isn't? Then what are you being saved from? God's wrath? Why is he mad
>at you, Patrick?

Perhaps (since you jumped in), you would like to prove that Original

[Rockinghorse Winner]

On Thu, 21 Mar 2013 09:13:05 -0500, Uncle Vic <so...@noway.com> wrote:
> Rockinghorse Winner <badass....@gmx.com> wrote in
> news:almarsoft.8392...@news.astraweb.com:


> > It is that skepticism, that merry go round of despair, that
Christ
> > came to deliver us from.


> Then could you ask him, for me, if he wouldn't mind EXISTING?

You mean, if he wouldn't mind being comprehensible to Uncle Vic. The
reason that God prefers to be known by faith rather than reason is
that faith provides the stronger conviction. And that love is
stronger that rests on trust rather than reason.

You remind me of the dog who goes around chasing cars. What would you
do with God once your puny intellect caught up with him, anyway?

> --
> Uncle Vic
> aa# 2011
> BAAWA


> AA Quotemeister


> Visit my You Tube Channel!
> http://www.youtube.com/user/Vicman6311?feature=mhee

--
Terry

[Christopher A. Lee]

On Thu, 21 Mar 2013 09:18:18 -0700, Rockinghorse Winner
<badass....@gmx.com> wrote:

>On Thu, 21 Mar 2013 09:13:05 -0500, Uncle Vic <so...@noway.com> wrote:
>> Rockinghorse Winner <badass....@gmx.com> wrote in
>> news:almarsoft.8392...@news.astraweb.com:
>
>
>> > It is that skepticism, that merry go round of despair, that
>Christ
>> > came to deliver us from.
>
>
>> Then could you ask him, for me, if he wouldn't mind EXISTING?
>
>You mean, if he wouldn't mind being comprehensible to Uncle Vic. The

Why can't you stop lying?

>reason that God


WHAT FUCKING GOD IN THE REAL WORLD OUTSIDE YOUR RELIGION, stupidly
rude question-begging moron?

> prefers

WHERE DID YOU DEMONSTRATE IT BEFORE PRESUMING IT COULD PREFER
ANYTHING, imbecile?

> to be known by faith rather than reason is
>that faith provides the stronger conviction. And that love is
>stronger that rests on trust rather than reason.

Complete and utter bullshit.

>You remind me of the dog who goes around chasing cars.

You're seriously mentally ill.

> What would you
>do with God once your puny intellect caught up with him, anyway?

WHAT FUCKING GOD, moron?

[duke]

On Thu, 21 Mar 2013 09:03:10 -0500, Uncle Vic <so...@noway.com> wrote:

>duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote in
>news:7lplk8d1n0pbqhci7...@4ax.com:
>
>> On Wed, 20 Mar 2013 10:02:43 -0500, Uncle Vic <so...@noway.com> wrote:
>>
>>>James <1ri...@windstream.net> wrote in
>>>news:plejk8d0e67npd3c4...@4ax.com:
>>>
>>>> Uncle Vic <so...@noway.com>
>>>>>James <1ri...@windstream.net> wrote in
>>>>>news:2rugk8lkfpcg4vl97...@4ax.com:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Thus we have good credible witnesses that the Genesis account of
>>>>>> creation is literal and happened just as it is presented.
>>>>>
>>>>>Really? Someone was alive (and knew how to write) to witness the
>>>>>creation of man? And you people say God doesn't do parlor tricks...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> God doesn't have to 'trick' anyone. Jesus was with God when God
>>>> created Adam and Eve. (see Ge 1:26; 3:22) Thus we have an eyewittness
>>>> account.
>>
>>>Actually two, and they contradict one another.
>>
>> I reviewed these and see no contradiction.
>
>Of course you don't. You've been programmed to believe there are no
>contradictions in the bible. Even the contradictions aren't
>contradictions.
>
>> Can you advise?
>
>No. You simply can't fix stupid.

Can you show the contradiction? I say you can't.

The dukester, American - American

********************************************
Repeal Obama

You simply can't fix stupid.

********************************************

[duke]

Especially seeing how confused you are.

[ala...@hotmail.co.uk]

On Mar 21, 8:54 pm, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Mar 2013 10:02:43 -0500, Uncle Vic <so...@noway.com> wrote:
> >James <1ri...@windstream.net> wrote in
> >news:plejk8d0e67npd3c4...@4ax.com:
>
> >> Uncle Vic <so...@noway.com>
> >>>James <1ri...@windstream.net> wrote in
> >>>news:2rugk8lkfpcg4vl97...@4ax.com:
>
> >>>> Thus we have good credible witnesses that the Genesis account of
> >>>> creation is literal and happened just as it is presented.
>
> >>>Really?  Someone was alive (and knew how to write) to witness the
> >>>creation of man?  And you people say God doesn't do parlor tricks...
>
> >> God doesn't have to 'trick' anyone. Jesus was with God when God
> >> created Adam and Eve. (see Ge 1:26; 3:22) Thus we have an eyewittness
> >> account.
> >Actually two, and they contradict one another.
>
> I reviewed these and see no contradiction.  Can you advise?

That's coz you are pretending to be too stupid to see the glaring
differences between Genesis 1 and Genesis 2.

> You simply can't fix stupid.

Why would you want to "fix" something that's obviously bringing you so
much pleasure? (and we all find you rather amusing too.)

[ala...@hotmail.co.uk]

On Mar 22, 12:54 am, Patrick <pbarker...@woh.rr.com> wrote:
> Uncle Vic <so...@noway.com> wrote:
>

> Patrick <pbarker...@woh.rr.com> wrote in

Are you too stupid to understand his question?

If as you say, original sin is not the big issue the bible says it is,
then why Jesus? What are you being saved from? God's wrath? Why is
[god] mad at you, Patrick?

Not too difficult to understand that question.

[Syd M.]

On Mar 21, 6:53 am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Mar 2013 07:24:10 -0700, Christopher A. Lee <ca...@optonline.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Wed, 20 Mar 2013 09:49:20 -0400, James <1ri...@windstream.net>
> >wrote:
>
> >>Uncle Vic <so...@noway.com>
> >>>James <1ri...@windstream.net> wrote in
> >>>news:2rugk8lkfpcg4vl97...@4ax.com:
>
> >>>> Thus we have good credible witnesses that the Genesis account of
> >>>> creation is literal and happened just as it is presented.
>
> >>>Really?  Someone was alive (and knew how to write) to witness the creation
> >>>of man?  And you people say God doesn't do parlor tricks...
>
> >>God doesn't have to 'trick' anyone. Jesus was with God when God
> >>created Adam and Eve. (see Ge 1:26; 3:22)
>
> >Where did you demonstrate this hypothetical god and the equally
> >hypothetical Jesus before rudely and stupidly presuming them where you
> >know it's just so much bullshit?
>
> >>                                                           Thus we have an eyewittness
> >>account.
>
> >Why don't you wither learn what an eyewitness is, or to stop lying?
>
> Our eye witness was God almighty himself.
>
>

Just another empty assertion.

PDW

[ala...@hotmail.co.uk]

On Mar 20, 9:20 pm, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Mar 2013 20:53:55 -0700 (PDT), nature bats_last <seqkl...@gmail.com>
> wrote:

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Mar 18, 7:15 pm, alan...@hotmail.co.uk wrote:
> >> A while ago I asked these two bible-bots if they actually believed in
> >> the biblical Adam and Eve, the talking snake, and the original sin
> >> story in the wholly babble.
>

> >> All they have done is lie and deny, they appear to be pretending to be
> >> too stupid to understand the question.
>
> >;

> >> If they assert that the whole A&E story was allegorical, then it must
> >> follow that everything based on it is also allegorical (i.e., complete
> >> BS)
>

> >;
> >> Duke and Paddy. A yes or no answer, please. Did Adam and Eve and the
> >> serpent exist as real living creatures, and did they do and say all
> >> the things attributed to them in the bible?
>
> >Oh, Dook has already said that there was no
> >Adam and Eve.
>
> Much less a talking snake.

So what makes you think "satan" is more real than Adam or the apple?

[ala...@hotmail.co.uk]

On Mar 20, 8:36 am, Patrick <pbarker...@woh.rr.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Mar 2013 14:06:33 -0700, Christopher A. Lee
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> <ca...@optonline.net> wrote:
> >On Tue, 19 Mar 2013 13:37:03 -0700, Rockinghorse Winner
> ><badass.super...@gmx.com> wrote:
>
> >>On Tue, 19 Mar 2013 10:54:10 -0700, Christopher A. Lee
> >><ca...@optonline.net> wrote:

> >>> On Tue, 19 Mar 2013 13:48:10 -0400, raven1
> >>> <quoththera...@nevermore.com> wrote:
>
> >>> >>Christianity doesn't depend on a particular interpretation of the
> >>> >>literary genre of any book in scripture.
>

> >>> >Plenty of Christians seem to think it does.
>
> >>> Christianity depends on salvation from original sin. which requires
> >>> a literal reading of Genesis.
>
> >It al;so depends on the fictional virgin birth, crucifixion and
> >resurrection. Or aren't these mentioned in the books of the NT?
>
> Make up my mind.

Make up your WHAT????

[Patrick]

Perhaps you can find some reference that specifically states that
original sin is the foundation for Christianity. Or perhaps you can
go back under the rock you came from.

[Patrick]

Which is the "foundation" for Christianity?
Is it original sin? Or fictional virgin birth...?
Or is it the crucifixion?
Or is it the resurrection?

Let me know when you make up YOUR mind....

[Patrick]

On Thu, 21 Mar 2013 13:52:43 -0700 (PDT), ala...@hotmail.co.uk wrote:
>On Mar 21, 8:54�pm, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:

>> >>>Really? �Someone was alive (and knew how to write) to witness the
>> >>>creation of man? �And you people say God doesn't do parlor tricks...
>>
>> >> God doesn't have to 'trick' anyone. Jesus was with God when God
>> >> created Adam and Eve. (see Ge 1:26; 3:22) Thus we have an eyewittness
>> >> account.
>> >Actually two, and they contradict one another.
>>
>> I reviewed these and see no contradiction. �Can you advise?
>
>That's coz you are pretending to be too stupid to see the glaring
>differences between Genesis 1 and Genesis 2.

Oh, lookie here...
alvin's mom gave him enough money to purchase 30 minutes of internet
time down at his local cafe.

[Patrick]

ala...@hotmail.co.uk wrote:

>So what makes you think "satan" is more real than Adam or the apple?

I gots an apple sitting on my dining room table right now.
and... yer mom gave birth to lil satan, didn't she?

[duke]

On Thu, 21 Mar 2013 13:52:43 -0700 (PDT), ala...@hotmail.co.uk wrote:

>On Mar 21, 8:54 pm, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
>> On Wed, 20 Mar 2013 10:02:43 -0500, Uncle Vic <so...@noway.com> wrote:
>> >James <1ri...@windstream.net> wrote in
>> >news:plejk8d0e67npd3c4...@4ax.com:
>>
>> >> Uncle Vic <so...@noway.com>
>> >>>James <1ri...@windstream.net> wrote in
>> >>>news:2rugk8lkfpcg4vl97...@4ax.com:
>>
>> >>>> Thus we have good credible witnesses that the Genesis account of
>> >>>> creation is literal and happened just as it is presented.
>>
>> >>>Really?  Someone was alive (and knew how to write) to witness the
>> >>>creation of man?  And you people say God doesn't do parlor tricks...
>>
>> >> God doesn't have to 'trick' anyone. Jesus was with God when God
>> >> created Adam and Eve. (see Ge 1:26; 3:22) Thus we have an eyewittness
>> >> account.
>> >Actually two, and they contradict one another.
>>
>> I reviewed these and see no contradiction.  Can you advise?

>That's coz you are pretending to be too stupid to see the glaring
>differences between Genesis 1 and Genesis 2.

Well, advise me.

>> You simply can't fix stupid.
>Why would you want to "fix" something that's obviously bringing you so
>much pleasure? (and we all find you rather amusing too.)

Yes, you are funny.

The dukester, American - American

********************************************
Repeal Obama

You simply can't fix stupid.

********************************************

[duke]

On Thu, 21 Mar 2013 09:19:16 -0500, Uncle Vic <so...@noway.com> wrote:

>duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote in
>news:undkk8ljss22a30r7...@4ax.com:
>
>>>>>> Actually, I posted a very detailed account about how literary styles
>>>>>> are different from author to author. The actual story of the Adam
>>>>>> and Eve chronicle is an allegory.
>>>>>
>>>>>OK. This means to me that you don't believe the stories in Genesis
>>>>>are historical. Yet you somehow still believe in divine reward and
>>>>>punishment, without the understanding that if Genesis were anything
>>>>>but a historical account, the entire foundation of the Christian
>>>>>Religion is pulverized. Interesting.
>>>>
>>>> Totally false. The story of A&E is allegorical to the nature of man
>>>> to sin against God. Take out A&E, and our sinful nature is still with
>>>> us. Look at yourself as example.
>>
>>>What sinful nature, duke?
>>
>> To tell God no, that you'll decide right v wrong and not he.
>
>Ah, so to avoid sin, one must become a slave. Gotcha.

Strawman.

>BTW, can you do me a favor and argue in terms of reality please? All this
>god-talk is confusing me, when it comes from different sources harbouring
>different opinions.

Ok. Mine taught "love and obey God and love and serve our fellow man". Do you
have a better choice with another god?

[duke]

You're confused with the allegorical content of Gen 1-11.

Satan: the evil that exists in our hearts.
Adam: a_dam = mankind
Apple: stage prop
Eve: mother of mankind

[Uncle Vic]

duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote in
news:udomk8hfn6pjnj14u...@4ax.com:

There are two completely different creation stories. But one cannot
explain that to someone who's been programmed to believe there are no
contradictons.

Like this: Is it OK with Jesusgod if you drink?

Galatians 5:21
Drunkenness ... and such like ... they which do such things shall
not inherit the kingdom of God.

Matthew 26:29
I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that
day when I drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom.

I say you'll say that's not a contradiction.

[Uncle Vic]

duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote in
news:56dok8t94s1a1okvk...@4ax.com:

> On Thu, 21 Mar 2013 13:52:43 -0700 (PDT), ala...@hotmail.co.uk wrote:
>
>>On Mar 21, 8:54�pm, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
>>> On Wed, 20 Mar 2013 10:02:43 -0500, Uncle Vic <so...@noway.com>
>>> wrote:
>>> >James <1ri...@windstream.net> wrote in
>>> >news:plejk8d0e67npd3c4...@4ax.com:
>>>
>>> >> Uncle Vic <so...@noway.com>
>>> >>>James <1ri...@windstream.net> wrote in
>>> >>>news:2rugk8lkfpcg4vl97...@4ax.com:
>>>
>>> >>>> Thus we have good credible witnesses that the Genesis account
>>> >>>> of creation is literal and happened just as it is presented.
>>>
>>> >>>Really? �Someone was alive (and knew how to write) to witness the
>>> >>>creation of man? �And you people say God doesn't do parlor
>>> >>>tricks...
>>>
>>> >> God doesn't have to 'trick' anyone. Jesus was with God when God
>>> >> created Adam and Eve. (see Ge 1:26; 3:22) Thus we have an
>>> >> eyewittness account.
>>> >Actually two, and they contradict one another.
>>>
>>> I reviewed these and see no contradiction. �Can you advise?
>
>>That's coz you are pretending to be too stupid to see the glaring
>>differences between Genesis 1 and Genesis 2.
>
> Well, advise me.

Uh, he just did.

[Uncle Vic]

duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote in
news:e8dok8h2k4vibf1hn...@4ax.com:

>>BTW, can you do me a favor and argue in terms of reality please? All
>>this god-talk is confusing me, when it comes from different sources
>>harbouring different opinions.
>
> Ok. Mine taught "love and obey God and love and serve our fellow
> man". Do you have a better choice with another god?

Just what does the word "atheist" mean to you?

[duke]

No man was around to write them.

>Like this: Is it OK with Jesusgod if you drink?

>Galatians 5:21
> Drunkenness ... and such like ... they which do such things shall
> not inherit the kingdom of God.

>Matthew 26:29
> I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that
> day when I drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom.

The Matthew reference is by Jesus regarding the 4th cup of the Seder meal of
Passover. Gal is referring to drunkenness.

Heeheehee. Stick with me. You'll learn something.

>
>I say you'll say that's not a contradiction.

The dukester, American - American

********************************************
Repeal Obama

You simply can't fix stupid.

********************************************

[duke]

No points. I win.

[Syd M.]

On Mar 22, 3:39 pm, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
> On Fri, 22 Mar 2013 08:19:28 -0500, Uncle Vic <so...@noway.com> wrote:

> >duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote in
> >news:56dok8t94s1a1okvk...@4ax.com:

>
> >> On Thu, 21 Mar 2013 13:52:43 -0700 (PDT), alan...@hotmail.co.uk wrote:
>
> >>>On Mar 21, 8:54 pm, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
> >>>> On Wed, 20 Mar 2013 10:02:43 -0500, Uncle Vic <so...@noway.com>
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>> >James <1ri...@windstream.net> wrote in
> >>>> >news:plejk8d0e67npd3c4...@4ax.com:
>
> >>>> >> Uncle Vic <so...@noway.com>
> >>>> >>>James <1ri...@windstream.net> wrote in
> >>>> >>>news:2rugk8lkfpcg4vl97...@4ax.com:
>
> >>>> >>>> Thus we have good credible witnesses that the Genesis account
> >>>> >>>> of creation is literal and happened just as it is presented.
>
> >>>> >>>Really?  Someone was alive (and knew how to write) to witness the
> >>>> >>>creation of man?  And you people say God doesn't do parlor
> >>>> >>>tricks...
>
> >>>> >> God doesn't have to 'trick' anyone. Jesus was with God when God
> >>>> >> created Adam and Eve. (see Ge 1:26; 3:22) Thus we have an
> >>>> >> eyewittness account.
> >>>> >Actually two, and they contradict one another.
>
> >>>> I reviewed these and see no contradiction.  Can you advise?
>
> >>>That's coz you are pretending to be too stupid to see the glaring
> >>>differences between Genesis 1 and Genesis 2.
>
> >> Well, advise me.
>
> >Uh, he just did.
>
> No points.  I win.
>
>

Declaring yourself winner is all that you discredited misfits can do,
isn't it, Dork?

PDW

[ala...@hotmail.co.uk]

On Mar 22, 8:46 pm, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:

> On Thu, 21 Mar 2013 14:46:40 -0700 (PDT), alan...@hotmail.co.uk wrote:
> >On Mar 20, 9:20 pm, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
> >> On Tue, 19 Mar 2013 20:53:55 -0700 (PDT), nature bats_last <seqkl...@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >> >On Mar 18, 7:15 pm, alan...@hotmail.co.uk wrote:
> >> >> A while ago I asked these two bible-bots if they actually believed in
> >> >> the biblical Adam and Eve, the talking snake, and the original sin
> >> >> story in the wholly babble.
>
> >> >> All they have done is lie and deny, they appear to be pretending to be
> >> >> too stupid to understand the question.
>
> >> >;
> >> >> If they assert that the whole A&E story was allegorical, then it must
> >> >> follow that everything based on it is also allegorical (i.e., complete
> >> >> BS)
>
> >> >;
> >> >> Duke and Paddy. A yes or no answer, please. Did Adam and Eve and the
> >> >> serpent exist as real living creatures, and did they do and say all
> >> >> the things attributed to them in the bible?
> >> >Oh, Dook has already said that there was no
> >> >Adam and Eve.
> >> Much less a talking snake.
> >So what makes you think "satan" is more real than Adam or the apple?
>
> You're confused with the allegorical content of Gen 1-11.
>
> Satan:  the evil that exists in our hearts.

So this "satan" you continually brag about, the "satan" who smiles
whenever we disagree with you or Patrick, this "satan" doesn't
actually exist as a living conscious independent entity?

> Adam:  a_dam = mankind
> Apple:  stage prop
> Eve:     mother of mankind

OK, so if as you say there was no actual real "fall" or "original"
"sin", then why send jesus along to fix it?

Sending a real Jesus along to fix a non-real "fall" or a non-real
"original sin" would be like sending the real CSI (Crime Scene
Investigation) unit to the fictional Little Red Riding Hood's
grandma's house to investigate the fictional blood-stains left by the
fictional Big Bad Wolf.

My guess therefore is that jesus is as fictional as Adam and Eve and
Satan and the talking snake and the Big Bad Wolf.

The above are all storybook characters made up for the entertainment
of children and/or child-minded adults.

[ala...@hotmail.co.uk]

On Mar 22, 8:39 pm, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:

> On Thu, 21 Mar 2013 13:52:43 -0700 (PDT), alan...@hotmail.co.uk wrote:
> >On Mar 21, 8:54 pm, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
> >> On Wed, 20 Mar 2013 10:02:43 -0500, Uncle Vic <so...@noway.com> wrote:
> >> >James <1ri...@windstream.net> wrote in
> >> >news:plejk8d0e67npd3c4...@4ax.com:
>
> >> >> Uncle Vic <so...@noway.com>
> >> >>>James <1ri...@windstream.net> wrote in
> >> >>>news:2rugk8lkfpcg4vl97...@4ax.com:
>
> >> >>>> Thus we have good credible witnesses that the Genesis account of
> >> >>>> creation is literal and happened just as it is presented.
>
> >> >>>Really?  Someone was alive (and knew how to write) to witness the
> >> >>>creation of man?  And you people say God doesn't do parlor tricks...
>
> >> >> God doesn't have to 'trick' anyone. Jesus was with God when God
> >> >> created Adam and Eve. (see Ge 1:26; 3:22) Thus we have an eyewittness
> >> >> account.
> >> >Actually two, and they contradict one another.
>
> >> I reviewed these and see no contradiction.  Can you advise?
> >That's coz you are pretending to be too stupid to see the glaring
> >differences between Genesis 1 and Genesis 2.
>
> Well, advise me.

Advise you?? LOL.

About the only advice I can give you is to tell you to actually read
your bible instead of just thumping it and waving it about. :)

Much as I'd like to sit you on my knee and read it to you, well, you
are too fat and we are in different countries. So read it yourself.

[ala...@hotmail.co.uk]

On Mar 22, 9:03 am, Patrick <pbarker...@woh.rr.com> wrote:

Oh brilliant comeback Paddy.

Hey, let me be the first to tell you that you're no better at
defending the cover-to-cover bullshit in your wholly babble than you
are at defending child molesting Catholic priests.

You poor sad-sack bitter whining miserable old dying slug you!

Do you think Satan is a real, conscious, living, independent entity?
Or not?

Or to put it in language more appropriate to your "intellect" - does
yo Mama buh-leev in tha DEVIL?

FFS what a pair of losers.

[ala...@hotmail.co.uk]

On Mar 22, 9:02 am, Patrick <pbarker...@woh.rr.com> wrote:

Oh paddy it hurts when you try to flay me and scourge me with a limp
lettuce leaf, and then brag that you have "kicked butt".

Hey, you ever noticed any differences between genesis 1 and 2? Others
have.

Now you have a really really nice day. XOX.

[Yap]

On Mar 22, 6:58 am, Patrick <pbarker...@woh.rr.com> wrote:

Have you seen what are men capable of?

We have thousands of laws against human misbehavior.

Your stupid bible has effectively nothing to mention......

All ancient civilizations had great amount of their rules to control
people, otherwise there wouldn't be any kingdom, empire and dynasty.

[Yap]

On Mar 22, 6:46 pm, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:

You can call Eve whatever you want.
But the Chinese and the Indians, as well as all African, have never
heard of this type of insane story.
Not to mention the Japanese, Koreans, Indonesians........

[Yap]

Talking of child-minded adults, duke and Patrick certainly belong to
them.

[ala...@hotmail.co.uk]

On Mar 22, 9:00 am, Patrick <pbarker...@woh.rr.com> wrote:

> On Thu, 21 Mar 2013 14:48:00 -0700 (PDT), alan...@hotmail.co.uk wrote:
> >On Mar 20, 8:36 am, Patrick <pbarker...@woh.rr.com> wrote:
> >> On Tue, 19 Mar 2013 14:06:33 -0700, Christopher A. Lee
>
> >> <ca...@optonline.net> wrote:
> >> >On Tue, 19 Mar 2013 13:37:03 -0700, Rockinghorse Winner
> >> ><badass.super...@gmx.com> wrote:
>
> >> >>On Tue, 19 Mar 2013 10:54:10 -0700, Christopher A. Lee
> >> >><ca...@optonline.net> wrote:
> >> >>> On Tue, 19 Mar 2013 13:48:10 -0400, raven1
> >> >>> <quoththera...@nevermore.com> wrote:
>
> >> >>> >>Christianity doesn't depend on a particular interpretation of the
> >> >>> >>literary genre of any book in scripture.
>
> >> >>> >Plenty of Christians seem to think it does.
>
> >> >>> Christianity depends on salvation from original sin. which requires
> >> >>> a literal reading of Genesis.
>
> >> >It al;so depends on the fictional virgin birth, crucifixion and
> >> >resurrection. Or aren't these mentioned in the books of the NT?
>
> >> Make up my mind.
>
> >Make up your WHAT????
>
> Which is the "foundation" for Christianity?

Just something for gullible fools to believe in, really. Monty
Python's Life of Brian provides the best explanation I have ever seen
as to why Christianity and all the others came into being, and why
they survive.

> Is it original sin?  Or fictional virgin birth...?

Sex, sex, sex, that's all they think about.

> Or is it the crucifixion?

Crucifixion? It's a doddle. Too good for 'im.

> Or is it the resurrection?

Lets go to a stoning.

> Let me know when you make up YOUR mind....

When life seems really rotten, there's something you've forgotten.

[ala...@hotmail.co.uk]

Yep, their religion is a mental crutch, or even a mental wheel-chair.

On the one hand, you want to tell them to grow up, get real, get rid
of all that bronze age superstitious nonsense and come into the 21st
century.

OTOH...would you be nasty enough to kick the crutches or a wheelchair
out from under a cripple who actually needs these devices to
physically get around?

Maybe we should just leave people like Paddy and Duke with their
fantasies. Maybe they would be unable to emotionally survive without
them. I know it can be enormously entertaining to mock and taunt and
goad this pair of misfits, but I sometimes ponder on the morality of
it. Mind you, the fact that they both try to defend child molesters
does wonders to alleviate any reservations I have...

[Patrick]

Will that help me find a reference that specifically states that
original sin is the foundation for Christianity?

And the answer to your question is: "yes."

>We have thousands of laws against human misbehavior.

Yes, again.

>Your stupid bible has effectively nothing to mention......

It reports hundreds of laws against human misbehavior.

>All ancient civilizations had great amount of their rules to control
>people, otherwise there wouldn't be any kingdom, empire and dynasty.

OK then.
I'm glad we have that settled.
Thank you for your input.
I think.

[Patrick]

ala...@hotmail.co.uk wrote:

>On Mar 22, 9:02�am, Patrick <pbarker...@woh.rr.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, 21 Mar 2013 13:52:43 -0700 (PDT), alan...@hotmail.co.uk wrote:
>> >On Mar 21, 8:54 pm, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
>> >> >>>Really? Someone was alive (and knew how to write) to witness the
>> >> >>>creation of man? And you people say God doesn't do parlor tricks...
>>
>> >> >> God doesn't have to 'trick' anyone. Jesus was with God when God
>> >> >> created Adam and Eve. (see Ge 1:26; 3:22) Thus we have an eyewittness
>> >> >> account.
>> >> >Actually two, and they contradict one another.
>>
>> >> I reviewed these and see no contradiction. Can you advise?
>>
>> >That's coz you are pretending to be too stupid to see the glaring
>> >differences between Genesis 1 and Genesis 2.
>>
>> Oh, lookie here...
>> alvin's mom gave him enough money to purchase 30 minutes of internet
>> time down at his local cafe.
>
>Oh paddy it hurts when you try to flay me and scourge me with a limp
>lettuce leaf, and then brag that you have "kicked butt".

I know.
It doesn't take much to "flay" you.
That is why I am sometimes so gentle with you.
I wouldn't want to hurt your feelings.

>
>Hey, you ever noticed any differences between genesis 1 and 2? Others
>have.

Yeah, I did.

>Now you have a really really nice day. XOX.

OK then.
Thanks. I will.
We're sending our grand daughter off to Disney for a week. Her high
school band is going to play there.

[Patrick]

ala...@hotmail.co.uk wrote:

>Hey, let me be the first to tell you that you're no better at
>defending the cover-to-cover bullshit in your wholly babble than you
>are at defending child molesting Catholic priests.
>You poor sad-sack bitter whining miserable old dying slug you!
>Do you think Satan is a real, conscious, living, independent entity?
>Or not?
>Or to put it in language more appropriate to your "intellect" - does
>yo Mama buh-leev in tha DEVIL?

Golly, alvin.
Yer mom must have given you enough money for an hour at the internet
cafe. Don't waste it all on me. Others need to see your drivel.

[Patrick]

ala...@hotmail.co.uk wrote:
>On Mar 23, 12:06�pm, Yap <hhyaps...@gmail.com> wrote:

>> > The above are all storybook characters made up for the entertainment
>> > of children and/or child-minded adults.
>>
>> Talking of child-minded adults, duke and Patrick certainly belong to
>> them.
>
>Yep, their religion is a mental crutch, or even a mental wheel-chair.

I love it when one idiot lies, and another idiot high fives him.
This newsgroup is just full of entertainment for me.

[duke]

And that's why I already know what I'm talking about and you are clueless.

>Much as I'd like to sit you on my knee and read it to you, well, you
>are too fat and we are in different countries. So read it yourself.

You opened your big mouth and got your ass kicked by me, didn't you. You bring
up a point and now you sit there with your thumb up your ass when challenged to
support your words.

[duke]

On Fri, 22 Mar 2013 08:27:09 -0500, Uncle Vic <so...@noway.com> wrote:

>duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote in
>news:e8dok8h2k4vibf1hn...@4ax.com:
>
>>>BTW, can you do me a favor and argue in terms of reality please? All
>>>this god-talk is confusing me, when it comes from different sources
>>>harbouring different opinions.
>>
>> Ok. Mine taught "love and obey God and love and serve our fellow
>> man". Do you have a better choice with another god?
>
>Just what does the word "atheist" mean to you?

It means you REJECT the existence of God. That's far, far different than saying
you don't believe in God.

[duke]

God alone knows the answer to that one. To most of us, that means that the evil
that exists in you heart is the evidence of something really bad in you.

>> Adam: �a_dam = mankind
>> Apple: �stage prop
>> Eve: � � mother of mankind

>OK, so if as you say there was no actual real "fall" or "original"
>"sin", then why send jesus along to fix it?

He came to show us how WE are to fix our individual failures. God became flesh
to demonstrate to us in example that love and obedience to the Father and love
and service to our fellow man is the way to eternal salvation.

If you wish to spend the same eternal period in the flames of hell, don't listen
to Jesus.

>Sending a real Jesus along to fix a non-real "fall" or a non-real
>"original sin" would be like sending the real CSI (Crime Scene
>Investigation) unit to the fictional Little Red Riding Hood's
>grandma's house to investigate the fictional blood-stains left by the
>fictional Big Bad Wolf.

Gen 1-11 is allegorical, although the origin of the universe if 13.7 billion
years old, so it's hard to make that concrete statement that NOThING in Gen 1-11
is scientific.

>My guess therefore is that jesus is as fictional as Adam and Eve and
>Satan and the talking snake and the Big Bad Wolf.

Jesus is a historical figure. You can't hide from that simple fact.

>The above are all storybook characters made up for the entertainment
>of children and/or child-minded adults.

[duke]

On Fri, 22 Mar 2013 19:45:41 -0700 (PDT), ala...@hotmail.co.uk wrote:

>> > Sending a real Jesus along to fix a non-real "fall" or a non-real
>> > "original sin" would be like sending the real CSI (Crime Scene
>> > Investigation) unit to the fictional Little Red Riding Hood's
>> > grandma's house to investigate the fictional blood-stains left by the
>> > fictional Big Bad Wolf.
>>
>> > My guess therefore is that jesus is as fictional as Adam and Eve and
>> > Satan and the talking snake and the Big Bad Wolf.
>>
>> > The above are all storybook characters made up for the entertainment
>> > of children and/or child-minded adults.
>>
>> Talking of child-minded adults, duke and Patrick certainly belong to
>> them.

>Yep, their religion is a mental crutch, or even a mental wheel-chair.

Fine. Don't listen. Blackened alanp is not to my account.

>OTOH...would you be nasty enough to kick the crutches or a wheelchair
>out from under a cripple who actually needs these devices to
>physically get around?

You can't touch my God.

>Maybe we should just leave people like Paddy and Duke with their
>fantasies.

Not fair. Not fair. We're really trying to help you.

>Maybe they would be unable to emotionally survive without
>them. I know it can be enormously entertaining to mock and taunt and
>goad this pair of misfits, but I sometimes ponder on the morality of
>it. Mind you, the fact that they both try to defend child molesters
>does wonders to alleviate any reservations I have...

Remember, one day you WILL wake up and observe (if you're lucky) that it is your
final day on this earth as a living human being. Will you smile confidently
that you were right about there being no almighty God, or COULD you have been
wrong?

[James]

Christopher A. Lee <ca...@optonline.net>
>On Wed, 20 Mar 2013 09:49:20 -0400, James <1ri...@windstream.net>
>wrote:

>
>>Uncle Vic <so...@noway.com>
>>>James <1ri...@windstream.net> wrote in
>>>news:2rugk8lkfpcg4vl97...@4ax.com:
>>>
>>>> Thus we have good credible witnesses that the Genesis account of
>>>> creation is literal and happened just as it is presented.
>>>
>>>Really? Someone was alive (and knew how to write) to witness the creation
>>>of man? And you people say God doesn't do parlor tricks...
>>
>>
>>God doesn't have to 'trick' anyone. Jesus was with God when God
>>created Adam and Eve. (see Ge 1:26; 3:22)
>

>Where did you demonstrate this hypothetical god and the equally
>hypothetical Jesus before rudely and stupidly presuming them where you
>know it's just so much bullshit?

>
>> Thus we have an eyewittness
>>account.
>

>Why don't you wither learn what an eyewitness is, or to stop lying?

I stand by the Scriptures 100%. If the Bible is a farce, then we are
all wasting our time. But if it is really God's word ( 2 Ti 3:16), you
need to open your eyes and reexamine the Scriptures in the light of
being possible. Everlasting life is at stake.

James
John 4:23,24
www.jw.org
>
>>James
>>John 4:23,24
>>www.jw.org
>
>Idiot.