Is Ron O. Brain damaged?
![[M]adman's profile photo](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/a/default-user=s40-c)
[M]adman
" _But from the beginning of the creation, God made them male and female_ ."
Ron says by your fruit you will know them. If you do not think evolution is
man's origins the Ron O says your fruit is bad
Ron O deliberately tells people it is OK to believe in evolution despite the
fact that Jesus, the original Christian, said "from the beginning of the
creation, /God made them male and female/ ."
How much more clear does it need to be Ron O? Jesus said "from the beginning
of the creation, God made them male and female."
What part of "Made Them" is so hard to understand Ron O?
By your own standards of what is and is not good fruit Ron O:
If Anyone that Disagrees with the "Original Christian Jesus of Nazareth" who
said "from the beginning of the creation, God made them male and female" and
instead believes man evolved from an Ape is *NOT* following the true
teachings of the original Christian Jesus but is following false doctrine
taught by wolves in sheep's clothing . Just as Jesus warned. They are
teaching "Bad Fruit". We know them by the bad fruit they will tell others.
That would be Y O U Ron O.
And others like Y O U
*Hemidactylus*
Did God make man and woman at the same time? Or did he make man first, then
woman?
--
*Hemidactylus*
-it ends here-
Perplexed in Peoria
> Jesus said in the Book of Mark Chapter 10, vs 6 (KJV) <quote>
>
> " _But from the beginning of the creation, God made them male and female_ ."
>
> Ron says by your fruit you will know them. If you do not think evolution is
> man's origins the Ron O says your fruit is bad
>
> Ron O deliberately tells people it is OK to believe in evolution despite the
> fact that Jesus, the original Christian, said "from the beginning of the
> creation, /God made them male and female/ ."
(M)adman said in the paragraph above that it is OK to believe in evolution.
Well actually he quoted Ron O as saying that. Not exactly a quote, but
a paraphrase. So it is just as if (M)adman said it himself.
Of course, Jesus was quoting Moses when he said "God made them
male and female". Not exactly a quote, but a paraphrase. So it
is just as if Jesus said it himself.
It is just fascinating that (M)adman chooses the one place in the
Scripture where Jesus is arguing AGAINST a literal reading of
the Mosaic scriptures. But anyone with half a brain can see that
that this is just a coincidence. (M)adman sincerely believes that
the scriptures must be read literallly as the word of God.
[M]adman
Why would it matter? There could have been two creations. One where he "made
them male and female" and another creation in a garden where he made Adam
and then made Eve from Adam. Which is still making hem "male and fermale".
The point is "God Cereated" and that is what Jesus taught.
" /God made them male and female/ " are the words of Jesus of Nazareth. .
To believe "God did not create" goes against the direct teachings of Jesus,
the original Christian.
You cannot be a follower of Jesus, which are called "christians", and
believe evolution is responsible for what we you every morning in the
mirror.
IOW there is no such thing as a /theist-evolutionist/ . You can't be both
it really is THAT simple.
.
*Hemidactylus*
Is the double creation where Lilith enters the picture?
>
> The point is "God Cereated" and that is what Jesus taught.
>
God made cereal?
>
> " /God made them male and female/ " are the words of Jesus of Nazareth. .
>
> To believe "God did not create" goes against the direct teachings of
> Jesus, the original Christian.
>
Humans created God(s) in their own image.
>
> You cannot be a follower of Jesus, which are called "christians", and
> believe evolution is responsible for what we you every morning in the
> mirror.
>
I am neither Christian nor follower of Jesus. I am an ape and an infidel.
>
> IOW there is no such thing as a /theist-evolutionist/ . You can't be both
>
Why are you telling me this? I'm not a theistic evolutionist. You're
starting to sound like Ray.
>
> it really is THAT simple.
>
No it's not. There are plenty of believers in God and/or Christ who think
evolution is a fact. Who are you to tell them they can't compartmentalize
like that?
Ron O
> Jesus said in the Book of Mark Chapter 10, vs 6 (KJV) <quote>
>
> " _But from the beginning of the creation, God made them male and female_ ."
>
> Ron says by your fruit you will know them. If you do not think evolution is
Actually that is a lie. I listed the stupid and dishonest things that
Y O U do, implied that you were a bad fruit, and that you were the
fruit of something. I also asked you if you knew any good fruit that
believed as you do.
Lying about it is your answer. No examples of good fruit, just a lie.
You are the fruit, so what does that tell you about the tree that made
you?
You also know for a fact that other Christians do not spring from that
same tree, and you lied about them. What kind of fruit does that make
you? How did you verify that the clergy that signed the Clergy Letter
Project had bogus credentials? Why make that claim in the first
place? What does it mean when you have to lie in order to claim to
have an argument?
>
> Ron O deliberately tells people it is OK to believe in evolution despite the
> fact that Jesus, the original Christian, said "from the beginning of the
> creation, /God made them male and female/ ."
Which creation and how was it done? Jesus seems to have left out a
lot. Was he refering to the older creation story where man was made
first and then women or the one written in a more modern language that
has them created on the same day, but not at the beginning? How long
was that day?
>
> How much more clear does it need to be Ron O? Jesus said "from the beginning
> of the creation, God made them male and female."
How literal do you want to be in order to declare that the Bible
cannot be taken literally?
Which creation? In the first creation story man isn't made until
when? When is man made in the second creation story? Why doesn't it
say? Not at the beginnig. In the beginning of creation, when God
made heaven and earth, the earth was without form and void...
It wasn't until the fifth day that man was created, and even William
Bryant could not say how long a "day" was when he was being cross
examined. Why is that?
Parable and paraphrase. Do you understand what it means when there
are a whole lot of Christians (likely the majority) that do not agree
with you? Do you know what it means when it is you that has to lie
about them. What does that tell you about the tree that you are the
fruit of? Why is it you that doesn't have an honest and valid
argument and you have to resort to threads like this?
>
> What part of "Made Them" is so hard to understand Ron O?
How did God make them? How long did it take?
>
> By your own standards of what is and is not good fruit Ron O:
Ignorance isn't so bad, willful ignorance is pretty bad, lying, even
for God, is pretty bad as well as stupid. Mental incompetence isn't a
really stellar excuse. So the question is, where are the good fruit
that spring from the same tree that you do? What does it tell you
when simple ignorance is the best types that you can come up with?
What does it mean when the best people that you can put up just do not
know any better?
>
> If Anyone that Disagrees with the "Original Christian Jesus of Nazareth" who
> said "from the beginning of the creation, God made them male and female" and
> instead believes man evolved from an Ape is *NOT* following the true
> teachings of the original Christian Jesus but is following false doctrine
> taught by wolves in sheep's clothing . Just as Jesus warned. They are
> teaching "Bad Fruit". We know them by the bad fruit they will tell others.
Sadly, it is the ones that claim to know what the "original Christian"
meant that are the types that have to look in the mirror and ask
themselves if they are a bad fruit, and then ask themselves what the
"original Christian" thought that, that meant.
>
> That would be Y O U Ron O.
>
> And others like Y O U
Projection is a way of life for Y O U. Why is that? What kind of
fruit are you, and what does that tell you based on what you believe
about the Bible? Remember it is you that interpret the Bible in this
way. I have admitted that I consider it to be more of a
recommendation. Mainly for the simple reason that there are a lot of
bad people that believe a lot of different things. This doesn't help
you much because you can't seem to come up with any good fruit that
believe what you do.
Ron Okimoto
Andrew Cunningham
1 Chronicles 16:30: “He has fixed the earth firm, immovable.”
Psalm 93:1: “Thou hast fixed the earth immovable and firm ...”
Psalm 96:10: “He has fixed the earth firm, immovable ...”
Psalm 104:5: “Thou didst fix the earth on its foundation so that
it never can be shaken.”
Isaiah 45:18: “...who made the earth and fashioned it, and himself
fixed it fast...”
The Bible, the original holy text of Christianity, clearly states that
the earth does not move. It is stated many times that it is
"immovable". I have but a simple request of you. Tell us all that you
believe the earth is fixed in place where it is. The Bible is the
literal word of god, right? If you don't take all of it as the literal
truth, then why should anyone else be expected to believe any part of
it is?
It seems like a simple answer that I expect of all people who want to
use the Bible as a literal source of information in regards to the
origins of man and the universe. If evolution is wrong because the
Bible says so, then so is any non-geocentric model of the universe.
There can be no biblical argument against evolution in the first place
if those arguing the position have an inherent fallacy in their logic.
Ron O
adman could be a geocentrist. The strict ones really believe that the
earth is fixed. Some of them have web pages.
Ron Okimoto
[M]adman
You left out a detail.
Moses got the story from God on the mountain. So Jesus was quoting Moses who
was quoting God.
Devils Advocaat
[definitely snipped for focus]
> ... that Jesus, the original Christian ...
[definitely snipped for focus]
If a Christian is a follower of Jesus of Nazareth, aka the Christ,
then how can Jesus be following himself?
Andrew Cunningham
I had taken this into consideration, but [M]adman has already stated
that the earth is fixed "in its orbit". I challenged him on this fact,
asking for any quote from the Bible that made mention of this, or
otherwise described it, and got no answer. I still kindly await an
answer as to his exact position on this issue. It seems a bit
blasphemous to me to only believe that some parts of the Holy Bible
are correct, while dismissing other parts that contradict personal
views.
John S. Wilkins
He's a member of the set of all religions that do not include their own
deities.
--
John S. Wilkins, Philosophy, University of Sydney
http://evolvingthoughts.net
But al be that he was a philosophre,
Yet hadde he but litel gold in cofre
Michael Siemon
jo...@wilkins.id.au (John S. Wilkins) wrote:
> Devils Advocaat <mank...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > On 7 July, 02:17, "[M]adman" <ad...@hotmaill.et> wrote:
> >
> > [definitely snipped for focus]
> >
> > > ... that Jesus, the original Christian ...
> >
> > [definitely snipped for focus]
> >
> > If a Christian is a follower of Jesus of Nazareth, aka the Christ,
> > then how can Jesus be following himself?
>
> He's a member of the set of all religions that do not include their own
> deities.
yeah; but does he shave himself?
Mike Dworetsky
news:mlsiemon-64D374...@C-61-68-245-199.per.connect.net.au...
Probably not, as he supposedly had a beard.
--
Mike Dworetsky
(Remove pants sp*mbl*ck to reply)
Frank J
Go talk to Michael Medved and Ben Stein about Jesus. And have a fun
debate with Michael Behe on the origin of modern humans.
wf3h
>
> " _But from the beginning of the creation, God made them male and female_ ."
>
> Ron says by your fruit you will know them. If you do not think evolution is
> man's origins the Ron O says your fruit is bad
>
> Ron O deliberately tells people it is OK to believe in evolution despite the
> fact that Jesus, the original Christian, said "from the beginning of the
> creation, /God made them male and female/ ."
from the beginning of their existence, caused by evolution...yes.
makes sense. so it is OK to accept evolution. it's the method god used
to create species.
>
> How much more clear does it need to be Ron O? Jesus said "from the beginning
> of the creation, God made them male and female."
>
> What part of "Made Them" is so hard to understand Ron O?
>
> By your own standards of what is and is not good fruit Ron O:
>
> If Anyone that Disagrees with the "Original Christian Jesus of Nazareth" who
> said "from the beginning of the creation,
yes...from the beginning of the creation caused by evolution....
God made them male and female" and
> instead believes man evolved from an Ape is *NOT* following the true
> teachings of the original Christian Jesus but is following false doctrine
> taught by wolves in sheep's clothing . Just as Jesus warned. They are
> teaching "Bad Fruit". We know them by the bad fruit they will tell others.
>
you creationists think the bible is the only source of teaching about
god. that is wrong.
sorry, sport. try again.
wf3h
the pope says you can. billions of christians accept that you can. so
you're wrong.
> -
Perplexed in Peoria
Really? I thought I read somewhere that the stories in Genesis
had been passed down generation-to-generation from human
eyewitnesses. I thought that all Moses got on the mountain was
Law.
> So Jesus was quoting Moses who
> was quoting God.
Ron O was quoting Eugenie. Who is more trustworthy.
Robert Carnegie
The ones I've seen (www.fixedearth.com) could be jokes. It's hard to
tell. I think all the flat earthers are as well. I guess if they
spend real money on their project. A web site is cheap.
As for the original post, there are coherent if dubious presentations
of creationist arguments that you may want to challenge, for the
public good (like finding a manhole cover missing in the road), but
this was not one of those. To me it mostly didn't even make any sense.
Walter Bushell
jo...@wilkins.id.au (John S. Wilkins) wrote:
> Devils Advocaat <mank...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > On 7 July, 02:17, "[M]adman" <ad...@hotmaill.et> wrote:
> >
> > [definitely snipped for focus]
> >
> > > ... that Jesus, the original Christian ...
> >
> > [definitely snipped for focus]
> >
> > If a Christian is a follower of Jesus of Nazareth, aka the Christ,
> > then how can Jesus be following himself?
>
> He's a member of the set of all religions that do not include their own
> deities.
And when Jesus was raised in glory, did he get his foreskin back?
Greg G.
He could be following himself in a circular way, like their arguments.
Kermit
So, was Jesus speaking literally or metaphorically when he said he was
the planet Venus?
Rev 22:16 I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these
things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David,
[and] the bright and morning star.
Kermit
raven1
wrote:
Cite, please. Nowhere does the Bible claim this.
Paul J Gans
Hey, I didn't know that Jesus was a Christian. I can't even
begin to understand how that would work. And if he was, why
did he continually stress that he was not on earth to change
the law -- and then his followers changed the law in his name.
Perhaps the Madman can explain all this to me?
--
--- Paul J. Gans
Paul J Gans
And then he does not read them literally himself.
Paul J Gans
Where in the Bible does it say that there were two creations?
I love it when you interpret the Bible to support your views
but won't allow anybody else the same right.
>" /God made them male and female/ " are the words of Jesus of Nazareth. .
>To believe "God did not create" goes against the direct teachings of Jesus,
>the original Christian.
Where in the Bible did Jesus say that he was a Christian? There are
plenty of places where Jesus supports Hebrew religious law, but that
would make him a Hebrew, not a Christian.
>You cannot be a follower of Jesus, which are called "christians", and
>believe evolution is responsible for what we you every morning in the
>mirror.
Why not? Many folks have no trouble with it. And worse, the evidence
points to it being true.
>IOW there is no such thing as a /theist-evolutionist/ . You can't be both
Is this in the Bible somewhere or is this "Madman's Law"?
>it really is THAT simple.
I'd agree.
Paul J Gans
Jesus spoke to Moses? Amazing! Where does it say that in the Bible.
Or did you mean that Moses told the story to somebody who told somebody
else who told somebody else who wrote it down and that writing was then
copied a dozen times and then Jesus read it?
Which is it?
Paul J Gans
Only when the barber is out of town.
Paul J Gans
>> On 7 July, 02:17, "[M]adman" <ad...@hotmaill.et> wrote:
>>
>> [definitely snipped for focus]
>>
>> > ... that Jesus, the original Christian ...
>>
>> [definitely snipped for focus]
>>
>> If a Christian is a follower of Jesus of Nazareth, aka the Christ,
>> then how can Jesus be following himself?
>He's a member of the set of all religions that do not include their own
>deities.
Uh, John, are you saying that Jesus was NOT a trinitarian? ;-)
Ken Denny
Someone told Jesus the story. Jesus didn't read it as he was most
likely illiterate.
[M]adman
Different bright and morning star
[M]adman
They were passed down. But they were retold by God on the mountain. Moses
was on the mountain for 40 days. WTF do you think they were doing for 40
days?
Ray Martinez
> Jesus said in the Book of Mark Chapter 10, vs 6 (KJV) <quote>
>
> " _But from the beginning of the creation, God made them male and female_ ."
>
> Ron says by your fruit you will know them. If you do not think evolution is
> man's origins the Ron O says your fruit is bad
>
> Ron O deliberately tells people it is OK to believe in evolution despite the
> fact that Jesus, the original Christian, said "from the beginning of the
> creation, /God made them male and female/ ."
>
> of the creation, God made them male and female."
>
> What part of "Made Them" is so hard to understand Ron O?
>
> By your own standards of what is and is not good fruit Ron O:
>
> If Anyone that Disagrees with the "Original Christian Jesus of Nazareth" who
> instead believes man evolved from an Ape is *NOT* following the true
> teachings of the original Christian Jesus but is following false doctrine
> taught by wolves in sheep's clothing . Just as Jesus warned. They are
> teaching "Bad Fruit". We know them by the bad fruit they will tell others.
>
> That would be Y O U Ron O.
>
> And others like Y O U
Nominated: POTM
Ray
Tim DeLaney
>
> - Show quoted text -
<Subject line edited so this doesn't look like a second>
One of the most ridiculous nominations I've ever seen.
Tim
Perplexed in Peoria
>>> Moses got the story from God on the mountain.
>>
>> Really? I thought I read somewhere that the stories in Genesis
>> had been passed down generation-to-generation from human
>> eyewitnesses. I thought that all Moses got on the mountain was
>> Law.
>>
>
> They were passed down. But they were retold by God on the mountain. Moses
> was on the mountain for 40 days. WTF do you think they were doing for 40
> days?
Tied up in conference committee?
[M]adman
None of you know or understand the bible. Many of you demand a sentence to
read like a dictionary. The bible cannot be understood that way.
Here:
"Moses wrote all of God's words" (Exodus 24:4). Before completing the
covenant, he read this part of the Torah. It is written, "[Moses] took the
Book of the covenant, and read it so that the people would hear. They said,
'All that God has spoken, we will do and we will listen'" (Exodus 24:7).
They already had the oral hebrew traditions and the other traditions from
before the flood. Now, after Mount Sinai they had an abreviated snyposis in
written form in one set of books called Torah. They had been in captivity
for 400 years.
----------------------------------------------
God's Covenant with his people at M.Sinai , the 10 Commandments , the rules
and admonitions to live by.
Nearly all the foundations on which Jewish life is built--the ten
Commandments, the historic Festivals, the leading
principles of civil law--are contained in the book of Exodus.
Moses, the man whom God chose to lead his people out of Egypt; and He
dictated the Torah (The BIBLE), word by word, and letter by letter to Moses
at Mt. Sinai.
-------------------------------------------------
Muslims too have traditionally regarded the Torah as the literal word of God
as told to Moses. For many, it is neither exactly history, nor theology, nor
a legal and ritual guide, but something beyond all three. It is the primary
guide to the relationship between God and humanity, a living document that
unfolds over generations and millennia.
The Talmud says that God dictated four books of the Torah, but that Moses
wrote Deuteronomy in his own words (Meg. 31b). All classical beliefs,
nonetheless, hold that the Torah was entirely or almost entirely Mosaic and
of divine origin
According to classical rabbinic texts this parallel set of material was
originally transmitted to Moses at Sinai, and then from Moses to Israel. At
that time it was forbidden to write and publish the oral law, as any writing
would be incomplete and subject to misinterpretation and abuse.
http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Torah
--------------------------------------------------
" Moses was the Torah's author, receiving it from God either as divine
inspiration or as direct dictation in the Hebrew year 2449 AM (1313 BCE)."
---------------------------------------------------
Orthodox (characterized by Eliezer Berkovitz and Norman Lamm): "Verbal
Revelation: The Torah, including both the Written and Oral Traditions,
consists of the exact words of God. He gave it all as one piece at Sinai."
------------------------------------------------
Links:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torah
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talmud
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mosaic_authorship#Origins_and_nature_of_the_tradition
http://www.aish.com/jl/kc/48936097.html
http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Torah
http://www.squidoo.com/torahscrolls
wf3h
> Perplexed in Peoria wrote:
>
> > Really? I thought I read somewhere that the stories in Genesis
> > had been passed down generation-to-generation from human
> > eyewitnesses. I thought that all Moses got on the mountain was
> > Law.
>
> They were passed down. But they were retold by God on the mountain. Moses
> was on the mountain for 40 days. WTF do you think they were doing for 40
> days?
>
you know, when you read this stuff posted by creationists, you have to
wonder what it is about religion that causes people to go insane.
there's no proof moses existed at all. none. but the moron 'adman'
takes some story from the dawn of civilization, completely out of
context and spins it like it's an edward r. murrow documentary.
when you read the history of the bible, it's obvious that believing
it's literally true is a form of delusion. it's astonishing that this
idiot thinks such a belief is equivalent to science....
remarkable.
[M]adman
Read the story of the mount of transfiguration in the new testement. You
will see Jesus spoke to Moses then too.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_of_Transfiguration
(the mount of transfiguration was Mount Herman. Mount Herman was where the
watchers decended onto the earth.)
[M]adman
None of you k00ks know this subject matter.
Here yas Go "Sport"
_From The Koran_
"[Prophet], do you not see how God makes comparisons? A good word is like a
good tree whose root is firm and whose branches are high in the sky,
yielding constant fruit by it's Lord's leave - God makes such comparisons
for people so that they may reflect - but an evil word is like a rotten
tree, uprooted from the surface of the earth, with no power to endure. God
will give firmness to those who believe in the firmly rooted word, both in
this world and the Hereafter, but the evildoers He leaves to stray: God does
whatever He will."
Holy Qur'an 14:24-27 (M.A.S. Abdel Haleem)
Your theory of evolution are words of bad fruit even to the Muslims.
Ernest Major
<f8e98a28-ab83-46f4...@v23g2000pro.googlegroups.com>, Ray
Martinez <pyram...@yahoo.com> writes
be a Christian. Some of his recent statements - "I hate your God Dave.
the one
that screwed it up for everyone because of his pety jealousy" and "His
god is the devil. AKA the god OF this world" - look decidedly
unchristian.
How can we reconcile this with the claim quoted above?
--
alias Ernest Major
Wombat
I'll second that.
Wombat
Wombat
> In message
> <f8e98a28-ab83-46f4-9dd0-ca2ffddeb...@v23g2000pro.googlegroups.com>, Ray
> Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> writes
He's a lying troll?
Wombat
T Pagano
****And seconded.*****
Okimoto is one of the blow hard wolves in sheep's clothing. He makes
it a point to deflect the "atheist" accusation whenever leveled at him
and has pulled the Methodist disguise on at least once. Nonetheless
his positions are unmistakably atheist-secular.
He is far worse than Flank (and others) who may deny their blatant
atheism but at least have the decency not to pull on a christian
disquise.
Regards,
T Pagano
raven1
wrote:
>Perplexed in Peoria wrote:
The Bible is silent on that topic, making the above entirely your
invention. What does the book of Revelation have to say about people
adding to scripture?
raven1
wrote:
There is no non-Biblical corroboration to suggest that the Hebrews
were ever in captivity in Egypt, much less for 400 years.
>
>----------------------------------------------
>God's Covenant with his people at M.Sinai , the 10 Commandments , the rules
>and admonitions to live by.
>Nearly all the foundations on which Jewish life is built--the ten
>Commandments, the historic Festivals, the leading
>principles of civil law--are contained in the book of Exodus.
>
>Moses, the man whom God chose to lead his people out of Egypt; and He
>dictated the Torah (The BIBLE), word by word, and letter by letter to Moses
>at Mt. Sinai.
Highly unlikely, given that the events in half of Exodus, and all of
Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy post-date Moses's supposed sojourn
to Mt. Sinai. Moreover, Deuteronomy contains the account of Moses'
death, making a Mosaic authorship even less likely.
wf3h
>
> None of you know or understand the bible. Many of you demand a sentence to
> read like a dictionary. The bible cannot be understood that way.
yet you insist it reads like a science book and a history book when
that is plainly wrong.
go figure.
>
> ----------------------------------------------
> God's Covenant with his people at M.Sinai , the 10 Commandments , the rules
> and admonitions to live by.
the '10 commandments' is a latter day construct which is selectively
picked out of the bible by those with a reader's digest mentality
> Nearly all the foundations on which Jewish life is built--the ten
> Commandments, the historic Festivals, the leading
> principles of civil law--are contained in the book of Exodus.
or the 613 commandments identified by maimonides...whichever you
prefer.
and there's NO proof...none...the events in exodus ever took place.
not a single shred of evidence.
> -------------------------------------------------
> Muslims too have traditionally regarded the Torah as the literal word of God
as they regard the qur'an. and look what a literal reading of the
qur'an has done for the muslim world
not much.
wf3h
> wf3h wrote:
>
> > you creationists think the bible is the only source of teaching about
> > god. that is wrong.
>
> > sorry, sport. try again.
>
> None of you k00ks know this subject matter.
>
> Here yas Go "Sport"
>
> _From The Koran_
>
> "[Prophet], do you not see how God makes comparisons? A good word is like a
> good tree whose root is firm and whose branches are high in the sky,
> yielding constant fruit by it's Lord's leave - God makes such comparisons
> for people so that they may reflect - but an evil word is like a rotten
> tree, uprooted from the surface of the earth, with no power to endure. God
> will give firmness to those who believe in the firmly rooted word, both in
> this world and the Hereafter, but the evildoers He leaves to stray: God does
> whatever He will."
> Holy Qur'an 14:24-27 (M.A.S. Abdel Haleem)
>
> Your theory of evolution are words of bad fruit even to the Muslims.-
and your interpretation of 'sacred texts' as being literally true has
doomed the muslim world to 2nd place status and ignorance. i suppose,
ignorance being your stock in trade, you find that admirable.
wf3h
>
> He is far worse than Flank (and others) who may deny their blatant
> atheism but at least have the decency not to pull on a christian
> disquise.
you're not a christian either. what's your complaint?
J.J. O'Shea
(in article
<f2433992-38ba-4397...@b15g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>):
That, or 'he' is really several people using the same posting ID to post in
turns.
Or he merely has even more severe mental problems than are already evident.
--
email to oshea dot j dot j at gmail dot com.
Ray Martinez
Take notice, Keith.
> Okimoto is one of the blow hard wolves in sheep's clothing.
I completely agree. His arguments correspond to the concept seen in
"double agent."
> He makes
> it a point to deflect the "atheist" accusation whenever leveled at him
> and has pulled the Methodist disguise on at least once. Nonetheless
> his positions are unmistakably atheist-secular.
>
Yes, you too recognize the concept of double agent to exist in the
arguments of Ron Okimoto.
> He is far worse than Flank (and others) who may deny their blatant
> atheism but at least have the decency not to pull on a christian
> disquise.
>
> Regards,
> T Pagano- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Again, I agree.
Logic says: Anytime a Christian accepts the same life production
theory that Richard Dawkins accepts the same is evidence that the
Christian is not a real Christian.
Ray
hersheyh
> Jesus said in the Book of Mark Chapter 10, vs 6 (KJV) <quote>
>
> " _But from the beginning of the creation, God made them male and female_ ."
Let me include a bit more of the text, to put it in context.
6"But at the beginning of creation God 'made them male and female.'[a]
7'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united
to his wife,[b] 8and the two will become one flesh.'[c] So they are no
longer two, but one. 9Therefore what God has joined together, let man
not separate."
According to your literalist interpretation of text, don't man and
wife also have to *literally* become one flesh? I know that that
actually does happen in some anglerfishes, where the male becomes
little more than a disembodied testicle on the female.
http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://whyevolutionistrue.files.wordpress.com/2009/02/p5249wmu.jpg&imgrefurl=http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2009/02/25/sexual-parasitism-in-anglerfish/&usg=__SrFVL8D1qyWCvEzumuedqjkjIqg=&h=319&w=500&sz=24&hl=en&start=3&sig2=Cksw3Y0GpyxhlZkNZ88lQw&um=1&tbnid=VF4DezEOC1RsfM:&tbnh=83&tbnw=130&prev=/images%3Fq%3Danglerfish%2Bmale%2Bparasite%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DG%26um%3D1&ei=R7ZTSuOQDZLANqGa6dwI
http://whyevolutionistrue.files.wordpress.com/2009/02/p5249wmu.jpg
Personally, I will take this passage as not meant to be taken
literally, lest I also have to some fuse my body (or at least my
gonads) with the female of my choice.
> Ron says by your fruit you will know them. If you do not think evolution is
> man's origins the Ron O says your fruit is bad
Well, in addition to saying, in contradiction to the above, not to
judge least you be judged, Mathew goes on to provide the clear
*Christian* justification for the use of the auto-da-fe for heretics,
Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, and pretty much anyone who disagrees with
whatever version of the True[TM] Faith on holds. It wasn't Nazis who
started the fun spectacle of the bonfire of the heretics.
7:15 Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing,
but inwardly they are ravening wolves.
7:16 Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of
thorns, or figs of thistles?
7:17 Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt
tree bringeth forth evil fruit.
7:18 A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt
tree bring forth good fruit.
7:19 Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and
cast into the fire.
"Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast
into the fire."
Those who fail to bear "good fruit" will be "hewn down, and cast into
the fire."
7:20 Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.
Dana Tweedy
>>
>
> Take notice, Keith.
>
>> Okimoto is one of the blow hard wolves in sheep's clothing.
>
> I completely agree. His arguments correspond to the concept seen in
> "double agent."
Or, Ray and Tony corresponding to the Pharasees, worshiping the letter of
the law, and losing the spirit.
>
>> He makes
>> it a point to deflect the "atheist" accusation whenever leveled at
>> him and has pulled the Methodist disguise on at least once.
>> Nonetheless his positions are unmistakably atheist-secular.
>>
>
> Yes, you too recognize the concept of double agent to exist in the
> arguments of Ron Okimoto.
Except there isn't any such "concept" to recognize. You are attacking
somoene telling you the truth that you don't want to hear.
>
>> He is far worse than Flank (and others) who may deny their blatant
>> atheism but at least have the decency not to pull on a christian
>> disquise.
>>
>> Regards,
>> T Pagano- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> Again, I agree.
Again, you attack Christians.
>
> Logic says: Anytime a Christian accepts the same life production
> theory that Richard Dawkins accepts the same is evidence that the
> Christian is not a real Christian.
Why would "logic" say something that illogical?
DJT
Ernest Major
<redd...@bresnan.net> writes
>Ray Martinez wrote:
>> On Jul 7, 12:22 pm, T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> wrote:
>snip
>
>>>
>>
>> Take notice, Keith.
>>
>>> Okimoto is one of the blow hard wolves in sheep's clothing.
>>
>> I completely agree. His arguments correspond to the concept seen in
>> "double agent."
>
>Or, Ray and Tony corresponding to the Pharasees, worshiping the letter of
>the law, and losing the spirit.
I think you are too kind to them. Pharisees wouldn't commit blasphemy.
>
>DJT
>
--
alias Ernest Major
Kermit
Ah!
So... which raging ball of nuclear fury is he?
Kermit
Ray Martinez
> In message <d8qdnZHev7AvIc7XnZ2dnUVZ_j-dn...@bresnan.com>, Dana Tweedy
> <reddfr...@bresnan.net> writes
>
> >Ray Martinez wrote:
> >> On Jul 7, 12:22 pm, T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> wrote:
> >snip
>
> >> Take notice, Keith.
>
> >>> Okimoto is one of the blow hard wolves in sheep's clothing.
>
> >> I completely agree. His arguments correspond to the concept seen in
> >> "double agent."
>
> >Or, Ray and Tony corresponding to the Pharasees, worshiping the letter of
> >the law, and losing the spirit.
>
> I think you are too kind to them. Pharisees wouldn't commit blasphemy.
>
>
Jesus said they did.
Read your N.T.
Ray
J.J. O'Shea
(in article
<04f7ff4d-46a8-43da...@v37g2000prg.googlegroups.com>):
Betelgeuse.
Friar Broccoli
Yes I saw. This is the second creationist nomination
this month.
However, I am concerned that the ballot will become
cluttered with silly nominations (which this one surely
is). Consequently, if this continues I will impose some
sort of arbitrary limit on Creationist nominations each
month (probably three).
If you guys exceed the limit I will just take the first three
in time order and use those unless you guys tell me in
advance that you want a different group of three.
I definitely do not want to exclude creationists from the
process, but I don't want a free-for-all either.
In the meantime, I though Howard's reply here:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/98ccf8b6b8454ca2
was pretty good. Would you folks like to address his points?
Note that my own preferred reply here is that, even if
"God made them male and female" is read literally,
it does not contradict evolution since that is the
method He used to make them male and female.
Ray Martinez
> On Jul 6, 9:17 pm, "[M]adman" <ad...@hotmaill.et> wrote:
>
> > Jesus said in the Book of Mark Chapter 10, vs 6 (KJV) <quote>
>
> > " _But from the beginning of the creation, God made them male and female_ ."
>
> Let me include a bit more of the text, to put it in context.
>
> 6"But at the beginning of creation God 'made them male and female.'[a]
> 7'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united
> to his wife,[b] 8and the two will become one flesh.'[c] So they are no
> longer two, but one. 9Therefore what God has joined together, let man
> not separate."
>
> According to your literalist interpretation of text, don't man and
> wife also have to *literally* become one flesh? I know that that
> actually does happen in some anglerfishes, where the male becomes
> little more than a disembodied testicle on the female.
>
Typical Atheist "understanding" of the Bible.
>
> Personally, I will take this passage as not meant to be taken
> literally, lest I also have to some fuse my body (or at least my
> gonads) with the female of my choice.
>
One in unity; that's what the text literally means.
Our Atheist has the ability to understand complicated scientific
metaphors argued in scientific literature but the ability to
understand the Bible suddenly escapes him?
Of course we recognize our Atheist to be willfully misrepresentinmg
his enemy since he cannot be this stupid.
Ray
SNIP....
Dana Tweedy
> On Jul 7, 2:57 pm, Ernest Major <{$t...@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> In message <d8qdnZHev7AvIc7XnZ2dnUVZ_j-dn...@bresnan.com>, Dana
>> Tweedy <reddfr...@bresnan.net> writes
>>
>>> Ray Martinez wrote:
>>>> On Jul 7, 12:22 pm, T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> wrote:
>>> snip
>>
>>>> Take notice, Keith.
>>
>>>>> Okimoto is one of the blow hard wolves in sheep's clothing.
>>
>>>> I completely agree. His arguments correspond to the concept seen in
>>>> "double agent."
>>
>>> Or, Ray and Tony corresponding to the Pharasees, worshiping the
>>> letter of the law, and losing the spirit.
>>
>> I think you are too kind to them. Pharisees wouldn't commit
>> blasphemy.
>>
>>
>
> Jesus said they did.
So, you support the idea that you and Tony represent the Pharisees. Good.
>
> Read your N.T.
All of it, or just the parts your think are correct?
DJT
Dana Tweedy
> On Jul 7, 2:01 pm, hersheyh <hershe...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Jul 6, 9:17 pm, "[M]adman" <ad...@hotmaill.et> wrote:
>>
>>> Jesus said in the Book of Mark Chapter 10, vs 6 (KJV) <quote>
>>
>>> " _But from the beginning of the creation, God made them male and
>>> female_ ."
>>
>> Let me include a bit more of the text, to put it in context.
>>
>> 6"But at the beginning of creation God 'made them male and
>> female.'[a] 7'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother
>> and be united to his wife,[b] 8and the two will become one
>> flesh.'[c] So they are no longer two, but one. 9Therefore what God
>> has joined together, let man not separate."
>>
>> According to your literalist interpretation of text, don't man and
>> wife also have to *literally* become one flesh? I know that that
>> actually does happen in some anglerfishes, where the male becomes
>> little more than a disembodied testicle on the female.
>>
>
> Typical Atheist "understanding" of the Bible.
How is his understanding of the Bible worse than yours?
>
>> http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://whyevolutionistrue.file...http://whyevolutionistrue.files.wordpress.com/2009/02/p5249wmu.jpg
>>
>> Personally, I will take this passage as not meant to be taken
>> literally, lest I also have to some fuse my body (or at least my
>> gonads) with the female of my choice.
>>
>
> One in unity; that's what the text literally means.
What is meant by "unity" there? Here are some of the synonmys found in a
dictionary:
accord, agreement, alliance, combination, concord, concurrence, consensus,
consent, consonance, entity, federation, harmony, homogeneity, identity,
individuality, integral, integrity, oneness, peace, rapport, sameness,
solidarity, synthesis, totality, unification, uniformity, union, unison,
coadunation, confederation, homogeneousness, indivisibility, integrality,
interconnection, singleness, singularity, soleness, unanimity, undividedness
Can you apply them all, with exactly the same meaning?
>
> Our Atheist has the ability to understand complicated scientific
> metaphors argued in scientific literature but the ability to
> understand the Bible suddenly escapes him?
He's not the one who claims the Bible is to be taken literally.
>
> Of course we recognize our Atheist to be willfully misrepresentinmg
> his enemy since he cannot be this stupid.
Of course, there's no evidence that Howard considers the Bible to be his
enemy, or that he is "misrepresenting" it.
DJT
Ron O
Hey, Pagano, doesn't it give you the creeps that Ray agrees with you?
Doesn't that set off alarm bells in what might pass for your head?
Sad that you can't put up any instances where you have caught me
lying. I make mistakes from time to time, but compared to guys like
you, Ray and adman there isn't any comparison. Just put up an example
of where you have verified that I have lied. You can't do that
because when I make a mistake I admit it. Why don't you do that?
Lying about people is what you do. Heck, adman likely started this
thread beause he got caught openly lying about the clergy that signed
the clergy letter project. Somewhere in what is left of your mind you
know that you are a bad fruit. No two ways about it. You wouldn't
have to lie about me if you weren't. Have you ever thought about
trying a valid and honest argument? Why can't you put up a valid and
honest anti-evolution argument that you have verified? I realize that
I probably can't get through to you because anyone that can refute
themselves in their own posts is about as badly off as you can get,
but what does it mean when you have to constantly lie to support your
position. Why lie about others to make yourself feel better?
You might want to ask adman what he thinks about lame guys like you
and Ray and why he doesn't want to be assocated as being the same kind
of fruit.
Ron Okimoto
Ron O
I would not put such a limit on anti-science nominations. let as many
be nominated as possible. I would then archive the list of
nominations so that everyone can compare just what the anti-science
side thinks is worthy of POTM where they can compare those lame posts
to real POTM material. The only thing that I would recommend is that
you clearly distinguish the anti-evolution posts from the science
posts. Put July's list up in the TO archive so that Ray, adman and
Pagano can go to the archive and see what they thought was so special
whenever they want, and everyone else can do the same thing.
I'm serious, they were stupid enough to try this lame exercise, let
them stew in it forever. I don't mind being the subject of their
ridicule. What possible credibility can they have?
Ron Okimoto
Paul J Gans
>> >> "[M]adman" <ad...@hotmaill.et> wrote:
>> >>> Jesus said in the Book of Mark Chapter 10, vs 6 (KJV) <quote>
>>
>> >>> " _But from the beginning of the creation, God made them male and
>> >>> female_ ."
>>
>> >>> Ron says by your fruit you will know them. If you do not think
>> >>> evolution is man's origins the Ron O says your fruit is bad
>>
>> >>> Ron O deliberately tells people it is OK to believe in evolution
>> >>> despite the fact that Jesus, the original Christian, said "from the
>> >>> beginning of the creation, /God made them male and female/ ."
>>
>> >> evolution.
>>
>> >> Well actually he quoted Ron O as saying that. Not exactly a quote,
>> >> but
>> >> a paraphrase. So it is just as if (M)adman said it himself.
>>
>> >> Of course, Jesus was quoting Moses when he said "God made them
>> >> male and female". Not exactly a quote, but a paraphrase. So it
>> >> is just as if Jesus said it himself.
>>
>> >> It is just fascinating that (M)adman chooses the one place in the
>> >> Scripture where Jesus is arguing AGAINST a literal reading of
>> >> the Mosaic scriptures. But anyone with half a brain can see that
>> >> that this is just a coincidence. (M)adman sincerely believes that
>> >> the scriptures must be read literallly as the word of God.
>> >You left out a detail.
>> >was quoting God.
>>
>> Jesus spoke to Moses? Amazing! Where does it say that in the Bible.
>>
>> Or did you mean that Moses told the story to somebody who told somebody
>> else who told somebody else who wrote it down and that writing was then
>> copied a dozen times and then Jesus read it?
>>
>> Which is it?
>>
>> --- Paul J. Gans
>Someone told Jesus the story. Jesus didn't read it as he was most
>likely illiterate.
I agree, except for the illiterate part. It was then, and is
now the duty of all Jewish males, to study Hebrew so that he
can read the Torah (the law).
--
--- Paul J. Gans
Paul J Gans
>"[M]adman" <ad...@hotmaill.et> wrote:
>> Perplexed in Peoria wrote:
>>> "[M]adman" <ad...@hotmaill.et> wrote:
>>>> Moses got the story from God on the mountain.
>>>
>>> had been passed down generation-to-generation from human
>>> eyewitnesses. I thought that all Moses got on the mountain was
>>> Law.
>>>
>>
>> They were passed down. But they were retold by God on the mountain. Moses
>> was on the mountain for 40 days. WTF do you think they were doing for 40
>> days?
>Tied up in conference committee?
No. Actually the tradition is that the Torah was transmitted
to Moses on Mt. Sinai. The problem with this is that most
of the first five books hadn't happened yet, including Moses's
death, the various idol incidents, etc., etc., etc.
So clearly something is muddled here.
Paul J Gans
>Paul J Gans wrote:
>> [M]adman <ad...@hotmaill.et> wrote:
>>> Perplexed in Peoria wrote:
>>>> "[M]adman" <ad...@hotmaill.et> wrote:
>Read the story of the mount of transfiguration in the new testement. You
>will see Jesus spoke to Moses then too.
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_of_Transfiguration
>(the mount of transfiguration was Mount Herman. Mount Herman was where the
>watchers decended onto the earth.)
In other words, Moses, who was already quite dead, was spiritually
in heaven with God when Jesus went to the top of some mountain.
And yet it is written that no man who died before Jesus, could
reach heaven because they had not been cleansed of sin.
So we have another conundrum here for the literalist mind. Either
certain old testament figures made it to heaven (and the New Testament
statements to the contrary are wrong) or, well, Jesus didn't talk
to Moses.
On the other hand, we would have to assume that Jesus was quite
familiar with the Torah as it existed in his time. This would
not be at all uncommon for male Hebrews.
Paul J Gans
No. Some Protestant denominations are not only literalist,
but basically have cast all non-literalist denominations out
of the Christian pantheon. This includes all Catholics, all
members of the more liberal Protestant sects, and quite a few
of the less liberal ones as well.
And folks think quantum mechanics is complicated.
Chris
You think this is bad? Think about what is was like living in Europe
in the years leading up to the Thirty Years' War. If your local German
Prince was Protestant, so were you. If his Catholic son inherited, you
converted too. If someone denounced you for being false to the new
religion you could lose your land, your business, your family.
Calvinists in Scotland, Catholics in Spain, England, France and
Austria-Hungary; the Irish on the verge of rebellion (as always) with
Cromwell stewing in the fens; Huguenots alternately being granted
rights in France and getting slaughtered there; the Sephardic Jews
being forcefully converted to Catholicism or expelled from Iberia and
looking for a place to live.
Thanks, I'll take now.
Chris
Ray Martinez
>
> - Show quoted text -
Ron: EVERYTHING you *argue* is a lie corresponding to the concept of
"double agent" because your arguments make Christianity subservient to
Atheism-Darwinism.
No real Christian would argue against nature reflecting the concept of
ID (= God, the Father of Christ). No real Christian would agree with
their enemy (= Atheists) that reality yields no evidence of God. No
real Christian would do the bidding of Atheists like you do with
shameless gusto. We *recognize* you to be a double agent serving the
Atheism agenda.
You are a malignant cancer; just like every signer of the Clergy
Letter Project. Feigning Christianity, while arguing tooth and nail
for pro-Atheism explanations of reality, is a very very old game, Ron.
The game corresponds to the Biblical concept and tactic of "pernicious
deceiver." Atheists have always attempted to impersonate and conceal
themselves as Christians so their anti-Bible conclusions are not seen
as the predictable and predetermined conclusions of an Atheist.
You are not alone, of course: Dana Tweedy, Ken Miller, Francis Collins
are all double agents, attempting to destroy Christianity from within
(= proof of Satan).
We can also argue that you guys are deceived-deluded. But this still
makes you the self-evident liars that you are. Evolution says the
Bible and Christianity (= Theism) are false. You guys are just
Atheists in sheeps clothing (the m.o. of Satan).
Ray
Ray Martinez
>
> - Show quoted text -
Fuck off, Keith.
Your comments are threatening censorship (the way of Darwinism).
Ray
Ray Martinez
Ron is SO shaken and desperate, he actually attempts to reach out to
his ID opponent for aid against me!
LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL!
Ray (Paleyan IDist)
> Doesn't that set off alarm bells in what might pass for your head?
> Sad that you can't put up any instances where you have caught me
> lying. I make mistakes from time to time, but compared to guys like
> you, Ray and adman there isn't any comparison. Just put up an example
> of where you have verified that I have lied. You can't do that
> because when I make a mistake I admit it. Why don't you do that?
> Lying about people is what you do. Heck, adman likely started this
> thread beause he got caught openly lying about the clergy that signed
> the clergy letter project. Somewhere in what is left of your mind you
> know that you are a bad fruit. No two ways about it. You wouldn't
> have to lie about me if you weren't. Have you ever thought about
> trying a valid and honest argument? Why can't you put up a valid and
> honest anti-evolution argument that you have verified? I realize that
> I probably can't get through to you because anyone that can refute
> themselves in their own posts is about as badly off as you can get,
> but what does it mean when you have to constantly lie to support your
> position. Why lie about others to make yourself feel better?
>
> You might want to ask adman what he thinks about lame guys like you
> and Ray and why he doesn't want to be assocated as being the same kind
> of fruit.
>
> Ron Okimoto- Hide quoted text -
John S. Wilkins
> John S. Wilkins <jo...@wilkins.id.au> wrote:
> >Devils Advocaat <mank...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >> On 7 July, 02:17, "[M]adman" <ad...@hotmaill.et> wrote:
> >>
> >> [definitely snipped for focus]
> >>
> >> > ... that Jesus, the original Christian ...
> >>
> >> [definitely snipped for focus]
> >>
> >> If a Christian is a follower of Jesus of Nazareth, aka the Christ,
> >> then how can Jesus be following himself?
>
> >He's a member of the set of all religions that do not include their own
> >deities.
>
> Uh, John, are you saying that Jesus was NOT a trinitarian? ;-)
You may very well say that. I couldn't possibly comment.
--
John S. Wilkins, Philosophy, University of Sydney
http://evolvingthoughts.net
But al be that he was a philosophre,
Yet hadde he but litel gold in cofre
Rich Mathers
> Paul J Gans wrote:
> > [M]adman <ad...@hotmaill.et> wrote:
> >> Perplexed in Peoria wrote:
> >>>> Jesus said in the Book of Mark Chapter 10, vs 6 (KJV) <quote>
>
> >>>> " _But from the beginning of the creation, God made them male and
> >>>> female_ ."
>
> >>>> Ron says by your fruit you will know them. If you do not think
> >>>> evolution is man's origins the Ron O says your fruit is bad
>
> >>>> Ron O deliberately tells people it is OK to believe in evolution
> >>>> despite the fact that Jesus, the original Christian, said "from the
> >>>> beginning of the creation, /God made them male and female/ ."
>
> >>> evolution.
>
> >>> Well actually he quoted Ron O as saying that. Not exactly a quote,
> >>> but
> >>> a paraphrase. So it is just as if (M)adman said it himself.
>
> >>> Of course, Jesus was quoting Moses when he said "God made them
> >>> male and female". Not exactly a quote, but a paraphrase. So it
> >>> is just as if Jesus said it himself.
>
> >>> It is just fascinating that (M)adman chooses the one place in the
> >>> Scripture where Jesus is arguing AGAINST a literal reading of
> >>> the Mosaic scriptures. But anyone with half a brain can see that
> >>> that this is just a coincidence. (M)adman sincerely believes that
> >>> the scriptures must be read literallly as the word of God.
>
> >> You left out a detail.
>
> >> Moses got the story from God on the mountain. So Jesus was quoting
> >> Moses who was quoting God.
>
> > Jesus spoke to Moses? Amazing! Where does it say that in the Bible.
>
> > Or did you mean that Moses told the story to somebody who told
> > somebody else who told somebody else who wrote it down and that
> > writing was then copied a dozen times and then Jesus read it?
>
> > Which is it?
>
> Read the story of the mount of transfiguration in the new testement. You
>
> (the mount of transfiguration was Mount Herman. Mount Herman was where the
> watchers decended onto the earth.)
Bizarre beliefs about angels are not evidence of any thing but
religious confusion. Some religious groups/people believe that the
watchers were either good angels that looked over the pious, or fallen
angels (male) that bred with humans and the offspring were witchs/
warlocks, or like Uriel messengers to Biblical notables like Noah, or
related UFOs.
Such is the nature of evidence for madman. He gets to pick the "true"
interpretation because God speaks to him. Just ask him. He will have
to say yes. It is part and parcel of literalist justifications for
establishing religious dogma. That is the way of protestant
sectarianism.
RAM
Rich Mathers
> On Tue, 7 Jul 2009 11:03:37 -0700 (PDT), Ray Martinez
>
>
>
> <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> Jesus said in the Book of Mark Chapter 10, vs 6 (KJV) <quote>
>
> >> " _But from the beginning of the creation, God made them male and female_ ."
>
> >> Ron says by your fruit you will know them. If you do not think evolution is
> >> man's origins the Ron O says your fruit is bad
>
> >> Ron O deliberately tells people it is OK to believe in evolution despite the
> >> fact that Jesus, the original Christian, said "from the beginning of the
> >> creation, /God made them male and female/ ."
>
> >> of the creation, God made them male and female."
>
> >> What part of "Made Them" is so hard to understand Ron O?
>
> >> By your own standards of what is and is not good fruit Ron O:
>
> >> If Anyone that Disagrees with the "Original Christian Jesus of Nazareth" who
> >> said "from the beginning of the creation, God made them male and female" and
> >> instead believes man evolved from an Ape is *NOT* following the true
> >> teachings of the original Christian Jesus but is following false doctrine
> >> taught by wolves in sheep's clothing . Just as Jesus warned. They are
> >> teaching "Bad Fruit". We know them by the bad fruit they will tell others.
>
> >> That would be Y O U Ron O.
>
> >> And others like Y O U
>
> >Nominated: POTM
>
> >Ray
>
> ****And seconded.*****
>
> Okimoto is one of the blow hard wolves in sheep's clothing. He makes
> it a point to deflect the "atheist" accusation whenever leveled at him
> and has pulled the Methodist disguise on at least once. Nonetheless
> his positions are unmistakably atheist-secular.
>
> He is far worse than Flank (and others) who may deny their blatant
> atheism but at least have the decency not to pull on a christian
> disquise.
>
> Regards,
> T Pagano
The real Christian disguise is Pagano. It appears he is a Methodist
Pope and he is about to excommunicate Ron.
Ron, I know Methodist don't use incense; but it might keep the stink
of Pagano out of Methodist beliefs.
RAM
Paul J Gans
Taxes. You left out taxes.
Paul J Gans
>> John S. Wilkins <jo...@wilkins.id.au> wrote:
>> >Devils Advocaat <mank...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> >> On 7 July, 02:17, "[M]adman" <ad...@hotmaill.et> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> [definitely snipped for focus]
>> >>
>> >> > ... that Jesus, the original Christian ...
>> >>
>> >> [definitely snipped for focus]
>> >>
>> >> If a Christian is a follower of Jesus of Nazareth, aka the Christ,
>> >> then how can Jesus be following himself?
>>
>> >He's a member of the set of all religions that do not include their own
>> >deities.
>>
>> Uh, John, are you saying that Jesus was NOT a trinitarian? ;-)
>You may very well say that. I couldn't possibly comment.
Nor could I.
I even sought divine guidance on more or less this subject.
I was in Oregon last month at more or less the top of a small
mountain. I was up there for a while and nobody spoke to me.
Except for my wife who said: "Are you going to get back in
the car?"
You thought I walked up the mountain? What am I? A prophet.
I had shoes on, for goodness sake. Guys with real shoes
can't be prophets. Guild rules or something.
[M]adman
> On Tue, 7 Jul 2009 13:18:49 -0500, "[M]adman" <ad...@hotmaill.et>
> wrote:
>
>> raven1 wrote:
>>> On Mon, 6 Jul 2009 23:39:10 -0500, "[M]adman" <ad...@hotmaill.et>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Perplexed in Peoria wrote:
>>>>>> Jesus said in the Book of Mark Chapter 10, vs 6 (KJV) <quote>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> " _But from the beginning of the creation, God made them male and
>>>>>> female_ ."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ron says by your fruit you will know them. If you do not think
>>>>>> evolution is man's origins the Ron O says your fruit is bad
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ron O deliberately tells people it is OK to believe in evolution
>>>>>> despite the fact that Jesus, the original Christian, said "from
>>>>>> the beginning of the creation, /God made them male and female/
>>>>>> ."
>>>>>
>>>>> evolution.
>>>>>
>>>>> Well actually he quoted Ron O as saying that. Not exactly a
>>>>> quote, but
>>>>> a paraphrase. So it is just as if (M)adman said it himself.
>>>>>
>>>>> Of course, Jesus was quoting Moses when he said "God made them
>>>>> male and female". Not exactly a quote, but a paraphrase. So it
>>>>> is just as if Jesus said it himself.
>>>>>
>>>>> It is just fascinating that (M)adman chooses the one place in the
>>>>> Scripture where Jesus is arguing AGAINST a literal reading of
>>>>> the Mosaic scriptures. But anyone with half a brain can see that
>>>>> that this is just a coincidence. (M)adman sincerely believes that
>>>>> the scriptures must be read literallly as the word of God.
>>>>
>>>> You left out a detail.
>>>>
>>>> Moses got the story from God on the mountain.
>>>
>>
>>
>> None of you know or understand the bible. Many of you demand a
>> sentence to read like a dictionary. The bible cannot be understood
>> that way.
>>
>> Here:
>>
>> "Moses wrote all of God's words" (Exodus 24:4). Before completing the
>> covenant, he read this part of the Torah. It is written, "[Moses]
>> took the Book of the covenant, and read it so that the people would
>> hear. They said, 'All that God has spoken, we will do and we will
>> listen'" (Exodus 24:7).
>>
>> They already had the oral hebrew traditions and the other traditions
>> from before the flood. Now, after Mount Sinai they had an abreviated
>> snyposis in written form in one set of books called Torah. They had
>> been in captivity for 400 years.
>
> There is no non-Biblical corroboration to suggest that the Hebrews
> were ever in captivity in Egypt, much less for 400 years.
>
>>
>> ----------------------------------------------
>> God's Covenant with his people at M.Sinai , the 10 Commandments ,
>> the rules and admonitions to live by.
>> Nearly all the foundations on which Jewish life is built--the ten
>> Commandments, the historic Festivals, the leading
>> principles of civil law--are contained in the book of Exodus.
>>
>> Moses, the man whom God chose to lead his people out of Egypt; and He
>> dictated the Torah (The BIBLE), word by word, and letter by letter
>> to Moses at Mt. Sinai.
>
> Highly unlikely, given that the events in half of Exodus, and all of
> Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy post-date Moses's supposed sojourn
> to Mt. Sinai. Moreover, Deuteronomy contains the account of Moses'
> death, making a Mosaic authorship even less likely.
You are a snake. And that is why I hardly reply to you. I spent time to find
you the links and show you the evidence.
You cut out the evidence and the links out that clearly answers your
/original/ inquirey.
[M]adman
The one you just cannot understand.
[M]adman
> On Tue, 7 Jul 2009 11:03:37 -0700 (PDT), Ray Martinez
>
>> On Jul 6, 6:17 pm, "[M]adman" <ad...@hotmaill.et> wrote:
>>> Jesus said in the Book of Mark Chapter 10, vs 6 (KJV) <quote>
>>>
>>> " _But from the beginning of the creation, God made them male and
>>> female_ ."
>>>
>>> Ron says by your fruit you will know them. If you do not think
>>> evolution is man's origins the Ron O says your fruit is bad
>>>
>>> Ron O deliberately tells people it is OK to believe in evolution
>>> despite the fact that Jesus, the original Christian, said "from the
>>> beginning of the creation, /God made them male and female/ ."
>>>
>>> How much more clear does it need to be Ron O? Jesus said "from the
>>> beginning of the creation, God made them male and female."
>>>
>>> What part of "Made Them" is so hard to understand Ron O?
>>>
>>> By your own standards of what is and is not good fruit Ron O:
>>>
>>> If Anyone that Disagrees with the "Original Christian Jesus of
>>> Nazareth" who said "from the beginning of the creation, God made
>>> them male and female" and instead believes man evolved from an Ape
>>> is *NOT* following the true teachings of the original Christian
>>> Jesus but is following false doctrine taught by wolves in sheep's
>>> clothing . Just as Jesus warned. They are teaching "Bad Fruit". We
>>> know them by the bad fruit they will tell others.
>>>
>>> That would be Y O U Ron O.
>>>
>>> And others like Y O U
>>
>>
>> Ray
>
> ****And seconded.*****
>
> Okimoto is one of the blow hard wolves in sheep's clothing. He makes
> it a point to deflect the "atheist" accusation whenever leveled at him
> and has pulled the Methodist disguise on at least once. Nonetheless
> his positions are unmistakably atheist-secular.
>
> He is far worse than Flank (and others) who may deny their blatant
> atheism but at least have the decency not to pull on a christian
> disquise.
>
> Regards,
> T Pagano
thanks.
But these freaks will never let any of our posts be nominated and voted on.
And even if they did, they would never vote honestly.
They out number us anyway.
John S. Wilkins
No, you can get around the shoe thing if you eat locusts, and call it
bread. Also if you curse children and bears rip them to shreds.
[M]adman
They will never put our posts up for nomination Ray.
[M]adman
> In message
> <f8e98a28-ab83-46f4...@v23g2000pro.googlegroups.com>,
> Ray Martinez <pyram...@yahoo.com> writes
> be a Christian. Some of his recent statements - "I hate your God Dave.
> the one
> that screwed it up for everyone because of his pety jealousy" and "His
> god is the devil. AKA the god OF this world" - look decidedly
> unchristian.
>
> How can we reconcile this with the claim quoted above?
Dave's god is satan you stupid fuck
[M]adman
>>
>>>> Nominated: POTM
>>
>>>> Ray
>>
>>> ****And seconded.*****
>>
>> Take notice, Keith.
>
> Yes I saw. This is the second creationist nomination
> this month.
>
> However, I am concerned that the ballot will become
> cluttered with silly nominations (which this one surely
> is).
And the BIAS rings out.
You have 2 independent people nominating a post.
If you are going to run a fair and unbias POTM POLL then who the hell are
you to say what is and is not a "silly nomination"?
Run the damn poll on what is nominated. THAT is your only job.
The judging is up to the Talk Origin posters.
Not Y O U
You clearly show just how BIAS your News Group can be.
[M]adman
They are all lying sacks of crap.
And the amusing thing is.... they know it.
[M]adman
He made them as described IN THE BIBLE.
No where in any literature does it say "God made them male and female WITH
EVOLUTION" It does not even IMPLY that anywhere. Jesus' intended meaning was
God made them from the dust of the earth exactly as the bible describes.
You should be disqualified from handling the POTM.
It is NOT your job to decide what is and is not nominated.
The users of T.O. decide what is or is not nominated. Not YOU. AND right
now you have a post with two nominations. In addition, the users of T.O.
VOTE for the winner. NOT you.
You are an errand boy. You tally the votes. That is your job. Period.
Get it?
Ray Martinez
I sensed it too.
Even brain damaged Ron sensed it:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/ac37bc21b76162f7?hl=en
Ray
John S. Wilkins
> On Jul 7, 4:57 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On Jul 7, 12:22 pm, T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > > On Tue, 7 Jul 2009 11:03:37 -0700 (PDT), Ray Martinez
> >
> > > ****And seconded.*****
> >
> > Take notice, Keith.
>
> Yes I saw. This is the second creationist nomination
> this month.
>
> However, I am concerned that the ballot will become
> cluttered with silly nominations (which this one surely
> is). Consequently, if this continues I will impose some
> sort of arbitrary limit on Creationist nominations each
> month (probably three).
No, I think that's not right. Let them add as many creationist posts as
they like and have the posters sort it out by voting. If you are worried
that there will be an influx of trolls, ensure that votes are cast by
contributors (that might involve some assistance from others).
>
> If you guys exceed the limit I will just take the first three
> in time order and use those unless you guys tell me in
> advance that you want a different group of three.
>
> I definitely do not want to exclude creationists from the
> process, but I don't want a free-for-all either.
>
> In the meantime, I though Howard's reply here:
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/98ccf8b6b8454ca2
>
> was pretty good. Would you folks like to address his points?
>
> Note that my own preferred reply here is that, even if
> "God made them male and female" is read literally,
> it does not contradict evolution since that is the
> method He used to make them male and female.
Dana Tweedy
> On Jul 7, 4:34 pm, Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:
snip
> Ron: EVERYTHING you *argue* is a lie corresponding to the concept of
> "double agent" because your arguments make Christianity subservient to
> Atheism-Darwinism.
Ray, "Darwinism" is not atheism. That's a lie on your part. Your
accusation of Ron being a "double agent" is another lie.
>
> No real Christian would argue against nature reflecting the concept of
> ID (= God, the Father of Christ).
Another lie on Ray's part.
> No real Christian would agree with
> their enemy (= Atheists) that reality yields no evidence of God.
Another of Ray's lies. Christians don't consider atheists to be enemies,
and many theists openly admit that there is no scientific evidence of God.
> No
> real Christian would do the bidding of Atheists like you do with
> shameless gusto. We *recognize* you to be a double agent serving the
> Atheism agenda.
Ron hasn't done any "bidding" for atheists, and your "recognition" is a lie.
Two more lies.
>
> You are a malignant cancer; just like every signer of the Clergy
> Letter Project. Feigning Christianity,
two more lies for Ray....
> while arguing tooth and nail
> for pro-Atheism explanations of reality, is a very very old game, Ron.
There are no "Pro atheism" explainations in science. Ray lies again.
> The game corresponds to the Biblical concept and tactic of "pernicious
> deceiver." Atheists have always attempted to impersonate and conceal
> themselves as Christians so their anti-Bible conclusions are not seen
> as the predictable and predetermined conclusions of an Atheist.
There's no evidence that atheists have done any of that. More lies from
Ray.
>
> You are not alone, of course: Dana Tweedy, Ken Miller, Francis Collins
> are all double agents, attempting to destroy Christianity from within
> (= proof of Satan).
More lies and false witness from Ray...
>
> We can also argue that you guys are deceived-deluded.
You know that "you guys" aren't. You lie more.
> But this still
> makes you the self-evident liars that you are.
"Self evident" is a way of avoiding having to support your lies.
> Evolution says the
> Bible and Christianity (= Theism) are false.
another lie....
You guys are just
> Atheists in sheeps clothing (the m.o. of Satan).
More lies and false witness. Are you trying for the record, Ray?
DJT
Ray Martinez
That's right; they are brazen in their lies too.
Basic claim of Evolution: God's Intelligence or Design is NOT seen in
nature (hence the ID-Evolution debate).
Now lets wait for two of the most pernicious evolutionist liars (Dana
Tweedy or Richard Forrest) to show up and deny.
I hope undecided readers are reading. But in fairness to evolutionists
their scholars do not deny. John Harshman admitted to the basic claim
of fact recently.
Ray
Dana Tweedy
>> Hey, Pagano, doesn't it give you the creeps that Ray agrees with you?
>
> Ron is SO shaken and desperate, he actually attempts to reach out to
> his ID opponent for aid against me!
>
> LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL!
>
> Ray (Paleyan IDist)
Ron doesn't appear to be the one "shaken and desparate". Your hollow
laughter speaks volumes.
Also, Rev. Paley would roll over in his grave if he knew you were using his
name in vain.
DJT
[M]adman
>> it a point to deflect the "atheist" accusation whenever leveled at
>> him and has pulled the Methodist disguise on at least once.
>> Nonetheless his positions are unmistakably atheist-secular.
>>
>> He is far worse than Flank (and others) who may deny their blatant
>> atheism but at least have the decency not to pull on a christian
>> disquise.
>>
>> Regards,
>
> Hey, Pagano, doesn't it give you the creeps that Ray agrees with you?
What gives a true Christian the "creeps", no matter what their denomination,
is not believing that Jesus taught "God created them, male and female"
Which happens to be a direct quote from genesis chapter 1
[M]adman
Ron O was just given the "valid argument" he always whines for.
Jesus was quoting Genesis Chapter 1 when he said "God made them, male and
female"
But as you can see, a true "valid" argument is not really what Ron O wants.
Ron O wants to mislead people into believing that 'evolution' and that 'God
created' are on the same playing field.
The biblical evidence says otherwise.
[M]adman
> On Jul 6, 9:17 pm, "[M]adman" <ad...@hotmaill.et> wrote:
>> Jesus said in the Book of Mark Chapter 10, vs 6 (KJV) <quote>
>>
>> " _But from the beginning of the creation, God made them male and
>> female_ ."
>
>
> 6"But at the beginning of creation God 'made them male and female.'[a]
> 7'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united
> to his wife,[b] 8and the two will become one flesh.'[c] So they are no
> longer two, but one. 9Therefore what God has joined together, let man
> not separate."
>
> According to your literalist interpretation of text, don't man and
> wife also have to *literally* become one flesh? I know that that
> actually does happen in some anglerfishes, where the male becomes
> little more than a disembodied testicle on the female.
>
> http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://whyevolutionistrue.files.wordpress.com/2009/02/p5249wmu.jpg&imgrefurl=http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2009/02/25/sexual-parasitism-in-anglerfish/&usg=__SrFVL8D1qyWCvEzumuedqjkjIqg=&h=319&w=500&sz=24&hl=en&start=3&sig2=Cksw3Y0GpyxhlZkNZ88lQw&um=1&tbnid=VF4DezEOC1RsfM:&tbnh=83&tbnw=130&prev=/images%3Fq%3Danglerfish%2Bmale%2Bparasite%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DG%26um%3D1&ei=R7ZTSuOQDZLANqGa6dwI
> http://whyevolutionistrue.files.wordpress.com/2009/02/p5249wmu.jpg
>
> Personally, I will take this passage as not meant to be taken
> literally, lest I also have to some fuse my body (or at least my
> gonads) with the female of my choice.
>
>> Ron says by your fruit you will know them. If you do not think
>> evolution is man's origins the Ron O says your fruit is bad
>
> judge least you be judged, Mathew goes on to provide the clear
> *Christian* justification for the use of the auto-da-fe for heretics,
> Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, and pretty much anyone who disagrees with
> whatever version of the True[TM] Faith on holds. It wasn't Nazis who
> started the fun spectacle of the bonfire of the heretics.
>
> 7:15 Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing,
> but inwardly they are ravening wolves.
> 7:16 Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of
> thorns, or figs of thistles?
> 7:17 Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt
> tree bringeth forth evil fruit.
> 7:18 A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt
> tree bring forth good fruit.
> 7:19 Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and
> cast into the fire.
> "Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast
> into the fire."
> Those who fail to bear "good fruit" will be "hewn down, and cast into
> the fire."
> 7:20 Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.
>
No one can be this stupid.
Although the bible does say there will be those with the "eyes to see and
the ears to hear" but some will have neither. You seem to fall into the
latter catagory of "neither"
Jesus often ended his stories with "let those that have ears hear"
Walter Bushell
jo...@wilkins.id.au (John S. Wilkins) wrote:
> Paul J Gans <ga...@panix.com> wrote:
>
> > John S. Wilkins <jo...@wilkins.id.au> wrote:
> > >Devils Advocaat <mank...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> > >> On 7 July, 02:17, "[M]adman" <ad...@hotmaill.et> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> [definitely snipped for focus]
> > >>
> > >> > ... that Jesus, the original Christian ...
> > >>
> > >> [definitely snipped for focus]ri
> > >>
> > >> If a Christian is a follower of Jesus of Nazareth, aka the Christ,
> > >> then how can Jesus be following himself?
> >
> > >He's a member of the set of all religions that do not include their own
> > >deities.
> >
> > Uh, John, are you saying that Jesus was NOT a trinitarian? ;-)
>
> You may very well say that. I couldn't possibly comment.
The doctrine did not exist in the lifetime of, Jesus. The laws of logic
were Hellenistic and hence would be rejected by non Hellenized Jews.
Pre logical people would see nothing amiss in saying "Jesus is God",
"The Holy Ghost is God.", "God the Father is God." and that "These are
all separate and distinct and yet one God." It was not even a matter of
believing five impossible things before breakfast; it was just not seen
as in any way a problem that needed an explanation or as it turned out a
non explanation.
Rich Mathers
Projection who was it that engaged in the deception of Uriel.
You are a good Christian role model for Satan.
RAM
[M]adman
/Yawn/
My statements are backed up by ancient texts.
Yours are not worth a squat in the woods
[M]adman
He seems afraid a creationist post might win!
As if there is a chance that could ever happen. NOT
There are more evoutionist then creationist on this froop and as you can
see by Broccoli's willingness to censor (and limit entries to 3) he would
not vote for a creationst post even if he thought is was a good one.
Wombat
> On Jul 7, 8:38 pm, Paul J Gans <g...@panix.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Wombat <tri...@multiweb.nl> wrote:
> > >On 7 July, 20:47, Ernest Major <{$t...@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> > >> In message
> > >> <f8e98a28-ab83-46f4-9dd0-ca2ffddeb...@v23g2000pro.googlegroups.com>, Ray
> > >> Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> writes
>
> > >> >> Jesus said in the Book of Mark Chapter 10, vs 6 (KJV) <quote>
>
> > >> >> " _But from the beginning of the creation, God made them male and female_ ."
>
> > >> >> Ron says by your fruit you will know them. If you do not think evolution is
> > >> >> man's origins the Ron O says your fruit is bad
>
> > >> >> Ron O deliberately tells people it is OK to believe in evolution despite the
> > >> >> fact that Jesus, the original Christian, said "from the beginning of the
> > >> >> creation, /God made them male and female/ ."
>
> > >> >> How much more clear does it need to be Ron O? Jesus said "from the beginning
> > >> >> of the creation, God made them male and female."
>
> > >> >> What part of "Made Them" is so hard to understand Ron O?
>
> > >> >> By your own standards of what is and is not good fruit Ron O:
>
> > >> >> If Anyone that Disagrees with the "Original Christian Jesus of Nazareth" who
> > >> >> said "from the beginning of the creation, God made them male and female" and
> > >> >> instead believes man evolved from an Ape is *NOT* following the true
> > >> >> teachings of the original Christian Jesus but is following false doctrine
> > >> >> taught by wolves in sheep's clothing . Just as Jesus warned. They are
> > >> >> teaching "Bad Fruit". We know them by the bad fruit they will tell others.
>
> > >> >> That would be Y O U Ron O.
>
> > >> >> And others like Y O U
>
> > >> >Nominated: POTM
>
> > >> >Ray
>
> > >> be a Christian. Some of his recent statements - "I hate your God Dave.
> > >> the one
> > >> that screwed it up for everyone because of his pety jealousy" and "His
> > >> god is the devil. AKA the god OF this world" - look decidedly
> > >> unchristian.
>
> > >> How can we reconcile this with the claim quoted above?
> > >> alias Ernest Major
> > >He's a lying troll?
>
> > No. Some Protestant denominations are not only literalist,
> > but basically have cast all non-literalist denominations out
> > of the Christian pantheon. This includes all Catholics, all
> > members of the more liberal Protestant sects, and quite a few
> > of the less liberal ones as well.
>
> > And folks think quantum mechanics is complicated.
>
> > --- Paul J. Gans
>
> in the years leading up to the Thirty Years' War. If your local German
> Prince was Protestant, so were you. If his Catholic son inherited, you
> converted too. If someone denounced you for being false to the new
> religion you could lose your land, your business, your family.
> Calvinists in Scotland, Catholics in Spain, England, France and
> Austria-Hungary; the Irish on the verge of rebellion (as always) with
> Cromwell stewing in the fens; Huguenots alternately being granted
> rights in France and getting slaughtered there; the Sephardic Jews
> being forcefully converted to Catholicism or expelled from Iberia and
> looking for a place to live.
>
> Thanks, I'll take now.
>
The Vicar of Bray springs to mind.
Wombat
[M]adman
Thanks for the google link.
Ron could have easily kept silent but he did not. I'm impressed. This of
course means Ron's convictions as well as his ethics are stronger then
Broccoli's. Ron can take the heat for his beliefs even though they are
misguided IMHO.
Ron also does not seem to be afraid of a POTM nomination coming from a
creationist like Broccoli is, who wants limits and to judge what is fit for
a POTM nomination from a creationist. Something he would not dare do if it
were an evolutionist's nomination.
Their double standards are blinding at times.
[M]adman
> "[M]adman" <ad...@hotmaill.et> wrote:
>> Perplexed in Peoria wrote:
>>> "[M]adman" <ad...@hotmaill.et> wrote:
>>>> Moses got the story from God on the mountain.
>>>
>>> had been passed down generation-to-generation from human
>>> eyewitnesses. I thought that all Moses got on the mountain was
>>> Law.
>>>
>>
>> They were passed down. But they were retold by God on the mountain.
>> Moses was on the mountain for 40 days. WTF do you think they were
>> doing for 40 days?
>
> Tied up in conference committee?
Do some reading. You might learn something.
First there was the "Oral Torah" and other stories handed down from
generation to generation. From Adam, to his sons and grandsons, to Noah,
eventually to Abraham and so forth. But the children of Abraham spent 400
years in Egypt. They needed a writen Torah now.
So a synopsis of those stories and the Law was dictated by God to Moses on
Mount Sinai. The written Torah was born. We have had it ever since.
[M]adman
> On Jul 7, 2:28 pm, "[M]adman" <ad...@hotmaill.et> wrote:
>> wf3h wrote:
>
>>
>>> you creationists think the bible is the only source of teaching
>>> about god. that is wrong.
>>
>>> sorry, sport. try again.
>>
>> None of you k00ks know this subject matter.
>>
>> Here yas Go "Sport"
>>
>> _From The Koran_
>>
>> "[Prophet], do you not see how God makes comparisons? A good word is
>> like a good tree whose root is firm and whose branches are high in
>> the sky, yielding constant fruit by it's Lord's leave - God makes
>> such comparisons for people so that they may reflect - but an evil
>> word is like a rotten tree, uprooted from the surface of the earth,
>> with no power to endure. God will give firmness to those who believe
>> in the firmly rooted word, both in this world and the Hereafter, but
>> the evildoers He leaves to stray: God does whatever He will."
>> Holy Qur'an 14:24-27 (M.A.S. Abdel Haleem)
>>
>> Your theory of evolution are words of bad fruit even to the Muslims.-
>
> and your interpretation of 'sacred texts' as being literally true has
> doomed the muslim world to 2nd place status and ignorance. i suppose,
> ignorance being your stock in trade, you find that admirable.
_Stop dribbling on yourself and put your strait jacket on_ .
It should be /mandatory/ that everyone get a license to operate a computer.
You said: "creationists think the bible is the only source of teaching about
God"
I showed you differently *and* showed you differently with the exact same
subject of "bad fruit" that everyone (but you) has been discussing
NOW you dribble about interpretations when the words are there for you to
plainly read.
Your theory of evolution are words of bad fruit even to the Muslims.-
Now,
_SEEK PROFESSIONAL HELP_ !
DO IT SOON!