Duke sez Adam & Eve allegorical, but Cain & Abel real.

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

So how does that work, Duke?

How do allegorical parents conceive real flesh and blood offspring?

At what point in the bible did the narrative switch from being
allegorical to real?

[nature bats_last]

Oh, that fades in and out. Depends on whether Duke
likes any given passage or not.

If he does, it's "God said..."; if he doesn't like it,
it's something the Hebrews just got wrong.


NBL

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

I think you nailed it! :)

[linuxgal]

I wonder why Duke never bailed out and became a Protestant.

--
Halftime at Circvs Maximvs, and the Lions lead the Christians 326-0

[duke]

On Tue, 2 Apr 2013 15:38:22 -0700 (PDT), ala...@hotmail.co.uk wrote:

>So how does that work, Duke?

The real question is why you continue to fabricate lies like that?

>How do allegorical parents conceive real flesh and blood offspring?

Beats me. You said it, not me.

>At what point in the bible did the narrative switch from being
>allegorical to real?

Actually, Abraham of about 2000BC (4000 years ago for dummies like you) is
considered the first real man in the bible.


The dukester, American - American

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

[duke]

Yeah, right in his head. Did you furnish the hammer? Heeheehee.

[duke]

Extremely too intelligent to do that. Protest_ers rejects a whole lot of what
God taught us, sorta like atheist wannabees.

[Patrick]

On Tue, 2 Apr 2013 15:38:22 -0700 (PDT), ala...@hotmail.co.uk wrote:

When a real guy tells a tall story. Maybe like you?

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

On Apr 3, 9:18 pm, linuxgal <linux...@cleanposts.com> wrote:

> alan...@hotmail.co.uk wrote:
> > On Apr 3, 1:51 pm, nature bats_last <seqkl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Apr 2, 3:38 pm, alan...@hotmail.co.uk wrote:
>
> >>> So how does that work, Duke?
>
> >>> How do allegorical parents conceive real flesh and blood offspring?
>
> >> ;
>
> >>> At what point in the bible did the narrative switch from being
> >>> allegorical to real?
>
> >> Oh, that fades in and out.  Depends on whether Duke
> >> likes any given passage or not.
>
> >> If he does, it's "God said..."; if he doesn't like it,
> >> it's something the Hebrews just got wrong.
>
> > I think you nailed it! :)
>
> I wonder why Duke never bailed out and became a Protestant.

I seem to remember Dukie stating that he once left catholicism but
then came back. I wonder if he experimented with protestantism during
that period, or if he was an atheist?

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

On Apr 3, 9:26 pm, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:

> On Tue, 2 Apr 2013 15:38:22 -0700 (PDT), alan...@hotmail.co.uk wrote:
> >So how does that work, Duke?
>
> The real question is why you continue to fabricate lies like that?
>
> >How do allegorical parents conceive real flesh and blood offspring?
>
> Beats me.  You said it, not me.
>
> >At what point in the bible did the narrative switch from being
> >allegorical to real?
>
> Actually, Abraham of about 2000BC (4000 years ago for dummies like you) is
> considered the first real man in the bible.

So how come Paddy thinks Cain and Abel were real people? Are you two
guys even in the same religion?

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

On Apr 3, 11:21 pm, Patrick <pbarker...@woh.rr.com> wrote:

> On Tue, 2 Apr 2013 15:38:22 -0700 (PDT), alan...@hotmail.co.uk wrote:
> >So how does that work, Duke?
>
> >How do allegorical parents conceive real flesh and blood offspring?
>
> >At what point in the bible did the narrative switch from being
> >allegorical to real?
>
> When a real guy tells a tall story.  Maybe like you?

Do you think you actually achieve anything with these idiotic
responses of yours?

Are you now denying that you stated your belief that Cain and Abel
were real historical figures?

[duke]

Maybe they were. We can't categorically state that Adam & Eve were or were not
real people much later than the biblical accounting. You're stupidly trying to
establish fact with by-guess and by-golly data. Intelligent people like Patrick
and I understand that Gen 1-11 is not a scientific accounting. But lack of
scientific data does not negate reality.

[duke]

Neither. I just wasn't a good Catholic.

[Uncle Vic]

duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote in
news:dh4ol8pne2d3g2d4i...@4ax.com:

> On Wed, 03 Apr 2013 04:17:14 -0800, linuxgal <linu...@cleanposts.com>
> wrote:
>
>>ala...@hotmail.co.uk wrote:
>>> On Apr 3, 1:51 pm, nature bats_last <seqkl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Apr 2, 3:38 pm, alan...@hotmail.co.uk wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> So how does that work, Duke?
>>>>
>>>>> How do allegorical parents conceive real flesh and blood
>>>>> offspring?
>>>>
>>>> ;
>>>>
>>>>> At what point in the bible did the narrative switch from being
>>>>> allegorical to real?
>>>>
>>>> Oh, that fades in and out. Depends on whether Duke
>>>> likes any given passage or not.
>>>>
>>>> If he does, it's "God said..."; if he doesn't like it,
>>>> it's something the Hebrews just got wrong.
>>>
>>> I think you nailed it! :)
>>>
>>
>>I wonder why Duke never bailed out and became a Protestant.
>
> Extremely too intelligent to do that. Protest_ers rejects a whole lot
> of what God taught us, sorta like atheist wannabees.
>

They probably got tired of you control freaks making up shit that's not
even in the godbook.

--
Uncle Vic
aa# 2011
BAAWA

AA Quotemeister

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

[thomas p.]

<ala...@hotmail.co.uk> skrev i meddelelsen
news:6f46daf4-1a7d-41eb...@kx7g2000pbb.googlegroups.com...

--
thomas p

Ignorance is the mother of devotion.

David Hume

[thomas p.]

<ala...@hotmail.co.uk> skrev i meddelelsen
news:6f46daf4-1a7d-41eb...@kx7g2000pbb.googlegroups.com...

According to the Bible Abraham is a descendant of Adam and Eve, but now we
are told that Adam and Eve were not real people but Abraham was. I find it
rather funny that, no matter how many times this is pointed out, that people
such as Puke are unable to see the problem.

thomas p.

[Patrick]

And you care about this.... why?
Does your sister hate you still?
Yes or no....
We need an answer.
Did they ever find out what you did to that retarded kid?
Yes or no?

[Syd M.]

On Apr 3, 11:22 am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:

> On Wed, 3 Apr 2013 06:34:09 -0700 (PDT), alan...@hotmail.co.uk wrote:
> >On Apr 3, 9:18 pm, linuxgal <linux...@cleanposts.com> wrote:
> >> alan...@hotmail.co.uk wrote:
> >> > On Apr 3, 1:51 pm, nature bats_last <seqkl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> On Apr 2, 3:38 pm, alan...@hotmail.co.uk wrote:
>
> >> >>> So how does that work, Duke?
>
> >> >>> How do allegorical parents conceive real flesh and blood offspring?
>
> >> >> ;
>
> >> >>> At what point in the bible did the narrative switch from being
> >> >>> allegorical to real?
>
> >> >> Oh, that fades in and out.  Depends on whether Duke
> >> >> likes any given passage or not.
>
> >> >> If he does, it's "God said..."; if he doesn't like it,
> >> >> it's something the Hebrews just got wrong.
>
> >> > I think you nailed it! :)
>
> >> I wonder why Duke never bailed out and became a Protestant.
>
> >I seem to remember Dukie stating that he once left catholicism but
> >then came back. I wonder if he experimented with protestantism during
> >that period, or if he was an atheist?
>
> Neither.  I just wasn't a good Catholic.
>
>

So, nothing has changed, then?

PDW

[duke]

On Wed, 03 Apr 2013 10:25:15 -0500, Uncle Vic <so...@noway.com> wrote:

>duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote in
>news:dh4ol8pne2d3g2d4i...@4ax.com:
>
>> On Wed, 03 Apr 2013 04:17:14 -0800, linuxgal <linu...@cleanposts.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>ala...@hotmail.co.uk wrote:
>>>> On Apr 3, 1:51 pm, nature bats_last <seqkl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Apr 2, 3:38 pm, alan...@hotmail.co.uk wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> So how does that work, Duke?
>>>>>
>>>>>> How do allegorical parents conceive real flesh and blood
>>>>>> offspring?
>>>>>
>>>>> ;
>>>>>
>>>>>> At what point in the bible did the narrative switch from being
>>>>>> allegorical to real?
>>>>>
>>>>> Oh, that fades in and out. Depends on whether Duke
>>>>> likes any given passage or not.
>>>>>
>>>>> If he does, it's "God said..."; if he doesn't like it,
>>>>> it's something the Hebrews just got wrong.
>>>>
>>>> I think you nailed it! :)
>>>>
>>>
>>>I wonder why Duke never bailed out and became a Protestant.
>>
>> Extremely too intelligent to do that. Protest_ers rejects a whole lot
>> of what God taught us, sorta like atheist wannabees.
>>
>
>They probably got tired of you control freaks making up shit that's not
>even in the godbook.

But we only use the stuff in the God Book.

[duke]

Why don't you ask him?

[duke]

Good grief. An atheist that denies evolution. Does this mean he accepts
creation? It's the only other choice.

>thomas p.

[linuxgal]

thomas p. wrote:
> According to the Bible Abraham is a descendant of Adam and Eve, but now we
> are told that Adam and Eve were not real people but Abraham was. I find it
> rather funny that, no matter how many times this is pointed out, that people
> such as Puke are unable to see the problem.

Maybe it's like quantum physics, there were all these characters in the
bible who were just probability waves, but then Abraham came along and
collapsed the wavefunction. Voila! Instant real human.

[Yap]

On Apr 3, 7:26 pm, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:

> On Tue, 2 Apr 2013 15:38:22 -0700 (PDT), alan...@hotmail.co.uk wrote:
> >So how does that work, Duke?
>
> The real question is why you continue to fabricate lies like that?

There is no lie.

>
> >How do allegorical parents conceive real flesh and blood offspring?
>
> Beats me.  You said it, not me.

Wow, but you consider yourself to be the true catholic, quoting from
your scripture all the time.

>
> >At what point in the bible did the narrative switch from being
> >allegorical to real?
>
> Actually, Abraham of about 2000BC (4000 years ago for dummies like you) is
> considered the first real man in the bible.

Real man? You believe all the millions of others during that time to
be unreal?
The weird abraham had two two horns, or two penises?

[Yap]

On Apr 3, 11:22 pm, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:

> On Wed, 3 Apr 2013 06:37:52 -0700 (PDT), alan...@hotmail.co.uk wrote:
> >On Apr 3, 9:26 pm, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
> >> On Tue, 2 Apr 2013 15:38:22 -0700 (PDT), alan...@hotmail.co.uk wrote:
> >> >So how does that work, Duke?
>
> >> The real question is why you continue to fabricate lies like that?
>
> >> >How do allegorical parents conceive real flesh and blood offspring?
>
> >> Beats me. You said it, not me.
>
> >> >At what point in the bible did the narrative switch from being
> >> >allegorical to real?
>
> >> Actually, Abraham of about 2000BC (4000 years ago for dummies like you) is
> >> considered the first real man in the bible.
>
> >So how come Paddy thinks Cain and Abel were real people? Are you two
> >guys even in the same religion?
>
> Maybe they were.  We can't categorically state that Adam & Eve were or were not
> real people much later than the biblical accounting.  You're stupidly trying to
> establish fact with by-guess and by-golly data.  Intelligent people like Patrick
> and I understand that Gen 1-11 is not a scientific accounting.  But lack of
> scientific data does not negate reality.

What reality...the one that A&E gave rise to all the different races
in this world?
How did they do that?
Through fucking incest process when there were no other human alive
except the first pair of human?????

[Yap]

On Apr 3, 11:51 pm, "thomas p." <gudl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> <alan...@hotmail.co.uk> skrev i meddelelsennews:6f46daf4-1a7d-41eb...@kx7g2000pbb.googlegroups.com...

The neurons in the brains of Patrick and duke are all defective, so
they cannot see problem like we do.

>
> thomas p.

[Yap]

On Apr 4, 3:05 am, Patrick <pbarker...@woh.rr.com> wrote:

Either you cannot answer or the question gets on your nerve......

[%]

or you are an ignored idiot

[linuxgal]

duke wrote:
> Actually, Abraham of about 2000BC (4000 years ago for dummies like you) is
> considered the first real man in the bible.

BZZZZTTT!!!!

Guess what? Abram is Semitic for "Father". Abraham means "exalted
father". Terah may have been as dumb as a box of hammers, but nobody
names their baby "father".

[Patrick]

OK kids, you answer my questions first.
Were Cain and Abel real or fictional?
Why do you believe this?
I will be glad to discuss this with you...

[Patrick]

On Wed, 03 Apr 2013 16:40:04 -0500, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:

>On Wed, 3 Apr 2013 17:46:21 +0200, "thomas p." <gud...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>><ala...@hotmail.co.uk> skrev i meddelelsen
>>news:6f46daf4-1a7d-41eb...@kx7g2000pbb.googlegroups.com...
>>On Apr 3, 9:26 pm, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
>>> On Tue, 2 Apr 2013 15:38:22 -0700 (PDT), alan...@hotmail.co.uk wrote:
>>> >So how does that work, Duke?
>>>
>>> The real question is why you continue to fabricate lies like that?
>>>
>>> >How do allegorical parents conceive real flesh and blood offspring?
>>>
>>> Beats me. You said it, not me.
>>>
>>> >At what point in the bible did the narrative switch from being
>>> >allegorical to real?
>>>
>>> Actually, Abraham of about 2000BC (4000 years ago for dummies like you) is
>>> considered the first real man in the bible.
>>
>>So how come Paddy thinks Cain and Abel were real people? Are you two
>>guys even in the same religion?
>
>Why don't you ask him?

He's afraid.
And, he won't take a stand one way or another until someone states
their belief first. That way, he can take the other side - whichever
it is - and pretend to be clever about it.
Tommy-boy should cough up his belief first.
Then I will be glad to discuss it with him.

[duke]

On Wed, 03 Apr 2013 20:04:00 -0800, linuxgal <linu...@cleanposts.com> wrote:

>duke wrote:
>> Actually, Abraham of about 2000BC (4000 years ago for dummies like you) is
>> considered the first real man in the bible.
>
>BZZZZTTT!!!!

>Guess what? Abram is Semitic for "Father". Abraham means "exalted
>father". Terah may have been as dumb as a box of hammers, but nobody
>names their baby "father".

BZZZZTTT!!!

Many people and things in the early bible after Gen 11 are representations. Adam
and Eve are allegorical in Gen 1-11 as are Noah, etc. Abraham could well be
closer to actual man coming out of pagan ways. Be it Father or man, it makes
the point.

Hang with me, lg. You'll learn something.

[duke]

On Wed, 3 Apr 2013 06:42:52 -0700 (PDT), ala...@hotmail.co.uk wrote:

>On Apr 3, 11:21 pm, Patrick <pbarker...@woh.rr.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, 2 Apr 2013 15:38:22 -0700 (PDT), alan...@hotmail.co.uk wrote:
>> >So how does that work, Duke?
>>
>> >How do allegorical parents conceive real flesh and blood offspring?
>>
>> >At what point in the bible did the narrative switch from being
>> >allegorical to real?
>>
>> When a real guy tells a tall story.  Maybe like you?
>
>Do you think you actually achieve anything with these idiotic
>responses of yours?

I think his responses are appropriate for you, intellectually challenged as you
are.

>Are you now denying that you stated your belief that Cain and Abel
>were real historical figures?

[duke]

OR.............he's laughing at your ignorance.

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

On Apr 4, 1:51 am, "thomas p." <gudl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> <alan...@hotmail.co.uk> skrev i meddelelsennews:6f46daf4-1a7d-41eb...@kx7g2000pbb.googlegroups.com...

Yeah, I think they are pretending to be too stupid to see it. They
would rather be seen as being stupid rather than being seen as liars,
but in fact they are both.

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

On Apr 4, 5:05 am, Patrick <pbarker...@woh.rr.com> wrote:

> On Wed, 3 Apr 2013 06:42:52 -0700 (PDT), alan...@hotmail.co.uk wrote:
> >On Apr 3, 11:21 pm, Patrick <pbarker...@woh.rr.com> wrote:
> >> On Tue, 2 Apr 2013 15:38:22 -0700 (PDT), alan...@hotmail.co.uk wrote:
> >> >So how does that work, Duke?
>
> >> >How do allegorical parents conceive real flesh and blood offspring?
>
> >> >At what point in the bible did the narrative switch from being
> >> >allegorical to real?
>
> >> When a real guy tells a tall story.  Maybe like you?
>
> >Do you think you actually achieve anything with these idiotic
> >responses of yours?
> >Are you now denying that you stated your belief that Cain and Abel
> >were real historical figures?
>
> And you care about this.... why?

Because it provides further proof of your status as a piss-weak lying
catholic. Well, you asked.

> Does your sister hate you still?

And a very lame-o lying catholic too. :)

> Yes or no....
> We need an answer.
> Did they ever find out what you did to that retarded kid?
> Yes or no?
> Do you think you actually achieve anything with these idiotic
> responses of yours?

You are a typical piss-weak crash-and-burn christian who goes into
meltdown when he is proved to be a liar.

Liar for jesus, con-man for christ, grafter for god, pedophile
apologist slug Patrick "you want lies with that, Sir?" Barker.

Must suck to be you.

Totally pwned bible-bot. You aren't worth my time, Slime. :)

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

On Apr 4, 7:40 am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
> On Wed, 3 Apr 2013 17:46:21 +0200, "thomas p." <gudl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> ><alan...@hotmail.co.uk> skrev i meddelelsen

> >news:6f46daf4-1a7d-41eb...@kx7g2000pbb.googlegroups.com...
> >On Apr 3, 9:26 pm, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
> >> On Tue, 2 Apr 2013 15:38:22 -0700 (PDT), alan...@hotmail.co.uk wrote:
> >> >So how does that work, Duke?
>
> >> The real question is why you continue to fabricate lies like that?
>
> >> >How do allegorical parents conceive real flesh and blood offspring?
>
> >> Beats me. You said it, not me.
>
> >> >At what point in the bible did the narrative switch from being
> >> >allegorical to real?
>
> >> Actually, Abraham of about 2000BC (4000 years ago for dummies like you) is
> >> considered the first real man in the bible.
>
> >So how come Paddy thinks Cain and Abel were real people? Are you two
> >guys even in the same religion?
>
> Why don't you ask him?

He appears to have gone into meltdown. Had to happen eventually,
trying to keep track of all the contradictory lying BS he posts here
has finally got the better of him.

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

On Apr 4, 7:41 am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
> On Wed, 3 Apr 2013 17:51:18 +0200, "thomas p." <gudl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> ><alan...@hotmail.co.uk> skrev i meddelelsen

> >news:6f46daf4-1a7d-41eb...@kx7g2000pbb.googlegroups.com...
> >>On Apr 3, 9:26 pm, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
> >>> On Tue, 2 Apr 2013 15:38:22 -0700 (PDT), alan...@hotmail.co.uk wrote:
> >>> >So how does that work, Duke?
>
> >>> The real question is why you continue to fabricate lies like that?
>
> >>> >How do allegorical parents conceive real flesh and blood offspring?
>
> >>> Beats me. You said it, not me.
>
> >>> >At what point in the bible did the narrative switch from being
> >>> >allegorical to real?
>
> >>> Actually, Abraham of about 2000BC (4000 years ago for dummies like you)
> >>> is
> >>> considered the first real man in the bible.
>
> >>So how come Paddy thinks Cain and Abel were real people? Are you two
> >>guys even in the same religion?
> >According to the Bible Abraham is a descendant of Adam and Eve, but now we
> >are told that Adam and Eve were not real people but Abraham was.  I find it
> >rather funny that, no matter how many times this is pointed out, that people
> >such as Puke are unable to see the problem.
>
> Good grief.  An atheist that denies evolution.  Does this mean he accepts
> creation?  It's the only other choice.

You're kidding!

You think allegorical people (Adam and Eve) eventually evolved into
real people (Abraham et al)?

But where are the transitional fossils?

Is there a half-allegorical half-real missing link?

Duke, the breadth and depth and height of your stupidity astounds me.

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

On Apr 4, 9:19 pm, Patrick <pbarker...@woh.rr.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 03 Apr 2013 16:40:04 -0500, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
> >On Wed, 3 Apr 2013 17:46:21 +0200, "thomas p." <gudl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >><alan...@hotmail.co.uk> skrev i meddelelsen

> >>news:6f46daf4-1a7d-41eb...@kx7g2000pbb.googlegroups.com...
> >>On Apr 3, 9:26 pm, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
> >>> On Tue, 2 Apr 2013 15:38:22 -0700 (PDT), alan...@hotmail.co.uk wrote:
> >>> >So how does that work, Duke?
>
> >>> The real question is why you continue to fabricate lies like that?
>
> >>> >How do allegorical parents conceive real flesh and blood offspring?
>
> >>> Beats me. You said it, not me.
>
> >>> >At what point in the bible did the narrative switch from being
> >>> >allegorical to real?
>
> >>> Actually, Abraham of about 2000BC (4000 years ago for dummies like you) is
> >>> considered the first real man in the bible.
>
> >>So how come Paddy thinks Cain and Abel were real people? Are you two
> >>guys even in the same religion?
>
> >Why don't you ask him?
>
> He's afraid.

LOL!!

Paddy, how come you think Cain and Abel were real people? Duke
doesn't. Are you two godbots even in the same damn religion?

> And, he won't take a stand one way or another until someone states
> their belief first.  That way, he can take the other side - whichever
> it is - and pretend to be clever about it.
> Tommy-boy should cough up his belief first.
> Then I will be glad to discuss it with him.

Paddy, I believe that your idiotic religious cult is an idiotic
religious cult.

OK, now your turn.

Paddy, how come you think Cain and Abel were real people? Duke agrees
with me, he thinks that part of the bibble is total BS, and that Cain
and Abel never existed.

[duke]

He must be a wimp then.

[duke]

Yep, thomasP is like that.

[duke]

Have you got a better answer?

>But where are the transitional fossils?
>Is there a half-allegorical half-real missing link?

I heard they were being stored on the moon.

>Duke, the breadth and depth and height of your stupidity astounds me.

You should see what I think about you.

[thomas p.]

<ala...@hotmail.co.uk> skrev i meddelelsen
news:5214ef4a-8ed3-46c4...@mz7g2000pbb.googlegroups.com...

I believe you are in error when you assume he cares whether or not he
contradicts himself or says something that is shown to be absolutely false.
He is just another ass who thinks being annoying demonstrates that he is
clever and witty.

[thomas p.]

There is no bottom to it. There really is no point in trying to have a
discussion with him; I don't think he actually understands the concept.

[Christopher A. Lee]

On Thu, 4 Apr 2013 18:49:51 +0200, "thomas p." <gud...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

Either way, the obsessiveness of his presence here and his behaviour
for such a long time indicate there is something seriously wrong with
him.

[Patrick]

On Thu, 4 Apr 2013 18:49:51 +0200, "thomas p." <gud...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

One ass wipe lies, and the other ass wipe high-fives him.
And people wonder why I am so entertained here....

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article
<8de7f8f5-b15e-46f1...@ok5g2000pbb.googlegroups.com>,

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


> Liar for jesus, con-man for christ, grafter for god,

I believe you meant grifter.

--

JD

"Osama Bin Laden is dead and GM is alive."--VP Joseph Biden

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

On Apr 5, 6:59 am, Jeanne Douglas <hlwdj...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:
> In article
> <8de7f8f5-b15e-46f1-83f1-c0e0317c3...@ok5g2000pbb.googlegroups.com>,

>
>  alan...@hotmail.co.uk wrote:
> > Liar for jesus, con-man for christ, grafter for god,
>
> I believe you meant grifter.

You are correct.

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article
<f08ef54d-4bcc-44bd...@ve4g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>,

Always happy to help.

[duke]

On Thu, 4 Apr 2013 18:49:51 +0200, "thomas p." <gud...@yahoo.com> wrote:

Hey, toiletpaper, contradiction is not an issue. You clowns live on strawman's.

[duke]

I get a huge chuckle at their silliness also.

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article <4nbtl89svni7svn0l...@4ax.com>,

Oh, dear. Poor dukie reminded everyone that he doesn't have a clue what
a strawman is.

Silly silly dukie.

[thomas p.]

"Christopher A. Lee" <chrisl...@comcast.net> skrev i meddelelsen
news:a8crl85fqgsplsgn6...@4ax.com...

Yes there is, and the only way he feels that he can confirm his existence is
to provoke annoyed responses from others. It would be a kindness to him if
people did not encourage his pathetic behavior.

--
thomas p

Ignorance is the mother of devotion.

David Hume

[arjay]

"Patrick" <pbark...@woh.rr.com> wrote in message
news:k9oql8l5nlb0jfd4t...@4ax.com...

Interesting that you should ascribe your own, time-dishonoured tactic to
someone who isn't falling for it.

> Tommy-boy should cough up his belief first.

Two things wrong with that.
First -- two people, in this instance, have asked you about your own
beliefs. (And you're the guy who once claimed he would answer any questions
directed to him.)
Second -- thomas p's position on beliefs is well established on Usenet.
He;s been around longer than either of us.

> Then I will be glad to discuss it with him.

You won't discuss anything.
You'll pull up a hundred or so lines of crap you haven't read and pretend
it's your contribution to "discussion."

[arjay]

"Jeanne Douglas" <hlwd...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote in message
news:hlwdjsd2-14125F...@c-131-121-196-216.gonavy.usna.edu...

Or how to spell the plural of the term.

[duke]

On Fri, 05 Apr 2013 04:08:25 -0700, Jeanne Douglas <hlwd...@NOSPAMgmail.com>
wrote:

You're a living, breathing strawman by definition.

>Silly silly dukie.

[Patrick]

Oh, I've taken stands on almost everything.
I have just learned that bashers don't take a stand until I have said
something - anything - and then you all look for the slightest fault.
Or you don't even have to wait long, instead, you just interpret what
I said into some horrid piece-o-crap, and then you attack that.
Tell me it aint so.

>> Tommy-boy should cough up his belief first.
>
>Two things wrong with that.
>First -- two people, in this instance, have asked you about your own
>beliefs. (And you're the guy who once claimed he would answer any questions
>directed to him.)
>Second -- thomas p's position on beliefs is well established on Usenet.
>He;s been around longer than either of us.

Well then, he shouldn't be afraid to discuss his belief. Unless he is
... scared....

>> Then I will be glad to discuss it with him.
>
>You won't discuss anything.
>You'll pull up a hundred or so lines of crap you haven't read and pretend
>it's your contribution to "discussion."

Only when I find a "reader" who gets easily distracted.
You forget that I am a Catholic. I have Faith. I believe in
Christian priciples. I do not plan to change my mind any day soon.
Plus, I don't want to get into a deep discussion right now. I'll be
gone before the basher actually provides something worthwhile to read.
It takes almost forever to get to the real reason why someone hates
the Catholics. They don't like to admit that they have a specific sin
or moral defect that the Catholic church will not accept.

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article <imstl8t1ebcmrrjn7...@4ax.com>,

And he does it again.

Nothing like reinforcing the knowledge that you're both ignorant and
dishonest.

[duke]

On Fri, 05 Apr 2013 16:27:35 -0700, Jeanne Douglas <hlwd...@NOSPAMgmail.com>

You do it every day without fail.

[Budikka666]

On Apr 3, 6:28 am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:

> On Wed, 03 Apr 2013 04:17:14 -0800, linuxgal <linux...@cleanposts.com> wrote:
> >alan...@hotmail.co.uk wrote:

> >> On Apr 3, 1:51 pm, nature bats_last <seqkl...@gmail.com> wrote:

> >>> On Apr 2, 3:38 pm, alan...@hotmail.co.uk wrote:
>
> >>>> So how does that work, Duke?
>

> >>>> How do allegorical parents conceive real flesh and blood offspring?
>

> >>> ;

>
> >>>> At what point in the bible did the narrative switch from being
> >>>> allegorical to real?
>

> >>> Oh, that fades in and out.  Depends on whether Duke
> >>> likes any given passage or not.
>
> >>> If he does, it's "God said..."; if he doesn't like it,
> >>> it's something the Hebrews just got wrong.
>
> >> I think you nailed it! :)
>
> >I wonder why Duke never bailed out and became a Protestant.
>
> Extremely too intelligent to do that.

All evidence is to the contrary on that one. You failed the simplest
intelligence test imaginable:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/browse_frm/thread/a3ca1e0958698c0d?hl=en&scoring=d&q=%22intelligence+test%22+group%3Aalt.atheism+author%3Abudikka666&

and sicne you ahve a well-established history of running, it's no
surprise that you can't answer a simple question even though you have
*repeatedly* LIED that you;re here to help.

But I challnged you directly on your claim that the first 11 chapters
of the bible is prehistory, and YOU RAN repeatedly:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/browse_frm/thread/5a1ea76204f2be57/165dff0fd5d9f275?hl=en&lnk=gst&q=Duke+prehistory+chapters+genesis+Budikka#165dff0fd5d9f275

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/browse_frm/thread/3d3063417ae0ef10/6cf7c36372785269?hl=en&lnk=gst&q=Duke+prehistory+chapters+genesis+Budikka#6cf7c36372785269

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/browse_frm/thread/54ad740a48397f71/d2dc8a74a5f9ca41?hl=en&lnk=gst&q=Duke+prehistory+chapters+genesis+Budikka#d2dc8a74a5f9ca41

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.talk.creationism/browse_frm/thread/e02777939958ea5/f8122b8b6ef47a8c?hl=en&lnk=gst&q=Duke+prehistory+chapters+genesis+Budikka#f8122b8b6ef47a8c

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.abortion/browse_frm/thread/efb3477c4a344cad/d609e7ba7d6c0dab?hl=en&lnk=gst&q=Duke+prehistory+chapters+genesis+Budikka#d609e7ba7d6c0dab

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/browse_frm/thread/bf00b7f036319c17/95be66c1fe87351b?hl=en&lnk=gst&q=Duke+prehistory+chapters+genesis+Budikka#95be66c1fe87351b

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/browse_frm/thread/b8cf188ebfc80c25/6881f6f44a9a7a36?hl=en&lnk=gst&q=Duke+prehistory+chapters+genesis+Budikka#6881f6f44a9a7a36

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/browse_frm/thread/32682502c3ea536b/daae8e3bfcfabafa?hl=en&lnk=gst&q=Duke+prehistory+chapters+genesis+Budikka#daae8e3bfcfabafa

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/browse_frm/thread/fe540cd3e1925b2b/9e2e7c6db9aa4644?hl=en&lnk=gst&q=Duke+prehistory+chapters+genesis+Budikka#9e2e7c6db9aa4644

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/browse_frm/thread/e5ec2a49b5d11abf/371167ebe32bc8fd?hl=en&lnk=gst&q=Duke+prehistory+chapters+genesis+Budikka#371167ebe32bc8fd

Keep running you worthless chicken for christ!

Budiika

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article <s020m8plumlt9o8in...@4ax.com>,

Poor poor dukie. He's got no answers so he goes directly to the insult.

[marty....@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, April 2, 2013 3:38:22 PM UTC-7, ala...@hotmail.co.uk wrote:
> So how does that work, Duke?

y>
>
>
> How do all parents conceive real flesh and blood offspring?
sex>

>
>
> At what point in the bible did the narrative switch from being
>

> always real?
y+

[marty....@gmail.com]

[Tau'ma = תומאס (ממוצא ארמי).
Tau'ma = Thomas (Αραμαϊκά προέλευσης).
Tau'ma = יומאס (ממוצא הארמי) 0.47 לבן קרא לזה Jegar Sahadutha, ויעקב קרא לו Galeed]

[Oh, my Loving Thomas, if Peter is the rock upon to build a church, you are a heap of these rocks, precious to me.]+

[marty....@gmail.com]

On Thursday, April 4, 2013 4:21:47 AM UTC-7, duke wrote:
> On Wed, 3 Apr 2013 18:46:55 -0700 (PDT), Yap <hhya...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> >On Apr 4, 3:05 am, Patrick <pbarker...@woh.rr.com> wrote:
>
> >> On Wed, 3 Apr 2013 06:42:52 -0700 (PDT), alan...@hotmail.co.uk wrote:

>
> >> >On Apr 3, 11:21 pm, Patrick <pbarker...@woh.rr.com> wrote:
>
> >> >> On Tue, 2 Apr 2013 15:38:22 -0700 (PDT), alan...@hotmail.co.uk wrote:
>
> >> >> >So how does that work, Duke?
>
> >>
>

> >> >> >How do allegorical parents conceive real flesh and blood offspring?
>
> >>
>

> >> >> >At what point in the bible did the narrative switch from being
>
> >> >> >allegorical to real?
>
> >>
>

> >> >> When a real guy tells a tall story.  Maybe like you?
>
> >>
>
> >> >Do you think you actually achieve anything with these idiotic
>
> >> >responses of yours?
>
> >> >Are you now denying that you stated your belief that Cain and Abel
>
> >> >were real historical figures?
>
> >>
>
> >> And you care about this.... why?
>
> >> Does your sister hate you still?
>
> >> Yes or no....
>
> >> We need an answer.
>
> >> Did they ever find out what you did to that retarded kid?
>
> >> Yes or no?
>
> >> Do you think you actually achieve anything with these idiotic
>
> >> responses of yours?
>
> >
>
> >Either you cannot answer or the question gets on your nerve......
>
>
>
> OR.............he's laughing at your ignorance.
[My Dear God, I should hope so, if anyone deserves to laugh it is he.]+

[arjay]

"Patrick" <pbark...@woh.rr.com> wrote in message

news:p37ul8h9i7qepnpij...@4ax.com...

So you have. And it's almost always the opposite of some other poster's
position.
You've admitted as much, more than once, in the past.
No, don't ask me for quotes or references. I got bored with that game years
ago, and you know that what I say here about your posting tendency is true.

> I have just learned that bashers don't take a stand until I have said
> something - anything - and then you all look for the slightest fault.

It never occurs to you that the bashers are bashing _you_ first and
foremost, and only incidentally whatever you claim to be defending?
Of course your faults (and they're rarely slight) are brought forward. This
is a donnybrook, triggered by your unwanted presence, and the responses to
you are counter-punches. The weapons are words.
Things like this have been happening to you since the days when you posted
to alt.military.retired and alt.flush.limpbag. And that was before the turn
of the century/milennium. About time you got used to it, wouldn't you say?

> Or you don't even have to wait long, instead, you just interpret what
> I said into some horrid piece-o-crap, and then you attack that.
> Tell me it aint so.

It ain't so. Avoid ambiguities and see what happens.

>>> Tommy-boy should cough up his belief first.
>>
>>Two things wrong with that.
>>First -- two people, in this instance, have asked you about your own
>>beliefs. (And you're the guy who once claimed he would answer any
>>questions
>>directed to him.)
>>Second -- thomas p's position on beliefs is well established on Usenet.
>>He's been around longer than either of us.
>
> Well then, he shouldn't be afraid to discuss his belief. Unless he is
> ... scared....

The only 'belief' an atheist can discuss is someone else's. Besides, it's
likely thomas p. has you plonked.

>>> Then I will be glad to discuss it with him.
>>
>>You won't discuss anything.
>>You'll pull up a hundred or so lines of crap you haven't read and pretend
>>it's your contribution to "discussion."
>
> Only when I find a "reader" who gets easily distracted.

Crap. You try that dodge on everyone.

> You forget that I am a Catholic. I have Faith. I believe in
> Christian priciples. I do not plan to change my mind any day soon.

No one expects you to change your mind.
As long as you continue to post outside of
alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic you're little more than a warble fly
whose larvae have no teeth.
So you are used as an object of amusement.
People get zits, no matter how much care they take of their skins. And zits
get popped.
Draw your own conclusion from that.

> Plus, I don't want to get into a deep discussion right now. I'll be
> gone before the basher actually provides something worthwhile to read.
> It takes almost forever to get to the real reason why someone hates
> the Catholics.

Try accepting the very first reason the 'basher' gives for disliking the
RCC -- the one given prior to your intrusion.
Anything said after your arrival is said primarily against you, not against
the RCC.

> They don't like to admit that they have a specific sin
> or moral defect that the Catholic church will not accept.

Consider this -- _you_ don't like to admit that they don't want to be
accepted by the RCC, that they've never been part of it or are glad they're
out of it, and they don't agree with the notions of sin you and the RCC
maintain.
Remember your own argument -- that sin, like criminal guilt in law, rests
with intent?
No one can sin against an injunction without first believing in it. There
is no intention to sin -- merely indifference to your rules.

[linuxgal]

Patrick wrote:
> It takes almost forever to get to the real reason why someone hates
> the Catholics. They don't like to admit that they have a specific sin
> or moral defect that the Catholic church will not accept.

There are not one hundred people in the United States who hate Roman
Catholics, but there are millions who hate what they rightly perceive
the Catholic Church to be.

[duke]

There you go - perceive totally wrong.

[PATRICK]

On Sun, 19 May 2013 07:06:42 -0700, linuxgal <linu...@cleanposts.com>
wrote:

Who gives a shit?

[linuxgal]

Indeed.

[duke]

Run, runaway, lg.

[Paul Duca]

Duke says LOTS of dumb things...that's why we don't pay attention to him.

We don't need him--we're not Fox News.


Paul

[Paul Duca]

On Wednesday, April 3, 2013 7:28:36 AM UTC-4, duke wrote:
> On Wed, 03 Apr 2013 04:17:14 -0800, linuxgal <linu...@cleanposts.com> wrote:

>
>
>
> >ala...@hotmail.co.uk wrote:
>
> >> On Apr 3, 1:51 pm, nature bats_last <seqkl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>

> >>> On Apr 2, 3:38 pm, alan...@hotmail.co.uk wrote:
>
> >>>
>
> >>>> So how does that work, Duke?
>
> >>>
>

> >>>> How do allegorical parents conceive real flesh and blood offspring?
>
> >>>
>

> >>> ;

>
> >>>
>
> >>>> At what point in the bible did the narrative switch from being
>
> >>>> allegorical to real?
>
> >>>
>

> >>> Oh, that fades in and out. Depends on whether Duke
>
> >>> likes any given passage or not.
>
> >>>
>
> >>> If he does, it's "God said..."; if he doesn't like it,
>
> >>> it's something the Hebrews just got wrong.
>
> >>
>
> >> I think you nailed it! :)
>
> >>
>
> >
>
> >I wonder why Duke never bailed out and became a Protestant.
>
>
>

> Mommy terrified me too much to do that.

[Paul Duca]

On Thursday, April 4, 2013 12:06:45 PM UTC-4, duke wrote:
> On Thu, 4 Apr 2013 06:13:19 -0700 (PDT), ala...@hotmail.co.uk wrote:
>
>
>
> >On Apr 4, 7:41 am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> >> On Wed, 3 Apr 2013 17:51:18 +0200, "thomas p." <gudl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >> ><alan...@hotmail.co.uk> skrev i meddelelsen

>
> >> >news:6f46daf4-1a7d-41eb...@kx7g2000pbb.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> >>On Apr 3, 9:26 pm, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
>

> >> >>> On Tue, 2 Apr 2013 15:38:22 -0700 (PDT), alan...@hotmail.co.uk wrote:
>
> >> >>> >So how does that work, Duke?
>
> >>
>

> >> >>> The real question is why you continue to fabricate lies like that?
>
> >>
>

> >> >>> >How do allegorical parents conceive real flesh and blood offspring?
>
> >>
>

> >> >>> Beats me. You said it, not me.
>
> >>
>

> >> >>> >At what point in the bible did the narrative switch from being
>
> >> >>> >allegorical to real?
>
> >>
>

> >> >>> Actually, Abraham of about 2000BC (4000 years ago for dummies like you)
>
> >> >>> is
>
> >> >>> considered the first real man in the bible.
>
> >>
>
> >> >>So how come Paddy thinks Cain and Abel were real people? Are you two
>
> >> >>guys even in the same religion?
>

> >> >According to the Bible Abraham is a descendant of Adam and Eve, but now we
>
> >> >are told that Adam and Eve were not real people but Abraham was.  I find it
>
> >> >rather funny that, no matter how many times this is pointed out, that people
>
> >> >such as Puke are unable to see the problem.
>
> >>
>
> >> Good grief.  An atheist that denies evolution.  Does this mean he accepts
>
> >> creation?  It's the only other choice.
>
> >
>
> >You're kidding!
>
>
>
> >You think allegorical people (Adam and Eve) eventually evolved into
>
> >real people (Abraham et al)?
>
>
>
> Have you got a better answer? God certainly can't be bothered.
>
>
>
> >But where are the transitional fossils?
>
> >Is there a half-allegorical half-real missing link?
>
>
>
> I heard they were being stored on the moon, next to Iraq's WMDs.

[Paul Duca]

> >And yet no one wipes OUR ass, Duke.
>
>
>
> I can't understand that either, Patrick.

[Paul Duca]

> Who gives a shit? I do--what else do I have in my life but the Church?