One Verse At A Time...

[♦ ficino ♦]

Taph, sub did not reply to your question. As per usual. I don't think he'll ever reply to mine and other people's challenges over the canon. Not that I care. Nor to Asimov's, and on and on.

[Taphophilia]

Taph, sub did not reply to your question. As per usual. I don't think he'll ever reply to mine and other people's challenges over the canon. Not that I care. Nor to Asimov's, and on and on.

 

Sub won't debate anyone because he obviously doesn't know how to think.

 

He started this discussion like we didn't understand the Bible and he would explain it to us, as if we are ignorant of the Bible and he has the anwsers we lack. We have proved that he is the one ignorant of the Bible. Why do even the most stupid of fundy's think they have the corner on Biblical knowledge when they don't?

 

I thought the best way to understand any given topic is to at least be familiar with the objections so you can explain your position better. He doesn't even understand his side, so how can he understand ours?

 

Taph

[Mythra]

I know that, that isn't when He was born, if anything it was around April.

 

Boy, I'm glad you said "if anything". Is that an acknowledgement that he may not ever have been actually born? An unconscious slip, perhaps?

 

Since, you'll deny this, why don't you go ahead and give us the year.

[Mythra]

I have already gone over this. The Dead Sea Scrolls, were found in the 20th century, they are the oldest ever found, 1000 years older than anything we had.

That tells us that for a 1000 years the manuscripts that made up the Bible were transmitted and copied with the utmost care and accuracy because the older scrolls were the same as the newer ones we already had.

 

Oops. Time, once again, to call a time-out to expose bullshit.

 

Dead Sea Scrolls research is an involved subject, but its central message may be summarized as follows. The contents of the Dead Sea Scrolls challenge the two most fundamental beliefs of Christianity: the uniqueness of Jesus Christ, and Christianity as the embodiment of the message of Christ. Both these are put in jeopardy by the Qumran material. First, they show that the message of Jesus did not originate with him, and he was also not unique; he was at most one of several known as 'Teachers of Righteousness' that were part of an ultra-conservative messianic Jewish movement based in Qumran going back at least a hundred years before the birth of Jesus. Many of the practices that we now regard as Christian innovations - like the Lord's Prayer and the Lord's Supper - can be traced to the Qumranians, also going back to a century before the birth of Christ. And secondly, Christianity as we know today is really a creation of St Paul, having little to do with Jesus or his message. In many ways, the two versions - early Christianity of Jerusalem and Pauline Christianity that followed it - stand in opposition to each other.

 

Most of these manuscripts were created during a period from about 150 BC to perhaps AD 70 when Jerusalem was destroyed by the Romans in the First Jewish War. Thus they encompass the period of early Christianity upon which they shed a great deal of light. They show that the authors of the New Testament - of the four Gospels in particular - have borrowed heavily from the Qumran texts. Their borrowings include both the subject matter of the Gospels as well as their language, imagery and style. In fact, many features that we now regard as being unique to the Gospels - like the Davidic Messiah as the Son of God, and the persecution and killing of such a messianic teacher - are found in Qumran documents dating to at least a century before the birth of Christ. A close study of these texts raises basic questions about both the uniqueness and the originality of Christianity.

 

The Scrolls themselves do not necessarily give us different versions of the books of the Old Testament or invalidate existing ones. What they do provide however is a new historical setting that relates early Christianity to the Jewish Wars; they also shed new light on the origins of Christianity that have been suppressed by Church fathers to protect their own official version about the origins. Their impact on the New Testament, and therefore on Christianity is far greater than on Judaism or the Old Testament. Of course, part of the reason for this is that the Jews have not indulged in forgery and fabrication of their texts the way the Christians have. Greeks and other pagans called the Christians the kings of forgers, and Rome the home of forgeries.

 

 

 

From The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Crisis of Christianity

[SkepticOfBible]

Regarding why the New Covenant is not "better promise", here are some of the facts which proves that.

 

http://www.adherents.com/adh_branches.html#Christianity

 

Major Denominational Families of Christianity

 

(This table does not include all Christians. These numbers are estimates, and are here primarily to assist in ranking branches by size, not to provide a definitive count of membership.)

 

Branch Number of Adherents

 

Catholic 1,050,000,000

 

Orthodox/Eastern Christian 240,000,000

 

African indigenous sects (AICs) 110,000,000

 

Pentecostal 105,000,000

 

Reformed/Presbyterian/Congregational/United 75,000,000

 

Anglican 73,000,000

 

Baptist 70,000,000

 

Methodist 70,000,000

 

Lutheran 64,000,000

 

Jehovah's Witnesses 14,800,000

 

Adventist 12,000,000

 

Latter Day Saints 12,500,000

 

Apostolic/New Apostolic 10,000,000

 

Stone-Campbell ("Restoration Movement") 5,400,000

 

New Thought (Unity, Christian Science, etc.) 1,500,000

 

Brethren (incl. Plymouth) 1,500,000

 

Mennonite 1,250,000

 

Friends (Quakers) 300,000

 

Depending on which Protestant group you belong to, you would consider your denomination as saved, and the rest are unsaved.

 

So roughly around 70,000,000 are considered to be in the "right" group.

 

However even amongst this group around 25% won't be "true" christians, hence they won't be saved.

 

So if the world was gonna end right this moment, only 52,500,000 true christians would be saved.

 

The world popluation is roughly around 6 Billion, therefore the % of world population saved is 8.75 or less.

 

When the rest of the 91.25% of the world population is gonna suffer for eternity, how can you say that the NT covenant is established on a "better" promise.

 

As time would progress, it is for sure that this % of "True Christians" would fall.

[Antlerman]

So if the world was gonna end right this moment, only 52,500,000 true christians would be saved.

 

The world popluation is roughly around 6 Billion, therefore the % of world population saved is 8.75 or less.

 

When the rest of the 91.25% of the world population is gonna suffer for eternity, how can you say that the NT covenant is established on a "better" promise.

 

As time would progress, it is for sure that this % of "True Christians" would fall.

Here's a thought for you to do some estimates on to add to the stats above: This is reflective of only today. Try totaling up every generation of humans who have existed from the beginning of humanity, accounting for population growths. I'm fairly certain the number of "damned" would be staggering beyond comprehension! It would make the holocaust look like just a tiny, miniscule little drop in the massive ocean of the horrors of utter and incomprehensible inhumanity of a god to do such a thing to his creation.

 

Just for grins SkepticOfBible, I'd like to see that estimate, since you seem to live for a little research . I suspect that number of damned humans basically will conclude that God's creation is an utter and dismal failure.

[Mythra]

Oh, but "Jesus" said - "narrow is the gate that leads to salvation and broad is the road that leads to destruction". He knew.

 

But "Jesus" also said to the Father "that the believers may be as one just as we are one". And that list of christian groups who condemn and oppose one another pretty much puts that saying to rest.

[Ouroboros]

Friends (Quakers) 300,000 [/color]

And if Quakers are the true religion... 0.005% only of the current world population would be saved.

 

All cults are built on the idea of "we are the few. we are the special elite, with the special powers, and only we are elected."

[Antlerman]

Look the 25th of December for Christians is to celebrate Christ's birth. I know that, that isn't when

Wow, you do know the Bible really well! So now come and talk with me about what all that means for you in walking a spiritual life as a fundamentalist Christian? I started a topic that's the perfect place for that discussion, and a perfect place for you to share the real heart of your message if you have one?

 

 

Click here: http://www.ex-christian.net/index.php?s=&s...ndpost&p=144922

[Eponymic]

Look the 25th of December for Christians is to celebrate Christ's birth. I know that, that isn't when

 

You know that isn't his birthday, and yet you accept the fact that Christian's celebrate it as his birthday (for no logical reason other than it was usurped from other pagan gods) and that his actual birthday is unknown, even though it's very well documented - according to the bible!

 

Don't suppose that tweaks your ears now does it? Nope, I'm sure you've got another run-around justification for this one too.

[SkepticOfBible]

Just for grins SkepticOfBible, I'd like to see that estimate, since you seem to live for a little research . I suspect that number of damned humans basically will conclude that God's creation is an utter and dismal failure.

 

You are absolutely right, since "true" christians/protestant came along only in 1500 centuary. All the ones before were "fake". They were practicing religion not relationship. And we all know that God hates religious people, even if they sincerely believe in him

 

By the way here is a historical fact about the "One and only Holy Catholic Church"

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_holy_cath...postolic_Church

 

The Roman Catholic Church, comprising both the Western and the Eastern Rites (understood as a collection of particular churches), claims to be the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. The Eastern Orthodox Church, comprising about 16 mutually recognizing autocephalous hierarchical churches, similarly claims to be the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. This disagreement has persisted since the Great Schism of 1054. Before that schism, the two were visibly united and claimed the title jointly (and were not known as Roman or Eastern).

 

While the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Churches believe that the term "one" in the Nicene Creed describes and prescribes an institutional unity (from which each Church at present excludes the other), Protestant and evangelical Christians insist on a less visible unity dependent on inner faith in Christ. Despite these differing opinions and definitions, all Christians seek the unity which the early Christians were exhorted to preserve (cf. "Ephesians 4:3-6"), and for which Christ himself prayed (cf. "John 17:21").

[SkepticOfBible]

Sub_zero, You already have all the facts, but you are unable to see the problems behind the whole formation of the bible, and the doctrines. Let's piece them together shall we

 

It isn't approval it is a way to determine the validity of the divine compared to the non-divine works of writings available at the time.

 

I can truly see how the council was being cast "Those who think that the Book of James represent the The Word of God ie The Truth, say aye". How very objective isn't it?

 

Christian make fun of catholics when they democratically chose their next pope, but they forget their bible was formed on the same basis.

 

What standards were these using to determine the "validity" of these books?

 

the council decided what books to be canonized based on set beliefs.

 

So in other words the coucil were already going in with a bias. Once the party line was declared, now all they had to do was find books which backed up their assertions.

 

They looked at books which confirmed their self declared belief and authority eg Gospel of John , Heb 13:17, Rom 13:1-5, 1 Peter 2:13-15

 

They also looked for books which gave enough justification to commit attrocities, in order to eliminate the competiting idealogies, eg Romans 3:7,Philippians 1:18, 2 Cor 10:5-6

 

Books which went against their self declared beliefs were rejected, only because it didn't match their belief, not because they were searching for the "truth"

 

(Later, these "heretical" books were destroyed by the "one and holy catholic" church)

 

Ask yourself is this a valid method?

 

Would you accept a tax policy determined by your govt, which only takes into account the financial figures which favours the policy that they want to implement?

 

Creationist reject evolution, because they complain that the scientist are not taking into account many other factors, and only focus on one sort of evidence.

If we don't accept this sort of methodology in other fields of study, then why should one accept it for the biblical canon?

 

The "Truth" - christ life and teaching of Christ became whatever they wanted to become.

 

Which is exactly the thing I said in the beginning - the biblical canon was formed at the personal and theological preferences of these council

And what was their primarly motivation for establishing their belief system

 

Remember the Nicene Creed was a response to the Arian heresy, which denied the divinity of Christ.

 

(I wouldn't call them heretics. You, of all people, should now that what is one man's doctrine(protestant) is another man's heresy(catholic).

 

So when the Nicene Creed came out, "the truth" was never agreed upon. The body of Christ was never united, even in the beginning.

 

The Arianist(or whatever you call them) probably also claimed that they were working under the authority of christ, and were one of the biggest threat to Trinitaritans.

 

So how did the Trinitarians eventually win, and how exactly did they bring "unity" in the body of christ?

 

Nicean Creed

Have you ever noticed that Bible Dictionaries and most scholarly religious encyclopedias and reference works don't use scriptures when discussing the Trinity? Why is that? Because they don't prove a trinity. For a trinity you need "THREE". But if the Trinity is not in the Bible, then where did we get it from? Welcome to the Nicene Creed

 

 

It was 325 A.D. at Nicaea that the doctrine of the Trinity was rammed through by Athanasius (using Mafia tactics) in a Council that was overseen by the Emperor Constantine who, ironically enough, thought of himself as God-incarnate. (Constantine was a Sun Worshiper and only made an official conversion to "Christianity" on his deathbed). Roman coins of the period still portrayed the image of the sun God despite the alleged sudden adoption/conversion of Christianity. Many of those present at the Council Of Nicaea were opposed the doctrine of the Trinity, siding with Arius. Even after the Nicene Creed, the Trinity was still hotly debated for decades and centuries after.

 

 

.........

325 AD - Constantine convenes the Council of Nicaea in order to develop a statement of faith that can unify the church. The Nicene Creed is written, declaring that "the Father and the Son are of the same substance" (homoousios). Emperor Constantine who was also the high priest of the pagan religion of the Unconquered Sun presided over this council.

 

 

According to the Encyclopedia Britannica:

 

"Constantine himself presided, actively guiding the discussions and personally proposed the crucial formula expressing the relationship of Christ to God in the creed issued by the council, `of one substance with the Father'."

 

 

The American Academic Encyclopedia states:

 

"Although this was not Constantine's first attempt to reconcile factions in Christianity, it was the first time he had used the imperial office to IMPOSE a settlement."

At the end of this council, Constantine sided with Athanasius over Arius and exiled Arius to Illyria.

..........

 

If Nicaea just formalized the prevalent teaching of the church, then why all the conflicts? If it were the established teaching of the church, then you would expect people to either accept it, or not be Christians. It was not the established teaching, and when some faction of the church tried to make it official, the result was major conflict.

 

 

It was a theological power grab by a faction of the church. A major complication throughout all this was that the emperors were involved and directed the outcome. At Nicaea it was Constantine that decided the outcome. Then we have the flip-flopping of opinion with the result that Athanasius is exiled and recalled depending on who is in power.

 

In 357 AD the declaration that homoousios and homoiousios are unbiblical, and that the Father is greater than His subordinate Son. This is 180 degrees from Nicaea.

 

 

In 380 AD Emperor Thedosius declares Christianity the state religion. One can come to the conclusion that whichever way Theodosius favors, that is the way in which it is going to end. This is exactly what happened next.

 

In 381 AD the struggle was finally ended by the current emperor, Theodosius the Great, who favored the Nicene position. Just like at Nicaea, the EMPEROR again decided it. The emperors were dictating the theology of the church.

 

The big difference now was that there was not going to be any more changing sides. It was now the state religion. You cannot make Christianity the state religion and then change its beliefs every few years. It would undermine its credibility as the true faith. The Trinity was now the orthodox position, and the state was willing to back it up with force.

 

For the most part, the Trinitarian church has silenced critical thought and dealt treacherously with anyone of open mind and free thought.

 

 

As we can see establishment of the doctrine of trinity and the biblical canon hasn't got anything to do with the "TRUTH".

 

It has got more to do with the survival of a certain groups idea. The stronger group survived because of their political power, and they used this power to eradicate competing thoughts.(now that sounds like Evolution ).

 

Had Arianist had manupulated the political power during that time and won, you would following their doctrine!!!!!!

 

The above facts raises even more questions

Was Constantine(a Pagan king who considered himself god incarnated) also "authorised by Christ" to preside over this council? Was he authorised by christ to make the final decision to side with Athanasius and exile Arius?

 

In 357 AD, the council did a 180 degree turn from the Nicean creed regarding the nature of God, was this also done under the same "divine" authority of christ?

 

When the non-trinitarians/"heretics" were being perscuted by the trinitarians, were they doing it under the "authority of christ"?

 

Think about it carefully before answering them.

 

Christianity has survived not because it was a "true religion", but because it managed to eliminate the various threat/heresies (Mithraism, gnostic, Arianism) through the use of force and "thought-police" tactics, down the centuries.

 

Off course a 1000 years later, the same church would use the same tactic wipe out the a new "heresy", ie the Protestants, but this time the leaders(Martin Luther, John Calvin) of the this "heresy" were smart enough to manupulate the political power(Germany, Switzerland, England) to survive.

 

No, I go by the life and teachings of Christ which is what the some 50 religious leaders also went by and ratified the statement

 

......

 

I am sure they chose right, just a faith thing I guess and I have no qualms about anything about the canonization process of the Bible

 

Yes my friend, you are right. You are placing the faith on these 50 religious leaders(of whom you know very little about) to help you define your beliefs about "God" and world view. But don't expects others to do the same.

 

Asking me to trust these leaders, is like asking a Jews to trust the Nazi party for their well being!!!!

 

Christians condemn Islam's bloody origin, and how the current Islamic countries enforce "thought-police" tactics to eliminate free thought. Christians rightly point out that such religion cannot come from a loving and compassionate god.

 

But if I reject Islam on these reasons, then I cannot accept christianity, because the origins of christianity and Islams are the same. If I do, then that will show that I have a double standards.

 

Can you truly say that christianity was formed out of "love" and "peace"?

 

I fail to see any when I look at the history of christianity

 

No, you did actually claim he.(Augustine) was doing by divine authority

 

I made no such claim. If I did please point out.

 

All I pointed out in the article was that the list of Augustine was the first of the many lists, that matched yours.

 

Which is only reason why you say he was under divine authority.

 

You wouldn't say competing sets of list were divine because they don't match your list.

 

Without even realising you have actually used circular logic.

 

The Protestant NT list are divinely authoritative

Saint Augustine List Was Similar To The Protestant NT List

Therefore the St Augustine List was Divinely Authorative

 

I hope you see the flaw. If not, let me use another example for a competing belief

 

The Book of Mormon is divinely authoritative

Joseph Smith Wrote The Book of Mormon

Therefore the Joseph Smith Was Writing Under Divine Inspiration.

 

Now do you see the flaw in your assertions

 

No, the council never adopted any apocrypha book.

 

Yes they did .The council of trent only reaffirmed the list in the council of Hippo which included the deautrocanical books. Please start reading my post carefully. Please present evidence(not protestant propganda) that my facts are wrong.

 

The NT was done by the end of the 1st century. Not only did they have the OT but they had Christ and His teachings fresh in their minds, hearts and writings, which later became the NT.

 

Again you are lying .

 

The NT was not done in the 1st Centuary.

 

There were many books that were written, however none of authors of these books knew whether their books would be selected by a council that sat 300 hundred years after their inception. All these authors thought that they were writing on the inspiration of God.

 

These writings were written during a period of time, where the society had limited news availability. There would have been almost no way to verify or confirm 20+ years after the "alleged"event, if what these various authors were writing was really true or false.

 

By the time the canon was decided, these authors were long dead, and there was no way to determine whether one author was divinely inspired or not.

 

Also you have no archealogical evidence that that many of these books were written during the 57 AD and 97 AD, because you don't have many of the original manuscript to confirm this. All you have bits and pieces of these manuscripts, which don't even resembles the dates you are giving.

 

STOP trying to give church tradition as fact. You don't even have one single first hand eyewitness acccount regarding the life of JC

 

During the time when these so called "NT" books were written, there was not OT canon, which explain why so many of them refer to acrophycal books(Hebrew, Jude, The Four Gospels).

 

"evidence implies that by the beginning of the Christian era the identity of all the canonical books was well known and generally accepted"

 

What evidence would that be?

 

As I stated before, even during the time of Jesus there was no Hebrew/OT canon.

 

The Jews decided on their canon after the "alleged" death of JC. I don't how you can say that the Jews were working under the authority of christ?

 

It is a well testified fact that there were many churches who were using the acrocrypha as scripture. Some had books that never made it to the canon.

 

Contrary to your protestant propaganda, the identity of the OT Canon was NOT known in the beginning of the Christian era.

 

START DOING SOME PROPER RESEARCH

 

The NASB updated edition is the most literal rendering of the Hebrew and Greek available.

 

Lies, Lies, Lies

 

the NASB contains Mark 16:9-16, which is not contained in the Earlier manuscripts.

 

It still renders Is 7:14 as virgin birth, even though it has been proven that it means "young woman".

The number of the beast is known to be 616 in earlier manuscript, but your NASB still says that it is 666

 

Proof please for your assertion, I showed you otherwise that the bible has been altered.

I have already gone over this. The Dead Sea Scrolls, were found in the 20th century, they are the oldest ever found, 1000 years older than anything we had.

Somebody already pointed out the falsehood in that claim, so I won't go over it.

 

However you never addressed the issue that the NT is altered?

 

Do you want to close my eyes to this fact that the NT manuscripts has got hundreds of variation/alteration?

 

The truth is that the NT has been altered at the theological whims of clerics, and evidence is right there in front of you.

 

You just don't want to see it, because you don't want to look at all these with a skeptical attitude,

 

What will prove it to you besides the fact it is physically there, what more do you need? The absolute proof is the writing that is in the Bible, the Word of God. I can offer you no more than what is written.

 

True all you can present are writings on a paper, and a assertion,

 

But so can every other christians sect, and also every other religion. There is nothing unique about your beliefs

[Asuryan]

...oookay... I've wasted hours of my life reading all of this thread, from beginning to end. I'd almost wish I didn't, no matter how carefully and accurately pritishd and open minded and asimov and others present their arguments, this thread is just going nowhere (but it serves a very important purpose anyway, as eternal proof of Sub_zero's character, personality, trolling, and closemindedness).

 

I have a question for Sub_zero too, though.

 

If when you was 7, your parents had put in your hands a Quran instead of a bible, would you have become a muslim? If your answer is Yes, do you realize now that you believe the bible is true and the Quran and Ilyades are not, just because you have been taught from an early age what was TO BE believed? If your answer is No, why do you think so, care to explain?

 

Another one: do you realize that in our eyes, you are absolutely no different from a muslim coming here to preach about the Quran and telling us it's true because some of it is true (that was your argument), or from a raelian, or a scientologist, doing the same?

What makes you better than them?

The answer "Because I'm right and they are not" is NOT allowed. In our eyes, you are saying certain things, they would be saying certain things, and you tell us you're right exactly as THEY would tell us they're right. And we don't have any reason to think that you are right and they are not.

 

Ok, another one. What church do you attend exactly?

[SkepticOfBible]

If your answer is No, why do you think so, care to explain?

 

I already tried to ask him that in my last two post, the only thing I directed it more carefully as to why he thinks his canon is the true one and not the others(catholic)?

 

It's always a circular logic

 

The bible is true because it is a word of God

The Words of God cannot be false

Hence the bible is True

[♦ ficino ♦]

 

The answer "Because I'm right and they are not" is NOT allowed. In our eyes, you are saying certain things, they would be saying certain things, and you tell us you're right exactly as THEY would tell us they're right. And we don't have any reason to think that you are right and they are not.

 

Ok, another one. What church do you attend exactly?

 

buon giorno, Asuryan. Sei andata a Torino?

 

My experience with sub_zer0 leads me to predict either he'll ignore your question or pick out a detail from it and throw in a bible verse or bald statement, or he'll answer the way Sceptic thinks, i.e. to say "because Jesus is Lord" or some other such recombination of words.

 

Second prediction: he will never demonstrate why we should follow the protestant rather than the catholic bible except, if he answers at all, to say something circular like "catholics aren't born again" or "catholics introduce books that aren't part of the bible I'm holding in my hand" or such.

 

I will be happy to see my predictions overturned.

[Taphophilia]

 

The answer "Because I'm right and they are not" is NOT allowed. In our eyes, you are saying certain things, they would be saying certain things, and you tell us you're right exactly as THEY would tell us they're right. And we don't have any reason to think that you are right and they are not.

 

Ok, another one. What church do you attend exactly?

 

buon giorno, Asuryan. Sei andata a Torino?

 

My experience with sub_zer0 leads me to predict either he'll ignore your question or pick out a detail from it and throw in a bible verse or bald statement, or he'll answer the way Sceptic thinks, i.e. to say "because Jesus is Lord" or some other such recombination of words.

 

Second prediction: he will never demonstrate why we should follow the protestant rather than the catholic bible except, if he answers at all, to say something circular like "catholics aren't born again" or "catholics introduce books that aren't part of the bible I'm holding in my hand" or such.

 

I will be happy to see my predictions overturned.

 

If Catholics aren't born again or saved, than that means most of the Church through out most of history is in hell. I thought Catholicism was the only Christian church for centuries in the Western World. Are all those people through out history in hell?

 

(I think we over loaded Sub_Zer0's brain with questions he couldn't easily look up.)

 

Taph

[Asuryan]

I already tried to ask him that in my last two post

 

I noticed... but I hope that if I use a simple language, he'll give out simple answers. With you he's trying to twist and turn and throw verses and speak of interpretation. I hope he will try out another strategy with me

 

Hello there, Ficino! Non sono andata a Torino, costava troppo

 

I hope he won't ignore my questions. If he will, though, tough luck, I'll just move on to another thread. Not the end of the world (however, I find that Nicole christian chick with the armed woman avatar much more annoying that Sub_Gamer)

[♦ nivek ♦]

800+ replies

 

Almost 8000 views.

 

This troll has received more attention with its inane disconncected, unarguable, bullshiting posts than any serious discussion we've had prior.

 

"One troll" folks. Keeps baiting, and like a winter hungry bull bass fish we all keep rising and striking at its cast bait.

 

I hope subby is laughing its ass off, it has performed its trollkin mission admirably.

 

And we keep striking at it.

 

>self edited, unecessary personal observations, unneeded here at this time<

 

kL

[♦ ficino ♦]

Hi, Nivek. I've been laughing my ass off, too. To reverse your metaphor, great fun, throwing out bait in the troll water and seeing whether anything snaps at it. But point taken. Lots of band width used here. I'll restrain myself from further casts unless something substantive has been said.

[thunderbolt]

I have realized a couple of posts ago that Zero's game is consumption, and I have NO doubt that Antlerman's noble idea of new debate with 0 is going to go exactly the same route.

[Checkmate]

I have realized a couple of posts ago that Zero's game is consumption, and I have NO doubt that Antlerman's noble idea of new debate with 0 is going to go exactly the same route.

"A couple of posts ago"? I knew this was pointless from Day One.

 

I never cease to be amazed by how much you people allow yourselves to be led around by the nose by these trolls. Fundies are NOT interested in DIALOGUE. They seek a MONOLOGUE in front of an audience. They NEVER listen. They only PREACH.

 

Well count me out. I'm done fucking around with these cretins. I say let them choke on their ignorance if that is their desire.

[Antlerman]

I have realized a couple of posts ago that Zero's game is consumption, and I have NO doubt that Antlerman's noble idea of new debate with 0 is going to go exactly the same route.

I won't let it. Besides, it's a discussion, not a debate. I won't engage in bible verse arguments. If Sub should show himself unable to communicate as a respectful person, then he will not be engaged in the discussion. The point of the discussion includes him, but it's not about him alone. I'm not going to let a derailing happen if should want to pull that direction. It is a complete, and utter waste of time to argue Bible verses with anyone. I learned that a very long time ago. "A man convinced against his will, remains of same opinion still."

[thunderbolt]

It is a complete, and utter waste of time to argue Bible verses with anyone. I learned that a very long time ago. "A man convinced against his will, remains of same opinion still."

You can say that again!

[redneck22]

 

My problem with this passage is the talking serpent.

 

 

 

I would say someone that believes an evil demon like santa can possess a snake and make it talk, is smarter than someone who believes a monkey can do it by himself.

[white_raven23]

 

My problem with this passage is the talking serpent.

 

 

 

I would say someone that believes an evil demon like santa can possess a snake and make it talk, is smarter than someone who believes a monkey can do it by himself.

 

SANTA!!???

 

Oh Christmas spirit we hardly knew ye! Those presents for being good were merely a front to get at my tender little soul!!

 

Yeah. Pretty smart for the snake to be possessed. Even SMARTER was the guy who punished the CREATURE for the discression by taking away it's legs, and all it's progeny's legs, while not doing anything at all to "Santa" (who actually possessed the animal).

 

Yep that guy is real smart. Got a real leg up on those monkeys.