Holy Quran

[War Wagon]

and people wonder why I think christians are singularly the most arogant religioists that walk the face of the earth...so, you never did respond to the question I asked...

Speaking of arrogance and not responding to questions, I asked you a question, several actually, and you didn't respond to one of them while you continue to play ping-pong with 'tart.

WTF am I, chopped liver? I guess it takes insults to get you to respond to me so here goes...

Not only are you arrogant, boy, but smugly arrogant and hypocritical to boot. I'm enjoying watching pp make you step and fetch, and yes... backpedal.

Of course, I've insulted you waaay worse and of course, I will do so again and again and again, maybe even in this thread if you don't up some straight answers to my honest questions.

Glad to see you re-upped for JFFL 2009, btw.

[Mikey]

WTF am I, chopped liver?

More like Lemon Jello.

[ppanther]

now, if you think he'd been better off saying, "well, we think your beliefs are full of shit, but their your beliefs so as we say in the states live and let live", then your seriously deluded about how seriously Muslims take their religion.

When did I ever say he should say anything of the sort? When did I ever even imply that he should show any disrespect whatsoever? I think I stated several times that simply calling it the Quran would have been sufficient. The rest of the speech could have remained the same, and still extremely respectful. I don't know why you can't grasp that.

what, you think being able to cite verses from the Bible makes you some sort of biblical scholar? I can cite verses from the Qu'ran, but that certainly doesn't make me an expert at it....pops is a fervent christian that reads more into it than I do....

Really, I was just pointing out your backpedal, which was starkly evident.

to me, it's simply fairy tales...

Alright, you've already said [that] [way more than 4] different times....you don't need to repeat yourself....

what always amuses me about people like you is that you change the subject when I start mentioning blah blah blah...

There is no point in trying to answer any of the questions you ask, Felix. I think I asked you a long, long time ago, why people like you ever ask any questions about God or Christianity. You never want the answers you're given, you never accept them. Yet you whine incessantly about these tremendous injustices and somehow still manage to tack some blame for the world's ills onto God... even though you don't believe in him.

some loving fucking god you've got there.

And since you don't believe in him, I don't understand why you're so obsessed with this concept. You repeat it constantly. Why do you do that? Everyone who views this board can read, all can comprehend, yet you think this needs to be repeated over and over and over again. Why? Who are you trying to convince?

You could always ask that about the humans who do the same things, currently.

what the fuck does that have to do with the price of tea in China?

Well, it is at least relevant to your question. You whine about these horrible injustices that took place at the hands of God, but ignore those same injustices as they exist currently at the hands of man. The statement was a lot more relevant than your question about whether or not Jesus should have been born in China. Seriously, talk about a left field, pointless question. And that question had what exactly to do with Obama calling the Quran holy?

morality doesn't come from god, sorry to be the one to break this to you....morality comes from a civilizations need to survive...how would you explain the fact that murder is considered evil in every civilization known to man...not just christian civilizations, but EVERY civilization.....

So then, there should be no murder, no animal torture, no civilizations destroyed by humans... because according to you, they have an inborn morality that tells them that those things are evil. So how do you explain the people who do those things? What happened to the inborn morality of criminals?

It's a terrible argument and why you can't see that speaks volumes about your ability to reason....I can provide you with just as many really really smart people that the concept of god is some sort of figment of man's imagination...but I wouldn't resort to using their arguments, I argue from my own perspective and resorting to the whole "lots of smart people believe in God" is a total fucking cop out....

Felix, just because you jump up and down and insist it's a terrible argument, doesn't mean it is. You consistently imply that you are too smart to believe in God. Given that posture, it is not even remotely out of line that I point out that plenty of people smarter than you do believe in God. It doesn't really work the other way, you see, because I've never claimed to be "too smart" for any belief system. I'm sure there are plenty of atheists with IQ scores higher than mine. But since I have never postured my position based on some perceived superior intellect, it would be silly for you to use that argument against me.

When you stop acting like you're especially enlightened because other smart people have made this age more technologically advanced than previous ages, I'll stop explaining that you're not actually "too smart" for God.

sbut lots of smart people used to believe in Zeus, but you don't believe in him...therefore, when it comes to Zeus you're an atheist-maybe you should look up what the term atheist means before you claim not to be one....

You're really reaching, Felix.

From m-w.com:
atheist: one who believes that there is no deity

See Felix, I believe in God. Therefore I am not an atheist. Maybe you should look up definitions before you make statements like the one above.

[poptart]

what always amuses me about people like you is that you change the subject when I start mentioning the destruction of civilizations, the random killing of innocent children, the enslavement and torture of captured civilizations, rape. pillaging and plungering...it's all in there and yet christians are always simply incapable of addressing the questions people like me bring up

Felix, I've always answered your questions.

In fact I started a thread a while back -- ask poptart a question.

It seems you're generally not pleased with the answers you receive, or you maybe scroll past them with just a glance.
And I've noticed that you keep asking some of the same questions multiple times.

Some of the questions you have asked can not be answered with just a couple of sentences.
They require a little depth and the person who is reading the answer needs to read carefully and thoughtfully ... if he is really interesting in learning what it is that the answerer (is that a werd?) is trying to communicate about what the Bible says.

I'll always be glad to give you MY answer to any question you want to ask.

[battery chucka' one]

Felix... you think I'm an idiot?

well if you continue to make idiotic statements like that, what conclusion am I left too.

The word is 'to'. Does that make you an idiot?

[Felix]

Speaking of arrogance and not responding to questions, I asked you a question, several actually, and you didn't respond to one of them while you continue to play ping-pong with 'tart.

sorry wags, panther had me going and I overlooked it...

Jim, same here in that I was born and raised Catholic and went to Catholic schools up until 10th grade. Your probably like me in that when I got old enough to make my own decisions, I seriously rebelled against having that crap shoved down my throat any longer. The whole stand, kneel, sit routine during mass, confession, Holy Communion, the stations of the cross... are you freaking kidding me? Simply horrible, ritualistic nonsense and I swore I'd never go back. And I haven't for the most part, except for weddings and funerals and this one time on Easter just to humor my mother.

But I never really read the Bible with an open, seeking heart and and mind, until many years later. It wasn't until I sincerely wanted to hear the message, that I actually got the message.

If you really have read the Bible as much as you say, I'm wondering what your motivation to do so was. As has been said, Catholic priests at Mass pretty much read it to you, and you're just supposed to swallow it. I was never made to read the Bible, not much anyway. And if I were, obviously I wouldn't have gotten much out of it.

because I actually wanted to believe and I thought that reading the bible would help me to better understand what it was that I wanted to believe....but as I read it, I realized that there were not only inconsistencies, but flat out fairy tale stuff (talking snakes, tree of good and evil, other assorted non-sense) and I started to ask myself questions like "why would god, who supposedly knows everything that will ever happen" subject himself to the torture that man has obviously put him through....why not just eliminate temptation altogether and that would have solved the whole problem....whenever I asked a priest those same questions, they would look at me with this dumbfounded look on their face with really no response....when I started asking questions like "was sending his son to earth to die a torturous death the best he could come up with? Why couldn't he just say "everybody is forgiven", then eradicate all of the evils of the world? Seriously, I started thinking about the whole "God sent his son down to die for our sins", and started thinking that's a seriously fucked up solution....a being that could create everything and the best he could do was to send somebody down to be tortured unmercifully, then hung up on a cross to die?

So if you've read it when you weren't being made to read it, seems your only motivation was in seeing how many holes you could poke in it.

On the contrary, when first introduced to the bible I read it on my own....nobody told me to read it I read it of my own accord...like I said at first to be closer to "god" then later, to simply iterate all of the questions that had come up as a result of my reading.

You fancy yourself educated and enlightened and waay to smart to be duped by any of that Bible nonsense. But you have to take it one step further for some reason. You have to prove to everyone who might actually get something of value from the Bible that they are ignorant rubes and go to great, interminable lengths to do so.

I don't "fancy" myself anything other than a reasoning human being with questions. I'm not trying to disprove the existence of god (whatever your definition of god is), I'm trying to find out why people hold these beliefs so close to their hearts and will defend them in the face of reasoned logic....I've always believed the primary motivation is peoples innate fear of death...it truly is one of man's greatest fears and I'm of the opinion that people's fear of death is what drives them to believe that there's something beyond this world....nobody wants to believe that when they're gone, that's the end and there's nothing more....so people make up stories to quench these fears that there's some glorious afterlife that awaits the "chosen" (and every major religion believes they are in fact the "chosen" ones)...why is it that god chooses to be invisible and the only thing there is to prove his existence is to believe in a book that was cobbled together over decades, with people voting on exactly what the "word of god" is. Who's ever heard of voting for what to leave in and what to take out of god's word? That's ridiculous in and of itself, but that's how the modern bible came to be.

Is it not enough for you to simply wash your hands of what you don't believe in and go your merry way?

Are you hoping to convince anyone and everyone that believes in the Bible in even the most minute amount that they are full of shit?

Nope, I already told you I'm fascinated by believers. Who knows, maybe I was put here on earth to test the faithful by the devil.

Or are YOU hoping to be convinced different?

that isn't going to happen

See, I get 'tarts motivation and respect him for it. He's doing what Christ commands. Go forth and spread the word. I don't get your motivation, unless it's just to be a contrarian assboil with nothing but time on his hands to waste on another multi-page abortion of a thread that accomplishes nothing.

I just like to discuss/argue religion...consider it a hobby....if people don't want to discuss it, they can simply not respond to my posts.

Not only are you arrogant, boy, but smugly arrogant and hypocritical to boot. I'm enjoying watching pp make you step and fetch, and yes... backpedal.

I'm not arrogant in the slightest, and don't call me boy or I'll be forced to fly out to Kansas Shitty and kick your scrawny ass up and down the street....I've never backpeddled once in this thread, contrary to what you or panther may think

Of course, I've insulted you waaay worse and of course, I will do so again and again and again, maybe even in this thread if you don't up some straight answers to my honest questions.

Wags, you're incapable of insulting me, because I put no credence in anything you say.....

[Felix]

Felix... you think I'm an idiot?

well if you continue to make idiotic statements like that, what conclusion am I left too.

The word is 'to'. Does that make you an idiot?

spelling smack from a sig machine like you? bwaha that's fucking funny

[Felix]

I'll always be glad to give you MY answer to any question you want to ask.

Okay, here's a couple of real simple questions for you.

Why does God choose to remain invisible, leaving only a collection of two-thousand year old desert scribblings as the only evidence of his existence?

Seriously, don't you think that if he was to show up, perform a couple of miracles, talk with all of the leaders of the world and convince them he was in fact "God", that this world would be a much better place? Or is it in his design that people fail?

[battery chucka' one]

I'll always be glad to give you MY answer to any question you want to ask.

Okay, here's a real simple one for you.

Why does God choose to remain invisible, leaving only a collection of two-thousand year old desert scribblings as the only evidence he exists?

He became visible. Became man. Only 2000 year ago. Quite visible, actually. Perhaps that's above the head of one such as yourself.

[battery chucka' one]

I'll always be glad to give you MY answer to any question you want to ask.

Seriously, don't you think that if he was to show up, perform a couple of miracles, talk with all of the leaders of the world and convince them he was in fact "God", that this world would be a much better place? Or is it in his design that people fail?

Because He already did it once. If He did it again, again you would deny Him. That's your choice. Why should He talk with world leaders? He appointed them. They should want to talk with Him. However they, like you, would deny Him. Again. Their choice. Your choice.

[Mikey]

He appointed them.

You might want to check on that one.

[RadioFan]

The Bible and the Quran do not mesh, they cannot both be right. If you believe one is holy, you cannot believe the other is.

Denotation vs. connotation.

Way too much of "holy" going on with both books and not nearly enough "message."

The message is what makes them "holy," no?

Ponderous.


Btw, RACK panther and Mikey in this thread.

That was a stange exchange right there.

Stange?

:paul:

Go forth and spread the word.

That's what the adults are addressing here, champ. Run along and play, the hot dogs and the potato chips will be ready soon.

[battery chucka' one]

He appointed them.

You might want to check on that one.

It's Biblical. Look it up.

Daniel 2:21

Romans 13:1-7

[RadioFan]

It's Biblical.

Speaking of potato chips ...

Anyone have the Dixie plates?

[poptart]

Felix, chucka' basically gave the answer that I would have given you.

God ... came ... as Jesus Christ, to destroy the work of destruction that satan brought to all mankind, as promised.

Genesis 3:15 ---> Isaiah 7:14 ---> Galatians 4:3,4 ---> Matthew 16:16 ---> 1 John 3:8

All who believe and receive this are taken out of destruction.

All who don't remain IN IT and will ultimately fail very badly and forever.

I don't think you deny that Jesus was a real person, do you?

The message is what makes them "holy," no?

The Truth, the fact that it was inspired by God, is what makes a book Holy.

If one believes Christ IS this -- Genesis 3:15 ---> Isaiah 7:14 ---> Galatians 4:3,4 ---> Matthew 16:16 ---> 1 John 3:8, one can in no way believe the Quran is holy, as it denies the MOST CRITICAL AND FUNDAMENTAL point of the entire Bible.

If one thinks Jesus is something other than what the Bible tells us, he might be of a mind that the Quran is holy.

[Felix]

I'll always be glad to give you MY answer to any question you want to ask.

Seriously, don't you think that if he was to show up, perform a couple of miracles, talk with all of the leaders of the world and convince them he was in fact "God", that this world would be a much better place? Or is it in his design that people fail?

Because He already did it once. If He did it again, again you would deny Him. That's your choice. Why should He talk with world leaders? He appointed them. They should want to talk with Him. However they, like you, would deny Him. Again. Their choice. Your choice.

thanks for another in a long line of seriously stupid answers, but the question was directed at tart

[Felix]

Felix, chucka' basically gave the answer that I would have given you.

God ... came ... as Jesus Christ, to destroy the work of destruction that satan brought to all mankind, as promised.

Genesis 3:15 ---> Isaiah 7:14 ---> Galatians 4:3,4 ---> Matthew 16:16 ---> 1 John 3:8

All who believe and receive this are taken out of destruction.

All who don't remain IN IT and will ultimately fail very badly and forever.

I don't think you deny that Jesus was a real person, do you?

actually, there's lots of evidence that Jesus never in fact existed....I could give you a lengthy list of serious historical examinations that question the very existence of jesus.....other than the bible, and one reference from a questionable (allegedly forged) source-Josephus, there is not one historical reference to the existence of jesus other than the bible itself.....much of the new testament was written by people that had no direct knowlege of him, never met him, and in fact, their stories were just the retelling of stories told to them.....

[poptart]

What do you think?

What is your bottom line on that?

Do you think there was a Jesus?

[Felix]

Do you think there was a Jesus?

I'm not sure-but what I am sure of is that if he existed, he wasn't "the son of the creator", because as I've said before, there's no proof of any "creator of everything"

again, why would an all powerful, loving creator not provide any proof of his being, other than the words in a 2,000 year old book....why the need to test people on "faith" alone...what sense does that make?

and save the "how can you say there's no god when you look at a newborn child" argument

[poptart]

Felix, as I see it, it would take a lot more "faith" to not believe that Jesus is the Christ than to believe that He is.

The Old Testament was written, and based on what those books declared about who exactly the Messiah would be and what He would do, there is not a single person who has lived, or will live, that could possibly be that person ... other than Jesus.

Because He uniquely, remarkably, and unwittingly (beyond His control) totally fulfilled it all.

I would ask you, if you really care to look with an open mind, to consider just the remarkable way He uniquely and unwittingly came through the EXACT (and highly NARROW) family line that the Messiah was promised in the Old Testament to be coming through.

Please give the following piece a slow read.

Really read it and give it just a little thought.


An Address in History

With great detail, God wrote an address in history to single out His Son, the Messiah, the Savior of mankind, from anyone who has ever lived in history -past, present, or future. The specifics of this address can be found in the Old Testament, a document written over a period of a thousand years, which contains more than three hundred references to His coming. Using the science of probability, we find the chances of just forty-eight of these prophecies being fulfilled in one person to be right at one in 10157 (a one followed by 157 zeros!).

The task of matching up God's address with one man is further complicated by the fact that all the prophecies of the Messiah were made at least 400 years before He was to appear. Some might disagree and say that these prophecies were written down after the time of Christ and fabricated to coincide with His life. This might sound feasible until you realize that the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Hebrew Old Testament, was translated around 150-200 B.C. This Greek translation shows that there was at least a two-hundred-year gap between the prophecies being recorded and their fulfillment in Christ.

Certainly God was writing an address in history that only the Messiah could fulfill. Approximately forty major claims to be the Jewish Messiah have been made by men. Only one-Jesus Christ-appealed to fulfilled prophecy to substantiate His claims, and only His credentials back up those claims.

What were some of those details? And what events had to precede and coincide with the appearance of God's Son?

To begin, we need to go way back to Genesis 3:15. Here we have the first messianic prophecy. In all of Scripture, only one man was "born of the seed of a woman" -all others are born of the seed of a man. Here is the one who will come into the world and undo the works of Satan ("bruise His head").

In Genesis 9 and 10 God narrowed the address down further. Noah had three sons, Shem, Japheth, and Ham. Today all of the nations of the world can be traced back to these three men. But in this passage, God effectively eliminated two-thirds of them from the line of Messiahship. The Messiah will come through the lineage of Shem.

Continuing on to the year 2000 B.C., we find God calling a man named Abraham out of Ur of the Chaldees. With Abraham, God became still more specific, stating that the Messiah will be one of his descendants (Genesis 12; 17; 22). All the families of the earth will be blessed through Abraham. Abraham had two sons, Isaac and Ishmael, but many of his descendants were eliminated when God selected his second son, Isaac (Genesis 17;21).

Isaac had two sons, Jacob and Esau, and God chose the line of Jacob (Genesis 28; 35:10-12; Numbers 24:17). Jacob had twelve sons, out of whom developed the twelve tribes of Israel. God singled out the tribe of Judah for Messiahship and eliminated 11/12ths of the Israelite tribes. And of all the family lines within Judah's tribe, the line of Jesse was the divine choice (Isaiah 11:1-5). One can see the probability of Jesus being the Messiah building.

Jesse had eight children and in 2 Samuel 7:12-16 and Jeremiah 23:5 God eliminated 7/8ths of Jesse's family line: We read that God's man will not only be of the seed of a woman, the lineage of Shem, the race of the Jews, the line of Isaac, the line of Jacob, the tribe of Judah, but that He will also be of the house of David.

A prophecy dating 1012 B.C. (Psalm 22:6-18; cf. Zechariah 12:10 and Galatians 3:13) also predicts that this man's hands and feet will be pierced (i.e., He will be crucified). This description was written eight hundred years before crucifixion began to be practiced by the Romans.

Isaiah 7:14 adds that this man will be born of a virgin -a natural birth of unnatural conception, a criterion beyond human planning and control. Several prophecies recorded in Isaiah and the psalms describe the social climate and response that God's man will encounter: His own people, the Jews, will reject Him and the Gentiles will believe in Him (Isaiah 8:14; 28:16; 49:6; 50:6; 52:53; 60:3; Psalms 22:7,8; 118:22). There will be a forerunner for Him (Isaiah 40:3; Malachi 3:1), a voice in the wilderness, one preparing the way before the Lord, a John the Baptist


And of course, as remarkable as this is, it says nothing of the hundreds of other details of the life of the Messiah were fulfilled by Jesus.

[Felix]

In Genesis 9 and 10 God narrowed the address down further. Noah had three sons, Shem, Japheth, and Ham. Today all of the nations of the world can be traced back to these three men. But in this passage, God effectively eliminated two-thirds of them from the line of Messiahship. The Messiah will come through the lineage of Shem.

how can you expect me to take any of this nonsense seriously, when you start talking about things like in the beginning, say 2,000 years BC, when in FACT, our human ancestory can be traced back, through mitochondrial DNA analysis, to approximately 140,000 years ago wherein the first traces of modern man (which in this case was actually a female) can be followed back to east Africa....then you start talking about Noah, which of course that brings up the whole ark thingy...there is absolutely no scientific evidence of any cataclysmic world flood (and they've tried to find it for years) via examination of the geological column.....

what they have discovered is that there have been five known earth extinction events, the last of which happened about 65 million years ago, which pretty much erases all doubt about Noah and his floating boat of animals....seriously, you're talking fairy tales here tart

[battery chucka' one]

In Genesis 9 and 10 God narrowed the address down further. Noah had three sons, Shem, Japheth, and Ham. Today all of the nations of the world can be traced back to these three men. But in this passage, God effectively eliminated two-thirds of them from the line of Messiahship. The Messiah will come through the lineage of Shem.

140,000 years ago wherein the first traces of modern man (which in this case was actually a female) can be followed back to east Africa....

Dude. Tell me you're not going to bring up the 'discovery' that is Lucy. Please, don't make it this easy on us. I know of the evidence that debunks your 'proof'. However, I'd like to toss you a few more feet of rope so you can hang yourself and your silly argument. So please, prove to me that this discovery is undeniable evidence that man has been around that long. Thanks in advance for allowing me to hit off a tee for this game.

[Felix]

I know of the evidence that debunks your 'proof'. However, I'd like to toss you a few more feet of rope so you can hang yourself and your silly argument. So please, prove to me that this discovery is undeniable evidence that man has been around that long. Thanks in advance for allowing me to hit off a tee for this game.

quit responding because it's evident everytime you hit the submit button that you're a clueless dumbfuck of staggering proportion...you know nothing about evolutionary theory as evidenced by this jawdroppingly stupid "reply"....do you have any idea what mitochondrial DNA is and how its used for tracing man's history-of course you don't, otherwise, you'd never post something this inept....

do you know anything about the various methods of radiometric dating....hell, even the most fundamental dating method dendrochronology has found that the oldest tree is more than 10,000 years old, way past the dates in your holy book....

I'm trying to figure out why I'm even responding to a fucking gene splice like you?

seriously, quit pretending to be intelligent

[poptart]

Felix, if you dispute that the earth was populated by Noah's three sons, ok.

However it doesn't at all change the reality that the Old Testament was written and standing, and then this person Jesus came along and ... astoundingly, remarkably, and unwittingly ... came through the very narrow and exact family line that those writings said He would come through.

[Felix]

Felix, if you dispute that the earth was populated by Noah's three sons, ok.

However it doesn't at all change the reality that the Old Testament was written and standing, and then this person Jesus came along and ... astoundingly, remarkably, and unwittingly ... came through the very narrow and exact family line that those writings said He would come through.

how would you explain the remarkable coincidences/parallels between ancient Egyptian, Persian, Indian, and Grecian stories of their "gods" and the stories found in the bible, noting that the stories from the above noted cultures universally preceded chritianity, some by thousands of years

http://www.truthbeknown.com/origins4.ht ... _loves_you

serious question

for bco-look bud I was a little hard on you but if you want to jump into the fray, at least have some point to argue.....here's a site that can probably help you formulate whatever argument you're trying to make....but seriously, don't go off on some tangent unrelated to the discussion at hand

http://www.answersingenesis.org/

[battery chucka' one]

I know of the evidence that debunks your 'proof'. However, I'd like to toss you a few more feet of rope so you can hang yourself and your silly argument. So please, prove to me that this discovery is undeniable evidence that man has been around that long. Thanks in advance for allowing me to hit off a tee for this game.

quit responding because it's evident everytime you hit the submit button that you're a clueless dumbfuck of staggering proportion...you know nothing about evolutionary theory as evidenced by this jawdroppingly stupid "reply"....do you have any idea what mitochondrial DNA is and how its used for tracing man's history-of course you don't, otherwise, you'd never post something this inept....

do you know anything about the various methods of radiometric dating....hell, even the most fundamental dating method dendrochronology has found that the oldest tree is more than 10,000 years old, way past the dates in your holy book....

I'm trying to figure out why I'm even responding to a fucking gene splice like you?

seriously, quit pretending to be intelligent

Really, you need help. And I'm talking about more than you going to night school and getting your GED. I mean, you really are delusional, son. I'm worried that next you'll start talking about THE CHIP THEY PUT IN YOUR HEAD!!!

[battery chucka' one]

Felix, if you dispute that the earth was populated by Noah's three sons, ok.

However it doesn't at all change the reality that the Old Testament was written and standing, and then this person Jesus came along and ... astoundingly, remarkably, and unwittingly ... came through the very narrow and exact family line that those writings said He would come through.

how would you explain the remarkable coincidences/parallels between ancient Egyptian, Persian, Indian, and Grecian stories of their "gods" and the stories found in the bible, noting that the stories from the above noted cultures universally preceded chritianity, some by thousands of years

http://www.truthbeknown.com/origins4.ht ... _loves_you

serious question

for bco-look bud I was a little hard on you but if you want to jump into the fray, at least have some point to argue.....here's a site that can probably help you formulate whatever argument you're trying to make....but seriously, don't go off on some tangent unrelated to the discussion at hand

http://www.answersingenesis.org/

You really are reaching, aren't you? Without a hand to grab, you are aiming for something that's just not there. Now, you say that the authors of the Bible are plagiarists? Christ didn't exist because he was buddha? Come on. Such are the straws that are grabbed at by those who have nothing else. Sad. Surely you can do better than that, son.

[War Wagon]

Wags, you're incapable of insulting me, because I put no credence in anything you say.....

I don't have to insult you. You do it to yourself.

You're the guy who pranced around as a chick with your Ms. Demeanor troll, and you're speaking to me of "credence"?

You're the guy who started a fake contest for Dungver tickets.

You're the guy who got replaced as an NFL mod by trev, and you cried like a baby.

Nobody puts any credence in whatever you're able to mash out.

[Felix]

You're the guy who pranced around as a chick with your Ms. Demeanor troll, and you're speaking to me of "credence"?

I posted exclusively in the political forum with the Miss Demeanor troll about 10 years ago....

You're the guy who started a fake contest for Dungver tickets.

I explained that fiasco about 12 years ago....

You're the guy who got replaced as an NFL mod by trev, and you cried like a baby.

when did all of this take place, because I must have missed it

look bud, I don't dwell on shit that happened eons ago...I've never once referenced you're air conditioning debacle, your dead dog, your broken fence, etc, etc. until now....that's just not a road I typically like to travel down-you and I used to be internet buds, but for the life of me I don't know what tripped your trigger and turned you into such a bitter douchenozzle

but if that's what floats your boat hoss, have at it....

[Felix]

Really, you need help. And I'm talking about more than you going to night school and getting your GED. I mean, you really are delusional, son. I'm worried that next you'll start talking about THE CHIP THEY PUT IN YOUR HEAD!!!

man, I'll be picking up the pieces from that epic bitch slapping for years to come.....

damn, you bring it hard dawg

I'd be hard pressed to find a bigger fucking sap than you are

[Felix]

You really are reaching, aren't you? Without a hand to grab, you are aiming for something that's just not there. Now, you say that the authors of the Bible are plagiarists? Christ didn't exist because he was buddha? Come on. Such are the straws that are grabbed at by those who have nothing else. Sad. Surely you can do better than that, son.

and some people assert that you're not a deep thinking, intelligent, thought provoking intellect....thanks for not disappointing them

[RadioFan]

Sad. Surely you can do better than that, son.

Ease off, with this "son" shit.

If I recall, you got your head kicked off, and handed to you, in here, years ago, and didn't come back.

[Felix]

Ease off, with this "son" shit.

ah comes on RF, he's just being "folksy"
that's his whole spiel....just a folksy "good old boy" that just wants to be left alone to read his bible....you know, the kind of person that neighbors always point at and whisper back and forth, then break out into uncontrolled laughter

[poptart]

Felix, if you dispute that the earth was populated by Noah's three sons, ok.

However it doesn't at all change the reality that the Old Testament was written and standing, and then this person Jesus came along and ... astoundingly, remarkably, and unwittingly ... came through the very narrow and exact family line that those writings said He would come through.

how would you explain the remarkable coincidences/parallels between ancient Egyptian, Persian, Indian, and Grecian stories of their "gods" and the stories found in the bible, noting that the stories from the above noted cultures universally preceded chritianity, some by thousands of years

http://www.truthbeknown.com/origins4.ht ... _loves_you

serious question

Felix,

The "coincidences" you posted have no relation to what I relayed to you about Jesus coming through the EXACT narrow family line that the Old Testament said the Messiah would come through.

It's a strange gear shift you just made there.

It's as if I was talking to you about a football game and the next thing I know you somehow responded by telling me that weasels are a fascinating creature.


It appears that the Address in History might have flown by you without you really taking much note of it.

It is a PHENOMENAL thing that was posted there.

Everyone should take 5 minutes from their day and give that a slow read.

[battery chucka' one]

Sad. Surely you can do better than that, son.

Ease off, with this "son" shit.

If I recall, you got your head kicked off, and handed to you, in here, years ago, and didn't come back.

I treat him with respect right off the bat. However, when his words display that he is a child and acts as such, that's when I treat him as a child. Hence, I start calling him 'son'. Now, for you, ease off on the cursing, m'kay?

[Felix]

I treat him with respect right off the bat. However, when his words display that he is a child and acts as such, that's when I treat him as a child. Hence, I start calling him 'son'. Now, for you, ease off on the cursing, m'kay?

okay here's the deal...I'm discussing my opinion that the bible is largely composed of fairy tales that are not backed by any scientific evidence (global floods, sun standing still, etc.) and then from out in left field you start talking about the discovery of what many scientists believe may be a predecessor to modern human beings....now what this had to do with anything in this thread is beyond me....why would you choose to bring up something that hadn't been brought up previously, and really wasn't relevant to the discussion at hand?

It's your prerogative to believe whatever it is that you want to believe and as I've said before, I have a certain admiration for people that can hold on to their religious beliefs in face of mounting evidence that continues to erode the credibility of the bible as any type of "historical" document....it was a book written by man not by "god" (who or whatever your definition of "god" is)....now maybe the authors thought they were being divinely inspired by "god" when they wrote it, but it doesn't take away from the fact that the book was not authored by "god" but by man.....

my opinions about the bible did not spring forth suddenly but have been developed over years of contemplative thought and research....believe me, I typically don't throw myself into discussions unless I have a pretty good idea of both sides of an argument....I'm not and have never claimed to be any kind of expert on evolutionary biology, but I can certainly state with no reservations, that I'm confident that I know a lot more about it than you do....now, if you would like to discuss evolutionary theory and present reasoned arguments about why you think it's bullshit, then by all means I'd be more than willing to have a reasoned discussion about it....you can present your side, then I'll present mine-that's how debate works, not by hurling insults at your opponent.....

but, this thread demonstrates that you appear to be incapable of having rational discourse about anything that might refute your beliefs and the tenets you appear to hold so tightly to...I've been discussing religion and religious beliefs for a long time and I've come across your type many times.....you seem hellbent on attacking the messenger, rather than the message and if that's the tact you want to take, then maybe you should find someone else to spew invectives at....frankly, I find it a waste of time talking with people who take this type of approach....don't get me wrong, I never lose sight of the fact that this place was developed as a "smack" board, so I'll often time punctuate something with an attempt (however feeble it might be) at smacking someone (e.g. my "you're an idiot" opener to ppanther in a post directed at her)

tart is a perfect example of the type of person I love discussing religion with...he's not given to simply name calling and insults, (although he can smack with the best of them), but rather his is a thought provoking and insightful approach into why he believes as he does....I could discuss religion all day with people like tart, while those that take the strictly "attack the messenger" approach, I tend to avoid like the plague....there's nothing to be gained from trying to hold any type of reasonable discourse with people that choose this tact, and to date, that's exactly the way you've come across to me.....

if I need to remind you, the second post you directed at me (I never responded to the first one) consisted of

Felix... you think I'm an idiot?

well if you continue to make idiotic statements like that, what conclusion am I left too.

The word is 'to'. Does that make you an idiot?

so, your second post was a weak attempt at "spelling/grammar" smack (which is in and of itself, an extremely weak form of "smack"), so maybe you could point out to me where the

I treat him with respect

is in that post

good luck and Vaya Con Dios

[ppanther]

hell, even the most fundamental dating method dendrochronology has found that the oldest tree is more than 10,000 years old

I assume you mean the oldest living tree?

Honest question here, Felix... where is that tree? I was under the impression that the oldest living trees were Bristlecone Pines, the oldest of which is in the White Mountain Range in Eastern California, thought to be in the 4,000s? I am really fascinated by the Bristlecones.

Link please?

[battery chucka' one]

Son, where did I attack the messenger? You refered to ideas from Panther that I happen to hold dear and sacred as 'idiotic'. Therefore, you attack my beliefs as 'idiotic'. Yet, you have no real grasp of the English language, son. Are you following, yet? I brought up Lucy because you brought up some ancient discovery. Who brought up the early discoveries first, son? btw, due to the ages, if you were speaking about Lucy, you were horribly wrong. If not, then it's my bad for calling you on that one. Are you hearing me, son? Again, you toss blanket statements and can't back them up. You get called on them and you attack the messenger. You know who else does that? Children. Petty little children who can't formulate a logical idea by themselves so, when they've been put into a corner by logic and reason, they lash out. You are one such child. You shall continue to be treated as such. SON.

Thanks for inviting me to 'go with God' in your last post. I have no doubt you have no idea that is what you said. Thanks anyway.

[Felix]

Link please?

http://www.arts.cornell.edu/dendro/ajatext.html

[ppanther]

Link please?

http://www.arts.cornell.edu/dendro/ajatext.html

You could have just said, "No, there is no 10,000 year old living tree." I was interested in a link about that, if it existed, since I was pretty sure it didn't.

But thanks!!