Don't tell me there's any proof for creationism.

Quote:

Must be some really good reason.

No. There isn't any reason at all to believe anything you've decided to believe, Neo, none whatsoever, other than your own choosing.

That said, I wonder what is next for you?

How long will you decide to believe what you now believe before you abandon it and move on to something else?

Joe(everyone looks at their watches.)Nation

0 Replies

neologist wrote:

Sorry, Set.

It's been fun. I'll say that much

I hate to see you give up.

I asked you not to address any more posts to me. I guess courtesy and consideration are not a part of your ethos now that you've become a bible-thumper, huh?

What the hell am i giving up on? Converting you? I don't do conversion. I don't care what goofy beliefs you or anyone else suck up to. I do care that i am misrepresented, and especially by someone who ought to have known better. I am particularly insulted to have had a religious motive ascribed to me because i had the honesty to point out to you just how pathetic and confused your scriptural justifications are. That's why i called you a creep.

And this just leads me to continue to consider you a creep.

0 Replies

This post is not addressed to anyone in particular.

When I referred to another esteemed member as 'hanging' on or 'clinging' to a position, it in no way was meant to ascribe a religious motive. In fact, I believed the esteemed member was simply refusing to concede a point, any point.

And, while I was surprised at the esteemed member's schoolyard name calling over my directing attention to this refusal, in no way was I suggesting that the esteemed member had lost any of the esteem and regard in which I continue to hold the esteemed member.

I promise to do my best to refrain from directing any posts directly to said esteemed member, referring to him only as 'esteemed member', or some other respectful title as may come to mind.

However, when the esteemed member posts what I consider to be unsubstantiated BS, I will certainly call attention to it. I may then be either corrected or affirmed by the esteemed member's esteemed peers.

This is a forum, isn't it?

0 Replies

Joe Nation wrote:

Quote:
Must be some really good reason.

No. There isn't any reason at all to believe anything you've decided to believe, Neo, none whatsoever, other than your own choosing.

That said, I wonder what is next for you?

How long will you decide to believe what you now believe before you abandon it and move on to something else?

Joe(everyone looks at their watches.)Nation

Hmm . . .

14 years a Catholic. Quit as a HS sophomore.
6 years a skeptic. I conducted masses, consecrating pizza with beer for my friends at Lambda Chi. Mea Culpa.
10 years waffling between atheism and agnosticism. A relief.
2 years arguing with those pesky door knockers. I didn't give up without a fight.
34 years a Jehovah's Witness (though a poor example, I will admit)
I'll probably croak before anything else happens.
What's your point?

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

I abandoned Catholicism at age 13, and had only myself then recently read the bobble straight through, twice. I came to the conclusion that Genesis One is about polytheism without reference to anyone's theological doctrines.

Wow, a Bible expert at 13 after having read it just twice.

Setanta wrote:

.... the very high probability that Jews were originally polytheistic....

Brilliant Sherlock. The entire OT is about this subject. The Jews constantly worshipped other gods. You figured it out without any help, eh?

0 Replies

real life wrote:

Brilliant Sherlock. The entire OT is about this subject. The Jews constantly worshipped other gods. You figured it out without any help, eh?

RL, I wonder if our esteemed member would agree that only one God was supposed to be in charge?

0 Replies

rl asserts

Quote:

The Jews constantly worshipped other gods. You figured it out without any help, eh?

You never supply any evidence for your baseless assertions. I guess thats why theyre baseless ne?

0 Replies

ok, so Set says he thinks the Jews were polytheistic and you say nothing.

I say the whole OT is filled with the subject and you say my statement is 'baseless'.

ok whatever. why wasn't his baseless?

it is easily verified that the OT returns again and again to the theme of the Jews worshipping more than one god.

how would you verify that it says this? hmmmm, I think you'd read it to verify it.

0 Replies

If there were no other gods than the god of jesus, than why the command, thou shalt have no other gods before me?

0 Replies

real life wrote:

Setanta wrote:
I abandoned Catholicism at age 13, and had only myself then recently read the bobble straight through, twice. I came to the conclusion that Genesis One is about polytheism without reference to anyone's theological doctrines.

Wow, a Bible expert at 13 after having read it just twice.

This is classic "real life" bullshit--a strawman. Hey, Jackass, i didn't say that i am a bible expert, or that reading it twice made me an expert. I said that i abandoned Catholicism as a result.

Reading comprehension was never a strong suit with you, though, was it?

Quote:

Setanta wrote:
.... the very high probability that Jews were originally polytheistic....

Brilliant Sherlock. The entire OT is about this subject. The Jews constantly worshipped other gods. You figured it out without any help, eh?

Hey, Dipshit--the entire argument arises because of a passage in Genesis, which implies polytheism. Save your bible-thumper sarcasm for someone else. The point, which you studiously avoid, is that at that point at least, even the Jawists were inferentially polytheists.

Moron

Jackass

0 Replies

ANYWAY, I was just fishin to see how quickly RL would actually present some (what he calls) "evidence " to underpin his polytheism claim for the Jews. It took him less than an hour and a quarter to come back and assert his Biblical evidence.
Im gonna keep this in mind when we ask you to present evidence for some of the make believe science statements that you make and then you ignore the follow up questions entirely.

Eight pound STREN with a shimmy shad lure gets em up all the time.

Lets see how he breaches. YAAAAR

0 Replies

neologist wrote:

mesquite wrote:
1 And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them,
2 That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.

Were these "sons of God" some pre-creation angel critters that were interbreeding or was the term just alluding male superiority where the males were "sons of God" and the females were "daughters of men"?
Short explanation:

They were angels, who chose to join Satan. They are referred to In Revelation 12: 7-10.

So you say it was angels that added to the human gene pool Genesis 6:4.

4. There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare [children] to them, the same [became] mighty men which [were] of old, men of renown.

Does that mean that these angels were of the flesh?

0 Replies

I dont know who asked the question but the answer to this one is "Thats what we mean by epigenetic evolution"

0 Replies

mesquite wrote:

. . .
So you say it was angels that added to the human gene pool

According to the story, those folks ain't around no more.

0 Replies

neologist wrote:

mesquite wrote:
. . .
So you say it was angels that added to the human gene pool
According to the story, those folks ain't around no more.

What folks ain't around no more, the angels or their progeny?

The story doesn't make it clear though whether their genes carried on through Noah.

Were the "sons of God" (fallen angels according to you) of the flesh?

0 Replies

What's going on!!!!! I can't cope up with the discussion!!!! Someone please give me an explanation of whats going on!!!!!!!!!! Question

0 Replies

neo's been getting snippy and hes being put in his place. I dont think RL has visited here lately, and spendi is hung over.

0 Replies

Neo is trying to do an imitation of one thousand angels on the head of a pin rather than offer a scintilla of proof that any on this existence in the result of the actions of a supernatural creator.

It's fun. It's funny. It's sad. It's pathetic.

Joe(but not illuminating or educational in any way.)Nation

0 Replies

oops I was wrong bout rl, he was here yesterday with some assertions and provided some evidence that he only responds to questions which need a bible exegete.

0 Replies

Joe Nation wrote:

Neo is trying to do an imitation of one thousand angels on the head of a pin rather than offer a scintilla of proof that any on this existence in the result of the actions of a supernatural creator. . .

Coherent sentences would be appreciated.

0 Replies

Don't tell me there's any proof for creationism.

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know