Satan - the Quintessential Shyster

You're being silly in the last sentence. A day does not equal six days, no matter what your definition of day.

0 Replies

Wolf_ODonnell wrote:

You're being silly in the last sentence. A day does not equal six days, no matter what your definition of day.

Not my definition, silly. Nor yours. That's the whole point.

0 Replies

Well, anyway, it's rather strange and you can't explain it any other way unless you say the two stories were different, from different times and aren't meant to be taken literally.

I still think God is a shyster. I mean, God spoke to Moses face to face in Exodus 33 in their camp in Mount Sinai. Yet later on in Exodus 33, God says Moses can not see his face without dying and then proceeds to (depending on which version of the Bible you're reading) either show his back to Moses or moon him.

Satan a shyster? Sure, but God does his fair share.

0 Replies

The irrational rationalizations of the believer seem boundless.

It is proper to agree in discussion first on the definitions of words used, something I cattle prod Neo about in the feed lot of his religious fervor.

Not unsurprisingly, Neo shows little sign of conforming to the norms of rational argumentation, preferring instead the interpretive dance of the argument by authority.

Neo's position in a nutshell: 'The Bible is correct as I interpret it.'

0 Replies

Quote:

The irrational rationalizations of the believer seem boundless.

There's little need to insult people. How about a phrase like "Some of your statements don't appear rational to me"

Quote:

Once again, the obvious grouping of days into one at Genesis 2:4 and the fact that the seventh creative day has not yet ended.

Neo, I would disagree. There is nothing obvious about it. Nor is there anything obvious about the 7th creative day having not ended.

On the last bit, the 4th commandment, about remembering the seventh day to keep it holy, for God make the heavens and the earth in six days and rested on the seventh (going from memory)...wouldn't make sense if the seventh day hadn't finished yet.

0 Replies

vikorr wrote:

Quote:
The irrational rationalizations of the believer seem boundless.

There's little need to insult people. How about a phrase like "Some of your statements don't appear rational to me"

What "people" do you claim I "insult"?

Why should it matter if some "people" take "insult" to my posts?

Why should I be responsible for what you claim some "people" take as "insult"?

I claim all your posts insult at least some people, thus I by the same inane token advise you "There's little need to insult people."

Thus by the same inane token I advise you "there is little need" for you to post at all.

0 Replies

Quote:

Why should it matter if some "people" take "insult" to my posts?

The answer to that you will need to find from within yourself.

Quote:

Why should I be responsible for what you claim some "people" take as "insult"?

That is not what I said.

0 Replies

I do not have any concern because you claim some "people" take "insult" to my posts.

Yes you did infer that I need to take responsibility, else you would not have advised me "There's little need to insult people."

0 Replies

Quote:

I do not have any concern because you claim some "people" take "insult" to my posts.

Once again, I did not say that.

However, as to the intention of what you say - That is up to you.

Quote:

Yes you did infer that I need to take responsibility, else you would not have advised me "There's little need to insult people."

The insults you issue are your responsibility. A person being offended by insults - the offense taken is their own responsibility. The consequences are just that, consequences.

Of course here, where consequences are minimised due to physical separation, people can't naturally react to insults, there is less motivation to be polite.

0 Replies

Given your advisement that

vikorr wrote:

There's little need to insult people.

I find a number of your ongoing claims rather dubious, however you can perhaps clear up your good name by explaining precisely why you made the above assertion in the apropos context naturally.

0 Replies

vik's good name looks fine from where i stand. i didn't know it tarnished someone's reputation to take insult, let alone imply it.

0 Replies

More like a dose of patronization and specious claims.

0 Replies

Wolf_ODonnell wrote:

Well, anyway, it's rather strange and you can't explain it any other way unless you say the two stories were different, from different times and aren't meant to be taken literally.

I still think God is a shyster. I mean, God spoke to Moses face to face in Exodus 33 in their camp in Mount Sinai. Yet later on in Exodus 33, God says Moses can not see his face without dying and then proceeds to (depending on which version of the Bible you're reading) either show his back to Moses or moon him.

Satan a shyster? Sure, but God does his fair share.

Once again, your literal interpretation of 'face to face' prevents you from understanding the degree of intimate communication Moses had with God, which no doubt occurred through angelic spokesmen.

0 Replies

I see folks have not been playing nice in my absence.

For the record, I do not take offense at anything Chumly might post. My skin is very thick. And I take solace in the fact that Chumly is

Wrong

Wrong

Wrong

Wrong

Wrong

Wrong

Not to mention Canadian. :wink: Razz

0 Replies

I was with you, Neo, until you mentioned Canadian in the tone that you did. Sad

0 Replies

Yeah, but I actually LIKE Chumly.

So, its OK, right?

0 Replies

I suppose the country where Larry Flynt came from can't be holy bad.

http://larryflynt.com/mycms/

0 Replies

neologist wrote:

Wolf_ODonnell wrote:
. . .
Adam and Eve lived for another 900 or so odd years. It would take a very bizarre definition of day or death, for them to have died the same day of them eating the fruit yet still live to 930.
HMM. . . Let's see. . . How will we evaluate the consequences of A & E's decision?

Before eating fruit - could live forever and would still be here.

After eating fruit - died

Noteworthy difference, to say the least.

No wonder Moses didn't try to fudge the words.

Once again neo conveniently forgets that it was the denial of access to the Tree of Life that caused the loss of everlasting life for Adam and Eve. A really rotten thing for God to do considering their innocence.

in Genesis 3:22 Moses purportedly wrote:

23 And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:
23 Therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken.
24 So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life.

0 Replies

Quote:

More like a dose of patronization

well, you're the doctor!

0 Replies

Quote:

Quote:
There's little need to insult people.
I find a number of your ongoing claims rather dubious, however you can perhaps clear up your good name by explaining precisely why you made the above assertion in the apropos context naturally.

0 Replies

Satan - the Quintessential Shyster

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know