Re: The Second Coming Of Jesus Christ

On May 23, 3:47 am, monkfish <monkfish@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> Thom Madura wrote:
> > rogue wrote:
> >> On May 22, 2:02 pm, "Fred A Stover" <fredstov...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
wrote:
> >>> "rogue" <rogue...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>
>
news:45530841-67b2-452e-8bd9-667128bd5376@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> >>>> On May 21, 6:40 am, "Fred A Stover" <fredstov...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
wrote:
> >>>>> "rogue" <rogue...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>
> news:5f4cbed6-3a2a-470d-90df-db162dbe4131@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
>
> >>>>>> On May 20, 5:58 am, "Fred A Stover" <fredstov...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> >>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>> "Mike Painter" <mddotpain...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
> >>>>>>>news:G9pYj.2232$l97.1851@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >>>>>>>> rogue wrote:
> >>>>>>>>  >> ?????????? DUH.......They mean the same thing Dumasso.
> >>>>>>>> Generation
> >>>>>>>> is
> >>>>>>>>>> what is generated, and race is the people generated.
> >>>>>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>>>> JERRY
> >>>>>>>>> No, dumbass, a "generation" is the group of people you grew up
> >>>>>>>>> with.
> >>>>>>>>> Your peers.
> >>>>>>>>> You are living proof of what I have been saying for the past 2
> >>>>>>>>> years.
> >>>>>>>>> The quality of intelligence of theists has declined
appreciably in
> >>>>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>>> past two years.  I used to be able to have some really good
> >>>>>>>>> debates
> >>>>>>>>> and discussions on the bible in Usenet.  Now I get people like
> >>>>>>>>> you. ;-)
> >>>>>>>> They use the Humpty Dumpty approach to the meaning of words.
> >>>>>>> We learned to read. You didn't.
> >>>>>> JERRY
> >>>>>> Yep, that's why theists show the most amazingly poor reading
> >>>>>> comprehension I have ever seen in newsgroups.
> >>>>> We seen your amusing attempts at reading the Bible.
> >>>> JERRY
> >>>> And I've seen your amusing attempts trying to debate skeptics,
Fred.
> >>>> Don't hurt yourself. ;-)
> >>> ROTFL.......your reading and "unterpreting" is on line for all to
see.
>
> >> JERRY
> >> <smiles>  Well, Fred, you haven't yet proved me wrong.  I not only
> >> showed the verse(s) but linked them to show that I was correct and
the
> >> bible DOES say that the Second Coming was supposed to happen during
> >> the lifetimes of the disciples.  So far you have nothing but a lot of
> >> lip and very little brainpower.
>
> >> If you don't want to debate that, you can also take your shot on
> >> failed prophecy, the bible's historical inaccuracies or we can tackle
> >> the issue of who first saw the risen Jesus?
>
> >> When you can do more than talk, you earn respect.  So far, you're
> >> seriously hurting in the respect department.
>
> > THe "bible" is not proof. With the exception of a few apostolic
letters
> >   - which can be dated but not authenticated - there is no sup****t
> > material for the stories in the bible.  Since - by definition - a
bible
> > or encyclopedia is a reference book that depends on its sources for
> > verification - since it is written third party - one cannot use the
> > bible as proof - only the source material it is based on.
>
> > Having been compiled about 300 years past the age of the christ - one
> > cannot even say that any of the passages are written first person.
> > Unless the christ was being followed around by a scribe to write down
> > everything he said (of which we have no evidence either)- quotes from
> > the bible are simply quotes from the bible - and cannot be attributed
to
> > the christ.
>
> > Anything written outside the native languages of Hebrew, Aramaic, and
> > Latin would obviously need a basis for verification. It really makes
not
> > difference what a word means in greek - every word written in greek
that
> > you translate for the bible IMPLIES third party again.
>
> You really should know a little more about how God works.
> God is not going to force you to believe in Him
> by providing "testable and provable" evidence.

JERRY
Gosh, and it looks so much more like the fact that he doesn't exist at
all.
>
>monkfish
> You really should compare the Bible
> with other books of similar age,
> not with your comicbook idea of revelation.

JERRY
How about the fact that the bible as written would appeal to the
comparatively ignorant and unsophisticated goatherders of two
thousands years ago but simply appears quaint at best to people who
know the earth is round, that the sun doesn't revolve around the sun
and who expect that there be some evidence that this book is more true
than the Quran, the Bhagavad-gita or even the scrawlings on cave
walls?

After all, if God wants his creation to come to him, if he really and
truly loves us, wouldn't it make sense that he provides the blueprint
that reflects his own perfection, that is historically accurate, true
on prophecy and doesn't contradict itself so that people can know that
it's true?

What's the old expression?  IF it looks like a duck, walks like a duck
and quacks like a duck it's probably a duck.  Well, substitute "myth"
for duck and there you go. ;-)