by Andrew <thecroft@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
Feb 12, 2008 at 07:55 PM
On 2008-02-12 19:27:50 +0000, "Mary" <mary123@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> said:
>
> "thomas p." <gudloos@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
> news:47b1f16e$0$2088$edfadb0f@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>
>> "Andrew" <thecroft@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> skrev i en meddelelse
>> news:2008021216203850073-thecroft@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>> On 2008-02-12 16:01:28 +0000, "Mary" <mary123@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> said:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Bill M" <wmech@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>>>> news:6Y_rj.29689$1f.2282@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> He created Adam from dirt and Eve from Adam's rib.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Then he 'supposedly' created Jesus, a god on earth, by impregnating
>>>>> Mary
>>>>> and having Jesus live a relatively normal childhood. He was a
carpenter
>>>>> in
>>>>> his adulthood until he was 30.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Then for one, two or three years (depending on which Bible you wish
to
>>>>> believe)
>>>>>
>>>>> he lectured to a very small ****tion of the world population about
his
>>>>> wishes and commands.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Why did he place himself on earth in such an irrational fa****on? Why
>>>>> didn't he just follow Adam's simple direct process of coming to
earth?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> He apparently was incapable of reproducing his teaching in any
>>>>> permanent
>>>>> form as
>>>>>
>>>>> there are no original records of his existence or teaching. All that
>>>>> exists are copies of copies by other men of totally unknown veracity
>>>>> and
>>>>> accuracy. There are NO originals - just copies of unknown origin.
How
>>>>> can
>>>>> we know what the originals said?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Why would an all powerful God creator provide his creations with
such
>>>>> inaccurate and questionable instructions?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The whole God/Jesus story is about as believable as Aesop's Fables.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> We have two possiblilities here:
>>>>
>>>> 1. Jesus and God are COMPLETE morons,
>>>> 2. God does not exist and either Jesus did not exist or was just some
>>>> bloke.
>>>
>>> Or the other - and more likely option - that Bill's post is simply
>>> tendentious rivel.
>>>
>>
>> What sepecifically did he say that was wrong?
>>
> oh nothing. It's just that the religious nutcases resort to comments
like
> that when they haven't got anything intelligent to say to back up their
> silly "invisible sky entity" arguments.
His question is tendentious. His use of the word 'supposedly' is
tendentious. It is intended to suggest disinterested statement of fact
but actually betrays a belief regarding the truth of those statements.
