"Andrew" <thecroft@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:2008021219551475249-thecroft@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 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.
Gee Andrew, did you learn a new word today? You have used 'tendentious'
three times within two posts. Are you attempting to impress someone? by
the
way, why don't you give me a definition of 'rivel' since you used it after
you used 'tendentious'. I am not familiar with that word :-).
|
