"Andrew" <thecroft@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> skrev i en meddelelse
news:200802122110338930-thecroft@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On 2008-02-12 20:50:38 +0000, "Ralph" <mmman_90@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> said:
>
>>
>> "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 :-).
>
> I like to engage in novalinguistication whenever I can, obviously.
'Rivel'
> are the collected dried droppings of the cave -dwelling Gazolo bird,
> pulped and allowed to ferment by the local tribes for use in their
> prognosticatory rituals and ceremonies. Sorry - thought everyone knew
> that.
>
Do you know what "tendentious" means? Bill is tendentious; you seem to
think there is something wrong with it; yet you clearly are being
tendentious.
|
