Did you find your way here, stevie? Good boy....that was two hours of your time well invested.

Originally posted by stevec
It seems that all of the Christians on this website think that I am losing the debate.
WHAT A SHOCK??

Look up "Dunning's Syndrome"....you've got it.

not, so to be safe I will offer this suggestion, do a Google on the "Worlds Oldest Religion" and have a read.

Been there. Done that. Stupid or irrelevant stuff. Next?

I see that JPH has been very reserved about having a crack at me.

I've been busy with other commitments, including a sick family member. Even so, you're getting trounced as is, and I hate to mess with perfection. You're too stupid to know better of course. Besides which, the whole creation-evolution and Noah's Ark deal isn't my bag.... now those dumb comments you made about Constantine and Theodosius, that's another matter. I'd love to hear more of the details on those --- whatever facts you happened to pull out of your bum this week. Let's see, you said:

If you had studied Constantine and Theodosius vigilantly, you would realise that the bible was written in about 400 AD.

The WHOLE Bible???? Uh, gee, so what about the copies of the OT found at Qumran? I guess they sorta snuck those in and fooled scholars into dating them first century and earlier, huh?

What about the Chester Beatty papyri, P66, Codex Sinaiticus, etc all dated earlier than 400? What about all the quotations and allusions in patristic writers prior to 400, from which we could virtually reconstruct the NT? I guess you're too smart for all those scholars who disagree.

Constantines influence was huge.

Oh? What'd he do, specifically? Give you a dutch rub?

Did you know that there is not one single shred of proof to the existence of any of the characters in the bible?

Did you know that's a pile steaming pile of bovine excrement and that you're exceptionally stupid? OK, let's pick one from each testament: 1) Jesus, 2) King Jehu. Tell us why they didn't exist.

Find me one grave and some DNA. You can't and won't because it doesn't exist.

Golly, you think graves and DNA are required to show someone existed? OK, now, where's that DNA for the Emperor Nero then? How about the grave of Josephus, where's that at? Did you put it in your pocket?

Wait, lemme guess -- all history is bunk, right? No one actually existed until 1877.

What about the Dead Sea Scrolls??

What about 'em? Quit spilling mustard on them, you slob!

To save you time,I'll even answer the above for you, as you would:


"Duuuhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh....what?"

Since this rant thread was created for you, I'll respond to you here:

Originally posted by stevec

Well, lilangel of error, you seem to be getting a bit worked up because your spelling is becoming atrocious.

for starters, I've always been a bad speller. Two, the spell check didn't catch anything, perhaps you can correct it? Three, why would you work me up? You are a great deal of entertainment and just a distraction from a real debate I'm having on another thread.

I'm not too sure about all of the personal attacks you keep referring to.

So you don't understand that attacking and persons spelling and not answering a single one of their arguments is not a personal attack? Are you really this thick skulled?

I've mad a couple of comments, but none so many as you have.

One good insult deserves another, don't you think?

I believe that I have refrained extremely well from attacking you personally. If you'd like some gloves off insults, I can do that easy, but that only brings me down to a primitive level of debate, and that just wouldn't be cricket, now would it??

*Yawn* going to answer me now?

You keep telling me that I am not answering your arguments, but you are not throwing any my way.

Are you trying to save yourself some face? Got answers now?

Monolism isn't even worth arguing about.

Translation: "I don't know what it is, let alone understand it."

All you are doing is insulting me and avoiding my comments, as I knew you would because you don't have solid answers to my questions.

I avoid your comments? I answered them and showed them to be in error... BTW, that's STAL's argument, not mine.

MORNING and EVENING used with DAY.
Yet you still persist that the use of the word DAY does not refer to that very thing in the areas that I am talking about. Blood types Adam and Eve had to be O. Mentioned several times with no response from you.
For me to be losing a debate, I have to be having one, but it seems that the only person I am arguing with here is myself, as you don't seem to possess the ability to offer an alternative.
Tell me why you keep avoiding these 2 questions.

That's STAL's argument, not mine. BTW, why does Adam and Eve need to have O blood and if that is true, how does this disprove the story? Oh yeah... use this strange thing called a 'Hebrew dictionary' and look up the word used in Hebrew that is translated to Day in English than look at the definition and tell us all what it says. Now, got any real arguments?

blah blah blah... rant... rant... rant...

That is about all that is worth... now moving on to the rest...

I've read through your posts and I'll be gosh darned if I can see any answers!!

Lilangelof error, you are a scream.

Translation: "I can't answer you, so I'm going to insult you." Isn't that so much easier? Now, do you have any answers now?

Laugh as hard as you like. I know who's winning this debate, so bask in your own minds hollow glory for as long as you wish.

One thing you can always tell when somebody is loosing a debate, they keep insulting you, avoiding answering you, and keep trying to claim victory. Keep showing you don't have a clue about anything that is going on...

Blah blah blah...

Answer the 2 questions above or the debate stops here and I declare myself the winner, by default of a non-answer on your part. Put more simply:- "SHOW ME THE MONEY".
Gloves are off, put up or shut up.

1. STAL is debating you on those issues, thus that's his debate, not mine.
2. I answered you on each and every point you made to me on free will and you refuse to answer me, what's the problem, cat got your tongue?

Now again, why doesn't free will exist? Why can't you understand that I don't not accept the assumption that events are set and stone and if one changes, everything changes. Now, going to offer answers now?

Crystal

I'm still waiting for SteveC to answer me. I'm particularly interested in discussing miracles.

Constantine did a heck of a lot of bad crap, but rewriting the biblical canon certainly wasn't one of those things.

Originally posted by Amazing Rando

Constantine did a heck of a lot of bad crap, but rewriting the biblical canon certainly wasn't one of those things.

Acutally Constantine's influence on Christian theolgoy was far less than most people give him credit for. All he reallly did was end perscution of Christians, and allowed the church to hold consoles to affirm their central doctrines.

He wasn't talking about theology. Rando's a pacifist.

Originally posted by Darth Executor

He wasn't talking about theology. Rando's a pacifist.

Well, partly theology too. Constantine waffled big time over the issue of Arianism. Sure he enforced the anti-Arian decrees of Nicea, but he also recalled several exiled Arian bishops after initially banishing them, and on his deathbed, he was baptized by Eusebius of Nicomedia, one of the Arian bishops who had refused to sign on to the Nicene creedal statement.

OK genius, if you are SOOO CLEVER tell me how old you think the existence of mankind on this planet is??
I'm talking from Adam and EVE until present day. The nearest couple of thousand years will be close enough for me to shoot you down in flames.
Now this can either be your personal opinion, or something that you have thoroughly researched, I don't care, just so long as you have some sort of answer.
I'm going to keep my threads extremely short from now on, as the longer they are the more it confuses you imbeciles.

for starters, I've always been a bad speller.
Funny lilangelof error, this is one thing I tend to notice, and your earlier posts were quite literate.
As for the spell check, you probably hit the wrong button when you were trying to wipe the steam off your glasses.
So you don't understand that attacking and persons spelling and not answering a single one of their arguments is not a personal attack? Are you really this thick skulled?
I hadn't attacked your spelling until this response, and yes, according to you, I am this thick skulled. I went to school and learned about gravity and physics and science and time relativity, etc,etc,etc. So forgive me if the BS you are trying to push onto society defies all this and you don't have the intelligence to see it. As for answering arguments, if you cut and paste, and STAL cuts and pastes the same arguments, I will assume that you are both having a dip at me.
So expect to get replies. If you don't want replies to those things, don't attack them in your post.
So what is your particular specialised field of the bible, just so I know which bits to use to make you look like the idiot that you are.

Originally posted by ApologiaPhoenix

I'm still waiting for SteveC to answer me. I'm particularly interested in discussing miracles.

Where would you like to start??

Originally posted by lilangelofterror

Since this rant thread was created for you, I'll respond to you here:



for starters, I've always been a bad speller. Two, the spell check didn't catch anything, perhaps you can correct it? Three, why would you work me up? You are a great deal of entertainment and just a distraction from a real debate I'm having on another thread.



So you don't understand that attacking and persons spelling and not answering a single one of their arguments is not a personal attack? Are you really this thick skulled?



One good insult deserves another, don't you think?



*Yawn* going to answer me now?



Are you trying to save yourself some face? Got answers now?



Translation: "I don't know what it is, let alone understand it."



I avoid your comments? I answered them and showed them to be in error... BTW, that's STAL's argument, not mine.



That's STAL's argument, not mine. BTW, why does Adam and Eve need to have O blood and if that is true, how does this disprove the story? Oh yeah... use this strange thing called a 'Hebrew dictionary' and look up the word used in Hebrew that is translated to Day in English than look at the definition and tell us all what it says. Now, got any real arguments?



That is about all that is worth... now moving on to the rest...



Translation: "I can't answer you, so I'm going to insult you." Isn't that so much easier? Now, do you have any answers now?



One thing you can always tell when somebody is loosing a debate, they keep insulting you, avoiding answering you, and keep trying to claim victory. Keep showing you don't have a clue about anything that is going on...



1. STAL is debating you on those issues, thus that's his debate, not mine.
2. I answered you on each and every point you made to me on free will and you refuse to answer me, what's the problem, cat got your tongue?

Now again, why doesn't free will exist? Why can't you understand that I don't not accept the assumption that events are set and stone and if one changes, everything changes. Now, going to offer answers now?

Crystal

JPH, you are a gem of wisdom. You take my responses and cut them up into the smallest pieces so that no one can follow them. You then throw really big insults at me when you don't have answers.
Let's do this one piece at a time, right from the beginning, that is if you are up to it.
Time is a measurement of distance, not a collection of prescriptive words.
This is the point I am trying to make. A day is a 24 hour measure, give or take a few minutes.
It does not need the word morning to work, or evening to work. These are just words that we use to describe the cycle. Removing the words alone will not stop the cycle of time.
The Bible was one of two things.
It was either written by Moses for God, or it was written for God by Moses.
Do you see a difference in the two terms above??
One makes Moses the author outright, the other makes him the author / interpreter for someone / something else.
Now, if God wrote it using Moses hands, he would not need to include time relativity at all, because I am led to believe, through researching Christian websites, that he exists outside of time and space, and in fact, created them. So the use of creation days would be a mute point. No need for him to mention day 1, day 2, day 3 etc. He has no use for these terms. One would assume that the terms were put there for our benefit. Hence, they would be relative to us, so a day would be a cycle of 24 hours as we know it. Morning, evening, days, seasons, months and years. All relative prescriptive words used by us (Mankind.)
So if you are an OEC, then your interpretation of these words would require the stretching of time in some or all of the creation days, until the need for a 24 hour cycle was used. That's why the first chapters of Genesis have been pushed to dramatically long time periods. To sustain the OEC argument. Tell me at what point did the 24 hour measurement begin, because to refute that it is a constant right from the beginning, you must have an argument to substantiate this, which I have not yet seen.

Originally posted by jpholding

Did you find your way here, stevie? Good boy....that was two hours of your time well invested.



Look up "Dunning's Syndrome"....you've got it.



Been there. Done that. Stupid or irrelevant stuff. Next?



I've been busy with other commitments, including a sick family member. Even so, you're getting trounced as is, and I hate to mess with perfection. You're too stupid to know better of course. Besides which, the whole creation-evolution and Noah's Ark deal isn't my bag.... now those dumb comments you made about Constantine and Theodosius, that's another matter. I'd love to hear more of the details on those --- whatever facts you happened to pull out of your bum this week. Let's see, you said:



The WHOLE Bible???? Uh, gee, so what about the copies of the OT found at Qumran? I guess they sorta snuck those in and fooled scholars into dating them first century and earlier, huh?

What about the Chester Beatty papyri, P66, Codex Sinaiticus, etc all dated earlier than 400? What about all the quotations and allusions in patristic writers prior to 400, from which we could virtually reconstruct the NT? I guess you're too smart for all those scholars who disagree.



Oh? What'd he do, specifically? Give you a dutch rub?



Did you know that's a pile steaming pile of bovine excrement and that you're exceptionally stupid? OK, let's pick one from each testament: 1) Jesus, 2) King Jehu. Tell us why they didn't exist.



Golly, you think graves and DNA are required to show someone existed? OK, now, where's that DNA for the Emperor Nero then? How about the grave of Josephus, where's that at? Did you put it in your pocket?

Wait, lemme guess -- all history is bunk, right? No one actually existed until 1877.



What about 'em? Quit spilling mustard on them, you slob!

To save you time,I'll even answer the above for you, as you would:


"Duuuhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh....what?"

Gee, how dumb of me, I hit the reply button on lilangelof error, not JPH.
Sorry about that. The last post was meant for JPH.

Now again, why doesn't free will exist? Why can't you understand that I don't not accept the assumption that events are set and stone and if one changes, everything changes. Now, going to offer answers now?

Ever heard of the ripple effect?? It's an interesting concept and is relevant to any example you wish to use. I'll use a simple one, just for you.
You throw a stone in the water, don't think much of it. Guess what, you have possibly just changed some major events, for contained in that water were 2 different types of bacteria.
Before you threw the stone in the water, they were going to join and create a new gentically different bacteria. This didn't happen because the stone you threw in the water prevented the
bacteria from meeting. That bacteria was going to be the cure for a disease. Now it won't happen because of your action creating a reaction. Following me so far??
I can slow it down if you want, I know the concept is hard for you to understand, but just bear with me.
That cure for the disease that has now not been created has just wiped an entire species of the planet. All because you threw a little stone into a puddle. One small change, huge ramifications.
Now from the above, do you understand the ramifications of changing a series of events and the consequences that can follow?? If you don't, you'd best put your degree back in the cereal box you got it from. Free-will works on the same concept, simply by Moses parents not meeting, Moses would not exist. God had to make sure they met.

Check your reply links guys.
I just tried to send the above reply to lilangelof error, and it went to Amazing Rando.
Didn't have this problem in the screwballs thread.

BTW, why does Adam and Eve need to have O blood

Do some blood research, O can only produce O and it is the purest blood.
Any other mix of blood type to an O is fatal.
We have A's and B's and AB neg's and all sorts of wonderful mixes, but you cannot get O from any combination of any other blood type. Hence, they both would have been O, and O cannot produce anything but O. (For the record, I happen to be O negative, so my blood is pure.)
There are web sites that refute this, but the medical evidence is stacked in favor of this argument.

Originally posted by stevec

Do some blood research, O can only produce O and it is the purest blood.
Any other mix of blood type to an O is fatal.
We have A's and B's and AB neg's and all sorts of wonderful mixes, but you cannot get O from any combination of any other blood type. Hence, they both would have been O, and O cannot produce anything but O. (For the record, I happen to be O negative, so my blood is pure.)
There are web sites that refute this, but the medical evidence is stacked in favor of this argument.

What does any of this have to do with what their blood types would have to be?

In the futrue will you please try to make sure your conclusions follow?