(May 2, 2016 at 8:55 am)LadyForCamus Wrote:

(May 2, 2016 at 8:44 am)Wryetui Wrote: It is right because it is the original one and because it was developed from the apostolic fathers, that learned from the apostles.

And what kind of demonstrable evidence would you be satisfacted with? You said I did not read "the Bible", what evidence do you have for this?

However, the Bible is not a book. It is a collection of 80 writings of different epochs and persons. And it is a product of Sacred Tradition, that existed from the beginning of the revelation, only later it got written. And no, my main fountaine of knowledge it is not any of the books of Sacred Scripture, but rather Sacred Tradition.

In other words: hearsay.

What is the nature of accusation? On what evidence do you base on?

All this is absolutely pathetic.  
On one hand we have somebody that try to say that God exist because of Jesus.
On the other hand we have somebody else that say that it is ridiculous to believe in God
based on someone who existed in a crumb of planet 2000 thousand years ago.
A tiny dot such as our planet in the whole universe is insignificant and therefore it doesn't make any sense.
Both wrong chaps.  

Both very very wrong.  

External evidence is not real evidence and evidence can only be found within so religions fail badly
by relying on external data in history.
Atheists also fail because if God exist he got to be MULTIdimensional therefore he-she can
appear in any planet where life is possible at the same time under different appearances
according the culture and the need of a particular situation.
One of the many atheists dogma is that because we human are UNIdimensional
also a possible God must be UNIdimensional as us or have a physical appearance.  
To conclude both ideas are defective therefore this verbal exchange can not possibly lead anywhere
that make any sense.  

(May 2, 2016 at 9:14 am)Little Rik Wrote: All this is absolutely pathetic.  
On one hand we have somebody that try to say that God exist because of Jesus.
On the other hand we have somebody else that say that it is ridiculous to believe in God
based on someone who existed in a crumb of planet 2000 thousand years ago.
A tiny dot such as our planet in the whole universe is insignificant and therefore it doesn't make any sense.
Both wrong chaps.  

Both very very wrong.  

External evidence is not real evidence and evidence can only be found within so religions fail badly
by relying on external data in history.
Atheists also fail because if God exist he got to be MULTIdimensional therefore he-she can
appear in any planet where life is possible at the same time under different appearances
according the culture and the need of a particular situation.
One of the many atheists dogma is that because we human are UNIdimensional
also a possible God must be UNIdimensional as us or have a physical appearance.  
To conclude both ideas are defective therefore this verbal exchange can not possibly lead anywhere
that make any sense.  

Rick, dude...I love you, but you've GOT to stop eating paint chips.

(May 2, 2016 at 9:15 am)LadyForCamus Wrote:

(May 2, 2016 at 9:14 am)Little Rik Wrote: All this is absolutely pathetic.  
On one hand we have somebody that try to say that God exist because of Jesus.
On the other hand we have somebody else that say that it is ridiculous to believe in God
based on someone who existed in a crumb of planet 2000 thousand years ago.
A tiny dot such as our planet in the whole universe is insignificant and therefore it doesn't make any sense.
Both wrong chaps.  

Both very very wrong.  

External evidence is not real evidence and evidence can only be found within so religions fail badly
by relying on external data in history.
Atheists also fail because if God exist he got to be MULTIdimensional therefore he-she can
appear in any planet where life is possible at the same time under different appearances
according the culture and the need of a particular situation.
One of the many atheists dogma is that because we human are UNIdimensional
also a possible God must be UNIdimensional as us or have a physical appearance.  
To conclude both ideas are defective therefore this verbal exchange can not possibly lead anywhere
that make any sense.  

Rick, dude...I love you, but you've GOT to stop eating paint chips.

Ok.
I will stop eating those paint chips but you got to promise me that you keep away from that funny man.
Deal?  

(May 2, 2016 at 9:25 am)Little Rik Wrote:

(May 2, 2016 at 9:15 am)LadyForCamus Wrote: Rick, dude...I love you, but you've GOT to stop eating paint chips.

Ok.
I will stop eating those paint chips but you got to promise me that you keep away from that funny man.
Deal?  

Lol, what funny man?

(May 2, 2016 at 9:27 am)LadyForCamus Wrote:

(May 2, 2016 at 9:25 am)Little Rik Wrote: Ok.
I will stop eating those paint chips but you got to promise me that you keep away from that funny man.
Deal?  

Lol, what funny man?

Cheek to cheek next to you.  

(May 2, 2016 at 9:31 am)Little Rik Wrote:

(May 2, 2016 at 9:27 am)LadyForCamus Wrote: Lol, what funny man?

Cheek to cheek next to you.  

LOL, oh you mean my husband? [emoji14] Something tells me he might object to your terms! :: light bulb :: :: indubitably :: Damn, Ricky! How did you know I have a shameless soft spot for flattery?!

(May 2, 2016 at 9:43 am)LadyForCamus Wrote:

(May 2, 2016 at 9:31 am)Little Rik Wrote: Cheek to cheek next to you.  

LOL, oh you mean my husband?  [emoji14]  Something tells me he might object to your terms!  :: light bulb ::  :: indubitably ::  Damn, Ricky!  How did you know I have a shameless soft spot for flattery?!

Once you or anyone else start the flattery and the jokes you or anyone else must be ready to get the
same things back.
It is fair.  

(May 2, 2016 at 8:44 am)Wryetui Wrote: It is right because it is the original one and because it was developed from the apostolic fathers, that learned from the apostles.

And which version of the goat fucker's guide to life, the universe, and everything be, santorum sucker? There are over 30,000 different versions of the bible floating around currently.

(May 2, 2016 at 9:55 am)Little Rik Wrote:

(May 2, 2016 at 9:43 am)LadyForCamus Wrote: LOL, oh you mean my husband?  [emoji14]  Something tells me he might object to your terms!  :: light bulb ::  :: indubitably ::  Damn, Ricky!  How did you know I have a shameless soft spot for flattery?!

Once you or anyone else start the flattery and the jokes you or anyone else must be ready to get the
same things back.
It is fair.  

I think you missed the tone of my response. I was thanking you for being kind! May I ask, is English your first language?