(March 26, 2010 at 8:54 pm)RedFish Wrote: So who do you guys call out to when you orgasm? << Think that's a fair question.

Ohhhhhhh...DARWIN!!!!

Nah...it's usually just a lot of noise and moaning, and of course the girl usually cums at the sight of my cock...naturally.

* I is drunk...I can say that.

(March 26, 2010 at 12:33 pm)Thor Wrote: [quote='Godschild'


There wasn't enough time for fable or myth to creep into His story.

Quote:Really? Then I suppose you really believe that George Washington cut down a cherry tree as a boy, and that he never told a lie, and that he threw a silver dollar across the Potomac. After all, these things were written by someone who lived at the same time George Washington did! There wasn't enough time for fable or myth to creep into these stories. Unless, of course, they were myths to begin with...

The stories you mention about George Washington are not absolute fact actually they were written to show the character of the man and this helps strenghten the fact he was a real person. Those are stories told to show Washingtons honesty,trustworthiness and strength of character. The stories in no way make him a fictional character.

Quote:Thor if you like we'll argue the salvation of that particular Pope but like I stated I do not know for a fact he was.

Quote:So you want to argue that the Pope may not have been a Christian? Unbelievable....

Thor read very carfully what I wrote I was asking if you wanted to argue the salvation of Urban II and unbelievable does not seem to be an answer so if you would please a simple yes or no.

(March 27, 2010 at 1:42 am)Godschild Wrote:

(March 26, 2010 at 12:33 pm)Thor Wrote: [quote='Godschild'


There wasn't enough time for fable or myth to creep into His story.

Quote:Really? Then I suppose you really believe that George Washington cut down a cherry tree as a boy, and that he never told a lie, and that he threw a silver dollar across the Potomac. After all, these things were written by someone who lived at the same time George Washington did! There wasn't enough time for fable or myth to creep into these stories. Unless, of course, they were myths to begin with...

The stories you mention about George Washington are not absolute fact actually they were written to show the character of the man and this helps strenghten the fact he was a real person. Those are stories told to show Washingtons honesty,trustworthiness and strength of character. The stories in no way make him a fictional character.

Quote:Thor if you like we'll argue the salvation of that particular Pope but like I stated I do not know for a fact he was.

Quote:So you want to argue that the Pope may not have been a Christian? Unbelievable....

Thor read very carfully what I wrote I was asking if you wanted to argue the salvation of Urban II and unbelievable does not seem to be an answer so if you would please a simple yes or no.

Yes, the Pope was a fucking Christian. All of them were. It's kind of a requirement.

tavarish your not reading what was written either I said salvation not christian many people who go to church are called christian but that in no way means they have received the gift of salvation from God. Actually tavarish I'm not sure how an atheist can qualifiy to speak on salvation since it requires a belief and understanding of who God is and what He did to secure our salvation.

Now for the gospels, strictly speaking no one penned their name to the gospels. The early church gave credit to these men for writing the gospels.The best we can tell about the dates the first gospel was written around 52 AD only 19 years after Jesus crucifiction and the last around 80 AD some 47 years after the crucifiction. What advantage would it be for the early church to place the name Matthew to one of these books. Matthew was a tax collector and tax collectors were not trusted by people in that time so logically this makes no sense. Mark was a companion of Peter and is believed to have received his information directly from Peter,so it seems that if the early church was interested in popularizing the book named after Mark they would have put Peters name to it. Now Luke like Mark was not a disciple of Jesus and this historically correct document could have been attributed to one of the other disciples so that the book would have carried more weight with the people. Also no one else has ever claimed to have written anyone of the gospels and no one else has ever been named the author of any of the gospels. John was given credit for writing the gospel named after him and this credit came from the early church. So what sense would it make to name the gospels after a tax collector,two mostly unknown companions of disciples and a man known for his fishing skills more than his writing ability.
Leave the "Q" document out of this there is no evidence it ever existed.

(March 26, 2010 at 10:15 pm)Tiberius Wrote:

(March 26, 2010 at 8:54 pm)RedFish Wrote: So who do you guys call out to when you orgasm? << Think that's a fair question.

Ohhhhhhh...DARWIN!!!!

Nah...it's usually just a lot of noise and moaning, and of course the girl usually cums at the sight of my cock...naturally.

* I is drunk...I can say that.

Does the girl have a disorder of some sort? 0.o It's got to be pretty 'bad?' to orgasm without being touched... let alone orgasming as a direct and immediate result of seeing Adrian's penis... 0.o

(March 27, 2010 at 3:43 am)Godschild Wrote: tavarish your not reading what was written either I said salvation not christian many people who go to church are called christian but that in no way means they have received the gift of salvation from God. Actually tavarish I'm not sure how an atheist can qualifiy to speak on salvation since it requires a belief and understanding of who God is and what He did to secure our salvation.

read what YOU wrote:

I do not know if that Pope was a christian.Does history record him as saying he was a believer and if so was it recorded by a reliable historian who heard him say he was a believer.

Doesn't being Christian constitute that you accept the gift of salvation from your savior? Are you trying to argue that the Pope might not have been a Christian? When you're elected to the highest office in the religious hierarchy, it's pretty much a dead giveaway that you're a believer in the religion.

(March 27, 2010 at 3:43 am)Godschild Wrote: Now for the gospels, strictly speaking no one penned their name to the gospels. The early church gave credit to these men for writing the gospels.

Which backs up my point that we don't know who wrote them.

(March 27, 2010 at 3:43 am)Godschild Wrote: The best we can tell about the dates the first gospel was written around 52 AD only 19 years after Jesus crucifiction and the last around 80 AD some 47 years after the crucifiction.

That's a conservative figure, but I'll play along. If I told you that I heard about a guy who could fly and shoot laser beams out of his eyes, who died in 1991, and I had nothing to back this up with other than anecdotal evidence, would you believe me? How about if I heard it from a bunch of people that he lived in the 60s? Would that make it any more plausible?

(March 27, 2010 at 3:43 am)Godschild Wrote: What advantage would it be for the early church to place the name Matthew to one of these books. Matthew was a tax collector and tax collectors were not trusted by people in that time so logically this makes no sense.

Your assessment is based on personal incredulity and false assumptions. This isn't evidence of anything.

Just because it makes sense to you doesn't mean you should assume a conclusion without supporting evidence.

(March 27, 2010 at 3:43 am)Godschild Wrote: Mark was a companion of Peter and is believed to have received his information directly from Peter,so it seems that if the early church was interested in popularizing the book named after Mark they would have put Peters name to it.

Again, what are you basing these assumptions on? There are many schools of thought on how the gospels' influence intertwine.

(March 27, 2010 at 3:43 am)Godschild Wrote: Now Luke like Mark was not a disciple of Jesus and this historically correct document could have been attributed to one of the other disciples so that the book would have carried more weight with the people.

It could have also been completely fabricated. The fact is, we don't know.

(March 27, 2010 at 3:43 am)Godschild Wrote: Also no one else has ever claimed to have written anyone of the gospels and no one else has ever been named the author of any of the gospels. John was given credit for writing the gospel named after him and this credit came from the early church. So what sense would it make to name the gospels after a tax collector,two mostly unknown companions of disciples and a man known for his fishing skills more than his writing ability.

This still doesn't change the fact that there is no evidence to support that any of this actually occurred, the ones who were said to write it ACTUALLY wrote it, or that any of it is more than hearsay decades after the fact of his death.

(March 27, 2010 at 3:43 am)Godschild Wrote: Leave the "Q" document out of this there is no evidence it ever existed.

Much like the evidence for Jesus' resurrection and godhood.

Godschild Wrote: " The best we can tell about the dates the first gospel was written around 52 AD only 19 years after Jesus crucifiction and the last around 80 AD some 47 years after the crucifiction."

I honestly don't know where you are getting your facts from since anyone who has studied the origins of scripture know that the oldest gospel is Mark and that is dated around 65 or 70 AD to the year 110 being the last. Here is a quick quote from wikipedia although that is not my main source I have studied this subject thoroughly throughout the years.

the Gospel of Matthew, Gospel of Mark, Gospel of Luke and Gospel of John, probably written between AD 65 and 110. They appear to have been originally untitled; they were quoted anonymously in the first half of the second century (i.e. 100–150) but the names by which they are currently known appear suddenly around the year 180.[1]

Regarding the so called gift of salvation it sounds to me like you are a fundamentalist. I was a Pentecostal evangelist once before I became an atheist and I understand exactly what you are talking about. Some brands of Christians are so arrogant as to think that their brand of Christianity is the true one.

(March 27, 2010 at 1:42 am)Godschild Wrote: The stories you mention about George Washington are not absolute fact actually they were written to show the character of the man and this helps strenghten the fact he was a real person. Those are stories told to show Washingtons honesty,trustworthiness and strength of character. The stories in no way make him a fictional character.

And I was not trying to demonstrate that the stories of Washington cutting down a cherry tree, etc. make him a "fictional character". I was trying to show how weak your position is. You made the point that the gospels were written "only" 19 years after Jesus (supposedly) died. This, to you, lends credence to the stories of his life. I was pointing out that stories were written about George Washington by someone who lived at the same time as Washington, and these stories are fables. So why wouldn't the stories about Jesus be fables also?

Quote:Thor if you like we'll argue the salvation of that particular Pope but like I stated I do not know for a fact he was.

Now you're turning things around! You originally made the comment that you did not know for sure whether or not the Pope was a Christian. I challenged this statement as it is patently absurd. Now you want to twist it into not knowing about "the salvation" of the Pope. This was not what you originally said! Can't you even keep track of what you say?

Quote:Thor read very carfully what I wrote I was asking if you wanted to argue the salvation of Urban II and unbelievable does not seem to be an answer so if you would please a simple yes or no.

Why don't YOU read very carefully what YOU wrote? To refresh your obviously faulty memory, here it is:

"I do not know if that Pope was a christian.Does history record him as saying he was a believer and if so was it recorded by a reliable historian who heard him say he was a believer."

This was the original comment I was responding to! It has nothing whatsoever to do with "salvation".

Yeesh.

(March 26, 2010 at 10:15 pm)Tiberius Wrote:

(March 26, 2010 at 8:54 pm)RedFish Wrote: So who do you guys call out to when you orgasm? << Think that's a fair question.

Ohhhhhhh...DARWIN!!!!

Nah...it's usually just a lot of noise and moaning, and of course the girl usually **** at the sight of my ****...naturally.

I don't mind saying 'god' anytime 'omg baby'

Re: George Washington.. The cherry tree story ain't true? Man I have been HAD. The door to the old Poulton Hall used to stand behind the town hall in my home town. Bordered a graveyard. We played on and around it often as kids. Was FULL of character, overgrown ivy etc, a beautiful thing. Has been moved to completely the wrong place now.
Anywho, we learned the cherry tree story young, and some of us even learned from it. Whenever 'caught' doing something naughty, I would always hold my hand up to it. Always. Because of that story. And that door.
Doesn't change the stories' validity though, I'm not about to renounce honesty or anything...