Uuuuuum...

(May 10, 2010 at 6:17 pm)xangelusx Wrote: It wasn't the criticism I was citing you for. It was the use of the words "dummy" and "twat" in reference to me, your sexist solicitation towards Eilonnwy, and finally your absolutely asinine approach towards debate.

Ok I apologise.

Do you admit that Q3 is flawed?

(Oh and BTW I'm allowed to make jokes. Just because you've had a humour transplant doesn't make sour faces compulsory)

(May 10, 2010 at 6:52 pm)Watson Wrote: Uuuuuum...

I removed it and politely informed him to use the Introduction forums.

(May 10, 2010 at 6:17 pm)Eilonnwy Wrote: God said they'd die, did they die?

Yes!

Spiritually. Everyone knows that Eilonnwy. Wow - you failed at Xtianity 101 hock:

You owe me!

(May 10, 2010 at 6:57 pm)fr0d0 Wrote:

(May 10, 2010 at 6:17 pm)Eilonnwy Wrote: God said they'd die, did they die?

Yes!

Spiritually. Everyone knows that Eilonnwy. Wow - you failed at Xtianity 101 hock:

You owe me!

Already argued the spirituality excuse. Way to be late to the game.

(May 10, 2010 at 6:53 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: Do you admit that Q3 is flawed?

(Oh and BTW I'm allowed to make jokes. Just because you've had a humour transplant doesn't make sour faces compulsory)

Absolutely not. Question 2 could be read as "So you agree that [at least] some things in the Bible are not literal, like Adam and Eve?", in which case question 3 is still a logical question. Perhaps I over simplified the answers, but A.) the original set of questions also assumed an oversimplified set of responses, and B.) it was partly rhetorical.

I never said you couldn't make jokes - by all means, please do. What I did not appreciate was your insulting responses to an otherwise civil debate. We clearly do not see eye to eye, but I at least granted you the courtesy of not resorting to personal attacks to make my points.

You're insane Eilonnwy! You think the Bible defines God as truth whilst at the same time showing that he lied??? Maybe you're really a christian too.... trying to emphasise the idiocy of the atheist position!

Seriously, I'm amazed!

Fr0d0, I'm amazed at the complete idiocy of your rebuttal.

You said God can't lie, I pointed out an example in your religion where he lied. All you can do to refute is make the pathetic excuse that he meant spiritually. Well, last time I checked, words have meanings, and without the qualifier of "Spiritually" in the story, dead is dead.

I think the Bible is a piece of crap, but if you believe in it and are going to argue on the basis of believing in it that God can't lie, well, I have merely shown you the absurdity of your assertion.

(May 10, 2010 at 7:01 pm)xangelusx Wrote:

(May 10, 2010 at 6:53 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: Do you admit that Q3 is flawed?

(Oh and BTW I'm allowed to make jokes. Just because you've had a humour transplant doesn't make sour faces compulsory)

Absolutely not. Question 2 could be read as "So you agree that [at least] some things in the Bible are not literal, like Adam and Eve?", in which case question 3 is still a logical question. Perhaps I over simplified the answers, but A.) the original set of questions also assumed an oversimplified set of responses, and B.) it was partly rhetorical.

I never said you couldn't make jokes - by all means, please do. What I did not appreciate was your insulting responses to an otherwise civil debate. We clearly do not see eye to eye, but I at least granted you the courtesy of not resorting to personal attacks to make my points.

You oversimplified the answer making it illogical. Your Q3 makes the point that the Bible is either Allegorical or literal, whilst in Q2 you already concede that it's a bit of both.

I'm not being insulting, I'm having fun. Please don't take it that way. My point was serious... I am, after all helping you with questions to trip up Christians am I not?

On the other hand, your retorts were attempts at serious slurs. I forgive you as you don't seem to know me. Peace brother

---

(May 10, 2010 at 7:08 pm)Eilonnwy Wrote: Fr0d0, I'm amazed at the complete idiocy of your rebuttal.

You said God can't lie, I pointed out an example in your religion where he lied. All you can do to refute is make the pathetic excuse that he meant spiritually. Well, last time I checked, words have meanings, and without the qualifier of "Spiritually" in the story, dead is dead.

I think the Bible is a piece of crap, but if you believe in it and are going to argue on the basis of believing in it that God can't lie, well, I have merely shown you the absurdity of your assertion.

So just because you say so, I'm wrong. Nice rebuttal.

Your logic is absurd Eilonnwy. think about it for one second, and consider what I've said.

You lying to yourself isn't intelligent atheism... it's hiding your head in the sand.

The whole point of the story of Adam & Eve is the rebellion from God. The "Separation". That separation = spiritual death. It doesn't mean "die" as in cease to live - or there wouldn't be humanity you literalist fool! Adam and Eve were rejected from the Garden Of Eden - spiritual connection with God - and took up a life of "knowledge of good and evil". They were ashamed of themselves "knowing" their weaknesses, instead of being fulfilled as they once were. This is not literal! This is allegorical for the reality of the human condition.

All right, even if the Genesis 3 quote is suspect, there are a few other verses that talk about God lying:


1 Kings 22:23
Now, therefore, behold, the Lord hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of these thy prophets, and the Lord hath spoken evil concerning thee.

2 Chronicles 18:22
Now therefore, behold, the Lord hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of these thy prophets.

Jeremiah 4:10
Ah, Lord GOD! surely thou hast greatly deceived this people.

Jeremiah 20:7
O Lord, thou hast deceived me, and I was deceived.

Ezekiel 14:9
And if a prophet be deceived when he hath spoken a thing, I the Lord have deceived that prophet.

2 Thessalonians 2:11
For this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie.