Atheist Bible Study 1: Genesis

[Angrboda]

Oh, really?  You were taking the persona literally, that's why you referred to an unsexed serpent as a lady?  You trip over your own balls every time.

Jormungandr is a serpent.  Jormungandr is neither a dragon nor a lady.  The only possible thing you could have gotten right there was the angry part, but you didn't, so you strike out yet again.

 Why can't you accept that I do indeed research EVERYTHING I have any question on, and if I say dragon and you are thinking serpent at least look before you miss correct me again.




JORMUNGAND

[img=212x0]http://norse-mythology.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/Johann_Heinrich_F%C3%BCssli-Thors-Battle-with-the-Midgard-Serpent1-212x300.jpg[/img]“Thor’s Battle with the Midgard Serpent” by Johann Heinrich Füssli (1788)
Jormungand (pronounced “YOUR-mun-gand;” Old NorseJörmungandr, “Great Beast”), also called the “MidgardSerpent,” is a snake or dragon who lives in the ocean that surrounds Midgard, the visible world. So enormous is he that his body forms a circle around the entirety of Midgard. He’s one of the three children of Loki and the giantess Angrboda, along with Hel and .
https://norse-mythology.org/gods-and-creatures/giants/jormungand/

You sweetheart are the "lady" in the equation who has taken on the persona of the angry dragon Jormungand. Remember I am addressing you the lady who associates her self with an angry dragon.. I'm not calling or assigning gender to the 'great beast.' I am speaking to the amalgamation you've created by representing yourself as or identifying with the angry dragon.

clear yet? or do I need to say the same thing 10 more times?

Fine. I was wrong about the dragon part. So you're saying you meant to be literal on one part and figurative on another. Gotcha. Clear as mud. You're simply employing amphiboly to claim that the angry part applied to the serpent rather than the lady part, a claim which no one over the age of 12 is likely to believe. Regardless, aside from this rather amusing digression, you're still wrong in assigning me anger I did not possess, which is the only issue of significance here. Like Huggy, you win the battle but lose the war. I'll take to calling you Pyrrhic Victory Drich.

And as to your once again referencing the claim that you are some master of research and preparation, I'll point out that you cited a source which contradicted your claims three times in the global cooling debate, and your 'research' on Hitler and Rosenberg was ultimately crap. You use this excuse that you research everything when you are right, and pretend that it is a mysterious unevidenced strategy when you are wrong. I often don't research shit and I still manage to toast your ass more often than not. Anyone who cites evidence which refutes their claim three times in a row isn't practicing strategy or involved in any deep research. He's just a dumbass who is occasionally right, and has a buttload of excuses which he uses to justify ignoring the many more times that he is wrong.