Peanut Gallery Commentary on the Staff Log of Bannings and such like.

[arewethereyet]

No, if you go back far enough, Khemikal was disputing that you had evidence that Eve fucked the serpent.  If you interpret a certain passage one way, rather than another, then it's possible that Eve may have..... but you seem to have forgotten the indisputable part.  Your argument, and the evidence for it, was far from indisputable.  So, no.

It is indisputable, as proven by other Jewish literature that states Eve 'copulated' with the serpent.

---

Earlier in the thread you quoted the Babylonian Talmud as a source, and I quote:
*emphasis mine*

Since you clearly acknowledge the Talmud as an acceptable source, how about this passage from the website contained in your above post.

From the Yebamoth Tractate: http://www.come-and-hear.com/yebamoth/yebamoth_103.html

There is no ambiguity to the word "copulate", it means sexual intercourse.

*edit*
Forgot to provide link.

---

Again this is indisputable.

---

No, as far as I can see, his original complaint was his wondering what 15th century Africans would think of modern day apologists, which you replied to by claiming that the original Hebrews were black.  I've been through that entire thread and didn't see where he either made that claim, nor implied it.  If you have a specific post, link me to it.

You act like you don't see threads posted questioning why black people are Christians because Christianity is the supposed religion of their oppressors.

https://atheistforums.org/thread-24848.h...istians%22

"White" Man asks "Black" Christians, "Are you really this stupid?"

https://atheistforums.org/thread-30187.h...istians%22

It doesn't make any sense to worship a god and or deity jesus that pretty much was the reason that your ancestors were enslaved and yet worship both of them like they are good.

https://atheistforums.org/thread-55602.h...22black%22

How the black man embraced Christianity

That being said, let me spell it out for you...

You know...I sometimes wonder what some random w. african circa 1400 would think if I handed them a time machine, and they could watch their descendants become shoddy apologists for the religion of those who would enslave and oppress their own children for the next few subsequent centuries.  Sad fucking state of affairs, if you ask me.

*emphasis mine*

The above makes absolutely no sense if Christianity already existed in Africa 1500 years prior, so please stop with the dishonest tactics.

Does the passage say they recognized Moses as an Egyptian by the color of his skin?  No, it does not.  They might have, that doesn't make it indisputable evidence.  And you missed the note that I added after your reply.  If you didn't present the Exodus passage in that thread, then it's irrelevant.  This isn't a question of whether you can win a debate now, but whether you won a debate then.  I didn't specifically look for it, so if you did provide the Exodus passage in that thread, please link to it.

*emphasis mine*
Just going to make up rules as you go?

Khemikal never disputed it any further after I made my case, YOU"RE disputing it just now, and as such I should be able to present any evidence I like. What I did present to Khemikal was the fact the Joseph was married to an Egyptian woman, and had two children from which came the Hebrew tribes of Ephraim and Manasseh.

---

The tribes of Ephraim and Manasseh, were descendants of sons of Joseph who was married to an Egyptian, meaning that they had Egyptian heritage.

---

Again, is this good enough for you?

And going back over that thread, I spot an additional argument, where you claimed that the people in your photo of KKK cross burnings the men in question weren't Christian, for which your evidence was the "you shall know them by their fruits" passage.  Far from indisputable.  That brings the total of debates to ten, and you've got three so far.  Still two remaining.  (Or, if you show that Khem did claim there were no Christians in Africa prior to the slave trade, that would bring the total debates to eleven, out of which you'll have shown four, leaving, once again, two remaining to be demonstrated with indisputable evidence.  You seem to be doing little more than treading water at this point.)

so now you're going to count every tangent of the original discussion as a separate debate? Talk about moving the goalposts.

Here were your original terms...

Sure.  I'll start you off.  Counting the two you've already claimed, you have to show indisputable evidence that you won at least two of the following debates, or produce additional debates that I've missed.

https://atheistforums.org/thread-53040-page-13.html
https://atheistforums.org/thread-45331-page-11.html
https://atheistforums.org/thread-53099-p...90358.html
https://atheistforums.org/post-1354255.html
https://atheistforums.org/thread-41806-p...19791.html

*emphasis mine*

OR is a funny word isn't it?

Hey Skippy,
Literature does not equal factual.

lit·er·a·ture
[ˈlidərəCHər, ˈlidərəˌCHo͝or]


NOUN

1. written works, especially those considered of superior or lasting artistic merit.
   "a great work of literature"
   synonyms: written works · writings · (creative) writing · literary texts · compositions · letters · belles-lettres · printed works · published works · humanities · arts · liberal arts
   • books and writings published on a particular subject.
     "the literature on environmental epidemiology"
     synonyms: publications · published writings · texts · reports · studies · relevant works
     

Just because somebody wrote something doesn't make it...what's the magic word...indisputable.