Satan Disproves Christianity

[Minimalist]

And I addressed that.

Just because you "addressed" it does not mean anyone buys your bullshit. We are not predisposed to believe in utter nonsense. Like most apologists you think any statement which gets your god off the hook solves the problem no matter how absurd said statement may be.

It does not.

[Cyberman]

Sorry to jump back a ways here, I've been catching up on some of these threads and this caught my eye like a big-a pizza pie:

No, an admittedly made-up claim is not supported as well as claims that purport to be true. A book from the biography section is more likely to accurately reflect reality than a book from the fiction section.

Choose wisely...

[Godscreated]

Cool story, bro. I guarantee you not even 2% of this forum's population will read what you just wrote.

I knew that when I started and I'm glad you confirmed that the nonbelievers here care for nothing but winning an argument, truth has no part of their lives. I've shown I'm willing to do the work and the nonbelievers will prove they care nothing for posting and then trying to investigate what the truth might be.

GC

[Lemonvariable72]

Cool story, bro. I guarantee you not even 2% of this forum's population will read what you just wrote.

I knew that when I started and I'm glad you confirmed that the nonbelievers here care for nothing but winning an argument, truth has no part of their lives. I've shown I'm willing to do the work and the nonbelievers will prove they care nothing for posting and then trying to investigate what the truth might be.

GC

Boy thats not arrogant or nothing.
The reason I did that C&P was to prove a point, the bible contradicts and you failed to refute that.

[Cyberman]

Just for you, GC (can you guess what it is?):

[Godscreated]

Cool story, bro. I guarantee you not even 2% of this forum's population will read what you just wrote.

Heh, I actually read a good chunk of it. Am I a minority?

GC, I'll give you points for effort, you finally stood up for the Bible. Good try.

I'm not going to analyze what you said, though, this isn't my fight. But I didn't agred with anything you said.

Go get 'im, LV72! I'm rooting for you!

Thank you for reading some of it, I did not expect most to agree with it. Agreeing with it would mean studying what was said and most nonbelievers hear are to lazy to seek knowledge. Also disagreeing with it takes study time, that is if one is going to be honest in one's disagreement.

GC

---

Just for you, GC (can you guess what it is?):

You're stupidity showing.

GC

[max-greece]

If you're going to be condescending:

"Agreeing with it would mean studying what was said and most nonbelievers hear are to lazy to seek knowledge. "

non-believers
here
too lazy

Three errors in the punchline isn't the way to do it.

[Godscreated]

Well GC before we go any farther I want to know how do you define love?

How I define love has no bearing here.

GC

---

"The genealogy in Luke is Mary's, thus Heli was the father-in-law of Joseph. The genealogy in Matthew is Joseph's and Jacob was his father. Luke gives prominence to women in his gospel, it thus is why he used Mary's genealogy and during those times it would have been natural for Joseph's father-in-law to call him son."

Say what?

"He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph, the son of Heli......"

There is just no way that is son-in-law. The point of this long list is to show that Jesus comes from the line of David and both Luke and Matthew attempt to do this through Joseph (wrongly as it happens). The son-in-law explanation isn't supported anywhere and is obviously someone's brilliant idea of how to get out of an error in the story.

Luke was written in Greek. Greek has perfectly usable words for son-in-law to differentiate it from son. If it meant son-in-law it would have said it.

You need to prove I'm wrong. Nothing you said has proved a thing.

GC

---

I knew that when I started and I'm glad you confirmed that the nonbelievers here care for nothing but winning an argument, truth has no part of their lives. I've shown I'm willing to do the work and the nonbelievers will prove they care nothing for posting and then trying to investigate what the truth might be.

GC

Boy thats not arrogant or nothing.
The reason I did that C&P was to prove a point, the bible contradicts and you failed to refute that.

Then quit making accusations and get busy disproving what I wrote, or are you just to lazy.

GC

---

If you're going to be condescending:

"Agreeing with it would mean studying what was said and most nonbelievers hear are to lazy to seek knowledge. "

non-believers
here
too lazy

Three errors in the punchline isn't the way to do it.

Sorry if the truth hurts, what I've posted in the last few minutes is not condescending it's the truth, remember what I said in the thread we had such a good conversation.

GC

---

I knew this was going to happen, you all come out putting down what I said, using no proof, yet you demand proof from Christians, you are a dishonest bunch who have little to no truth about you. Call me arrogant, condescending or what ever, I do not care, the truth is what it is!

GC

[Esquilax]

Oh look, the same old crap!

"If you don't agree with me, there's something wrong with you." GC, you're being terribly dishonest, and I think you know it: has it ever occurred to you that maybe, just maybe, someone could be exposed to your arguments and still not buy them?

But you can't even consider that, oh no: anyone who disagrees with you is lazy, or being intentionally dishonest, or just wants to persecute you...

Anything to avoid having to perform a little introspection, huh?

[max-greece]

"You need to prove I'm wrong. Nothing you said has proved a thing."

In all honesty - I don't. It doesn't really affect me it Luke was referring to the dog's lineage, but, in all the years I have been speaking to Christians not one has ever even brought this up as a possibility. Its just another clever invention to get around a problem and I am thinking its probably your own.

At some time we need to talk about what proof means. It might be worth considering the advice given to jurors - beyond a reasonable doubt. There is nothing in the text to support your assertion. Any wild explanation will therefore do. This is akin to:

I am walking through a wooded area in England. I hear hoof beats behind me. I presume that its a horse rather than a zebra. There is a finite possibility that I am wrong There is also a finite possibility its actually a guy with coconuts and finally there is a minute possibility that its a chicken that does impressions.

It is reasonable for me to dismiss the chicken option, without definitive proof.

Mary's lineage is that chicken.