The "Cultural Context" Excuse

[The Grand Nudger]

Really?

Yeah, really, and your penchant for necro quoting won't change the fact that I accepted your snakeman hypothesis (particularly after 30 some odd pages of watching you make an ass of yourself), and began asking you questions about it.  You quoted me...you responded to me.  Now you're still looking for a way to dodge those questions...and I'm still not giving you one.  

That's an oxymoron. You don't question something you accept...

Maybe you don't...but I do...constantly.  I guess I'm just more thorough than you are?  


So, howsabout it, have you exhausted all excuses, or will I have to field a few more?

[The Grand Nudger]

I see no reason to argue you -out- of an even more ridiculous position than that a girl had a talk with a dragon about a piece of fruit.  I've only got one question......where are all these human-dragon hybrids today?

If you still think my position is that the serpent was originally a "dragon" or any sort reptilian creature for that matter, then you haven't been paying attention. The serpent was human-like, the only real difference being that humans were given souls, and the soul (bibically) is what separates us from the beasts.

Where are the hybrids today? look in the mirror...

See...it -seems- like you were responding to me here.  This is where I jumped back in.  Do you remember now? So, are you willing to own the claim that we're both running with...or not? I'm not arguing with you, I'm not debating with you. I;m not arguing -for- sopme other thing (least of which arguments you attempt to impose, lol). I'm simply asking you to do what any thorough, and intellectually honest person would do...with regards to their own claims. There are certain things that must be true..if this claim is true. Testable, falsifiable evidence presents itself. It must be present and accounted for....or else your interpretation falsifies your beliefs - by being correct. This is a hole you dug for yourself...do you want the opportunity to climb back out, or not?

[Huggy Bear]

That's an oxymoron. You don't question something you accept...

Maybe you don't...but I do...constantly.  I guess I'm just more thorough than you are?  

Accepting something means you find it to be true, and what is true is unquestionable.

The fact that you don't understand that simply means you're dumber than I am, and that's saying a lot because I was a terrible student.

Bees, btw...all have 2 parents.  They reproduce sexually.........

Wrong, males come from a unfertilized egg, meaning they have no father....

[The Grand Nudger]

Accepting something means you find it to be true, and what is true is unquestionable.

Spoken like a true zealot.  Maybe that's how you got into this mess...by not questioning these things you say?  

The fact that you don't understand that simply means you're dumber than I am, and that's saying a lot because I was a terrible student.

I'm not sure there's going to be a point where finding more ways to call me a dummy is going to address the issues with the snakeman hypothesis.  That's all on your end..it doesn't really -matter- whether or not -I'm- a dummy.  Either we're all serpent hybrids, and this is reflected in our dna, or we're not...and it isn't.

[Huggy Bear]

Accepting something means you find it to be true, and what is true is unquestionable.

Spoken like a true zealot.  Maybe that's how you got into this mess...by not questioning these things you say?  

Spoken like a true dummy.

What I said is absolute fact, truth IS unquestionable.

Do you question that 2 + 2 = 4? I hope not (I almost forgot who I'm talking to), why? because it's true.

There may have been a time where you questioned it because you didn't know any better, but once you accepted it as true, there is no longer any question.

See how that works?

Bees, btw...all have 2 parents.  They reproduce sexually.........

Wrong, males come from a unfertilized egg, meaning they have no father....

Are you still confused about how bees reproduce, or have you accepted the truth?

[Whateverist]

Our disagreement doesn't regard what is detectable by the senses or verifiable empirically.  It is instead over the limits of the natural and the source of what is beyond reason.

Fair enough.

You'd think I'd just enjoy this moment of rapprochement but I can't help but say I think "supernatural" is an extra word. Without it perhaps there is no need for "natural" either. There just is what there is and it isn't for us to decide what is in and what's out. Science is damned handy but the humanities also have their value. In the end we don't depend on science to determine what moves us or makes us happy or needs our attention. Those things we just know. If we decide life is better without chicken pox then by all means, bring in the men of science. (I admit, I'm a great fan of science.)

[LadyForCamus]

To make an argument from ignorance, you actually have to be arguing for something.  Since I'm not...swing and a miss.  Never going to get around to telling us anything about the hybridization you -did- argue for, are you?

I'll ask again...are you sure that your intepretation is correct...and in being correct about that having falsified your own beliefs.....or could you be wrong?  Ironically, this is -exactly- what happened in that conversation you love to necro-quote.  What're the odds, huh?

Your argument is that according to the bible Cain was Adam's flesh and blood, correct?

Wrong, males come from a unfertilized egg, meaning they have no father....

You realize that continuing to post this over and over every time rhythm asks you to clarify your position makes you appear desperate, foolish and immature, and only serves to highlight that you are actively avoiding questions because you can't come up with any answers, yes?

It's analogous to when little kids stick their fingers in their ears and go, "I'm not listening! La la la!"

I mean, there's scraping the bottom of the barrel, and then there's this. Pretty silly for a grown man, don't you think?

[The Grand Nudger]

Spoken like a true dummy.

What I said is absolute fact, truth IS unquestionable.

That's nice, so, as an absolute fact that the bible claims we're hybrid snakemen........this is, in your opinion, unquestionable?  You don't think it's useful to ask whether or not we're -actually- hybrid snakemen?   

There may have been a time where you questioned it because you didn't know any better, but once you accepted it as true, there is no longer any question.

See how that works?

I don't think that it does.  I think that it may work -for you-.  : shrugs : I didn;t even ask you whether or not addition was true.. but you took the time to explain and describe it anyway. That's all I'm asking you to do for the snakeman hypothesis presented, in your estimation, by the bible.

[LadyForCamus]

....................no..

Really?

No,it doesn't..just as it doesn;t get any clearer than gen 4:1.  The author (in john) expresses our spiritual lineages, as he saw them, not our genetic lineages.  That doesn't change the fact that cain and abel were brothers, both of adam. 

I accepted your snakeman hypothesis...remember?  Why do you think I asked you all those questions?

That's an oxymoron. You don't question something you accept...

(huggs, seriously, don't get yourself in trouble...somebody will eventually report you, you know this)

It's ok, you've stated that quote brings you amusement ("it makes you giggle"), If spreading joy is wrong, I don't want to be right....

Wrong, males come from a unfertilized egg, meaning they have no father....

Okay, now your just being stupid on purpose. He challenged your serpent theory, and when you wouldn't let it go, he said 'fine, lets assume your theory is true,' and then asked you a series of detailed questions regarding this theory that you are so confident is accurate. With such confidence, you should be able to answer them without a problem.It's really that simple.

So, you're either very dumb, or you're pretending to not follow the discussion in order to avoid taking responsibility for your claims. You and RR would make a nice duo.

[LadyForCamus]

I'll never understand why it's so hard for adults to just say, 'yeah, I guess I stepped in it with that one, huh?' What is the big deal for crying out loud? It's not as if no one else has ever screwed up, or said something without thinking it all the way through before. How fragile is one's ego when saying, 'I was wrong,' is not even considered as an option?

I could actually respect that, rather than this silly, endless run-around.