Am I right to assume, that theists cannot prove that I am not god?

[Cyberman]

 Descended, really. As for the rest of your statement it is not logical.

Yes, I wrote "descended" instead of "ascended".  A simple error does not take away from the rest of my statement.

I'm sure GC "want" hold it against you.

[Aliza]

Of course.

I figured you'd agree.  I wonder about our xtian friend.  Do you read any of the xtian bible allegorically, Godcreated?

I don't really read the Christian bible at all except to pick it apart. I know they got the first part of their bible from us (and then screwed much of it up with poor translations), but the second part (their NT) has nothing to do with Judaism at all. I think it's a document that was written by Romans at a much later time. To that end, I think everything in the Christian bible is trash, but I'm willing to tolerate any interpretation that a Christian holds provided that it doesn't turn them into ideological fundamentalists. 

But maybe you were trying to ask me if I see any of the Jewish bible as allegory? Of course I do. Our Talmud clearly states that much of it is worded in such a way that it can only be taken allegorically.

[Whateverist]

I figured you'd agree.  I wonder about our xtian friend.  Do you read any of the xtian bible allegorically, Godcreated?

I don't really read the Christian bible at all except to pick it apart. I know they got the first part of their bible from us (and then screwed much of it up with poor translations), but the second part (their NT) has nothing to do with Judaism at all. I think it's a document that was written by Romans at a much later time. To that end, I think everything in the Christian bible is trash, but I'm willing to tolerate any interpretation that a Christian holds provided that it doesn't turn them into ideological fundamentalists. 

But maybe you were trying to ask me if I see any of the Jewish bible as allegory? Of course I do. Our Talmud clearly states that much of it is worded in such a way that it can only be taken allegorically.

No, I wasn't asking you about reading the Jewish bible allegorically because I already know you do.  I was wondering if the xtian poster, Godcreated, read any of his bible allegorically.  Or perhaps he thinks it was perfectly created back then in such a way that by various flawed interpretations it came to mean in English precisely what God had in mind all along.  I suppose if one is a fundamentalist, one just avoids thinking about it too hard at all.

[Godscreated]

 I know my grammar is bad, but no worse than your attitude. I did not call her out for grammar, it was for using a wrong term that completely changes what the Bible says. So why don't you just keep quite or better yet just go away.

GC

Not happening. You can ignore me if you want. You sarcastically called her out on a simple mistake when it was obvious what she meant. If you don't want to be called out on your insignificant mistakes then don't do the same to others (Jesus said this by the way). And you are still not demonstrating how her post was illogical.

 It was illogical from start to finish, no need to point anything out. I've encountered enough from atheist to know what they do and don't mean, it was purposeful. When you grow up around here you'll see.

GC

---

 I know my grammar is bad, but no worse than your attitude. I did not call her out for grammar, it was for using a wrong term that completely changes what the Bible says. So why don't you just keep quite or better yet just go away.

GC

---

 You explain nothing, you are a constant complainer meaning you have nothing useful to say.

GC

The bible says descend. The NT says "ascend" but she's not wrong for using the term descend, because as I just stated above, the god that you believe wrote the bible describes that the soul descends into a pit.

 The post was directed at the resurrection and ascend means to rise up and Christ did in more than one way.

GC

[Inkfeather132]

Not happening. You can ignore me if you want. You sarcastically called her out on a simple mistake when it was obvious what she meant. If you don't want to be called out on your insignificant mistakes then don't do the same to others (Jesus said this by the way). And you are still not demonstrating how her post was illogical.

 It was illogical from start to finish, no need to point anything out. I've encountered enough from atheist to know what they do and don't mean, it was purposeful. When you grow up around here you'll see.

GC

You still have not shown how it was illogical (because it wasn't, you're just lying again). Your statement here is illogical though. You say you have encountered some atheists so now you know how they all think. This is called a faulty generalization. I can't say I know how you think just because I've known a lot of Christians in my life.

[Godscreated]

 It was illogical from start to finish, no need to point anything out. I've encountered enough from atheist to know what they do and don't mean, it was purposeful. When you grow up around here you'll see.

GC

You still have not shown how it was illogical (because it wasn't, you're just lying again). Your statement here is illogical though. You say you have encountered some atheists so now you know how they all think. This is called a faulty generalization. I can't say I know how you think just because I've known a lot of Christians in my life.

I said I encountered what many atheist do, I wasn't referring to any certain number or any certain ones, I was generalizing to keep from mentioning any certain atheist.

GC

[Inkfeather132]

You still have not shown how it was illogical (because it wasn't, you're just lying again). Your statement here is illogical though. You say you have encountered some atheists so now you know how they all think. This is called a faulty generalization. I can't say I know how you think just because I've known a lot of Christians in my life.

I said I encountered what many atheist do, I wasn't referring to any certain number or any certain ones, I was generalizing to keep from mentioning any certain atheist.

GC

I know you were generalizing. That's why I said you used the faulty generalization fallacy. It wouldn't matter even if you were specific. It's still fallacy to say "I have encountered many atheists so I know exactly what this one's motives are". You don't know their motives because they did not tell you and you are not them.

[Godscreated]

I don't really read the Christian bible at all except to pick it apart. I know they got the first part of their bible from us (and then screwed much of it up with poor translations), but the second part (their NT) has nothing to do with Judaism at all. I think it's a document that was written by Romans at a much later time. To that end, I think everything in the Christian bible is trash, but I'm willing to tolerate any interpretation that a Christian holds provided that it doesn't turn them into ideological fundamentalists. 

But maybe you were trying to ask me if I see any of the Jewish bible as allegory? Of course I do. Our Talmud clearly states that much of it is worded in such a way that it can only be taken allegorically.

No, I wasn't asking you about reading the Jewish bible allegorically because I already know you do.  I was wondering if the xtian poster, Godcreated, read any of his bible allegorically.  Or perhaps he thinks it was perfectly created back then in such a way that by various flawed interpretations it came to mean in English precisely what God had in mind all along.  I suppose if one is a fundamentalist, one just avoids thinking about it too hard at all.

 There is allegories in the scriptures they're called parables. Most of scripture is real, actual and factual, inerrant. being a fundamentalist is the only way that the Bible makes sense.

GC

---

I said I encountered what many atheist do, I wasn't referring to any certain number or any certain ones, I was generalizing to keep from mentioning any certain atheist.

GC

I know you were generalizing. That's why I said you used the faulty generalization fallacy. It wouldn't matter even if you were specific. It's still fallacy to say "I have encountered many atheists so I know exactly what this one's motives are". You don't know their motives because they did not tell you and you are not them.

My generalization wasn't faulty and I did not say anything about encountering atheist, it is what they have posted to me and other Christians here. You may not be able to read between the lines when people are trying to hide things but I can.

GC

[Inkfeather132]

I know you were generalizing. That's why I said you used the faulty generalization fallacy. It wouldn't matter even if you were specific. It's still fallacy to say "I have encountered many atheists so I know exactly what this one's motives are". You don't know their motives because they did not tell you and you are not them.

My generalization wasn't faulty and I did not say anything about encountering atheist, it is what they have posted to me and other Christians here. You may not be able to read between the lines when people are trying to hide things but I can.

GC

Your generalization was indeed faulty, you essentially accused them of "hiding things" because of your encounters with atheists on this forum. Rather than actually demonstrate it based on their post's contents. You still haven't explained how the post was illogical by the way. You have claimed it is multiple times with no evidence to back it up. Baseless assertions seem to be a pattern with you.

[Whateverist]

I feel sorry for anyone who describes themselves as a fundamentalist anything. Such a stunted existence.