Bible Questions?

Okay here‘s an example that I‘ve already shown you before in this thread:

 

How old was that second quote from Rudenoodle? I am interested what my response was...

 

That would be post#186 posted 06-15-2009, 09:37 AM.

 

Can people returning from the dead be part of a simile, how about apocalyptic floods?

It's hard to interpret what is a simile if the miraculous is to be intertwined with what is to be taken as literal and miraculous in my opinion.

What about stating that without the human sacrifice of an eccentric preacher in bronze aged Palestine is the only reason why we are not all wolves to one another, in the same way hinting that if you choose to not believe this you are Moral less.

I find that grossly offensive and it has been mentioned many times in this thread, yet I don't get into a pissing contest and derail a forum meant for questions with complaints of hurt feelings.

Whats wrong with asking a question multiple times in other varying contexts, to get others opinions on it, whats wrong with a subtle comment?

I don't understand what you aspect me to do when you offer an explanation to the questions I propose, I find it particularly odd that you ask of me to not offer subtle comments to wards the questions and answers yet in the same post accuse me of glossing over your responses.

Theres just no pleasing some people I suppose.

I never said that in any context other than that in my opinion if someone chooses to accept faith over facts when it comes to answering questions they must be a bit daft or be protecting an agenda.

I third it [/QUOTE]

 

While I admit that I posted it for a few laughs and Abraham probably did not dry out his slaves foreskins and put them in a smoke house to cure for his slaves family and himself to eat or possibly wear, the question in proposes still stands which is this,

How does one man convince 318 men to allow him to cut off the tips of there pricks, in addition it was stated that it was done in one day, I'm uncertain how long it would take to "snip the tip" but it would seem that from sun up till sun down Abe must have been wrist deep in discarded flesh.

Of course since they were he slaves he probably just threatened to beat or murder them if they did not comply with his commands.

 

Who might this "eccentric preacher in bronze aged Palestine" be? I know of none.

Once again you might want to check out where you are. You are in Sanctuary and if you find what is said here "grossly offensive" well you don't have to be here, since this is a forum for Christians to speak with other Christians.

Not to mention your frequent use of abusive language.

What is wrong is that when you bring up a question again, it's not; I know we've already discussed this but I was wondering about this facet, I don't think was covered but you bring it up in a manner that implies that we ignored the question and are afraid to address it, even though it has already been dealt with several times.

As for subtle comments, your comments or far from subtle, in fact most of your comments border on rude and abusive.

You understand perfectly well what to do. The trouble is you you're not doing it.

You realize that there is a big difference between simply saying; I find that hard to believe and saying; "if someone chooses to accept faith over facts when it comes to answering questions they must be a bit daft".

Once again, you are in Sanctuary, in Sanctuary the Bible is an acceptable source for answering questions. Sanctuary is not for Non-Christians to come and try to prove Christianity and the Bible wrong. If you continue to want to make statements like the above, perhaps you have over stayed your welcome and should leave.

 

I hope you got your laughs, because the eating of human flesh doesn't strike me as funny. :toetap05:

The was no "snip the tip", I'm unsure what you think circumcision is but it is the removal of the foreskin, something you would probably think of as vestal, if you were talking about evolution.

We've already discussed slavery several times and you should know by now that is not how Abraham would treat his slaves.

 

It is not what goes into a man that defiles him. Your gut reaction is a reflection of a social taboo.

I don't think it can be definably stated that the foreskin is a superfluous piece of the human anatomy.

Since you are not a contemporary of Abraham, I would say that any such statements as these, as to the intimate nature of motives and activities of an individual who lived thousands of years ago, is speculation on your part.

 

You mean you like eating human flesh? That might explain a lot.

I didn't say it was. I merely said that if rudenoodle was discussing evolution, that he might consider it to be such.

Except the Bible seems to tell who Abraham was but then you don't seem to trust the Bible that much.

 

What do you think it might explain?

That would be assuming rudenoodle found foreskins to be vestigial equipment. I don't find any evidence in his statements to suggest that he entertains that opinion. The suggestion that foreskins are vestigial comes entirely from you.

You keep recycling this issue and all I can say is that you are ignorant of my faith.

 

Please show me where I assumed "rudenoodle found foreskins to be vestigial equipment".

Personally, I don't believe foreskins to be vestigial, anymore than I believe the appendix to be vestigial and I don't regard the appendix as vestigial.

All I can only go by is what you say and from what you've said, you don't seem to have a high regard for what the Bible says.

 

I have told you repeatedly that my regard for the Bible has been fundamental in how I organize my life. You are simply not listening.

Your smiley face icon doesn't give me any information. Again, what do you think it might explain?

 

Okay, I said; "something you would probably think of as vestal, if you were talking about evolution."

Please tell me how this is an assumption that rudenoodle or me actually believe or think that the foreskin is vestal?

Do I have to go back and quote for you all you've said about the Bible?

Do I really have to explain the English language to you?

might [mīt]
CORE-MEANING: a modal verb indicating the possibility that something is true or will happen in the future

In other words it might explain a lot but on the other hand it might not.

Interestingly, what with all this; "What do you think it might explain?" questioning, you have avoided my question; "You mean you like eating human flesh?" Hum, what might that mean?

 

Why then insertion of the aside at all?

No you may limit yourself to those comments I have actually made as the extent of my regard, if you have an interest. I really don't care what you believe. Belief is all the same to me. It would be sufficient to actually try to comprehend what I am saying instead of consistently trying to prove me not credible.

This is tedious intellectual dishonesty. Rudenoodle says he is just asking questions and you say,
(paraphrasing,) come on you know you are doing more than that. You implied something with your statement. What is it do you think it might explain?

I meant exactly what I said. It is not what goes into a man that defiles him. Your repugnance to eating human flesh is a cultural taboo.

 

Because I felt like it.

That's the problem, I do comprehend what you're saying and what you're saying, as I've pointed out, does not agree with what the Bible says.

Which is true, rudenoodle does know that he is doing more than that and I don't see how saying so is tedious intellectual dishonesty.

Okay, it might explain why you believe as you do. You already knew this so why are you harping on it? Talk about tedious intellectual dishonesty.

First, I said nothing about my "repugnance" towards anything, I said; that I did not find eating human flesh a laughing matter. Doesn't that mean you are twisting what others say? Does that mean you are engaging tedious intellectual dishonesty?

Also the phase; "It is not what goes into a man that defiles him" does not mean what you think it means, because in this case it does not apply.

 

How does Abraham treat his slaves, but before you answer remember we are talking about his slaves.

While your at it can you go into detail on what the bible says about the practice of slavery?

 

And what you don't feel like is addressing your own hypocrisy.

I don't know. I don't see the connection. How does it, or how might it explain what you call my belief?

Our biological switching mechanism is binary. It is either on or off. In terms of what is Holy, the least is the same as the greatest. The least concern is the same as the greatest devotion and the most minor irritation is the same as the greatest catastrophe.

There are no degrees to the Holy. What goes into a man applies to every phenomena. The fruits you behold in this life are not the fruits of someone else. Someone else didn't do it. You taste fruit with your own tongue. The fruit you taste is the fruit of your own attitude. There are no idle thoughts.

 

you guys can go on forever--i must be a partial demon cas i cant standchristians using the name of Jesus-it irritates the fuck otta me and so far havnt met a "real" christian yet just hypocritical bullshitters---the real ones dont feel the "need to preach to save my soul"

 

I agree with you to no end. I much prefer to use language that is not distorted
by emotional sentiments. I assume the language form that is coincidental with the site. I have no need to save any ones soul. A life is worth nothing that is not spent. It seems helpful to me however to distinguish fact from fiction as it may increase our situational awareness.

 

ROFL you know your a BS Christian too right?


noob!