Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > alt.atheism > #2076622 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-03-19 00:57 -0400 |
| Last post | 2016-03-19 11:11 +0000 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 71 — 12 participants |
Back to article view | Back to alt.atheism
The Theology of John Calvin -- 76 Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> - 2016-03-19 00:57 -0400
Re: The Theology of John Calvin -- 76 Wexford Eire <wexford.eire.1798@gmail.com> - 2016-03-18 22:02 -0700
Re: The Theology of John Calvin -- 76 Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> - 2016-03-19 01:08 -0400
Re: The Theology of John Calvin -- 76 Wexford Eire <wexford.eire.1798@gmail.com> - 2016-03-19 08:44 -0700
Re: The Theology of John Calvin -- 76 Les Hellawell <les@shant.tell> - 2016-03-19 17:29 +0000
Re: The Theology of John Calvin -- 76 Kevrob <kevrob@my-deja.com> - 2016-03-19 10:54 -0700
Re: The Theology of John Calvin -- 76 Les Hellawell <les@shant.tell> - 2016-03-19 18:02 +0000
Re: The Theology of John Calvin -- 76 Les Hellawell <les@shant.tell> - 2016-03-19 18:59 +0000
Re: Forgive us.. "Andrew" <andrew.321remov@usa.net> - 2016-03-19 13:22 -0700
Re: The Theology of John Calvin -- 76 Les Hellawell <les@shant.tell> - 2016-03-19 21:25 +0000
Re: The Theology of John Calvin -- 76 Wexford Eire <wexford.eire.1798@gmail.com> - 2016-03-19 11:10 -0700
Re: The Theology of John Calvin -- 76 Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> - 2016-03-19 14:18 -0400
Re: The Theology of John Calvin -- 76 Kevrob <kevrob@my-deja.com> - 2016-03-19 12:54 -0700
Re: The Theology of John Calvin -- 76 Don Martin <drdonmartin@comcast.net> - 2016-03-19 19:23 -0400
Re: The Theology of John Calvin -- 76 Greywolf <greywolftheatheist@gmail.com> - 2016-03-19 13:08 -0700
Re: The Theology of John Calvin -- 76 Greywolf <greywolftheatheist@gmail.com> - 2016-03-19 13:15 -0700
He arose from the tomb - exactly as He said "Andrew" <andrew.321remov@usa.net> - 2016-03-19 13:32 -0700
Re: He arose from the tomb - exactly as He said Kevrob <kevrob@my-deja.com> - 2016-03-19 13:57 -0700
Re: He arose from the tomb - exactly as He said "Andrew" <andrew.321remov@usa.net> - 2016-03-19 14:06 -0700
Re: He arose from the tomb - exactly as He said Greywolf <greywolftheatheist@gmail.com> - 2016-03-19 14:33 -0700
Re: He arose from the tomb - exactly as He said "Andrew" <andrew.321remov@usa.net> - 2016-03-19 22:32 -0700
Re: He arose from the tomb - exactly as He said Greywolf <greywolftheatheist@gmail.com> - 2016-03-20 05:11 -0700
Re: He arose from the tomb - exactly as He said Malte Runz <noyouare@notgetting.it> - 2016-03-19 23:13 +0100
Re: He arose from the tomb - exactly as He said Kevrob <kevrob@my-deja.com> - 2016-03-19 16:38 -0700
Re: He arose from the tomb - exactly as He said Kevrob <kevrob@my-deja.com> - 2016-03-20 01:57 -0700
Re: He arose from the tomb - exactly as He said Kevrob <kevrob@my-deja.com> - 2016-03-21 05:02 -0700
Re: He arose from the tomb - exactly as He said Irreverend Dave <reverend_dave@ministerpants.com> - 2016-03-21 12:53 +0000
Re: He arose from the tomb - exactly as He said Kevrob <kevrob@my-deja.com> - 2016-03-21 07:58 -0700
Re: He arose from the tomb - exactly as He said "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-03-21 16:09 +0000
Re: He arose from the tomb - exactly as He said "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-03-22 11:21 +0000
Re: He arose from the tomb - exactly as He said Kevrob <kevrob@my-deja.com> - 2016-03-22 08:21 -0700
Re: He arose from the tomb - exactly as He said "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-03-22 16:23 +0000
Re: He arose from the tomb - exactly as He said Kevrob <kevrob@my-deja.com> - 2016-03-22 15:42 -0700
Re: He arose from the tomb - exactly as He said "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-03-23 10:11 +0000
Re: He arose from the tomb - exactly as He said John Ritson <j.ritson@hotmail.co.uk> - 2016-03-22 13:31 +0000
Re: He arose from the tomb - exactly as He said "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-03-22 16:24 +0000
Re: He arose from the tomb - exactly as He said John Ritson <j.ritson@hotmail.co.uk> - 2016-03-22 19:35 +0000
Re: He arose from the tomb - exactly as He said Irreverend Dave <reverend_dave@ministerpants.com> - 2016-03-22 16:30 +0000
Re: He arose from the tomb - exactly as He said "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-03-21 16:24 +0000
Re: He arose from the tomb - exactly as He said Kevrob <kevrob@my-deja.com> - 2016-03-21 10:20 -0700
Re: He arose from the tomb - exactly as He said "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-03-21 17:59 +0000
Re: He arose from the tomb - exactly as He said Don Martin <drdonmartin@comcast.net> - 2016-03-21 18:10 -0400
Re: He arose from the tomb - exactly as He said Greywolf <greywolftheatheist@gmail.com> - 2016-03-19 14:23 -0700
Re: He arose from the tomb - exactly as He said Greywolf <greywolftheatheist@gmail.com> - 2016-03-20 10:20 -0700
Re: He arose from the tomb - exactly as He said John Locke <johnnydemon666@demonmail.com> - 2016-03-20 08:28 -0700
Re: The Theology of John Calvin -- 76 Greywolf <greywolftheatheist@gmail.com> - 2016-03-19 14:39 -0700
Re: The Theology of John Calvin -- 76 Greywolf <greywolftheatheist@gmail.com> - 2016-03-19 16:30 -0700
Re: The Theology of John Calvin -- 76 Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> - 2016-03-20 00:54 -0400
Re: The Theology of John Calvin -- 76 Greywolf <greywolftheatheist@gmail.com> - 2016-03-19 22:41 -0700
Re: The Theology of John Calvin -- 76 Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> - 2016-03-20 02:15 -0400
Re: The Theology of John Calvin -- 76 Greywolf <greywolftheatheist@gmail.com> - 2016-03-20 05:47 -0700
Re: The Theology of John Calvin -- 76 Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> - 2016-03-20 18:22 -0400
Re: The Theology of John Calvin -- 76 Les Hellawell <les@shant.tell> - 2016-03-21 08:06 +0000
Re: The Theology of John Calvin -- 76 Greywolf <greywolftheatheist@gmail.com> - 2016-03-21 07:17 -0700
Re: The Theology of John Calvin -- 76 Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> - 2016-03-21 11:25 -0400
Re: The Theology of John Calvin -- 76 Greywolf <greywolftheatheist@gmail.com> - 2016-03-21 07:14 -0700
Re: The Theology of John Calvin -- 76 Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> - 2016-03-21 11:34 -0400
Re: The Theology of John Calvin -- 76 Greywolf <greywolftheatheist@gmail.com> - 2016-03-21 08:50 -0700
Re: The Theology of John Calvin -- 76 Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> - 2016-03-21 12:04 -0400
Re: The Theology of John Calvin -- 76 Greywolf <greywolftheatheist@gmail.com> - 2016-03-21 09:31 -0700
Re: The Theology of John Calvin -- 76 Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> - 2016-03-21 12:41 -0400
Re: The Theology of John Calvin -- 76 Greywolf <greywolftheatheist@gmail.com> - 2016-03-21 10:27 -0700
Re: The Theology of John Calvin -- 76 Greywolf <greywolftheatheist@gmail.com> - 2016-03-22 12:50 -0700
Re: The Theology of John Calvin -- 76 Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> - 2016-03-22 16:46 -0400
Re: The Theology of John Calvin -- 76 Greywolf <greywolftheatheist@gmail.com> - 2016-03-22 15:57 -0700
Re: The Theology of John Calvin -- 76 Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> - 2016-03-22 22:27 -0400
Re: The Theology of John Calvin -- 76 Greywolf <greywolftheatheist@gmail.com> - 2016-03-22 20:25 -0700
Re: The Theology of John Calvin -- 76 Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> - 2016-03-23 00:28 -0400
Re: The Theology of John Calvin -- 76 Greywolf <greywolftheatheist@gmail.com> - 2016-03-22 21:42 -0700
Re: The Theology of John Calvin -- 76 Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> - 2016-03-23 00:58 -0400
Re: The Theology of John Calvin -- 76 John Ritson <j.ritson@hotmail.co.uk> - 2016-03-19 11:11 +0000
Page 3 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 Next page →
| From | "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-21 17:59 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: He arose from the tomb - exactly as He said |
| Message-ID | <dlar35Fep98U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #2077807 |
On 21/03/2016 17:20, Kevrob wrote: > On Monday, March 21, 2016 at 12:24:20 PM UTC-4, Alex W. wrote: >> On 21/03/2016 12:53, Irreverend Dave wrote: >>> Kevrob <kevrob@my-deja.com> wrote: >>> >>>> On Sunday, March 20, 2016 at 3:43:11 PM UTC-4, Kaptain Krunch wrote: >>>>> In article <3bd215a1-cf0d-49d8-8b61-d2bc2a9c6143@googlegroups.com>, >>>>> Kevrob <kevrob@my-deja.com> wrote: >> >> >>>> >>>> A Jesus may have lived and preached in first century Judea, >>>> but the extraordinary claims about performing magic are not >>>> provable by a historian's standards. >>>> >>>>> Some believe and some don't. I >>>>> am happy with that and I guess you are. >>>>> Sip a Bud Light and move on. >>>> >>>> A top-poster, and a fan of bad beer! >>>> >>>> Kevin R >>> >>> I don't disagree with your observation on Bud Light but what exactly do >>> you define as good beer? >>> >> >> Everyone has their own tastes, obviously, so there will never be a >> definitive agreement. >> >> That said, maybe a few general observations. >> >> First, start by eliminating the worst beers: >> >> Molson. >> Budweiser. >> Pabst Blue Ribbon. >> Keystone Light. >> Coors Light. >> >> From there, the only way is up. >> >> By preference, I'd give craft beers the nod -- the smaller, the better. >> Generally speaking, they are less driven by marketing considerations; >> indeed, quite often it will be the brewer himself who dictates what and >> how the brew should look and taste like. One may not like the result, >> but at least it's honest personal conviction behind the beer rather than >> corporate bean-counting and management. > > True. Sometimes a craft beer is a very good version of a beer style > that one just doesn't like. No biggee. I don't like onions. Don't > put me in charge of the onion judging at the county fair! Not liking something doesn't mean it's no good... Not everybody appreciates this truth. I was in Belgium last month and on a whim ordered a Kriek: a lambic beer flavoured with sour cherries. NOT my taste at all, no sirree, and not an experience I would wish to repeat. But it was a good beer in its own right. > > Some of my favorite craft brewers: Sprecher and New Glarus, from > Wisconsin, and Two Roads in Connecticut does a nice job. Locality does matter, IME: the air and the water do affect the flavour, I have found, and a beer that tastes great five miles from the brewery may well not be nearly as good five hundred miles down the road, however carefully transported. > > Craft Brewers: I like an India Pale Ale, but, please, start making > something else for a change! IPA is my go-to style of beer...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Don Martin <drdonmartin@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-21 18:10 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: He arose from the tomb - exactly as He said |
| Message-ID | <ndr0fbpdkne2bvqbleob8bhooimfgsi298@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #2077807 |
On Mon, 21 Mar 2016 10:20:04 -0700 (PDT), Kevrob <kevrob@my-deja.com>
wrote:
>Craft Brewers: I like an India Pale Ale, but, please, start making
>something else for a change!
I am finding that a lot of craft brewed lagers are over hopped to my
taste. It is apparently a fad currently.
--
aa #2278 Never mind "proof." Where is your evidence?
BAAWA Chief Assistant to the Assistant Chief Heckler
Fidei defensor (Hon. Antipodean)
Je pense, donc je suis Charlie.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Greywolf <greywolftheatheist@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-19 14:23 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: He arose from the tomb - exactly as He said |
| Message-ID | <1b888150-0195-4296-baf5-4179e1f971c8@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #2077029 |
On Saturday, March 19, 2016 at 1:32:56 PM UTC-7, Andrew wrote: > "Greywolf" wrote in message news:ff206129-294a-4817-aa9c-69bf0703cb73@googlegroups.com... > > > Your religion has been proven false. And there's not a damn thing you can make it "true." Not a DAMN thing. > > No, the fact -is- that Jesus arose from the tomb exactly > as He said He would. Then we may know for sure that > He will return -also- exactly as He said that He would. > > Therefore let us rejoice and prepare to meet Him in > peace. > > Amen. ___________ Matthew 16:21, Matthew 17:23 = "ON" the third day. Mark 8:31, 9:31, 10:34; Matthew 12:40, and Matthew 27:63 = three days AFTER he is killed. https://theatheistobserver.wordpress.com/2016/03/10/on-what-day-was-jesus-to-arise-from-the-dead-part-iv-the-conclusion/ = Jesus arising on the *2ND* day and NOT the "third" or even the "fourth" day. And you know all this already. Yet you brazenly continue to lie and refuse to heed Jesus' command in Matthew 10:14: "If *ANYONE* will not welcome you or listen to your words, LEAVE THAT HOME or town and shake the dust off your feet [AND GO AWAY!]" (Matthew 10:14) See everybody!! Look at what a deceitful "Christian" con-artist Andrew is!! You're religion has been proven *irrefutably* false, you dick-head. Now GO AWAY! You are NOT welcome here. Heed the command of your Lord Jesus Christ or prove yourself a complete phony.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Greywolf <greywolftheatheist@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-20 10:20 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: He arose from the tomb - exactly as He said |
| Message-ID | <5f1ae438-dc82-44cb-87e2-517ab62030f9@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #2077051 |
On Sunday, March 20, 2016 at 8:53:41 AM UTC-7, duke wrote: > On Sat, 19 Mar 2016 14:23:49 -0700 (PDT), Greywolf > <greywolftheatheist@gmail.com> wrote: > > >On Saturday, March 19, 2016 at 1:32:56 PM UTC-7, Andrew wrote: > >> "Greywolf" wrote in message news:ff206129-294a-4817-aa9c-69bf0703cb73@googlegroups.com... > >> > >> > Your religion has been proven false. And there's not a damn thing you can make it "true." Not a DAMN thing. > >> > >> No, the fact -is- that Jesus arose from the tomb exactly > >> as He said He would. Then we may know for sure that > >> He will return -also- exactly as He said that He would. > >> > >> Therefore let us rejoice and prepare to meet Him in > >> peace. > >> > >> Amen. > > > >___________ > > > >Matthew 16:21, Matthew 17:23 = "ON" the third day. > > Including, Acts 10:40 and 1 Cor 15:4 and historical. > > That makes 5. > > >Mark 8:31, 9:31, 10:34; Matthew 12:40, and Matthew 27:63 = three days AFTER he is killed. > > Sorry, mark 9:31 says on the 3rd day (3 days later), Liar! Mark 9:31: " They will KILL him, and AFTER THREE DAYS he will rise." This conforms to Mark 8:31. Mark 10:34 says 3 days Liar! Mark 10:34: "[They] will mock him and spit on him, flog him and KILL HIM. Three days LATER he will rise." This conforms to Mark 8:31. > later, matthew 27:63 also says 3 days later Earlier! Mark was the first gospel to be written. Both Luke and Matthew used Mark to compose their *own* respective gospels. > > That make one 2 for you. HOwever, adding those 3 to mine makes it 8 for me > including the historical. Even going by your OWN criteria there's a blatant contradiction on display. So what do you think you're accomplishing by admitting to bible contradiction? > > Final score: 8 for "on the 3rd day", and only 2 (still) for after 3 days and/or > nights. > > Heeheehee. I don't know why you're laughing. You've just admitted to biblical error. And on top of *that*, have Jesus uttering an irrefutable "false prophecy" in Mark 8:31 and Matthew 16:21! And to add even MORE to your pain, they contradict *this*: "NO word from God will EVER fail." (Luke 1:37) What do you have to say about *that*, fart-breath? > > >https://theatheistobserver.wordpress.com/2016/03/10/on-what-day-was-jesus-to-arise-from-the-dead-part-iv-the-conclusion/ = Jesus arising on the *2ND* day and NOT the "third" or even the "fourth" day. > > >And you know all this already. Yet you brazenly continue to lie and refuse to heed Jesus' command in Matthew 10:14: > >"If *ANYONE* will not welcome you or listen to your words, LEAVE THAT HOME or town and shake the dust off your feet [AND GO AWAY!]" (Matthew 10:14) > > Jesus specified that applied ONLY to the lost sheep of the people of Israel. You haven't provided a passage where Jesus proclaims the exact opposite of that, now have you? Matthew 10:14 stands as Jesus' standard--with the modification of allowing the preaching to Gentiles through Paul. Until you find that passage. Matthew 10:14 stands! > > >See everybody!! Look at what a deceitful "Christian" con-artist Andrew is!! > > The only con artist here is you, grey. I'm not the one trying to hoodwink the atheist community into believing that Mark 8:31 and Matthew 16:21 aren't *really* in contradiction. Or that Jesus wanted his missionaries to preach where they are clearly UNWANTED and disrespect the unbeliever and his "home" by staying as long as the missionary feels like it. That would be *YOU* doing that, you disgusting thing, you! > > >You're religion has been proven *irrefutably* false, you dick-head. Now GO AWAY! You are NOT welcome here. Heed the command of your Lord Jesus Christ or prove yourself a complete phony. > > Haahaahaa. Fuck you. > > the dukester, American-American > > ***** > "The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer." > Pope Paul VI > *****
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Locke <johnnydemon666@demonmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-20 08:28 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: He arose from the tomb - exactly as He said |
| Message-ID | <2hftebdvje0ugi3prfvqq48i7rlh6lo6oe@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #2077029 |
On Sat, 19 Mar 2016 13:32:53 -0700, "Andrew" <andrew.321remov@usa.net> wrote: >"Greywolf" wrote in message news:ff206129-294a-4817-aa9c-69bf0703cb73@googlegroups.com... > >> Your religion has been proven false. And there's not a damn thing you can make it "true." Not a DAMN thing. > >No, the fact -is- that Jesus arose from the tomb exactly >as He said He would. ...no, no, no...you can't make that outrageous claim without the prerequisites: First you need to prove that your god exists. Then you need to prove the your Jesus character exists. Then you need to prove that your Jesus was divine. Then you can make your zombie claim but you STILL have to prove it ! Here's a flow chart in case you get confused again: prove god => prove Jesus => prove Jesus divinity => make Zombie claim >Then we may know for sure that >He will return -also- exactly as He said that He would. > ...EVEN if you could prove all of the above, that doesn't means he's coming back.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Greywolf <greywolftheatheist@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-19 14:39 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <5b4f1c13-f99e-4f85-bfb7-2db8c670577b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #2077021 |
On Saturday, March 19, 2016 at 2:22:10 PM UTC-7, Robert Duncan wrote: > On 3/19/2016 4:15 PM, Greywolf wrote: > > >> Oh no? Mark 8:31, 9:31, 10:34: Matthew 12:40, and Matthew 27:60 all irrefutably CONTRADICT Matthew 16:21 (and *its* parallel passages.) > >> > >> That said, Mark 8:31 (and *its* parallel passages) contradict Luke 1:37's "NO word from God will EVER fail" irrefutably. > >> > >> Moreover, as this article shows, Jesus would have arisen on the "SECOND", and NOT on the "third" day as Matthew 16:21 would have it. So Matthew 16:21 and its corresponding passages prove to be bible falsities as well. > >> > >> Your religion has been irrefutably proven false! Read it and weep. > >> > > > Then why don't you send your "findings" to the American Bible > Society, Zondervan Books, Thomas Nelson Bibles, Holman Bible > Publishers, Tyndale Bible Publishers, and have their Hebrew and > Greek language scholars have a look at it? > > I'm sure they would be interested in reading about your dramatic > world-changing discovery. > > Don't you? ____ Don't need to. I've got a blog-site: https://theatheistobserver.wordpress.com/ People CAN read you know. And they can form new opinions given the facts. Wouldn't you agree? Unlike you, most will see the facts with their own two eyes and make their *OWN* determination and avoid being brainwashed and religiously-diseased like *some* people who post here regularly have hopelessly become. What? Having a hard time coming to grip with the facts I've presented you? If so, just tell me what part are you having a hard time with. I'll try and make it easier to understand in the best way I can.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Greywolf <greywolftheatheist@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-19 16:30 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <0a9b5674-e302-4f46-921c-f353a2a78ff1@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #2077057 |
On Saturday, March 19, 2016 at 2:57:57 PM UTC-7, Robert Duncan wrote: > On 3/19/2016 5:39 PM, Greywolf wrote: > > On Saturday, March 19, 2016 at 2:22:10 PM UTC-7, Robert Duncan wrote: > >> On 3/19/2016 4:15 PM, Greywolf wrote: > >> > >>>> Oh no? Mark 8:31, 9:31, 10:34: Matthew 12:40, and Matthew 27:60 all irrefutably CONTRADICT Matthew 16:21 (and *its* parallel passages.) > >>>> > >>>> That said, Mark 8:31 (and *its* parallel passages) contradict Luke 1:37's "NO word from God will EVER fail" irrefutably. > >>>> > >>>> Moreover, as this article shows, Jesus would have arisen on the "SECOND", and NOT on the "third" day as Matthew 16:21 would have it. So Matthew 16:21 and its corresponding passages prove to be bible falsities as well. > >>>> > >>>> Your religion has been irrefutably proven false! Read it and weep. > >>>> > >> > >> > >> Then why don't you send your "findings" to the American Bible > >> Society, Zondervan Books, Thomas Nelson Bibles, Holman Bible > >> Publishers, Tyndale Bible Publishers, and have their Hebrew and > >> Greek language scholars have a look at it? > >> > >> I'm sure they would be interested in reading about your dramatic > >> world-changing discovery. > >> > >> Don't you? > > > > > > Don't need to. I've got a blog-site: https://theatheistobserver.wordpress.com/ > > So you don't think you really have anything all that important then. > > Okay. That's all I wanted to know. > > Neither do I. _________ Hah!! You think *that* fooled anyone? I said I have a blog-site, and I've had QUITE the number of "views"! What do *you* have to show for yourself. Uh, that's right: that your religious belief-system is *demonstrably* and *irrefutably* FALSE. And you've seen the evidence. It's irrefutable. But look at you trying to pretend it isn't. Won't work, Robert. And that's because the proof is *irrefutable." And you KNOW it! You're casual dismissal of my findings isn't fooling anybody. And thinking that some evangelical bible scholar can "make things right" for you is a ludicrous fantasy--at best!! Face it dude. It's hopeless for you. You're not going to try and go back to using the Bible as some kind of "authority" because, as you can plainly see, it has been rendered discredited. Read it and weep, Robert: https://theatheistobserver.wordpress.com/2016/03/10/on-what-day-was-jesus-to-arise-from-the-dead-part-iv-the-conclusion/ Read it and weep. <smirk>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-20 00:54 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <ncla8k$229$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #2077107 |
On 3/19/2016 7:30 PM, Greywolf wrote: > On Saturday, March 19, 2016 at 2:57:57 PM UTC-7, Robert Duncan wrote: >> On 3/19/2016 5:39 PM, Greywolf wrote: >>> On Saturday, March 19, 2016 at 2:22:10 PM UTC-7, Robert Duncan wrote: >>>> On 3/19/2016 4:15 PM, Greywolf wrote: >>>> >>>>>> Oh no? Mark 8:31, 9:31, 10:34: Matthew 12:40, and Matthew 27:60 all irrefutably CONTRADICT Matthew 16:21 (and *its* parallel passages.) >>>>>> >>>>>> That said, Mark 8:31 (and *its* parallel passages) contradict Luke 1:37's "NO word from God will EVER fail" irrefutably. >>>>>> >>>>>> Moreover, as this article shows, Jesus would have arisen on the "SECOND", and NOT on the "third" day as Matthew 16:21 would have it. So Matthew 16:21 and its corresponding passages prove to be bible falsities as well. >>>>>> >>>>>> Your religion has been irrefutably proven false! Read it and weep. >>>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Then why don't you send your "findings" to the American Bible >>>> Society, Zondervan Books, Thomas Nelson Bibles, Holman Bible >>>> Publishers, Tyndale Bible Publishers, and have their Hebrew and >>>> Greek language scholars have a look at it? >>>> >>>> I'm sure they would be interested in reading about your dramatic >>>> world-changing discovery. >>>> >>>> Don't you? >>> >>> >>> Don't need to. I've got a blog-site: https://theatheistobserver.wordpress.com/ >> >> So you don't think you really have anything all that important then. >> >> Okay. That's all I wanted to know. >> >> Neither do I. > _________ > > Hah!! You think *that* fooled anyone? No. You're the one trying to fool someone. > I said I have a blog-site. Close to a million other people in the world have a blog site. It's no big deal. It's not really that important. What's important is the mere fact that you refuse to bring to anyone's attention who works in the Bible publishing business that you have "irrefutable" proof that Christianity is wrong. It's also all I need to hear in order to know that you're wrong. You don't have any confidence in what you claim to be "irrefutable" proof. So if you lack confidence in what you say, it's alright if I also lack confidence in your words, and it's alright if everybody else does too. Got it? You're welcome. <smirk>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Greywolf <greywolftheatheist@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-19 22:41 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <297f9a0f-b1fe-45fd-bc31-cc594b043c25@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #2077197 |
On Saturday, March 19, 2016 at 9:54:44 PM UTC-7, Robert Duncan wrote: > On 3/19/2016 7:30 PM, Greywolf wrote: > > On Saturday, March 19, 2016 at 2:57:57 PM UTC-7, Robert Duncan wrote: > >> On 3/19/2016 5:39 PM, Greywolf wrote: > >>> On Saturday, March 19, 2016 at 2:22:10 PM UTC-7, Robert Duncan wrote: > >>>> On 3/19/2016 4:15 PM, Greywolf wrote: > >>>> > >>>>>> Oh no? Mark 8:31, 9:31, 10:34: Matthew 12:40, and Matthew 27:60 all irrefutably CONTRADICT Matthew 16:21 (and *its* parallel passages.) > >>>>>> > >>>>>> That said, Mark 8:31 (and *its* parallel passages) contradict Luke 1:37's "NO word from God will EVER fail" irrefutably. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Moreover, as this article shows, Jesus would have arisen on the "SECOND", and NOT on the "third" day as Matthew 16:21 would have it. So Matthew 16:21 and its corresponding passages prove to be bible falsities as well. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Your religion has been irrefutably proven false! Read it and weep. > >>>>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Then why don't you send your "findings" to the American Bible > >>>> Society, Zondervan Books, Thomas Nelson Bibles, Holman Bible > >>>> Publishers, Tyndale Bible Publishers, and have their Hebrew and > >>>> Greek language scholars have a look at it? > >>>> > >>>> I'm sure they would be interested in reading about your dramatic > >>>> world-changing discovery. > >>>> > >>>> Don't you? > >>> > >>> > >>> Don't need to. I've got a blog-site: https://theatheistobserver.wordpress.com/ > >> > >> So you don't think you really have anything all that important then. > >> > >> Okay. That's all I wanted to know. > >> > >> Neither do I. > > _________ > > > > Hah!! You think *that* fooled anyone? > > No. You're the one trying to fool someone. Really? I presented you with the irrefutable fact that Mark 8:31, 9:31, 10:34; Matthew 12:40, and Matthew 27:63 ALL contradict Matthew 16:21, 17:23; and their corresponding parallel passages. I've also shown you that Jesus would had to have arisen on SATURDAY, instead of Sunday in this blog-post: https://theatheistobserver.wordpress.com/2016/03/10/on-what-day-was-jesus-to-arise-from-the-dead-part-iv-the-conclusion/ Making the irrefutable contradictions presented you contradict *this*: "NO word from God will EVER fail." (Luke 1:37) So that's what I provided as proof as to the falseness of your religion. But what do *you* do? Why ignore all that and try to deflect by insisting I have my findings be presented to a list of sources *you* feel I should present them to. Now why the need to do that when you can read, can't you? What part of those irrefutable contradictions do you not understand? And who are YOU to insist I do ANYTHING to validate my findings when anyone with an IQ above that of a half a peanut can readily see the errors and contradictions above. What's your problem? Need to read it in Greek instead? ON the third day cannot *possibly* mean four days later. And you know it. It's just eats your hide to realize that the contradictions are irreconcilable. So you try and deflect from the truth. But it ain't a workin'! There's no escape for you. Even the Gleason L. Archer's, the Norman Geisler's, the Josh McDowell's, the Craig A. Evan's of the Christian apologetic world can help you here, Robert. Your "goose" is "cooked"! There's no "out" for you. Your religion has been irrefutably proven FALSE. And there's nothing you can do about it except read this and weep: https://theatheistobserver.wordpress.com/2016/03/10/on-what-day-was-jesus-to-arise-from-the-dead-part-iv-the-conclusion/ > > > I said I have a blog-site. > > Close to a million other people in the world have a blog site. > It's no big deal. It's not really that important. Oh no? Well, it's where I've posted the proof your religion is as bogus as it gets. And you think that unimportant? > > What's important is the mere fact that you refuse to bring to > anyone's attention who works in the Bible publishing business > that you have "irrefutable" proof that Christianity is wrong. You can read, can't you? Point out where the evidence I've presented you in the above is "in error" in any way? Go ahead. Explain how "ON the third day" and AFTER three days are both one and the same day? So what's the need for me to approach the sources YOU want me to approach when all you need do is look over the facts presented above to readily see the contradictions? What's your problem? > > It's also all I need to hear in order to know that you're wrong. > You don't have any confidence in what you claim to be > "irrefutable" proof. Explain *exactly* how I'm "wrong." Don't just make an assertion and not back it up. Go over the passages cited above and this article: https://theatheistobserver.wordpress.com/2016/03/10/on-what-day-was-jesus-to-arise-from-the-dead-part-iv-the-conclusion/ and point to where I'm "wrong." It's put up or shut up time, Robert. > > So if you lack confidence in what you say, Who's showing any lack of confidence? My work is on full display for any Christian apologist to attack if they so choose. You're nobody to tell me what I should or should not do. Who in the heck do you think *YOU* are? it's alright if I > also lack confidence in your words, Really? I ask again: Can you read? Try reconciling the cited passages above. If you cannot, I'm right. Isn't that right? and it's alright if > everybody else does too. > > Got it? No. You're wrong. Just because YOU say that you have a lack of confidence in my words, doesn't make them false. It's your religious belief-system that's on trial here. And YOU'VE lost the case. There is no reconciling Mark 8:31 versus Matthew 16:21. And you also have to deal with the fact that the resurrection would had to have occurred on SATURDAY, only ONE day later, not two. And wait, there's even more:the contradiction between Mark 8:31 and Luke 1:37. You're in a world of hurt, Robert. And there's no way out for you. Your goose is cooked!!!! You're SOOOO welcome! <smirk>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-20 02:15 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <nclf0i$cot$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #2077206 |
On 3/20/2016 1:41 AM, Greywolf wrote: > Robert Duncan wrote: >> What's important is the mere fact that you refuse to bring to >> anyone's attention who works in the Bible publishing business >> that you believe you have "irrefutable" proof that Christianity >> is wrong. > > Point out where the evidence I've presented you in the above is "in error" in any way? The evidence is you not showing your "irrefutable" proof to Bible scholars. That's evidence of you hiding something from them. That's evidence that you don't have any confidence in what you claim is "irrefutable" proof. It's all I need to hear in order to know that you're wrong. You're wrong, and you know you're wrong. And now everybody knows you're wrong. See how that works? You're welcome. <smirk>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Greywolf <greywolftheatheist@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-20 05:47 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <4353d7d4-11fb-408d-8896-e38771db58e8@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #2077215 |
On Saturday, March 19, 2016 at 11:15:45 PM UTC-7, Robert Duncan wrote: > On 3/20/2016 1:41 AM, Greywolf wrote: > > > Robert Duncan wrote: > > >> What's important is the mere fact that you refuse to bring to > >> anyone's attention who works in the Bible publishing business I'm "published," already. I have an online blog ANY Christian apologist can visit ANY time they want. It's here: https://theatheistobserver.wordpress.com/ And need I point out to the reader that you absolutely REFUSE to visit the site and read my articles *yourself*?!! So you stand refuted!! Furthermore, there is absolutely NO NEED for me to go anywhere else. You've been presented with my evidence already. It doesn't take a graduate from the Yale Divinity School to see that "ON the third day" and "Three days later" are not BOTH "Sunday." That being the case, ONE of those passages contradicts Luke 1:37. So pick your poison. In any event, your religion has been proven irrefutably false. And just because some Christian nut-job of a scholar wants to claim that the third day AND the fourth day are both the same day, doesn't prove it true. > >> that you believe you have "irrefutable" proof that Christianity > >> is wrong. How's that?!! Re-read the evidence for yourself. If I'm wrong, how is it that YOU can't prove me wrong? All you are saying is that IF I don't submit my articles to some Christian nut-job of YOUR choosing, that my findings have been proven "wrong." That's sheer nonsense. And you KNOW it! > > > > Point out where the evidence I've presented you in the above is "in error" in any way? > > The evidence is you not showing your "irrefutable" proof to Bible scholars. I'm ONLINE! I have a publicly viewed website that ANY bible scholar can visit and try and refute. So what is your freakin' problem? Well, I DO know. You're trying to deflect. You're trying to get away from the fact that the evidence presented you proves your religion FALSE. You CAN read. And you KNOW the evidence is irrefutable. So now let me turn the tables on you: Why don't YOU submit my findings to one of the sources you want ME to approach, and let's see what you are told. Fair enough? In the meantime, the issue has been decided. Your religion has been proven IRREFUTABLY FALSE. Until Norman Geisler, of Craig A. Evans can "miraculously" bail you out of this one, you stand REFUTED. Capisce? > That's evidence of you hiding something from them. Hah!!!!!! Talk about *desperate*!!! What in the world could I be hiding? Look at the evidence and tell us that it's not "irrefutable"! Go ahead and play "professional" Christian apologist *yourself*. Let's see YOU tackle the evidence. If you can't prove me wrong. It proves YOU wrong. Doesn't it? > > That's evidence that you don't have any confidence in what you > claim is > "irrefutable" proof. Baloney! And you know it!!! > > It's all I need to hear in order to know that you're wrong. Sorry. But the evidence speaks for itself. And it proves your religion as false as FALSE gets. And there's not a thing you can do about it. Trying this utterly stupid tactic of yours simply won't fly. My not contacting one of YOUR nut-job sources doesn't prove ANYTHING I've said wrong. That's like you telling me 2 + 2 = 4 ISN'T correct because I haven't submitted that result some well-known school of mathematics. You're only being silly, and DESPERATE. > > You're wrong, and you know you're wrong. > > And now everybody knows you're wrong. > > See how that works? No. No I don't. Face it dude, you've been proven irrefutably wrong. And I mean *IRREFUTABLY* so!!! When you have to resort to this kind of nonsense of yours, everyone knows you've been utterly annihilated. And it couldn't have happened to an "uglier" human being. No, no. Stop, you're too kind! Oh, you're welcome. <smirk>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-20 18:22 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <ncn7l6$r70$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #2077273 |
On 3/20/2016 8:47 AM, Greywolf wrote: > On Saturday, March 19, 2016 at 11:15:45 PM UTC-7, Robert Duncan wrote: >> On 3/20/2016 1:41 AM, Greywolf wrote: >> >>> Robert Duncan wrote: >> >>>> What's important is the mere fact that you refuse to bring to >>>> anyone's attention who works in the Bible publishing business > > I'm "published," already. I have an online blog ANY Christian apologist can visit ANY time they want. Well, that's okay. I'd prefer to wait until it's been accepted by Bible scholars, and is in hardcopy "book" format. Then I'll read it. You're welcome. <smirk>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Les Hellawell <les@shant.tell> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-21 08:06 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <q68vebtibsb3il7jg7a252v4fv2vfhnck7@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #2077479 |
On Sun, 20 Mar 2016 18:22:26 -0400, Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> wrote: >On 3/20/2016 8:47 AM, Greywolf wrote: >> On Saturday, March 19, 2016 at 11:15:45 PM UTC-7, Robert Duncan wrote: >>> On 3/20/2016 1:41 AM, Greywolf wrote: >>> >>>> Robert Duncan wrote: >>> >>>>> What's important is the mere fact that you refuse to bring to >>>>> anyone's attention who works in the Bible publishing business >> >> I'm "published," already. I have an online blog ANY Christian apologist can visit ANY time they want. > >Well, that's okay. I'd prefer to wait until it's been accepted >by Bible scholars, and is in hardcopy "book" format. > >Then I'll read it. > >You're welcome. > ><smirk> > Well done Greyjoy, it looks like he has been unable to refute it himself and needs his 'experts' to do it for him Les Hellawell Grreting from YORKSHIRE - The White Rose County Martin Luther wrote:: "Faith must trample underfoot all sense, reason and understanding Which means that if Luther practised what he preached nothing he ever said made any sense
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Greywolf <greywolftheatheist@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-21 07:17 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <b0038b0f-b9b4-4ed0-9d4b-b74584098bea@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #2077665 |
On Monday, March 21, 2016 at 1:07:46 AM UTC-7, Les Hellawell wrote: > On Sun, 20 Mar 2016 18:22:26 -0400, Robert Duncan > <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> wrote: > > >On 3/20/2016 8:47 AM, Greywolf wrote: > >> On Saturday, March 19, 2016 at 11:15:45 PM UTC-7, Robert Duncan wrote: > >>> On 3/20/2016 1:41 AM, Greywolf wrote: > >>> > >>>> Robert Duncan wrote: > >>> > >>>>> What's important is the mere fact that you refuse to bring to > >>>>> anyone's attention who works in the Bible publishing business > >> > >> I'm "published," already. I have an online blog ANY Christian apologist can visit ANY time they want. > > > >Well, that's okay. I'd prefer to wait until it's been accepted > >by Bible scholars, and is in hardcopy "book" format. > > > >Then I'll read it. > > > >You're welcome. > > > ><smirk> > > > Well done Greyjoy, it looks like he has been unable to refute it > himself and needs his 'experts' to do it for him Thank you so much, Les. And to make you feel even better, I did some very exhaustive research on this and there's no "expert" going to save his butt on this one. They've got nothing either. The "pros" mostly ignore the contradiction. A sign it's hopeless for them. Glad to be of assistance. > > > > > > Les Hellawell > Grreting from > YORKSHIRE - The White Rose County > > Martin Luther wrote:: > "Faith must trample underfoot all sense, reason and understanding > > Which means that if Luther practised what he preached > nothing he ever said made any sense
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-21 11:25 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <ncp3n7$1unf$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #2077665 |
On 3/21/2016 4:06 AM, Les Hellawell wrote: > On Sun, 20 Mar 2016 18:22:26 -0400, Robert Duncan > <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> wrote: > >> On 3/20/2016 8:47 AM, Greywolf wrote: >>> On Saturday, March 19, 2016 at 11:15:45 PM UTC-7, Robert Duncan wrote: >>>> On 3/20/2016 1:41 AM, Greywolf wrote: >>>> >>>>> Robert Duncan wrote: >>>> >>>>>> What's important is the mere fact that you refuse to bring to >>>>>> anyone's attention who works in the Bible publishing business >>> >>> I'm "published," already. I have an online blog ANY Christian apologist can visit ANY time they want. >> >> Well, that's okay. I'd prefer to wait until it's been accepted >> by Bible scholars, and is in hardcopy "book" format. >> >> Then I'll read it. >> >> You're welcome. >> >> <smirk> >> > Well done Greyjoy, it looks like he has been unable to refute it > himself and needs his 'experts' to do it for him > No, as usual, you've got it all backwards. Anybody can write something down and say it proves whatever they want it to prove. But that's not how things work in the real world. In the real world, Greyboi needs to have it reviewed by Bible scholars and linguistic experts first before it can be published in "book" format. My question is: Why doesn't he do that? My guess is that he knows it would never pass that first hurdle. What do you think, Les?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Greywolf <greywolftheatheist@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-21 07:14 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <57bd0e74-7e9e-4c73-bbaa-49a3f5e4f880@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #2077479 |
On Sunday, March 20, 2016 at 3:22:29 PM UTC-7, Robert Duncan wrote: > On 3/20/2016 8:47 AM, Greywolf wrote: > > On Saturday, March 19, 2016 at 11:15:45 PM UTC-7, Robert Duncan wrote: > >> On 3/20/2016 1:41 AM, Greywolf wrote: > >> > >>> Robert Duncan wrote: > >> > >>>> What's important is the mere fact that you refuse to bring to > >>>> anyone's attention who works in the Bible publishing business > > > > I'm "published," already. I have an online blog ANY Christian apologist can visit ANY time they want. > > Well, that's okay. Good! Now that the proof is "out there" and is standing firm. It proves that your religion is IRREFUTABLY FALSE. The texts also make *this* statement false as well: "NO word from God will EVER fail." (Luke 1:37) Look at those words. Think of how FALSE they are. False, false, false. And there's not a damn thing you can do about it. Everyone reading my blog can see the truth with their very eyes. Any borderline atheist will turn away from your FALSE religion. The borderline Christian will do so as well. They'll turn *away* from your false religion and see you are posting irrefutably FALSE doctrines. How does it feel, Robert? I'd prefer to wait until it's been accepted > by Bible scholars, and is in hardcopy "book" format. > > Then I'll read it. Hah! Do you really think that changes the FALSENESS of your religion. But guess what else? Your remark is showing the entire atheist (and Christian lurking) community that you have NO desire to seek the truth; that you only want to post here because you despise the atheist. So your posting of Calvinist pig puke won't "fly." Your religion is a FALSE one, and you have had enough evidence of that presented to you for even YOU to recognize it's false. And you don't like that one *bit*. Hurt, does it? Well, you deserve it. It couldn't of happened to an "uglier" and disgusting human being. <smirk>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-21 11:34 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <ncp481$1vmq$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #2077734 |
On 3/21/2016 10:14 AM, Greywolf wrote: > On Sunday, March 20, 2016 at 3:22:29 PM UTC-7, Robert Duncan wrote: >> I'd prefer to wait until it's been accepted >> by Bible scholars, and is in hardcopy "book" format. >> >> Then I'll read it. > > Hah! Do you really think that changes the .... <snip> Red Herring attempt to change the subject noted, and duly laughed at.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Greywolf <greywolftheatheist@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-21 08:50 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <eb2fa73c-1baa-4350-8934-bfcd435215a3@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #2077761 |
On Monday, March 21, 2016 at 8:33:25 AM UTC-7, Robert Duncan wrote: > On 3/21/2016 10:14 AM, Greywolf wrote: > > On Sunday, March 20, 2016 at 3:22:29 PM UTC-7, Robert Duncan wrote: > > >> I'd prefer to wait until it's been accepted > >> by Bible scholars, and is in hardcopy "book" format. > >> > >> Then I'll read it. > > > > Hah! Do you really think that changes the .... <snip> > > Red Herring attempt to change the subject noted, and duly > laughed at. _______ Hah! Do you really think that changes the FALSENESS of your religion. Go ahead, try and bury your head in the sand. But when you finally pull it out, guess what, it will STILL have been proven FALSE. And there isn't a DAMN thing you can do about it. Guess what else? Your remark is showing the entire atheist (and Christian lurking) community that you have NO desire to seek the truth; that you only want to post here because you despise the atheist. Look at you, you religiously-diseased, brainwashed moron, you are REFUSING to read my articles because they prove you WRONG. So much for seeking the "truth," eh, Robert? Well, don't worry. Those who've viewed the evidence here and on my blog (and there are *many* who have!) know the truth. And you're posting of your religious crap will only show the world just how false you are. Hurts, doesn't it? So your posting of Calvinist pig puke won't "fly." Your religion is a FALSE one, and you have had enough evidence of that presented to you for even YOU to recognize it's false. And you don't like that one *bit*. Hurt, does it? Well, you deserve it. It couldn't of happened to an "uglier" and disgusting human being. <smirk>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-21 12:04 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <ncp5v6$3g9$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #2077766 |
On 3/21/2016 11:50 AM, Greywolf wrote: > Do you really think that changes the FALSENESS of your religion. It's just your unsupported opinion. Red Herring attempt to change the subject noted, and duly laughed at.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Greywolf <greywolftheatheist@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-21 09:31 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <797a2ed5-12b3-41d0-9f47-42add1b19f75@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #2077775 |
On Monday, March 21, 2016 at 9:03:07 AM UTC-7, Robert Duncan wrote: > On 3/21/2016 11:50 AM, Greywolf wrote: > > > Do you really think that changes the FALSENESS of your religion. > > It's just your unsupported opinion. > > Red Herring attempt to change the subject noted, and duly > laughed at. __________ Hah!!!!! Do you really believe my facts are "unsupported"? Are you really that stupid? Of COURSE they're supported! You've seen the irrefutable evidence YOURSELF! There's no way in this universe you can get "ON" the third day, and three days LATER mean one and the same day. You can't do it. And I DID destroy that Apologetic Press' arguments. And in an irrefutable way. But you're to close-minded, religiously-diseased, and brainwashed to even LOOK at the articles, you ding-bat, you. You can laugh all you want. It doesn't change the facts, now does it? When you finally pull that brainwashed head of yours out of the sand, the texts will STILL contradict each other. And there's not a damn thing you can do about it. Not a DAMN thing. How does it feel to KNOW, to absolutely KNOW your religious beliefs are as false as FALSE can get, Robert. Hurts real good, doesn't it?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 3 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | alt.atheism
csiph-web