Originally Posted by Rafi

I repeat:

You are helpless to prove the so-called "resurrection," "virgin birth," "hell," "Easter Bunny," "Santa Claus" [rhetorical] or any of the other twaddle you swear by. Yet you arrogantly claim to have all the answers. Instead of thumping that Bible, you should study it.

Arrogance is a sin, and you are wallowing in it, Jingle Bells.

You're the arrogant Rosie O'Donnell numb skull who confuses myth with reality.

I have four (4) independent, historical Gospels plus assorted first-century epistles that document the resurrection. All you have is a lot of hot air. A mindless carny-barker makes more sense than you do.

Irony fail. Using several books with differing accounts about a myth to prove it's a fact.

Originally Posted by Penfold

Irony fail. Using several books with differing accounts about a myth to prove it's a fact.

The problem with your hyperventilation is that you've never been able to back up your "myth" claim. All we get from you on that is silence or hot air.

Originally Posted by Easyrider

The problem with your hyperventilation is that you've never been able to back up your "myth" claim. All we get from you on that is silence or hot air.

You've never been able to back up your "myth" claim either dumbass.

Originally Posted by Easyrider

You're the arrogant Rosie O'Donnell numb skull who confuses myth with reality.

Well, Snerdley, I had to look up "Rosie O'Donnell" to figure out what the hell you're groping for with your cult jargon - I'm sure in your imagination your Daddy, Rush, gave you a wink and a nudge when you hurled your idiotic reference my way.... all it really did was prove that you're a dittobagging cult devotee of the Rushatollah - O'Donnell is one of the punching bags he uses in his hemorrhoid-induced diatribes - and that your idea of a "credible source" is down there with the National Enquirer or the defunct Weekly World News. Really pathetic, Jingle Bells.

Originally Posted by Easyrider

I have four (4) independent, historical Gospels plus assorted first-century epistles that document the resurrection. All you have is a lot of hot air. A mindless carny-barker makes more sense than you do.

You have nothing but childish "I know you are but what am I?" 4th grader responses. We've shown that the 4 Gospels were written 100 years after the events they assert, and were selected from over 150 other similar accounts that were circulating, in 325 AD. We've seen that Paul, the inventor of the religion you claim to "have" was an epileptic misanthropic pessimist, "sour grapes" ex-Jew who spun Christianity from threads of Judaism, Mithraism, and Isis worship into a whole new cult that took root in the decaying compost of the Roman Empire.

So, back to topic - there are no "Evolutionists" like there are "Christians," or "Snake Handlers," or "Dittoheads." People who are honest, and don't deny science and obvious factual evidence, may indeed acknowledge that life evolves, and that humans evolved from the lower life forms, but they are not "Evolutionists."

That clarified [though of course you will ignore it], the goal of people who respect the truth, and authentic experience over cult indoctrination, [who the OP called "Evolutionists"] is to expose the lies, and reveal the truth.

With that goal, then, the truthteller approach to "religion" depends on what religion you are talking about. Buddhism for example, has no quarrel with the fact of evolution, so there are no lies to expose.

Christianity, on the other hand, actively seeks to assert lies as if they were fact, and suppress the truth in every way possible. Therefore, rational people, who seek the truth, will have a conflict with Christianity by definition.

It's the Christians [or pretend-Christian political trolls like yourself] that create the friction. If y'all would jest go back in the trailer and shut up, it'd be better for everybody. . .

Originally Posted by Rafi

Well, Snerdley, I had to look up "Rosie O'Donnell" to figure out what the hell you're groping for....Really pathetic, Jingle Bells.

That's who you are - Rosie O'Donnell. And you're right - it is pathetic.

Originally Posted by Rafi

You have nothing but childish "I know you are but what am I?" 4th grader responses. We've shown that the 4 Gospels were written 100 years after the events they assert...

Which is a bald-faced lie.

Scholars Date the Gospels and New Testament

Dating the New Testament

Originally Posted by Rafi

, and were selected from over 150 other similar accounts that were circulating, in 325 AD. We've seen that Paul, the inventor of the religion you claim to "have" was an epileptic misanthropic pessimist, "sour grapes" ex-Jew who spun Christianity from threads of Judaism, Mithraism, and Isis worship into a whole new cult that took root in the decaying compost of the Roman Empire.

More bs. Let's take Mithra(ism) as your example:

Dr. Edwin Yamauchi dismisses this (Mithra) hypothesis in stating "Those who seek to adduce Mithra as a prototype of the risen Christ ignore the late date for the expansion of Mithraism to the west (cf. M. J. Vermaseren, Mithras, The Secret God, 1963, p. 76)."

Norman Geisler states, "We do know that Mithraism, like its mystery competitors, had a basic myth. Mithra was supposedly born when he emerged from a rock; he was carrying a knife and torch and wearing a phrygian cap. He battled first with the sun and then the primeval bull, which then became the ground of life for the human race." In comparison, Geisler points out that "the foundation stones of Christianity are patently taken from the Old Testament, Judaism generally, and the life of a historical figure named Jesus."

Did Christianity Steal from Mithraism?

Did Christianity Steal From Mithraism? - Come Reason Ministries

"Exaggerations and oversimplifications abound in this kind of literature. One encounters overblown claims about alleged likenesses between baptism and the Lord's Supper and similar "sacraments" in certain mystery cults. Attempts to find analogies between the resurrection of Christ and the alleged 'resurrections' of the mystery deities involve massive amounts of oversimplification and inattention to detail." - Ronald Nash (Christian Research Journal, Winter 1994, p.8)

Originally Posted by Rafi

That clarified [though of course you will ignore it], the goal of people who respect the truth, and authentic experience over cult indoctrination, [who the OP called "Evolutionists"] is to expose the lies, and reveal the truth.

Considering the lies of yours I just exposed, it's very obvious you are not an honest broker of the truth.

Originally Posted by Rafi

Christianity, on the other hand, actively seeks to assert lies as if they were fact, and suppress the truth in every way possible. Therefore, rational people, who seek the truth, will have a conflict with Christianity by definition.

Once again, it was YOUR LIES THAT WERE JUST EXPOSED.

Originally Posted by Rafi

It's the Christians [or pretend-Christian political trolls like yourself] that create the friction. If y'all would jest go back in the trailer and shut up, it'd be better for everybody. . .

Recommend you go wash out your diaper, numb skull. You don't know the truth from a hammer.

You're busted! Quit lying!

Originally Posted by Freedom

Man must have food to eat, he can buy food with money; but that does not mean stealing is moral or immoral. Taxation is not simply the cost of living in a civilized society, it is the immoral extortion of money for the purpose of paying for things like roads, libraries, police forces, and militaries.

I benefit from plenty of things paid for with tax payer money, just not most of them.

So presuming that by saying you "benefit from plenty of things paid for with tax payer money", I guess it would be fair to say that you use roads, expect the police to show up if you need them, expect someone to answer 911 if you call, find it an obligation of the government to provide for our national defense, use the US Postal Service, etc etc.

My question is, if you consider taxation immoral, then what does that make you being that you benefit from those government backed items payed for with tax payer money? If you want to live somewhere where you don't have to pay taxes to a government, I suggest finding a little hut in the rainforest of Brasil or the African bush.

Why is that?

Hypocrite might not be the most accurate word. Perhaps we could say you lack the courage of your convictions.

If you want some which are particular to you how about abortion in which a child who is harming no one is targeted for extermination?

First off, how do you know that the embryo or fetus (a child is a fetus that has been born) is harming no one? What is you definition of harm, and does everyone view harm the same?

Can you prove releasing CO2 harms anyone?

I seem to remember that we had been discussing CO2, until I posted some data that you asked me to post, and then nothing but crickets for the last 12 days.

A flat rate of zero is perfect equality.

You are welcome now to personally pay a rate of zero if you decide to. The rest of us will even pay your room and board. Those of us with a sense of reality are willing to part with some of our money to ensure that we don't have to swim across rivers when the bridges start falling.

Originally Posted by snakespit

My question is, if you consider taxation immoral, then what does that make you being that you benefit from those government backed items payed for with tax payer money?

Nothing.

Originally Posted by snakespit

If you want to live somewhere where you don't have to pay taxes to a government, I suggest finding a little hut in the rainforest of Brasil or the African bush.

If you want to live somewhere where you get to steal from people I suggest you commit suicide because I will not accept it.

Originally Posted by snakespit

Hypocrite might not be the most accurate word. Perhaps we could say you lack the courage of your convictions.

What courage do I lack? What would you do?

Originally Posted by snakespit

First off, how do you know that the embryo or fetus (a child is a fetus that has been born) is harming no one?

They don't typically, and they never do intentionally. A fetus is a child.

Originally Posted by snakespit

What is you definition of harm

physical injury or mental damage

Originally Posted by snakespit

does everyone view harm the same?

If it is a subjective concept it is useless in morality or law... (or pretty much anything else)

Originally Posted by snakespit

I seem to remember that we had been discussing CO2, until I posted some data that you asked me to post, and then nothing but crickets for the last 12 days.

I remember we weren't discussing it harming people, try another excuse.

Originally Posted by snakespit

You are welcome now to personally pay a rate of zero if you decide to.

Despite your factitious comment, I am not free to.

Originally Posted by snakespit

The rest of us will even pay your room and board.

"The rest of us", how easily you take on the voice of society. Those who believe as I do are few, but far more than just me. This is also a badly disguised appeal to force fallacy.

Originally Posted by snakespit

Those of us with a sense of reality are willing to part with some of our money to ensure that we don't have to swim across rivers when the bridges start falling.

You are huh? Does "us" mean most people, give me an estimate percentage.

Originally Posted by Easyrider

Recommend you go wash out your diaper, numb skull. You don't know the truth from a hammer.

Look, Snerdley, the fact that your entire belief system is a polytheistic pagan cult is besides the point. You can clipboard in all the scholarly-sounding gibberish you want, but you still are helpless to prove the main tenets of Xtianity, i.e, the "Resurrection," "Hell," or the "Virgin Birth." Thus, you are completely discredited, Q.E.D.

Originally Posted by Rafi

Look, Snerdley, the fact that your entire belief system is a polytheistic pagan cult is besides the point. You can clipboard in all the scholarly-sounding gibberish you want, but you still are helpless to prove the main tenets of Xtianity, i.e, the "Resurrection," "Hell," or the "Virgin Birth." Thus, you are completely discredited, Q.E.D.

<Flush>

The scholars burst your little bubble, didn't they? And you don't have to like it because it shows you to be the kind of person who doesn't personally investigate matters before you XXXX them out your rear end. You just parrot the tripe you wolfed down from other God-hating numb skulls. So wise up and go lick your self-inflicted wounds.

Originally Posted by Easyrider

<Flush>

The scholars burst your little bubble, didn't they? And you don't have to like it because it shows you to be the kind of person who doesn't personally investigate matters before you XXXX them out your rear end. You just parrot the tripe you wolfed down from other God-hating numb skulls. So wise up and go lick your self-inflicted wounds.

Hilarious, coming from Snerdley, the original bubble boy. Keep prayin' those snakes don't bite ye -

Originally Posted by Rafi

Hilarious, coming from Snerdley, the original bubble boy. Keep prayin' those snakes don't bite ye -

That serpent, the devil, has been having his way with you for some time now. You might want to go get some Tucks pads.

Originally Posted by Easyrider

That serpent, the devil, has been having his way with you for some time now. You might want to go get some Tucks pads.

Ahh, pointy tailed devils with pitchforks, more of your menagerie of divvels, demons, saints, angels, demigods, ghosts and other varied superstitious nonsense. Which of your gods created them, Snerdley?

Originally Posted by Rafi

Ahh, pointy tailed devils with pitchforks, more of your menagerie of divvels, demons, saints, angels, demigods, ghosts and other varied superstitious nonsense. Which of your gods created them, Snerdley?

Good morning, Rosie (O'Donnell). Is today the day you drop down into the Pit for being a spiritual cancer in society?

Were you ever able to name all those deist signers of the Declaration of Independence? I'll settle for just five. Remember when selecting your five that a deist was one who believed in a God who did not involve himself in the affairs of men and / or nations, and who did not give divine revelation to man (ala the Bible).

Let's see your list. Otherwise the world will know you lied AGAIN!