quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

So I presume you have given up, hence conceded your position that God is a criminal simply because God is the creator.

Right

Seems your position is indefensible, I keep waiting for you to level a defense and you dont, what else can anyone think?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

Creationism that produces and promotes accounts of natural history that differ radically from conventional accounts—made up of so-called ‘biblical’ or ‘young-Earth’ creationists, ‘anti-evolutionists’ and ‘Flood geologists’—is herein called ‘theodicic creationism’.

As I said, a massive incompatibility.

But not with religion generally, just some odd types within a religion. Moreover, I fail to see a connection between any form of Creationism and the Theological problem of evil. But if you think you've got one, trot it out. Posting unsourced quotes won't do.

Oh fuck no, I sourced this earlier in this thread. Maybe you should pay attention.

Maybe if you posted it you could find it easily.

K.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

Not in any sense in the real world regardless of surface, for instance, the genealogies that differ on Jesus from David on, in Matthew and in Luke.

quote:

One of the charges of contradiction brought by skeptics against the Bible is the surface appearance of contradiction between Matthew’s genealogical list (1:1-17) and the one provided by Luke (3:23-38). As is always the case, the charge of contradiction is premature and reflects an immature appraisal of the extant evidence. In every case of alleged contradiction, further investigation has yielded additional evidence that exonerates the Bible and further verifies its inerrancy. The alleged discrepancies pertaining to Matthew and Luke’s genealogies were explained and answered long ago (e.g., Haley, 1977, pp. 325-326; McGarvey, 1910, pp. 344-346; McGarvey, 1974, pp. 51-55; cf. Lyons, 2003).

First, Matthew reported the lineage of Christ only back to Abraham; Luke traced it all the way back to Adam. Second, Matthew used the expression “begat;” Luke used the expression “son of,” which results in his list being a complete reversal of Matthew’s. Third, the two genealogical lines parallel each other from Abraham to David. Fourth, beginning with David, Matthew traced the paternal line of descent through Solomon; Luke traced the maternal line through Solomon’s brother, Nathan...

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

Dont be a fucking retard, dogshit44, there is no paternal line, unless Mary was a whore fucking everyone except old god with the magic fuckstick that one time, when she was drunk, and did him for free, a god have mercy fuck as it were. She should have blowed him, turns out you wouldnt felchgobble quite as i industriously.

You can have as many brothers fucking sisters and sons fucking mothers as you want, I have pointed out repeatedly that is in your nutsucker genalogies, but........Joseph ether fucked the shit out of her, and Yeshua ha'Notzri was a useless pill shill like your Jason Chaffetx, or Yeshua El Shaddai was a legalist like your Harry the closet Gowdy, beacuse god fucked her brains out, like the lousy whore she was, as a matter of Droit du seigneur. Ether way, the bible is wrong as is the genealogy.

there is no proof of this genealogy, I need more proof to prove my great grandfather who I actually knew. I have also pointed out that you are no xtian of any stripe, not even a Paulist (who was not an xtian) or a Peterist (also not an xtian).


Don't bother waltzing in here with your non-extant expertise on the matter, it is prima facie masturbation fantasy.

quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44

have you ever come across a more vile character?

quote:

Right, and you blame the victims for using their "free will" to go to the slaughter.

quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44

have you ever come across a more vile character?

quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44

have you ever come across a more vile character?

quote:

ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr

quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44

have you ever come across a more vile character?

A quintessential example of the "tolerant left"



Michael

quote:

ORIGINAL: tamaka

quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44

have you ever come across a more vile character?

Actually, no Sir, i haven't. It's like a gross mad demon.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

quote:

ORIGINAL: tamaka

quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44

have you ever come across a more vile character?

Actually, no Sir, i haven't. It's like a gross mad demon.

You are a pretty stupid and leprous whore yourself. Sort of like a low life crackwhore.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tamaka

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

quote:

ORIGINAL: tamaka

quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44

have you ever come across a more vile character?

Actually, no Sir, i haven't. It's like a gross mad demon.

You are a pretty stupid and leprous whore yourself. Sort of like a low life crackwhore.

Oh my! That really hurt. Seriously though... i have no doubt you are intelligent but unfortunately that is covered over by the disgusting way you present yourself most of the time. Occassionally your reasonable side is allowed to present itself, but not very often. Which is probably very unfortunate for you.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

quote:

ORIGINAL: tamaka

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

quote:

ORIGINAL: tamaka

quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44

have you ever come across a more vile character?

Actually, no Sir, i haven't. It's like a gross mad demon.

You are a pretty stupid and leprous whore yourself. Sort of like a low life crackwhore.

Oh my! That really hurt. Seriously though... i have no doubt you are intelligent but unfortunately that is covered over by the disgusting way you present yourself most of the time. Occassionally your reasonable side is allowed to present itself, but not very often. Which is probably very unfortunate for you.

Oh, Iam perfectly reasonable, religion cannot be at all correct (in any of them) because they are provably illogical and contradictory, I presented a simple contradiction. Science can disagree about inerpreting observable repeatable facts.

That is religion. Nutsuckers however like to spread factless felchgobbling in ubiquity.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tamaka

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

quote:

ORIGINAL: tamaka

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

quote:

ORIGINAL: tamaka

quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44

have you ever come across a more vile character?

Actually, no Sir, i haven't. It's like a gross mad demon.

You are a pretty stupid and leprous whore yourself. Sort of like a low life crackwhore.

Oh my! That really hurt. Seriously though... i have no doubt you are intelligent but unfortunately that is covered over by the disgusting way you present yourself most of the time. Occassionally your reasonable side is allowed to present itself, but not very often. Which is probably very unfortunate for you.

Oh, Iam perfectly reasonable, religion cannot be at all correct (in any of them) because they are provably illogical and contradictory, I presented a simple contradiction. Science can disagree about inerpreting observable repeatable facts.

That is religion. Nutsuckers however like to spread factless felchgobbling in ubiquity.

I am not arguing whether you are right or wrong. I just don't understand why you can't communicate clearly like a man as you just did (minus the felchgobbling crap).

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

crashing again