This thread is to post anything you find in the bible that you see as a contradiction. God creates animals and the man.Gen(1:25-26)

God creates man and then the animals. (Gen.2:18-19)

Do we really need a thread for this? There are whole websites dedicated to this, so posting them here would be a waste of disk space. http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/

Well I do think it needs to be here that is why I made the thread. Compared to some of the other threads posted under this category I do not think mine is in anyway out of place. There is a thread to post scripture why not biblical contradictions. So saying it is taking up space I think is a lousy excuse. But your the rogue moderator. :worship:

Well I do think it needs to be here that is why I made the thread. Compared to some of the other threads posted under this category I do not think mine is in anyway out of place. There is a thread to post scripture why not biblical contradictions. So saying it is taking up space I think is a lousy excuse.
Well sure, I'm just saying that any list we make here is likely to be incomplete and contain many omissions compared to the web site I listed above, which is an excellent resource IMO.

Well sure, I'm just saying that any list we make here is likely to be incomplete and contain many omissions compared to the web site I listed above, which is an excellent resource IMO. Well but some people don't think there are any contradictions in the bible and they probably would not be going to the site you suggested. And the contradictions are certainly open to debate. And there is still a thread for posting scripture and anyone could get a Bible or Koran and view those. I think posting bibical contradictions is more open to debate then just posting scripture. Oh, by the way I don't think evolution should be taught in the science class either. No way. It is creationism trying to pretend to be science. The only religion class that they should have in public schools(if they have one) is Comparative religion! Oh and thanks for the link to that site by the way.

So you want to debate bible contradictions really then?
I personally don't care enough for religion to debate it on that detailed a level :)

Oh, by the way I don't think evolution should be taught in the science class either. No way. It is creationism trying to pretend to be science.
What?

I doubt there are many here that will argue for the inerrancy of the scriptures.

(and Borg, I think purple meant intelligent design, not evolution.... I hope anyways)

:)

This thread is to post anything you find in the bible that you see as a contradiction. God creates animals and the man.Gen(1:25-26)

The Bible gives us three score and ten years, or something like that. I've had my time and I certainly don't intend to spend the rest of it slogging at the almost infinite number of contradictions in the Bible.
The Bible(s) were written by Committees enough said.

Well but some people don't think there are any contradictions in the bible and they probably would not be going to the site you suggested. And the contradictions are certainly open to debate. And there is still a thread for posting scripture and anyone could get a Bible or Koran and view those. I think posting bibical contradictions is more open to debate then just posting scripture. Oh, by the way I don't think evolution should be taught in the science class either. No way. It is creationism trying to pretend to be science. The only religion class that they should have in public schools(if they have one) is Comparative religion! Oh and thanks for the link to that site by the way. Uh, I think you meant intelligent design when you said evolution. It's ok though you probably just had to much "Purple Kush". :eek:

What?
Oops, I did mean intelligent design when I said evolution. My bad! I corrected it.

So you want to debate bible contradictions really then?
I personally don't care enough for religion to debate it on that detailed a level :) I do that is why I posted this thread. But I don't think anyone is making you participate in it!

Intelligent design is creationism. Some scientist may argue that it isn't, but what else could it be?

I don't think it's currently possible to argue which is correct. Evolution or Creation.
At the moment evolution is changing so rapidly, the tree of life could be changed two weeks from now.

God uses the internet and I have a picture to prove it.

Any nay-sayers present?

I thought not.



http://img388.imageshack.us/img388/1782/godxv4.jpg

Intelligent design is creationism. Some scientist may argue that it isn't, but what else could it be?
I don't think it's currently possible to argue which is correct. Evolution or Creation.
At the moment evolution is changing so rapidly, the tree of life could be changed two weeks from now.
?? The theory of evolution is scientific, ID is not! Scientific knowledge can be tested and measured, reviewed and evaluated. You just can't do that with ID. And the so called scientist that say ID is not creationism are the same ones trying to get it taught in public schools.

religon has no place in public schools to begin with,that's why some people choose to send their children to a religious school such as a Catholic school

?? The theory of evolution is scientific, ID is not! Scientific knowledge can be tested and measured, reviewed and evaluated. You just can't do that with ID. And the so called scientist that say ID is not creationism are the same ones trying to get it taught in public schools.
Maybe you could explain the theory of evolution to me and show me some of the scientific evidence.

Maybe you could explain the theory of evolution to me..........

I seriously fucking doubt it.

I seriously fucking doubt it.

This must mean you don't know yourself or that you have very little faith in PurpleKush's ability to explain it.
Or are you simply talking about the ignorance your wife has shown you?

Maybe you could explain the theory of evolution to me and show me some of the scientific evidence.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution : Good starting point for research.
http://www.abarnett.demon.co.uk/atheism/evolution.html : Some decent info.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/evolutio.htm : More good info.

I'm sorry, Inviolable, evolution is too complex a topic for anyone here to explain in any sort of comprehensive manner without spending hours typing up posts, hence the linkfest. But the evidence is out there. You just have to look for it.

?? The theory of evolution is scientific, ID is not! Scientific knowledge can be tested and measured, reviewed and evaluated. You just can't do that with ID. And the so called scientist that say ID is not creationism are the same ones trying to get it taught in public schools.
It strikes me as rather amusing that the Wikipedia article for intelligent design--a very popular, well-written, and oft-edited page that's remarkably in line with the NPOV policy--says, no bones about it:
The unequivocal consensus in the scientific community is that intelligent design is not science.[10][11][12] The U.S. National Academy of Sciences has stated that "intelligent design, and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life" are not science because they cannot be tested by experiment, do not generate any predictions, and propose no new hypotheses of their own.[13] The National Science Teachers Association, an organization of American science teachers and the largest organization of science teachers in the world, and the American Association for the Advancement of Science have termed it pseudoscience.[14] Others have concurred, and some have called it junk science.[15]

This must mean you don't know yourself or that you have very little faith in PurpleKush's ability to explain it.Communication is about both transmission and reception.

Communication is about both transmission and reception.

So you didn't understand what I asked?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution : Good starting point for research.
http://www.abarnett.demon.co.uk/atheism/evolution.html : Some decent info.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/evolutio.htm : More good info.

I'm sorry, Inviolable, evolution is too complex a topic for anyone here to explain in any sort of comprehensive manner without spending hours typing up posts, hence the linkfest. But the evidence is out there. You just have to look for it.

I get all that, I know everything you have linked to and then some. I think.

We went over this once before. Thanks for the abernett link just the same.

I'm talking about things like this.
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2006-11/hhmi-gvw112006.php

"Other people have [compared the two human genome sequences]," Scherer said, "but they found so many differences that they mostly attributed the results to error. They couldn't believe the alterations they found might be variants between the sources of DNA being analyzed."


http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/ingman.html

For the last 15 years or so, molecular anthropologists have been comparing the DNA of living humans of diverse origins to build evolutionary trees. Mutations occur in our DNA at a regular rate and will often be passed along to our children. It is these differences (polymorphisms) that, on a genotypic level, make us all unique and analysis of these differences will show how closely we are related. However, different approaches used by molecular and physical anthropologists have led to opposing views on how modern humans evolved from our archaic ancestors.


Which so far, only gives conflicting evidence. Soon the fossil evidence that was perceived to be at least partially accurate will be completely reexamined.
If it isn't already.

Which so far, only gives conflicting evidence. Soon the fossil evidence that was perceived to be at least partially accurate will be completely reexamined.
If it isn't already.
It isn't controversial that species evolve to other species. Even the links you gave me don't make a dent in that idea.

Which so far, only gives conflicting evidence. Soon the fossil evidence that was perceived to be at least partially accurate will be completely reexamined. If it isn't already.That's what makes it science. As Purple Kush said above: "Scientific knowledge can be tested and measured, reviewed and evaluated."

Debates such as the precise lineage of human ancestry do not shake general evolution any more than debates on the details of black holes shake general relativity.

That's what makes it science. As Purple Kush said above: "Scientific knowledge can be tested and measured, reviewed and evaluated."

Debates such as the precise lineage of human ancestry do not shake general evolution any more than debates on the details of black holes shake general relativity.

So basically, it cant be proven so it cant be debated?

It isn't controversial that species evolve to other species. Even the links you gave me don't make a dent in that idea.

Thats not what I'm arguing, or trying to say. Sorry I should have clarified. Looking back at my post now, it isn't to clear.

What I am saying is, the evidence gathered so far is in question because something new is always putting it in question.

When once we had a nice little stash of human fossil evidence and a truckload of animal fossils and the like, now all we have is questions.
That sounds exactly how I wanted it to for a change.

The evidence is there, we just cant figure out what it is evidence of.
Wasn't always that way. Now has new information is gained, it is more so every day.

Like this for example.

http://www.livescience.com/health/061115_neanderthal_dna.html
Neanderthal: 99.5 Percent Human

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/694467.stm
Neanderthals not human ancestors

http://www.newscientist.com/channel/being-human/mg19426085.400-neanderthals-bid-for-human-status.html
"Neanderthals have typically been thought of as incapable of innovation, as it was assumed to be something unique to Homo sapiens, says Hopkinson. "With this evidence of innovation it becomes difficult to exclude Neanderthals from the concept of humanity."

I understand that it seems confusing because there is a difference between not being ancestral to modern humans, and not being human.

But there is a lot that can not be explained about Neanderthals.
From what I've seen, scientist literally have no clue. They have miles of evidence, that leads them no where.
Australian Aborigines aren't ancestral to Europeans, but they are certainly human, the same for Neanderthals.
If we have all these human fossils but no modern human ancestors, wheres the evidence really leading us? No where.

Romans 15:33."The God of peace.(Isaiah 2:4) Ex.15:3. "The Lord is a man of war." (Joel 3:9-10) Sounds like a contradiction to me!

Romans 15:33."The God of peace.(Isaiah 2:4) Ex.15:3. "The Lord is a man of war." (Joel 3:9-10) Sounds like a contradiction to me!There are plenty of contridictions in the Bible, but I don't see this as one of them. When describing an entity (human or otherwise) it is often the case that multiple characteristics apply. Pax Romana, for example, was built and maintained by a huge, effective war machine.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution : Good starting point for research.
http://www.abarnett.demon.co.uk/atheism/evolution.html : Some decent info.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/evolutio.htm : More good info.

I'm sorry, Inviolable, evolution is too complex a topic for anyone here to explain in any sort of comprehensive manner without spending hours typing up posts, hence the linkfest. But the evidence is out there. You just have to look for it.


Don't even try. I've debated with this guy before. He will not EVEN LOOK at the links, evidence, etc. He is a lost case.

There are plenty of contridictions in the Bible, but I don't see this as one of them. When describing an entity (human or otherwise) it is often the case that multiple characteristics apply. Pax Romana, for example, was built and maintained by a huge, effective war machine. Your comparing a period in time with a supernatural entity?? I don't see how that makes the bible verses seem like they are not a contradiction. :confused:

I mean something like this, maybe:Maybe you could explain the theory of evolution to me and show me some of the scientific evidence.

I seriously fucking doubt it.

This must mean you don't know yourself or that you have very little faith in PurpleKush's ability to explain it.

Communication is about both transmission and reception.

So you didn't understand what I asked?

Don't even try. I've debated with this guy before. He will not EVEN LOOK at the links, evidence, etc. He is a lost case.
Perhaps this is an incorrect understanding. I'm open to being shown.

Your comparing a period in time with a supernatural entity?? I don't see how that makes the bible verses seem like they are not a contradiction. :confused:I'm saying that any complex thing may have multiple characteristics which seem at odds. That does not mean the Bible is in conflict with itself when it describes such a thing. In the specific example, Pax Romana, it is peace established and protected by war.

Again: There are plenty of solid contradictions. This just isn't one of them, and you'd sell your case better, I believe, with a differant example.

I'm saying that any complex thing may have multiple characteristics which seem at odds. That does not mean the Bible is in conflict with itself when it describes such a thing. In the specific example, Pax Romana, it is peace established and protected by war.

Again: There are plenty of solid contradictions. This just isn't one of them, and you'd sell your case better, I believe, with a differant example. Sorry, but I still see it as a contradiction. Saying Pax Romana is peace esptablished and protected by war does not make what the contraditory bible verses I quoted any less of a contradiction.

Sorry, but I still see it as a contradiction. Saying Pax Romana is peace esptablished and protected by war does not make what the contraditory bible verses I quoted any less of a contradiction.
Of course showing the example does not make your pair of verses "less of a contradiction." The Bible, however, is not faulty in describing a complex thing as having multiple facets to its nature. The example I cite is only intended to show how a complex thing may have multiple characteristics which seem at odds.

You may not be able to get that. And that's okay. But it remains a poor choice of so-called contradiction if you're trying to prove something about the nature of the Bible. A thing of war may easily be seen also as the insurer and founder of peace.

I mean something like this, maybe:
Perhaps this is an incorrect understanding. I'm open to being shown.

You want me to explain why I don't acknowledge Freethinker being an insulting prick or why the one and only time I debated Mex he didn't appreciate it?

You're right, I think I'll edit my post to FT.

Don't even try. I've debated with this guy before. He will not EVEN LOOK at the links, evidence, etc. He is a lost case.That's not my experience with Inviolable. He's a good listener and is genuinely interested in understanding other points of view.

That's not my experience with Inviolable. He's a good listener and is genuinely interested in understanding other points of view.

Thank you Blob.

Don't even try. I've debated with this guy before. He will not EVEN LOOK at the links, evidence, etc. He is a lost case.
Thank you, I will form (and, indeed, have already formed) my opinions about Inviolable on my own. As it happens, they stand contrary to your own. You were a tad presumptuous, don't you think?

Inviolable, I'm not sure what your point is, then. If you agree that species evolve into other species, where is your disagreement? Science is in flux all the time; if it becomes stagnant, that's bad for everyone. Of course we don't know exactly how we descended from our hairier ancestors, but we have a general idea going back a couple million years. Is that timeline set in stone? Absolutely not! Science constantly reevaluates itself and we may discover a new pre-human species, or more fossil evidence of this or that. No one will dispute this.

However, there are certain things that go beyond mere evidence, whose existence is beyond a shadow of a doubt. That species evolve is one of those things, as we have observed it in the wild as well as in laboratories. That humans evolved from older ape species is another one of those things. So what is it you're taking issue with, exactly?

Thank you, I will form (and, indeed, have already formed) my opinions about Inviolable on my own. As it happens, they stand contrary to your own. You were a tad presumptuous, don't you think?

Inviolable, I'm not sure what your point is, then. If you agree that species evolve into other species, where is your disagreement? Science is in flux all the time; if it becomes stagnant, that's bad for everyone. Of course we don't know exactly how we descended from our hairier ancestors, but we have a general idea going back a couple million years. Is that timeline set in stone? Absolutely not! Science constantly reevaluates itself and we may discover a new pre-human species, or more fossil evidence of this or that. No one will dispute this.

However, there are certain things that go beyond mere evidence, whose existence is beyond a shadow of a doubt. That species evolve is one of those things, as we have observed it in the wild as well as in laboratories. That humans evolved from older ape species is another one of those things. So what is it you're taking issue with, exactly?


Maybe I'm not saying anything different then you are. I could just be seeing it differently.
The evolution I see taking shape, is getting further away from Darwin's evolution constantly.
I dont mean to say that it is a bad thing to have the evidence in question, as if it is proving creationism correct.
I'm saying, right now, in our current state of evidence for evolution, there really is no answer one way or the other.
So basically, like I asked Blob. It cant be debated? Which would address Purplecrushes post.

Maybe I'm not saying anything different then you are. I could just be seeing it differently.
The evolution I see taking shape, is getting further away from Darwin's evolution constantly.
I dont mean to say that it is a bad thing to have the evidence in question, as if it is proving creationism correct.
I'm saying, right now, in our current state of evidence for evolution, there really is no answer one way or the other.
So basically, like I asked Blob. It cant be debated? Which would address Purplecrushes post.
I don't think the present-day set of theories, hypotheses, and evidence is any different than Darwin's except the size of the body of work. Darwin was one man, but his idea of natural selection is still the very core of evolution. Now we have a large variety of scientists poking at the topic, and thus we have a correspondingly larger body of data. Evolution can be difficult to explain fully but it's still just natural selection.

As for "creationism v. evolution". First of all, people tend to confuse two different definitions of creationism. Those being, "God created the universe", which very well could be, and "God created the Earth 6000 years ago", which is wrong. The former definition does not conflict at all with evolution; the latter does. However, neither definition is scientific in the slightest, so scientists tend to ignore them and look for naturalistic explanations.

The evolution I see taking shape, is getting further away from Darwin's evolution constantly. I've heard creationists argue that (paraphrasing) "Darwin derived his theory just by looking at a few birds on some obscure islands".

True to an extent (EDIT: Well, I'm being too generous there actually), and that was the incredible genius of Darwin. He managed to generalise from extremely limited observations to a triplet of mechanisms (inheritance, variation, selection) that have withstood a tsunami of evidence since. More incredible still, most of this evidence was of a completely different type to living animals; namely genes and fossils.

Wow. What a dude.

It is these basic mechanisms that are beyond debate. Not for the ideological, self-serving, god-denying reasons that the sillier variety of creationists would have us believe. The evidence is simply overwhelming and alternative proposed mechanisms totally lacking to explain it.

It could be that Darwin's ideas are like Newtons: good, but awaiting an Einstein to turn them inside out. If that happens, all the better for human knowledge. However they might equally be more akin to a Copernican revolution: the dude just got it spot on first time round; and centuries of evidence and consideration later it's very hard to see how we could ever return to geocentricism.

It could be that Darwin's ideas are like Newtons: good, but awaiting an Einstein to turn them inside out. If that happens, all the better for human knowledge. However they might equally be more akin to a Copernican revolution: the dude just got it spot on first time round; and centuries of evidence and consideration later it's very hard to see how we could ever return to geocentricism.Nice observation. I remind us all that even Relativistic physics is stood on its head by the mind blowing "huh?" of quantum physics. All of science turns out that way, which is how it should be, since it is inquiry at its core.

Having said that, gravity is real enough in our everyday lives that relitivity just doesn't matter!:cool:

It could be that Darwin's ideas are like Newtons: good, but awaiting an Einstein to turn them inside out. If that happens, all the better for human knowledge. However they might equally be more akin to a Copernican revolution: the dude just got it spot on first time round; and centuries of evidence and consideration later it's very hard to see how we could ever return to geocentricism.
Copernicus was not the first to propose the idea of a heliocentric universe. It was a dude by the name of Aristarchus of Samos. Unfortunately, in the ancient world, newer scientific theories were thought to be better, and Aristarchus' theories were eclipsed by the mostly incorrect ones of Ptolemy.

Thanks Shiloh.

Copernicus was not the first to propose the idea of a heliocentric universe. It was a dude by the name of Aristarchus of Samos..., and Aristarchus' theories were eclipsed by the mostly incorrect ones of Ptolemy.A parable for the potential danger of creationism, perhaps. ;)

Thanks Shiloh.

A parable for the potential danger of creationism, perhaps. ;)
lol
People never see what I see in Christians. Must be a mindset.

lol
People never see what I see in Christians. Must be a mindset.
What do you see in Christians?

What do you see in Christians?
Something a lot smarter then whats normally portrayed by someone who isn't Christian.

This thread is to post anything you find in the bible that you see as a contradiction. God creates animals and the man.Gen(1:25-26)

Hi Purple, :) "Purple" generally means that as a living being that you are not getting enough oxygen. Cyanotic.

Your job on this messageboard is to explain to others that if they believe in God (He/She/It) that they are "screwed or an idiot" (Sparky won't let me say "Fucked" anymore :) ,I hate the new rules!).

The bible is full of the influence of people like you Purple. And people like you are milking it for all it is worth. I don't mind :) Jesus came to separate mankind into "two camps" :) the Bible as the word of God just helps Him do this.

Anyway Purple we love you as a newbe. You keep All forums.net alive and create alot of fun :) !

Frogger :) you are going to like this person :) !

Love you guys!

tuck

Something a lot smarter then whats normally portrayed by someone who isn't Christian.

Ya Shiloh! :) !

Major hugs! :)

Rev. tuck :)

I love Inviolable! He is in over his head and has no idea what is going on :) !

Only God could possibly love that boy!

tuck :)

Ya Shiloh! :) !

Major hugs! :)

Rev. tuck :)

I love Inviolable! He is in over his head and has no idea what is going on :) !

Only God could possibly love that boy!

tuck :)

lol thanks.

lol thanks.

:)

What was the topic of this thread again? :bombout:

Of course showing the example does not make your pair of verses "less of a contradiction." The Bible, however, is not faulty in describing a complex thing as having multiple facets to its nature. The example I cite is only intended to show how a complex thing may have multiple characteristics which seem at odds.

You may not be able to get that. And that's okay. But it remains a poor choice of so-called contradiction if you're trying to prove something about the nature of the Bible. A thing of war may easily be seen also as the insurer and founder of peace. Hmm, well I can see we are not on agreement on this but that is ok I accept your right to believe it even if I don't. Then perhaps you can explain how God can be a man of war?

Hmm, well I can see we are not on agreement on this but that is ok I accept your right to believe it even if I don't.Are you able to accept, in principle, that a complex "person" may have characteristics that seem at odds and that too fairly describe such is not, in and of itself, contradictory?
Then perhaps you can explain how God can be a man of war?
I know this is not a spiritual matter for you, so I continue to address it from a position of academic interest. (Is that right?)

Are you intellectually at odds with the characterization of God as "man" in the verse, or the "war" part?

Are you able to accept, in principle, that a complex "person" may have characteristics that seem at odds and that too fairly describe such is not, in and of itself, contradictory?

I know this is not a spiritual matter for you, so I continue to address it from a position of academic interest. (Is that right?)

Are you intellectually at odds with the characterization of God as "man" in the verse, or the "war" part? I'm a odds with people saying he is a peaceful loving God when the bible(which is suppose to be the word of God or inspired by him) contradicts itself. But since you say I could have put a better example of a contradiction what would you post as a good example?

"I will not pity, nor spare, nor have any mercy, but destroy." (Jer.13:14) "Now go and smite Amalek,and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not, but slay both man and women, innfant and suckling."

"The Lord is very pitiful and of tender of mercy." (James 5:11)
"For his mercy endureth forever."(1 Chron. 16:34) "The Lord is good to all, and his mercies are over all his works.(Ps.145.9) "God is love." (1 John 4:16)

I'm a odds with people saying he is a peaceful loving God when the bible(which is suppose to be the word of God or inspired by him) contradicts itself.What people expect the Bible to be often trips them up, on both sides of the fence, unfortunately. It is not a history book. But since you say I could have put a better example of a contradiction what would you post as a good example?Sure. Since it's Christmas, look carefully at the nativity stories of Matthew and Luke. There are several points to consider related to inaccuracy in a historical context, but the "contradiction" is in one saying that Jesus was taken to Egypt for his safety and the other saying that he returned to Nazareth. That is a true contradiction. You can't be both places at the same time.

What was the topic of this thread again? :bombout:

Son, you are actually getting things figured out :) ! You might be some what brighter the one would expect :) . Totally to cool!

Love you!

tuck

Hmm, well I can see we are not on agreement on this but that is ok I accept your right to believe it even if I don't. Then perhaps you can explain how God can be a man of war?

Afinertouch :) piss God off :) ! We as humankind were created in His image you know. It is just that He is really really big :) ! Oh yes and slow to wrath :)

I have no desire to piss Him off. And I am happy that you are willing to play with that reality. That must be a flaw in my character :) right?

tuck :)

I'm a odds with people saying he is a peaceful loving God when the bible(which is suppose to be the word of God or inspired by him) contradicts itself. But since you say I could have put a better example of a contradiction what would you post as a good example?

God is a peaceful loving God, if you don't piss Him off. If you dink with His loved ones, He can unwind all over you really really quick.

:)

tuck

"I will not pity, nor spare, nor have any mercy, but destroy." (Jer.13:14) "Now go and smite Amalek,and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not, but slay both man and women, innfant and suckling."

Afinertouch, you should be at odds with the scripture that you posted above. That scripture is about you pissing off God. :)

Love you!

tuck :)

"The Lord is very pitiful and of tender of mercy." (James 5:11)
"For his mercy endureth forever."(1 Chron. 16:34) "The Lord is good to all, and his mercies are over all his works.(Ps.145.9) "God is love." (1 John 4:16)

If you give Him a chance and you don't dink with His loved ones :)

Piss off a Father or a Mother when their "loved child" is involved and watch what happens. :)

Just tuck

What people expect the Bible to be often trips them up, on both sides of the fence, unfortunately. It is not a history book. Sure. Since it's Christmas, look carefully at the nativity stories of Matthew and Luke. There are several points to consider related to inaccuracy in a historical context, but the "contradiction" is in one saying that Jesus was taken to Egypt for his safety and the other saying that he returned to Nazareth. That is a true contradiction. You can't be both places at the same time.

Hugs :)

tuck

Piss off a Father or a Mother when their "loved child" is involved and watch what happens. :)

Mhm, piss off the old man, and he'll tell his children to kill every man, woman, child and animal in your town like he did in the old days :) Now that's a grumpy old man!

Mhm, piss off the old man, and he'll tell his children to kill every man, woman, child and animal in your town like he did in the old days :) Now that's a grumpy old man!

Yep! :)

Love you!

tuck

Mhm, piss off the old man, and he'll tell his children to kill every man, woman, child and animal in your town like he did in the old days :) Now that's a grumpy old man!

I don't know what to do about our Jew/Christian/Moslem God. That "Boy" can be a handful :)

Love you!

tuck

I don't know what to do about our Jew/Christian/Moslem God. Or: I don't know what to do about our understanding of...

Or: I don't know what to do about our understanding of...

Fine Shiloh, just be that way! God but I hate people that know what is going on. They take all of the fun out of things! 1,982 expletives deleted :) Whew!

Hugs!

tuck

[QUOTE=tucker58]Hi Purple, :) "Purple" generally means that as a living being that you are not getting enough oxygen. Cyanotic.

Your job on this messageboard is to explain to others that if they believe in God (He/She/It) that they are "screwed or an idiot" (Sparky won't let me say "Fucked" anymore :) ,I hate the new rules!).

The bible is full of the influence of people like you Purple. And people like you are milking it for all it is worth. I don't mind :) Jesus came to separate mankind into "two camps" :) the Bible as the word of God just helps Him do this.

Anyway Purple we love you as a newbe. You keep All forums.net alive and create alot of fun :) !

Frogger :) you are going to like this person :) !

Love you guys!

tuck What are you on???

Open and close your quotes! I'm lost here...

Open and close your quotes! I'm lost here...
I don't know why so many people just don't understand quotes. It's a simple concept.
I quote this text
Then respond here.
I quote some more text
Then respond to that. There are so many lost causes here who, say, type their replies in the quote or fuck up the syntax really badly. It's quite painful.

It is also possible to reply to several posts with one post.

Write your post and submit it. Then "quote" the next one, copy the content, edit your previous post and paste it in, reply and save.

That is the easy way, or you can just write the quote tags yourself and copy the text from the topic review at the bottom.

[QUOTE=tucker58]Hi Purple, :) "Purple" generally means that as a living being that you are not getting enough oxygen. Cyanotic.

Your job on this messageboard is to explain to others that if they believe in God (He/She/It) that they are "screwed or an idiot" (Sparky won't let me say "Fucked" anymore ,I hate the new rules!).

The bible is full of the influence of people like you Purple. And people like you are milking it for all it is worth. I don't mind, Jesus came to separate mankind into "two camps" the Bible as the word of God just helps Him do this.

Anyway Purple we love you as a newbe. You keep All forums.net alive and create alot of fun !

Frogger, you are going to like this person :) !

Love you guys!

tuck What are you on???

What are you on???

God but I wish that I had $5 for every time somebody on this messagebard said that to me :) . I would be able to buy a lot of lottery tickets and be "rich" :)

The next thing that you are going to call me is a "Troll". I love newbes and oldbes and everybody in the middle :) !

There is only one object to things and that is permission to post. Everytime somebody posts, "you" have permission to post, as long as you are not angry :)

Angry gets you banned :) At least so far? The Gods are the Gods :)

The truth is that, "Activity is the life of a Messageboard!" If you kill activity then the messageboard dies :) That is something that none of us want to happen to All Forums.net! We like being here!

Love you Purple, you create activity :) !

tuck

It is also possible to reply to several posts with one post.

Write your post and submit it. Then "quote" the next one, copy the content, edit your previous post and paste it in, reply and save.

That is the easy way, or you can just write the quote tags yourself and copy the text from the topic review at the bottom.

It is also possible to reply to several posts with one post.

Angel :) it all about post numbers. And "activity is the life of a messageboard". A short bit of "Biting Wit" or a smile will do it :)

Angel, you are running quality and efficiency. Only tight (expletive deleted) messagebords run that one :) On All Forums.net, if you get an openning you run it. As long as you ain't angry, management don't seem to mind. And that works for me, I love management :) ! (Actually I hate people that are in power, they are all (expletive deleted)! But without them there would be no Civilization! Ah man :) ! )

Love you Angel, you create activity :) !

tuck

.

I don't know why so many people just don't understand quotes. It's a simple concept.

Then respond here.

Then respond to that. There are so many lost causes here who, say, type their replies in the quote or fuck up the syntax really badly. It's quite painful.

"God, but I hate people that (expletive deleted) up syntax really badly."

BorgHunter Sir :) God does not exist! Why are you promoting His name?

Love you! :)

tuck

Open and close your quotes! I'm lost here...

I don't think so Shiloh! I think that you are just trying to sucker us about you being lost :) !

Love you!

tuck

Mhm, piss off the old man, and he'll tell his children to kill every man, woman, child and animal in your town like he did in the old days...

True.

But always remember!!!.........he luuuuuuuuuves us.

:rolleyes:

Piss off a Father or a Mother when their "loved child" is involved and watch what happens.

Mhm, piss off the old man and he'll tell his children to kill every man, woman, child and animal in your town like he did in the old days Now that's a grumpy old man!

Now things escalate :) !


Mhm, piss off the old man (She is getting mean now guys :) ) "The bold print is my {tucker58}addition to the quote)", and he'll tell his children to kill every man, woman, child and animal in your town like he did in the old days...

And then our beloved Freethinker wades in on Angel's behalf:

True.

But always remember!!!.........he luuuuuuuuuves us.

:rolleyes:

Now "Viewers", this is fun! In order for things to be fun, one needs to separate things into two different sides. :) God but I love it and you guys! "Where ever in the world that you live!", because All Forums.net is international !

Otherwise there ain't no entertainment. In my world it is not about whether I win or lose. It is about entertaining the "viewer"! With the understanding that there is a learning curve involved here, as a young author who has pissed off an "Angel."

Like Shakespear said, "The world is a stage and we are all actors on a stage." And like the very wise All Forums.net member "Scumbelina" said, "Wecome to the "Arena" :) !"


God guys, for "real dialog", this is a total gift! People get paid real money for this stuff!

Ok :)

:hug:

Love you!

Just tuck

Folks, there are folks here are that do not love God or anybody else who does love God, :) "Stay tuned :) !" The plot is thickening :) !

True.

But always remember!!!.........he luuuuuuuuuves us.

:rolleyes:
as opposed to your never ending hate spewing? guess which one is more annoying?

as opposed to your never ending hate spewing?

You want to talk about *hate*, hmmmm......??

Unlike the gawd that the Christians worship, I have never ordered anyone to march into a city and hack all the infants to death with swords.