Noah

Wow i did not know there are still people around who take this fairy tale serious.

 

When you clarification contradicts your original post, as I've already shown was the case, it IS back peddling.

But making a false comparison to attack the position of another (ie: what you did) is.

I agree that I'm making one of us look foolish (hint: you), but - to be fair - it's worth noting that you've helped immensely.

 

You haven't shown anything but keep on making yourself look foolish. Another Logician fail! LOL!

 

Another unsupportable doombug post that completely ignores all reality...
Pathetic.

 

You don't even know what a strawman is so you aren't qualified to judge anything related to reality. Try again.

 

what do you think

 

No you were the one who was against the lie and he was white, but want to introduce a new lie to claim he is black to counter the other lie but you are not racist when you do it? Can you say, HUH?

 

My bad I thought it was Jonah. I have no problem with the middle eastern Jesus. I don't make movie or spread propaganda for racist reasons.

My beliefs are irrelevant, to what other people want to think.

 

this makes no sense^^^^^^^^^


Would it bother you if you found out the messiah was a so- called black man?

 

Not at all. Why would it? By all evidence it is pretty clear that the first humans were black, and that we all in one way or another descend from them.

 

Thank you.

Well apparently the ruling elites of the renaissance era thought it would bother the masses and so they decided to portray the messiah as a white european man.

 

Asians show Jesus as an Oriental.

who cares.

 

russell crowe is getting desperate, taking on any garbage role that comes his way, man with the iron fists anyone?? his gladiator days are long gone.

 

As the only person to actually illustrate that a strawman has been used, rather than simply making claims that can't be supported, I am clearly the only one who has been able to apply the term correctly. Try again.

BTW, will you ever get around to answering an on-topic question, or is your entire strategy just a red herring?

 

I think some people really NEED to believe in something...and by and by it tends to be a good thing....except when such people turn into Zealots and start trying to tell others that they should believe the same as they do.

AboveAlpha

 

LOL! You had the definition of a strawman completely wrong. Luckily I corrected you and showed where you were wrong. I know it is embarrassing to you which is why you continue to attempt to redeem yourself. Sad.

 

Actually, you completely failed to address the points raised in post #149 (among many others).
The fact that you've repeatedly made claims that you can't support when asked to do so should act as a pretty good indication of the validity of those claims.

Oh, and it's duly noted that you still refuse to discuss the actual topic at hand.

 

I have responded you just refuse to accept my response. Stop making false statements.
How am I supposed to discuss the topic when all people want to discuss is me?

 

That's because I have a 300 foot tall PINK ELEPHANT in the next room!!

What? Prove it?

Well you haven't shown any ability to prove YOUR argument!

What? It's MY argument?

Well...That's because YOU are a stupid and clueless idiot who doesn't know what he is talking about!

What? The Pink Elephant? You want to see it?

Well...it's not here because only MORAL people can see it so because you are not a member of my church YOU can't see it!!!

What? You joined my church? You still can't see it?

Well...That's because you believe in Pro-Choice Issues!!!

AboveAlpha

 

Responding is not the same as addressing the points raised. Duh.
The fact that you responded means you had the opportunity to address the points and chose not to. I wonder why? Perhaps you had nothing valid to say? Normally, that wouldn't stop you...

I have raised questions that actually relate back to the topic at hand, you refuse to address them and focus solely on attempting to dodge the fact that your entire position is BS.

 

So now you admit you are wrong and back peddle. OK then.

- - - Updated - - -

So now you admit you are wrong and back peddle. OK then.

 

Once again, your reading comprehension is lacking.

I said that your reply did not address the points raised, and yet that didn't stop you from posting some random inane claptrap. How is this back peddling?
The only pack peddling so far was clearly illustrated in post #149, which is another example of something about which you had nothing relevant to say.

 

Well you can try and save face by making vague references to things you interpret as you wish. But then that is all you are doing: wishing.

 

Please illustrate what you believe was vague. I believe I provided a direct quote, and am not sure how it is possible to be any more specific than that.

Now, in relation to the original question... I believe you claimed that the scope of the flood is an unimportant detail that is irrelevant to the point of the story? Can you illustrate how the scope of the flood is not pertinant to the story, given that the story is about "God" wiping out all life (other than a select few on a boat)?

 

Illustrate? Hahaha! Your posts are vague. Done.