The Exodus Decoded

ed · Post by ed » Sat Sep 02, 2006 4:02 pm

3. God does not lie. If he lied in the Old Testament then we could not rely on the New and our salvation and hope would be in jeopardy. Plus we could dismiss His and Christs claim without fear of reprisal. thus the Bible has to be true in all parts or it is worthless.

That is the nubbin.

Of course, you cannot know gods reasons for anything, right? I mean a kid is born with an arm growing out of his chest and you can't really know what god has in mind, can you? ^,000,000 dead jews a hell of a lot more dead chinese and russians ... there must be a reason, we just can't tell.

And you think that god can't lie for his own reasons? That he can't make people sexual creatures and allow repressive religions to comdemn it and speak in his name and think the whole thing is funny?

By your own words, you just can't know.

marduk · Post by **marduk** » Sat Sep 02, 2006 4:07 pm

errr
we were created in his image
and we can lie
so is Arch saying we can do things that God can't
or the bible lied when it said we were made in his image
wowow cool
we're all superior to god then
i bet he's crap at poker

Post by **Minimalist** » Sat Sep 02, 2006 4:19 pm

3. God does not lie.

But the slimebags who invented him do. Constantly.

john · Post by **john** » Sat Sep 02, 2006 4:41 pm

so we have the holy trinity -

1.) mankind lies.

2.) the bible lies.

3.) god lies.

(to me the "truth" is an awful lot like the number zero. often imagined but never substantiated.)

the only correct answer to this logical hernia is that samuel clemens (mark twain) is in fact "god" and is having a hell of a lot of fun with his wingless bipedal fly collection.

"when the white knight is talking backward,

and the red queen's off her head,

remember

what the dormouse said

feed your head,

feed your head."

the jefferson airplane

john

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Sat Sep 02, 2006 4:46 pm

Post by **Minimalist** » Sat Sep 02, 2006 4:49 pm

I like Hancock. At least he asks questions.

Post by **Minimalist** » Sat Sep 02, 2006 4:51 pm

It reminds me of a discussion I had on the Historical Junior--that one may or may not find evidence for the existence of a man does not make all of the other stuff valid. So, even if there was a "House of David" that does not the grand myths of the Deuteronomist and Chronicler any more valid.

As has been noted elsewhere, while the bible-thumpers are jumping around shouting hallelujah about the Tel Dan stele they conveniently ignore the fact that the tale it tells calls the bible account of the events in question a lie.

As Arch will prove, they like to pick and choose.

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Sat Sep 02, 2006 4:54 pm

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Sat Sep 02, 2006 7:44 pm

so much for this thread

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Sat Sep 02, 2006 8:00 pm

archaeologist wrote:so much for this thread

Evasion noted.

Inability to support your beliefs noted.

--J.D.

Post by **Minimalist** » Sat Sep 02, 2006 8:03 pm

Par for the course.

marduk · Post by **marduk** » Sat Sep 02, 2006 8:04 pm

so you agree that the israelites built heliopolis then

as it says in Exodus 1:11

got no answer for that one have you Arch

john · Post by **john** » Sat Sep 02, 2006 8:05 pm

hip, hip, hooray!

dang, thats the second time today i've had to totter up from watching tevee and hunt out the single malt.

john

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Sat Sep 02, 2006 8:06 pm

marduk wrote:
so you agree that the israelites built heliopolis then

as it says in Exodus 1:11
got no answer for that one have you Arch

I will pray for you. . . .

--J.D.

P.S. Which, as ed will affirm, is a euphemism employed by fundis for "go fuck yourself!!"

ed · Post by ed » Sat Sep 02, 2006 8:12 pm

Doctor X wrote:[Graham Hancock makes everyone sensitive . . . ed will mention a poster we will NOT invite HERE who spams boards over his [CENSORED--Ed.] of Hancock.

.

If it is all the same to you, Doc, I think that I will keep that particular poster's identity between us. These folks seem sorta nice.