BARRY is already Brain dead, so whats the point...

This will Be the Thread where the Regular WingDings Downplay this as Nothing to Note, after Hyping Rev Wright stuff, after downplaying the Years of Falwels Radical Pulpit, and after downplaying Robertsons shenanigans, etc, etc, etc!

It will be Refreshing to See the "conservatives" get their Flexible "principles" out for Some Exercise!

So under Clinton, the right said to the left "we will see your Bush hate and raise you an impeachment."

Under Bush, the left reponded with "we will see your impeachment and raise you a stolen election AND AWOL."

Now, under Obama, the right responds again with "we will see your stolen election and AWOL and raise you death threats and foreign birth."

Can't wait to see what is next.

#2 | Posted by Redneckville at 2009-08-31 01:37 PM

Please link and show us when BARRY attended this church...

"I'm going to pray that he dies and goes to hell."

More of the "reasoned debate" we've come to expect from "nonpartisan" sources.

He'd better hope God's having a REALLY-REALLY good day when he's standing before him being Judged.

Otherwise-I would NOT want to be within 200 Light years of this Pastor/Poseur

Today Bible Gateway Dot Ocm is brought to you by the following Verse of the Day:

"Come, let us bow down in worship, let us kneel before the LORD our Maker; for he is our God and we are the people of his pasture, the flock under his care. Today, if you hear his voice,"- Psalm 95:6-7

Oh yes, let us bow down and ask Our Lord for Him to disappear from this Pasture one of his Sheep. Amen!

I wonder if this guy killed Ted Kennedy.

This guy's a wimp compared to Barry's insane spiritual advisor of 20 years.

He's no different than Rev. Wright, just the "D" has been replaced by the "R".

How much farther can these pastors get from the teachings of Jesus? There's no loving thy neighbor with these guys huh?

Obama can just have his mother in law stick a pin in her Voodoo doll.

BARRY is already Brain dead, so whats the point...
#1 | Posted by ATaxpayer at 2009-08-31 01:37 PM

In what manner, specifically?

Your traitorous BushCo saddled ALL of us with two inexcusable invasions resulting in trillions in theft and millions of innocent peoples deaths. The bank bailouts - YOUR guys again. The mortgage bubble - YOUR freakin' fuckwits. The .com bubble, massive outsourcing, unfair trade and exorbitant oil costs - YOUR STUPID, TREASONOUS PARTY.

Your inability to examine 9/11 tells me everything I need to know regarding your personal investigative "ability".

Your traitorous BushCo saddled ALL of us with two inexcusable invasions resulting in trillions in theft and millions of innocent peoples deaths.

Yeah, though maybe not millions. Try tens of thousands... still a lot.

The bank bailouts - YOUR guys again. The mortgage bubble - YOUR freakin' fuckwits.

Hit the nail on the head.

The .com bubble, massive outsourcing, unfair trade and exorbitant oil costs - YOUR STUPID, TREASONOUS PARTY.

Okay, maybe a stretch...

Your inability to examine 9/11 tells me everything I need to know regarding your personal investigative "ability".

And he blows it...

Somebody must have prayed really really hard that Bush have brain damage.

"I hope that God strikes Obama with brain cancer so he can die like Ted Kennedy. You know, and I hope it happens today."

Ok so if Obama suddenly gets brain cancer then God is a murderer and this guy is an accomplice to murder.

#15

God is not going to grant that prayer. We are instructed to pray for those who we feel are our enemies...not pray for harm to them.

This man is a preacher but he certainly does not preach the Word of God.

But he obviously preaches hate!

Somebody must have prayed really really hard that Bush have brain damage.

#14 | Posted by AndyB62

And in your instance, I bet your Mother prayed for the opposite. Que sara sara.

Somebody must have prayed really really hard that Bush have brain damage.
#14 | Posted by AndyB62

And in your instance, I bet your Mother prayed for the opposite. Que sara sara.
#17 | Posted by wisgod at 2009-08-31 07:24 PM

Dude, apparently her prayer for (or anyone's for that matter) Bush gaining "intellectual capacity" also failed.. Try again?

Dude, apparently her prayer for (or anyone's for that matter) Bush gaining "intellectual capacity" also failed.. Try again?

#18 | Posted by redlightrobot

Sure. How in the world did that dumbfuck manage to fuck your party over for 2 terms? Do you get paid to act the fool on this site or do you provide the stupidity gratus?

" Do you get paid to act the fool on this site or do you provide the stupidity gratus?"

Ya gotta love the self-retorting retort.

Dude, apparently her prayer for (or anyone's for that matter) Bush gaining "intellectual capacity" also failed.. Try again?
#18 | Posted by redlightrobot

Sure. How in the world did that dumbfuck manage to fuck your party over for 2 terms? Do you get paid to act the fool on this site or do you provide the stupidity gratus?
#19 | Posted by wisgod at 2009-08-31 08:09 PM

Ya gotta love the self-retorting retort.

#20 | Posted by Danforth

You gotta love the worn out line that signifies Danforth's tank is empty.

"You gotta love the worn out line that signifies Danforth's tank is empty."

Don't worry, Wissy...I gave it to you gratis.

Don't worry, Wissy...I gave it to you gratis.

#23 | Posted by Danforth

Must be a good deal in Danforthville. I bet you have to pay the locals to listen to your debating skills to keep them from taking the high road.

"I bet you have to pay the locals to listen to your debating skills to keep them from taking the high road."

It's nowhere near as much fun as watching you call out someone's stupidity while parading yours on such proud display.

It's nowhere near as much fun as watching you call out someone's stupidity while parading yours on such proud display.

#25 | Posted by Danforth

Yawn. Spell checking is for pussies. But you knew that since 1/10/2005.

"Spell checking is for pussies. "

And asking someone if they provide their "stupidity gratus" is for dumbfucks who deserve to have their idiocy underscored.

"you knew that"

Well, at least one of us knew something.

Well, at least one of us knew something.

#27 | Posted by Danforth

Say goodnight, Gracie.

"since 1/10/2005."

Good God, Wisgod is so fucking dumb he doesn't even know how to read a calendar date.

Good God, Wisgod is so fucking dumb he doesn't even know how to read a calendar date.

#29 | Posted by Danforth

End of the world, huh Danforth. You received the attention accorded to big thinkers like Forest Gump, Trig Palin etc.

"End of the world, huh Danforth."

Nah, just more proof when you call out someone for their lack of intelligence, you're way out of your league.

"You received the attention accorded to big thinkers"

Actually, that was you who got all the attention...gratis.

Your half assed Hans impersonation seems charming and witty tonight. He does the same thing when looking at the bottom of the barrel. Carry on, Spell Checkir.

"Your half assed Hans impersonation seems charming and witty tonight."

Half-assed should be hyphenated.

Here's a hint: next time you make a fool of yourself with a self-retorting retort, laugh and move on. Otherwise, you get stuck with a half-dozen posts highlighting your gaffe.

"Carry on, Spell Checkir."

It's never about spell-checking unless you're calling someone else stoopid...but you've known that since...when?

Otherwise, you get stuck with a half-dozen posts highlighting your gaffe.

#33 | Posted by Danforth

You've mistaken me for somebody who gives a fuck what a petty P.O.S. thinks. Oh well. If that passes for A Game in Danforthville, you win big. High five!
Anything else?

My favorite is being labeled a spelling Nazi when they spell the word correctly but it's the wrong word.

Example: "Your an idiot."

Jesus tap dancing Christ, is there a Convention tonight?

"You've mistaken me for somebody who gives a fuck what a petty P.O.S. thinks. "

Says the guy who has posted roughly a half-dozen times about this, all proving, I guess, he doesn't give a fuck.

Says the guy who has posted roughly a half-dozen times about this, all proving, I guess, he doesn't give a fuck.

#38 | Posted by Danforth

Proves you're obsessed. How's that, Zat? Just give me a sign...

Well played, Zat.

"Proves you're obsessed."

Wow...you spelled every word correctly. Good for you!

Wow...you spelled every word correctly. Good for you!

#42 | Posted by Danforth

Thanx.

"Well played, Zat."

I'll be here all week.
Try the veal.

Danforth, just to show there are no hard feelings and that I'm the bigger man, I'm going to flag #43 as funny. I've never read anything in that area from from you and can only imagine how the daytime crowd will howl about it in the morning. Keep the change.

More of a Hanzo the Razor fan myself.

"I'm going to flag #43 as funny."

Gee...I almost feel guilty pointing out posters can't flag their own posts. It doesn't take.

But keep up the good work.

I remember Wanda Wantacock saying that she hoped Rush Limbaugh's kidneys would fail and all those pussy libs were yukking it up including Barry O.

Anyway if Rush's kidneys fail he can do his show while hooked up to a dialysis machine and his listeners would be glad to pay for it.

I wish these preachers would shut the fuck up so Crock Sarvis has no threads to post.

And for the record I hope Barry lives a long a happy life, regardless of my thoughts on his policy. That goes for anyone else for that matter, including crock.

What amazes me is the stupidity of those who go along with crack pots like this preacher....why didn't you clowns tie in Sen. Ted Kennedy's brain cander????

You idiots missed an opportunity to dignify this ass clown's bull shit.

You are too stupid to even capitalize on the tragedies of your enemies.

You will lose because of your stupidity.

"Preacher Hopes Obama Gets Brain Cancer"

The Secret Service is proceeding with appropriate charges.

What is brain cander? Is that what causes liberalism?

If so I hope Obamacare comes up with a cure for it.

What is brain cander? Is that what causes liberalism?

#53 | Posted by wurster at 2009-08-31 10:13 PM

No, it's what causes bad grammar and really bad spelling skills.

"Hanzo the Razor"

Got any youtube links?

Gee...I almost feel guilty pointing out posters can't flag their own posts. It doesn't take.

But keep up the good work.

#47 | Posted by Danforth

Too bad. It was your one shot of making it, Danforth Dice Clay.

"Too bad. It was your one shot of making it, Danforth Dice Clay."

If it'll make you happy, I'll flag your self-retorting retort as newsworthy.

Slow news day.

If it'll make you happy, I'll flag your self-retorting retort as newsworthy.

#58 | Posted by Danforth

I'd rather you flag it as you seemed to make it, offensive. Goodnight, Roger Mitton.

"I'd rather you flag it as you seemed to make it, offensive."

I guess they need a stupid flag.

"Roger Mitton"

As if your self-retorting retort was about grammar. What a dumbfuck.

Why is anyone even surprised at this?

The Evil Bible is full of Murder.

Read for yourself:

Secret Service hopes preacher gets life in prison.

I don't care who is president.

Deal with it.

From link above:

Kill False Prophets

If a man still prophesies, his parents, father and mother, shall say to him, "You shall not live, because you have spoken a lie in the name of the Lord." When he prophesies, his parents, father and mother, shall thrust him through. (Zechariah 13:3 NAB)

6) And whatever you ask in my name, I will do, so that the Father may be glorified in the Son. If you ask anything of me in my name, I will do it. (John 14:13-14 NAB)

Hell, Member, as far as you know someone prayed you into being an atheist. Better give thanks.

God isn't going to give you a B-29 because you prayed for it. It doesn't matter how bloodymindedly concrete your thinking is or how selfish your desires.

That doesn't mean He lied to you about prayer. It means that you're a kid and God knows that. He needs to protect others from you and you from yourself.

Hell, Member, as far as you know someone prayed you into being an atheist. Better give thanks.

Posted by Zed

for tellin' god what do again?

Try this: pray not for what you want. Pray for what you need. Better yet, pray for others that they get what they need.

Pray hard; pray sincerely. Work at it. Pray particularly for your enemies. Get back to us in a year and see if you don't interpret the Bible differently.

Sorry, BANI, didn't understand you. Wading through MEMBER'S sarcasm and superficiality has made me punch-drunk.

Try this: pray not for what you want. Pray for what you need. Better yet, pray for others that they get what they need.

Pray hard; pray sincerely. Work at it. Pray particularly for your enemies. Get back to us in a year and see if you don't interpret the Bible differently.

Posted by Zed

I 'know' chanting "OM" gets better results...not telling G-d how to do ITS jobs might have something to do with it for some reason, I guess:>)

even chanting "Jesus" is better than telling ITS what to do ~ Zeddybear:>)

As if your self-retorting retort was about grammar. What a dumbfuck.

#61 | Posted by Danforth

I am geting tired of making you dance, little man.
Dumbfuck, says the Marrionette?

I've been to that Evil Bible website before. I'm not sure what the point of it is, except to take Bible quotations out of context and put the absolutely most perverse spin on them. None of if ever bears up to examination.

So what's the point, except to grind an axe? And if you're saddled with such meaness you're likely just to get someone to pray for you, too.

You've lost me, BANI. Speak English.

You've lost me, BANI. Speak English.

#77 | Posted by Zed

It's thundering again outside nearby as I type...St. PAUL ALWAYS ENJOYED THUNDER i UNDERSTAND:>)

"I am geting tired of making you dance"

Yet another member of The Party Of Responsibility who isn't about to accept a single ounce of responsibility.

Too damn funny, though: post about someone's stupidity without bothering to check spelling, and then take the guy who points it out to task by reading a calendar incorrectly.

I come here for the comedy.

The Evil Bible people state that Christians don't know what Christ actually said.

While I can't account for every single believer on the face of the planet, many Christians I know read Jesus everyday and often have verses or entire passages committed to memory.

I've never, never seen anyone who is a believer tack on "extra words" to Christ.

I suspect the Evil Bible folks make things up, which gets you into a mote versus plank observation, the plank in this case being whapped in everyone's face by the sophomore that put up that website.

I come here for the comedy.

#79 | Posted by Danforth

We know. We're laughing at someone so fucking obsessed about his spell checking and calendar humor that he's posted nothing else of note after butting in. Ted Kennedy showed the same syptoms about 2 years ago. I certainly hope you drive better on bridges and don't drink.

All of which gets me to this point: I don't think Christians are being persecuted in this country,as they are in a few others. Chrisitanity remains normative culture in the United States.

But I am convinced there is a large cadre of folk out there, certainly in teh millions, that WOULD persecute Christians in a very old-fashioned sense if they had the chance or got the power.

Glad you still find Comedy here, Danforth. I'm close to never coming back because it is so tragic...and I have no pity for the creeps, none.

"We know."

That would seem to be the first thing you know.

But thanks for giving me yet one more opportunity to remind people you posted "Do you get paid to act the fool on this site or do you provide the stupidity gratus?"

And then took me to task for pointing out your classic self-retorting retort, including reading a calendar wrong, and suggesting (Roger Mitton) that it was all about grammar. I guess stupid is as stupid does.

"I've never, never seen anyone who is a believer tack on "extra words" to Christ."

All sorts of words tacked on here by a believer in JC:>)

THE AQUARIAN GOSPEL OF JESUS THE CHRIST
By Levi H. Dowling
Introduction by Eva S. Dowling
[1920]

This book is an extensive reworking of the Jesus story with strong Theosophical and Spiritualist influences. Of interest is the attempt to fill in the two decade gap in the Jesus's traditional biography. According to Dowling, Jesus spent a lot of time in the mystical East where he learned esoteric methods from the masters, while rebelling against the caste system. The narrative, unfortunately, has numerous historical inconsistencies, including Jesus meeting historical figures who lived hundreds of years before or after the first century, e.g. Mencius. The book has Jesus studying in India in the Orissa area; while this is an historically important ceremonial area, it didn't come into prominence until nearly a millenium later.

Depak Chopra wrote a book called "Jesus". Great book. Work of fiction. He expected persons reading it would know that.

I guess stupid is as stupid does.

#84 | Posted by Danforth

Sure sounds like a great title to your first post, nitpicker. Oh well. Maybe Tuesday someone will forget a period at the end of a sentence and then what fun you'll have, eh?

"nitpicker."

Posts the guy who originally put up the self-retorting retort, and has been whining about being exposed ever since.

"Maybe Tuesday someone will forget a period at the end of a sentence"

It only matters when the retorter is calling someone out on their stupidity..."gratus". If you can't take the razzing when you self-retort, maybe you should stop telling folks they're stoooopid.

Hey, stoooopid, go check the flagged comments. You're welcome, Mr. Full of Shit.

"You're welcome, Mr. Full of Shit."

"I'm going to flag #43 as funny."

I'm guessing Wisgod never heard of The First Rule of Holes.

The ignorant fuck doesn't even know the difference between #43 and #27.

Depak Chopra wrote a book called "Jesus". Great book. Work of fiction. He expected persons reading it would know that.

Posted by Zed

I stood in a long line to get Depak's boook once & a autograph in it...does that mean I know HIM?

Should I chant "Depak"?

or Jesus?

both?

Chanting isn't really on my radar as an issue. But, if you absolutely had to make a choice, chant Jesus. He's the less likely of the two to see you as just being a quirky personality.

Depak Chopra wrote a book called "Jesus". Great book. Work of fiction. He expected persons reading it would know that.

Posted by Zed

love listening to Gregorian chants...

non-directional prayer like chanting is better to use than the white and/or black magic telling G-d what to do...

Even Chanting swear words is more beneficial, but watch out for thunder:>)

The Nag Hamadi Library has several examples of chanting if interested

I like Gregorian chant, too.

"White or Black magic..."

I don't believe in magic. I believe in the Larger World. But I do think I see where you're coming from.

Okay,Who knows what this preachers health stats are,anyone have a picture. Commentary after valid sighting,please provide picture ID. Just reading for a bit here speaks volumes,but seriously guys, those stats can make me speak scientific volumes about his and certain processes. Im the Phd. Doc in Hyperdimensional physics,no kiddin . And I bite.

I've noted many people crystalized their view of the universe at about age fourteen. It's now what they compare all of exprience too, and of course the Universe and God are found lacking.

You can't tell someone who is fourteen anything. Anything. They don't know they're just fourteen. They think you're lying about it.

The encouraging thing is everyone has the same chance to grow up.

"Hyperdimensional physics..."

I needed you last Tuesday.

But I do think I see where you're coming from.

Posted by Zed

the idea of chanting sacred words like om (& countless others) is to raise oneself up, not to change what is or anyone else's behavioural issues.

Once one spiritualises oneself...then others lack of considerations & what nots don't effect one as much. Who knows, maybe the world will be a better place because of your good humour as well!

It's a very, very ancient practice...older than yugas:>)

Good night, BANI. A pleasure to have interacted with you.

..." Arizona Baptist pastor Steven Anderson has escalated his rhetoric. "I hope that God strikes Obama with brain cancer so he can die like Ted Kennedy," he said. "You know, and I hope it happens today."

The article didn't say which congregation this "so-called Christian" pastor belong to -- Baptist, Episcopalian, Luthern, or what.

But whichever group is in charge of the religious domination this perverted pastor belongs to needs to throw him out of their church permanently. Or at the very least, never let this sick kook preach in, or in any way represent, their church again.

I don't care if this was said about Obama or if the same thing had been said by some other church pastor about George W. Bush. To stand in front of a church and publicly wish a painful death on an innocent person should not go unpunished. This so-called pastor does not belong behind a pulpit. To wish death by cancer on someone simply because some preacher may not like that person's political views is the thought process of a very mentally ill and sick individual.

If the congregation does not insist on this preacher's removal, then they are as sick as he is.

"Baptist, Episcopalian, Luthern, or what."

Huh? You had just posted "Arizona Baptist pastor Steven Anderson..."

"Baptist, Episcopalian, Luthern, or what."

Huh? You had just posted "Arizona Baptist pastor Steven Anderson..."

#102 | Posted by Danforth

FF

Good Nite Zed! Same to U 2!:>)

Chanting,scrying,placing of curses have disastrous results,and yes,its an ancient practice,but one also must understand the goals of the HD folks who tittilate and direct others actions in physicality. I am the system operator boys,a huge difference,yet responsible for that process that is HD,and even though those "Kinda" guys are about,there are normal guys also.

I think Bani and Zed are going steady.

Rex-
Email Beachbuzz and tell him that, if you haven't already. LOL!

I think Bani and Zed are going steady.

Posted by r_zeitgeist

jealous?

No, I think watching love blossom on the Retort is great.

Next you will be having spats over furniture followed by restraining orders.

A typical retort love story.

Bani-
re: jealous?

Rex probably hasn't had a response to his email to Beachbuzz yet, so he'll have to get back to you....

"Hyperdimensional physics..."

I needed you last Tuesday.
#98 | Posted by Zed at 2009-09-01 01:03 AM

Magic? [fervently pointing turgid digit] WITCH!!

Chanting,scrying,placing of curses have disastrous results,and yes,its an ancient practice,but one also must understand the goals of the HD folks who tittilate and direct others actions in physicality. I am the system operator boys,a huge difference,yet responsible for that process that is HD,and even though those "Kinda" guys are about,there are normal guys also.
#104 | Posted by EarthScientist at 2009-09-01 01:21 AM

Singing? [shaking entire fist now] The major key!

lol #109 & #106

Rexy maybe you could/should find a detainee to love somewhere in ur universe of shadows:>)

Singing? [shaking entire fist now] The major key!

#110 | Posted by redlightrobot

Beethoven's thundering death chant comes to mind

Bani-

Lil' Betelg...I got the flare from Rex. Anytime you are posting we email each other....

#303 | Posted by Beachbuzz

Seriously!

for takeaWIS:

It's always fun to see half of the posts involving the "Wis-n-Dan Mutual Masturbation Show"

This is just one of copious examples of emotional politics ruining our chances for rational, reasoned debate. If we care about the future of the country, we must put the emotions aside and speak like adults.

#116

Wooo hoooo!!!

New poster and I like her already!

Your post was well stated.

And welcome to our drudge family!

I'm sure someone said this already, but goddamit, it's assholes like this guy who give real Christians a bad name. (Hi, Lisa.) Since when do Christians pray for someone's death? I would actually be willing to suggest that this sort of behavior is downright evil. I'm heartened by the report that there were only 30 people in the service that day. Maybe that number will shrink. Here's to hoping that his congregation is not as [insert adjective here] he is.

Hi Prag!!

Shame for using the Lords name in vain, but I do agree with what you are saying!!

We are instructed to pray FOR our enemy, not pray for their demise.

I agree with you, the behavior displayed by this pastor IS evil and he'll be dealt with on God's time.

It is a great frustration to me when people profess to being Christians and act nothing like it and you're right again...it gives us all a bad name!

Please don't confuse a Christian who makes an error in judgement with those who show they do not follow the commands given to us by God on a daily basis. We are all sinners.

"Ye shall know them by their fruit".

If someone is consistantly behaving in ways against Scripture, I suspect they are not true Christians.

#15

God is not going to grant that prayer. We are instructed to pray for those who we feel are our enemies...not pray for harm to them.

This man is a preacher but he certainly does not preach the Word of God.

But he obviously preaches hate!

#16 | Posted by Lisa

he is not going to grant any prayer.. because he doesn't exist. This kind of hate is predominant in the right religious..

Oh Legio!

I love the posts that proclaim beyond doubt that God does not exist.

Have you died to know this with certainty??

Do me a favor...if you happen to go before me, come back and leave me a message telling me what the facts are ok??

the more I listen to the warped defenses of
people that spout this sort of blatantly
racist and evil minded tripe, the more I'm
reminded that 2 out of 3 Rightwing posters on this site are probably legally insane,
if not criminally narcissistic.

(snickers)...but that's what makes them so damned
entertaining!! They are God forsaken idiot tools,
who don't even realize that they are! Awesome...

(all attempts to contact said poster of the above
opinion shall be met with a gigantic..."Nyauuuut!)

Have a Nice Day ;-)

"Shame for using the Lords name in vain, but I do agree with what you are saying!!"

Yes, Miz Lisa, I was trolling a bit. And being a bit ironic--you see, since I don't believe (though I try to respect those who do, sincerely and without hate), it's not really using the lord's name in vain.

Color me agnostic (though I'd probably be Buddhist if I really had the strength of my convictions).

for takeaWIS:

www.youtube.com

#114 | Posted by ichiro

Thanks, 45'er.

I love the posts that proclaim beyond doubt that God does not exist.

Have you died to know this with certainty??

Do me a favor...if you happen to go before me, come back and leave me a message telling me what the facts are ok??

#121 | Posted by Lisa

OK. In the meantime keep your fairy tales off of our money and out of our government.

Should this preacher be held accountable for his words like any other religious nutjob issuing fatwas?

I love the posts that proclaim beyond doubt that The Flying Spaghetti Monster does not exist.

Have you died to know this with certainty??

Do me a favor...if you happen to go before me, come back and leave me a message telling me what the facts are ok??

ROFL

I wonder what kind of pathetic idiot married that moron.

"Hi Prag!!

Shame for using the Lords name in vain, .....!"

Repent ye sinner, repent!

Exodus 20:7 (KJV)
7 Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain; for the LORD will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain

"I wonder what kind of pathetic idiot married that moron...."

Funny. There's a lot of that going around.

Steve Anderson is living proof that there is no God.

If there really was a God he wouldn't let a shit-head like Anderson speak shit in his name.

Ergo He don't exist.

Phew, glad we got *that* cleared up.

Be Well.

Wondering, I mean.

Well, the preacher in question should be critiqued for not living up to his standard. But therein is the wonderful thing. He has one.

Standards, I mean.

He has one Standards???

Zaaaaaaaat!!!! Where are you when we need you!

This guy is as big a nut as reverend wright. I wonder how many people just sit in the congregation and don't listen.

i'm waiting for the day when all clergy from all religions don't exist.

"He has standards..."

Sure he does. It's his standards you're angry at. You're angry when he doesn't live up to them but also angry when he tries to.

yes i know i'll be waiting a long time.

"I'm waiting for the day when all clergy from all religions don't exist..."

The early church got along fine without clergy. But, speaking personally, I hope drug-dealers go first.

Clergy are just the middlemen. Why don't believers just communicate directly to their god?

We do.

But I suppose the demise of drug-dealers implies the demise of drugs. Now that would really provoke a "God is Dead" sort of feeling among some.

I'm going to pray that he dies and goes to hell."

More of the "reasoned debate" we've come to expect from "nonpartisan" sources.

#5 | Posted by Snark_Needleton at

yeah I mean really...right on bro

HEY....is this one of the guys who was blaming the deaths on 9/11 on us and yelled out something about god damn america and the US of KKK america??

who WAS that guy??

seems to be like I remember something important about him..like maybe there was someone important being brainwashed FOR TWENTY YEARS or so..

cant seem to remember his name

is this one of the guys who was blaming the deaths on 9/11 on us

No, that would be Pat Robinson I believe and he said that 9-11 was G-d's wrath for our embracing of an unholy lifestyle.

"and yelled out something about god damn america "

So stupid, he's never understood Wright was referencing a Bible passage.

"and yelled out something about god damn america "

So stupid, he's never understood Wright was referencing a Bible passage.

#144 | Posted by Danforth

The word "America" is in the Bible? Wow, I guess the Bible predicted the discovery of America thousands of years before it happened.

"and yelled out something about god damn america "

So stupid, he's never understood Wright was referencing a Bible passage.

#144 | Posted by Danforth

no matter how much you and your buddies try and deny this....you just cant...
and that includes the idea that obama could have sat there for 20 years and not heard any of this as he SAID...........

just cant do it..

"the idea that obama could have sat there for 20 years and not heard any of this "

Wright's sermons were routinely offered for sale. Yet only ONE of his sermons came into question, and that from folks unaware he was referencing the Bible. If what you claim was so pervasive, where are all the other tapes?

I have a question and its not about the cancer. Can anyone on the right tell me where Jesus says to wish those to hell for disagreeing with them? I am pretty sure Jesus wants to save everyones soul, you know redemption and all that. So how can anyone even call this preacher a christian? Since he is breaking Rule one in wishing harm and damnation on another human?

#148 | Posted by Fenderwa41
He is a nut. RIght, left, middle, no one has to defend him. He is a nut! You can't lump everyone that disagrees with O together. No matter how much you want to diminsh legit disagreement with nuts like this.

#148 Fenderwa41> Can anyone on the right tell me where Jesus says to wish those to hell for disagreeing with them?

He didn't, and other posters have pointed out what Jesus said about praying for one's enemies (the idea is not to wish harm to them, but that they too would eventually believe in God).

FW41> I am pretty sure Jesus wants to save everyones soul, you know redemption and all that.

That's exactly what Jesus taught: that all would come to him for redemption (while realizing that many would not).

FW41> So how can anyone even call this preacher a christian? Since he is breaking Rule one in wishing harm and damnation on another human?

In 149 posts, I haven't seen anyone really defend the 'minister' in question. I would find it offensive if any minister in whose church I sat spent any amount of time on politics ... they should stick to the Bible. The Apostle Paul went so far as to tell believers to pray for the leaders in power, some of whom were far worse than any leaders America has had.

I am copying and pasting the following verses from the New Testament, Matthew 5:43-48 (where Jesus is speaking, New International Version):

[43]"You have heard that it was said, Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' [44] But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, [45] that you may be sons of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. [46] If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? [47] And if you greet only your brothers, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? [48] Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect

A great on-line resource for Bible verses and different translations is: www.biblegateway.org

THere is NO differnce between this hate speech and that of Rev Wright. Where the diffence lies is that Obama used Wright as advisor and mentor. We dont see Rommey sitting in the front row of this guys church for 20 years and being part of his congregation before the oposition points it out.

You libtards do understand the difference between some lunitic expressing his opinion of hate and being party to the hate speech? Or is this detail beyond most of you?

This is just one of copious examples of emotional politics ruining our chances for rational, reasoned debate. If we care about the future of the country, we must put the emotions aside and speak like adults.

#116 | Posted by nerdygirl42

or listen to & chant with Moody Blue's "OM"

I found the web site (and contact info) for the pastor in question:

"Being a party to hate speech...."

I'd say listening to something makes you a party to nothing. I listen to a lot of stuff I don't like and don't agree with. I've yet to mob the speaker, or ask that he be tarred and feathered.

So, I fail to see your point.

"I'm waiting for the day when all clergy from all religions don't exist..."

The early church got along fine without clergy. But, speaking personally, I hope drug-dealers go first.

#138 | Posted by Zed

FF lol

"and yelled out something about god damn america "

So stupid, he's never understood Wright was referencing a Bible passage.

#144 | Posted by Danforth

no matter how much you and your buddies try and deny this....you just cant...
and that includes the idea that obama could have sat there for 20 years and not heard any of this as he SAID...........

just cant do it..

#146 | Posted by afkabl2

I masturbated once...

well, maybe twice...

This is just one of copious examples of emotional politics ruining our chances for rational, reasoned debate. If we care about the future of the country, we must put the emotions aside and speak like adults.

#116 | Posted by nerdygirl42 at 2009-09-01 08:29 AM

You're just here hoping to pick up some on line wood. Who do you think you're fooling?

Wooo hoooo!!!

New poster and I like her already!

Your post was well stated.

And welcome to our drudge family!

#117 | Posted by Lisa at 2009-09-01 08:33 AM |

Damn, looks like it worked already.

Did Jesus pray for anyone's death?

Talk amongst yourselves.

Zed

Let me help you along the path of reason. If you listen you are not part of the hate, but if you continue to come back and pay to be a member of the parish, klan, movement, then you ARE part of the hate. Listen to a Klan member is one thing but when you give money to be memeber and contiue to come to the meetings,(like Obama did) then you are part of the hate speech.

Does that make things a little clearer? I knew this was to complex for you libtards!

"when you give money to be memeber and contiue to come to the meetings,(like Obama did) then you are part of the hate speech. "

Do you have the same barometer for Catholics, who return to churches in parishes where they shuffled around pedo priests?

And since many of Rev. Wright's sermons were available to buy, where are all the other instances of this seemingly all-pervasive "hate speech"?

Beefers thinks that it is sad that anyone would listen to such a moron...... Beefers hopes the preachers sphinctor heals and that he has to crap through his ears for all of the rest of time......

Danny,

These are adult conversations and it would be best for you to stay in the shallow end of the conversation pool where you are less likely to end up in over you head, as you have just proven with you last post. I have already tried to debated with you and your lack of logic doesn't justify a response

If you want to make a point you will need to have some logic to it. Please check with an adult for help. Run along now and play outside with the other liberals with you mental capacity

Oh Legio!

I love the posts that proclaim beyond doubt that God does not exist.

Have you died to know this with certainty??

Do me a favor...if you happen to go before me, come back and leave me a message telling me what the facts are ok??

#121 | Posted by Lisa

Have you? Have you known anyone to come back out of the grave and tell you what it was like?

Lisa..There is no way in the known universe you will convince me that God exists or that you are correct because you cant prove a negative.. It is faith and your faith only that props up the belief because fact will never convince you otherwise.

This is the only modern religion I am aware of that worships a zombie as being the son of god.

You can't prove he exists but my position is not refuted by denying.

If I were you, I would begin study in earnest Constantine and the 1st council of Nicaea. The whole christian faith is the by product of an Emperor desperate to consolidate a fragmented Roman empire via an emerging cult. It worked wonderfully until Honorius fucked it up..

You libtards do understand the difference between some lunitic expressing his opinion of hate and being party to the hate speech? Or is this detail beyond most of you?

#152 | Posted by WI_Hunter

nice deflection retard..stop eating cheese and pick up a book.

#166

I guess if you can't prove there isn't God, then purhaps you shouldn't be saying with certainty, there isn't.

I have Faith that there is.

Big difference between saying I believe and trying to state something as fact that you can not prove.

I agree with Lisa on that last bit. And Legio, Christ is not a zombie. Zombies are _un_dead, _living dead_, not resurrected. And they usually are not sentient (though Land of the Dead proposed something interesting on that line).

I agree with you on the logic of religion, but some of science is rather fanciful as well. I mean, string theory? Come on. I like the Flying Spaghetti Monster stuff-I find it very funny. But can't you atheists and Christians agree to disagree. Lisa appears to be a good person (well, from what little I can tell); sure, everything comes back to God for her, but that's her right. As long as she's not hatin' anyone in the process (which I've not seen), who cares? You're about as likely to convince her (no matter how much reading she might do and might have done already) as she is to convince you.

I tend to enjoy philosophy much more than religion, but I've read fairly widely in both areas. And in some overlapping areas. Maybe Lisa has too. *shrug*

"The whole Christian faith is the product of an Emperor...."

Post hoc paranoia about Constantine? Just strange.

"There is no way in the universe you can convince me God can exist..."

I believe that. The task is akin to convincing a five-year-old green beans taste good. They-Don't-Believe-You.

You're hooked on a point of trivia, the same as BOB. We Christians are perfectly aware of ancient Sumerian literature and the Councli of Nicea.

Both are beside the point. They don't matter. The real story and the real drama are elsewhere.

#171 | Posted by Zed at 2009-09-01 08:13 PM | Reply | Flag: not smarter than a five-year-old

"It's your faith and your faith only that props up belief...."

You've been told otherwise time and time again. It's just a part of reality you won't look at.

"Props" come in many forms, and not all the crazy ideas they support are religous. That's not a mote in your eye, my friend.

Hello, ZAT---In all seriousness, why don't you talk physics?

#170

I wouldn't even address that, Zed.

Prag:

Thanks for the defense.

It's true, God is the top priority in my life. I thank Him for everything...good and bad. Some people criticize me when I say that, knowing some of the bad that I've been through.

Here's why I am grateful for the bad experiences:

Everyone has mountains and valleys in their lives. It's how we respond to them that makes the difference.

We all enjoy the "mountains". They are the high points, our joys.

But it's during hardships, in the valleys... where it's so lush and the soil is rich and where growth is the strongest.

I thank God for the valleys. They have made me who I am today. I may not be so compassionate, understanding, patient, if I had not gone through the bad times. And I like who I am!

I have always agreed to disagree with those who don't share my beliefs. I tend to be more frustrated with people who claim to be Christians who admit they are sinners and are reluctant to repent, continuing in their hateful ways, unbecoming for a Christian. So...I just pray for them! : )

And I love most areas of discussion, Prag.

You're a good person, LISA. A light in darkness at times.

"You've been told otherwise time and time again. It's just a part of reality you won't look at. "

But Zed, people on the other side of the argument, or in other arguments, could make the same point.

Religion and science aren't _reality_. They are different ways of trying to understand the world (well, for those adherents of either who actually _think_).

If there is a God, I can't believe he'd support his adherents praying for anyone's death, unless to ease their pain. But there are lots of other things I can't imagine him or her encouraging or allowing. And yet. ... Some will argue that the answer to my implicit dilemma is "free will." And some will argue for determinism.

Beware the man who purports to know the truth. Hell, I barely know my own heart with certainty; how can I claim to see into others'?

Yes, of course they make the same point. That's what interesting, to be familiar with the dynamic but not universally apply understanding.

People hopping on one foot, pretending to walk, telling you you're stupid because you prefer to use both legs.

The seeds of our own destruction, I tell you.

Zed--huh? People hopping wha?

Its sad that this is becoming the most commented blog in the Drudge. You know racism is a plague to our debates on important issues because we allow it to infest our minds.

You know the if your not left your racist agenda is getting kind of old. Do you know why the Media outlets push this racism propaganda so much??? THEY WANT our debates racially fueled. THEY DON'T WANT us discussing the strong issues that unite us!

This mans sick rederic reflects on him as an individual not a political party and we all know better than that.

I don't advocate this mans actions all the same as I don't advocate a washed up comedian wishing for someones lungs to fail in a White House dine in for that matter. Both sides show a lack of class.

PRAGMATIST--I flatter myself it makes more sense in grand context.

Big difference between saying I believe and trying to state something as fact that you can not prove.

#168 | Posted by Lisa

you can't prove a negative. But faith can never be proved. Too many contradictory things occurring that would otherwise prove you wrong..

There are at least eight insurmountable problems within the extant evidence that each independently refute the Christian doctrine of a divine Jesus:

* Jesus' endorsement of the murderous immorality of Yahweh in the Torah;
* Jesus' doctrine of "eternal punishment" in the "eternal fire" of Hell;
* Jesus' failure to claim actual divinity;
* Jesus' failed prophecy of his imminent return;
* Jesus' failure to competently reveal his doctrines (concerning e.g. salvation, hell, divorce, circumcision, and diet) in his own written account or that of an eyewitness;
* Jesus' failure to perform miracles the accounts of which cannot be so easily explained as faith-healing, misinterpretation, exaggeration, and embellishment;
* Jesus' failure to attract significant notice (much less endorsement) in the only detailed contemporaneous history of first-century Palestine;
* Jesus' failure to recruit
o anyone from his family,
o any acquaintance from before his baptism,
o a majority of Palestinian Jews, and even
o some of those who heard his words and witnessed his alleged miracles.

An omnipotent omniscience benevolent deity competently attempting a revelation would have foreseen and corrected all of these problems. The existence of any one of them implies that Christian doctrine is false. The reasons not to believe the Christian doctrine of a divine Jesus can be divided into four categories:

* the alternative naturalistic explanations of the existing evidence;
* the missing evidence needed to prove such divinity;
* the implausibility of such divine activity; and
* the cascading implications of accepting such evidence.

I agree with Lisa on that last bit. And Legio, Christ is not a zombie. Zombies are _un_dead, _living dead_, not resurrected. And they usually are not sentient (though Land of the Dead proposed something interesting on that line).

I agree with you on the logic of religion, but some of science is rather fanciful as well. I mean, string theory? Come on. I like the Flying Spaghetti Monster stuff-I find it very funny. But can't you atheists and Christians agree to disagree. Lisa appears to be a good person (well, from what little I can tell); sure, everything comes back to God for her, but that's her right. As long as she's not hatin' anyone in the process (which I've not seen), who cares? You're about as likely to convince her (no matter how much reading she might do and might have done already) as she is to convince you.

I tend to enjoy philosophy much more than religion, but I've read fairly widely in both areas. And in some overlapping areas. Maybe Lisa has too. *shrug*

#169 | Posted by pragmatist

I agree to disagree although physical evidence highly favors my viewpoint.

Your correct jesus wasn't a zombie because zombies aren't REAL.

Legio???

What is the definition of FAITH?

If something were to be proven, if there was evidence needed to back up ones "faith"....it wouldn't be called FAITh now would it.

You are free to believe what you wish. I will continue to believe and have faith.

Thanks for the discussion.

You're hooked on a point of trivia, the same as BOB. We Christians are perfectly aware of ancient Sumerian literature and the Councli of Nicea.

Both are beside the point. They don't matter. The real story and the real drama are elsewhere.

#172 | Posted by Zed

First you have to spell it correctly.

Being "aware" of the council of Nicaea's is different than being informed.

..and yes it does matter. Your response must be code for "I don't know what the fuck you are talking about but let me pretend to know by dismissing it it as detritus."

That's not a mote in your eye, my friend.

#174 | Posted by Zed

and that is not a brain behind your eyes..

Thanks for the discussion.

#186 | Posted by Lisa

Which translates.. my belief is mine and nothing you point out that would refute my belief to be incorrect is going to penetrate this bony substrate called a skull so i am leaving with all my toys.. nyahh.

Zed: "PRAGMATIST--I flatter myself it makes more sense in grand context." Thanks for the giggle.

But Legio, now you're just being mean. Lisa's explanation of faith, or clinging to it (depending on interpretation), is spot on. Faith is believing in something when you have no logical reason to believe.

So... " I agree to disagree although physical evidence highly favors my viewpoint."

Meaning because there's no empirical evidence of God there can't be one? I forget your point now. : )

"Your correct jesus wasn't a zombie because zombies aren't REAL."

I lost you there. Are you saying Jesus was real? (He was a historical person--is that what you're getting at?) Maybe I'm getting tired. : )

Really, though, I have no problem, and I don't see why anyone would, with others' religious beliefs as long as they don't lead to hate. I don't feel a need to try to convince anyone to believe or disbelieve. But yeah, agree to disagree. Sort of. : )

I find it laughable that some people think they can demand I speak with them and if I don't, they claim I have no argument....no valid point.

LOL

It cracks me up!

Legio? if I'm here at night, I just want to nuts around and have fun.

You want serious out of me, catch me in the morning!

However....my faith IS my faith. You imply I have not researched or questioned. I have. I AM a believer.

Now...back to goofin' around.

"Jesus' failure to recruit anyone from his family..."

James the Just, his brother?

"Eight Insurmountable Problems...."

Nonsense. Only for idiosyncratic you. Frankly, I've dealt with the issues you advance often enough and in such detail as to be bored with them.

But I will bite at one of your points, Jesus' failure to attract some of those that witnessed his miracles.

1) For some, the miracles were threatening events, and were dealt with as threats.

2) As one of my favorite atheists on Drudge once told me, if he ever saw anything that looked like it might be a miracle, he'd assume it was "A Cris Mindfreak sort of thing".

You can, perhaps, make people look at a thing. You can never make them see if they don't want to.

You can, perhaps, make people look at a thing. You can never make them see if they don't want to.

#194 | Posted by Zed at 2009-09-01 10:16 PM | Reply | Flag

How would you know Jesus if you met him? Would you "just know"---like those who "just knew" David Koresh was Jesus or God?

How would YOU know?

"Jesus' failed prophecy for imminent return...."

There is no failed prophecy, if you and I are talking about the same thing.

What you cannot accept, because you have no concept of God, is that nothing is impossible.

If you could pry from ZAT that physical knowledge he pretends to have you'd understand that the appearance of someone in both our times and circa 50 A.D. is an attainable goal to anyone with sufficient power.

It's sad to think you're an atheist. It's sadder yet to think you might be one for lack of understanding the world around you.

"How would you know...?"

Dunno. Can tell you the Bible suggests the Second Advent will be an unambiguous affair. It's going to be obvious to pretty much everyone what's afoot.

Jesus is art--you know Him if you see Him.

"If God had a face what would it look like
And would you want to see
If seeing meant that you would have to believe
In things like heaven and in jesus and the saints and all the prophets" --Erik Bazilian/performed by Joan Osborne (great song, even, especially?, for this agnostic-almost-atheist)

There is no failed prophecy, if you and I are talking about the same thing.
#196 | Posted by Zed

Always the Joker.

"Jesus' failure to claim actual divinity...."

We must be reading different Bibles, son.

Hello, RAY. Have my citation?

Are you asking if I have your citation?

Might be. Depends. What did you think I meant?

(Oblique encounter)...(Excursions and alarums).

We must be reading different Bibles, son.

#200 | Posted by Zed at 2009-09-01 10:31 PM | Reply | Flag

Since Jesus had none of Gods DNA---how could he be Gods son? If he was supposed to be the only begotten Son of God--wouldn't that mean he had Gods DNA, and that a sexual act was involved?

be⋅get  /bɪˈgɛt/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [bi-get] Show IPA
verb (used with object), be⋅got or (Archaic) be⋅gat; be⋅got⋅ten or be⋅got; be⋅get⋅ting.

1. (esp. of a male parent) to procreate or generate (offspring).

Dunnno, BOB. I'll refer you to my response to LEGIO---As Paul and other said, for God nothing is impossible. I imagine a little double helix wouldn't be taxing.

The bible says God had many sons---and that those sons had sex with earth women---and the women gave birth.

Genesis
6:4 There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.

I'm sorry, BOB. I miss your point.

I imagine a little double helix wouldn't be taxing.

#206 | Posted by Zed at 2009-09-01 10:43 PM | Reply | Flag:

If half of that double helix wasn't Gods--the offspring wouldn't be a son of God--it would just be another creation.

BOB---A little story---LBJ was visiting Nam---The officer with him said: "That's your helicopter, Mr. President".

LBJ replied: "Son, those are ALL my helicopters".

Might be. Depends. What did you think I meant?

#203 | Posted by Zed

You're writing is often incoherent. I have no time for guessing games.

"You're writing is incoherent...."

Your comprehension is erratic. So, what do you say? Taffy-blinz?

I'm sorry, BOB. I miss your point.

#208 | Posted by Zed at 2009-09-01 10:47 PM | Reply | Flag

You miss the point? Well first--Jesus wasn't the only son of God. Second--the sons of God the bible talks about in Genesis 6:4 could reproduce with earth women--that means we were genetically compatible with these life forms--which goes to

Genesis
1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

That means we look like God and have the same emotions of God.

God kicked us out of the Garden of Eden because of the fear we would become---Just---like---Them.

Genesis
3:22 And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:

The only difference was in our longevity.

LBJ replied: "Son, those are ALL my helicopters".

#210 | Posted by Zed at 2009-09-01 10:51 PM | Reply | Flag:

A little correction--NONE of them were JBJs helicopters. They belonged to the United States---LBJs employer.

I have no idea what "sons of God" means in that context, except to be sure it has little to do with Christ.

YOU'RE a son of God, BOB. So's RAY. It's a good thing, not a bad thing.

BB

I don't know why you spend your time trying to pound facts on Zed. You know you're going to get nowhere.

"A little correction...."

Concreteness will be the death of you yet. At the very least, good comic books are wasted on you.

I have no idea what "sons of God" means in that context, except to be sure it has little to do with Christ.

YOU'RE a son of God, BOB. So's RAY. It's a good thing, not a bad thing.

#215 | Posted by Zed at 2009-09-01 10:57 PM | Reply | Flag

There are only three words there--which one confuses you?

Facts are Genesis comes from Enuma Elish---and Enuma Elish makes much more sense. Wouldn't you like to know the origin?

Let me ask you this--if you found that humans were created by aliens (after all--God is an alien life for) who crossed their DNA with the local biped 300,000 years ago---how would that affect your life?

"You're(sic) writing is often incoherent."

#211 | Posted by Ray at 2009-09-01 10:53 PM | Reply | Flag: self-retort

None of the words confuse me, BOB. You're right, there are only three of them. Why don't you ask KIRK what the Genesis "sons of God" meant in Hebrew? It might save you some anxiety.

"How would that effect you're life...?"

I'd think it was interesting. How would it effect yours?

Why don't you ask KIRK what the Genesis "sons of God" meant in Hebrew? It might save you some anxiety.

#220 | Posted by Zed at 2009-09-01 11:35 PM | Reply | Flag

I have no anxiety--I'm not confused. I read the original story---it wasn't in Hebrew. It was written before there were Hebrews.

I am comfortable with the alien creation story--it makes far more sense than its biblical counterpart. The original explains the order of the planet creation of our solar system, and explains why there is no "missing link". It shows that Creation is correct---and that Evolution is correct. Sons of God becomes quite clear--I don't have to ask anyone what it means. It also explains the longevity of some of the biblical figures. In short--the original makes sense of much of the nonsense of the bible.

This just in: Obama Hopes Preacher Gets a Brain.

#184 Legio> * Jesus' failure to recruit anyone from his family,

His half-brother James became a leader in the early church in Jerusalem, wrote a short book that is included in the New Testament, and was reportedly killed as a martyr. His mother was a believer as well.

What about Craig Christ?

#213 BBob> You miss the point? Well first--Jesus wasn't the only son of God. Second--the sons of God the bible talks about in Genesis 6:4 could reproduce with earth women--that means we were genetically compatible with these life forms--which goes to

All this stuff has been brought up MANY times in theological circles, usually by people (like you) who do not spend any time researching what the Hebrew says and what the context is. I hope you don't think your argument is original in the least. You, and others, should always be careful when basing an argument (or even a tenet of faith) on an English translation of something in another language.

There is a great difference between the phrase 'sons of God' in Genesis 6 and the term 'Son of God' as Jesus applied it to himself (and as other New Testament writers used it to refer to Jesus).

For a very indepth treatment of the text (by someone with far more Hebrew skills than I have):

Paradise to Prison, Copyright 1975 by John J. Davis, Sheffield Publishing Company

AKAT

The Hebrews have nothing to do with the original scripture that the bible is edited from. The original was written before there were Hebrews.

However, if you can't explain the difference yourself---you have no point. It seems you don't understand WTF your reference was saying since you can't explain the difference yourself.

But as I stated---the Hebrews have nothing to do with the original scripture from which the bible is edited. The original makes far more sense, and makes sense of the nonsense of many biblical stories.

#227 Bbob> The Hebrews have nothing to do with the original scripture that the bible is edited from. The original was written before there were Hebrews.

I disagree very strongly and would argue that you (and others with similar claims that I have read about) have no real evidence to support what you are saying. If I said the moon was made of green cheese or that there were smokestacks on the moon, would you believe either/both just because I said so?

Bb> However, if you can't explain the difference yourself---you have no point.

The 6-8 pages in the book I referenced is pretty complex with a lot of footnotes. I *AM* fairly familiar with it. It is not my place here to give a two hour lecture on a subject when: a) I don't have the time, b) you won't believe anything I say anyway, c) everybody else would likely be bored to death, and finally d) you refuse to accept valid points just as you have done numerous times in the past.

I avoid trying to teach pigs to sing. (grin)

Akat

I disagree very strongly and would argue that you (and others with similar claims that I have read about) have no real evidence to support what you are saying.

I have referenced the original several times. It was written long before there were Hebrews.

Here is the link again--you can buy the original from Amazon.com

If I were you, I would begin study in earnest Constantine and the 1st council of Nicaea. The whole christian faith is the by product of an Emperor desperate to consolidate a fragmented Roman empire via an emerging cult. It worked wonderfully until Honorius fucked it up..

#166 | Posted by Legio

certainly "onlybegottenism" via empire enforcement got a 'new' life then

I tend to enjoy philosophy much more than religion, but I've read fairly widely in both areas. And in some overlapping areas. Maybe Lisa has too. *shrug*

#169 | Posted by pragmatist

Plato's Atlantis musings must not be a part of philosophy...I suppose

"There is no way in the universe you can convince me God can exist..."

I believe that. The task is akin to convincing a five-year-old green beans taste good. They-Don't-Believe-You.

#171 | Posted by Zed

#171 | Posted by Zed at 2009-09-01 08:13 PM | Reply | Flag: not smarter than a five-year-old

#173 | Posted by Zatoichi

Data thinks he's emotionally smarter than a 5 year old...maybe!

#229 Bbob> Written long before there were Hebrews. Proof enough for you?

Nope. Per some internet sources, the oldest tablets were from about 7th century B.C., and there were Hebrews around looong before that. Even secular historians now agree that David existed as King over Israel several centuries prior to that. We know from archeologists that the Hebrew writing underwent a transformation from a 'squared' format to a 'rounded' format ... the latter happened during the Babylonian captivity (if memory serves, something like 690 B.C.).

The book I referenced does, I believe, make comparisons about the Enuma Elish tables (and others such as Gilgamesh epic) with the Hebrew Old Testament. I actually read a chapter or two from the book about six weeks ago working on another project, so I'm somewhat familiar with the subject.

I do thank you for the link to Amazon and may actually add that book to my library of research material. However, when I stated that the Davis book had 6-8 pages dealing with it and it would take too much time for me to explain, I meant that the following three obstacles were present (in addition to the time factor):

1. Unless you have more knowledge of ancient Hebrew than I do (possible, but no likely).

2. You have more knowledge of ancient Hebrew than does Dr. Davis, the author.

3. You have more than a passing knowledge of Semetic languages.

Due to 1-3, it would be a waste of my time to tutor you and/or condense the material I mentioned previously. Dr. Davis goes into detail explaining the Hebrew words, the context and even cites a variety of real Hebrew scholars who *might* differ from him in the shades of the meanings. This is a sign of a true scholar, one honest enough to point out the possibility of other meanings than the one they feel is correct. From memory, he points out four ACCEPTED theories on the meaning of the phrase "sons of God" in Genesis 6, only one of which could possibly be rendered as meaning 'supernatural beings' produced offspring with human females.

"Plato's Atlantis musings must not be a part of philosophy...I suppose"

Huh?

This guy is no different than Wright--

Losers--and haters both of them.

This guy is no different than Wright--

Losers--and haters both of them.

#235 | Posted by MURPHY
agreed..

Politicians have brains?

.....hhhmmm

Nope. Per some internet sources, the oldest tablets were from about 7th century B.C., and there were Hebrews around looong before that. Even secular historians now agree that David existed as King over Israel several centuries prior to that. We know from archeologists that the Hebrew writing underwent a transformation from a 'squared' format to a 'rounded' format ... the latter happened during the Babylonian captivity (if memory serves, something like 690 B.C.).

There are ZERO sources for that date. The tablets were determined to have been buried at Ninevah in the 7th century BC, and found in the 1800's. All references ascribe Enuma Elish to the Sumerians. Sumeria was ended about 2500 years before the 7th century BC.

"There were no Hebrews at that time...."

That's your Nobel if you can prove that. Yes, the earliest reference is 1700 BC, but that just means it's the earliest reference. Maybe you posit they popped into exitence in 1n 1699 BC? Of course you do.

Face it, you've been whipped. Kudos to AKAT and his scholarship.

That's your Nobel if you can prove that. Yes, the earliest reference is 1700 BC, but that just means it's the earliest reference. Maybe you posit they popped into exitence in 1n 1699 BC? Of course you do.

It has been proven. Where have you been? Enuma Elish is from Sumeria---Sumer was in existence from 5300 BCE to 3500BCE

Don't even try to reason with BBob on this one. His logic is circular once he gets going and he refuses to admit the importance of oral tradition.

By his reasoning, Br'er Fox and Br'er Bear didn't exist as characters until 1881 and they must have been a white man's creation. After all, the written word detailing the stories wasn't published until 1881 by the white man, Chandler Harris.

Of course this ignores the fact that the stories were oral tradition originated by black slaves.

By BBob's reasoning though, the stories didn't exist until they were actually written down and can only have been invented by the white man that put them in a book.

Excuse me... JOEL Chandler Harris.

Moomanfl,though I agree with bob on this one(only),excellant analogy

Bruce,

My analogy refers back to a previous argument that I had with BBob.

I think there is a fundamental flaw in the reasoning that the Old Testament necessarily was derived from the Enuma Elish.

The fact is, Hebrews came from a nomadic society that was late in developing writing. While Hebrews by that name probably didn't exist before Sumer, the nomadic tribes that became them most likely did, as did oral traditions.

Is is possible that these nomadic tribes got their oral traditions from the Sumerians? Sure. However I see no reason to state that it is necessarily so.

I consider it just as possible that the Sumerians simply wrote down the stories that had previously been a part of their oral tradition passed down from before they time they settled into civilization. In which case it is very possible that the two stories are so similar because they share a common root that predates Sumerian culture and both versions are original to that common ancestor.

Unless evidence can be shown to prove that the Hebrews indeed took these stories from the Sumerians, you are in effect following the "Br'er Fox by a white man" logic.

Don't even try to reason with BBob on this one. His logic is circular once he gets going and he refuses to admit the importance of oral tradition.

My l;ogic is not circular it is linear. The first civilization was Sumer---there were no Hebrews until Sumer was gone for hundreds of years.

By his reasoning, Br'er Fox and Br'er Bear didn't exist as characters until 1881 and they must have been a white man's creation. After all, the written word detailing the stories wasn't published until 1881 by the white man, Chandler Harris.

That is your reassoning--not mine. You make up a strawman and knock it down. The flaw is yours.

Of course this ignores the fact that the stories were oral tradition originated by black slaves.

We are talking about the bible--not B'rer rabbit.

By BBob's reasoning though, the stories didn't exist until they were actually written down and can only have been invented by the white man that put them in a book.

Again--your strawman does not concern me. You made it up, and it has no bearing on my points.

#241 | Posted by moomanfl at 2009-09-03 04:05 AM | Reply | Flag

I think there is a fundamental flaw in the reasoning that the Old Testament necessarily was derived from the Enuma Elish.

The storeies of Enuma Elish make far more sense than their biblical counterpart. We can compare the original to the biblical counterpart for comparison.

The fact is, Hebrews came from a nomadic society that was late in developing writing. While Hebrews by that name probably didn't exist before Sumer, the nomadic tribes that became them most likely did, as did oral traditions.

Again--your imagination does not substitute for facts. The Sumerians did not write from oral traditions--they wrote from personal experience. Their Godsa were not some distant stories handed down to them from their forefathers. They said their Gods were there with them--telling them these stories in person. The Hebrews on the other hand were telling stories from their forefathers, who heard the stories from the Sumerians. You have no facts to back your claims.

Is is possible that these nomadic tribes got their oral traditions from the Sumerians? Sure. However I see no reason to state that it is necessarily so.

First, you have no proof, or even a hint that these tribes existed and that they were telling the biblical stories. You imagine things, then convince yourself it is reality. Back your claims with facts.

I consider it just as possible that the Sumerians simply wrote down the stories that had previously been a part of their oral tradition passed down from before they time they settled into civilization.

Again, the Sumerians don't attribute their stories to ancient tales--they write like the Gods were there. The Sumeians were the first civilization. First schools--first kings--first writing--first plow--first dikes--first reservoirs---they gave us the plane of the ecliptic---360 degrees in a circle--they gave us the zodiacthey knew all the planets including the asteroid belt---they knew about precession, and the number of years in a Great Year accurately. They said the gods told them all they knew, and they said the gods were with them, dictating this information.

In which case it is very possible that the two stories are so similar because they share a common root that predates Sumerian culture and both versions are original to that common ancestor.

The common root is the Sumerians. The stories are similar like Cliff notes compared to the novel War and Peace. The bible is a pale shadow to the stories written thousands of years before it existed.

Unless evidence can be shown to prove that the Hebrews indeed took these stories from the Sumerians, you are in effect following the "Br'er Fox by a white man" logic.

The Hebrews weren't in existence by any name before 2000BCE. Facts are facts. Get some facts to show your hypothesis has any bearing on reality other than your imagination, and we'll discuss it.

#244 | Posted by moomanfl at 2009-09-03 04:24 AM | Reply | Flag

That is your reassoning--not mine. You make up a strawman and knock it down.

Hardly. You argue that "The Enuma Elish" by the Sumerians must be the originator of the creation stories because it was written first.

By the same logic, "Uncle Remus" by Joel Chandler Harris was the originator of Br'er Rabbit stories because it was written first.

That isn't a straw man, it is direct 1-to-1 logic.

The storeies of Enuma Elish make far more sense than their biblical counterpart.

That is your subjective opinion.

Again, the Sumerians don't attribute their stories to ancient tales

Neither did the Hebrews when the Torah was written. By your logic, since the Hebrews didn't mention taking the stories from the Sumerians, then the stories must be original to them.

--they write like the Gods were there.

So do the Hebrews. To them, God is ALWAYS there.

However, I liken the Sumerians more to the Egyptians that believed their rulers WERE gods and, just like the Egyptians, would change a previously told story to reflect the current god. In this case changing an oral tradition to the god in favor at the time (the rulers).

The Sumeians were the first civilization.

So what? What were they before they settled?

They said the gods told them all they knew, and they said the gods were with them, dictating this information.

And the Greeks said the gods built the walls of Troy but most rational people don't believe that now. Your point? If you believe the gods actually taught them all these things, then that is a matter of faith for you, but that is hardly proof of fact.

The common root is the Sumerians.

Only if you believe that there were no people at all before the Sumerians. Only if you believe that people didn't live together or tell stories before the Sumerians. Again, you are relying on the fallacy that the first writing defines the beginning of the story.... Br'er Fox from a white man logic.

The Hebrews weren't in existence by any name before 2000BCE.

A group CALLED the Hebrews weren't in existence before then. However their ancestors were unless you think they just appeared magically. You have no evidence that their nomadic ancestors didn't exist parallel to the Sumerians.

Facts are facts.

And you have yet to present any that discount my reasoning.

Hardly. You argue that "The Enuma Elish" by the Sumerians must be the originator of the creation stories because it was written first.

Not quite--I say the Enuma Elish is the originator because that is what the people who wrote it said. They said the gods were there dictating the stories to them---they do not indicate it came from any oral tradition.

By the same logic, "Uncle Remus" by Joel Chandler Harris was the originator of Br'er Rabbit stories because it was written first.

Joel Chandler never claimed the stories were all his. The Sumerians never claimed the stories were theirs. They claimed the stories were told to them by the gods. They claimed the gods were there.

That isn't a straw man, it is direct 1-to-1 logic.

The logic is flawed as shown.

#247 | Posted by moomanfl at 2009-09-03 05:11 AM | Reply | Flag:

Not quite--I say the Enuma Elish is the originator because that is what the people who wrote it said. They said the gods were there dictating the stories to them---they do not indicate it came from any oral tradition.

Good for them. So their king that claimed to be a god (much like the pharohs did) repeated a variation on the oral tradition he had learned. So what?

Actually the Hebrews claim their story is passed down as a history of those that lived it.

Again, it comes down to who you want to believe... faith.

Joel Chandler never claimed the stories were all his.

Irrelevant. His stories were the first writing of an oral tradition he hardly had a religious (or power consolidation) motivation for claiming otherwise. A Sumerian ruler that was trying to hold power by claiming godhood, however, definitely would have.

The logic is flawed as shown.

Hardly, but keep trying.

BBob,

As a further point on Joel Chandler Harris not claiming to have made up the characters... here is a better one:

In 1981 a writer named Michael Moorecock wrote a book entitled "The War Hound and the World's Pain". The preface to the book details how the following story was found in an old manuscript that had been hidden for hundreds of years in the wall of an abbey. It claims the author is just transcribing these writings.

The story, as it is "transcribed", is of a mercenary leader during one of the medieval wars in Europe that meets Lucifer in person. Lucifer sends him on a quest for the Holy Grail so that he (Lucifer) can use it to reconcile with God. The Judeo-Christian God.

By your logic, this must be true because the author of the book says it is.

Similarly, in 1939 Richard Lawson published a book called "Ben and Me". The book claims the tiny manuscript that it is transcribed from was found under the floor-boards of a church in New England. The manuscript tells the story of the mouse writing the book. This mouse details how he became friends with Benjamin Franklin and actually helped him accomplish many of the things Franklin is attributed to in history, such as the famous kite experiment.

By your logic, this must be true because the authro of the book says it is.

You know... just like the Enuma Elish that claims to have been dictated by the gods. A claim that you are touting as proof of its authenticity and originality.

The storeies of Enuma Elish make far more sense than their biblical counterpart.

That is your subjective opinion.

Not at all. Anyone who reads the stories would have to come to the same conclusions. We can go over the stories in other posts to prove the point. Sop far, you have only heard the biblical stories. When you've heard the originals, I'm sure you will agree they make far more sense.

Again, the Sumerians don't attribute their stories to ancient tales

Neither did the Hebrews when the Torah was written. By your logic, since the Hebrews didn't mention taking the stories from the Sumerians, then the stories must be original to them.

No, they didn't. The Hebrews did not write the Torah when Abraham was walking around, they wrote it from stories passed down to them, as you have stated in the past. You can't have it both ways.

--they write like the Gods were there.

So do the Hebrews. To them, God is ALWAYS there.

Not at all. The Sumerians say these gods were there with them in the flesh daily--many gods. The Hebrews never say god was physically there when they wrote the bible--they say the writing was inspired by god--not that God was in the room dictating what they should write. The closest they come to the physical god dictating is when Moses gets the 10 commandments---and that was long before anyone was actually writing the Torah. The 10 commandment story is an oral tradition. The Hebrews never claim God was physically with them when they were writing anything. The only time they talk of God being with them was in the long ago past.

However, I liken the Sumerians more to the Egyptians that believed their rulers WERE gods and, just like the Egyptians, would change a previously told story to reflect the current god. In this case changing an oral tradition to the god in favor at the time (the rulers).

You wouldn't say that if you knew the original story of the Tower of Babel. We'll discuss it when you want to hear it.

The Sumeians were the first civilization.

So what? What were they before they settled?

Nomads like everyone else. They weren't Hebrews. Their civilization--their technology flourished in a flash.

They said the gods told them all they knew, and they said the gods were with them, dictating this information.

And the Greeks said the gods built the walls of Troy but most rational people don't believe that now. Your point? If you believe the gods actually taught them all these things, then that is a matter of faith for you, but that is hardly proof of fact.

The proof is in their knowledge, and their mathematics. They gave us the plane of the ecliptic, 360 degrees in a circle. They knew all the planets--we didn't know Pluto until the thirties. They told which planets formed first, and what they look like. Scholars are studying Enuma Elish for origins of the solar system. They knew about the asteroid belt. We didn't know about it until 1801 when the first member of the asteroid belt, Ceres, was discovered. They knew about precession, and the exact number of years it takes to precess into a Great Year, 26,920, and used a number that was equal to 500 Great Years in the mathematics. We didn't know the correct length of a Great Year until the 20th century. To have that knowledge seems like substantial evidence of the "gods who came down".

The common root is the Sumerians.

Only if you believe that there were no people at all before the Sumerians. Only if you believe that people didn't live together or tell stories before the Sumerians. Again, you are relying on the fallacy that the first writing defines the beginning of the story.... Br'er Fox from a white man logic.

People didn't tell stories about precession and all the planets or the asteroid belt.
Your strawman is not a factor.

The Hebrews weren't in existence by any name before 2000BCE.

A group CALLED the Hebrews weren't in existence before then. However their ancestors were unless you think they just appeared magically. You have no evidence that their nomadic ancestors didn't exist parallel to the Sumerians.

I'm sure the ancestors of the Hebrews were around, Just like the ancestors of Catholics were around. But they weren't Hebrews anymore than they were Catholics.

Facts are facts.

And you have yet to present any that discount my reasoning.

I believe you are mistaken. I have shown the Sumerians had knowledge that required superior technology. The Sumerians attributed their knowledge to the Annunaki--"those who came down". They back up their claims with knowledge that took us thousands of years to discover on our own.

#248 | Posted by moomanfl at 2009-09-03 05:31 AM | Reply | Flag:

Anyone who reads the stories would have to come to the same conclusions.

How nice that you presume to tell other people what they think.

Sop far, you have only heard the biblical stories.

Again you assume. You seem to forget that you and I have gone over these stories before. I wasn't convinced then, I doubt that I will be convinced by repetition.

The Hebrews did not write the Torah when Abraham was walking around, they wrote it from stories passed down to them

Yes, from the people that lived the stories... like Abraham. Other than the physical act of transcribing to a hard copy, I fail to see how passing a story down to your descendants telling the story of what you lived through is any different than what you claim was done with the Enuma Elish.

The Sumerians say these gods were there with them in the flesh daily--many gods.

Of course. The king was god. Just like the pharohs.

they say the writing was inspired by god--not that God was in the room dictating what they should write.

Wrong. That is a modern day wording of a translation. Most Jews and Christians understand the difference. That you do not is your problem, not ours. Either way, if you believe the gods were actually there dictating, that is a matter of faith for you. I don't think most people would agree with you that there were actual Sumerian gods (extra-terrestrial or supernatural beings) telling them what to write.

and that was long before anyone was actually writing the Torah.

Which just shows that you will make bullshit claims out of nowhere. The actual writing of the Torah is attributed to Moses at least in part (and not the Moses parts since that is done in third person). Saying that the Ten Commandments was long before the Torah is bullshit. So, I guess we actually do have a claim by the person that wrote the Torah down claiming to have talked to, and seen, God directly.

The proof is in their knowledge, and their mathematics.

All that proves is that they were smart. There is no reason humans couldn't figure that out themselves. If you think otherwise... well, far be it from me to deny you your faith.

I have shown the Sumerians had knowledge that required superior technology.

Non sequitur. You have proven they had knowledge. However it doesn't follow that it was only attainable through being taught by a superior race. Or that all of it means what you think it means. Granted that some does, however some may simply be coincidence. Maybe you even have some facts totally twisted, I will confess that I am just not interested in it enough to research, but based on seeing arguments by you on many other subjects it wouldn't surprise me.

BTW, Bob... You remind me a bit of Bill Birnes the guy from "UFO Hunters" on The History Channel. You wouldn't happen to be related would you?

You remind me a bit of Bill Birnes the guy from "UFO Hunters" on The History Channel. You wouldn't happen to be related would you?

bOoB doesn't hunt UFOs. They hunt him.

Hey, sorry---I should have asked BOB if the Hebrews popped into existence in 1701 BC. Not that it matters much. He thinks you can't be a Hebrew and be a nomad.

bOoB doesn't hunt UFOs. They hunt him.

#256 | Posted by goatman

maybe if you saw a few, too, you might wonder about that, too:>)

"The Sumeians were the first civilization."

I don't think so....but then my source material is just as suspected in some circles as BB's:>)

Certainly Brad Steiger's re-issued "Atlantis Rising" has some dynamite chapters though...

Again you assume. You seem to forget that you and I have gone over these stories before. I wasn't convinced then, I doubt that I will be convinced by repetition.

#254 | Posted by moomanfl at 2009-09-03 06:54 AM | Reply | Flag: Flag:

I doubt we have gone over the stories before. But if we have, How about you tell me the Sumerian version of the Tower of Babel?

There is no way the Sumerians could have figured out precession directly from the stone age, or had the capacity to know about the asteroid belt or all the planets. Humans with telescopes and advanced mathematics couldn't figure it out for hundreds of years after the first telescope. But if you think they could have===how about an explanation as to the logic that led to their conclusion.

My request for you to tell the Tower of Babel story from the Sumerian version is not unreasonable, since I was going to tell it to you, and will still tell it after you decline for whatever reason you come up with to avoid the tale.

Hey, sorry---I should have asked BOB if the Hebrews popped into existence in 1701 BC. Not that it matters much. He thinks you can't be a Hebrew and be a nomad.

#257 | Posted by Zed at 2009-09-03 08:40 AM | Reply | Flag

Gee--that's when the Hebrews say they popped into existence. They popped into existence because of their interaction with God. Were they telling the ten commandment story before Moses? How about YOUR link to the age of the Hebrews? How about YOUR link to the Hebrews telling biblical stories before 1701 BCE? Anything? Anything at all?

Bani

The Myths of Atlantis and Lemuria may be explained by the gods of the Sumerians also. The Deep, may refer to the depths of Space. The Sumerians said their gods came from a rogue planet captured by our solar systems gravity that orbits the sun in 3600 year orbits. It is described as a fiery planet, or the planet of crossing. The gods couldn't travel back and forth between earth and their planet for the whole length of the orbit, and when it was far enough away, it was said to have sunk into the "deep".

BOB, there were of course Hebrews prior to Moses. And we can assume they had an existence before getting to Egypt, just as a matter of logic.

Your thinking is terminally idiosyncratic.

There were no Hebrews if there was no Hebrew religion. That is logical. I must have missed your link to your claim that there were Hebrews as Nomads before 1701 BCE. Wasn't I clear enough in my request, or do you think just because you imagine such a thing, it must be real?

You have no basis for your statements other than your imagination (so far). I have posted links to my statements. Why are you having difficulty doing the same?

#263 | Posted by Zed at 2009-09-03 02:20 PM | Reply | Flag:

In addition--Abraham is considered to be the first Hebrew---Moses came along much later.

There were no Hebrews if there was no Hebrew religion..."

Not logical. Like saying there would be no Italians without Catholicism.

I'm thinking this disingenuousness on your part is a means to end debate. That would hurt you a lot more than the rest of us.

I'm thinking this disingenuousness on your part is a means to end debate. That would hurt you a lot more than the rest of us.

#266 | Posted by Zed at 2009-09-03 04:38 PM | Reply | Flag

Hebrews are a religion--not a race.

I'm still waiting for your links to back your claims. Why are you having difficulties? You make claims---don't back them---and than claim some sort of victory. How does that work?

Either back your claims or admit you are mistaken.

"The Myths of Atlantis and Lemuria may be explained by the gods of the Sumerians also."

Sumerian's culture is old but not that old...

Sumerian's culture is old but not that old...

#269 | Posted by Bani at 2009-09-03 05:48 PM | Reply | Flag

True--but my claim was never that the Lemurians were Sumerian. My statement was that the Lemurians may have been the gods the Sumerians worshipped, and that the deep was not an ocean--but space. Yes--the Lemurians would be far older than the Sumerians--older than humanity.

Thee were no Hebrews before Abraham.

There were no Catholics before Jesus.

THere were no blue ghost angels hanging around Cincinatti gas stations before da bOoB

I'm not claiming any sort of victory, BOB. Pointing out your lapses in logic gets me nothing.

The children of Abraham married into the existing population. How you can get around that I don't know. Sort of like saying there were no Latinate peoples prior to the founding of Rome.

Zed

You claim I am lacking logic when you are the one lacking any logic. The children of Abraham were after Abraham---right? SO? I have already said Abraham was the first Hebrew several times---there were no Hebrews before Abraham. Therefore what his children did would be later than Abraham--right?

Let's try again.

There were no Hebrews before Abraham.

There were no Catholics before Jesus.

How you can get around that I don't know.

That is the the second time you have equated Hebrews with a race. Latinate people are a race---not a religion. Hebrews are a religion just like Catholics---not a race.

Are you saying you believe Hebrews are a race?