"God" is not a reasonable response to any question requiring evidence

[jay1]

Authors:Anderson, SallieSource:Australian Journal of Anthropology; Dec2001, Vol. 12 Issue 3, p291, 11pDocument Type:ArticleSubject Terms:*SERPENTS in art
*INDIGENOUS peoples
*ARTISTS
*CHRISTIANITYNAICS/Industry Codes:711510 Independent Artists, Writers, and PerformersAbstract:In this paper, I illustrate the way one Aboriginal artist challenged what he perceived as an essentialised concept of Aboriginality, by rejecting rainbow serpent iconography. The motivations for this rejection were the artist's strong belief in the Christian God as creator and his reaction against New Age representations of Aboriginality in which the rainbow serpent signifies Aboriginal spirituality and is posited as the single creator for all of Aboriginal Australia. A conflict arose at the artist's gallery when he refused to exhibit a rainbow serpent painting by another Aboriginal artist. Publicised in the local newspaper, the rejection of these artworks started a brief public debate about the role of Christianity in Aboriginal culture. The various positions adopted by the Aboriginal protagonists highlight the complex processes of negotiation, dialogue and debate surrounding diverse constructions of identity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR][U

Eve and the Serpent: A Rational Choice to Err.[/URL]Full Text Available By: Dekker, Sidney W. A.. Journal of Religion & Health, Dec2007, Vol. 46 Issue 4, p571-579, 9p; DOI: 10.1007/s10943-007-9118-1Subjects: RATIONAL choice theory; HUMAN error; GUILT; SERPENTS in the Bible; CONTROL (Psychology); EVE (Biblical figure)
Database: Academic Search Premier

OLD TESTAMENT Q&A.[/URL]Full Text Available Ignite Your Faith, Winter2009, Vol. 67 Issue 6, p16-16, 1/7pSubjects: QUESTIONS & answers; SERPENTS in the Bible; SERPENTS -- Religious aspects; BIBLE. O.T.; MOSES (Biblical leader)
Database: Academic Search Premier

THE FALL PARADOX.[/URL]Detail Only Available By: Brooks, Thom. Philosophy & Theology, 2007, Vol. 19 Issue 1/2, p3-5, 3pSubjects: GOD -- Love; LOVE -- Religious aspects; FORBIDDEN fruit; SERPENTS in the Bible; EVE (Biblical figure); ADAM (Biblical figure)
Database: Academic Search Premier

I don't really understand what i am to take from these sources. A definition of serpent? i don't think so

By the way i re-edited my post ,#386, so you should be able to read it now. So hopefully you can answer the questions.

 

[SkyWriting]

So you believe in the bible literally, everything is the word of god! but, ignore that bit. Would that be an accurate summary of your beliefs?

Should I live as if I was living under all the laws of every group of people that are written about in the Bible? No.
The Bible tells me to live under whatever local laws exist. I believe ALL of it. Not just the parts you find at odds with society today.

 

[SkyWriting]

I don't really understand what i am to take from these sources. A definition of serpent? i don't think so.

OK by me.

 

[SkyWriting]

Would anyone get a degree in history from any reputable university in the world by using the Bible as a reference?
I think not, there's more history in Agatha Christie's 'Death on the Nile'.

You claim any reputable university is going to ignore Judea-Christian history?
I think not.

 

[AV1611VET]

Ah... so, it's a talking, LEGGED snake.

Nope -- care to go three-for-three?

Try 'beast of the field', evolutionist.

 

[AV1611VET]

Really, you choose wikipedia as a source? how about a quote from a reputable dictionary?

How about a quote from the Bible? or will It expose you as ... well ... not so educated?

 

[jay1]

Should I live as if I was living under all the laws of every group of people that are written about in the Bible? No.
The Bible tells me to live under whatever local laws exist. I believe ALL of it. Not just the parts you find at odds with society today.

You believe all of it? literally there is not a wrong word in the bible? yes?

so, you believe in unicorns then?

isiah 34:7 And the unicorns shall come down with them, and the bullocks with the bulls; and their land shall be soaked with blood, and their dust made fat with fatness.

Made fat with fatness?

"Doctor, i'm overweight, what caused this?"

" the fatness!"

 

[sandwiches]

Nope -- care to go three-for-three?

Try 'beast of the field', evolutionist.

So, it's a beast of the field, legged, snake. HAHA

Keep quacking, bud! Same dance different song!

 

[jay1]

How about a quote from the Bible? or will It expose you as ... well ... not so educated?

How about a quote from the Brothers Grimm? Quoting fairytales and truly believing them is a sign of mental illness not education!

"And Yea, the mother bear spaketh, this porridge is too hot!"

 

[AV1611VET]

So you do admit then that it spoke?

Yes, it spoke.

Your problem is trying to act like you know what spoke, and look like an evolutionist at the same time.

Evolution does not explain talking snakes (or however you want to define it) because they have never existed.

Well now, ain't that a shame?

Didn't I say basically the same thing, when I said evolution is myopic?

And what's with the use of the plural? 'talking snakes?'

I think you have a counting problem as well -- but then, you're an evolutionist, so I make amends for that when I debate one.

If you want however i could describe to you how humans came to speak, if you like?

No, thanks -- you're an evolutionist.

That means you don't know the difference between a crawling snake and a beast of the field.

Furthermore, you're an atheist -- (now there's a match made in ... aitch) -- so you are going to tell me what the Bible says?

As to the KJV of the bible , sorry i don't remember exactly the "once upon a time.." part of your fairytale.

Neither do I, but check your records -- you know -- those 9 billion missing years that evolutionists like to jump over?

I think it starts out, "Once upon a time, there was nothing; then it exploded."*

* In science jargon, that means it 'expanded'. Kinda like the 'flying squirrel' that really only 'glides' that evolutionists can't get straight.

As to even the validity of the KJV.

Well, that sentence fell short.

You can't recognize animals, you can't count, and now you can't finish a sentence.

Yup -- you been to college -- I have no doubt.

For you the only true bible is the one written 1600 years after jesus? really?

-- Now capitalization!

Hoo-boy!

One more post from you, and I'm going to think you're a scientist.

 

[AV1611VET]

"And Yea, the mother bear spaketh, this porridge is too hot!"

-- Goldilocks said that.

QV please.

You are right out of the halls of higher education, Jay.

 

[jay1]

Yes, it spoke.

Your problem is trying to act like you know what spoke, and look like an evolutionist at the same time.

So, you literally believe that a snake spoke. Any spoken to you lately?

Well now, ain't that a shame?

Didn't I say basically the same thing, when I said evolution is myopic?

And what's with the use of the plural? 'talking snakes?'

Yes it's the plural that is the problem not the talking snake. A talking snake fine, but pluralise it and your crazy? i think that your priorities are a bit off.

I think you have a counting problem as well -- but then, you're an evolutionist, so I make amends for that when I debate one.

No counting problems. I know that 1 talking snake = crazy

No, thanks -- you're an evolutionist.

That means you don't know the difference between a crawling snake and a beast of the field.

So it was a legged serpent beast of the field? makes much more sense.

Furthermore, you're an atheist -- (now there's a match made in ... aitch) -- so you are going to tell me what the Bible says?

Seemed like i had too.


Neither do I, but check your records -- you know -- those 9 billion missing years that evolutionists like to jump over?

Evolution only deals with life. Check your records there was no life, therefore no evolution. I have to explain evolution and the bible?

I think it starts out, "Once upon a time, there was nothing; then it exploded."*

There was no explosion. Again check your records, "the Big Bang" was a derogatory term* for an expansion. As you know expansions aren't necessarily explosions, your waistline will attest to that.

*Used by a gentleman who had difficulty understanding it. I'm sure you can sympathise

* In science jargon, that means it 'expanded'. Kinda like the 'flying squirrel' that really only 'glides' that evolutionists can't get straight.

Explosion = expansion, however the contrary is not necessarily true.

Well, that sentence fell short.

Rhetorical question

You can't recognize animals, you can't count, and now you can't finish a sentence.

Yup -- you been to college -- I have no doubt.

Should be "you have been to college" if you're getting fussy about plurals, please ensure that your syntax is correct.

-- Now capitalization!

Hoo-boy!

One more post from you, and I'm going to think you're a scientist.

One more from you and i may think you're in need of psychiatric help!

Seriously, say the word and i'll get help for you

 

[jay1]

-- Goldilocks said that.


You are right out of the halls of higher education, Jay.

The reason the 3 bears left the house was because the porridge was too hot, to give it time to cool down.

Evolution, the bible and now fairytales. Anything else you want to learn?

Not college, to know about the 3 bears all i needed was nursery school. Was it college for you?

 

[AV1611VET]

One more from you and i may think you're in need of psychiatric help!

Seriously, say the word and i'll get help for you

Others are already doing that for you --

In the meantime, see if you can answer this:

Here's a question I've been asking for awhile, and so far haven't gotten an answer:

What's the official diagnosis of a person who takes the Rorschach Test and sees Christian symbols?

 

[jay1]

Others are already doing that for you --

In the meantime, see if you can answer this:

Sorry, not a psychiatrist. However you say people are already getting you psychiatric help, ask one of the psychiatrists that you surely meet.

Now back to what we were talking about:

You believe in the talking snake.

Now, what about the unicorns? Huh, Mr. Literal interpretation?

Do you believe in them?

Another question would be: Do you believe in Allah?

 

[AV1611VET]

One more from you and i may think you're in need of psychiatric help!

Sorry, not a psychiatrist.

Okay -- now that that's cleared up...

However you say people are already getting you psychiatric help, ask one of the psychiatrists that you surely meet.

I'll do that --

Now back to what we were talking about:

Okay.

You believe in the talking snake.

I believe a dragon-beast spoke to Eve, then was turned into a serpent.

Now, what about the unicorns? Huh, Mr. Literal interpretation?

You obviously haven't seen this thread...

Following is a list of animals found in the Bible:

1. fowled bat
2. behemoth
3. leviathan
4. four-legged grasshopper
5. satyr
6. unicorn
7. dragon
8. straw-eating lions
9. whalefish

I contend that these animals are problematic for evolutionists.

... have you?

Do you believe in them?

Yes.

Another question would be: Do you believe in Allah?

No.

 

[jay1]

Okay -- now that that's cleared up...

I'll do that --

Okay.

I believe a dragon-beast spoke to Eve, then was turned into a serpent.

You obviously haven't seen this thread...

I actually had not. Seriously, you believe whole-heartedly in each and every one of those?
... have you?

No. I'm not the one who believes in them.

Yes.

No.

Why do you not believe in Allah, he is your god?

 

[AV1611VET]

Why do you not believe in Allah, he is your god?

I'm not Muslim, chief.

Allah was the primary deity of the Quraysh tribe, of which Mohammad was from.

Allah had no son.

But here's the kicker:

Mohammad claimed to be a prophet -- that automatically qualifies him as a false prophet, since there are no more prophets since the Scriptues were completed in AD 96.

And here's a tidbit from history:

Mohammad claimed that the redemption of mankind was threefold:

1. Step one = Moses was to convert Gentiles to Jews.
2. Step two = Jesus was to convert Jews & Gentiles to Christians.
3. Step three = Mohammad was to convert Christians & Gentiles to Islam.

This is why Mohammad was friendly with Christians at first; but when the Christians in his time refused to convert to Islam and called him a false prophet, the wolf in sheep's clothing emerged.

 

[jay1]

I'm not Muslim, chief.

Allah was the primary deity of the Quraysh tribe, of which Mohammad was from.

Allah had no son.

But here's the kicker:

Mohammad claimed to be a prophet -- that automatically qualifies him as a false prophet, since there are no more prophets since the Scriptues were completed in AD 96.

And here's a tidbit from history:

Mohammad claimed that the redemption of mankind was threefold:

1. Step one = Moses was to convert Gentiles to Jews.
2. Step two = Jesus was to convert Jews & Gentiles to Christians.
3. Step three = Mohammad was to convert Christians & Gentiles to Islam.

This is why Mohammad was friendly with Christians at first; but when the Christians in his time refused to convert to Islam and called him a false prophet, the wolf in sheep's clothing emerged.

Thank you, always good to learn something.

Well, what other gods do you believe in?

 

[Jazer]

since there are no more prophets since the Scriptues were completed in AD 96.

We still have the gift of prophecy.