Euan Ritchie trolled:
>
> ...that some cosmic jewish zombie, who is his own father, can make
> you live forever if you symbolicawy eat his flesh and telepathically
> tell him that you accept him as your master, so he can remove an
> evil force from your soul, that is present in humanity becaus
On Tue, Sep 7, 2010 at 12:44 AM, Euan Ritchie wrote:
>
>> They also believe...
>
> ...that some cosmic jewish zombie, who is his own father, can make you
> live forever if you symbolicawy eat his flesh and telepathically tell
> him that you accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil force
> They also believe...
...that some cosmic jewish zombie, who is his own father, can make you
live forever if you symbolicawy eat his flesh and telepathically tell
him that you accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil force
from your soul, that is present in humanity because a rib-woma
On 08/03/2010 02:07 PM, Dan Minette wrote:
I think that Enoch was a monotheistic Jew. Most of the common understanding
of the devil comes from Enoch. Indeed, in the book of Jude, Enoch was quoted
as scripture.
Spinning back, somewhat, towards the topic of this list: the Book(s) of
Enoch keep
>> So God needs to use entrapment?
>Heh. I just report 'em. I don't make 'em up. This is the sort of
>thing that makes me a very liberal Christian.
In defense of the Jews of about 400 BCE to 200 BCE their theology was
actually a bit different than the characterization of it by folks who
haven't s
On Aug 3, 2010, at 3:49 PM, Charlie Bell wrote:
On 04/08/2010, at 3:48 AM, Dave Land wrote:
Then again, there's the Jewish tradition that "The Satan" isn't
an embodiment of pure evil or some bad dude in red pajamas with a
goatee and a pitchfork, but is, in fact, the "prosecuting angel",
whose
On 04/08/2010, at 3:48 AM, Dave Land wrote:
>
> Then again, there's the Jewish tradition that "The Satan" isn't
> an embodiment of pure evil or some bad dude in red pajamas with a
> goatee and a pitchfork, but is, in fact, the "prosecuting angel",
> whose role is to find out whether believers are
On Aug 3, 2010, at 4:00 PM, William T Goodall wrote:
On 3 Aug 2010, at 19:35, Bruce Bostwick wrote:
On Aug 3, 2010, at 12:48 PM, Dave Land wrote:
The idea that Christianity or Judaism believe that the devil is
a separate but (thankfully, not quite) equal power to God is
nonsense: it goes ag
On 3 Aug 2010, at 19:35, Bruce Bostwick wrote:
> On Aug 3, 2010, at 12:48 PM, Dave Land wrote:
>
>> The idea that Christianity or Judaism believe that the devil is
>> a separate but (thankfully, not quite) equal power to God is
>> nonsense: it goes against the whole idea of monotheism. You can
>
On Aug 3, 2010, at 12:48 PM, Dave Land wrote:
The idea that Christianity or Judaism believe that the devil is
a separate but (thankfully, not quite) equal power to God is
nonsense: it goes against the whole idea of monotheism. You can
accept or not accept the monotheistic God of Judeo-Christiani
>The idea that Christianity or Judaism believe that the devil is
>a separate but (thankfully, not quite) equal power to God is
>nonsense: it goes against the whole idea of monotheism. You can
>accept or not accept the monotheistic God of Judeo-Christianity
>as you see fit, but you can't accept it
On Aug 3, 2010, at 10:13 AM, Alberto Monteiro wrote:
Nick Arnett wrote:
There can't be too many different species, Noah's Ark wasn't
big enough to carry them all!
What, evolution stopped with the Ark?
As long as we're on that subject, it dawned on me a while ago
that the trouble I have wit
On Aug 3, 2010, at 10:10 AM, Nick Arnett wrote:
As long as we're on that subject, it dawned on me a while ago that
the trouble I have with creationists is that they believe in a God
who is too stupid to have created evolution.
They also believe in a god who loves them so much that he'll des
Nick Arnett wrote:
>
>> There can't be too many different species, Noah's Ark wasn't
>> big enough to carry them all!
>
> What, evolution stopped with the Ark?
>
> As long as we're on that subject, it dawned on me a while ago
> that the trouble I have with creationists is that they believe
>
On Aug 3, 2010, at 10:33 AM, Nick Arnett wrote:
On Tue, Aug 3, 2010 at 8:29 AM, William T Goodall > wrote:
...
"When presented with the statement “human beings, as we know them
today, developed from earlier species of animals,” just 45 percent
of respondents indicated “true.” Compare this f
_
From: brin-l-boun...@mccmedia.com [mailto:brin-l-boun...@mccmedia.com] On
Behalf Of Nick Arnett
Sent: Tuesday, August 03, 2010 10:34 AM
To: Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussion
Subject: Re: First Pluto is not a planet, and now . . . .
It is bad luck to be superstitious
On Tue, Aug 3, 2010 at 8:29 AM, William T Goodall wrote:
>
> ...
> "When presented with the statement “human beings, as we know them today,
> developed from earlier species of animals,” just 45 percent of respondents
> indicated “true.” Compare this figure with the affirmative percentages in
> Jap
On 3 Aug 2010, at 16:10, Nick Arnett wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, Aug 3, 2010 at 5:35 AM, Alberto Monteiro
> wrote:
>
> There can't be too many different species, Noah's Ark wasn't
> big enough to carry them all!
>
> What, evolution stopped with the Ark?
>
> As long as we're on that subject, it da
On Tue, Aug 3, 2010 at 5:35 AM, Alberto Monteiro wrote:
>
> There can't be too many different species, Noah's Ark wasn't
> big enough to carry them all!
What, evolution stopped with the Ark?
As long as we're on that subject, it dawned on me a while ago that the
trouble I have with creationists
On 03/08/2010, at 10:35 PM, Alberto Monteiro wrote:
>
> Charlie Bell wrote:
>>
>> But thanks, it's a great example of science at work. It's also
>> becoming common - lots of what were thought to be different species
>> are becoming merged as the numbers of specimens increases. What
>> we're
Charlie Bell wrote:
>
> But thanks, it's a great example of science at work. It's also
> becoming common - lots of what were thought to be different species
> are becoming merged as the numbers of specimens increases. What
> we're learning is that some dinosaurs had some pretty impressive
> p
On 03/08/2010, at 8:24 PM, Ronn! Blankenship wrote:
> Triceratops 'never really existed but was just a young version of another
> dinosaur'
>
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1299666/Triceratops-really-existed.html
Or more precisely, it's been discovered that _Torosaurus_ has b
Triceratops 'never really existed but was just a young version of
another dinosaur'
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1299666/Triceratops-really-existed.html
or
http://tinyurl.com/28tbfy8
___
http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listin
23 matches
Mail list logo
