Man of Sorrow

[BreezeWood]

I only disagree that it doesn’t work for good because I know it does ... It can go backwards but eventually truth wins out and we move forward.

good is interpretive ...

- nothing has meaning for you having abandoned your spirit to a false messiah as interpreted through your errant "document" - you just make a fool of yourself believing otherwise.

I am not detoxing. I am reading the hell out of it. I plan to read it more and more.

are you editing it as you go.

 

[james bond]

So you don’t believe any of these things?

I said you don't have a source. You claim Catholicism as your belief. Where in Catholicism is what you listed?

 

[james bond]

You mean besides it being obvious?

What do you have a hard time believing in the first two books of Genesis? Let's start there. It's the supernatural parts.

Mine came later. From book 3, I could believe Satan talking through the serpent and the serpent had legs. Also, could believe in the cherubim and flaming sword to guard the garden of Eden after the fall.

I had a hard time with the longevity. I think book 5.

Allegorical doesn’t mean that the characters are necessarily fictional. But why would that matter if they were? What’s more important? The message or the people?

That's the definition. So Adam and Eve existed? Did Satan talk to them through a snake with legs?

What is important is this is being explained by God who was the only witness. To you, you interpret some kind of message. Thus, my question is what is the source of this message? Is it you? Are you interpreting what God said? Or is it something from Catholicism?

 

[ding]

If you actually posted what you taught that would convince me. Unless of course your posts sounded like JB's, Hobelim's, or BW's.

I will post a copy of the test I gave on the Book of Leviticus but it will have to wait until Monday. I can possibly do it tomorrow but I am not sure what time I will get back from the teacher's convention.

Like I said before the only way you can convince me that you aren’t a troll trying to subordinate Christianity is by showing your genuine understanding of Christianity.

I’ve already seen your disingenuous views.

Would a pay stub accompanied with my password for my usmessageboard account and a password to my bank account with the matching name on my paystub?

I am not offering these things as evidence but I assume you would reject this as evidence too. Let's be honest. I have already convinced you. Besides, nobody is paying attention to us. I doubt we have an audience. Your nonsense isn't entertaining me anymore.

I just told you what it would take.

Are you incapable of writing what your sincere beliefs used to be?

I am bored.

Or incapable because I am right.

 

[ding]

So you don’t believe any of these things?

I said you don't have a source. You claim Catholicism as your belief. Where in Catholicism is what you listed?

So you don’t believe it unless I provide my source?

 

[Taz]

I will post a copy of the test I gave on the Book of Leviticus but it will have to wait until Monday. I can possibly do it tomorrow but I am not sure what time I will get back from the teacher's convention.

Like I said before the only way you can convince me that you aren’t a troll trying to subordinate Christianity is by showing your genuine understanding of Christianity.

I’ve already seen your disingenuous views.

Would a pay stub accompanied with my password for my usmessageboard account and a password to my bank account with the matching name on my paystub?

I am not offering these things as evidence but I assume you would reject this as evidence too. Let's be honest. I have already convinced you. Besides, nobody is paying attention to us. I doubt we have an audience. Your nonsense isn't entertaining me anymore.

I just told you what it would take.

Are you incapable of writing what your sincere beliefs used to be?

I am bored.

Or incapable because I am right.

Tell me again about how you know what was before the Big Bang?

 

[ding]

You mean besides it being obvious?

What do you have a hard time believing in the first two books of Genesis? Let's start there. It's the supernatural parts.

Mine came later. From book 3, I could believe Satan talking through the serpent and the serpent had legs. Also, could believe in the cherubim and flaming sword to guard the garden of Eden after the fall.

I had a hard time with the longevity. I think book 5.

Allegorical doesn’t mean that the characters are necessarily fictional. But why would that matter if they were? What’s more important? The message or the people?

That's the definition. So Adam and Eve existed? Did Satan talk to them through a snake with legs?

What is important is this is being explained by God who was the only witness. To you, you interpret some kind of message. Thus, my question is what is the source of this message? Is it you? Are you interpreting what God said? Or is it something from Catholicism?

Does what I believe offend you?

 

[Taz]

So you don’t believe any of these things?

I said you don't have a source. You claim Catholicism as your belief. Where in Catholicism is what you listed?

So you don’t believe it unless I provide my source?

With the relevant parts highlighted or noted...

 

[ding]

Like I said before the only way you can convince me that you aren’t a troll trying to subordinate Christianity is by showing your genuine understanding of Christianity.

I’ve already seen your disingenuous views.

Would a pay stub accompanied with my password for my usmessageboard account and a password to my bank account with the matching name on my paystub?

I am not offering these things as evidence but I assume you would reject this as evidence too. Let's be honest. I have already convinced you. Besides, nobody is paying attention to us. I doubt we have an audience. Your nonsense isn't entertaining me anymore.

I just told you what it would take.

Are you incapable of writing what your sincere beliefs used to be?

I am bored.

Or incapable because I am right.

Tell me again about how you know what was before the Big Bang?

You mean the part about the laws of nature existing before space and time?

 

[Taz]

You mean besides it being obvious?

What do you have a hard time believing in the first two books of Genesis? Let's start there. It's the supernatural parts.

Mine came later. From book 3, I could believe Satan talking through the serpent and the serpent had legs. Also, could believe in the cherubim and flaming sword to guard the garden of Eden after the fall.

I had a hard time with the longevity. I think book 5.

Allegorical doesn’t mean that the characters are necessarily fictional. But why would that matter if they were? What’s more important? The message or the people?

That's the definition. So Adam and Eve existed? Did Satan talk to them through a snake with legs?

What is important is this is being explained by God who was the only witness. To you, you interpret some kind of message. Thus, my question is what is the source of this message? Is it you? Are you interpreting what God said? Or is it something from Catholicism?

Does what I believe offend you?

It offends rational thinking.

 

[ding]

So you don’t believe any of these things?

I said you don't have a source. You claim Catholicism as your belief. Where in Catholicism is what you listed?

So you don’t believe it unless I provide my source?

With the relevant parts highlighted or noted...

It wouldn’t make any difference to you because there is no evidence you will accept.

 

[Taz]

Would a pay stub accompanied with my password for my usmessageboard account and a password to my bank account with the matching name on my paystub?

I am not offering these things as evidence but I assume you would reject this as evidence too. Let's be honest. I have already convinced you. Besides, nobody is paying attention to us. I doubt we have an audience. Your nonsense isn't entertaining me anymore.

I just told you what it would take.

Are you incapable of writing what your sincere beliefs used to be?

I am bored.

Or incapable because I am right.

Tell me again about how you know what was before the Big Bang?

You mean the part about the laws of nature existing before space and time?

Ya, that's the one.

 

[ding]

You mean besides it being obvious?

What do you have a hard time believing in the first two books of Genesis? Let's start there. It's the supernatural parts.

Mine came later. From book 3, I could believe Satan talking through the serpent and the serpent had legs. Also, could believe in the cherubim and flaming sword to guard the garden of Eden after the fall.

I had a hard time with the longevity. I think book 5.

Allegorical doesn’t mean that the characters are necessarily fictional. But why would that matter if they were? What’s more important? The message or the people?

That's the definition. So Adam and Eve existed? Did Satan talk to them through a snake with legs?

What is important is this is being explained by God who was the only witness. To you, you interpret some kind of message. Thus, my question is what is the source of this message? Is it you? Are you interpreting what God said? Or is it something from Catholicism?

Does what I believe offend you?

It offends rational thinking.

Which part that the universe was created or that man is a product of that creation?

 

[Taz]

So you don’t believe any of these things?

I said you don't have a source. You claim Catholicism as your belief. Where in Catholicism is what you listed?

So you don’t believe it unless I provide my source?

With the relevant parts highlighted or noted...

It wouldn’t make any difference to you because there is no evidence you will accept.

Give it a try, you never have.

 

[Taz]

You mean besides it being obvious?

What do you have a hard time believing in the first two books of Genesis? Let's start there. It's the supernatural parts.

Mine came later. From book 3, I could believe Satan talking through the serpent and the serpent had legs. Also, could believe in the cherubim and flaming sword to guard the garden of Eden after the fall.

I had a hard time with the longevity. I think book 5.

Allegorical doesn’t mean that the characters are necessarily fictional. But why would that matter if they were? What’s more important? The message or the people?

That's the definition. So Adam and Eve existed? Did Satan talk to them through a snake with legs?

What is important is this is being explained by God who was the only witness. To you, you interpret some kind of message. Thus, my question is what is the source of this message? Is it you? Are you interpreting what God said? Or is it something from Catholicism?

Does what I believe offend you?

It offends rational thinking.

Which part that the universe was created or that man is a product of that creation?

All of it.

 

[ding]

I just told you what it would take.

Are you incapable of writing what your sincere beliefs used to be?

I am bored.

Or incapable because I am right.

Tell me again about how you know what was before the Big Bang?

You mean the part about the laws of nature existing before space and time?

Ya, that's the one.

Since the creation of space and time followed the laws of conservation and quantum mechanics the laws must have existed before creation.

 

[ding]

You mean besides it being obvious?

What do you have a hard time believing in the first two books of Genesis? Let's start there. It's the supernatural parts.

Mine came later. From book 3, I could believe Satan talking through the serpent and the serpent had legs. Also, could believe in the cherubim and flaming sword to guard the garden of Eden after the fall.

I had a hard time with the longevity. I think book 5.

Allegorical doesn’t mean that the characters are necessarily fictional. But why would that matter if they were? What’s more important? The message or the people?

That's the definition. So Adam and Eve existed? Did Satan talk to them through a snake with legs?

What is important is this is being explained by God who was the only witness. To you, you interpret some kind of message. Thus, my question is what is the source of this message? Is it you? Are you interpreting what God said? Or is it something from Catholicism?

Does what I believe offend you?

It offends rational thinking.

Which part that the universe was created or that man is a product of that creation?

All of it.

List it for me.

 

[Taz]

I am bored.

Or incapable because I am right.

Tell me again about how you know what was before the Big Bang?

You mean the part about the laws of nature existing before space and time?

Ya, that's the one.

Since the creation of space and time followed the laws of conservation and quantum mechanics the laws must have existed before creation.

Ok, STOP! You're killing me!

 

[ding]

So you don’t believe any of these things?

I said you don't have a source. You claim Catholicism as your belief. Where in Catholicism is what you listed?

So you don’t believe it unless I provide my source?

With the relevant parts highlighted or noted...

It wouldn’t make any difference to you because there is no evidence you will accept.

Give it a try, you never have.

First you need to list the parts you disagree with.

 

[Taz]

What do you have a hard time believing in the first two books of Genesis? Let's start there. It's the supernatural parts.

Mine came later. From book 3, I could believe Satan talking through the serpent and the serpent had legs. Also, could believe in the cherubim and flaming sword to guard the garden of Eden after the fall.

I had a hard time with the longevity. I think book 5.

That's the definition. So Adam and Eve existed? Did Satan talk to them through a snake with legs?

What is important is this is being explained by God who was the only witness. To you, you interpret some kind of message. Thus, my question is what is the source of this message? Is it you? Are you interpreting what God said? Or is it something from Catholicism?

Does what I believe offend you?

It offends rational thinking.

Which part that the universe was created or that man is a product of that creation?

All of it.

List it for me.

I don't have that kind of time.