"The Bizarre Sexual Habits of Early Christians"

[CynthiaZ]

We're discussing Christian beliefs.

That does not make my personal beliefs relevant to this topic.

I believe that the Bible is infallible. Therefore, anything that contradicts the Bible is wrong.

The science of taxonomy classifies bats as mammals while the Bible says bats are birds...which is correct? The Bible says rabbits chew the cud while science says they don't...which is right?

Why don't you Google those. They have already been debunked, and I don't feel the need to reproduce the work of others.

It obvious ridiculous to view the Bible has the sole source of truth because obviously it isn't.

 

[Mr.Right]

We're discussing Christian beliefs.

That does not make my personal beliefs relevant to this topic.

I believe that the Bible is infallible. Therefore, anything that contradicts the Bible is wrong.

The science of taxonomy classifies bats as mammals while the Bible says bats are birds...which is correct? The Bible says rabbits chew the cud while science says they don't...which is right?

Why don't you Google those. They have already been debunked, and I don't feel the need to reproduce the work of others.

It obvious ridiculous to view the Bible has the sole source of truth because obviously it isn't.

That's your opinion. Empiracle evidence says otherwise.

 

[Mr.Right]

We're discussing Christian beliefs.

That does not make my personal beliefs relevant to this topic.

I believe that the Bible is infallible. Therefore, anything that contradicts the Bible is wrong.

The science of taxonomy classifies bats as mammals while the Bible says bats are birds...which is correct? The Bible says rabbits chew the cud while science says they don't...which is right?

Why don't you Google those. They have already been debunked, and I don't feel the need to reproduce the work of others.

It obvious ridiculous to view the Bible has the sole source of truth because obviously it isn't.

That's your opinion. Imperial evidence says otherwise.

 

[CynthiaZ]

We're discussing Christian beliefs.

That does not make my personal beliefs relevant to this topic.

I believe that the Bible is infallible. Therefore, anything that contradicts the Bible is wrong.

The science of taxonomy classifies bats as mammals while the Bible says bats are birds...which is correct? The Bible says rabbits chew the cud while science says they don't...which is right?

Why don't you Google those. They have already been debunked, and I don't feel the need to reproduce the work of others.

It obvious ridiculous to view the Bible has the sole source of truth because obviously it isn't.

That's your opinion. Empiracle evidence says otherwise.

Imperial evidence? Is that evidence only available to the Emperor?

 

[Mr.Right]

We're discussing Christian beliefs.

That does not make my personal beliefs relevant to this topic.

I believe that the Bible is infallible. Therefore, anything that contradicts the Bible is wrong.

The science of taxonomy classifies bats as mammals while the Bible says bats are birds...which is correct? The Bible says rabbits chew the cud while science says they don't...which is right?

Why don't you Google those. They have already been debunked, and I don't feel the need to reproduce the work of others.

It obvious ridiculous to view the Bible has the sole source of truth because obviously it isn't.

That's your opinion. Empiracle evidence says otherwise.

Imperial evidence? Is that evidence only available to the Emperor?

I fixed before I even read your reply, little miss Grammar Nazi.

 

[CynthiaZ]

That does not make my personal beliefs relevant to this topic.

The science of taxonomy classifies bats as mammals while the Bible says bats are birds...which is correct? The Bible says rabbits chew the cud while science says they don't...which is right?

Why don't you Google those. They have already been debunked, and I don't feel the need to reproduce the work of others.

It obvious ridiculous to view the Bible has the sole source of truth because obviously it isn't.

That's your opinion. Empiracle evidence says otherwise.

Imperial evidence? Is that evidence only available to the Emperor?

I fixed before I even read your reply, little miss Grammar Nazi.

Oh you mean empirical evidence. Do you even understand what that means? I means evidence that can be directly observe through the senses. So which of your senses tells you that rabbits chew the cud?

 

[Mr.Right]

I

Why don't you Google those. They have already been debunked, and I don't feel the need to reproduce the work of others.

It obvious ridiculous to view the Bible has the sole source of truth because obviously it isn't.

That's your opinion. Empiracle evidence says otherwise.

Imperial evidence? Is that evidence only available to the Emperor?

I fixed before I even read your reply, little miss Grammar Nazi.

Oh you mean empirical evidence. Do you even understand what that means? I means evidence that can be directly observe through the senses. So which of your senses tells you that rabbits chew the cud?

Told you to Google it. Why don't you do that? You won't believe any evidence I provide anyway. Will you?

On second thought, I'll help you out here. Read this.
Do rabbits chew their cud - CMI Mobile

 

[CynthiaZ]

I

It obvious ridiculous to view the Bible has the sole source of truth because obviously it isn't.

That's your opinion. Empiracle evidence says otherwise.

Imperial evidence? Is that evidence only available to the Emperor?

I fixed before I even read your reply, little miss Grammar Nazi.

Oh you mean empirical evidence. Do you even understand what that means? I means evidence that can be directly observe through the senses. So which of your senses tells you that rabbits chew the cud?

Told you to Google it. Why don't you do that? You won't believe any evidence I provide anyway. Will you?

On second thought, I'll help you out here. Read this.
Do rabbits chew their cud - CMI Mobile

That's not the point. You said empirical evidence proves that the Bible is the sole source of truth. Where is this evidence?

 

[Mr.Right]

I

That's your opinion. Empiracle evidence says otherwise.

Imperial evidence? Is that evidence only available to the Emperor?

I fixed before I even read your reply, little miss Grammar Nazi.

Oh you mean empirical evidence. Do you even understand what that means? I means evidence that can be directly observe through the senses. So which of your senses tells you that rabbits chew the cud?

Told you to Google it. Why don't you do that? You won't believe any evidence I provide anyway. Will you?

On second thought, I'll help you out here. Read this.
Do rabbits chew their cud - CMI Mobile

That's not the point. You said empirical evidence proves that the Bible is the sole source of truth. Where is this evidence?

the Bible has never been proven to be in error on anything. people have made the claim, but the offer no proof. you can believe what you want. I'll believe the Bible.

 

[CynthiaZ]

I

Imperial evidence? Is that evidence only available to the Emperor?

I fixed before I even read your reply, little miss Grammar Nazi.

Oh you mean empirical evidence. Do you even understand what that means? I means evidence that can be directly observe through the senses. So which of your senses tells you that rabbits chew the cud?

Told you to Google it. Why don't you do that? You won't believe any evidence I provide anyway. Will you?

On second thought, I'll help you out here. Read this.
Do rabbits chew their cud - CMI Mobile

That's not the point. You said empirical evidence proves that the Bible is the sole source of truth. Where is this evidence?

the Bible has never been proven to be in error on anything. people have made the claim, but the offer no proof. you can believe what you want. I'll believe the Bible.

You said that you have empirical evidence that the Bible is the sole source of truth. Where is this evidence?

 

[Mr.Right]

I

I fixed before I even read your reply, little miss Grammar Nazi.

Oh you mean empirical evidence. Do you even understand what that means? I means evidence that can be directly observe through the senses. So which of your senses tells you that rabbits chew the cud?

Told you to Google it. Why don't you do that? You won't believe any evidence I provide anyway. Will you?

On second thought, I'll help you out here. Read this.
Do rabbits chew their cud - CMI Mobile

That's not the point. You said empirical evidence proves that the Bible is the sole source of truth. Where is this evidence?

the Bible has never been proven to be in error on anything. people have made the claim, but the offer no proof. you can believe what you want. I'll believe the Bible.

You said that you have empirical evidence that the Bible is the sole source of truth. Where is this evidence?

The Bible itself is all the evidence you need. If I have to explain that for you, then you are hopeless.

 

[CynthiaZ]

I

Oh you mean empirical evidence. Do you even understand what that means? I means evidence that can be directly observe through the senses. So which of your senses tells you that rabbits chew the cud?

Told you to Google it. Why don't you do that? You won't believe any evidence I provide anyway. Will you?

On second thought, I'll help you out here. Read this.
Do rabbits chew their cud - CMI Mobile

That's not the point. You said empirical evidence proves that the Bible is the sole source of truth. Where is this evidence?

the Bible has never been proven to be in error on anything. people have made the claim, but the offer no proof. you can believe what you want. I'll believe the Bible.

You said that you have empirical evidence that the Bible is the sole source of truth. Where is this evidence?

The Bible itself is all the evidence you need. If I have to explain that for you, then you are hopeless.

And you are still not providing any evidence.

 

[Mr.Right]

I
Told you to Google it. Why don't you do that? You won't believe any evidence I provide anyway. Will you?

On second thought, I'll help you out here. Read this.
Do rabbits chew their cud - CMI Mobile

That's not the point. You said empirical evidence proves that the Bible is the sole source of truth. Where is this evidence?

the Bible has never been proven to be in error on anything. people have made the claim, but the offer no proof. you can believe what you want. I'll believe the Bible.

You said that you have empirical evidence that the Bible is the sole source of truth. Where is this evidence?

The Bible itself is all the evidence you need. If I have to explain that for you, then you are hopeless.

And you are still not providing any evidence.

Read the Bible. That's all you need to do.

 

[CynthiaZ]

That's not the point. You said empirical evidence proves that the Bible is the sole source of truth. Where is this evidence?

the Bible has never been proven to be in error on anything. people have made the claim, but the offer no proof. you can believe what you want. I'll believe the Bible.

You said that you have empirical evidence that the Bible is the sole source of truth. Where is this evidence?

The Bible itself is all the evidence you need. If I have to explain that for you, then you are hopeless.

And you are still not providing any evidence.

Read the Bible. That's all you need to do.

The Bible isn't empirical evidence. Where is your empirical evidence?

 

[Mr.Right]

the Bible has never been proven to be in error on anything. people have made the claim, but the offer no proof. you can believe what you want. I'll believe the Bible.

You said that you have empirical evidence that the Bible is the sole source of truth. Where is this evidence?

The Bible itself is all the evidence you need. If I have to explain that for you, then you are hopeless.

And you are still not providing any evidence.

Read the Bible. That's all you need to do.

The Bible isn't empirical evidence. Where is your empirical evidence?

like I said. The Bible is its own evidence. Read it.

 

[PostmodernProph]

The Bizarre Sexual Habits of Early Christians - Aeon Byte Gnostic Radio

"Note: This article originally appeared in The Heretic Magazine, and contains graphic material and a very cheeky tone. You have been warned."

Cheeky tone? This is gonna be good...

"The Euchites (Greek for “praying men”)

These fish-eaters from Edessa believed that Satan contaminated every part of a person’s body, soul and mind. The only solution to cure Lucifer’s spiritual herpes was to continually dance and drink wine all day while reciting the Lord’s Prayer. They partied like it was 999! Needless to say, the Euchites had trouble holding down jobs and were forced into begging (they were also dubbed “The Lazy Men”, for some reason). At night, they slept in parks and unwound through group shagging, swapping as many partners as they could before the sun rose and turned them back to River Dancers. These neoplatonic dynamites disdained any authority, migrated a lot, and leeched off society as much as they could. Today, they are the kind of people Californians love to make the government support but don’t want seen in their Caucasian neighborhoods. Their teachings are said to be the inspiration for the first Woodstock and the musical Hair."

other groups discussed at link including: The Borborites, Carpocratians, Valentinians, and others.

None of the groups mentioned were Christian.

sounds more like Gnostics......

Who were Christians.

uh no.....the Gnostics predate Christ by a couple hundred years.....true, the Gnostics incorporated a lot of what Christianity teaches during the early years of the Church, but that's what Gnostics do........they take bits and pieces of everybody's religion, even contradictory doctrines and paste it into their own beliefs;......

 

[PostmodernProph]

Many pagan religions tried to pretend that they were Christian

You mean like Evangelical Christians? Who are the real imposters? Gnostic Christians wrote the first gospels and writings, where the first to develop a theology (the concept of the Trinity comes from Valentinius), were the first to claim Apostolic Succession (something which no fundamentalist church can claim) and held the first conclaves. And it was they who were ruthlessly persecuted by both the Romans and the Church.

???....no they didn't......where are you getting this crap?.....

 

[PostmodernProph]

the Bible says bats are birds

lol.....what an idiot.....the Bible identifies "those creatures that fly" which were not to be eaten.....it must have been some gnostic atheist who told you it called bats birds......

 

[Mr.Right]

the Bible says bats are birds

lol.....what an idiot.....the Bible identifies "those creatures that fly" which were not to be eaten.....it must have been some gnostic atheist who told you it called bats birds......

most people who claim the there are errors in the Bible are simply ignorant, or just plain lazy. Without fail, they can be shown how their claim is incorrect. The proper interpretation of scripture requires one to know about cultural and historical, as well as Biblical context. You also need to know a bit about the original languages it was written in. Many Bible translations contain minor translation errors, but the original text is without error or contradiction.

 

[PostmodernProph]

the Bible says bats are birds

lol.....what an idiot.....the Bible identifies "those creatures that fly" which were not to be eaten.....it must have been some gnostic atheist who told you it called bats birds......

most people who claim the there are errors in the Bible are simply ignorant, or just plain lazy. Without fail, they can be shown how their claim is incorrect. The proper interpretation of scripture requires one to know about cultural and historical, as well as Biblical context. You also need to know a bit about the original languages it was written in. Many Bible translations contain minor translation errors, but the original text is without error or contradiction.

yet it doesn't stop them from using the same idiotic claim a month later in another thread......