Page 1 of 1 [ 2 posts ]
07 Dec 2011, 8:19 pm
07 Dec 2011, 11:31 pm
Vexcalibur wrote:
Probably NSFW.
Their mind is full of penises, it seems.
http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/ ... th-penises
Their mind is full of penises, it seems.
http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/ ... th-penises
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legends_of_the_Coco_de_Mer
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... de-mer.jpg
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... de-mer.jpg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legends_of_the_Coco_de_Mer
This is ABSOLUTE PROOF that one of Jesus' foreskins was used to clone Jesus for A Creationist's evidence:
shrox wrote:
Tadzio wrote:
shrox wrote:
LKL wrote:
Until I see some actual evidence of this claim, I'm going to assume that it's false. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and supposed claims of 'proof' of biblical events are routine, and routinely falsified - from the supposed 'ark' in Turkey that turned out to be some rock formations that vaguely resembled a lozenge shape, to the supposed 'family tomb of Jesus,' these things are a dime a dozen and have been since Chaucer's time at least.
Well sure, but have you ever personally seen any of the founding documents of any country, city, or government, But we willingly accept their existence and legitimacy.
I'm just pointing out that your stated reason for rejection would put half of technology on the "we never tried to build it because someone had doubts" heap. At least be open that such documentation would weigh greatly in the favor of Jesus being exactly who he claims to be.
Hi Shrox,
There are great big libraries that have the documents you referred to. The photographs of them do come in handy at times. I was reading a book from a famous & somewhat conservative right-wing publisher about a U.S. founding father not among the top ten, and I had just read another book that cited the same guy's written document that was "different" from the famous publisher's book. The photograph of the particular document at issue matched what the famous publisher's book claimed was at the top of the document, but what the book implied was on the bottom half of the document was contradicted by the very same complete page of the document.
There is considerable difference between a couple hundred years and a couple thousand years, but you seem not to be aware of any elements of a nearly ten-fold difference.
Using the standards of your historical reasonings, indeed, Jesus had at least 18 different foreskins, and therefore, Jesus had at least 18 penises. That is why Jesus must have been a Divine Coca de Mer Tree, which the male trees frequently have that many penises with foreskins, which explains the historical evidence.
Some of the foreskins from Jesus are well documented in history as being used as wedding rings for royalty, though this history is so important, that since 1954, a harsher degree of excommunication has threatened to be imposed on anyone writing or speaking of the subject. So those parts of Holy Books better be read with blinkers on.
"If you don't believe this, you must reject the notion that the Earth orbits the sun too!! !"
You should read more books about "Critical Thinking", than just pulp-pseudo-logic books by self-verified "Christian" --"Apologists" that are cashing-in on pyramid schemes of gullibility.
Tadzio
Not at all, to be able to view them would allow people to see them for themselves. If a majority of the documents describe similar events, that's something to conciser.
Heck, police officers at the same incident can file reports that don't match up precisely either.
If there are 18 penises reported rampaging through downtown Jerusalem, and..wait, I forgot where I was going with this...
Some atheists just cannot accept miracles.
Tadzio
