🚀 go-pugleaf

rbwinn wrote:
> On Aug 3, 9:12�pm, DanielSan <daniel...@speakeasy.net> wrote:
>> rbwinn wrote:
>>> On Aug 3, 4:34 pm, DanielSan <daniel...@speakeasy.net> wrote:
>>>> rbwinn wrote:
>>>>> On Aug 3, 9:11 am, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
>>>>>> On Sun, 3 Aug 2008 08:09:37 -0700 (PDT), rbwinn <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote
>>>>>> in alt.atheism:
>>>>>>> On Aug 2, 11:35?pm, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Sat, 2 Aug 2008 23:26:22 -0700 (PDT), rbwinn <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote
>>>>>>>> in alt.atheism:
>>>>>>>>> On Aug 2, 9:56?pm, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 2 Aug 2008 15:04:19 -0700 (PDT), rbwinn <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote
>>>>>>>>>> in alt.atheism:
>>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>>>> It means the same in Greek as it does in English.
>>>>>>>>>> How familiar are you with ancient Greek. What word was used in Luke?
>>>>>>>>>> Feel free to transcribe it using the traditional Latin character
>>>>>>>>>> substitutes for the Greek letters, since usenet isn't necessarily
>>>>>>>>>> designed to support non-latin characters.
>>>>>>>>>> As for your desire to believe that Luke was a physician and that he
>>>>>>>>>> wrote the gospel of that name, no evidence supports it. The framing of
>>>>>>>>>> the gospel appears to be designed to target a certain audience. Framing
>>>>>>>>>> is not unusual. Simon Morgenstern is a fairly famous author of a story
>>>>>>>>>> called The Princess Bride. Of course, there is the problem that Simon
>>>>>>>>>> Morgenstern never existed except in the imagination, particularly of
>>>>>>>>>> William Goldman, but also of everyone who suspends disbelief long enough
>>>>>>>>>> to enjoy the story.
>>>>>>>>>> The Bible is a story. It can be fun to suspend disbelief for a while as
>>>>>>>>>> you read it, but you need to bring your critical facilities to bear
>>>>>>>>>> after a while. You do yourself no favor by deluding yourself about what
>>>>>>>>>> the Bible is.- Hide quoted text -
>>>>>>>>>> - Show quoted text -
>>>>>>>>> The Bible is two testaments of Jesus Christ, the Old Testament and the
>>>>>>>>> New Testament.
>>>>>>>> The Bible is a collection of stories. Neither the Old Testament nor the
>>>>>>>> New are reliable for any reason at all. When tested against history and
>>>>>>>> science, they fail.- Hide quoted text -
>>>>>>>> - Show quoted text -
>>>>>>> You mean like they failed in the case of Hezekiah's tunnel?
>>>>>> You still haven't shown that the story that incorporates the tunnel is
>>>>>> true in any way.- Hide quoted text -
>>>>>> - Show quoted text -
>>>>> I could take you through the tunnel, and you would say exactly the
>>>>> same thing. You will continue to claim that Hezekiah's tunnel cannot
>>>>> exist because it is mentioned in the Bible.
>>>> Now you're lying. Again.
>>>> Nowhere did he claim that Hezekiah's tunnel cannot exist.
>>> Well, look at what you wrote. �
>> Okay.
>>
>>> You said that I haven't shown that the
>>> story that incorporates the tunnel is true in any way.
>> Yes.
>>
>>> What the Old
>>> Testament says in three different books is that the Assyrians invaded
>>> the kingdom of Judea taking several cities as they moved toward
>>> Jerusalem.
>> Sure.
>>
>>> The Jews at Jerusalem decided to dig a tunnel as a conduit
>>> for water to hide the water from Gihon spring so that the Assyrians
>>> could not use it when they besieged Jerusalem.
>> Okay.
>>
>>> So they dug a conduit
>>> for water from Gihon spring to the pool of Siloam inside Jerusalem.
>> All good.
>>
>>> In the late 1800's British military personnel in Jerusalem decided to
>>> find out if the Biblical account of the tunnel was true and re-
>>> discovered the tunnel after centuries of Muslim rule of Jerusalem.
>> Fine.
>>
>>> The Muslims had no knowledge of the tunnel.
>> I'll let that go because, frankly, I don't feel like researching that.
>> I don't really care.
>>
>>> So you claim that none of
>>> this proves that Hezekiah's tunnel or the Biblical account of the
>>> tunnel is true in any way.
>> No. I did not say that. �Point to where I claimed that.
> 
> For crying out loud.  I just quoted your actual statement.

Where?  Put my words within "quote marks" to help point me to my own words.

> 
>>> As I said, I could take you to Jerusalem
>>> and take you through the tunnel and you would still deny its existence
>>> because it is not a convenient fact for atheists who want to go around
>>> claiming that the Bible is nothing but mythology.
>> Now you're operating on a false assumption based on something I never said.
>>
> You are like any other atheist of today.  You have so much success in
> convincing these weak minded people by saying that the Bible is
> nothing but mythology that you are not going to quit doing it just
> because someone takes you through a tunnel that you said was
> mythology.  

The Bible is mythology.  The tunnel is not.  The tunnel is referenced in 
the mythology.

> I could take you through the actual tunnel, and you would
> continue to deny its existence.

Liar.

-- 
****************************************************
*          DanielSan -- alt.atheism #2226          *
*--------------------------------------------------*
* Can God create a Thai dish so spicy that even He *
* can't eat it?                                    *
****************************************************