🚀 go-pugleaf

On Aug 4, 7:34 am, 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.
>
> --
> ****************************************************
> *          DanielSan -- alt.atheism #2226          *
> *--------------------------------------------------*
> * Can God create a Thai dish so spicy that even He *
> * can't eat it?                                    *
> ****************************************************

Hey, Daniel,
Just one thing come to my mind.
The bible had all the tales around middle-eastern/jewish land, that is
fair enough since the writers were from that small place.
What about Great Wall of China....their god knew nothing about it?
What about the silk cloths, might be their god never wear any?
What about the great spices from India, their god did not like them?
In the East, there was a saying: "A frog in a water well only knew his
world inside it !"