Tuesday, December 9, 2014

The Book, The Virgin, & The Fury (pt. 4)


Muhammad Rasheed - Rahlistic Visions wrote: “Funny thing is I already know how this will play out and I will be wasting my time.”

lol

Rahlistic Visions wrote: “But at least the onlookers will get something out of this.”

Maybe.

Rahlistic Visions wrote: “He thinks I don't know anything about the "Dead Sea Scrolls…'"

You don’t.

Rahlistic Visions wrote: “…or the ‘Big Bang Theory’ lol. I live this eat sleep shit this.”

Let the record show that you failed to realize the significance of Big Bang and how it actually supports the organized religions that all dumbasses dismiss as fictions. If you “live to eat it up” then clearly you’ve been shoving it in the wrong end.

Muhammad Rasheed - Rahlistic Visions wrote: “I did a study some years back on the Rosetta Stone…”

No, you didn’t.

Rahlistic Visions wrote: “…and that led to me studying the origins of language…”

No, you didn’t.

Rahlistic Visions wrote: “…which in turn I discovered some of the sources of religions which date back to the ancient Babylons and even further back civilizations.”

The phrase “the sources of religions” is nonsensical babbling. Humans have always had religion. It’s one of the things that actually make us “human,” and we built our civilizations around the concept from the earliest age.

Proclaiming that the source of religions dates back to earluier religion is stupid. Either rephrase it and say what you actually mean (that modern Abrahamic religions have their source in ancient religions perhaps is what you are attempting to express…?) or shut up.

Rahlistic Visions posted link: “Languages Grew From a Seed in Africa, a Study Says”

Religion isn’t mentioned in this article. smh Did you even read this linked article that you obviously Googled just a minute ago? Virginia obviously didn’t read it either since he’s hi-fiving you.

And since humans left Africa as modern homo sapiens to populate the rest of the globe, why WOULDN’T “languages grow from a seed” there? Again, this is another “preaching to the choir” post.

Muhammad Rasheed - Rahlistic Visions posted link: “Is this how Eve spoke? Every human language evolved from 'single prehistoric...”

Religion isn’t mentioned in this link either.


Clifton Hatchett - One of the greatest scenes in cinematic history.

Muhammad Rasheed - Clifton Hatchett wrote: “May I ask what you have against the N.O.I., and the 5%Nation...”

The Holy Qur’an 6:155, 159
And this is a Book which We have revealed as a blessing: so follow it and be righteous, that ye may receive mercy.
As for those who divide their religion and break up into sects, thou hast no part in them in the least. Their affair is with Allah; He will in the end tell them the truth of all that they did.

First, God said NOT to divide the religion into sects. That’s bad enough all by itself, and I have nothing for the various sects anyway. But with the NOI, there are additional items attached that are actually FAR worse than just the sect thing.

As you know, Farrakhan’s group isn’t the original NOI. The original was “The Lost-Found Nation of Islam in the Wilderness of North America,” called “Nation of Islam” for short, and was founded by W.D. Fard and ran by Elijah Muhammad who was the public face. Both Fard and Elijah claimed that Fard was “Allah in person,” a horrifying and unacceptable blasphemy in Al-Islam. They also violated the Islamic Pillar of Belief in the Unseen, and denied the spirit. Another great blasphemy in Al-Islam.

The Holy Qur’an 2:2-5
This is the Book; in it is guidance sure, without doubt, to those who fear Allah;
Who believe in the Unseen, are steadfast in prayer, and spend out of what We have provided for them;
And who believe in the Revelation sent to thee, and sent before thy time, and in their hearts have the assurance of the Hereafter.
They are on true guidance, from their Lord, and it is these who will prosper.

They both claimed that Elijah was the “last messenger of Allah,” another great wrong… how they beckon themselves to the Fire! They claimed that the black race itself was divine, and collectively were “god.” In short, this group is merely pretending to be Muslims and are little more than pagans who use common Arabic terms traditionally associated with Islam, and I find it quite offensive. In 1975, Elijah died, and his son Wallace (Warith Deen Muhammad) took over the organization. He had long ago (in partnership with Malcolm X later) abandoned his father’s blasphemous version of the faith and converted to true Al-Islam, and when he took over, changed the entire organization under the orthodox deen/faith. Louis Farrakhan strongly disagreed with this, left the new “American Muslim Mission” as Wallace renamed it at the time, and took like-minded members with him to continue his version of Elijah’s original group, this time called “Nation of Islam” as its full name.

The NOI was never true Islam from the start, and no aspect of its doctrine is of God. Of course, the strength of the group is the “black nationalist” aspect, in which it sought to empower the disenfranchised poor blacks to have a strong economic and independent community of its own. As of this time, the fruits of even those efforts have accomplished absolutely nothing. Elijah’s legacy has left nothing but scandals and additional schisms, and today, the class of the black poor are larger than it’s ever been, and the gap between the black poor and black middle class is wider than ever.

So basically, in addition to being pagan and blasphemous, even their purported mission has been a total failure, and the same for any offshoot organizations that came from them like the Five Percenters, and Malachi York’s group[s]. If it wasn’t for their foolishness – and Fard’s peculiar brand of egocentrism – they may well have been the best thing that happened to our people if only they had introduced true Al-Islam to our people from the beginning. Instead, to me in any event, they are a complete joke and an embarrassment in Black American History.



Muhammad Rasheed - Clifton Hatchett wrote: “Interesting...I am familiar with at least sixteen solar saviors who were born of a virgin, and resurrected before the ‘Jesus,’ mythos.”

Why would that suggest that it didn’t happen to Jesus? Does the bible ever make the claim that the scenario was supposed to be unique to the Christ?

Muhammad Rasheed - Adam Jack wrote: “I believe in and follow the teaching of the Nordic gods... Who are you to tell me my faith is unfounded. To say any god is more valid or real than another is no different than listening into a group of kindergarten children arguing over who's daddy is the strongest. In their eyes he's the world and that's all that matter.”

There is only One God with a message that has endured throughout the ages, in which He addresses mankind directly, tells them who He is, explains that all other “gods” are but fictions, and commands mankind to follow His tenets that they may prosper in this life and in the next. As such, this message confirms this One God as the sole Authority and Expert on the subject.

Where is the message of Thor to challenge these claims?

Clifton Hatchett - @Muhammad… ''Does the Bible ever make the claim that the scenario is supposed to be unique to the Christ,''....Seriously....you're being facetious I'm sure... No the Bible does not make the claim, but the scenario described in Matthew 1; 18-25, and Luke 1:26-28, is not something that would happen with frequency. Would it.... I overstand that the issue is one of faith, but I also find it most peculiar that the gospel of Mark which is the oldest of the gospels, and the shortest, makes no mention of any such birth, nor does John make any such claim...So no it does not explicitly say ''the virgin birth is unique to Christ,'' but what you have suggested by asking ''Does the Bible ever make the claim that that the scenario is unique to the Christ,'' is that there was nothing unique about the birth of the Christ, and such a position is befuddling inasmuch as the uniqueness of Christ is at the crux of the faith, or are you suggesting that it is not...

Muhammad Rasheed - Clifton Hatchett wrote: “....Seriously....you're being facetious I'm sure...”

No.

Clifton Hatchett wrote: “No the Bible does not make the claim, but the scenario described in Matthew 1; 18-25, and Luke 1:26-28, is not something that would happen with frequency.”

It sounds like you are building a strawman and arguing against it as if the claim represented the whole point of the Christian faith. That would be a logical fallacy. If the bible never made the claim that it was unique, but the whole point of your contention is that it wasn’t unique, then the issue lies with you building a false argument.

Clifton Hatchett wrote: “… but what you have suggested by asking 'Does the Bible ever make the claim that that the scenario is unique to the Christ,' is that there was nothing unique about the birth of the Christ, and such a position is befuddling inasmuch as the uniqueness of Christ is at the crux of the faith, or are you suggesting that it is not...”

Within the Qur’anic verses I posted earlier in this thread in which God talks about Jesus, He said that He created Jesus in a matter no different than how He created Adam in the first place. So the event was not unique in and of itself. It seems as if the anti-Christian is taking a position that was never stated in religion, if neither the bible nor the Qur’an said it was unique. In order to have a serious argument, you should confine your contentions to those actively supported by your opponent, instead of indulging in logical fallacies by inventing strawman arguments and pretending that is your opponents view.

I’m just sayin.’

Clifton Hatchett - False. You assume that I'm building a strawman. Good catch phrase, but grossly, unequivocally, and undoubtedly not the case. Is the uniqueness of his birth and eventual resurrection not at the cornerstone of the faith, along with salvation of course... Your identification of a strawman has become an argumentative crutch, indicative of a lack of proper contextual anaylisis. The interjection of Adam into the argument is irrelevant, because his creation would automatically be unique because he is said to have been the first man created, as there was no female that could have conceived him by natural means. Before you make the fallacy of presuming your contention is correct, you should not offer up points that nullify the basis of uniqueness, as this is counter intuitive to the majority of Christian dogmas.

Clifton Hatchett - The unique quality surrounding his birth is not explicit, but it is implicit brother Muhammad.

Muhammad Rasheed - Clifton Hatchett wrote: “False. You assume that I'm building a strawman. Good catch phrase, but grossly, unequivocally, and undoubtedly not the case.”

If you are arguing something that your opponent never said, then that is a strawman by definition, based on your own assumptions.

“A straw man is a common type of argument and is an informal fallacy based on the misrepresentation of an opponent's argument. To be successful, a straw man argument requires that the audience be ignorant or uninformed of the original argument. The so-called typical "attacking a straw man" argument creates the illusion of having completely refuted or defeated an opponent's proposition by covertly replacing it with a different proposition (i.e., "stand up a straw man") and then to refute or defeat that false argument ("knock down a straw man") instead of the original proposition.”~Stephen Downes, The Logical Fallacies

Clifton Hatchett wrote: “Is the uniqueness of his birth and eventual resurrection not at the cornerstone of the faith, along with salvation of course...”
No, it is the fact that it happened at all, at that precise timing, with that precise individual, regarding that precise message that makes it relevant. No one said it was unique except their opponents.

Clifton Hatchett wrote: “Your identification of a strawman has become an argumentative crutch, indicative of a lack of proper contextual anaylisis.”

No, it is a fallacy and weak link within your own argument. Again, you should confine your contentions to those items your opponent actually makes claim to. Then you will significantly lessen your penchant for creating weak arguments, which seems to be your trademark.

Clifton Hatchett wrote: “The interjection of Adam into the argument is irrelevant…”

When God Himself said He used the same technique to create both messengers? Your logic is faulty.

Clifton Hatchett wrote: “…because his creation would automatically be unique because he is said to have been the first man created, as there was no female that could have conceived him by natural means.”

Who said there was no female? How did you jump to that conclusion? Based on what? btw be careful of jumping to the exact same types of conclusions based on false inferences never mentioned in the text over items you argue in your opponent.

Clifton Hatchett wrote: “Before you make the fallacy of presuming your contention is correct…”

Now you’re just throwing random words at me.

Clifton Hatchett wrote: “…you should not offer up points that nullify the basis of uniqueness, as this is counter intuitive to the majority of Christian dogmas.”

The “uniqueness” is something you made up, remember, since it is not unique in the Qur’an, nor in the bible as you admit.

Muhammad Rasheed - Clifton Hatchett The unique quality surrounding his birth is not explicit, but it is implicit brother Muhammad.”

Ha! Only because you NEED it to be in order to not argue from the weak position of a fallacy. Meanwhile the texts themselves do not support your inference.

You lose. lol

Clifton Hatchett - I stated that the uniqueness is not explicit it is implicit. Two points that you raise are that there is nothing unique about the Virgin Birth, how you came to such a conclusion is a rare position to be sure, next you ask the question, ''Who said there were no females,'' again sir this is indicated implicitly by your very own contention that ''he(GOD) created Jesus in a fashion no different than how he created Adam,'' if there were females as you intimated, than there would be no need for Adam to have been created as opposed to birthed. I am familiar with the ''Strawman,'' and your reliance on it, even though such is not the case. You assume from a false pretense. Again sir the uniqueness is not explicit, it is implicit.

Clifton Hatchett - lol...I most certainly do not lose. Such has never been the case between you and I, you're just delusional, but you're still my little buddy, delusional tendencies and all.

Muhammad Rasheed - Clifton Hatchett wrote: “I stated that the uniqueness is not explicit it is implicit.”

When God Himself pointblank said He used the technique before? Again, your logic is faulty.

Clifton Hatchett wrote: “Two points that you raise are that there is nothing unique about the Virgin Birth, how you came to such a conclusion is a rare position to be sure, next you ask the question, 'Who said there were no females,' again sir this is indicated implicitly by your very own contention that 'he(GOD) created Jesus in a fashion no different than how he created Adam,’ if there were females as you intimated, than there would be no need for Adam to have been created as opposed to birthed.”

lol These are yet more fallacies based on your narrow and backwards reasoning.

1.) God said he used the same technique to create them both, and we KNOW Jesus was born of a woman with no father. Therefore – as should be obvious – Adam was ALSO born of a woman with no father.

2.) All beings are “created.” God creates them in the time honored tradition of insemination, gestation, and birth. That how God creates us. All of us.

Clifton Hatchett wrote: “I am familiar with the 'Strawman...’”

Sure. lol

Clifton Hatchett wrote: “…and your reliance on it…”

MY reliance on it??? You’re the one using it now. Notice that according to the definition, it is a common fallacy used. So there should be no surprise that the phrase keeps popping up whenever you are involved in a discussion for what should be obvious reasons. You have weak arguments that are often peppered with strawmen. I’m just letting you know so you can perhaps recognize the deficiency and fix yo’self.

Clifton Hatchett wrote: “…even though such is not the case. You assume from a false pretense. Again sir the uniqueness is not explicit, it is implicit.”

The ‘uniqueness’ is simply made up by you. Should I be surprised that the disbeliever not only has poor understanding and insight within sacred scripture, but also has a tendency to simply make up false contentions out of thin air that he tries to force upon religion?

Muhammad Rasheed - Clifton you've never won an argument. You're certainly not winning this one since your entire stance is built upon a common fallacy.

What other argument do you think you've won? As you know I have them all on my Trophy Wall.

Muhammad Rasheed - Clifton Hatchett wrote: “No the Bible does not make the claim..."

This is the point where you lost. Anything else is simply stuff you made up based on backwards and faulty thinking.

Period.

Clifton Hatchett - The contention that there was nothing unique about a virgin birth is a position most assuredly held by you, and few others. To point a fact, it is a contention you interjected as a desperate attempt to avoid conceding defeat. You presume that God creating them in a ''similar,'' fashion, is the same as an ''exact,'' fashion. You lack understanding as you have leaped to the conclusion that Jesus, the latter, could be used as a template of explanation for the creation of the former, Adam. The word of GOD is not to be questioned for sure but your perception, or in this case, lack of proper perception is assuredly questionable. You claim, ''you have weak arguments that are peppered with strawmen,'' hilarious, in actuality sir, in all probability you have grown accustomed to this crutch, and subsequently interject it far to frequently with your typically feeble rebuttals which are predictably followed by declarations of victory. You go on to say, ''should I be surprised that the disbeliever not only has poor understanding and insight within sacred scripture.'' Nothing could be further from the truth, the disbeliever tag, or the lack of understanding. You have obviously grossly misinterpreted my stance. To be sure sir I do not need to believe in a GOD that I know. You reliance on an antiquated perception is evidence a diminishing capacity to construct a logical argument to support your stance that a virgin birth is nothing unique Rasheed.

Muhammad Rasheed - Clifton Hatchett wrote: “The contention that there was nothing unique about a virgin birth is a position most assuredly held by you, and few others.”

There’s a difference between “rare” and “unique,” Clifton. lol

Clifton Hatchett wrote: “To point a fact, it is a contention you interjected as a desperate attempt to avoid conceding defeat. You presume that God creating them in a ''similar,'' fashion, is the same as an ''exact,'' fashion.”

And on what basis are you using to determine what points were different or not? Hm?

Clifton Hatchett wrote: “You lack understanding as you have leaped to the conclusion that Jesus, the latter, could be used as a template of explanation for the creation of the former, Adam.”

When God Himself said that Adam was indeed the template? Again, your logic is faulty.

Clifton Hatchett wrote: “The word of GOD is not to be questioned for sure but your perception, or in this case, lack of proper perception is assuredly questionable.”

Is it? You admit what the bible did not claim, and yet insist that the strawman you created is a proper perception? Do you hear yourself?

Clifton Hatchett wrote: “You claim, ''you have weak arguments that are peppered with strawmen,'' hilarious, in actuality sir, in all probability you have grown accustomed to this crutch, and subsequently interject it far to frequently with your typically feeble rebuttals which are predictably followed by declarations of victory. You go on to say, ''should I be surprised that the disbeliever not only has poor understanding and insight within sacred scripture.'' Nothing could be further from the truth, the disbeliever tag, or the lack of understanding.”

You’re the one that decided to attack the bible from a place of weak arguments and even weaker insights.

Clifton Hatchett wrote: “You have obviously grossly misinterpreted my stance.”

According to you, the “Jesus mythos” isn’t real because figures in the past have had virgin births before. Is this not your stance?

Clifton Hatchett wrote: “To be sure sir I do not need to believe in a GOD that I know.”

Another strawman? What does that have to do with anything?

Clifton Hatchett wrote: “You reliance on an antiquated perception…”

Earlier you said the perception was held only by me. Now you are saying it used to be held by many others? How do you know?

Clifton Hatchett wrote: “…is evidence a diminishing capacity to construct a logical argument to support your stance that a virgin birth is nothing unique Rasheed.”

Now you’re throwing another jumbled word salad at me. Like this guy…


Clifton Hatchett - Mr. Muhammad Rasheed


Clifton Hatchett - ''There is a difference between rare and unique,''..Do you know the difference sir, you asked me, and I most assuredly am asking the same of you....you stated(typed), ''And on what basis are you using to determine what points were different,or not,'...to which the answer could not be more blatant, for the very definition of the word ''similar,''is at the core of your attempt to point out an exact comparability between the Adam, and Jesus narratives on their conceptions or creations. ''Similar,'' by definition means a general likeness, or a general resemblance. That in and of itself implies there was a difference. Furthermore you went on to say GOD himself said Adam was a ''template,'' as in a pattern for, which is not to be confused with a duplicate, as you have clearly mistaken by insisting that the creation of Adam and Jesus are exactly the same. You are not properly comprehending. Read your own supposed point, the key word in what you contend is ''template,'' a redundancy that proves you do not understand clearly as I have addressed prior by defining ''similar.'' ''Template,'' ''similar,'' are not synonymous with exact. Your lack of comprehension becomes even more blatant by stating, ''you(me) admit what the Bible did not claim,'' while neglecting to point out that I also stated that the meaning was implicit as opposed to explicit. I can only deduce that you have not read my statements in their entirety, or you've come to the obvious realization that acknowledging this point negates the already faulty contention you've offered up. ''The Jesus mythos,'' and the other parallel tales of ''messianic figures born of virgins,'' can not be your argument. What you are attempting with this portion of your bogus analysis is to essentially have your cake and eat it too, I mean are you implying(yes) that the other characters born of virgins are not allegory, but factual accounts, and given your devotion to Islam such can not be the case....Can it...of course it can not. In addition your argument is flawed with your grasping for a eureka moment as you wag your finger by stating ''Another Strawman,''(sigh) What does that have to do with anything,''....Everything actually because you lied when you stated, ''should I be surprised that the disbeliever...yada, yada, yada,'' You said I was a disbeliever, and this is consistent with your apparently persistent delusional mindset, or have you grown fawn of leveling false accusations to bolster your own morality... Neither of which is a good thing. You have done nothing to further your contention that there is nothing special about a virgin birth, I scoff at this notion, unless you can point out the numerous virgin births to which you accept as credible accounts. Rhetorical, because as I said a person such as yourself is not allowed to play on both sides of the proverbial fence.

Clifton Hatchett - And if you use that meme again I will teleport to your location and punch you... I hate those types...lollol, seriously. Don't use that one again...lol

Muhammad Rasheed - ^lol Quit acting like him and I won't use it. Deal?

hahaha

Clifton Hatchett - lol

Muhammad Rasheed - Clifton Hatchett wrote: ''’There is a difference between rare and unique,''..Do you know the difference sir, you asked me, and I most assuredly am asking the same of you...”

“Unique” means it only happened once. “Rare” means it happens infrequently.

Clifton Hatchett wrote: ''…you stated(typed), ''And on what basis are you using to determine what points were different,or not,'...to which the answer could not be more blatant, for the very definition of the word ''similar,''is at the core of your attempt to point out an exact comparability between the Adam, and Jesus narratives on their conceptions or creations.”

You failed to understand the question. I blame myself. Let me try again: God said He used “similar” means. What information would you use to determine what differences were made in God’s technique? By what means would you determine the difference?

Clifton Hatchett wrote: “'Similar,’' by definition means a general likeness, or a general resemblance. That in and of itself implies there was a difference. Furthermore you went on to say GOD himself said Adam was a ''template,'' as in a pattern for, which is not to be confused with a duplicate, as you have clearly mistaken by insisting that the creation of Adam and Jesus are exactly the same. You are not properly comprehending. Read your own supposed point, the key word in what you contend is ‘template,' a redundancy that proves you do not understand clearly as I have addressed prior by defining 'similar.' 'Template,' 'similar,' are not synonymous with exact.”

I was speculating as to whether Adam was the template for the technique. It’s possible that God used the same technique before that, on earlier prototypes of human-like creatures, or more likely, other types of animal altogether. Like the dinosaurs. Who knows? In any event, exactly what He did do with Adam is information that is firmly within the realm unseen. We know only the tiny hints God has given us about the matter, and in this case, He said that the technique He used to create Jesus, was similar to the one He used to create Adam. What else do we know? We know that when God creates men, he creates them in the wombs of their mothers. Jesus was created in the womb of his mother. What was the difference here that made him special? There was no father present to inseminate him. Was Adam special? Yes. He was the first man; the first of the homo sapien species. God said He created him in a manner similar to the one He used when He created Jesus, who He created in the womb of his mother without the presence of a father to inseminate him. You’re making a big deal of the word “similar.” Why? No mystery; you are trying to desperately find a place of purchase so you can recover from this defeat. lol “Similar” means that the exact details of the matter were difference, but the main over-all concept was the same. I am the oldest of nine siblings all born from the union of the same two parents. In each of our cases, the over-all concept of the manner of our births was the same, while the exact details in each case were different. In other words, we were all created by our Lord in similar manner.

Also, not inconsequentially, in the science behind the concept of “parthenogenesis,” which is the form of reproduction in which growth and development of embryos occur without fertilization relevant to this discussion, there are at least 3 or 4 ways in which this process can actually happen, even in mammals (albeit, of course, extremely rare). It’s highly possible that the “similar” God is referring to means that one of those specific parthenogenesis techniques was used on Adam, and another was used on the Christ. The differences are only on the cellular level however, and still absolutely require the gestation of the fetus within the womb of the mother. Either of these two concepts is reasonable enough to provide the requirements of your ‘similar.’ And I still win. lol

Clifton Hatchett wrote: “Your lack of comprehension becomes even more blatant by stating, 'you(me) admit what the Bible did not claim,'' while neglecting to point out that I also stated that the meaning was implicit as opposed to explicit.”

Your imaginary “implicit” in the wake of God point blank telling you the manner of the Christ’s birth was not unique, is growing tiresome.

Clifton Hatchett wrote: “I can only deduce that you have not read my statements in their entirety…”

I did, and found them foolish.

Clifton Hatchett wrote: “…or you've come to the obvious realization that acknowledging this point negates the already faulty contention you've offered up. ''The Jesus mythos,'' and the other parallel tales of ''messianic figures born of virgins,'' can not be your argument. What you are attempting with this portion of your bogus analysis is to essentially have your cake and eat it too, I mean are you implying(yes) that the other characters born of virgins are not allegory, but factual accounts, and given your devotion to Islam such can not be the case....Can it...of course it can not.”

This is your own ignorance speaking. The proven scientific concept of parthenogenesis is well known, and although far more common among less complex life forms, absolutely does occur rarely in mammals. The virgin birth wasn’t a miracle because it happened; it was a miracle because it happened “in God’s timing.” And whose timing is more perfect than that of Allah? Again, I find the quality of your scriptural insight abysmal.

Clifton Hatchett wrote: “In addition your argument is flawed with your grasping for a eureka moment as you wag your finger by stating ''Another Strawman,''(sigh)”

That’s not a “eureka moment.” You commonly use straw men because you have weak arguments. *shrug*

Clifton Hatchett wrote: “What does that have to do with anything,''....Everything actually because you lied when you stated, ''should I be surprised that the disbeliever...yada, yada, yada,'' You said I was a disbeliever, and this is consistent with your apparently persistent delusional mindset, or have you grown fawn of leveling false accusations to bolster your own morality... Neither of which is a good thing.”

You have more than enough anti-religion memes and status posts on your Timeline to give the quite reasonable impression that you are a disbeliever. Is this your way of saying you are not? God says there are very specific items that He requires from those who claim to believe in Him. Do you use this list as check off items to be sure to be on The Path, or do you willy-nilly make up your own version of what you think He requires, assuring an express trip to the Fire?

Tell me what do you believe and we can settle the matter right here and right now.

Clifton Hatchett wrote: “You have done nothing to further your contention that there is nothing special about a virgin birth…”

God said He did it before. wtf? lol

Clifton Hatchett wrote: “…I scoff at this notion, unless you can point out the numerous virgin births to which you accept as credible accounts.”

Adam’s for one, which is the only one of relevance, and the only one I know for sure since the Supreme Creator of the heavens & the earth confirms it.

lol

Clifton Hatchett wrote: “Rhetorical, because as I said a person such as yourself is not allowed to play on both sides of the proverbial fence.”

The “fence” exists only within your own narrow mind. tsk

Clifton Hatchett - Obliteration of this heavily speculative response will be child's play,... I'll give you a moment to review and rethink your contention, if not you're going to find yourself playing the role of Tokyo, and I'll be Godzilla.

Muhammad Rasheed - Riiiiiight...

Muhammad Rasheed - Come at me, bro.

Muhammad Rasheed - I know at LEAST 85% of it went right over your goofy li'l head.

Muhammad Rasheed - My bottom line is that If you are arguing something that your opponent never said, then that is a strawman by definition, based on your own assumptions. "Implicit" is something you literally made up based on what you are projecting, it is not a truth in the text, ESPECIALLY when the Author of said text told you He did it before.

That by itself is a solid wall you can't get behind.

Clifton Hatchett - lollol.... @''come at me bro.'' As to the inevitability of your demise in this arena, as though you doubt my victory, and as far as that goes


Muhammad Rasheed - 'Faith' that you actually have the ability to win an argument over me?

Truly that would be a miracle greater than the virgin birth...

Clifton Hatchett - You certainly can not use the ''Projection,'' label as you resemble this to the letter... nice to see you still have little fight left.

Muhammad Rasheed - Stop wasting time and get to typing your counter argument. It's 11pm on my side of the world. I don't have all night.

Clifton Hatchett - Your rebuttal was extremely speculative, with the waffling of a prototypical bad politician. Your own words prove the means of your defeat. You refuse to acknowledge the definition of the word similar. This is unsettling and pathetic, as this is further validation of a fundamental lack of comprehension, or even the most miniscule grasp of nuance. You had the temerity to state ''I was speculating as to whether Adam was the template for the technique. It's possible that GOD used the same technique before that on earlier human-type creatures,'' this is where your argument begins to descend into lunacy, idiocy, and being preposterous beyond all shadow of doubt. Where is this kooky theory supported in scripture. ''Earlier Human-type creatures,'' again I dismiss this outright, that sure as hell come from no sacred text, and I can't even begin to fathom how you offer this as a reasonable point. HORRIBLE. as you stated, These are just absurd speculations. In continuing you quite predictably went on to introduce parthenogenesis. Did you actually think by stating ''this process can even happen in mammals,'' that it was true, if so, this is further proof of you becoming delusional. Your parthenogenesis contention is grossly inadequate and FALSE! UNTRUE! Let us briefly examine a collaborative work entitled Minireview: Parthenogenesis in Mammals,done by Nathalien Rougier, and Zena Werb from the Department of Anatomy, University of California, in which they state bluntly ''adult parthenogenesis has never been recorded in mammals.'' (You were saying) Now I will give you the acknowledgement that the phenomenon has been observed in nature, but never in the manor in which you presented as evidence, and never in mammal, and being that humans are mammals, you failed to prove anything. I know you didn't just lie, and make up some foolishness, oh wait, you did just lie and make up some foolishness. As your arguments falter I have grown accustomed to the obligatory attempts at character assassination as you point out ''You have more than enough anti-religion memes on your Timeline,'' this is further evidence of a complete lack of any ability to grasp nuance. Like at all. As in, no clue. You're stuck on religion as though GOD and religion were automatically one and the same. In closing, you continue to beat that poor dead horse by proclaiming ''GOD said he did it before,'' No he didn't, as you stated earlier, the word GOD used was ''similar.'' You offered up a pitifully speculative argument, and attempted to be deceitful in the interjection of a Parthenogenesis scenario that was supported by nothing. You went on to reinforce your foolishness by introducing ''Monkey People,'' who gave birth to Adam, a human being by your own admission and thus hammered in the final nail in your own coffin Monkeymen and dinosaurs bro....

No comments:

Post a Comment