[Skurai] High's "Rush Limbaugh" club!

What genealogy could you find to trace Adam throughout time to I suppose, Jesus that isn't credited to some geocities type-website from a religious fundamentalist author?.

1. God
2. Adam
3. Seth
4. Enosh
5. Cainain
6. Mahalalel
7. Jared
8. Enoch
9. Methuselah
10. Lamech
11. Noah
12. Shem
13. Arphaxad
14. Cainan
15. Shelah
16. Eber
17. Peleg
18. Reu
19. Serug
20. Nahor
21. Terah
22. Abraham
23. Isaac
24. Jacob
25. Judah
26. Pharez
27. Hezron
28. Ram
29. Amminadab
30. Nahshon
31. Salmon
32. Boaz
33. Obed
34. Jesse
35. David
36. Nathan
37. Mattatha
38. Menna
39. Melea
40. Eliakim
41. Jonam
42. Joseph
43. Judah
44. Simeon
45. Levi
46. Matthat
47. Jorim
48. Eliezer
49. Joshua
50. Er
51. Elmadam
52. Cosam
53. Addi
54. Melchi
55. Neri
56. Shealtiel
57. Zerubbabel
58. Rhesa
59. Joanan
60. Joda
61. Josech
62. Semein
63. Mattathias
64. Mahath
65. Naggai
66. Hesli
67. Nahum
68. Amos
69. Mattathias
70. Joseph
71. Jannai
72. Melchi
73. Levi
74. Matthat
75. Heli
76. Mary & Joseph
77. Jesus

EDIT: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...38&version=NIV

1. God 2. Adam 3. Seth 4. Enosh 5. Cainain 6. Mahalalel 7. Jared 8. Enoch 9. Methuselah 10. Lamech 11. Noah 12. Shem 13. Arphaxad 14. Cainan 15. Shelah 16. Eber 17. Peleg 18. Reu 19. Serug 20. Nahor 21. Terah 22. Abraham 23. Isaac 24. Jacob 25. Judah 26. Pharez 27. Hezron 28. Ram 29. Amminadab 30. Nahshon 31. Salmon 32. Boaz 33. Obed 34. Jesse 35. David 36. Nathan 37. Mattatha 38. Menna 39. Melea 40. Eliakim 41. Jonam 42. Joseph 43. Judah 44. Simeon 45. Levi 46. Matthat 47. Jorim 48. Eliezer 49. Joshua 50. Er 51. Elmadam 52. Cosam 53. Addi 54. Melchi 55. Neri 56. Shealtiel 57. Zerubbabel 58. Rhesa 59. Joanan 60. Joda 61. Josech 62. Semein 63. Mattathias 64. Mahath 65. Naggai 66. Hesli 67. Nahum 68. Amos 69. Mattathias 70. Joseph 71. Jannai 72. Melchi 73. Levi 74. Matthat 75. Heli 76. Mary & Joseph 77. Jesus EDIT: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...38&version=NIV

And even if we assume that the Bible is correct, it is highly contradictory. In fact, here is a list of 456 specific things that the Bible contradicts itself on. The only "facts" used are passages straight from the Bible which you can check for yourself.

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/by_name.html

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/by_name.html

This is a great website; Hebrews 7:3
"Melchisedec, king of Salem, priest of the most high God," was Without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life; but made like unto the Son of God; abideth a priest continually.

There is no afterlife, no god. No reward or punishment.

Why do the religious types use such a harsh guilt system. They make it seem that if you don't go to church and preach their beliefs, then you're a bad person. That's what most non-knowing believe, we feel that people shouldn't be made to feel guilty over having a different opinion. That's at least why I fight so vehemently

You fail to see that contradictions in a story are a problem. Contradictions in real life are constant. If I asked, "Who was the president of the United States", there would be 43 contradicting answers - all of them correct.

Err... no.

If you contradict something, you deny the truth of it and instead preach the opposite to the statement as gospel.

If I say "George Washington" and you say "Abe Lincoln", we're not contradicting each other - both answers are correct, as both are truth.

If you say "Contradiction is someone giving a correct answer to a question and someone then giving another correct answer" and I say "Contradiction is denying the truth of a statement", then that is contradiction.

Get it?

Get it?

Don't hold your breath.

For the first time in awhile, we have an interesting thread. My two cents will be up soon.

For the first time in awhile, we have an interesting thread. My two cents will be up soon.

I have an interesting share that I feel goes well with this blog. Oddly enough, it refutes any of my beliefs I have stated thus far.

Reason for posting? I want every opponent in religious debates against the existence of a god to have the same reasoning.

http://www.stumbleupon.com/su/1mf74n...om/zs/882.html

that isn't credited to some geocities type-website from a religious fundamentalist author?.

1. God 2. Adam 3. Seth 4. Enosh 5. Cainain 6. Mahalalel 7. Jared 8. Enoch 9. Methuselah

.....

that isn't credited to some geocities type-website from a religious fundamentalist author?

that isn't credited to some geocities type-website from a religious fundamentalist author?

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...38&version=NIV

That website is using the Bible as its source. The Bible was written by religious fundamentalists. So was that website. My hair is a bird, your argument is invalid.

That website is using the Bible as its source. The Bible was written by religious fundamentalists. So was that website. My hair is a bird, your argument is invalid.

However, I found a source, thatisn't credited to some geocities type-website from a religious fundamentalist author. Point in case, it's from the Bible. Regardless of whether or not it's true, the Bible does give that genealogy.

And your "hair is a bird" argument is equivalent to South Parks "screw you guys, I'm going home." It's real mature, in a serious debate.

I honestly don't care whether I'm right or wrong. You can spend all the time in the world arguing against or for any sort of deity, it doesn't matter. But regardless, it seems that you're impassioned, or "wholly" devout, almost fanatically to the subject of a supreme being that you don't even believe exists. My neighbor could be a serial killer. But I've seen no evidence to support that claim, so I don't go to every single person I meet and fervently preach that he isn't. You could say the same to me, except opposite. But the only reason I even responded to this waste of human thought and reasoning is because you all jumped on Skurai, claiming his conservative opinions weren't his own and then trying to sway his opinions with your own. I'm sick of the pointless debate over God. God's neither provable or disputable. So why can't we just say, I believe, you do not and let it be the last we ever talk about God? Or religion. Or faith in any form. Not even a passing mention of anything remotely related to faith. Oh wait. Because we all have certain freedoms. Like freedom of speech, religion, right to assemble and petition the government.

So, I'm gonna exercise my right to believe what I want. If you don't believe, that's up to you. I'll let your choices and actions define my opinion of you, not whether or not you believe the same as me.

If you're right, great. Congratulations. We die and rot. There is no afterlife, no god. No reward or punishment.

I cannot be right. I am not taking a side, so by definition I am not correct. I am of the opinion that nobody can know the truth, and I respect your right to believe what you want. My problem is when people cannot simply say "I don't believe it because it is scientific/factual evidence, I believe it because I believe it and its as simple as that." I particularly have a problem with people who attempt to rationalize how what they believe might be true rather than simply admitting that what they believe has no proof but they believe it anyway. This doesn't necessarily apply to you, but you did kinda take a retard approach to the debate and didn't give much else other than your "facts" in your argument, so I could only judge based on those. Here's a better example of what I'm referring to:

Aging is related to telomeres. It's entirely possible that in the distant past they were longer or better preserved. As for the age of the Earth, if God created Adam as a man (rather than an infant), why is it a stretch to assume that God also created the Earth with age? Alternately, the creation story is a poem shown to be full of alternate meaning; perhaps it is better to take it not-so-literally. Even so, I believe that Adam was the first man and the geneology is accurate. You find it hard to believe that a God capable of creating both time and space is capable of sustaining a single man's life for 3 days in a fish?

See, instead of simply saying "I believe it because the Bible says so" he attempted to find "scientific" rationalizations for the belief. I can respect someone who is willing to say "I realize that science and the Bible conflict, and I choose to believe the Bible." I cannot respect someone who is going to try to say that there's no disparity between science and the Bible , when there clearly is.

As I've already stated in this thread, science and the Bible conflict severely. The Bible even conflicts with itself. I can still respect someone if they believe the Bible as long as they are willing to admit the two previous sentences in this paragraph are correct, because they are inarguably correct. Simple as that. I'm not saying "the Bible is wrong," I'm saying "there's no proof that the Bible is right." For all I know the Bible is entirely true (minus the conflicts it has with itself, as those breakdowns cannot be resolved within the boundaries of logic.)

And really, it's nothing personal.