Proof positive that Britons are smarter than us Yanks

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.operation-flashpoint (More info?)

"Chris S" <paker7@kazaa.lite> wrote in message
news:csve0m$co0$1@atlantis.news.tpi.pl...
> http://www.landoverbaptist.org/

See it before - pretty tedious stuff. Monty Python was waaaay more funny.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.operation-flashpoint (More info?)

"Stewy" <out@lunch.com> wrote in message
news:762dnUzUmJdOQm_cRVnyjA@eclipse.net.uk...
> ---snip---
> Reference to a greek bible is interesting, but what reason is there to
> consider it 'original'? Indeed for a text or set of texts like the Bible,
> of which no date of production or compilation is known, how could we
> possible tell?

Good post. Greek is considered 'original' for the New Testament, but Hebrew
is considered original for the OT. Like many texts of the time (evidently
Xerox was not a monastary monk) the copies were made by transcribing. Short
of the author signing the document (which some did) or dating the document,
there is no way to establish the exact date of the document. If the
standard you need as absolute proof that any of the biblical texts are the
'original,' I'm afraid I can't help anyone. I find that to be a trivial
point, but YMMV. Like many aspects of history, we rely on the observers to
document what occurred. Are they perfect? Perhaps not, but they still
represent the most credible evidence. An open mind (on both sides of the
argument) must be kept or the people who would call into question the
eyewitnesses then start becoming 'revisionists.' (Not trying to start
another 'war' here, but there are those who claim the people who documented
the existence of the Nazi camps are the work of 'historians with an
agenda'.) We are aided by the fact that technology had increased at that
time to a point where photographs could be taken, and yet people can still
call the validity of those who observed the event into doubt. I sure hope
that 2000 years from now, people aren't diminishing that event, either).

For laughs you can check out - http://www.revisionism.nl/

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.operation-flashpoint (More info?)

Chris S wrote:
> http://www.landoverbaptist.org/
Now that's pouring petrol on the flames...

V.funny though...Betty Bowers is most entertaining however.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.operation-flashpoint (More info?)

"Just Me" <not1096@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3pidnSW7JpQHAG7cRVn-vA@accessus.net...
>
> "Chris S" <paker7@kazaa.lite> wrote in message
> news:csve0m$co0$1@atlantis.news.tpi.pl...
>> http://www.landoverbaptist.org/
>
> See it before - pretty tedious stuff. Monty Python was waaaay more funny.
>

I like the English comedian Peter Kay's take on religion

To paraphrase him

'When I was a child I used to pray to God every day that I would get a bike
but I never got one. One day when I finally realised what religion was all
about I went out and stole someone else's and just prayed to God for
forgiveness.'

Which just about sums it up 🙂

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.operation-flashpoint (More info?)

I am a christian, I have no problem believing in aliens. I am sure before
creating us God was doing what he does.creating. after all, the dinosaurs prove
that.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.operation-flashpoint (More info?)

Of course we're different from you religious types - we don't feel the need
to have imaginary friends.
As you creepy religious types are never normally shy of trying to 'convert'
people it is up to you to prove the existence of God (or should that be
Gods) .>>>>

You exist.and so far despite all this wonder including the concept of the
reproductive system,nature/millions of species of animals you choose to believe
essencially all this came from a dumb accident. sometimes you guys try so hard
to prove you are intelligent, you make yourselves look stupid.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.operation-flashpoint (More info?)

Known12 wrote:
> Of course we're different from you religious types - we don't feel the need
> to have imaginary friends.
> As you creepy religious types are never normally shy of trying to 'convert'
> people it is up to you to prove the existence of God (or should that be
> Gods) .>>>>
>
> You exist.and so far despite all this wonder including the concept of the
> reproductive system,nature/millions of species of animals you choose to believe
> essencially all this came from a dumb accident. sometimes you guys try so hard
> to prove you are intelligent, you make yourselves look stupid.

Whatsup do you live in one of those shitholes in the States where they
don't learn you 'bout evolushun? 🙂

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.operation-flashpoint (More info?)

Whatsup do you live in one of those shitholes in the States where they
don't learn you 'bout evolushun? 🙂>>>>


What a laughable stance...there cant be a deity because of evolution.
thats like saying nobody intelligent designed the computer you use because
there was some sort of process of assembly that took place before you got the
computer.

you believe in the theory of evolution,and yet you believe the concept of the
reproductive system and brain and nature and millions of species of living
creatures came about by a dumb random occurence.
I guess some people think if they keep saying they are smart, it somehow makes
it so.

evolution(if true) is the system set in motion.you still are left with the
undefendable stance,that it,and everything was set in motion by a dumb cosmic
accident that was able to compile the concept of the reproductive system,and
thousands of other complex systems,let alone milions of species of life.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.operation-flashpoint (More info?)

Known12 wrote:
> Whatsup do you live in one of those shitholes in the States where they
> don't learn you 'bout evolushun? 🙂>>>>
>
>
> What a laughable stance...there cant be a deity because of evolution.
> thats like saying nobody intelligent designed the computer you use because
> there was some sort of process of assembly that took place before you got the
> computer.
>
> you believe in the theory of evolution,and yet you believe the concept of the
> reproductive system and brain and nature and millions of species of living
> creatures came about by a dumb random occurence.
> I guess some people think if they keep saying they are smart, it somehow makes
> it so.
>
> evolution(if true) is the system set in motion.you still are left with the
> undefendable stance,that it,and everything was set in motion by a dumb cosmic
> accident that was able to compile the concept of the reproductive system,and
> thousands of other complex systems,let alone milions of species of life.
>
>

Get real you don't seriously think that complex chemical and biochemical
processes could not evolve over aeons over time do you?
Free your mind from the shackles imposed by your imaginary friend ;-)

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.operation-flashpoint (More info?)

Get real you don't seriously think that complex chemical and biochemical
processes could not evolve over aeons over time do you?
Free your mind from the shackles imposed by your imaginary friend ;-)Mort>>>>>

Amazing how some people who think of themselves as being scientific and free
thinkers suddenly become so reckless and obscure when it suits them concerning
what created. OH! it just happened!
the concept of the reproductive system and such could have just come about thru
the normal lengths of time in the vastness of space.it all makes so much sense
now mort!

truth is,if you see a computer sitting there, your normal reaction SHOULD be
it was designed and created.
yet everyday you are surrounded by biological computers walking around and
talking to you,and because we arent made out of plastic and metal and wires
this apparently blows your mind.

we are essencially the same set up.
instead of a proccesor we have the brain, instead of wires to send signals from
one part to the other we have nervous system,the computer runs on power, we run
on food and water, we have memory the computer has some of a sorts.

how you cant see the big picture is beyond me.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.operation-flashpoint (More info?)

"could have been formed by a wormhole?". gee,dont get technical now
mort.you ran out of steam even faster than I thought you would. you
clearly havent even thought this out very deepy.thats your answer?
how you imagine the concept of a the reproductive system and mind
compiled itself thru your silly razzle dazzle technobabble example is
beyond me.

uh,and its looking more like you dont know much about chemisty either,
seeing with your lacking answers.oyu certainly didnt expand on
anything. all I see is a guy who despite any pretense of knowing
chemistry is honestly baffled on how the concept of the reproductive
systemand humans came about thru a cosmic accident.

back to the drawing board for you.