How To Get To Heaven When You Die

[Spademan 94]

full amputee in an arse kicking contest.

http://whydoesgodhateamputees.com/

[vbnautilus 48]

According to Joshua 8, Israelite forces attacked Ai, burned it, "utterly destroyed all the inhabitants," and made it a "heap forever" (vs:26-28). Extensive archaeological work at the site of Ai, however, has revealed that the city was destroyed and burned around 2400 B. C., which would have been over a thousand years before the time of Joshua. Joseph Callaway, a conservative Southern Baptist and professor at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, spent nine years excavating the ruins of ancient Ai and afterwards reported that what he found there contradicted the biblical record.The evidence from Ai was mainly negative. There was a great walled city there beginning about 3000 B. C., more than 1,800 years before Israel's emergence in Canaan. But this city was destroyed about 2400 B. C., after which the site was abandoned.Despite extensive excavation, no evidence of a Late Bronze Age (1500-1200 B. C.) Canaanite city was found. In short, there was no Canaanite city here for Joshua to conquer (Biblical Archaeology Review, "Joseph A. Callaway: 1920-1988," November/December 1988, p. 24, emphasis added).This same article quoted what Callaway had earlier said when announcing the results of his nine-year excavation of Ai.Archaeology has wiped out the historical credibility of the conquest of Ai as reported in Joshua 7-8. The Joint Expedition to Ai worked nine seasons between 1964 and 1976... only to eliminate the historical underpinning of the Ai account in the Bible (Ibid., p. 24).The work of Kathleen Kenyon produced similar results in her excavation of the city of Jericho. Her conclusion was that the walls of Jericho were destroyed around 2300 B. C., about the same time that Ai was destroyed. Apparently, then, legends developed to explain the ruins of ancient cities, and biblical writers recorded them as tales of Joshua's conquests. Information like this, however, is never mentioned by inerrantists when they talk about archaeological confirmation of biblical records.(http://www.theskepticalreview.com/tsrmag/982front.html)

[Spademan 94]

According to Joshua 8, Israelite forces attacked Ai, burned it, "utterly destroyed all the inhabitants," and made it a "heap forever" (vs:26-28). Extensive archaeological work at the site of Ai, however, has revealed that the city was destroyed and burned around 2400 B. C., which would have been over a thousand years before the time of Joshua. Joseph Callaway, a conservative Southern Baptist and professor at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, spent nine years excavating the ruins of ancient Ai and afterwards reported that what he found there contradicted the biblical record.The evidence from Ai was mainly negative. There was a great walled city there beginning about 3000 B. C., more than 1,800 years before Israel's emergence in Canaan. But this city was destroyed about 2400 B. C., after which the site was abandoned.Despite extensive excavation, no evidence of a Late Bronze Age (1500-1200 B. C.) Canaanite city was found. In short, there was no Canaanite city here for Joshua to conquer (Biblical Archaeology Review, "Joseph A. Callaway: 1920-1988," November/December 1988, p. 24, emphasis added).This same article quoted what Callaway had earlier said when announcing the results of his nine-year excavation of Ai.Archaeology has wiped out the historical credibility of the conquest of Ai as reported in Joshua 7-8. The Joint Expedition to Ai worked nine seasons between 1964 and 1976... only to eliminate the historical underpinning of the Ai account in the Bible (Ibid., p. 24).The work of Kathleen Kenyon produced similar results in her excavation of the city of Jericho. Her conclusion was that the walls of Jericho were destroyed around 2300 B. C., about the same time that Ai was destroyed. Apparently, then, legends developed to explain the ruins of ancient cities, and biblical writers recorded them as tales of Joshua's conquests. Information like this, however, is never mentioned by inerrantists when they talk about archaeological confirmation of biblical records.(http://www.theskepticalreview.com/tsrmag/982front.html)

lol @ your faith in archeology.

[Southern Buddhist 1]

There is a big difference in 'reading' it without understanding it, and reading it while you understand it.

There's also a big difference between reading it and not reading it, the latter of which seems to be the common Christian position.I won't even get into the conflation of "understanding" with "believing wholesale." Big difference there, too.

[Balloon guy 158]

There's also a big difference between reading it and not reading it, the latter of which seems to be the common Christian position.I won't even get into the conflation of "understanding" with "believing wholesale." Big difference there, too.

Anytime you want to compare Christians vs non-Christians for knowledge of what the Bible says..I am ready for the debate.Although you may want to bring with you a little more than the one example you are using here to represent all of Christendom, and the examples of people here who spend most of their time quoting so called contraditions of the Bible that have been answered many times before, but still somehow make it in the books that athiest seem to buy so often.

[Balloon guy 158]

According to Joshua 8, Israelite forces attacked Ai, burned it, "utterly destroyed all the inhabitants," and made it a "heap forever" (vs:26-28). Extensive archaeological work at the site of Ai, however, has revealed that the city was destroyed and burned around 2400 B. C., which would have been over a thousand years before the time of Joshua. Joseph Callaway, a conservative Southern Baptist and professor at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, spent nine years excavating the ruins of ancient Ai and afterwards reported that what he found there contradicted the biblical record.The evidence from Ai was mainly negative. There was a great walled city there beginning about 3000 B. C., more than 1,800 years before Israel's emergence in Canaan. But this city was destroyed about 2400 B. C., after which the site was abandoned.Despite extensive excavation, no evidence of a Late Bronze Age (1500-1200 B. C.) Canaanite city was found. In short, there was no Canaanite city here for Joshua to conquer (Biblical Archaeology Review, "Joseph A. Callaway: 1920-1988," November/December 1988, p. 24, emphasis added).This same article quoted what Callaway had earlier said when announcing the results of his nine-year excavation of Ai.Archaeology has wiped out the historical credibility of the conquest of Ai as reported in Joshua 7-8. The Joint Expedition to Ai worked nine seasons between 1964 and 1976... only to eliminate the historical underpinning of the Ai account in the Bible (Ibid., p. 24).The work of Kathleen Kenyon produced similar results in her excavation of the city of Jericho. Her conclusion was that the walls of Jericho were destroyed around 2300 B. C., about the same time that Ai was destroyed. Apparently, then, legends developed to explain the ruins of ancient cities, and biblical writers recorded them as tales of Joshua's conquests. Information like this, however, is never mentioned by inerrantists when they talk about archaeological confirmation of biblical records.(http://www.theskepticalreview.com/tsrmag/982front.html)

Finally, you've googled a decent example.You're not going to like my answer.But basically you are determined to believe that Callaway was 100% correct in his excavation of the exact city mentioned in Joshua.In other words, what's to say that the ai destroyed by Joshua wasn't a differnent place then the one Callaway dug up?I was born in Newark, many people right away assume that I must be from New Jersey. I'm not. There are a lot of Newarks in this country.If a great city named Ai was destroyed 100 years before Joshua, it isn't possible that the survivors gathered together later, and started to build a new city. And call it Ai to save on new address forms?

[brvheart 1,752]

Anytime you want to compare Christians vs non-Christians for knowledge of what the Bible says..I am ready for the debate.

this.

Finally, you've googled a decent example.You're not going to like my answer.But basically you are determined to believe that Callaway was 100% correct in his excavation of the exact city mentioned in Joshua.In other words, what's to say that the ai destroyed by Joshua wasn't a differnent place then the one Callaway dug up?I was born in Newark, many people right away assume that I must be from New Jersey. I'm not. There are a lot of Newarks in this country.If a great city named Ai was destroyed 100 years before Joshua, it isn't possible that the survivors gathered together later, and started to build a new city. And call it Ai to save on new address forms?

Actually you're wrong here BG. Ai was small town (in today's perspective), having only about 12,000 residents.

[Spademan 94]

Finally, you've googled a decent example.You're not going to like my answer.But basically you are determined to believe that Callaway was 100% correct in his excavation of the exact city mentioned in Joshua.In other words, what's to say that the ai destroyed by Joshua wasn't a differnent place then the one Callaway dug up?I was born in Newark, many people right away assume that I must be from New Jersey. I'm not. There are a lot of Newarks in this country.If a great city named Ai was destroyed 100 years before Joshua, it isn't possible that the survivors gathered together later, and started to build a new city. And call it Ai to save on new address forms?

"lol @ your faith in archeology."

and the examples of people here who spend most of their time quoting so called contraditions of the Bible that have been answered many times before, but still somehow make it in the books that athiest seem to buy so often.

Yes.Answers that are almost uniformly stupid, revisionist, apologetic, metaphorical might-have-beens.Not all of answers, of course. Some are just get out-of-absurdity-jail free "God is mysterious and all powerful so God did it and it's stupid of you to think you can know why" cards.

[crowTrobot 2]

Finally, you've googled a decent example.You're not going to like my answer.But basically you are determined to believe that Callaway was 100% correct in his excavation of the exact city mentioned in Joshua.In other words, what's to say that the ai destroyed by Joshua wasn't a differnent place then the one Callaway dug up?I was born in Newark, many people right away assume that I must be from New Jersey. I'm not. There are a lot of Newarks in this country.If a great city named Ai was destroyed 100 years before Joshua, it isn't possible that the survivors gathered together later, and started to build a new city. And call it Ai to save on new address forms?

that's 1000 years before, not 100.i think your position on the truth of christianity would be a bit more respected around here if you at least admitted that early OT stories that are ludicrous if taken literally such as the flood or exodus may be fable or exaggeration that evolved over hundreds of years from events that happened on a much smaller scale. that's actually the position of the majority of working christian and jewish scholars as well as secular, so i don't see what you'd be losing. suggesting that a million+ (probably 2 million) people 3500 years ago would leave zero extant evidence of 40 years of occupation in a relatively compact geographic area with little vegetation, particularly when most of the original mob supposedly died there, just makes you look like you care about pride more than serious debate.

[crowTrobot 2]

this.

subjective christian interpretation of "what the bible says" is not knowledge.

[Southern Buddhist 1]

subjective christian interpretation of "what the bible says" is not knowledge.

this.

[Balloon guy 158]

that's 1000 years before, not 100.

Well I guess if all the names of all cities in the ancient days had very good copyrigh attorneys, your point would have validity.

i think your position on the truth of christianity would be a bit more respected around here if you at least admitted that early OT stories that are ludicrous if taken literally such as the flood or exodus may be fable or exaggeration that evolved over hundreds of years from events that happened on a much smaller scale. that's actually the position of the majority of working christian and jewish scholars as well as secular, so i don't see what you'd be losing. suggesting that a million+ (probably 2 million) people 3500 years ago would leave zero extant evidence of 40 years of occupation in a relatively compact geographic area with little vegetation, particularly when most of the original mob supposedly died there, just makes you look like you care about pride more than serious debate.

First there is no way you will respect anyone who holds that Chrisitanity is true, regardless. Let's not pretend that if someone says the entire Old testmanent isn't accurate, but the New testement is 100% accurate, you would tell them you respect them for their beliefs. I've said it before and I'll say it again, either the whole Bible is right, or the Bible is nothing but a collection of nice stories with morals that evolved contrary to evolution. ( This is where you tell me I don't know what evolution is, without telling me what it is btw. )The trash you seem to expect isn't there, and you seem to assume that therefore you are giving proof that there weren't people walking the desert under the command of God for 40 years. I pointed out that the normal evidence left behind of a civilization isn't to be expected of a group who has their food and water needs met, don't have permant dwellings, their clothes don't wear, so no need for looms or raising sheep and aren't in the trade business, making a unufacturing plant unlikely. You have yet to list me the things that should have survived in the desert for 3,500 years.

[Balloon guy 158]

subjective christian interpretation of "what the bible says" is not knowledge.

but subjective interpretation of what can survive for 3,500 years in the desert is?Try all day, you guys don't understand the Bible, that's why you think it says things it doesn't and means things it doesn't. that truth is apperently beyond your ability to understand.But do your double speak again, say our understanding is subjective and pretend yours isn't. It got at least one amen.

[vbnautilus 48]

Finally, you've googled a decent example.You're not going to like my answer.But basically you are determined to believe that Callaway was 100% correct in his excavation of the exact city mentioned in Joshua.

Neither of us should have 100% certainty about what happened that long ago. I'm just presenting the best evidence about this particular issue from people who have developed a science of figuring out what happened long ago.

In other words, what's to say that the ai destroyed by Joshua wasn't a differnent place then the one Callaway dug up?I was born in Newark, many people right away assume that I must be from New Jersey. I'm not. There are a lot of Newarks in this country.

First, my apologies on being born in Newark, even if it was the wrong one. Second, the ancient middle east was not populated by lots of cities with the same name like the modern U.S. is. (maybe jesus was born in Pennsylvania after all?)

If a great city named Ai was destroyed 100 years before Joshua, it isn't possible that the survivors gathered together later, and started to build a new city. And call it Ai to save on new address forms?

Then why is there no evidence of that? Regardless, the simplest explanation for the evidence is that the city was destroyed and legends about it were incorporated into the Bible. Not "the bible is historically accurate and all the physical evidence must be in line with it in whatever convoluted way I can force it to be".

[Balloon guy 158]

Neither of us should have 100% certainty about what happened that long ago. I'm just presenting the best evidence about this particular issue from people who have developed a science of figuring out what happened long ago. First, my apologies on being born in Newark, even if it was the wrong one. Second, the ancient middle east was not populated by lots of cities with the same name like the modern U.S. is. (maybe jesus was born in Pennsylvania after all?)Then why is there no evidence of that? Regardless, the simplest explanation for the evidence is that the city was destroyed and legends about it were incorporated into the Bible. Not "the bible is historically accurate and all the physical evidence must be in line with it in whatever convoluted way I can force it to be".

Hey...not all Newarks need to be defended.Okay mine did.I understand your objection to my defense. I don't have a better answer for you.

[vbnautilus 48]

Hey...not all Newarks need to be defended.Okay mine did.I understand your objection to my defense. I don't have a better answer for you.

That's ok, you won on the sister sex.

[crowTrobot 2]

Well I guess if all the names of all cities in the ancient days had very good copyrigh attorneys, your point would have validity.

wasn't my point. i was just noting it was 1000 years earlier.

First there is no way you will respect anyone who holds that Chrisitanity is true, regardless. Let's not pretend that if someone says the entire Old testmanent isn't accurate, but the New testement is 100% accurate, you would tell them you respect them for their beliefs.

i respect christians who do that more than strict OT literalists because they are at least trying to consider evidence and take a pseudo-intellectual position, rather than choosing to stay in complete denial. it's a step in the right direction, and it makes it possible to have meaningful debate. if you're just going to deny evidence exists when it's right in front of your face there's no point debating anything.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, either the whole Bible is right, or the Bible is nothing but a collection of nice stories with morals that evolved contrary to evolution.

ok but you're backing yourself into an intellectual dead end in these debates. if you believe everything in the bible must be true regardless of empirical evidence you're better off just saying that instead of pretending to be objective.

The trash you seem to expect isn't there, and you seem to assume that therefore you are giving proof that there weren't people walking the desert under the command of God for 40 years. I pointed out that the normal evidence left behind of a civilization isn't to be expected of a group who has their food and water needs met, don't have permant dwellings, their clothes don't wear, so no need for looms or raising sheep and aren't in the trade business, making a unufacturing plant unlikely. You have yet to list me the things that should have survived in the desert for 3,500 years.

even if they didn't leave a scrap of broken pottery, or worked stone or wood tools or cloth etc. and no one ever bothered to scratch a single pictograph in 40 years (which in itself is a silly premise no working archeologist would take seriously), you still need to account for the lack of any evidence of bones or burial sites of millions of people and domestic animals. also in a very slow-eroding sparsely vegetated area that many feet would have left an impact in the form of trails, flattened areas, or other abnormalities in the landscape that there would still be signs of. you're not grasping the significance of the number supposedly involved. there are plenty of contemporaneous examples that much smaller numbers of even simple nomads leave abundant signs of passage. australian aborigines are a good example.would it really ruin your faith to say the jewish priests who first wrote down the torah hundreds of years after the fact might have taken it from exaggerated oral tradition?

[vbnautilus 48]

either the whole Bible is right, or the Bible is nothing but a collection of nice stories with morals that evolved contrary to evolution. ( This is where you tell me I don't know what evolution is, without telling me what it is btw. )

This logic requires more explanation. First, why can't some things in the bible be right and some things wrong? Second, in what sense do the morals in the bible contradict evolution? In our morals discussion we presented plenty of evidence that similar morals arise whenever there are animals living in social groups. It's not even clear what this would mean -- how can a cultural idea be "contrary to evolution"?

[crowTrobot 2]

http://www.ebonmusings.org/atheism/otarch2.html

[Balloon guy 158]

That's ok, you won on the sister sex.

Think that will help with my brackets?Probably would if Cindy were still posting

[Balloon guy 158]

This logic requires more explanation. First, why can't some things in the bible be right and some things wrong? Second, in what sense do the morals in the bible contradict evolution? In our morals discussion we presented plenty of evidence that similar morals arise whenever there are animals living in social groups. It's not even clear what this would mean -- how can a cultural idea be "contrary to evolution"?

First question:the Bible claims to be the ultimate authority speaking for God, if God got one thing wrong, than how can you say that there is strength behind the authority that something else that it says is 100% correct. In other words, how can you put your eternal destiny in the hands of a book that got some things wrong? Maybe the the way to heaven was wrong as well.Second question:I think there is a problem with the line of thought that just because animals show signs of morality that that lends weight to the notion that morality evolved. The notion would infer that God only gave morality to people, and none to animals, but they ended up developing it themselves.The morality traits in animals are in the same witness stand as the morality of humans for the discussion of where it came from.There is no logical reason to say God wouldn't grant a sense of morality to animals if He in fact gave it to us humans.It would be the same as saying that since some animals have two arms, therefore that proves that man evolved two arms and they weren't created in the garden of Eden. No weight behind that logic.

[Balloon guy 158]

wasn't my point. i was just noting it was 1000 years earlier.

K

i respect christians who do that more than strict OT literalists because they are at least trying to consider evidence and take a pseudo-intellectual position, rather than choosing to stay in complete denial. it's a step in the right direction, and it makes it possible to have meaningful debate. if you're just going to deny evidence exists when it's right in front of your face there's no point debating anything.

K

ok but you're backing yourself into an intellectual dead end in these debates. if you believe everything in the bible must be true regardless of empirical evidence you're better off just saying that instead of pretending to be objective.

Or I could be saying that your empirical evidence isn't as factual as you are claiming it to be.

even if they didn't leave a scrap of broken pottery, or worked stone or wood tools or cloth etc. and no one ever bothered to scratch a single pictograph in 40 years (which in itself is a silly premise no working archeologist would take seriously), you still need to account for the lack of any evidence of bones or burial sites of millions of people and domestic animals. also in a very slow-eroding sparsely vegetated area that many feet would have left an impact in the form of trails, flattened areas, or other abnormalities in the landscape that there would still be signs of. you're not grasping the significance of the number supposedly involved. there are plenty of contemporaneous examples that much smaller numbers of even simple nomads leave abundant signs of passage. australian aborigines are a good example.

I understand your position, but you are forgetting that this was a unique situation, a people were led from place to place, fed daily, water etc, no clothes decayed and they had a purpose in their wandering that no other groups had. They also were in a desert that is a pretty harsh environment, so trails would not be something that would survive for 100 years, let alone 3,500.I am not saying your argument is foolish, I'm just saying there is enough details that make this occurance unique enough to discount the idea that this alone is enough proof to say that the Jewish people lied about his, and continued the lie for the next 5,500 years. In other words, your objection is noted, but not weighted enough to declare the case closed. Not in my mind.

would it really ruin your faith to say the jewish priests who first wrote down the torah hundreds of years after the fact might have taken it from exaggerated oral tradition?

I like the jews, if you don't then okay.Kidding, got to go with the pseudo hitler joke when you can though... I am comfortable believing that the Bible is accurate. I understand that you don't think that is acceptable for me to believe. I think the real question is why can't you allow us to believe something that you don't think is true? Doesn't hurt you. And you are actively seeking the arguments, you are the one trolling the religious sections for 4 years. It would be a valid point if I was going to a evolutionist thread and telling them why they are ll wrong and going to hell, so why isn't it valid that you are doing the reverse?

[vbnautilus 48]

First question:the Bible claims to be the ultimate authority speaking for God, if God got one thing wrong, than how can you say that there is strength behind the authority that something else that it says is 100% correct. In other words, how can you put your eternal destiny in the hands of a book that got some things wrong? Maybe the the way to heaven was wrong as well.

Well yeah for it to be some inerrant authority it has to be all right, I understand that. However, if you don't assume that to be the case, and its a book of previously oral history and legend then some of it is likely to be right while some of it will be wrong.

Second question:I think there is a problem with the line of thought that just because animals show signs of morality that that lends weight to the notion that morality evolved. The notion would infer that God only gave morality to people, and none to animals, but they ended up developing it themselves.The morality traits in animals are in the same witness stand as the morality of humans for the discussion of where it came from.There is no logical reason to say God wouldn't grant a sense of morality to animals if He in fact gave it to us humans.It would be the same as saying that since some animals have two arms, therefore that proves that man evolved two arms and they weren't created in the garden of Eden. No weight behind that logic.

I still don't see how morals are counter to evolution. I thought you were suggesting that the existence of morality is somehow incompatible with evolution.

[Balloon guy 158]

Well yeah for it to be some inerrant authority it has to be all right, I understand that. However, if you don't assume that to be the case, and its a book of previously oral history and legend then some of it is likely to be right while some of it will be wrong.

I guess I can see how some people could be comfortable with that interpretation and still be Christians.It isn't necessary for salvation to hold to the story of Jonah and the whale, that's for sure.And I don't judge people who do try to incorporate evolution into their Christian faith. Again, it's not a salvation issue, but I for one believe in the validity in the entire Bible, as it was originally written, which we have a 99.9% accurate copy of now.

I still don't see how morals are counter to evolution. I thought you were suggesting that the existence of morality is somehow incompatible with evolution.

I am, evolution is the collection of activities ranging from; random mutation of the DNA code, survival of the fittest, natural selection and adaptation to a changing environment. These combined or seperate are not compatible with morality evolving since most of them are contrary to morals, with the posible exception maybe of adaption to a changing environment, but since this is a very small motivator in the scheme of things, I don't see how it could overcome the other forces at work in evolutionary actions on living organisms.

[crowTrobot 2]

Or I could be saying that your empirical evidence isn't as factual as you are claiming it to be.

my point was that as a faith-based christian saying the bible is all or nothing, you're effectively disqualifying yourself from an objective rational debate about evidence for the historicity of any specific story. as long as there is faith involved you can and will always be able to find a way to equivocate away evidence in your own mind, even if it is objectively falsifying. a christian who accepts that parts of the OT may be allegory or myth isn't backed quite as far into an anti-intellectual corner as you are.

I understand your position, but you are forgetting that this was a unique situation, a people were led from place to place, fed daily, water etc, no clothes decayed and they had a purpose in their wandering that no other groups had.

it wasn't all that unique. even if god provided for them and made their clothes indestructable that many people still would have left garbage and had a significant impact on the environment.this is the type of anti-intellectual excuse that is pointless to debate. yeah maybe god told them to intentionally erase all evidence of their camps and of their passing as they go, and to smash all their refuse as well as the bones of millions of people and animals into powder as they died. yup he could have done that, so exodus could still be literal.

They also were in a desert that is a pretty harsh environment, so trails would not be something that would survive for 100 years, let alone 3,500.

a dryer environment is harsh to life, but dry climate tends to preserve landscape features as well as hard artifacts. water is the sore decayer (alas poor yorick! ), what causes landscapes, bones etc. to decay more quickly. much older trails used by many less people are still obvious in similar environments.

I am not saying your argument is foolish, I'm just saying there is enough details that make this occurance unique enough to discount the idea that this alone is enough proof to say that the Jewish people lied about his, and continued the lie for the next 5,500 years.

who said anything about lying? obviously mythology doesn't necessarily have to originate or purpetuate via intentional deception. you presumably don't think that islamic parents are intentionally lying to their children when they teach them that muhammad was instructed by gabriel.

I am comfortable believing that the Bible is accurate. I understand that you don't think that is acceptable for me to believe. I think the real question is why can't you allow us to believe something that you don't think is true? Doesn't hurt you.

hu? you can believe anything you want if you keep it to yourself. if someone openly states something that is an argument for the truth of their religious belief, or that challenges atheism, of course i'm gonna argue. i didn't start any of this and i almost never do.

And you are actively seeking the arguments, you are the one trolling the religious sections for 4 years. It would be a valid point if I was going to a evolutionist thread and telling them why they are ll wrong and going to hell, so why isn't it valid that you are doing the reverse?

ah, again with the mischaracterizations as a last resort. this forum isn't church, and this particular thread was not started for the purpose of christians being able to talk amongst themselves. it was started BY a troll who's only intent is to convert non-believers by posting false information, which i don't want to happen (and he inexplicably keeps bumping it even though it's having the reverse effect of what he intends). he's fair game, and i'm only re-involved in it right now is because brvheart misrepresented atheist positions. you apparently haven't noticed that on the rare occasion when believers do something like start a thread debating the specifics of christian theology or whatever i don't typically get in the way. i wouldn't call you a troll, and i'm not one either.