Discussion in 'Religion and Ethics' started by rtwngAvngr, Jun 1, 2006.
Your definition of "reason" is "agrees with RWA's viewpoint"
Just being honest. The fact that I'm merely mocking his "sources" doesn't take away from the fact that others have attempted to actually engage him in debate.
Not at all. Reason would be some proof that the talmudic endtimes model is not as I assert.
And they we're roundly beaten, and then they screwed up all the discussions to hide their embarrassing defeat.
Just out of curiousity, but when was the last time someone proved you wrong, in your opinion?
You're delusional avenger persona is severely affecting your perceptions.
Hardly. You flooded the thread and refused to read any criticisms.
Heh! He annoyed me. I forgot! lol...
What were the opposing arguments?
That the EEEEEEEEEEEEEEvil conspiracy is all in your head. But anytime anyone suggested it you immediately went "oh so noachide laws don't exist?" I guess it's easy for you to win all your debates when you summarily misrepresent what people are saying. No one is disagreeing that noachide and whatever else exists. Its your pattern of connecting the dots everyone has a problem with.
I don't know much about the Noachide laws, but this is the gist of the covenant with Noah as described in Genesis:
Never again would God destroy the entire earth with a flood.
As long as the earth endures, the seasons and days will continue in naturall succession. This was a one-sided covenant, given by God to reward Noah's faithfulness.
Other natural rules established at the time were: Animals would possess fear of mankind, mankind was now allowed to eat the animals as well as plants, people must not eat creatures which are still alive, and God reinforced the idea that murder is evil.
God blessed the people and the animals with the ability to be "fruitful," to bear progeny enough to "fill the earth."
Any law outside of these ideas should not be imputed to scripture, at least as it pertains to Noah.
Separate names with a comma.