Mittens Says 47% Americans He Wont Worry About

[redandguilty]

Also, I thought Adam and Eve had other children.

 

[tsmith7559]

Also, I thought Adam and Eve had other children.

Genesis 5:4 that "...he (Adam) became father to sons and daughters." Notice the plural "sons" and "daughters." Since Adam lived for 930 years, he reasonably could have fathered many, many children.

 

[Thumb]

Genesis 5:4 that "...he (Adam) became father to sons and daughters." Notice the plural "sons" and "daughters." Since Adam lived for 930 years, he reasonably could have fathered many, many children.

Haha, historical record.

 

[Thumb]

Genesis 5:4 that "...he (Adam) became father to sons and daughters." Notice the plural "sons" and "daughters." Since Adam lived for 930 years, he reasonably could have fathered many, many children.

Many many children all directly related to each other. :clap:

 

[tsmith7559]

Many many children all directly related to each other. :clap:

I guess you didnt pay attention in catechism

 

[tinselwolverine]

Many many children all directly related to each other. :clap:

Maybe that's why humankind is so fucked up - because of our incestuous roots.

 

[Michchamp]

LOL... he lived 900+ years. How come people don't live that long anymore?

also, how come god never shows up anymore to smite armies and cast plagues and such? it's almost like he doesn't exist...

 

[Thumb]

Maybe that's why humankind is so fucked up - because of our incestuous roots.

You may be on to something Tinsel. Maybe humans today are some kind of retarded mutation, a by-product of 6000 years of inbreeding. Maybe were supposed to be Chimpanzees after all?

If Chimpanzees inbred from a single line of DNA (Eve was created from Adam's rib and dirt, and since dust contains no DNA, it all came from Adam's rib) after 6000 years maybe they would be like us?

Maybe this evolution thing is all wrong? :shrug:

 

[KAWDUP]

You guys arguing the reality of the Old Testament crack me up. In case it wasn't clear the most important part of the Old Testament was the covenant God made with Abraham. Do I have to expound on our part that one? Ten Commandments ring a bell? The literal word of the Old Testament is extremely hard to accept as absolute truth. Ask any minister or priest.

Keep in mind there are some parts that are most definitely historical. Book of Kings, maybe the Book of Numbers, and a number of others, but are we really supposed to take an eye for an eye? Hard time buying that one, when Jesus was always so merciful.

The New Testament however is a completely different story. Let's talk about the events there. For instance, why don't you believe in miracles - if you believe the talk about saints and sainthood, they even happen today? What other stories are you grousing about? Christians get most of their religious tenets from the New Testament.

What is our part of God's covenant with Christians based in the New Testament? Love God above all else, and love thy neighbor as thy self?

Arguing whethere there was any incest among Abrahma's children? Pretty pointless.

BTW - anyone know how religious groups reconcile population growth and the Adam and Eve story? Is it possible that the people in the story represent groups of people? Is it further possible that there were groups of people ouside of Adam and Eve that existed in the world, just not part of the "Garden of Eden" and God's first?

Oh the horrors. Blasphemer!

Give it up - neither of you is convincing the other. Further I'm not convincing either of you, and my argument is way more convincing than either of yours.

 

[Thumb]

You guys arguing the reality of the Old Testament crack me up. In case it wasn't clear the most important part of the Old Testament was the covenant God made with Abraham. Do I have to expound on our part that one? Ten Commandments ring a bell? The literal word of the Old Testament is extremely hard to accept as absolute truth. Ask any minister or priest.

Keep in mind there are some parts that are most definitely historical. Book of Kings, maybe the Book of Numbers, and a number of others, but are we really supposed to take an eye for an eye? Hard time buying that one, when Jesus was always so merciful.

The New Testament however is a completely different story. Let's talk about the events there. For instance, why don't you believe in miracles - if you believe the talk about saints and sainthood, they even happen today? What other stories are you grousing about? Christians get most of their religious tenets from the New Testament.

What is our part of God's covenant with Christians based in the New Testament? Love God above all else, and love thy neighbor as thy self?

Arguing whethere there was any incest among Abrahma's children? Pretty pointless.

BTW - anyone know how religious groups reconcile population growth and the Adam and Eve story? Is it possible that the people in the story represent groups of people? Is it further possible that there were groups of people ouside of Adam and Eve that existed in the world, just not part of the "Garden of Eden" and God's first?

Oh the horrors. Blasphemer!

Give it up - neither of you is convincing the other. Further I'm not convincing either of you, and my argument is way more convincing than either of yours.

 

[KAWDUP]

No reason. Just seems pointless, but then much of that book I wrote is also. So that would indicate that I have become that which I loathe. Oops?

Sitting in a hotel room with nothing on TV and needing to get up real early for work, so I can't really go out and I'm a bit grumpy about it, sorry.

 

[Thumb]

No reason. Just seems pointless, but then much of that book I wrote is also. So that would indicate that I have become that which I loathe. Oops?

Sitting in a hotel room with nothing on TV and needing to get up real early for work, so I can't really go out and I'm a bit grumpy about it, sorry.

The problem is there is no real argument going on.

Nobody is trying to convince anybody of anything. It was a bit of dry humor and sarcastic comments.

It's par for the course around here.

 

[zoombabyzoom]

I dont even follow politics, but is Romney trying to lose?

 

[tinselwolverine]

I dont even follow politics, but is Romney trying to lose?

What does this have to do with evolution, Genesis, the Garden of Eden, and Adam living for over 900 years?

 

[Michchamp]

...

The New Testament however is a completely different story. Let's talk about the events there. For instance, why don't you believe in miracles - if you believe the talk about saints and sainthood, they even happen today? What other stories are you grousing about? Christians get most of their religious tenets from the New Testament.

...

I don't believe the talk about saints and sainthood either.

 

[Mitchrapp]

I dont even follow politics, but is Romney trying to lose?

Don't follow the crowd, bro. Don't be a puppet.

 

[Thumb]

I dont even follow politics, but is Romney trying to lose?

Since you're asking a serious question, I'll give you my interpretation of a serious answer:

No, Romney is not trying to lose, but I also don't think he's getting the help he probably should. I think many in the GOP want to see another 4 years of Obama and in some ways are purposely torpedoing his chances. After all, you have to wonder how he wound up with Paul Ryan as a running mate. It's like the odd couple...

I think the GOP wants Romney to crash and burn so they can then blame the next 4 years not only on Obama, but the Dems in the congress, and then they can try for a clean sweep in 2016 putting up far more electable people like Christy, Jeb, Rubio, or even Pawlenty.

Just my $.02

 

[Mitchrapp]

Since you're asking a serious question, I'll give you my interpretation of a serious answer:

No, Romney is not trying to lose, but I also don't think he's getting the help he probably should. I think many in the GOP want to see another 4 years of Obama and in some ways are purposely torpedoing his chances. After all, you have to wonder how he wound up with Paul Ryan as a running mate. It's like the odd couple...

I think the GOP wants Romney to crash and burn so they can then blame the next 4 years not only on Obama, but the Dems in the congress, and then they can try for a clean sweep in 2016 putting up far more electable people like Christy, Jeb, Rubio, or even Pawlenty.

Just my $.02

I think that's stretching it by about lot more than $,02. Do you believe that is what the Dems did in '04? Or is this something only the right side would do, lol.

 

[Mitchrapp]

Thumb, you crazy.

 

[Thumb]

I think that's stretching it by about lot more than $,02. Do you believe that is what the Dems did in '04? Or is this something only the right side would do, lol.

Dems didn't have to, they already had control of congress.

And Kerry was close, you realize the electorate count on '04 was 286 - 251? That's the electoral equivalent of a cunt hair

But seriously, the tea-party bunch are not big Romney fans, either are the southern repubs who wanted Noot.