DamnYankees: Ladies and gentlemen - apologetics!

Is that supposed to be a negative comment? Because I am in fact using information to show your attacks were wrong.

kingoomieiii: Less consumed than yourself with an increasingly-irrelevant ancient superstition? That's preferable.

You didn't need to lie about going to Bible Gateway

anyway, if you want to cut paste more stuff I'll be around in an hour or so

kingoomieiii: As long as we're arguing dumb semantics, let's be honest here. You're using information to decide he's wrong.

No, I am using very clear language to show his argument is built on a wrong translation of the words.

kingoomieiii: He's saying that, in order to resolve the contradition, he's imagining context for that verse. He has decided that God, having already populated the Earth with animals, conjured one of each for Adam to name.

It's not my decision, this is literally what the text says.

DamnYankees: Not to mention there were clearly no Hebrew words for a ton of animals.

... except we know why that's the case. We have lost the names of many of those animals, there are even references to animals in the Torah where we go 'Well we lost the tradition of what it means exactly, so uh yeah just avoid eating all of them altogether)

DamnYankees: What was Adam doing if not naming these things?

Transmission of the names of all animals before the invention of writing was kind of tricky

JohnBEsq: Ok I have to ask, if Adam named all the animals why didn't everyone in the world know what a platypus or a thylacine was before Australia was explored? Even after Adam these animals were on the Ark, right?

I have already answered that at 02:13:00

DamnYankees: No, it's really not. The text says nothing at all about the animals already existing. You're making that up to fit your theory.

Yes it does, it says in Bereshis 1 that the animals were created, and then it says that G-d formed every animal in front of Adam so he would name them.

Different words, different contexts.

kingoomieiii: It's so obvious, none of the English translations over hundreds of years make it clear. That's how blatantly, comically obvious it was.

Because, guess what? We don't need the translations, because we speak the language, and the few times we translate it, we translate it correctly.

For example
http://www.chabad.org/library/bible_cdo/aid/8166/jewish/Chapter-2.htm

19. And the Lord God formed from the earth every beast of the field and every fowl of the heavens, and He brought [it] to man to see what he would call it, and whatever the man called each living thing, that was its name.

The singular is even used to show that we are talking about one of each type, and not each and every animal of that type at once.

DamnYankees: Ohhh. So animals existed without any plants for them to eat, and yet somehow they were alive.

... they were created on the same day, and then Adam prayed and then there was vegetation. I am fairly sure they could survive a good hour or two without eating and it didn't lead to mass death through starvation

DamnYankees: Then Adam named them because god thought he was lonely, and naming the animals would make him less lonely, for some reason.

No, it was in order to search for a mate, not because being busy with naming animals would make him less lonely.

then again, I am guessing that it would take a good part of your day

DamnYankees: And instead of simply showing him the already-existing animals, god decided to turn dirt into the animals, which again, were already existing.

Dude, if you can, why not?

TNel: Ahh the "we lost it" defense. I'll remember to use that the next time I get accused of something I didn't do. I'll just claim that it was lost.

... we know that the tradition for certain names of animals that are recorded in the Torah were lost. And we know the tradition to name other animals were lost altogether as well.

DamnYankees: It's actually Arabic for god, not lord. "Ilah" is the Arabic root for god. That's why the Shahadah is "la ilaha illa al-lah" - there are no gods but god. It corresponds to the Hebrew word "El", which means God.

He constantly talks about Islam, yet is constantly shown to be wrong, but that doesn't stop him.

Like he once claimed that shiates (specifically twelvers) were not so into the idea of the return of the hidden imam, and were expecting the mahdi much more. (They are one and the same.)

It's akin to saying that 'Well Xians are not so obsessed about the return of yoshke, they really want the arrival of the messiah much more!'

DamnYankees: God had Adam give a name to a monkey in order to search for a mate?

Also the platypus

Somacandra: Sorry, but I have to disagree with you.

Except that any Arabic speaker can clearly show you are wrong.

Somacandra: The corresponding meaning in Hebrew is "

No, no its not.

The name Ad-nai signifies 'Master' (for example Adon Olam, 'Master of the World').

The name Kel is right when it comes to denote a generic term for 'god', and not only to G-d Himself but also can be applied to idolatry


Seriously, how can you know so little and teach? This is scary.

DamnYankees: I don't see any reason to believe that.

There are literally no reasons to believe that.

Ad-nai is related to Master, and has a very specific context. And certainly not when used as a replacement for the 4 letter Name either.

Oh but Christians in America are the vast majority, so they can't possibly be oppressed.

/like Syrians in Syria

James!: Kids should have to wear uniforms.

What he said

Let's keep church and state (funded schools) separate. If you allow this, then you get what happened here in Gainesville. Retarded zealots burning korans and wearing Islam is of the devil t-shirts to school. Besides, fark jesus.

Tatsuma: Oh boohoo. Something on a t-shirt I disagree with!

The three most offensive things (in order) about this article:

1) The fact that someone would try to prevent him from wearing it
2) the color of the t-shirt
3) the fact he wore it every day for months (seriously?)


He has every right to wear that t-shirt, or one about Islam, or about being a Jedi, as long as there are no specific school rules that makes it forbidden to specifically wear clothes or accessories that display religious messages.

And he would have every right to take the school to court to fight those rules.

Sounds like they were considering the possibilities of it offending non-Jesusites, as well as everybody who has to smell him. But then again it is Canada so the teacher wouldn't get in trouble for hosing him down with Febreeze or Lysol spray. They should have done that instead.

"LIFE IS : WASTED! WITHOUT JESUS!"

a little punctuation improves it a lot, although Jesus feels a little left out....

Secularist: Where the frell are you???

Guy: in ur scool, trolling ur doods.

Jackson Herring: Somacandra: Its bullshiat.

The statement on his shirt, on it's face, is blatantly hostile and insulting. How is this controversial?

You are seriously offended by that kid's shirt? Hyper-sensitive much?

I can't wait until I can watch this on Fox News where they omit the part about it happening in Canada in order to blame Obama.

Taken from my Facebook post on the matter:

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms:

2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:
(a) freedom of conscience and religion;
(b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;
(c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and
(d) freedom of association.

Let the dude dress and act like a douche. If you don't like what he has to say, ignore him, if he harasses you, contact authorities.

Problem solved, try the fish.