paarsurrey wrote:The wrong concepts mentioned in Torah or first five books of OT do not mention truthful teachings given by the Creator God to Moses; these are writings of scribes not writings of Moses in original.

Moses is not responsible for the wrongs in Judaism or for the wrongs in Jews.

I defend Moses not Judaism.

You don't know much about Judaism do you. Most Jews don't believe the Torah to be perfect, or 'given by the Creator God to Moses'. Most Jews see the texts for what they are, old religious documents which tell tales and are not to be taken literally. Even the existence of God isn't a central belief tenet in Judaism. (You can be an atheist Jew).

paarsurrey wrote:I defend Moses not Judaism.

No. You don't defend anything.

You make shit up.

paarsurrey wrote:There are many distorted teachings in Torah which Moses did not say or practice;

On what basis do you say this?

How the fuck do you know what Moses said or did?

paarsurrey wrote:

BlackBart wrote:

paarsurrey wrote:

BlackBart wrote:

Ok. Where does this 'Creator God' thing you keep mentioning come from?

The Creator God does not have to "come" from anywhere.

What evidence do you have to support this assertion?

I think it were you who used the word "come" for the Creator God. I made no such "assertion".

You just asserted that "The Creator God does not have to "come" from anywhere".

paarsurrey wrote:

Nebogipfel wrote:

paarsurrey wrote:The wrong concepts mentioned in Torah or first five books of OT do not mention truthful teachings given by the Creator God to Moses; these are writings of scribes not writings of Moses in original.

Moses is not responsible for the wrongs in Judaism or for the wrongs in Jews.

I defend Moses not Judaism.

Yes, please;what is on your mind? Please

I think you'd be better off arguing this in a Jewish forum. They might actually care. Few people here think that Moses got any teachings at all from the Creator God, let alone whether they were truthful or not.

MrFungus420 wrote:

paarsurrey wrote:

BlackBart wrote:

paarsurrey wrote:

The Creator God does not have to "come" from anywhere.

What evidence do you have to support this assertion?

I think it were you who used the word "come" for the Creator God. I made no such "assertion".

You just asserted that "The Creator God does not have to "come" from anywhere".

The Creator God is not physical;; He is attributive; so He is always there; He does not have to come or go anywhere.

I've often thought that supernatural is a synonym for non-existent

paarsurrey wrote:

BlackBart wrote:

paarsurrey wrote:

Bribase wrote:Sigh.

Almost 2 years on this forum and you still don't understand what a proper argument is supposed to entail.

I couldn't be more bored of the worthless nonsense that you trot out of an evening.

You are welcome to discuss; if you have anything in your mind on the topic.

Thanks

Ok. Where does this 'Creator God' thing you keep mentioning come from?

The Creator God does not have to "come" from anywhere.

Why not? Why does your creator god get a free pass?

paarsurrey wrote:

MrFungus420 wrote:

paarsurrey wrote:

BlackBart wrote:


What evidence do you have to support this assertion?

I think it were you who used the word "come" for the Creator God. I made no such "assertion".

You just asserted that "The Creator God does not have to "come" from anywhere".

The Creator God is not physica;; He is attributive; so He is always there; He does not have to come or go anywhere.

So what?

You asserted that "The Creator God does not have to "come" from anywhere".

When asked to support that assertion, you said that you didn't make an assertion.

I pointed out your assertion.

Your reply here has absolutely nothing to do with it. It is a meaningless reply.

So, what evidence to you have to support your assertion that "The Creator God does not have to "come" from anywhere"?

paarsurrey wrote:
The Creator God is not physica;;

So you assert.

paarsurrey wrote:He is attributive;

What does that even mean?!

paarsurrey wrote:so He is always there; He does not have to come or go anywhere.

And how does that possibly follow?!
__________________________________

Nebogipfel wrote:I've often thought that supernatural is a synonym for non-existent

Me too. Or more aptly that all of these concepts "Supernatural, immaterial,..." avoids the question of what this God thingy is by only claiming what it is not:
God is; Not-natural, not-material - um okay so that is some things that God isn't (probably not-jello either ), what is he/she/it then?!