For Maklelan: LDS beholden to biblical claims

[_Simon Belmont]

28And the LORD opened the mouth of the ass, and she said unto Balaam, What have I done unto thee, that thou hast smitten me these three times? 29And Balaam said unto the ass, Because thou hast mocked me: I would there were a sword in mine hand, for now would I kill thee. 30And the ass said unto Balaam, Am not I thine ass, upon which thou hast ridden ever since I was thine unto this day? was I ever wont to do so unto thee? And he said, Nay.

Does Belmont ever engage brain before typing? Enough maybe to read the relevant Bible passage before opining on what it said? The story clearly tells us that the animal had a conversation with Balaam in normal human language, because the Lord had miraculously "opened the mouth of the ass".

Sometimes I have the sense that an old atheist like me knows the Bible a damn sight better than all these people who profess to think that it is the word of their deity.

To whom are you speaking? If it is me, you should address me in the first person. If it is not me, you might be afraid to address me; I understand.

Does Chap want a cracker?

Incidentally, can you please point out where, in your bolded statement above, it specifically states that a donkey spoke in the common tongue to Balaam. Saying that the Donkey said something to Balaam could mean any number of ways of communication. Was Balaam's mind opened to understand Donkey? Was the Donkey's mind opened to be able to speak in Balaam's language? We don't know, and it doesn't matter. It's a triviality.

It was right of God to cause the mauling of 42 people for making fun of somebody.

I do not pretend to understand the intentions of God, nor do I pretend to know the full story of this event. The recorder of the event could have easily only told the interesting parts.

Though this is funny, I doubt it happened like this

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pehhlAU00gQ

[_schreech]

...

holy Zeus....its like you want to cement your complete idiocy in print. I didn't think you could make yourself look more foolish but, somehow, you continue to outdo your previous, moronic posts....Congratulations, you are the biggest "believing" douche on the this site. I am sad for anyone that is forced to interact with you on a regular basis. You even make the stem look like a reasonable person.

[_Sethbag]

Incidentally, can you please point out where, in your bolded statement above, it specifically states that a donkey spoke in the common tongue to Balaam. Saying that the Donkey said something to Balaam could mean any number of ways of communication. Was Balaam's mind opened to understand Donkey?

No, because then the Bible would have said that God opened Balaam's mind. But it didn't say that. It said God opened the mouth of the donkey.

Was the Donkey's mind opened to be able to speak in Balaam's language? We don't know, and it doesn't matter. It's a triviality.

We do know, because they had a damned two-way conversation. Dude, seriously, you are the one trying to pick nits here, not us. You seem to think the Bible will come out looking slightly less retarded if you pick these nits, but you're wrong.

I do not pretend to understand the intentions of God, nor do I pretend to know the full story of this event. The recorder of the event could have easily only told the interesting parts.

Right. Because the un-interesting parts would surely have made it perfectly understandable for God to send two female bears to eat 42 children.

Though this is funny, I doubt it happened like this

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pehhlAU00gQ

Agreed, that was funny.

[_Chap]

Incidentally, can you please point out where, in your bolded statement above, it specifically states that a donkey spoke in the common tongue to Balaam. Saying that the Donkey said something to Balaam could mean any number of ways of communication. Was Balaam's mind opened to understand Donkey?

No, because then the Bible would have said that God opened Balaam's mind. But it didn't say that. It said God opened the mouth of the donkey.

Was the Donkey's mind opened to be able to speak in Balaam's language? We don't know, and it doesn't matter. It's a triviality

.

We do know, because they had a f*****g two-way conversation. Dude, seriously, you are the one trying to pick nits here, not us. You seem to think the Bible will come out looking slightly less r******* if you pick these nits, but you're wrong.

It's really kind of Sethbag to save me having to react directly to Belmont's fatuity. Opening my mind to donkey sounds like an intellectual treat in comparison.

[_sock puppet]

I wonder if the donkey's bosom burned from the influence of the HG?

[_Simon Belmont]

Zeus....its | posts....Congratulations

Just keep plugging away at that full stop button your keyboard. I know you couldn't survive without thousands of dots.

fatuity

That's a pretty big word, Chapstick. Do you know what it means?

No, because then the Bible would have said that God opened Balaam's mind. But it didn't say that. It said God opened the mouth of the donkey.

Would it have? I suppose you were there to witness this event and to make your own record of it? I open my mouth for many reasons, one of which is to speak. The other is to yawn. The other is to laugh at pseudo-intellectuals like Chap.

We do know, because they had a f*****g two-way conversation. Dude, seriously, you are the one trying to pick nits here, not us. You seem to think the Bible will come out looking slightly less r******* if you pick these nits, but you're wrong.

Please point me to the passage or verse which states that they had a two way, verbal conversation. Your problem is you weren't there. I'm saying the author interpreted the situation and wrote it down: it isn't perfect, its just an interpretation of an event.

[Guest]

Please point me to the passage or verse which states that they had a two way, verbal conversation. Your problem is you weren't there. I'm saying the author interpreted the situation and wrote it down: it isn't perfect, its just an interpretation of an event.

So in order to record a two way, verbal conversation, in addition to actually recording what each party said to the other party, you actually have to state, possibly in bold print and in ALL CAPS?

THE TWO PARTIES BELOW ARE HAVING A TWO WAY, VERBAL CONVERSATION.

Simon, your genius is so beyond that of us mere mortals not destined for godhood.

[_Sethbag]

Please point me to the passage or verse which states that they had a two way, verbal conversation. Your problem is you weren't there. I'm saying the author interpreted the situation and wrote it down: it isn't perfect, its just an interpretation of an event.

Numbers 22:28-30 dude.

I don't believe that the author interpreted a situation badly. I think it's pure mythology.

[_sock puppet]

Suppose you're Balaam. The donkey you are riding speaks, asks why you've whipped her three times. Would you speak to, answering the donkey?

What kind of a nut job was Balaam? I think most people, sane people anyway, would get the hell off of the talking donkey, look dumbfounded from a distance. Not Balaam. Balaam answers the donkey.

And then there is this: because the donkey had the audacity to ask why Balaam had struck the donkey three times, Balaam feels mocked and explains if he had a sword in his hand, he would kill the donkey. Kill the donkey for merely asking why Balaam hit the donkey? Too bad there wasn't a bear in the vicinity.

Elisha felt mocked by the little children who referred to his bald head, and 42 little children were then mauled by 2 she bears.

There seems to be a trend of disproportion here, if these two (Elisha and Balaam) were not just hot tempered nut-jobs.

[_brade]

Please point me to the passage or verse which states that they had a two way, verbal conversation. Your problem is you weren't there. I'm saying the author interpreted the situation and wrote it down: it isn't perfect, its just an interpretation of an event.

Good point. This is why we should be skeptical of every instance of somebody or something reportedly saying something and another person or thing saying something in response. For example, when Jesus reportedly spoke with the Brother of Jared, for all we know (since the text doesn't explicitly state that they had a common-sense two-way, verbal conversation) Jesus could have been making farting sounds with his mouth and the Brother of Jared could have been whistling in response. The author of the event, the Brother of Jared, simply interpreted the situation and wrote it down: it isn't perfect, it's just an interpretation of an event.