Warb doesn't even seem to know what Devil's advocacy is. I play it now and then, everyone does it's a legitimate tool of rhetoric but to just bleat that everything I say lacks legitimacy because I sometimes try to get readers to see beyond the tramlines is like saying everything Warb says is legitimate because he wears glasses and is therefore studious and therefore wise.

But I guess I'm calling Warb unwise now, seeing as saying something is like something that isn't being stated is now the same as hinting something which is clearly not the case though denied with such intense vigour it gives one pause for thought even though it isn't bad as long as you don't act out the thing which isn't being stated???

After all love the not sinner not the totally unfounded and yet somehow hinted sin right?

BTW I 'resurrected' the debate because I was away due to the Santanic Winter Fest 2013. Santa Claus, Melek Taus, Saturn and Satan all being the same figure as Wotan/Odin/Shani.

I have no problem with you saying you don't understand things but try and think things through before you say it.

If you believe the Bible to be literally true from cover to cover you have to square that with the parallel stories that often predate those found between those covers.

The epic of Gilgamesh has the Eden story but with a twist and it's older than than the King James version of the Genesis version of the story. You can argue that ancient Mesopotamia despite having the oldest written version is wrong but the 1611 British version is closer to the truth because God is pointing you that way or you can say the later version is an alteration of the older version.

You can blame it on the made up Devil or God or just the clumsiness of Men.

But you have to square it somehow like the Dinosaurs have to be squared for the Creationists.