Absurdities in...?

[sub_zer0]

Apparently there are absurdities in books of the Bible, got any?

[Craig]

Sub, why are you starting a new thread on this issue when there's plenty of others already, and moreover, there's still discussions going on within these other threads on the issue?

[sub_zer0]

Sub, why are you starting a new thread on this issue when there's plenty of others already, and moreover, there's still discussions going on within these other threads on the issue?

Because one topic is for absurdities in Matthew, this is one for absurdities in other books.

[Art of War]

My question is why is trying to get into a discussion with him when we all know his answer is going to be?

GODDIDIT.

Seriously Sub what is your angle here? Anyone who has looked in on the creationism threads know that you are clearly incapable of any logical discussion what so ever.

[USA-1]

Naohs Ark is the most absurd. A 300 foot wooden boat would break up under it's own weight in the water. It could not keep it's shape. A loading rate of 50 per second would be needed to load the 20 million species in 7 days. Plus there is no evidence of a global flood and there is not enough water on this planet to cover the continents. The story defies all laws of nature. Noah may have lived and there might have been a local flood and he might have put his animals on a boat but the rest of the story is a fabrication.

[sub_zer0]

Naohs Ark is the most absurd. A 300 foot wooden boat would break up under it's own weight in the water. It could not keep it's shape. A loading rate of 50 per second would be needed to load the 20 million species in 7 days. Plus there is no evidence of a global flood and there is not enough water on this planet to cover the continents. The story defies all laws of nature. Noah may have lived and there might have been a local flood and he might have put his animals on a boat but the rest of the story is a fabrication.

It wouldn't break up under its own weight, there was only 16,000 - no need for water or flying creatures. There is hundreds of references to a great flood in other writings. It rained for 40 days and 40 nights, the great fountains of the deep broke up... there was plenty of water. Again this has been covered in other topics.

[USA-1]

It wouldn't break up under its own weight, there was only 16,000 - no need for water or flying creatures. There is hundreds of references to a great flood in other writings. It rained for 40 days and 40 nights, the great fountains of the deep broke up... there was plenty of water. Again this has been covered in other topics.
It was never covered factually. Scientist have found no evidence of a global flood occurring at that point in time and there is not enough water on this planet to cover the continents.Those are facts that you chose to ignore to bolster your case. Any ship builder will tell you a wooden ship that size and built with the technology of the times would break up and sink. It would almost be as big as a super tanker, but made out of wood. Use some common sense, man.

[Void Image]

It wouldn't break up under its own weight, there was only 16,000 - no need for water or flying creatures. There is hundreds of references to a great flood in other writings. It rained for 40 days and 40 nights, the great fountains of the deep broke up... there was plenty of water. Again this has been covered in other topics.

Are you completely ignoring the noah's ark arguments on other threads??

Why wouldn't water or flying creatures need a spot on the ark, the bible clearly states all living substances other than those on the ark were killed. Even if they weren't, a bird cannot fly for 150 straight days, they would need to rest and sleep. They would drown. Not to mention only a fraction of bird species eat fish, which is another topic altogether, one that has already been discussed...fish cannot survive in a world of diluted saltwater. For god's sake man, finish your arguments in their original threads before repeating your same old responses all over the forums

[Art of War]

Seriously guys just ignore it. We've covered this time and again in the creationism thread and when all logical argument breaks down he reverts to GODDIDIT. Even when I point out the paradox in God doing it, a paradox he has not yet cleared and for some odd reasons often glosses over or outright ignores.

[Kong]

Peace Bro.

[mataj]

Here's the list

http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/abs/long.htm

Note: Site is experiencing a technical trouble at the time I'm posting this

[USA-1]

Raining for fourty days and fourty nights would not result in water 5 miles deep.

[sub_zer0]

Are you completely ignoring the noah's ark arguments on other threads??

Why wouldn't water or flying creatures need a spot on the ark, the bible clearly states all living substances other than those on the ark were killed. Even if they weren't, a bird cannot fly for 150 straight days, they would need to rest and sleep. They would drown. Not to mention only a fraction of bird species eat fish, which is another topic altogether, one that has already been discussed...fish cannot survive in a world of diluted saltwater. For god's sake man, finish your arguments in their original threads before repeating your same old responses all over the forums

Well as far as water creatures:

Survival of Organisms in Freshwater and Saltwater

The Flood of Genesis 6-8 destroyed all land-dwelling, air-breathing animals except those on the Ark. What happened, however, to freshwater and saltwater creatures in the mixed waters of the Flood? There seems to be little doubt that many of them failed to survive the catastrophic effects of the Flood and became extinct. Those that survived apparently were able to tolerate the degree of mixing they encountered or were able to take advantage of special conditions existing during the Flood. Norbert Smith and Stephen Hagberg (1984, pp. 33-7) have conducted experiments to determine survival rates of freshwater and saltwater organisms in waters of varying amounts of salt and have also demonstrated that such organisms might have survived the Flood due to layering of freshwater over saltwater.

In the experiments by Smith and Hagberg, a 10-gallon aquarium was partially filled with 20 liters (somewhat more than five gallons) of artificial seawater from a commercial mix (Instant Ocean). The bottom of the aquarium was covered with crushed oyster shells and brine shrimp were added. The water was aerated and maintained at about 22-23C throughout the experiment. The saltwater fish, Blue Damsel Fish (_Abudefduf uniocellatus_) was placed in the tank. In order to reduce salinity, fresh water was added and salt water was removed, maintaining a volume of 20 liters. Salinity was constantly monitored. Observations were made on the activity and behavior of the fish and the fish were removed to a recovery tank when they showed loss of locomotor activity, as exhibited by their inability to right themselves.

To test the rate of dilution on tolerance levels, salinity was reduced at rapid, intermediate, and slow rates. In the fast rate, salinity was reduced in twenty 1.5 parts per thousand increments in two hours; in the intermediate rate, the salinity was reduced in twenty 1.5 parts per thousand increments in 20 hours, and in the slow rate, the reduction was in twenty 1.5 parts per thousand increments in 40 days. The salinity at which loss of locomotor activity was experienced (in parts per thousand) were: 0.80 +/- 0.08 for rapid dilution; 0.88 +/- 0.36 for intermediate rate of dilution, and 20.3 +/- 1.1 for slow rate of dilution. It appears that a slow rate of dilution, rather than increasing a saltwater fish's ability to adapt to dilution of salt content, actually decreases that ability. That was apparently the case with the Blue Damsel Fish which lost locomotor ability at greater dilution with a more rapid rate of dilution.

In the test of a heterogeneous Flood model (layering of freshwater over saltwater), a 55-gallon tank was filled to a depth of 20 cm with artificial seawater. The bottom was covered with crushed oyster; marine algae were added, and the mixture was aerated. A good growth of algae provided oxygen and brine shrimp were added. Marine organisms, consisting of Striped Damsel Fish, Hermit Crab, and sea slugs (Gastropods), were added. After overnight, a 16-cm layer of freshwater was placed over the seawater without mixing of the two layers. Freshwater organisms, including Mosquito Fish (_Gambusia affinis_), Goldfish (_Carassius auratus_), snails, and duckweed (_Semma sp._), were added to the freshwater layer. Although there was some increase in salinity in the freshwater layer, and decrease of salinity in the saltwater layer, all animals and plants survived the 30-day duration of the experiment. Except for occasional excursions of the Goldfish and Damsel Fish into other layers, all organisms remained in their own layer, except the Mosquito Fish. These freshwater fish moved freely throughout the aquarium, with no seeming preference for any salinity layer.

These experiments, limited though they were, indicate that at least some marine organisms can tolerate only limited dilution of salt water. It is suggested, by Smith and Hagberg, that the vast majority of marine life was destroyed by the Flood but that small, protected areas of the pre-Flood seas were overlaid with freshwater during the Flood, permitting certain marine organisms to survive the duration of the Flood.

[dittohead not!]

How about this one?

Leviticus 24:10-16 Now an Israelite woman's son, whose father was an Egyptian, went out among the people of Israel; and the Israelite woman's son and a man of Israel quarreled in the camp, and the Israelite woman's son blasphemed the Name, and cursed. And they brought him to Moses. His mother's name was Shelo'mith, the daughter of Dibri, of the tribe of Dan. And they put him in custody, till the will of the LORD should be declared to them. And the LORD said to Moses, "Bring out of the camp him who cursed; and let all who heard him lay their hands upon his head, and let all the congregation stone him. And say to the people of Israel, Whoever curses his God shall bear his sin. He who blasphemes the name of the LORD shall be put to death; all the congregation shall stone him; the sojourner as well as the native, when he blasphemes the Name, shall be put to death.

Stone him, goddam it, stone him!

Surely, you must find this absurd.

[Dangerrmouse]

Well as far as water creatures:

Survival of Organisms in Freshwater and Saltwater

The Flood of Genesis 6-8 destroyed all land-dwelling, air-breathing animals except those on the Ark. What happened, however, to freshwater and saltwater creatures in the mixed waters of the Flood? There seems to be little doubt that many of them failed to survive the catastrophic effects of the Flood and became extinct. Those that survived apparently were able to tolerate the degree of mixing they encountered or were able to take advantage of special conditions existing during the Flood. Norbert Smith and Stephen Hagberg (1984, pp. 33-7) have conducted experiments to determine survival rates of freshwater and saltwater organisms in waters of varying amounts of salt and have also demonstrated that such organisms might have survived the Flood due to layering of freshwater over saltwater.

In the experiments by Smith and Hagberg, a 10-gallon aquarium was partially filled with 20 liters (somewhat more than five gallons) of artificial seawater from a commercial mix (Instant Ocean). The bottom of the aquarium was covered with crushed oyster shells and brine shrimp were added. The water was aerated and maintained at about 22-23C throughout the experiment. The saltwater fish, Blue Damsel Fish (_Abudefduf uniocellatus_) was placed in the tank. In order to reduce salinity, fresh water was added and salt water was removed, maintaining a volume of 20 liters. Salinity was constantly monitored. Observations were made on the activity and behavior of the fish and the fish were removed to a recovery tank when they showed loss of locomotor activity, as exhibited by their inability to right themselves.

To test the rate of dilution on tolerance levels, salinity was reduced at rapid, intermediate, and slow rates. In the fast rate, salinity was reduced in twenty 1.5 parts per thousand increments in two hours; in the intermediate rate, the salinity was reduced in twenty 1.5 parts per thousand increments in 20 hours, and in the slow rate, the reduction was in twenty 1.5 parts per thousand increments in 40 days. The salinity at which loss of locomotor activity was experienced (in parts per thousand) were: 0.80 +/- 0.08 for rapid dilution; 0.88 +/- 0.36 for intermediate rate of dilution, and 20.3 +/- 1.1 for slow rate of dilution. It appears that a slow rate of dilution, rather than increasing a saltwater fish's ability to adapt to dilution of salt content, actually decreases that ability. That was apparently the case with the Blue Damsel Fish which lost locomotor ability at greater dilution with a more rapid rate of dilution.

In the test of a heterogeneous Flood model (layering of freshwater over saltwater), a 55-gallon tank was filled to a depth of 20 cm with artificial seawater. The bottom was covered with crushed oyster; marine algae were added, and the mixture was aerated. A good growth of algae provided oxygen and brine shrimp were added. Marine organisms, consisting of Striped Damsel Fish, Hermit Crab, and sea slugs (Gastropods), were added. After overnight, a 16-cm layer of freshwater was placed over the seawater without mixing of the two layers. Freshwater organisms, including Mosquito Fish (_Gambusia affinis_), Goldfish (_Carassius auratus_), snails, and duckweed (_Semma sp._), were added to the freshwater layer. Although there was some increase in salinity in the freshwater layer, and decrease of salinity in the saltwater layer, all animals and plants survived the 30-day duration of the experiment. Except for occasional excursions of the Goldfish and Damsel Fish into other layers, all organisms remained in their own layer, except the Mosquito Fish. These freshwater fish moved freely throughout the aquarium, with no seeming preference for any salinity layer.

These experiments, limited though they were, indicate that at least some marine organisms can tolerate only limited dilution of salt water. It is suggested, by Smith and Hagberg, that the vast majority of marine life was destroyed by the Flood but that small, protected areas of the pre-Flood seas were overlaid with freshwater during the Flood, permitting certain marine organisms to survive the duration of the Flood.

This is deception.
It ignores so many parameters, such as mixing from oceanic currents, let alone "the fountains of the deep", the "experiment" lasting less than one fifth of the alleged duration of the flood, the incredible pressure increase from the 5 mile depth increase, any and all of which invalidate the specious "results" produced.
Barometric pressure at one mile below sea level is one ton per square inch. How many fish can withstand that?

[sub_zer0]

How about this one?

Stone him, goddam it, stone him!

Surely, you must find this absurd.

No not at all.

[dittohead not!]

No not at all.

So, you actually would support stoning as a punishment for blasphemy? :eek:

[sub_zer0]

So, you actually would support stoning as a punishment for blasphemy? :eek:

For those times, yes. It was commanded from God.

[JoeR]

What a barbaric god.

[sub_zer0]

What a barbaric god.

John 3:16 KJV: "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life."

I think God knows what is best for a given time.

[JoeR]

He hits me because he loves me.

[Art of War]

This is deception.
It ignores so many parameters, such as mixing from oceanic currents, let alone "the fountains of the deep", the "experiment" lasting less than one fifth of the alleged duration of the flood, the incredible pressure increase from the 5 mile depth increase, any and all of which invalidate the specious "results" produced.
Barometric pressure at one mile below sea level is one ton per square inch. How many fish can withstand that?

I just have a few things to add.

The scientist or scientists responsible for that report were either completely lacking in scientific ethics and/or really bad scientists. This experiment is possibly the worst experiment ever produced since Aristotle made the claim that heavy object fall faster than lighter objects on pure speculation. Not only does the experiment ignore all of the above statements but ocean life is far, far, far more diverse than represented in this experiment. Not to mention the fish which can not survive in open water. The fact that reefs can not migrate and not survive very well outside of the specific tropical waters they inhabit would lead to a complete destruction of every reef system. Being that they take hundreds of years to develop there is no way for the fish to migrate to new habitats thus the destruction of every reef dependant liform on the face of the planet.

Sub this is exactly why no credible scientists buys in to the creationist theory. It is simply built upon bad science such as this. How can you justify using this example? Seriously? How can you ethically present this information as proof? Do you bother to critically look at the information you are posting or do you just believe it on the basis of authority?

[sub_zer0]

The above neverr concluded that this is how it happened. It is merely something to think about. Calm down for petes sake.

[Art of War]

The above neverr concluded that this is how it happened. It is merely something to think about. Calm down for petes sake.

You are presenting this information as a factual scientific study. Providing real conclusions supporting the possibility that there was a global flood. Time and again you attempt to pass off information as scientifically accurate which has no basis in science what so ever. I will continue to call out your BS until you admit its BS. I will also continue to maintain that it is unethical for you to maintain that creationism is scietifically plausible because none of what you have presented is not scietifically sound and it represents a lack of an ethical debate stance.

Your use of the information is a clear attempt to scientifically refute the assertation that the flood would cause worldwide oceanic extinction.

[sub_zer0]

You are presenting this information as a factual scientific study. Providing real conclusions supporting the possibility that there was a global flood. Time and again you attempt to pass off information as scientifically accurate which has no basis in science what so ever. I will continue to call out your BS until you admit its BS. I will also continue to maintain that it is unethical for you to maintain that creationism is scietifically plausible because none of what you have presented is not scietifically sound and it represents a lack of an ethical debate stance.

Your use of the information is a clear attempt to scientifically refute the assertation that the flood would cause worldwide oceanic extinction.

What they did is scientifically accurate from what they tested!

[Art of War]

What they did is scientifically accurate from what they tested!

Yes the conclusion can be that some fish can survive at varrying levels of salinity for an as yet undetermined period of time in a strictly controlled lab environment that in no way represents the real world. You cited this information as evidence to prove that marine life could survive the flood. The experiement is based on horrible science and I am calling it out as such.

When presenting evidence it is your duty to assess the credibility and the accuracy of the given evidence. Your presentation of this evidence as an argument for the flood asserts one of three things. The first would imply you do not have any understanding of science or the scientific process (in which case you have no buisness trying to present scientific studies in which you do not understand). The second would involve you not bothering to assess any of your sources before you present them. With the third beingthat you knowingly present flimsy information in the hopes that no one will catch on. Or maybe some combination of all three. These instances represent a deviation from serious ethical debate. Not to mention the abandonment of logic.

This all begs the question; why do you continue to do this? You obviously are not attempting to engage any of us in a sort of logical debate because when you get backed into a corner you revert to 'GODIDIT'. You also repeatedly cite quasi scientific research when it supports your position but when others present you with scientific research you disregard it because 'that isn't the way the bible tells it'. That is all well and good but do not try to get involved in a debate in which seeks an intelligent exchange of ideas. Your posts come down to preaching so do not attempt to incorporate science into them. From now on stick with 'GODDIDIT' and leave it at that because that is all you have. However, I would suggest caution, no one here is interested in being preached to. The purpose of this forum is for intelligent and ethical debates on religion and philosophy. Your posts do not inspire rational discussion, they inspire lopsided arguments that end with you reaching beyond the parameters of logical thought.

Of course this is all in reference to your literal translation of the Bible. If you want to debate the meaning of scripture by all means go for it. However, given the infallible God argument (which you still have yet to counter logically) science can always be brought into those debates. My suggestion is that you move on from the scientifically unfeasable to the matters of the spiritual. Argue the philosophy of Christ, morals and stuff. Leave the science to those who really know science.

[mataj]

John 3:16 KJV: "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life."Another barbaric and senseless act. He cloned Himself only to sacrifice Himself to Himself in order to save us from Himself.

[Craig]

What they did is scientifically accurate from what they tested!

Sub Zer0, you've admitted yourself that you're not a scientist. So how can you make the assertion that what they did was scientifically accurate if you don't even know what qualifies as scientific accuracy?

Moreover, the experiment itself can be inherently flawed, even if the findings are consistent and accurate within the context of one another. Again, let's use symbols:

If A and B then C

Suppose we find that yes, based upon the experiment the scientists did, if A and B are true, then C follows as a result. In other words, the conclusion that some organisms might survive may well be the result of the experiment that these men did. But what if "If A and B then C" is inherently flawed? To put it in other terms, it could be that the experiment is inconsistent with reality, as Dangerrmouse pointed out, then it cannot be scientifically accurate.

To give you another example, suppose I did an vicious experiment where I tied up 10 Christians at random, then placed them in front of a speeding bullet train in a subway with less than 20 seconds to escape when no one else was around. During that time, I fervently prayed to God to intervene on the person's behalf and save their life. As a result of my experiment, all 10 Christians are killed, and I conclude that because of this, God cannot exist. Would you accept my conclusion? Of course not, because my experiment itself was fundamentally flawed! And even if people did agree with my conclusion, that God must not exist, one could still attack my experiment as being flawed.

That's the point Sub_zer0; we can't say the experiment is scientifically accurate just because it worked in terms of what people were testing for. If what people are testing for is fundamentally flawed, then the experiment does not have scientific validity.

[dittohead not!]

In response to:

So, you actually would support stoning as a punishment for blasphemy?

For those times, yes. It was commanded from God.

I see. So that rule applied to Biblical times, but no longer. Is the same true of other commandments as well?

[USA-1]

John 3:16 KJV: "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life."

I think God knows what is best for a given time.

So God only wants the gullible sheep that believe in him to have everlasting life by his side and the free thinkers will all go to hell. Yeah, that's a good God you believe in there. Totally illogical that a just and loving God would have such a major ego problem.

[USA-1]

For those times, yes. It was commanded from God.
Free Will? What about free will? A God that commands his followers to commit a crime is not following the prime directive of free will. Another contradiction.

[sub_zer0]

Free Will? What about free will? A God that commands his followers to commit a crime is not following the prime directive of free will. Another contradiction.

It was commanded by God for them to obey Him. Just like it was commanded of Adam and Eve. They didn't do it, doesn't mean that God is making them do it - or taking away free will. God is just telling them how to live for Him.

[USA-1]

It was commanded by God for them to obey Him. Just like it was commanded of Adam and Eve. They didn't do it, doesn't mean that God is making them do it - or taking away free will. God is just telling them how to live for Him.
A command from God does not let one use his own free will. The story of Adam and Eve is just a fairy tale told to children for thousands of years. Some adults actually believe it, but it is just a story. You may know a lot about the Bible, but you know nothing about God. The Bible was written by mortal men not by God.

[sub_zer0]

A command from God does not let one use his own free will. The story of Adam and Eve is just a fairy tale told to children for thousands of years. Some adults actually believe it, but it is just a story. You may know a lot about the Bible, but you know nothing about God. The Bible was written by mortal men not by God.

Wrong.

[USA-1]

Wrong.
And the earth is 5000 years old?

[dittohead not!]

I'm still confused as to which commandments were made only to people in Biblical times, and which apply today. We already know that the commandment to stone people for blasphemy only applied to Biblical times.

Take this one for example:

Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth:

Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;

Does that mean that if my great grandfather worshipped idols, god will punish me, or did that just apply to the people during Moses' time? :confused:

[heel31ok]

And the earth is 5000 years old?
closer to 6000 yrs old!

[::Major_Baker::]

closer to 6000 yrs old!
bathe in your ignorance.

[dittohead not!]

Wrong.

Now, there's a brilliant reparte.

Say, sub, you still haven't told us which commandments were meant for people during Biblical times and which apply to us. I'm still worried about my great grandfather and whether he might have worshipped idols.

[heel31ok]

I'm still confused as to which commandments were made only to people in Biblical times, and which apply today. We already know that the commandment to stone people for blasphemy only applied to Biblical times.

Take this one for example:



Does that mean that if my great grandfather worshipped idols, god will punish me, or did that just apply to the people during Moses' time? :confused:
It is called a generational curse.alot of people do not realize that sin and "iniquity" is not just bad actions it is like a disease that can be spread.When sin came into the earth it infected all creation in the realm of man's dominion.


God is a jealous God because he knows He is the true God and to worship another would be a lie. he also knows what that will do as far as spreading to you and your children etc. It is a disease and He is warning of it. It still applies today. No God will not punish you the spread of your G'Fathers's actions will punish you. You are thinking that this punishment is put on you by God and it is not fair to punish you for someone elses actions. This from God is a warning of what happens when things like this are done.He is letting you know how this kind of thing works. The punishment and results are already built in to the action not a separate action by God because of the previous action. Like a communicable disease it is spread .this is why God says do not do these things. Not to satisfy a great ego like some would say.

[Strel]

It is called a generational curse.alot of people do not realize that sin and "iniquity" is not just bad actions it is like a disease that can be spread.When sin came into the earth it infected all creation in the realm of man's dominion.

Funny, I thought it was called "original sin".

God is a jealous God because he knows He is the true God and to worship another would be a lie. he also knows what that will do as far as spreading to you and your children etc. It is a disease and He is warning of it. It still applies today. No God will not punish you the spread of your G'Fathers's actions will punish you. You are thinking that this punishment is put on you by God and it is not fair to punish you for someone elses actions. This from God is a warning of what happens when things like this are done.He is letting you know how this kind of thing works. The punishment and results are already built in to the action not a separate action by God because of the previous action. Like a communicable disease it is spread .this is why God says do not do these things. Not to satisfy a great ego like some would say.

I have always found it interesting that God would grant man free will, and then punish him for exercising it. :lol: Doesn't make a whole hell of a lot of sense, but mythology doesn't have to in order to make a good story.

[Bad Penny]

I have always found it interesting that God would grant man free will, and then punish him for exercising it. :lol: Doesn't make a whole hell of a lot of sense, but mythology doesn't have to in order to make a good story.

I find it interesting that a blogsite junkie was sent here to speak for god (as if, well, you know.)

Hey Heel, who does god say he wants to win the Superbowl?

[heel31ok]

Yes the conclusion can be that some fish can survive at varrying levels of salinity for an as yet undetermined period of time in a strictly controlled lab environment that in no way represents the real world. You cited this information as evidence to prove that marine life could survive the flood. The experiement is based on horrible science and I am calling it out as such.

When presenting evidence it is your duty to assess the credibility and the accuracy of the given evidence. Your presentation of this evidence as an argument for the flood asserts one of three things. The first would imply you do not have any understanding of science or the scientific process (in which case you have no buisness trying to present scientific studies in which you do not understand). The second would involve you not bothering to assess any of your sources before you present them. With the third beingthat you knowingly present flimsy information in the hopes that no one will catch on. Or maybe some combination of all three. These instances represent a deviation from serious ethical debate. Not to mention the abandonment of logic.

This all begs the question; why do you continue to do this? You obviously are not attempting to engage any of us in a sort of logical debate because when you get backed into a corner you revert to 'GODIDIT'. You also repeatedly cite quasi scientific research when it supports your position but when others present you with scientific research you disregard it because 'that isn't the way the bible tells it'. That is all well and good but do not try to get involved in a debate in which seeks an intelligent exchange of ideas. Your posts come down to preaching so do not attempt to incorporate science into them. From now on stick with 'GODDIDIT' and leave it at that because that is all you have. However, I would suggest caution, no one here is interested in being preached to. The purpose of this forum is for intelligent and ethical debates on religion and philosophy. Your posts do not inspire rational discussion, they inspire lopsided arguments that end with you reaching beyond the parameters of logical thought.

Of course this is all in reference to your literal translation of the Bible. If you want to debate the meaning of scripture by all means go for it. However, given the infallible God argument (which you still have yet to counter logically) science can always be brought into those debates. My suggestion is that you move on from the scientifically unfeasable to the matters of the spiritual. Argue the philosophy of Christ, morals and stuff. Leave the science to those who really know science.
if all we have is Goddidit then we are way ahead game. Because in the end that is all that will matter. What is meant for evil will turn out for our good. I want to see one day someone stand up and argue with God and try to give all the "science" that proves He is wrong.He is the author of Science and all the laws have been established buy him.Man has no idea how little they know and how much there is to know. That is the rub because many cannot accept that and think all the answers here now and they are not.

[heel31ok]

I find it interesting that a blogsite junkie was sent here to speak for god (as if, well, you know.)

Hey Heel, who does god say he wants to win the Superbowl?I suggest you ask Him yourself. But I suspect that if he came down from heaven and told you Himself...(well you know)

[heel31ok]

Funny, I thought it was called "original sin".



I have always found it interesting that God would grant man free will, and then punish him for exercising it. :lol: Doesn't make a whole hell of a lot of sense, but mythology doesn't have to in order to make a good story.



It is not funny at all.The answer was to a specific situation and question.

As Far as free will, I find it interesting that so called intelligent people think that free will means any choice is the right one.Free will does not take away right and wrong it only gives the choice of right and wrong.god odes not punish people for the wrong choice, the wrong choice punishes them. The wrong choice started this in the first place. Now like then people try to shift the blame to God.

[dittohead not!]

It is called a generational curse.alot of people do not realize that sin and "iniquity" is not just bad actions it is like a disease that can be spread.When sin came into the earth it infected all creation in the realm of man's dominion.


God is a jealous God because he knows He is the true God and to worship another would be a lie. he also knows what that will do as far as spreading to you and your children etc. It is a disease and He is warning of it. It still applies today. No God will not punish you the spread of your G'Fathers's actions will punish you. You are thinking that this punishment is put on you by God and it is not fair to punish you for someone elses actions. This from God is a warning of what happens when things like this are done.He is letting you know how this kind of thing works. The punishment and results are already built in to the action not a separate action by God because of the previous action. Like a communicable disease it is spread .this is why God says do not do these things. Not to satisfy a great ego like some would say.

So, how do I know if I've caught a case of Idolatry from my great grandfather?

And.. how do I know which commandments apply today? I'm really relieved that I don't have to go out and stone someone for blasphemy.

[Bad Penny]

I suggest you ask Him yourself. But I suspect that if he came down from heaven and told you Himself...(well you know)

Hey, that was pretty good. :lol: :lol:

[heel31ok]

So, how do I know if I've caught a case of Idolatry from my great grandfather?

And.. how do I know which commandments apply today? I'm really relieved that I don't have to go out and stone someone for blasphemy.
what ever sins so easily beset your gfather and father and so on flow down to you. This is not a commandment that goes away or is to be followed it is a law of sin and death.The stoning was the commandment. The generational curse is the result of the actions. To break a generational curse sin itself has to be done away with.You know you caught it if you have his blood flowing through you.


As far as commandments and the Law go when Jesus died on the Cross he fulfilled all the requirements and punishments of the Law. Those that accept this sacrificfrom the Law and answer to God himself with Christ as the advocate for them. This is not to say that you can do what you want right or wrong but it speaks to the fact that the Law no longer can require the said punishmnets because it no longer has any hold on you. Now it would be the relationship you have with God that determines what happens and what you do.So you go from a relationship with the Law to a relationship with God and the Law no longer has a say over you.

[Strel]

It is not funny at all.The answer was to a specific situation and question.

As Far as free will, I find it interesting that so called intelligent people think that free will means any choice is the right one.

And just who holds this position? Who are these people? Do they really exist? Has anyone here advocated this position?

Free will does not take away right and wrong it only gives the choice of right and wrong.god odes not punish people for the wrong choice, the wrong choice punishes them. The wrong choice started this in the first place. Now like then people try to shift the blame to God.

The problem is, only a fool can think they can prescribe what is right and what is wrong in any given situation. What is a sin on Monday might be the right thing to do on Tuesday, where the circumstances are different. Morality is necessarily situational and never absolute. This is not the same thing as saying that all choices are valid, but it is a more realistic view of the Universe.

And who is more moral, the one who refrains from sin out of hope of heaven or fear of hell, or the one who refrains because of the harm it might to others, or to themselves? All Christians know the correct answer to this question, but few are honest enough to answer it truthfully.

[Strel]

This sin/original sin is just a marketing ploy anyway. Standard procedure:

Create a crisis, problem, or inconvenience. Then create the cure for this problem. Maintain a monopoly on the cure.

Marketing.

[sub_zer0]

This sin/original sin is just a marketing ploy anyway. Standard procedure:

Create a crisis, problem, or inconvenience. Then create the cure for this problem. Maintain a monopoly on the cure.

Marketing.

You fool, its salvation.

[Strel]

You fool, its salvation.


That is precisely what I mean.

Create something to be saved from, then provide the salvation. Marketing.

[sub_zer0]

That is precisely what I mean.

Create something to be saved from, then provide the salvation. Marketing.

No, salvation was before marketing. Marketing is mirroring salvation. Not to mention man made themselves the need to be saved. God created us perfect, we used free will to disobey, thus having to be saved.

[USA-1]

No, salvation was before marketing. Marketing is mirroring salvation. Not to mention man made themselves the need to be saved. God created us perfect, we used free will to disobey, thus having to be saved.
God did not create us perfect. If he had we would not have sinned no matter what.. Maybe he shouln't have given us free will. Would have saved him a lot of trouble.

[Dangerrmouse]

Create them flawed, then demand thanks for saving them from the flaws....great ego massager.

[Strel]

No, salvation was before marketing. Marketing is mirroring salvation. Not to mention man made themselves the need to be saved. God created us perfect, we used free will to disobey, thus having to be saved.


Hey I have a used Chevelle in my back yard. Would you like to buy it? Only $50,000. It's a steal. Go ahead, buy it on faith.


In order to scare people into believing, it was necessary for the early Christian chruch to create something from which everyone had to be saved (and then they alone provide the salvation). They made themselves necessary to those dim enough to believe - they burned the rest at the stake. Don't think we have forgotten.

[Bad Penny]

In order to scare people into believing, it was necessary for the early Christian chruch to create something from which everyone had to be saved (and then they alone provide the salvation). They made themselves necessary to those dim enough to believe - they burned the rest at the stake. Don't think we have forgotten.

I wonder if they have any idea how much damage they caused the human gene pool?

[Strel]

I wonder if they have any idea how much damage they caused the human gene pool?


Look around. It's obvious, isn't it?

[Bad Penny]

Look around. It's obvious, isn't it?

You said it. I didn't. :rolleyes:

[heel31ok]

And just who holds this position? Who are these people? Do they really exist? Has anyone here advocated this position?



The problem is, only a fool can think they can prescribe what is right and what is wrong in any given situation. What is a sin on Monday might be the right thing to do on Tuesday, where the circumstances are different. Morality is necessarily situational and never absolute. This is not the same thing as saying that all choices are valid, but it is a more realistic view of the Universe.

And who is more moral, the one who refrains from sin out of hope of heaven or fear of hell, or the one who refrains because of the harm it might to others, or to themselves? All Christians know the correct answer to this question, but few are honest enough to answer it truthfully.
Yes a fool and that is why morality cannot come from within ourselves but has to come from someone greater outside ourselves .god as the creator can and does prescibe what is right and wrong and that is the major problem . many do not want to be told how to act. A fool yes.The changing morality argument is true to the extent that we as people do not have an absolute within but it does come from God. And those who say there are no absolutes are the ones denying God. Therefore in these arguments it is apples and oranges.That is why my comments are within the context of God giving absolutes.

Who holds this position? Well my response was due directly to this position.Little kids use your argument when they have none of there on . When? what? where? Yeah just act like it does not exist!

the refraininf fromsin may occur because of what you say but for the most part Christians refrain from sin because of their love for God not the fear of Hell . After a man is born again a fear of hell is hardly a real factor since that issue has been dealt with.Morality is from the heart and is motivated by love . Love for God, Love for your neighbor and Love for yourself.

[Strel]

Yes a fool and that is why morality cannot come from within ourselves but has to come from someone greater outside ourselves

Why not? This is what they want you to believe.

.god as the creator can and does prescibe what is right and wrong and that is the major problem . many do not want to be told how to act. A fool yes.The changing morality argument is true to the extent that we as people do not have an absolute within but it does come from God. And those who say there are no absolutes are the ones denying God. Therefore in these arguments it is apples and oranges.That is why my comments are within the context of God giving absolutes.

Who holds this position? Well my response was due directly to this position.Little kids use your argument when they have none of there on . When? what? where? Yeah just act like it does not exist!

the refraininf fromsin may occur because of what you say but for the most part Christians refrain from sin because of their love for God not the fear of Hell . After a man is born again a fear of hell is hardly a real factor since that issue has been dealt with.Morality is from the heart and is motivated by love . Love for God, Love for your neighbor and Love for yourself.

Who said morality doesn't exist? We create morality, just as we created God.

[USA-1]

The someone greater outside ourselves where we get most of our morality is our mother or father.