My Enoch Challenge

[[serious]]

Produce evidence that verifies this:

Genesis 5:24 And Enoch walked with God: and he was not; for God took him.

... or admit that there are things God did that didn't generate any.

Depending on the mechanism of "taking" there could be a variety of evidences:
1. decrease in mass of the planet (unless specifically covered up) causing changes to orbital period of the moon
2. a loud bang from the sudden creation of a vacuum where enoch used to be
3. scorch marks on the ground (if the chariot of fire method was used for this one as well.

 

[pgp_protector]

Nah, you were turned away long ago. What's the fine print in your avatar?

Ya know Google has this cool feature called Google Image search, --> http://images.google.com You should try it, about 5 seconds to get the info from the avatar image.

 

[Davian]

Nah, you were turned away long ago.

How smug of you to assert that. I would say that in my transition from apatheism to ignosticism I did go through several threads here as a lurker, and marvelled at the confidence of one particular poster, who happens to be the OP of this thread. I always carry some doubt about my convictions, personally and professionally, and I thought this would be a good place to come to sort those personal doubts out, but I did not have the confidence at the time.

Later, I followed dad's same-state-nonsense challenge here, and signed up.

So I have to say your assertion is wrong - I did hold my breath on many of those exchanges here on this board, thinking that there may have been something of significance that I had overlooked.

So far, it does not appear so.

What's the fine print in your avatar?

While I am a huge fan of Google Images, it may not work in this case as I cut it down a bit in the process of avataring it.

I am surprised that you did not pick up on the reference. Chuck Norris, the last time I checked, is a creationist.

 

[pgp_protector]

While I am a huge fan of Google Images, it may not work in this case as I cut it down a bit in the process of avataring it.

I am surprised that you did not pick up on the reference. Chuck Norris, the last time I checked, is a creationist.

Actually it picked it up just fine
It's often fun to use it on custom avatars I've seen.

 

[Illuminaughty]

I heard the adepts of Atlantis had such submarines as well. Powered by vrill capacitor crystals. Like Noah they learned how to build them from three eyed crab clawed aliens from Sirius.

 

[Davian]

I heard the adepts of Atlantis had such submarines as well. Powered by vrill capacitor crystals. Like Noah they learned how to build them from three eyed crab clawed aliens from Sirius.

Cool.

I was at the Atlantis aquarium last year, in the Bahamas, and they had the Atlantian submarines and diving suits on display.

Atlantis Bahamas photos by The Theme Park Guy

 

[Tiberius]

Wut? Enoch wrote the Hunt for Red October!

???

 

[razeontherock]

Depending on the mechanism of "taking" there could be a variety of evidences:
1. decrease in mass of the planet (unless specifically covered up) causing changes to orbital period of the moon
2. a loud bang from the sudden creation of a vacuum where enoch used to be
3. scorch marks on the ground (if the chariot of fire method was used for this one as well.

Fire, thunder, and the moon's orbit changes! Creativity points, seriously

 

[razeontherock]

How smug of you to assert that. I would say that in my transition from apatheism to ignosticism

None of that is anything but already "turned away." Do you know what the Greek word metanoia is about? Have you ever read up on it? It proves my point. Knowing something =/= being smug.

I did go through several threads here as a lurker, and marvelled at the confidence of one particular poster

Later, I followed dad's same-state-nonsense challenge here, and signed up.

I did hold my breath on many of those exchanges here on this board, thinking that there may have been something of significance that I had overlooked.

So far, it does not appear so.

You do realize none of those things have anything to do with Christianity, right?

While I am a huge fan of Google Images, it may not work in this case as I cut it down a bit in the process of avataring it.

I am surprised that you did not pick up on the reference. Chuck Norris, the last time I checked, is a creationist.

Thanks. I had no idea Chucky was a Cr, nor do I have any idea what one is supposed to do with google images.

 

[razeontherock]

I heard the adepts of Atlantis had such submarines as well. Powered by vrill capacitor crystals.

That's why they died off then. They were too sinful to use dilithium crystals

 

[razeontherock]

???

It's a joke man

 

[Tiberius]

It's a joke man

Yeah, and I don't get it. Is it meant to be funny? Or on the topic?

 

[razeontherock]

Yeah, and I don't get it. Is it meant to be funny? Or on the topic?

It was perfectly in context, in that part of the thread. As for being on topic, what evidence did Red October leave behind, that could be hinted for?

 

[Tiberius]

It was perfectly in context, in that part of the thread. As for being on topic, what evidence did Red October leave behind, that could be hinted for?

It left behind Captain Marko Ramius, a novel and a movie.

Oh wait. It didn't leave any of those, because ficticious things don't leave any evidence.

What evidence was left for the destruction of the Death Star?

 

[razeontherock]

Nice deflection. What evidence does a submarine leave behind?

 

[Davian]

None of that is anything but already "turned away." Do you know what the Greek word metanoia is about? Have you ever read up on it? It proves my point. Knowing something =/= being smug.

Perhaps 'smug' is not the right word. What word should one use to describe confidently asserting what other people are thinking while being wrong about it?

You do realize none of those things have anything to do with Christianity, right?

How could I agree or disagree with such a vague objection? However, guessing at what you mean from a presuppositional approach such as yours, I agree that those particular comments were not directed at Christianity, but at its underlying premise; Christianity is only a religion.

 

[razeontherock]

Perhaps 'smug' is not the right word. What word should one use to describe confidently asserting what other people are thinking while being wrong about it?

I have no idea what you're thinking, nor have I ever pretended otherwise.

How could I agree or disagree with such a vague objection?

That wasn't vague, but perfectly explicit. Everything you expressed as "turning you away," has nothing to do with Christianity.

However, guessing at what you mean from a presuppositional approach such as yours

Nothing could be further from my approach. Which means you're either being intentionally dishonest, or what you said above is mere projection.

I agree that those particular comments were not directed at Christianity, but at its underlying premise

That makes no sense, and it amounts to



Which you have every right to do. I just don't think it's a very good basis for making decisions, that's all.

 

[Davian]

I have no idea what you're thinking, nor have I ever pretended otherwise.

Except where you tell me when I was 'turned away'.

That wasn't vague, but perfectly explicit. Everything you expressed as "turning you away," has nothing to do with Christianity.

No it was not clear, but I agreed in this case.

Nothing could be further from my approach. Which means you're either being intentionally dishonest, or what you said above is mere projection.

False dichotomy. There are other options.

That makes no sense, and it amounts to



Which you have every right to do.

Perhaps my statement would make more sense if you did not edit it to alter its intent. Now who is not listening?

I just don't think it's a very good basis for making decisions, that's all.

I do listen carefully, but it seems that there are some that bail out of a thread just as it gets interesting.

 

[Illuminaughty]

The Atlantian crystal- vrill subs haven't left any evidence behind.

 

[razeontherock]

Except where you tell me when I was 'turned away'.

No; turning away is not a question of what you're thinking, but is a matter of the heart. And you are the last person to know what might be in your own heart ... not knowing G-d, you have no valid feedback as to your own heart's condition re: G-d. Whereas the things you state, I have wrestled with myself, and expect I will again.

False dichotomy. There are other options.

I was thinking that to myself even as I wrote it. I'm glad this occurred to you, and hope one of those (near infinite, no doubt) options was indeed the case.

Perhaps my statement would make more sense if you did not edit it to alter its intent. Now who is not listening?

If you feel that is what I did, I would love to see that demonstrated. It annoys me no end when someone just quotes an entire long post, to only comment on one idea, or worse yet, gives a QFT or something. I'm usually very diligent to make sure I don't alter intent, but maybe lately I've slipped? The feedback would be appreciated ...