Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Because your challenge questions are no different than asking hypothetical questions about the Starship Enterprise.If my challenge questions go unanswered, why should I even think people can determine the motive of the myth [sic], let alone their ability to ascertain what it accomplishes?
And what if one started a thread like this one, only to get answers that boil down to: "It's a myth"?Yet scientologists are very sincere in there beliefs.
But we also wounder why you even asked the questions knowing that there isn’t any logical answer to the fundamental claims of the flood story? From the implied accusation that God regretted his preveous creative acts, erased mankind only to end up with the same circumstances that he sought to change? If the story isn’t rediculous enough to a common reading on its own merits, the consequences for the concept of omnipotence are catistrophic.And what if one started a thread like this one, only to get answers that boil down to: "It's a myth"?
Would they be justified in thinking: "In other words, you can't answer the questions, so you'll just ridicule the challenge and leave me wondering why you even replied"?
So we're just supposed to sit idly by and smile at those who steamroll through Genesis with their academic knowledge and not challenge them with good thought-provoking questions?Because your challenge questions are no different than asking hypothetical questions about the Starship Enterprise.
And what are those "authoritative claims"?The flood story is about the proud “chosen people” appropriating ancient Mesopotamian lore in order to establish their own authoritative claims.
Then give me theological ones -- just so I know you know what it is you're harping against.But we also wounder why you even asked the questions knowing that there isn’t any logical answer to the fundamental claims of the flood story?
And what if one started a thread like this one, only to get answers that boil down to: "It's a myth"?
Would they be justified in thinking: "In other words, you can't answer the questions, so you'll just ridicule the challenge and leave me wondering why you even replied"?
I can answer all seven with ease: giving specific answers and backing each one up with a Scripture reference.
All you guys can do is take thecowardlyeasy way out and call it a "myth."
Homework's a drag, isn't it?
Actual evidence can sit PENDING until you show me you know what the evidence is supposed to pwn.But not with actual evidence.
Actual evidence can sit PENDING until you show me you know what the evidence is supposed to pwn.
And you've just given me an idea for another challenge thread -- thanks!
When what (specifically) is tested?The biblical flood story makes testable predictions.
When tested, the predictions fail.
When what (specifically) is tested?
By academia's own admission:
[pic] Then A Miracle Occurs [/pic]
But the way it's worded creates a dead-end conversation.Those two are already enough to consider the story utterly debunked.
- it predicts a universal genetic bottleneck in all living things (which does not exist)
- it predicts a universal genetic bottleneck should have occurred in all living things (which did not occur)
But the way it's worded creates a dead-end conversation.
Here's how you worded it:
Now let's reword it:
See the difference?
Now the conversation can progress:
Why didn't it occur?
did something (or Someone) intervene?
As the caption goes: "We need to be more specific in Step Two."
Superstitious claims can’t be validated in the logical world by appealing to still more scriptural claims.Then give me theological ones -- just so I know you know what it is you're harping against.
I can answer all seven with ease: giving specific answers and backing each one up with a Scripture reference.
All you guys can do is take thecowardlyeasy way out and call it a "myth."
Homework's a drag, isn't it?
The motives of the authors of the myth can be implied by the outcomes of the flood. It is basically their propaganda. God is powerful. God is willing to be cruel, i.e. killing innocent babies and children. God is benevolent (saves animals). God makes a covenant with all human beings (Genesis 9) and does not punish people for breaking it, e.g.We can determine the motive of the myth of the flood by considering what it accomplishes.
Let us start with:I can answer all seven with ease: giving specific answers and backing each one up with a Scripture reference.
Would it be too much to ask RealityCheck to give us RealityCheck's answers?Or anything else people's imaginations can force into the gaps in the Ark story?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?