My Goosenecks challenge.

[AV1611VET]

No. Do your own homework for once. Unless you can promise to try to be honest. I get tired of the dishonesty of certain posters here. It is time for you to do some basic research.

Then forget it.

In my opinion, if we were to be honest, you wouldn't know it.

 

[Albion]

But that is not what I am doing. I do not ridicule all of Christianity.

That's not what I said. By ridiculing a stereotype, Christianity itself is being ridiculed. A poster could take care to distinguish between the views of the Christians disagreed with and other Christians, the majority, but too often that has not been done.

 

[Noxot]

No, it is logical to conclude that different areas that lived on waterways, that tend to flood, were flooded at some time in the past. Some of those various floods would be large and stories would arise as a result of them. The "flood" of Noah has been identified. That does no good for any flood stories in the New World since they were separated from the Old World at the time that flood occurred.

So not one flood story all around the world, but various flood stories that due to the nature of floods share certain common factors.

And some areas do not even have flood myths.

But you are right about taking Genesis literally.

sure that is one logical assumption that is very plausible.

I think that there are enough unknowns and possible evidences for a huge catastrophe to have occurred in mankinds ancient past that caused powerful floods in large sections of the world. now how could that have occurred? I don't know... i'm not even saying it is true 100% but it is a possibility.

we don't know perfectly where humans were in all points in time. we can't explain everything about how humans are. hell at one point humans might have mostly lived by the sea for a long time. it would help to explain our webbed feet and lack of hair in comparison to some other apes. there have been world wide catastrophes that have occurred in the world before. no one could prove that humans used to be a mostly sea faring race. what evidences of wooden ships would be left if that occurred 15,000 years ago? just because a reboot of civilization is not a popular idea does not make it 100% false.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Then forget it.

In my opinion, if we were to be honest, you wouldn't know it.

AV, you know that that is not true. You are simply continuing to be dishonest.

 

[Subduction Zone]

That's not what I said. By ridiculing a stereotype, Christianity itself is being ridiculed. A poster could take care to distinguish between the views of the Christians disagreed with and other Christians, the majority, but too often that has not been done.

Ridiculing a stereotype is not ridiculing Christianity. By the way, I have pointed out many times to literalitsts that the majority of Christians do not share their beliefs. I have continually pointed out that it is a mistake to conflate creationism with Christianity.

You made an incorrect assumption. You were and still are wrong.

 

[Subduction Zone]

sure that is one logical assumption that is very plausible.

I think that there are enough unknowns and possible evidences for a huge catastrophe to have occurred in mankinds ancient past that caused powerful floods in large sections of the world. now how could that have occurred? I don't know... i'm not even saying it is true 100% but it is a possibility.

we don't know perfectly where humans were in all points in time. we can't explain everything about how humans are. hell at one point humans might have mostly lived by the sea for a long time. it would help to explain our webbed feet and lack of hair in comparison to some other apes. there have been world wide catastrophes that have occurred in the world before. no one could prove that humans used to be a mostly sea faring race. what evidences of wooden ships would be left if that occurred 15,000 years ago? just because a reboot of civilization is not a popular idea does not make it 100% false.

More is known about the past than you seem to realize. The flood that probably led to the Noah's Ark myth has been recognized. At no point in man's history were there only eight people, much less two. And I don't know about you, but my feet are not webbed.

 

[AV1611VET]

I get tired of the dishonesty of certain posters here.

AV, you know that that is not true. You are simply continuing to be dishonest.

I must really tire you out; and you must really like being tired.

 

[W2L]

Amen.

1 Corinthians 1:21 For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe. 22 Jews demand signs and Greeks look for wisdom, 23 but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, 24 but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. 25 For the foolishness of God is wiser than human wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than human strength.

26 6 Brothers and sisters, think of what you were when you were called. Not many of you were wise by human standards; not many were influential; not many were of noble birth. 27 But God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong. 28 God chose the lowly things of this world and the despised things—and the things that are not—to nullify the things that are, 29 so that no one may boast before him. 30 It is because of him that you are in Christ Jesus, who has become for us wisdom from God—that is, our righteousness, holiness and redemption. 31 Therefore, as it is written: “Let the one who boasts boast in the Lord.”[d]

 

[Noxot]

More is known about the past than you seem to realize. The flood that probably led to the Noah's Ark myth has been recognized. At no point in man's history were there only eight people, much less two. And I don't know about you, but my feet are not webbed.

tfw you realize not everyone has webbed feet.

opps I meant hands. lol. they are slightly webbed. but when I come to think of it, I never studied a chimps hands so don't know if they are webbed. ~shrugs~ the hair thing though, I would like to hear what others have said about it. maybe it has something to do with clothing?

there are some people saying that there is evidences of a massive* flood in north america too. of course I never invested a ton of my interest in all of this. I just see some things that slightly interest me and try to hear different people out. guess that is part of why I am here, to see if something makes sense.


p.s. 8 is the symbol for transformation. classic symbol for being born from above and for the cross of Christ.

edit:
oh yeah, how big of a flood was the possible noah flood?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I must really tire you out; and you must really like being tired.

I am here to try to help some people, unlike you.

 

[Subduction Zone]

tfw you realize not everyone has webbed feet.

opps I meant hands. lol. they are slightly webbed. but when I come to think of it, I never studied a chimps hands so don't know if they are webbed. ~shrugs~ the hair thing though, I would like to hear what others have said about it. maybe it has something to do with clothing?

Our hands are no more webbed than those of other apes.

there are some people saying that there is evidences of a massive* flood in north america too. of course I never invested a ton of my interest in all of this. I just see some things that slightly interest me and try to hear different people out. guess that is part of why I am here, to see if something makes sense.

They are wrong. There have been massive local floods, at different times. But no single flood.

p.s. 8 is the symbol for transformation. classic symbol for being born from above and for the cross of Christ.

edit:
oh yeah, how big of a flood was the possible noah flood?

The one that inspired the myth? It was large, but still local. It flooded the Tigis/Euphrates river system:

Yes, Noah's Flood May Have Happened, But Not Over the Whole Earth | NCSE

It did not come even close to threatening mankind. It did not threaten animal life with extinction either.

 

[AV1611VET]

Yes, Noah's Flood May Have Happened, But Not Over the Whole Earth | NCSE

That "scholarly" link of yours left out an important detail: where Noah lived.

I love it when some sciency article, that won't hesitate to get right down to the minutest detail, conveniently fails to address any points that would pwn itself.

The author of that article is a might smot person, in my opinion -- very educated.

 

[Subduction Zone]

That "scholarly" link of yours left out an important detail: where Noah lived.

I love it when some sciency article, that won't hesitate to get right down to the minutest detail, conveniently fails to address any points that would pwn itself.

The author of that article is a might smot person, in my opinion -- very educated.

Oh my Noah is a mythical being. There was no Noah. There was no ark. There was merely a large flood that inspired the story.

 

[AV1611VET]

There was merely a large flood that inspired the story.

And apparently inspires scientific articles today.

Articles that are just as wrong today as they were yesterday.

 

[Subduction Zone]

And apparently inspires scientific articles today.

Articles that are just as wrong today as they were yesterday.

Oh my! You have that so wrong. You are just as wrong today as you were yesterday. As is the Bible in this case.

You are merely afraid to learn why you are wrong.

 

[_-iconoclast-_]

No, you don't. If you read it literally you would believe in a global flood since it clearly states that the entire Earth was covered. You would believe that all land life except that aboard the ark died as well since the Bible clearly states that as well. You are merely reinterpreting

At that moment i believe God was only dealing with the middle east and when the Bible says all flesh died - Noahs flood. These were - imo - the descendants of Adam and Eve my dear.

The Bible says that only those who died in that flood were those of whom the Bible says ' had the breath of life '. I do not believe that God was dealing with the rest of the planet. He may have only been dealing with the descendants of Adam and Eve.

This my honest opinion my friend and you do not have to agree with it. Im not reinterpreting scripture, im giving you an alternative which you may never had heard kind sir.

If you have not read the myth then there is no point in discussing it. Countless animals on a boat, for a year, with only one small window for fresh air and removing tons of waste materials. In fact there would be tons of waste a day. But I have no doubts that you will reinterpret the myth again.

Please excuse me brother. You seem to be putting up a false argument. You are suggesting that because you cannot believe in that explaination you gave, you cannot believe noahs story at all.

You should not use phrases that you do not understand. Correcting your errors is not an "attack".


So you can see, no ad hominem. Nope, you weaken your integrity. That is why I warn you to try to stay honest.

Because I differ from you does not make me wrong and does not make me dishonest my dear.

Some of your comments have seemed as though you are attacking me ie dishonest or speaking gibberish. I prefer discussion that is less personal. I stand by what i said.

And now you contradict yourself.

Sorry for the confussion friend. My previous reply may have been clumsy. The flood was a punishment for the descendants of Adam - Sons of God - anyone in the flooded area may have perished.

My position here if wrong, does not mean noahs ark did not happen.

I believe in a local flood and do not see any problem in relation to scripture. I have referenced strongs concordance in a previous post for you to read.

Yours do not come from the Bible. Morals are both in born and societal

The same place that you get yours from

Morals are not 'born'. They have to be learnt. All human societies forbid murder, adultery, stealing and lying.

My morals are influenced by the Bible. I grew up with it and the laws of my land reflect christian ideas. I do not know about you.

My morals were taught to me by my parents, school, the church and the community i live in.

As an adult i choose to have my morals be guided by christian doctrine. I follow christian doctrine because i have had experiences with God and know Him to be true.

What moral system guides you as an adult and why do you follow it?

Our morals are constantly improving as man becomes more and more civilized

Morals never change.

Human nature does not change. What has changed is what has become possible.

What morals have been improved?

By what authority can one change a moral?

Would you consider the concept of forgiving a moral?

What is the benefit for you to do right than wrong?

Cheers hey. Look forward to polite discussion my friend

 

[_-iconoclast-_]

Are you claiming one needs to be a theist, to have good morals?

Hello friend.


I asked sub


What do you believe in?
Ie what is your belief system and where do you get your morals from


To find out where im going with this please read my post to sub my dear.

Ps
Please excuse me. Im not interested in a discussion with you atm. Please dont repsond.

Cheers

 

[Subduction Zone]

At that moment i believe God was only dealing with the middle east and when the Bible says all flesh died - Noahs flood. These were - imo - the descendants of Adam and Eve my dear.

The Bible says that only those who died in that flood were those of whom the Bible says ' had the breath of life '. I do not believe that God was dealing with the rest of the planet. He may have only been dealing with the descendants of Adam and Eve.

This my honest opinion my friend and you do not have to agree with it. Im not reinterpreting scripture, im giving you an alternative which you may never had heard kind sir.



Please excuse me brother. You seem to be putting up a false argument. You are suggesting that because you cannot believe in that explaination you gave, you cannot believe noahs story at all.





Because I differ from you does not make me wrong and does not make me dishonest my dear.

Some of your comments have seemed as though you are attacking me ie dishonest or speaking gibberish. I prefer discussion that is less personal. I stand by what i said.




Sorry for the confussion friend. My previous reply may have been clumsy. The flood was a punishment for the descendants of Adam - Sons of God - anyone in the flooded area may have perished.

My position here if wrong, does not mean noahs ark did not happen.

I believe in a local flood and do not see any problem in relation to scripture. I have referenced strongs concordance in a previous post for you to read.






Morals are not 'born'. They have to be learnt. All human societies forbid murder, adultery, stealing and lying.

My morals are influenced by the Bible. I grew up with it and the laws of my land reflect christian ideas. I do not know about you.

My morals were taught to me by my parents, school, the church and the community i live in.

As an adult i choose to have my morals be guided by christian doctrine. I follow christian doctrine because i have had experiences with God and know Him to be true.

What moral system guides you as an adult and why do you follow it?



Morals never change.

Human nature does not change. What has changed is what has become possible.

What morals have been improved?

By what authority can one change a moral?

Would you consider the concept of forgiving a moral?

What is the benefit for you to do right than wrong?

Cheers hey. Look forward to polite discussion my friend

You need to cut your posts down.

But let's get to the heart of it. You are not being honest, you know it, I know it.

Do you believe that the flood killed all people except Noah and company? Yes or no.

We can discuss your errors about morals later.

 

[_-iconoclast-_]

We can discuss your errors about morals later

In relation to morals and evolution.

Do you believe the value of the individual in an evolutionary scenerio is zero?

For example, is the population gene pool more important than the individual?

 

[Subduction Zone]

In relation to morals and evolution.

Do you believe the value of the individual in an evolutionary scenerio is zero?

For example, is the population gene pool more important than the individual?

Evolution has nothing to do with morals in that sense so your question does not even make any sense. Drop the morals from it and the answer should be obvious.

Evolution is not immoral, it is amoral. Do you understand the difference?