Jump to content
Goodbye Jesus

Need Support


starlyte777

Recommended Posts

Guest Valk0010

Christian video's like the baffle with bullshit so don't feel bad if your incredibly confused.

 

If there is anything particularly hard for you to understand, post it here.

 

Erwin Lutzer vs Rob Sherman............was 2 parts.....he totally did NOT debunk Christianity............he talks in rounds............why can''t he just debunk the Christian belief............i need to know that

 

I doubt they got a good atheist. Honestly. I got about one minute into rob sherman's speech and thought, wow this guy is a moron.

 

In fact here is proof of that. At about 7:45, he says "Does god exist? No." I suspect you might here that said jokingly amount atheists, but even people like christopher hitchens have pointed out that, you can't disprove the idea of god. You can say however based of the evidence there is no reason to believe one exists.

 

Most atheists would take that latter position. There is no evidence to believe one exists. That is the difference between what is called, strong atheism and weak atheism.

 

It seems to me, the Sherman guy was grabbed as fodder for Lutzer.

 

So why can't he. I would venture a guess that the guy is a moron considering how he treated his opening speech.

 

I couldn't get past the first 10 minutes because of how stupid the atheist was. The christian there should have a field day.

 

If you want a really good one with people on equal footing to watch with your husband

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Christian video's like the baffle with bullshit so don't feel bad if your incredibly confused.

 

If there is anything particularly hard for you to understand, post it here.

 

Erwin Lutzer vs Rob Sherman............was 2 parts.....he totally did NOT debunk Christianity............he talks in rounds............why can''t he just debunk the Christian belief............i need to know that

 

I doubt they got a good atheist. Honestly. I got about one minute into rob sherman's speech and thought, wow this guy is a moron.

 

In fact here is proof of that. At about 7:45, he says "Does god exist? No." I suspect you might here that said jokingly amount atheists, but even people like christopher hitchens have pointed out that, you can't disprove the idea of god. You can say however based of the evidence there is no reason to believe one exists.

 

Most atheists would take that latter position. There is no evidence to believe one exists. That is the difference between what is called, strong atheism and weak atheism.

 

It seems to me, the Sherman guy was grabbed as fodder for Lutzer.

 

So why can't he. I would venture a guess that the guy is a moron considering how he treated his opening speech.

 

I couldn't get past the first 10 minutes because of how stupid the atheist was. The christian there should have a field day.

 

If you want a really good one with people on equal footing to watch with your husband

 

 

watched it ty

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What does your bullshit detector tell you Star? That the universe was made by a magic invisible sky fairy that loves the smell of burning goat flesh an is only pacified by bloody sacrifices be they human or animal, and this character flooded the whole earth and sent 1/3 of himself to quell the wrath of another 1/3 of himself, or that we don't yet know what the initial first cause was, but that we have no evidence it was this mythical deity, so until science eventually proves what reality really "is", we just remain honest and skeptical and say that while we don't know, we'll just continue to follow the hard evidence where it leads?

 

Edit: that was extremely rambling. Hope you can make sense of it.

 

If it walks like a myth, talks like a myth, and looks like a myth....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And.......the other people whom I thought received miracles.......were so very real at the time.........on man had a lump on his shoulder, he was a carpenter......could not raise his arm above his head......my sister brought him to me.......i prayed for him......with my hand on the lump........it WENT DOWN UNDER MY HAND...........he raised his arm above his head...........i obviosuly thot he was healed............weeks later my sister said he was still working as a carpenter and no signs of the lump came back........but, have no idea how he is today..........I guess i'm just a fool..........Patty, xx

 

You're not a fool at all. Have you heard of the placebo effect? It is a real phenomenon and no one really has an explanation for it. When new drugs are tested the early tests involve the actual drug being tested against an inert substance or placebo. Take something like a new medication which is hoped to reduce a person's blood pressure. The study subjects are divided into two groups, one group to receive the active drug and the other to receive placebo. The doctor administering the active drug or placebo does not know whether he/she is administering the active drug or placebo to a particular patient and none of the patients know whether they are receiving the active drug or placebo. During the period of the testing, blood pressure levels are measured for both groups as are adverse reactions. Invariably, lower blood pressures are recorded for a certain percentage of patients administered placebo and some of the patients administered placebo will also have "adverse reactions." It is only if enough testing demonstrates lower blood pressures in more patients administered the active drug than those administered placebo that there is a case to be made that the active drug has a real and demonstrable ability to lower blood pressure.

 

The point is that it is consistently demonstrated that there is something about some percentage of human beings that will cause a desired effect when there is no physical reason for that effect. That is called the placebo effect. And, contrary to what some people may think, it is not because the person who experiences the placebo effect is weak minded or anything like that. It is an unexplained phenomenon, but a real one nonetheless. I think that at least in some cases, when a person like the gentleman whose lump went down as a result of your prayer, that prayer causes the placebo effect. But that effect has nothing to do with god. Rather, it has to do with being a human being.

 

OK.......so..........I am a placebo manipulator......a placebo pray-er.......or just a big placebo.........hmmmmmmm........I get your point.....ty....Patty, xx

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Have no idea what "PM me" means..........sounds kinky, but probably isn't smile.png I guess another techy thing sad.png

 

Click on his name or picture and then click "send me a message." When he replies you will see a number on the envelope for you to click on at the top right of the page.

 

ty True Freedom............I so wish I could just sink into a deep weel full of love and acceptance......and TRUTH.........then someone comes along and lets the " bucket" down...........and I rise up knowing everything......I beg GOD to forgive me........or.....I don't........because he isn't real......and all the "other" answers aret there..........it doesn't happen like that...........most of you have read dozens of books.........even if I could buy them........my attention span wouldn't allow me to read them........so I rely on the videos you send me............and the personal testimonies I read.......and yet...........i sooooooo want there to be a GOD.......that loves me........and will take me to heaven........and NOT send me to HELL.....and he rightly should............because I am not the perfect, or even a good example of what a true Christian is............so, where do I go from here...........have watched many many videos......something I CAN DO...........and sometimes I feel the person makes more of a case for Christianiaty.......aka GOD.......than the atheistic side...........I don't know what to ask my hubby to listen to......because nothing is clear cut in my mind...........there are good arguments on both sides..........if Gen 1 and 3 disagree, then Isiah makes it clear? Or if incest was necessary to populate the earth, but is debunked now..........didn't HE know that would happen? I mean, seriously! He had to know where the NEW kids would come from........was that ok then and not now? And after Noah.......the ark fiasco, which mcdaddy was akin to the Babylonian flood? NEver heard of that........why has no atheist that I've heard so far, not brough that up? If is's a myth......then why not JUMP ON IT!!

I don't know why Christian "debaters" don't go after the atheists claims........or why the atheists don't attack obvious claims of the Christian depator......maybe neither one of them know the truth........maybe we all believe what we need or want to believe......mayve there are NO ABSOLUTE answers......I have yet to find in my limited search this far.

 

I have had many doubts, which I have said in this forum......yet, I have doubts about those doubts.....I think way too much, and I know this........I ponder things with only myself to talk to......and I'm not a reliable person to talk to........so I go around and around until exhausted. Then I do the Christian version of unthinkable...........I drink too much wine.......so now I'm damned......except for Grace which may or may not be true.......or.......if I choose not to believe in a god, then I just go ahead........try not to feel guilty........and PRAY..........yes, pray.........that I haven't damaged myself in the process of delusion and the unwillingness to face facts........whatever they are.

 

Firstly, I'm sorry to my kids who brought me to all of you wonderful people! I hope I haven't disgraced myself in your eyes. To all of you who have responded so generously, I can't thank you enough. To think people take time out of their lives to "talk" to someone they don't even know.......well, that's above and beyond human kindness. I do that to other people.......but, have no idea why anyone would do that for me.......self-esteem issues? Maybe...just not something I'm used to. I give.......I don't receive well, but am trying to get better about it.

 

Enough about me.......ok here come some questions........Noah and the Ark.......he took babies of the species on the Ark.............the Creation story...Gen 1 and 3......seem to oppose each other.......and then Isiah.....the recount of Gen.........

 

Paul......and he is was.............really...........

 

Jesus buried in a tomb reserved for Royalty........really?

 

the rock moved........and women saw him..........and then men...........who the hell were those men? Did they really see him? Or, was that just made up? And if it was, by whom and why?

 

I realize these are primary questions; for beginners in the faith...........and yet, they hold water to an extent.........i have no idea how you all will answer this.......but, send me videos, as that's the only thing I can do without upsetting my hubby.......

 

But, I also realize that some of the videos your sent already addressed some of this...........so don't feel bad not to respond again.......

 

Ok........he's home soon so will check emails tomorrow.......hope I haven't offended anyone by my bantering.......esp my kids.........luv ya xxxx Patty.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Valk0010

This is not meant to be a self plug, but you might find it interesting.

 

http://www.ex-christ...ty-for-college/

 

I wrote that for school about a month after I deconverted and I ended up going into alot of what made me deconvert in the first place.

 

I doubt the tomb story is real, there is to much wrong with it for me to see it as anything other then legend. So that sort of puts hole in the story.

 

As far as explaining how they developed a belief in the resurrection. Considering how much the 12 disciples acted like a cult, I would think they took a failed cult leader and turned it around in there heads to be there savior. Mostly cause they had committed everything they had and then some to the cause. That between legend like the tomb and possibly maybe private hallucinatory experiences ala seeing just recently dead loved ones, I think would explain it.

 

Also secondly, based of the accounts i have a hard time believing that jesus appeared in some 100 percent physical form. Now what exactly it was I can't say since I don't know enough about the texts but, if it was originally apart of the story that he appeared exactly as recounted in the gospels. The stories play out bizarrely totally.

 

Plenty of people have tried to harmonize contradictions. Usually they take the most absurd way of viewing the text as long as they avoid the painful contradiction. Its dishonest.

 

The ark couldn't of happened, because the ship would have been most likely too big to float. And also by the time he would have been done the wood he had started with would have started to rot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Enough about me.......ok here come some questions........Noah and the Ark.......he took babies of the species on the Ark.............the Creation story...Gen 1 and 3......seem to oppose each other.......and then Isiah.....the recount of Gen.........

 

Paul......and he is was.............really...........

 

Jesus buried in a tomb reserved for Royalty........really?

 

the rock moved........and women saw him..........and then men...........who the hell were those men? Did they really see him? Or, was that just made up? And if it was, by whom and why?

 

I realize these are primary questions; for beginners in the faith...........and yet, they hold water to an extent.........i have no idea how you all will answer this.......but, send me videos, as that's the only thing I can do without upsetting my hubby.......

 

 

I think this is the better approach rather that wrestling with whether god exists or not. And what these questions point to is the veracity of what the Bible says. I think it is far more productive to look at what the Bible claims to be true to see just how authoritative that book really is.

 

For now, I will only address the flood story (your first question). As I have time and if you want me to, I'll address the other issues as I find time.

 

Concerning the flood story, you asked:

 

Noah and the Ark.......he took babies of the species on the Ark

 

Presumably, you specifically asked about Noah taking babies on the ark because perhaps you have heard some apologist or the other trying to get around the enormous problem of how does one fit all the species on one ship (ark) and feed and care for all those species. I imagine this or these apologist(s) thought that perhaps if they were babies, then the room needed would be less as would be the requirement for food storage.

 

The Bible does not specify the age of the animals. But even if Noah only took babies, that does not solve the problems. At least for a large number of species, like the various mammals, those brought on the ark could not be so young that they are still feeding on their mother's milk because otherwise one would need both a mother and at least one male offspring.

 

So let's assume that, at least for mammals, Noah brought one male and one female who are weaned from their mother's milk and otherwise capable of eating their natural food. Still focusing only on mammals, according to this website, there are 5,416 species of mammals known to exist on Earth as of 2005.

 

http://www.nhm.org/s.../mammalogy/faqs

 

Some of those species live in the water like whales, porpoises, etc., and so presumably they could survive the flood without having to be brought on the ark. According to Wikipedia, there are 128 species of marine mammals.

 

http://en.wikipedia....i/Marine_mammal

 

Let's be generous and say that all 128 species could survive the flood (which is doubtful for such creatures as walruses and seals). But still, let's be generous and say all 128 species of marine mammals would not need to seek refuge on the ark. 5,416 (number of mammalian species) - 128 (number of marine mammals) = 5,288. Therefore, there were 5,288 species of mammals that would have to be brought onto the ark, fed, and cared for for the duration of the flood and some period of time thereafter until the earth returned to normal to allow these animals to care for themselves. That means that Noah had to have 10,576 mammals on his ark (5,288 x 2).

 

The first problem is how do you get all these mammals to the middle east where Noah's ark supposedly was? Remember, there are mammals that live exclusively on certain continents. For example, there would have to be two North American Bisons, two polar bears, two koalas from Australia and the list goes on and on.

 

The next problem is just how big would the ark have to be to hold these 10,576 mammals? Frankly, I don't know, but common sense tells us that it would have to be absolutely enormous. Perhaps something the size of a modern aircraft carrier might do. But remember, we are just dealing with mammals for now because we haven't even considered the various species of birds, reptiles, etc.

 

Then there is the problem of storing food for these 10,576 mammals. How would one store meat for the meat eaters since there was no refrigeration. Or perhaps there were live animals brought onboard to feed the meat eaters so the presevation of the meat would not be an issue. But then that requires more space for more animals to serve as food and each of those animals would also have to be fed and cared for, thus compounding the problems.

 

There is also the problem of those mammals who have a highly specialized diet. Let's take just one example of this problem - the koala. The koala eats only leaves from just a few varieties of eucalyptus trees. They are known to be extremely picky eaters and that makes them very difficult for zoos to care for them. This creates a major problem for Noah. He must have these specific leaves to feed his two koalas. Where did he get them and how could he store them so they are fresh (they can't be dried leaves either).

 

http://www.koala-bea.../diet-food.html

 

Perhaps rather than somehow getting eucalyptus leaves and being faced with the problem of keeping them fresh, he brought live eucalyptus trees onboard the ark for them. But then he has the problem of obtaining those trees and keeping them healthy and storing them.

 

In addition to every other problem facing poor Noah, he must keep the living space for these 10,576 mammals clean and sanitary so the animals do not get sick and die. Just how much work would that take for only eight people who were supposedly on the ark? Common sense tells us it would take far more than only eight people to do that. Think of zoos and how many people it takes to keep the relatively few animals who live in the zoo alive and healthy. Eight people wouldn't come close.

 

I have limited this discussion only to mammals. When we add in the various birds, reptiles, amphibians and others, the problems I outlined above become impossible!!

 

Perhaps one could say that god performed various miracles. He miraculously transported koalas from Australia to the middle east, he miraculously provided for food storage, he miraculously kept the ark clean to avoid diseases, and on and on. If we take this approach, we have so many miracles that we are forced to ask one simple question. Why wouldn't god simplify the task by miraculously preserving the species without the need for an ark at all or, after the flood, simply engage in a second creation?

 

It takes thinking through the story of Noah and the flood to realize that it could not have happened the way it is set out in the Bible and suggesting that these unsurmountable problems were overcome by having only babies, does not come even close. And I have not even mentioned the lack of geologic evidence for a worldwide flood and a host of other problems with the story.

 

I hope this discussion helps.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mom, don't be silly! There's nothing you could ever do to "disgrace" us. You are struggling and questioning and there is no shame in that. Our only hope for you is for you to find peace and for you to love yourself enough to do what's best for YOU. That's what you deserve. We love you bunches! crazy-monkey-emoticon-003.gif

 

Thanks again to all of you for being a friend to mom and addressing her questions. You guys are so awesome.

 

We're here for ya, Mom!

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Excellent points about the flood, OvercameFaith.

 

I would also add the issue of dealing with all the animals' waste. The ark would've been a huge manure manufacturing facility, and the work involved in shoveling, moving and discarding it all would've been insurmountable.

 

Beyond that, there are internal contradictions in the Bible's account of the flood.

 

Like OvercameFaith said, it simply could not have happened the way the Bible says it did.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

DDUUUHHH.

 

God used his 'Honey I Shrunk the Animals' laser beam to shrink em all to the size of atoms.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderator

DDUUUHHH.

 

God used his 'Honey I Shrunk the Animals' laser beam to shrink em all to the size of atoms.

 

And then he put them into suspended animation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

DDUUUHHH.

 

God used his 'Honey I Shrunk the Animals' laser beam to shrink em all to the size of atoms.

Excellent points about the flood, OvercameFaith.

 

I would also add the issue of dealing with all the animals' waste. The ark would've been a huge manure manufacturing facility, and the work involved in shoveling, moving and discarding it all would've been insurmountable.

 

Beyond that, there are internal contradictions in the Bible's account of the flood.

 

Like OvercameFaith said, it simply could not have happened the way the Bible says it did.

 

I realize that being problematic, as well. What internal contradictions exactly? Just the size of the Ark being totally toooooo small? R there more C's?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

DDUUUHHH.

 

God used his 'Honey I Shrunk the Animals' laser beam to shrink em all to the size of atoms.

Excellent points about the flood, OvercameFaith.

 

I would also add the issue of dealing with all the animals' waste. The ark would've been a huge manure manufacturing facility, and the work involved in shoveling, moving and discarding it all would've been insurmountable.

 

Beyond that, there are internal contradictions in the Bible's account of the flood.

 

Like OvercameFaith said, it simply could not have happened the way the Bible says it did.

 

I realize that being problematic, as well. What internal contradictions exactly? Just the size of the Ark being totally toooooo small? R there more C's?

 

Yes, "McDaddy".........my questions are primary questions and don't deserve a reply, although yall have sent some, I thank you for that. And, yes, "Honey I shrunk the animals" makes me feel totally stupid.....not that I didn't already...........so yes, it probably IS A DUHHHHH.........as am I.......ty

Link to comment
Share on other sites

my questions are primary questions and don't deserve a reply, although yall have sent some, I thank you for that. And, yes, "Honey I shrunk the animals" makes me feel totally stupid.....not that I didn't already...........so yes, it probably IS A DUHHHHH.........as am I.......ty

 

You are not stupid. No one who is stupid asks such good questions as you have asked. Intelligence is not always measured by answers given, but often by the questions asked. Your questions are intelligent ones. And, frankly, primary questions are often the best of all because they go to the heart of the matter - as yours have!!

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

my questions are primary questions and don't deserve a reply, although yall have sent some, I thank you for that. And, yes, "Honey I shrunk the animals" makes me feel totally stupid.....not that I didn't already...........so yes, it probably IS A DUHHHHH.........as am I.......ty

 

You are not stupid. No one who is stupid asks such good questions as you have asked. Intelligence is not always measured by answers given, but often by the questions asked. Your questions are intelligent ones. And, frankly, primary questions are often the best of all because they go to the heart of the matter - as yours have!!

 

Ok........thank you........xx

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

DDUUUHHH.

 

God used his 'Honey I Shrunk the Animals' laser beam to shrink em all to the size of atoms.

Excellent points about the flood, OvercameFaith.

 

I would also add the issue of dealing with all the animals' waste. The ark would've been a huge manure manufacturing facility, and the work involved in shoveling, moving and discarding it all would've been insurmountable.

 

Beyond that, there are internal contradictions in the Bible's account of the flood.

 

Like OvercameFaith said, it simply could not have happened the way the Bible says it did.

 

I realize that being problematic, as well. What internal contradictions exactly? Just the size of the Ark being totally toooooo small? R there more C's?

 

Thank you, Overcome Faith..........I thought what you said was not only convincing, but the sites you sent me to were the icing on the cake! ty so much!

Patty xx

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm just being my typical sarcastic self, Star. You'll learn not to take anything i say seriously! :)

 

The point is, your internal bullshit detector should be going off when you hear a story like this. EVERY SPECIES? ON ONE ARK? its a complete fable. Just like every other mythical story of that time. treat it as such.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm just being my typical sarcastic self, Star. You'll learn not to take anything i say seriously! smile.png

 

The point is, your internal bullshit detector should be going off when you hear a story like this. EVERY SPECIES? ON ONE ARK? its a complete fable. Just like every other mythical story of that time. treat it as such.

 

ok, my bad......forgive me for thinking your DUH was directed at me personally........self-esteem issues? lol..........and after reading everything TF said, no, could not have happened..........I hate that....:)........I taught that to more kids than I could possibly recount..........argggggg, ty Mc....Patty xx

Link to comment
Share on other sites

yeah we all thought it was true....thats the power of religion. it makes you circumvent rational thought and rely on supposed authority.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

yeah we all thought it was true....thats the power of religion. it makes you circumvent rational thought and rely on supposed authority.

 

true..........i hate that.......really.........how many more deceptive things do I believe.......asked questions about some......but, have more......dangit......am now aware of your sarcasm......beware of mine :) Patty, xx

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

...........i sooooooo want there to be a GOD.......that loves me........and will take me to heaven........

 

That's an understandable position. I suspect that the vast majority of atheists would love for there to be a supreme being who loves and takes care of us. I certainly would. Unfortunately, desiring something to be true doesn't make it true.

 

For example, just like many people take comfort in the idea of heaven, many others take comfort in the idea of reincarnation. Does finding reincarnation to be comforting make it true?

 

and NOT send me to HELL.....and he rightly should............because I am not the perfect, or even a good example of what a true Christian is............

 

First, a God who isn't there can't send you to a Hell that isn't there. Do you realize that "Hell" as we know it is a concept that evolved over time? There's not one single mention of a lake of fire or eternal torture in the Old Testament, nor in the earliest writings of the New Testament. If it really was the consequences of sin, then why would a loving God neglect to warn about it for most of human history?

 

Second, nobody is perfect. That's just a fact of humanity. It's a shame how religion is used to guilt people for simply being human. Beyond that, what good and just being would inflict infinite punishment for finite flaws? What loving parent would ever torture his/her child forever simply for making a mistake? That's not loving, but rather it's cruelty on a level that only a sadistic monster (worse than Hitler) would do.

 

Here's something that I've seen on these boards a few times:

 

God: Accept my son and you shall be saved, and rule for eternity with me and have life everlasting.

 

Mafia Don: Sign this offer you can't refuse and you will have all the money you could need, no body will bother you, and all you have to do is a few favors for us.

 

God: Reject my son and you go to hell.

 

Mafia Don: Reject my contract and you will find yourself at the bottom of the river in concrete shoes.

 

Which one is extortion?

 

so, where do I go from here...........have watched many many videos......something I CAN DO...........and sometimes I feel the person makes more of a case for Christianiaty.......aka GOD.......than the atheistic side...........I don't know what to ask my hubby to listen to......because nothing is clear cut in my mind...........there are good arguments on both sides.....

 

I know what you mean. It can be very difficult to wade through everything. Personally, I'd say that we need to separate the issue of whether or not A god exists from the issue of whether or not the Christian God exists.

 

Even most atheists would say that there's a slight chance that some deity may possibly exist, and deists (who believe in some sort of creator deity without believing in religion) tend to be very reasonable people. The "God" of Christianity, though, supposedly has specific attributes that would be observable in the real world if they were true.

 

For example, Christians say that God is all-knowing, all-powerful and (most Christians say) all-loving. Why, then, is there so much innocent suffering in the world? What about starving children in Africa? What about babies with painful diseases? Christians try to blame pain and suffering on "the fall" in Genesis, but these children weren't there in the garden and have done nothing worthy of such excruciating punishment. How can a loving God knowingly just allow such unwarranted misery? Christian rationalization of this issue is pathetic. It's so simple to sit in an armchair, completely detached from such suffering, and proclaim that there is a purpose for it. Put yourself in the place of those little ones who are in such unimaginable pain, though, and I'm sure you can see that it would be completely unjust for an all-knowing, all-powerful being to allow such devastation.

 

Beyond that, as OvercameFaith said, examining the Bible objectively can be very instructive in trying to make sense of everything. Granted, it's a huge book and many of us are taught to read it through the lenses of Christian indoctrination and apologetics arguments, so it can be an enormous task. I know it took me a long time to see flaws, but it was studying the Bible that opened my eyes.

 

If you want to see many of the specifics that convinced me that it's not true, I have attached a very detailed and thoroughly referenced letter that I sent my parents last year (see the bottom of this post). It focuses on various categories of Bible and Christian belief problems, including contradictions, fabricated prophetic fulfillments, cruelties, absurdities, etc. Feel free to read it if you'd like.

 

.....if Gen 1 and 3 disagree, then Isiah makes it clear?

 

I suspect that you mean the discrepancies between the two creation accounts in Genesis 1 and 2, right? My letter deals with those.

 

I'm not sure what you mean about Isaiah making it clear, though. Offhand I don't recall Isaiah dealing with the creation story, but if there is something specific that didn't register with me (or that I've simply forgotten), then I'd be interested in hearing what it is.

 

I don't know why Christian "debaters" don't go after the atheists claims........or why the atheists don't attack obvious claims of the Christian depator...

 

There are mounds and mounds of details that can be debated on this issue. It would be impossible for any debate to cover everything. I'm confident that most details have surfaced at some point or other in a debate, but it would be impossible to know everything that has been debated.

 

.......maybe we all believe what we need or want to believe.....

 

Speaking for myself, I do not merely believe what I want to believe. I believe what the evidence before me indicates. When I started discovering that Christianity is a myth, I did not want to stop believing in Christianity. So, if it was a matter of my desire, then I would still be a Christian. I couldn't, though, because it became increasingly obvious to me that Christianity is not true, and that the arguments the church puts forth to defend Christianity are seriously flawed.

 

mayve there are NO ABSOLUTE answers......I have yet to find in my limited search this far.

 

I can relate to the desperation. Of course, we're all different, so my journey was different from yours, but I definitely went through a period of not knowing what to make of everything. It can be overwhelming. Thankfully, life is a journey, and you don't have to have all the answers right away. Enjoy your quest for knowledge and understanding, and don't be hard on yourself in the process. I admire your honesty, and I wish you well as you work through all of this stuff.

Letter to Parents.doc

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Excellent points about the flood, OvercameFaith.

 

I would also add the issue of dealing with all the animals' waste. The ark would've been a huge manure manufacturing facility, and the work involved in shoveling, moving and discarding it all would've been insurmountable.

 

Beyond that, there are internal contradictions in the Bible's account of the flood.

 

Like OvercameFaith said, it simply could not have happened the way the Bible says it did.

 

I realize that being problematic, as well. What internal contradictions exactly? Just the size of the Ark being totally toooooo small? R there more C's?

 

The size of the ark conflicts with what would be realistic, but that's not an "internal contradiction." When I say "internal contradiction," I am referring to the Bible itself stating two different, conflicting things. The letter I attached to my previous post deals with a handful of contradictions in the Bible, but none from the flood account, so I'll respond here with a couple.

 

Here is one example:

 

GENESIS 6

19 And of every living thing of all flesh, two of every sort shalt thou bring into the ark, to keep them alive with thee; they shall be male and female.

20 Of fowls after their kind, and of cattle after their kind, of every creeping thing of the earth after his kind, two of every sort shall come unto thee, to keep them alive.

 

GENESIS 7

2 Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the male and his female: and of beasts that are not clean by two, the male and his female.

3 Of fowls also of the air by sevens, the male and the female; to keep seed alive upon the face of all the earth.

 

Notice that the first passage commands that the animals are to be taken in twos, while the second passage commands that the clean animals are to be taken in by sevens. Christians typically say that the second passage is simply giving further instructions for the clean animals, but take notice that Genesis 6:20 specifically says that "fowls" are to be taken by "two," while Genesis 7:3 specifically says that "fowls" are to be taken by "sevens." So, it's not simply further instruction for the clean animals, as Christian apologists claim, but rather we have conflicting details.

 

Interestingly, why would there even be a command regarding "clean" animals in this story anyway? The specifications for "clean" animals weren't given until the Law, which came long after the flood. The notion of a command regarding "clean" animals makes no sense at this point in the Bible story, and thus seems to be another Bible discrepancy.

 

But let's get back to the contradictions within the flood story. How does the account play out? Let's continue on and see:

 

GENESIS 7

8 Of clean beasts, and of beasts that are not clean, and of fowls, and of every thing that creepeth upon the earth,

9 There went in two and two unto Noah into the ark, the male and the female, as God had commanded Noah. ....

15 And they went in unto Noah into the ark, two and two of all flesh, wherein is the breath of life.

16 And they that went in, went in male and female of all flesh, as God had commanded him: and the Lord shut him in.

 

Here we see that Genesis 7:9&15 say that when the animals went into the ark, they went by twos. Even the "clean" animals in verse 8 are said to be among those coming in "two by two" in verse 9. There are no sevens in this part of the story, not even for the "clean" animals, yet it says in verse 16 that what happened was "as God had commanded." What happened to the command about sevens? It has disappeared from the storyline!

 

This is one of the reasons why scholars believe that the flood story in the Bible actually consists of parts of two different flood stories being cobbled together. One story had the animals all in twos, while another story had the clean animals in sevens and the unclean animals in twos. When the stories were combined, the editing was done poorly, thus leaving some of the contradictions in place.

 

OK, now let's look at another contradiction example. It's sandwiched around the verses in the previous quote, but here I'll quote the whole section:

 

GENESIS 7

6 And Noah was six hundred years old when the flood of waters was upon the earth.

7 And Noah went in, and his sons, and his wife, and his sons' wives with him, into the ark, because of the waters of the flood.

8 Of clean beasts, and of beasts that are not clean, and of fowls, and of every thing that creepeth upon the earth,

9 There went in two and two unto Noah into the ark, the male and the female, as God had commanded Noah.

10 And it came to pass after seven days, that the waters of the flood were upon the earth.

11 In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened.

12 And the rain was upon the earth forty days and forty nights.

13 In the selfsame day entered Noah, and Shem, and Ham, and Japheth, the sons of Noah, and Noah's wife, and the three wives of his sons with them, into the ark;

14 They, and every beast after his kind, and all the cattle after their kind, and every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind, and every fowl after his kind, every bird of every sort.

15 And they went in unto Noah into the ark, two and two of all flesh, wherein is the breath of life.

16 And they that went in, went in male and female of all flesh, as God had commanded him: and the Lord shut him in.

 

Doesn't it seem odd that this has Noah's family and the animals entering twice? Notice also that verses 6 & 11 both refer to Noah's age. Why such repetition? What we have here is another example of two stories being poorly edited into one. Genesis 7:6-10 appear to come from one account, while verses 11-16 come from another.

 

Now notice that in the first version, Noah and the animals enter the ark in verses 7-9, and then verse 10 specifically says that "after seven days" they got "the waters of the flood." However, in the second version, verse 11 specifies the "day" that "the fountains of the great deep" and "the windows of heaven" started the flooding, after which verse 13 says that it was the "selfsame day" that they entered the ark. So, did they enter the ark 7 days before the flood began, or did they enter the same day the flood began?

 

Another technically contradictory detail could be pointed out regarding Noah's age. Genesis 7:6 says that Noah was 600 years old when the flood came, while verse 11 says that it was in his 600th year. A casual reader may not notice the difference, but those actually are not the same thing. You see, your first year of life is the year you live before your first birthday, so being 1 year old is not the same thing as being in your 1st year. When you are 1 year old, you are in your 2nd year of life. This one year lag remains forever, and therefore Noah's 600th year would have actually been when he was 599. When he was 600, it would have been his 601st year. This may seem a bit trivial, but isn't this supposed to be the divine Word of an all-knowing God that we're talking about? Wouldn't such a being be able to differentiate between the two? I'll grant that an ancient human writer could specify 600th year when actually meaning that he was 600 years old, but that simply illustrates the fact that the account's origins are human, not divine.

 

At any rate, the Bible's flood story is clearly not a single narrative delivered by a divine creator, but rather a compilation of different human stories that were poorly cobbled together by mere mortal humans. The two different source accounts are contradictory, thus making for an inconsistent and disjointed Bible story. When we consider that along with the other problems that were shown in good detail by OvercameFaith, it becomes rather clear to the objective observer that what we have in the flood story is not at all an accurate historical account. It's simply mythology.

 

I hope this helps, starlyte.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderator

You are doing fine, Patty. :) Do you think an understanding of evolution will help you? Here's a 90-second blurb from Aron Ra (he lives in the Dallas area, btw). I can pull up some of his videos if you like.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p-1SVIreeN0

 

-TF xx

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderator

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are other problems with the flood story too, starlyte. Let's look at what the Bible says led up to the flood and the ark:

 

GENSIS 6

5 And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.

6 And it repented the Lord that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.

7 And the Lord said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.

8 But Noah found grace in the eyes of the Lord.

 

So, all of mankind's thoughts were evil? Nobody had any good thoughts? How realistic is that? Even if this exaggerated claim was true, what about all the babies and little children who could not have done anything deserving a death penalty? What about all the animals, which weren't created in God's image and who were not given the ability to discern between good and evil? How could a good and just God murder a bunch of innocent babies and animals? How is "God" here any better than an evil dictator unjustly murdering people? Would a good deity be behind such heinous genocide?

 

Also, what about the statement that it "repenteth" God that he made man? Isn't God supposed to be all-knowing? Wouldn't an all-knowing God have had to have known what his creation would become? If he, knowing fully well what the future held, went ahead and created mankind anyway, then how could he be sorry for having done so? How can a perfect being make a mistake?

 

In addition, look at this:

 

NUMBERS 23

19 God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?

 

Here we are told that God doesn't repent, yet Genesis 6:7 says that he did. The same Hebrew word is used in both verses for "repent(eth)," so it's not like the two verses are talking about different things. Do we have yet another contradiction here?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.