amateur Posted April 2, 2014 Posted April 2, 2014 ...back in Noah's day, Angels had come to earth and were fornicating with EVERYBODY and EVERY ANIMAL. Except Noah's family. And presumably the animals they took on board. So because of such wickedness and I guess resulting mutations (?) it was ok that God killed everybody and every animal. The apologist seemed very content with that answer and accepting of the resultant world-wide death. I know there's the thing in Genesis about the Sons of God coming down and fornicating with human women. I guess that got out of hand. Like seriously out of hand. They started with the women. Moved on to men. Children. Babies. Animals. Baby animals. It turned into Studio 54 of the Ancient World. Ah, fornicating, it ain't what it used to be.
Guest afireinside Posted April 2, 2014 Posted April 2, 2014 Yes apparently Nephilim had gone out into each continent and disguised themselves as attractive humans and seduced all the human women. Old Diabolo seemed to have a lot of power back then to unleash multitudes of materialised demons upon earth and fool every person with the exception of Noah's family. Hmmmm 1
Roz Posted April 2, 2014 Posted April 2, 2014 1. God is all powerful and all loving and all knowing 2. God's more powerful than the devil 3. God allowed the devil to have nephilim come and seduce mankind 4. God knew that mankind would be seduced, but he allowed it anyways 5. God drowned all of mankind because they played Adam Powers, the Nephilim Who Shagged Me. 6. God did NOT drown the devil and his demons, they're still here today so they can tempt and seduce the mankind who survived. And they call god good, just, and merciful. 6
amateur Posted April 2, 2014 Author Posted April 2, 2014 The apologist clearly said that all the animals got seduced too. I was thinking that was a more modern interpretation (read: "made-up version") since we're a bit more aware of animal rights and he didn't want people all angry over killing every animal on earth (except the ones on the ark, of course). He also said clearly that everybody got seduced, not just the women. Men, women, and children -- nobody was innocent. Except Noah's family of course. But, oh, c'mon, that's just NASTY. Children? What's the problem with that perv? But the bible says only women were seduced. So *somebody* was making something up!
Roz Posted April 2, 2014 Posted April 2, 2014 If you want another flavor of apologetics, consider the SDA line of BS. This came from the prophet herself, Ellen White. The SDA sect of christianity abides by this. "But if there was one sin above another which called for the destruction of the race by the flood, it was the base crime of amalgamation of man and beast which defaced the image of God, and caused confusion everywhere.—Spiritual Gifts, vol. 3, p. 64. Every species of animal which God had created were preserved in the ark. The confused species which God did not create, which were the result of amalgamation, were destroyed by the flood. Since the flood there has been amalgamation of man and beast, as may be seen in the almost endless varieties of species of animals, and in certain races of men.—Ibid., p. 75." Yup, apparently it's still happening, but no one told the bible or your first apologist this one.
Guest afireinside Posted April 2, 2014 Posted April 2, 2014 Do great white sharks, crocodiles and grizzly bears count as all animals, obviously they were using tranquilizers 1
mymistake Posted April 2, 2014 Posted April 2, 2014 So starting the human population over again with just six couples is good because incest is moral? 1
Guest afireinside Posted April 2, 2014 Posted April 2, 2014 So starting the human population over again with just six couples is good because incest is moral? Is that why men have nipples?. It's not evolution it's inbreeding
Roz Posted April 2, 2014 Posted April 2, 2014 No, men have nipples because he was "made in the image of god," so that means god must've had nipples. What is the function of god's nipples again? Damn that guy's mysterious. 1
Guest afireinside Posted April 2, 2014 Posted April 2, 2014 No, men have nipples because he was "made in the image of god," so that means god must've had nipples. What is the function of god's nipples again? Damn that guy's mysterious. Mysterious in giving men foreskins then making men get circumcised. Mysterious in making seafood extremely tasty but forbidding us to eat it Mysterious in condemning homosexuality but allowing Noah and his family to inbreed Mysterious in flooding the ocean with fresh water and it not affecting sea life Mysterious in defending Israel's right to the holy land but telling us to give all we have to the poor, did that not include Israel? I could go on and on about mysteries 2
Super Moderator buffettphan Posted April 2, 2014 Super Moderator Posted April 2, 2014 So starting the human population over again with just six couples is good because incest is moral? In addition to the (lack of) morality, just the physical genetic uh-ohs that will happen from 6 incestuous couples re-breeding the whole human race is scary.
bornagainathiest Posted April 2, 2014 Posted April 2, 2014 But God does have nipples... they're sitting on top of His/Her... juggs! . . . http://biblehub.com/interlinear/revelation/1-13.htm "...and girded about at the breasts with a sash golden..." http://biblehub.com/greek/mastois_3149.htm http://biblehub.com/greek/3149.htm 2
Guest afireinside Posted April 2, 2014 Posted April 2, 2014 That's hot BAA, how are we meant to concentrate at the throne of judgement with those in a white silk top?
Super Moderator TheRedneckProfessor Posted April 4, 2014 Super Moderator Posted April 4, 2014 But God does have nipples... they're sitting on top of His/Her... juggs! . . . http://biblehub.com/interlinear/revelation/1-13.htm "...and girded about at the breasts with a sash golden..." http://biblehub.com/greek/mastois_3149.htm http://biblehub.com/greek/3149.htm It should be noted that the term "El Shaddai" means "god, the breasted one". Yes, god has breasts. 1
centauri Posted April 4, 2014 Posted April 4, 2014 A few observations: So...Jesus (aka God) didn't really love all the little children of the world. Right after the ark comes to land, Noah sacrifices some of the animals that were just saved. The "giants" were seen by the Israelites after the flood.
Super Moderator TheRedneckProfessor Posted April 4, 2014 Super Moderator Posted April 4, 2014 That whole passage in genesis chapter six has made me wonder since deconversion why somebody didn't realize it should be taken out of the bible completely. It is a passage that basically admits that since the dawn of time there have been young maidens running around with their bellies tucked under their chins claiming that the child had been sired by a god or a son of god or some other celestial being. Often the children would become powerful, wealthy, or influential, as was the case with Helen of Troy, Alexander the Great, and Julius Caesar. The thing is, though, nobody ever believed these young maidens. Everyone just smiled knowingly and let the girls tell their stories. The problem is, Mary told the exact same story as all the other girls throughout history but for some reason we are expected to believe her story even if we don't believe that Caesar was the son of Jupiter. This one passage alone casts the Immaculate Conception into serious doubt. How the bible survived for so long without some priest, scribe, or monk realizing this is quite beyond me. 2
Sybaris Posted April 5, 2014 Posted April 5, 2014 Funny that this allegedly omnipotent god whipped up all this drama surrounding a flood when it could have just snapped it's fingers and all the evil would have vanished. 1
mymistake Posted April 5, 2014 Posted April 5, 2014 Funny that this allegedly omnipotent god whipped up all this drama surrounding a flood when it could have just snapped it's fingers and all the evil would have vanished. And all the other stories too. The fall of man only happened because God didn't snap his fingers and make a better situation. The Crucifixion? God could have snapped his fingers and make something better happen. It means that all the suffering in the Bible is some kind of performance that God wanted to happen. It pleased God or amuses God.
Super Moderator TheRedneckProfessor Posted April 5, 2014 Super Moderator Posted April 5, 2014 The apologist clearly said that all the animals got seduced too. Wait... does that mean that somebody had sex with a single celled amoeba? I'm not even sure how that would work.
Guest afireinside Posted April 5, 2014 Posted April 5, 2014 The apologist clearly said that all the animals got seduced too. Wait... does that mean that somebody had sex with a single celled amoeba? I'm not even sure how that would work. Very cold water and a good eye
amateur Posted April 6, 2014 Author Posted April 6, 2014 The apologist clearly said that all the animals got seduced too.Wait... does that mean that somebody had sex with a single celled amoeba? I'm not even sure how that would work. Very cold water and a good eye I dated a guy with an amoeba-sized dick. Here's how I made it work: tweezers and a magnifying glass.
Guest afireinside Posted April 6, 2014 Posted April 6, 2014 The apologist clearly said that all the animals got seduced too.Wait... does that mean that somebody had sex with a single celled amoeba? I'm not even sure how that would work.Very cold water and a good eye I dated a guy with an amoeba-sized dick. Here's how I made it work: tweezers and a magnifying glass. I hope he found a girl with a plankton-sized pussy and lived happily ever after!
RipVanWinkle Posted April 6, 2014 Posted April 6, 2014 "So starting the human population over again with just six couples is good because incest is moral? " No. Because stupidity is moral according to the bible. Xtianity proves beyond any doubt that people will decide any issue, no matter how important based upon emotion and the skill of a speaker or writer to evoke emotion. There's a sucker born every minute. bill
Recommended Posts