I'll Play The Fundie

[duderonomy]

Just throwing out an idea...

 

Since there exists a lack of Fundies on this site (it seems to me), I hereby offer myself as a substitute. Let's find a topic, and debate it.

 

I'll be the Fundie I used to be, and you'll be you.

[All Gods Fail]

Ok, I'll play:

 

Christianity stinks! It's all a bunch of crap!

[duderonomy]

My statements will come from the Bible and the world we can see around us. Your point of view must come from some other source.

 

You seem to equate 'stinks' and 'crap' as the same in your post. Well, Christianity, then, at least has two verifiable sources as to it's accuracy. And of course, you are right! Unless you can explain why you think your crap doesn't stink.

 

So then, is it accurate?

 

"It's all 'a bunch of crap" is it? Do you then, truly understand all of it?

 

Choose a direction.

[Antlerman]

Just throwing out an idea...

 

Since there exists a lack of Fundies on this site (it seems to me), I hereby offer myself as a substitute. Let's find a topic, and debate it.

 

I'll be the Fundie I used to be, and you'll be you.

Ok, if God made man in his own image, then why did he use the same body plan for man as he did for monkeys? Is God a monkey, and Christianity is wrong to not be worshipping monkeys? Or did God run out of ideas on the 6th day for his crowning achievement of creation and just borrowed from what was left over?

[duderonomy]

My answer to Antlerman would be that if it's true that God designed everything, then who are you to say what things should look like? Potter and Clay...why have you made me thus...Book of Romans...blah blah blah. But that's too easy, so...

 

Also, just because monkeys and people have similar characteristics means nothing. So do people and fish, or monkeys and birds for that matter.

Have you ever noticed that a Buick and a Toyota are very similar? One is not desended from another! They are similar to us because they have the same designer...man, who made them to fit his wants.

 

And of course, why do you say that God 'used the same body plan' for man that He used for anything else? I'm sure that from either side of this fence most could see the difference between a chimp and a chump!

 

Now, why did God 'use the same body plan' for a begonia as He did for an oak tree? Same Earth...same dirt...but if you want to grow here ya gotta have roots, leaves to catch water, time to bask in the sun, etc. Who is to say that a begonia and an oak tree are the same, or that they aren't?

 

So monkeys and people; people and monkeys...we all need to eat, and we all need to poop. So we all have what we need to function on this planet. The fact that we're all functioning as a planet means that something is working.

 

If you are doing nothing but masturbating, smelling poop and eating, fighting, living in a society that puts you in your place, and being kind to one another means picking through one anothers hair to take out the bugs and eat them, you might be a monkey.

 

If you are reading, typing on the internet, or wondering if there is anything else 'out there' while you contemplate any of the above, you just might be human. One of those most peculiar of species that has self-awareness, flies to the moon, finds out it's not made of green cheese and then goes on to mars...

 

And please, people, before you throw 'Logical Fallacy' at me, please see to your own.

[Antlerman]

Also, just because monkeys and people have similar characteristics means nothing. So do people and fish, or monkeys and birds for that matter.

Have you ever noticed that a Buick and a Toyota are very similar? One is not desended from another! They are similar to us because they have the same designer...man, who made them to fit his wants.

Exactly my point. Bilateral body plans. Why if we're made in God's image don't we have a body plan that's not like theirs? Same designer, sure, but we're above them all because we're made in God's image, not a monkey's image.

 

Man makes Buicks and Toyota's that all basically fit a certain plan, because we're pretty limited in our abilities to figure out how to make things work, so we stick with the basics and just modify it. God however would likewise be lacking in ideas since he used a body plan that worked for one animal, then simply tweaked it so it sort of worked, then branded and sold it his most special creation, created after his own likeness! Sounds more like marketing, rather than actual genius.

 

 

And of course, why do you say that God 'used the same body plan' for man that He used for anything else? I'm sure that from either side of this fence most could see the difference between a chimp and a chump!

I say we are of the same body plan as a chimp because we are. We don't have the body plan of a starfish, and we certainly don't have a one-of-a-kind body plan on this planet. There are only 34 basic body plans for all animal life on this planet. Why don't we have one that works right if we were made special, in God's imagine on the 6th day?

 

Now, why did God 'use the same body plan' for a begonia as He did for an oak tree? Same Earth...same dirt...but if you want to grow here ya gotta have roots, leaves to catch water, time to bask in the sun, etc. Who is to say that a begonia and an oak tree are the same, or that they aren't?

We're talking animals, not plants. Plants don't have a "body" plan in this sense.

 

So monkeys and people; people and monkeys...we all need to eat, and we all need to poop. So we all have what we need to function on this planet. The fact that we're all functioning as a planet means that something is working.

Tell that to my aching knees! The design is shoddy craftmanship. I think I get it now! The 6th day was the weekend for God, and he just wanted to get it over with for the weekend and turned out crap! Never buy a car made on Friday!

 

If you are doing nothing but masturbating, smelling poop and eating, fighting, living in a society that puts you in your place, and being kind to one another means picking through one anothers hair to take out the bugs and eat them, you might be a monkey.

Hey, that pretty much sums up life for most of us! I guess we are kin to the monkeys then?

 

If you are reading, typing on the internet, or wondering if there is anything else 'out there' while you contemplate any of the above, you just might be human. One of those most peculiar of species that has self-awareness, flies to the moon, finds out it's not made of green cheese and then goes on to mars...

So you're saying that the fact we are self aware, or more acurately stated: we start with the assumption that we are the only one's who are self aware, that this makes us better? That being able to fly to the moon and anaylize accurately the composition of minerals makes us more fit for life? We are hardly the most fit for life. Frankly, I envision our time line in the lines of life on this planet will actually be relatively short-lived compared to others. In all honestly, the insect is the most prolific and best adapter to survial over the course of life on this planet. All hail the Holy Dragonfly, the highest of God's creation.

And please, people, before you throw 'Logical Fallacy' at me, please see to your own.

No actually, for a "Christian" your logic was a cut above the herd.

[Taphophilia]

Have you ever noticed that a Buick and a Toyota are very similar? One is not desended from another! They are similar to us because they have the same designer...man, who made them to fit his wants.

 

 

Interesting point about cars being man made. Cars are the same as Christianity (both man made) in the respect that Henry Ford got the idea of an assembly line from visiting a meat packing plant. Cars and dead cows are different but the idea to create them are the same. Just in the same way that Ancient Christians got the ideas for their religion from the other Ancient religions of their day. The religions are not the same but they all have the same ideas.

 

Taph

[Godless Wonder]

One thing Toyota's and other automobiles have that is interesting is wheels, and a huge assortment of various macroscopic rotating chunks of matter -- gears, cams, ball bearings, fans, pumps, etc.

 

So far as I know, natural life has not produce any such thing, there are no macroscopic wheels, gears, cams, etc. The closest thing I know of is the flagellum of certain single celled organisms, which rotates freely... though it is done at a molecular level, not a macroscopic level.

 

So here's the question.

 

If an animal with macroscopic wheels were discovered, would this falsify evolution? Is there any way evolution could produce a macroscopic wheel, or gear, or other freely rotating piece of anatomy?

 

So far it seems that it has not been able to produce any such thing. Yet (apparently) it has produced the human brain. (Well, one could argue tha evolution's way of producing the wheel is to produce a brain smart enough to build one, but that's not what I mean. I mean, is evolution able, on it's own without producing intelligence first, able to produce a wheel?)

 

The wheel and axle seem to me to be a signature of design. If there is intelligent design, why has the intelligent designer handicapped himself by forgoing the use of wheels and gears, and thus forgoing various designs for fans, pumps, clocks, centrifuges, conveyances, rack-and-pinion, differential gears, planetary gears...etc. I mean, almost all the mechanical inventions of men -- all of the ]i]designed[/i] things we know of -- contain wheels and axles in some form, so much so, that they may probably be regarded as a signature of design. Yet these are entirely absent from nature at the macroscopic level. Are wheels and gears sinful?

 

Unless I'm wrong, and there's some way that evolution can get to a wheel and axle, but it just hasn't for some reason.

[Antlerman]

Unless I'm wrong, and there's some way that evolution can get to a wheel and axle, but it just hasn't for some reason.

Evolution hasn't most likely because it would be an inefficient means of transportation for biological life in a natural world. Roads are far a few between in nature, so other more land worthy means of transportation were developed, such as bipedal locomotion for great distance over a natural landscape, curved hands for gripping branches as we swung through the trees (a curious feature on humans if we didn't ever live in trees somewhere in our past), arthropod’s legs for traversing any sort of terrain, etc. Wheels would only work in a very specific application which would be ineffective for finding food.

 

But the point is, with roads it is far more effective than feet. So why didn't God make roads on the sixth day and design us a little better with both feet and wheels? Plus give us bodies that would actually work better with a bipedal design. Not much of an intellegent designer, but far more of a haphazardly tinkerer. New Creationist camp: HD = Haphazard Design.

[duderonomy]

Thanks for all your responses to my post. I was afraid this would happen...my brain is now going in about seventeen directions and I won't have time to deal with all of these questions.

But let's see... Antlerman...

 

Bilateral Body Plans...

 

You should consider that we are never told exactly what God's image is. We have glimpses through the Bible, but nothing conclusive. Maybe God looks like a man...maybe he looks like a monkey. Maybe that's not even what that means "created in His image".

 

No where does the Bible claim now that our bodies are superior, in fact it shows in several places that certain creatures are bigger, stronger, and etc. than ours.

 

I could say that the proof is in the pudding. If the burden of proof is on me, then I would have to say to you that the Bible says man was created in His image, and here we are. I don't have to show you what that image is, because here I am.

 

My allegory concerning cars was to show that things designed from one common mind could most certainly look and act similar one to the other, whether Toyotas and Buicks from Mankind, or people and monkeys from God. Maybe a better example would be to compare cars with say, garden tractors?

 

As to plants, they don't have a body plan in which sense? They were created by God, whether the tree or the begonia, and their bodies are very similar. They are made to work here on this planet in the form God intended them to, the same as our bodies or monkey's bodies.

 

My points: Similar design because similar designer.

'Bodies' made to function in the environment they were made to live in. I don't think God would have been concerned about 'looks'.

 

May I also point out that no where in the Bible are we promised that our physical bodies won't wear out, hurt, get sick, get fat, die, get tired, etc? I'm talking about in this 'age', this lifetime. We don't know when the angels were created, but the Bible does say that we are created a little lower than the angels. So I have to ask why you think 'we' would be 'special' because we were created on the sixth day?

If you think our bods are tweaked from leftover monkey blueprints, then I have to ask why are you blaming God's lack of imagination? Isn't there some other belief or theory you could blame that on?

 

 

 

Ahh...the insect. The Bible says that spiders live in king's houses. The Bible also guides us to observe the ant because of it's work habits and forward looking work ethic.

 

No, I don't know if man is the only creature that has 'self-awareness' or 'God-conciousness', or call it what you will. I'm willing to admit that just because no other animal has ever built a rocket ship, doesn't make mankind 'better' in any sense, including all of the above. We can argue about what it is that makes one species 'more fit to live', and maybe man isn't. But we are the ones building Toyotas and Buicks, and we are the top of the food chain. I don't need to go there, but if you do, that'll be fine with me.

 

 

To Godless Wonder... I don't get your point about wheels.

 

Maybe man was created a little higher than just a mechanical device (for what it's worth), and thus didn't need to be created with wheels?

 

As for rotating chunks of matter, have you considered the atom? It seem everything at least has that common rotating chunk denominator.

 

Do you remember the one liner about 'if God wanted me to fly He'd have given me wings'? Well, why don't we have wings? Why don't we have wheels? Why didn't God build an anti-stall dashpot into this heart o' mine? Maybe He didn't include them because He didn't need to. We can build those things.

 

So the answer is, I guess, that if an animal with macroscopic wheels were discovered, no it would not disprove evolution, nor creation, or prove either. Both camps would gladly tell you that mankind still has a lot of things to discover.

 

Back to Antlerman...

 

'Curved hands' is part of your evidence for evolution? Or at least for why we evolved the way we did?

Well, mankind was supposed to live in a garden, and till it and tend it. Gripping branches might be handy there too. So what does the Designer do? Make curved hands for those of His creation that need to grip branches (and later grip tools to fix all those wheels he'll come to invent). Simplistic argument? Too simple an explanation? What does science say about the simplest answer?

 

Did you know that an elephant's eyes are the same size as a humans?

I think that with the design issue, the fact seems to be that it could go either way.

"It all came from One Designer!"

"It all came as Natural Selection!"

 

I think we need to try to find one aspect of this and beat it to death, and then move on to another.

I don't think it will take long to crush your little fairy tale beliefs and replace them with the stalwart truth of the Word of God, if we do this.

 

But if it goes in too many directions, I won't be able to keep up, and that would be a shame because this might be fun.

 

(Antlerman...thank you for your comment concerning my 'Christian' logic.)

 

I think I'm flattered.

[JGJ@ReligionisBullshit]

My statements will come from the Bible and the world we can see around us. Your point of view must come from some other source.

 

You seem to equate 'stinks' and 'crap' as the same in your post. Well, Christianity, then, at least has two verifiable sources as to it's accuracy. And of course, you are right! Unless you can explain why you think your crap doesn't stink.

 

So then, is it accurate?

 

"It's all 'a bunch of crap" is it? Do you then, truly understand all of it?

 

Choose a direction.

 

 

So if my crap stinks, does that make it Christian crap?

 

I could say that the proof is in the pudding. If the burden of proof is on me, then I would have to say to you that the Bible says man was created in His image, and here we are. I don't have to show you what that image is, because here I am.

 

That's not proof, that is faith. Proof can be tested and with the lack of an original god image for comparison it is pure speculation and heresay, I'll have to throw this testemony out and have the jury disregard it.

 

As to plants, they don't have a body plan in which sense? They were created by God, whether the tree or the begonia, and their bodies are very similar. They are made to work here on this planet in the form God intended them to, the same as our bodies or monkey's bodies.

 

If this was the case then nothing would go extinct because of natural reasons such as environmental changes. They would have been made able to work. Did they sin and god decide to destroy them? Argument from Design is a failed concept. God's perfect creation should work regardless.

[kal-el]

Ever notice how fundies think the flood was such a great story because of it's sunny ending. Ha, God drowned all of mankind, and every living thing except for 8 people that day. Then he made a pact with Noah that he'd never commit wholesale genocide like that again. And the fundies think that 1 abortion is killing, and sex is "unholy", but see no problem with God knocking up a virgin, and dashing 1000s of little babies to pieces. What a skewed sense of morality.

[duderonomy]

JGJ,

 

Your premise is flawed.

 

The image of God is what I have been created in, and here I am.

 

And God's creation does seem to be working just fine, thank you. Many things are created for God's purpose, and who are you to say what that purpose should be? Some things go to extinction; their purpose here is finished. Some things will go on forever, and some, appear to do both like the flowers that die in the fall and come back in the spring.

 

I'll save you the sermon about the earth being cursed, and the whole of creation groaning towards the day of completion (Romans 8).

 

kal-el,

 

Maybe your post belongs in the Rants section? I feel sorry for you that yours and Gods morality don't line up and all, but what was your point?

 

[kal-el]

JGJ,

 

Your premise is flawed.

 

How so?

 

The image of God is what I have been created in, and here I am.

 

Yea well in Genesis it states that Females are also made in God's image. So, which is it?

 

And God's creation does seem to be working just fine, thank you.

 

Really? How ya figure? Let's see, before we learned how to treat simple illnesses, people died from smallpox, the flue (20 million in 1918 in Spain), and other ills. We have hurricanes, earthquakes, tsunamis, and a whole shitload of other natural disasters. And what about the millions that suffer from famine and HIV in Africa that die annualy? So I ask again, How ya figure?

 

 

 

Many things are created for God's purpose, and who are you to say what that purpose should be?

 

O geese, what a cop-out. "God did it" "You cannot understand God" How can you then? If no one can understand God, how do you know that he wants worship?

 

 

Some things go to extinction; their purpose here is finished.

 

I comply

 

Some things will go on forever, and some, appear to do both like the flowers that die in the fall and come back in the spring.

 

Are you attempting to suggest that we have an afterlife? You do know, there's not even a modicum of observational evidence to support that assertion?

 

I'll save you the sermon about the earth being cursed, and the whole of creation groaning towards the day of completion (Romans 8).

 

You can toss this and that bible quote at me till your blue in the face; it proves nothing.

 

kal-el,

 

Maybe your post belongs in the Rants section? I feel sorry for you that yours and Gods morality don't line up and all, but what was your point?

 

 

You are a fundamentalist, aren't you?

[duderonomy]

kal-el,

 

Please don't ask things like 'how so?'. You are angry it seems, and defensive. They say there is none so zealous as the newly converted. So could you please be more specific, at least at asking questions about a reply that wasn't directed at you? You would confuse my premise that JGJ's premise is flawed with my premise that you don't seem to have a premise.

 

So then, 'Which is it?'...

In genesis it is very plainly stated that God made us in His own image. Male and Female. I know that I am a product of both male and female, each bearing seed after their own kind, and I am half of each of them, yet I am 'me', not at all either of them. So I don't get your problem with the Genesis story. Male AND Female He created them, it says.

 

As for the storms and diseases and God's creation working fine, let me ask you this...

 

Assuming (if you don't mind) that you know a little of the Bible, have you considered that the disasters and famine and large scale death you see around you were also present when the Bible was written? In fact, in Revelation, for example, we are told that the worst is yet to come. So, if the famines and earthquakes and diseases and wars and man's selfish byproducts like global warming and the shrinking of the ozone layer, and maybe nuclear winter and all of it's effects on this planet were to happen, would that show you that the Bible was true, or that it was not true?

Maybe the short answer should be that you point out that many diseases have been cured, so things are going along just fine, but there are many that are new or still here, so things aren't going along just fine. You really should choose a camp. Either way, you haven't shown how God's creation is not working, but according to you, at least part of the Bible could be true.

 

Cop out? I haven't heard that in a while!

But to answer..Of course one can understand God. Where did you get the opposite idea?

That you understand or that you don't doesn't change His purpose. Remember, liking Him and understanding Him are two separate things.

 

Am I suggesting that there is an afterlife? Maybe. If so, I am certainly not alone. Many millions from many faiths, beliefs, and traditions beleve the same thing.

Is there any evidence that there is not an afterlife?

 

Any Bible quotes I may or may not throw in your by now very red face, would of course mean nothing to you. You didn't pay too much attention to the original post in this thread. Why would I believe that you gave any of the 66 books of the Bible any real consideration?

 

 

If one were to give credence to your nic, or the cartoon at the bottom of your posts, it would seem you at least find entertaining the thought that someone came here in the past from another place, one who would save the world. So...let me ask you this...

 

If Superman grew here on this planet from a baby, then how did his hair not grow? He got it cut? How? You couldn't get a bullet through him, and knives were bent harmlessly aside when they tried to penetrate his heart. How are you going to cut his hair? But he always looked so well groomed both as Clark Kent, and as Superman.

 

And as to your final question... here is a riddle:

 

You would know more if you would read more. Start at the beginning.

[kal-el]

kal-el,

 

Please don't ask things like 'how so?'. You are angry it seems, and defensive. They say there is none so zealous as the newly converted. So could you please be more specific, at least at asking questions about a reply that wasn't directed at you? You would confuse my premise that JGJ's premise is flawed with my premise that you don't seem to have a premise.

 

O, my fault. I thought you were talking to me.

 

So then, 'Which is it?'...

In genesis it is very plainly stated that God made us in His own image. Male and Female. I know that I am a product of both male and female, each bearing seed after their own kind, and I am half of each of them, yet I am 'me', not at all either of them. So I don't get your problem with the Genesis story. Male AND Female He created them, it says.

 

Actually, I Genesis it says that God created man in his own image, both male and female. So, one would assume that both sexes are in his image.

 

 

As for the storms and diseases and God's creation working fine, let me ask you this...

 

Assuming (if you don't mind) that you know a little of the Bible,

 

Please do not assume things about me. FYI, I have read the bible cover to cover, that's what made me an atheist.

 

 

have you considered that the disasters and famine and large scale death you see around you were also present when the Bible was written? In fact, in Revelation, for example, we are told that the worst is yet to come. So, if the famines and earthquakes and diseases and wars and man's selfish byproducts like global warming and the shrinking of the ozone layer, and maybe nuclear winter and all of it's effects on this planet were to happen, would that show you that the Bible was true, or that it was not true?

Maybe the short answer should be that you point out that many diseases have been cured, so things are going along just fine, but there are many that are new or still here, so things aren't going along just fine. You really should choose a camp. Either way, you haven't shown how God's creation is not working, but according to you, at least part of the Bible could be true.

 

Look, all these "evils" are happening on God's watch. A perfectly good, all-powerful God cannot exist. If there is anything bad, he cannot exist. He is responsible for establishing every single condition in which made evil possible. Let's take an example here: Suppose I purchase a huge fish tank, and throw it in several goldfish. Then I purchase a couple pirrahnas. Now, they eat and devour all the goldfish in a matter of mere minutes. Do I have any blame for placing these goldfish in such a dangerous situation? I could have not placed flesh-eating pirranhas in there. Anyway, why not explain away evil in a similar fashion in which the biblical authors did? That evil happens because God is angry with people for their sins? And God is supposedly all-knowing, well he could have provided us anitodes for thousands of diseases, and saved mankind an untold amount of suffering.

 

Cop out? I haven't heard that in a while!

But to answer..Of course one can understand God. Where did you get the opposite idea?

 

Well, the bible is a big hint into his persona.

 

 

That you understand or that you don't doesn't change His purpose. Remember, liking Him and understanding Him are two separate things.

 

Well, being perfectly good and loving, he would want all his offspring to bind closer to him, and being all-powerful, can do it. Being omniscient he knows that some require observational evidence before committing to a belief. He used to converse with people in the bible frequently, oddly it seems that his voice hasn't been heard in nearly 2,000 years, he must have prolonged laryngitis.

 

 

Am I suggesting that there is an afterlife? Maybe. If so, I am certainly not alone. Many millions from many faiths, beliefs, and traditions beleve the same thing.

 

That doesn't make that belief right. Look, centuries ago Bruno believed that the earth was round, and he was burned at the stake for it. Bruno, being the clear minority was right.

 

 

Is there any evidence that there is not an afterlife?

 

Uhh, negative deduction is the default position to take. Until someone sends me a postcard from heaven, or comes back with a thermometer from hell, I'll place my money in we're road kill. Even God says that we are all dust, and we'll return to dust.

 

Any Bible quotes I may or may not throw in your by now very red face, would of course mean nothing to you. You didn't pay too much attention to the original post in this thread. Why would I believe that you gave any of the 66 books of the Bible any real consideration?

 

Well, I'm here aren't I? On an "Ex-Christian" forum. That denotes that I am an ex-Christian. I was a Christian the better part of my life. Then I decided to give the bible a throughout plow-through to find out what this God was all about. That's why I'm an atheist.

 

If one were to give credence to your nic, or the cartoon at the bottom of your posts, it would seem you at least find entertaining the thought that someone came here in the past from another place, one who would save the world. So...let me ask you this...

 

If Superman grew here on this planet from a baby, then how did his hair not grow? He got it cut? How? You couldn't get a bullet through him, and knives were bent harmlessly aside when they tried to penetrate his heart. How are you going to cut his hair? But he always looked so well groomed both as Clark Kent, and as Superman.

 

Well, Smallville is cleary a fictional program, even though him and God have alot in common. Their both characters in a book, they both have achilles heels (kryptonite, iron chariots), and there's a bad guy in each story (Satan and Lex Luthor). But to your questions, He is weak just like the rest of us when he comes in contact with kryptonite, so he can cutt his hair if he hold a piece of kryptonite.

 

And as to your final question... here is a riddle:

 

You would know more if you would read more. Start at the beginning.

 

Ok

[duderonomy]

kal-el,

 

My opinion?

 

So young.

 

So sure.

 

You knew everything before, and now you do again.

 

But I have learned, and I have remembered.

Thanks.

 

[RHEMtron]

wow duder... youre logic as a fundy is not too shabby. what changed your mind? how did you "see the light" so to speak?

 

 

 

but shooooot. i have a question:

 

the reason why there were different languages and different races in the OT is because of what happen at the building of the tower of babble. well, god then flooded the earth and all of mankind was wiped out except for 8 people. i am safely assuming that noah, his wife, and 3 sons were of the same race and spoke the same language. we can assume, either way, that noah's 3 daughter-in-laws were or were not of the same race, did and did not speak the same language, or that each even spoke maybe 2-5 language. so, now if only 8 people survived the flood, even with the hypothetical assumption that some of the survivors even spoke up to 5 different languages, why do we today have hundreds of DIFFERENT and DISTINCT languages?

 

a follow-up question:

 

the bible says god is not a god of confusion, but he states that he purposely tried to confuse man to prevent them from building the tower. hence the creation of the different languages. isnt that contradicting?

[duderonomy]

Rhemtron,

 

Nice try, but too easy.

 

There were many races and lanquages before the Tower of Babel.

The rest of your question is not based on this, so is in fact moot.

Unless it's one of those tricky math problems.

 

as to your follow-up question...

 

I mean no offence but you need to read the Tower of Babel story again.

 

Does the Bible really say that God tried to prevent them from building the tower?

 

Or, to take your question as written with your very own keyboard (not verbatim, as I don't how to use the quote thingie)...

 

How could it be that God is not the author of confusion, and 'tried' to confuse man?

 

You seem to speak in riddles.

[duderonomy]

I'm going away for about a week or so (vacation, silly).

 

I hope that those of you here that I have answered will continue to stew in your juices.

 

All others beware!

 

See you in May.

[duderonomy]

OK, I'm back.

 

Anyone else want to go toe to toe?

 

Previous posters... thank you for your compliments re my 'christian logic'.

It must have been so good that it scared you away!

 

 

Or not.

 

This is my first thread here. Thank you all who took the time to type.

 

I learned a little more about myself.

 

If anyone wants a piece of me and my Fundie logic, bring it on! If not, then I'll watch this, my firstborn thread slowly sink into the abyss of cyber-space.

 

Either way,

[ChristiaNazi]

OK, here's one. Man not only has a similar body to animals but also a similar means of reproduction. Now, according to Genesis Eve was punished for tricking Adam into the original sin by Goc declaring that henceforth she and all other women would have pain in childbirth. What was God's plan prior to this? Possibilities...

 

a.) Eve previously had no nerve endings in her vagina.

b.) Prior to original sin, God used the Stork to deliver babies.

c.) It doesn't matter. Original sin happened before there was any childbirth.

d.) God works in mysterious ways. He doesn't want us to know.

e.) Other (explain)

 

Animals supposedly don't sin because they have no souls. However animals have pain during childbirth just like humans. Can you explain this? Possibilities.

 

a.) Animals do sin and were given the same punishment for it as Eve.

b.) Animals always had painful childbirth. God made animals suffer for no reason, but didn't make humans suffer until they sinned.

c.) Adam had dominion over all the animals. The sins of the father are visited not only upon the son, but also on his pets.

d.) God works in mysterious ways. He doesn't want us to know.

e.) Other (explain)

 

Dude, you volunteered as the token Fundie here, so I demand an answer!

[RHEMtron]

haha i forgot about this thread.

 

no prob with the compliment.

 

as far as my post... i was amazed, but at the same time a little disappointed with your response. i was testing you to see if you were paying attention. all you had to say was simply, "you got your story wrong. the flood happened before the tower was built."

 

welcome back from vacation!

 

-rhem

[duderonomy]

Mr. or Ms. Nazi,

 

You do err, knowing not the scriptures, nor the power of God.

 

Did God not curse the entire earth because of the fall in the Garden of Eden?

Right down to the plants? Why then, do you think that animals would be exempt from the curse?

 

or... The Bible does point out that man was created higher than the animals, but lower than the angels. What makes you so sure that God didn't intend pain in childbirth for all of His creation, save

mankind, as mankind was the crown of creation and thus held to, and afforded, a different standard?

 

And to say that Eve 'tricked' Adam into eating the fruit is simply an incorrect statement. Adam told God that the woman gave him the fruit, and he did eat. No trickery there. I will point out that at that time Eve had already partaken of the forbiden fruit, and thus her eyes were opened, and she knew good and evil. Adam, as yet, did not. Still though, no trickery involved.

 

If you want to debate the curse, the fruit, or the Garden of Eden, that would be fine. I would point out that both Adam and Eve were sinless and innocent, not knowing good from evil at the time they ate the fruit. That would seem to go against my position here, if you have only read Genesis with a passing glance, as your flip and not too comical multiple choice answers in your post suggest.

 

 

RHEMtron,

 

I guess you got me there, although I do remember that something didn't seem right. I remember writing:

 

"There were many races and lanquages before the Tower of Babel.

The rest of your question is not based on this, so is in fact moot.

Unless it's one of those tricky math problems. "

 

A trick question alone doesn't let you off the hook, and I'm sorry about your disappointment in my answer. I do try to get my chapters and verses in order, but I sometimes miss the mark. I know I'm somewhat of a stickler with others when it comes to that, but then I guess we hate most in others what we hate most in ourselves!

 

Why were you 'amazed' with my response, if I may ask?

[RHEMtron]

dang... forgot about this thread again...

 

i was amazed because of your responses to the initial challenges presented to you. like we all said at the begining... the logic you had when you were fundy was pretty damn good. no emotional, or personal interpretations got in the way of your arguments

 

but of course having logic was a give away for an eventual deconversion.