Semmelweis Reflex

[SemmelweisReflex]

12 hours ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

I'd advise against it, if you do, in fact, wish to stay, and be heard.

 

I'm not interested in trolling. I grew out of that. A decade ago my favorite hobby was to get as wasted on whiskey as I could and troll idiot atheists. I also had some great discussions with atheists who weren't idiots. When I say people are idiots, like I believe they are, I'm not excluding myself as a person. 

 

It has been my experience that people on forums label anyone a troll that they don't want to hear. This almost supernatural fear of "trolls" I find amusing. I have a self deprecating sense of humor and I see value in someone mocking me. Especially if they know more about something than I do. If you look at people on forums who cry "Troll!" which is accurately defined in the EC Guidelines as: "Trolls tend to argue only for the cause of starting a good fight. They use inflammatory statements and try to upset people, just for the entertainment of seeing the effect. Trolls usually are closed-minded to any replies that are made, and they might jump from the original topic to just flaming anyone who disagrees with them.

Most of the time, trolls try to stay anonymous and don't post pictures of themselves or give any information of who they are. "

 

You will notice that it is those same people who behave like that to the opposition. Those who live in troll caves shouldn't throw glass shards. Or is that fling their own shit. Okay. My analogies suck. Either way, you can't act trollish and expect even those on your own side to not entertain a turning of the table. 

 

As for anonymity, in my early days I would literally post my real name, address and telephone number as a sig. Sure, a bunch of mouthy trolls would threaten my life but they were pathetic jokes. Come on over, I would say. None ever did. 

 

 Don't be afraid of trolls. Especially if you are not really afraid of trolls. 

[SemmelweisReflex]

10 hours ago, midniterider said:

 

I guess there's not much motivation for me to accept Christ if there's really no major consequence for not doing so.

 

Are you being ironical? Sort of the cosmic cash cow of the religious?

 

Quote

I dont mind perma-death, though I think there may be some other type of continuation like reincarnation. And after looking at some of the stories like Job, Abraham and Isaac, The Flood, I dont think I want to live in heaven with this 'loving' God forever. 

 

You mean the kingdom of heaven which includes earth for mankind and heaven for spirit creatures.

 

Of course, it doesn't matter because nothing is available through a god of ones own making. Deus Ex Machina. People often think that religion was designed to control people. That isn't the case in my opinion. Religion was designed to be controlled by people. 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

39 minutes ago, SemmelweisReflex said:

 

It has been my experience that people on forums label anyone a troll that they don't want to hear.

You'll find we do things differently here.

[midniterider]

23 minutes ago, SemmelweisReflex said:

 

Are you being ironical? Sort of the cosmic cash cow of the religious?

 

 

You mean the kingdom of heaven which includes earth for mankind and heaven for spirit creatures.

 

Of course, it doesn't matter because nothing is available through a god of ones own making. Deus Ex Machina. People often think that religion was designed to control people. That isn't the case in my opinion. Religion was designed to be controlled by people. 

 

So God didnt really make a bet with Satan over Job's loyalty?

Did God not really order Abraham to kill his own son. Did God not really drown most everyone on earth at one point? 

 

Maybe the real God could weigh in on this topic. Hello, God did you do these things the Bible says you did? 

[SemmelweisReflex]

1 minute ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

You'll find we do things differently here.

 

It's a nice forum. Nice people. Notice my reputation? Is that average for someone with my number of posts? I don't really like those voting games on forums. It's a method of distraction, control and confirmation bias. Xenophobia. But I would like to sincerly vote for some good posts I've read lately. Just haven't had time to figure out how. This forum's format is different than I've ever used. Plus I'm trying to get used to a laptop after only ever having used a desktop. 

 

We all have confirmation bias. We all have weaknesses. We all are sometime a little bit sneaky.  We all hate criticism. Especially if we are passionate or participating in some cause to help others in a fragile or vulnerable position. 

 

You. Me. Them. Us. Real boats rock, as they say. 

 

 

[Myrkhoos]

3 hours ago, SemmelweisReflex said:

 

Well, yes and no. Sort of. Avoiding the logical fallacy of appeal to authority concerns a selective or exclusionary approach to authority, not a total disregard. An appeal to authority wouldn't carefully consider the merit of the data given by authority based upon evidence, it would cherry pick the data to support their confirmation bias. 

Ok, then why do you think the Bible has any authority, on any subject? I mean, why don't you consider the Koran an authority? Or have you read Jewish refutations of the New Testament? And how can anything like like the Bible creation story be tested, in order to have evidence for it? Or the ressurection of Jesus.

3 hours ago, SemmelweisReflex said:

 

So I don't disagree with the Bible's creation account just because the theory of evolution does and nor do I believe anything the Bible says just because it says it. Or just because I want to interpret it in a certain way. 

Then how do you interpret it? By the way, do you know ancient greek and hebrew and latin and aramaic or just some words from it? Bk one can make quite the argument that without knowing ancient languages the Bible cannot be properly understood.

3 hours ago, SemmelweisReflex said:

 

You can't read one small portion of the Bible and assume that it means what it says. It gives you the story in other's perspectives. For example, Eve's perspective. The serpent appeared to talk to Eve. Snakes don't talk. The Bible says the snake talked but the snake didn't talk. 

Similar examples of the Bible saying something that wasn't true is the ass in the case of Balaam. But also in the case where it appears that Samuel's "spirit" is summoned by the witch of En-dor, where the cowardly scouts sent out came back and said the Nephilim were in the land.

 

Satan used the serpent as a puppet to deceive Eve. The angel did the same to Balaam's ass. Samuel's spirit was a demon and the Nephilim all perished much earlier in the flood. 

Where does it say  Samuel's spirit was a demon or that Balaam's ass was an angel or that the serpent was a puppet of the devil?

3 hours ago, SemmelweisReflex said:

 

Sometimes the Bible even gives details of earlier events using references that didn't exist at that time. For example, at Genesis 3:24 the cherubs use a flaming blade of a sword to prevent Adam and Eve from returning. No such thing existed. At Genesis 2:10-14 the geographical details of Eden are given with reference to one river "to the East of Assyria" when Assyria certainly didn't exist then. But it was familiar to the reader who was reading it much later.

This is why you have to know the entire Bible before you start hacking at it like a blind woodsman. 

 

The Bible itself warns it's readers not to trust it, to test the inspired expression. The Bible isn't, by any means, infallible. Anyone who suggests it is infallible doesn't know what they are talking about. 

And it says - And when Philip had run up, he heard him reading Isaiah the prophet, and said, “Do you understand what you are reading?” 31 And he said, “Well, how could I, unless someone guides me?” And he invited Philip to come up and sit with him - does not this contradict your principle of personal interpretation and that you need a guide? Which was basically THE whole history of bible interpretation -with guides. 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

12 minutes ago, SemmelweisReflex said:

Real boats rock, as they say. 

And still waters run deep; or so I've heard.

[SemmelweisReflex]

17 minutes ago, midniterider said:

 

So God didnt really make a bet with Satan over Job's loyalty?

Did God not really order Abraham to kill his own son. Did God not really drown most everyone on earth at one point? 

 

Maybe the real God could weigh in on this topic. Hello, God did you do these things the Bible says you did? 

 

Well, yeah, but the Lloyd works in mysterious ways. 

 

I've always wanted to say that to a skeptic. Only joking of course. You can't not watch the film Ol' Yeller because they shot and killed the poor thing without asking why? God has done things that I don't agree with. That King David who was beloved by God didn't agree with. It seems sort of unrealistic to me to have a knee jerk reaction to those sort of things. Especially if you don't even believe the events took place or that God is real. 

 

It seems like ideological possession. 

 

 

[Myrkhoos]

2 minutes ago, SemmelweisReflex said:

 

Well, yeah, but the Lloyd works in mysterious ways. 

 

I've always wanted to say that to a skeptic. Only joking of course. You can't not watch the film Ol' Yeller because they shot and killed the poor thing without asking why? God has done things that I don't agree with. That King David who was beloved by God didn't agree with. It seems sort of unrealistic to me to have a knee jerk reaction to those sort of things. Especially if you don't even believe the events took place or that God is real. 

 

It seems like ideological possession. 

 

 

Do YOU believe they took place? Just to know where you are standing.

[midniterider]

59 minutes ago, SemmelweisReflex said:

 

Are you being ironical? Sort of the cosmic cash cow of the religious?

 

 

 

Not sure what you mean. Havent had my coffee yet (like that matters. haha)

 

If you're talking about me turning down some valuable thing like heaven, I guess I dont find it that valuable if bibleGod is in charge of it. 

[SemmelweisReflex]

15 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

And still waters run deep; or so I've heard.

 

You can only judge the distance by the company you keep. 

The bottom has a rocky reputation. 

 

Joe Walsh - Confessor - YouTube

[midniterider]

10 minutes ago, SemmelweisReflex said:

 

Well, yeah, but the Lloyd works in mysterious ways. 

 

I've always wanted to say that to a skeptic. Only joking of course. You can't not watch the film Ol' Yeller because they shot and killed the poor thing without asking why? God has done things that I don't agree with. That King David who was beloved by God didn't agree with. It seems sort of unrealistic to me to have a knee jerk reaction to those sort of things. Especially if you don't even believe the events took place or that God is real. 

 

It seems like ideological possession. 

 

 

 

Adolf Hitler has done a few things I disagree with. So has Charles Manson. Really though they are great guys. At least they didn't flood the world killing 99.9% of the population. 

 

No, I think the bible is fiction, really. I assume you believe the stories contained in the bible actually occurred? And if so why do you think God is good? 

[☆ DarkBishop ☆]

On 6/8/2021 at 11:35 AM, WalterP said:

 

Yes, it's quite a conundrum isn't it, David?

 

 

If two people have differing interpretations of the same thing, yet both believe that their own standard of interpretation is the best, what could be done?

 

I certainly don't know.

 

That's why I usually don't bother getting involved in 'debates' where a common standard hasn't been agreed upon.

 

So-called debates that are just clashes of personal preference are of no interest to me.

 

 

But, if someone were to present something objective and not just their subjective opinions, I might be interested.

 

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

 

I wish Bart Ehrman was on this site. He would be the perfect person to debate this. @SemmelweisReflex should read Ehrman's book heaven and hell. In it he explores the contributing factors of Christianities "hell". It was a well accepted believe with many jews even before christ. They were definitely influenced by the surrounding religions. But they had their own reasons to believe in an afterlife of punishment as well. There were books predating Christianity that depicted this belief but they didn't make it into the cannon. 

     How do you reconcile the fact that in 2 Peter 1:20 Ye do well, as knowing this, that no scripture prophecy is of private interpretation - It is not any man's own word. It is God, not the prophet himself, who thereby interprets things till then unknown.

      You say your private interpretation is better? Well guess what. So did every man or woman that ever started a new denomination. There are thousands of different denominations so....... eh. Just being honest here. You hot it wrong just like everyone else did because the Bible is provably wrong, and anything you base on scripture is wrong. Its all just a fairy tale poorly written by many ignorant people over the course of 2000 years or so. Roughly 1500 year before christ to about 400 years after. They finally shored up the canonized Bible between 332 and 381 A.D. Many of the old testament authors wrote stories well after the fact. Like the whole exodus thing. Jericho didn't even exist so the whole story where they marched around it and the walls fell..... well thats bullshit. Therefore any writing that that author made in the first 5 books is likewise bullshit. Scholars say there were atleast 4 authorships that contributed to the Torah over hundreds of years. Changing things as politics and religious belief changed. It went from a pantheon of God's, "which were the original sons of El that supposedly fathered those children with the daughters of men", To a belief that worshipped El and later Yahweh (but accepted that there were other gods, to a completely monotheistic religion denying the existence of other gods. 

     Then later in the new testament. We still have forgeries in the Bible that weren't written by the generally accepted author. So from front to back you've had people over the centuries changing and tweeking. Existing texts, and in some cases writing whole books to support their individual ideas. Which is kinda what your doing now with your interpretation. 

     Your interpretation is kinda like an opinion. Everybody's got em. I had my interpretations when I was Christian as well. Because when one studies and starts seeing the fallacies in the Bible, you have to reconcile those fallacies with your own interpretation, no set interpretation fits because the book is filled with contradictions. So you've come up with your own belief. Good for you bro. But it stinks of horse shit just like every other Christians interpretation. We've had several of you guys coming in with your own "hallelujah I've got the answer" interpretations here lately. 

[midniterider]

DB, Semmelweis is not a Christian. He's just someone who worships Jesus the Christ. I guess.

[☆ DarkBishop ☆]

Just now, midniterider said:

DB, Semmelweis is not a Christian. He's just someone who worships Jesus the Christ. I guess.

 

Hes just another christian with a different interpretation. Arent all christ based religions considered Christian for the most part? Baptism doesn't make one Christian. The belief in christ does. After all Christ is the root word. I dont accept SR's assertion that he isn't Christian. He believes in Christ, he believes in the bibles heaven, he just thinks he's omitted the pagan aspects. His is just another brand of Christianity made up in his mind with his personal interpretation. Nothing new or awe inspiring. 

[midniterider]

God directed Satan to make Job's life suck. But I'm sure there was no emotional trauma or PTSD after God replaced Job's wife, children, cattle, and health. God directed Abraham to kill his son. Then at the last instant said, "Just kidding!" I'm sure there was no lasting emotional trauma over that incident for Isaac or Abraham. And of course God implemented a flood killing almost everyone on earth....but hey, he's got this great heaven waiting for you when you die. Fabulous! And the Christians cheered!!! Praise the Lord!

 

Now Adolf Hitler orchestrated a genocide of 6 million people. Similar to what God did with the flood. But let's pretend Hitler now owns this awesome resort north of Berlin. Any takers?  What? Hitler's a scumbag? No way!! I mean, yeah, sure he's done some things I disagree with but.....

[midniterider]

10 minutes ago, DarkBishop said:

 

Hes just another christian with a different interpretation. Arent all christ based religions considered Christian for the most part? Baptism doesn't make one Christian. The belief in christ does. After all Christ is the root word. I dont accept SR's assertion that he isn't Christian. He believes in Christ, he believes in the bibles heaven, he just thinks he's omitted the pagan aspects. His is just another brand of Christianity made up in his mind with his personal interpretation. Nothing new or awe inspiring. 

 

Yes. If you worship Jesus or read the bible as if it is true, you're a Christian. 

[SemmelweisReflex]

27 minutes ago, Myrkhoos said:

Ok, then why do you think the Bible has any authority, on any subject?

 

See, I could ask you why you don't. If you assume I have no logical reason to think it does can I assume you don't? I think it is inspired by the creator, Jehovah God. 

 

Quote

I mean, why don't you consider the Koran an authority?

 

I do. On Islamic teachings. I don't consider it a valid authority on Jesus or Moses because it isn't. It was right about rejecting the trinity. It was right about the apostasy of Jewish and Christian religion but that doesn't mean it's an authority on those.

 

Quote

Or have you read Jewish refutations of the New Testament?

 

Not really. They don't have the merit to judge the Christian Greek scriptures. At the risk of seeming pedantic New Testament and Old Testament are misnomers based upon a Latin mistranslation. The first Christians were all Jewish. The religious leaders of Jesus' day coveted the authority of the Aaronic priests. They tried to raise themselves above the law by exaggerating it to their advantage. When the Romans destroyed the temple of Jerusalem in 70 CE the priestly line was destroyed along with it. This opened the door for those corrupt religious leaders and the result is what we see in Jewish thinking thereafter. The same thing happened to the Christians in the 4th century. 

 

Quote

And how can anything like like the Bible creation story be tested, in order to have evidence for it? Or the resurrection of Jesus. Then how do you interpret it?

 

They can be tested first of all with the Bible itself. If I say Gandalf The Grey was the head master of Hogwarts and Dumbledore was the Istar (Wizard) dispatched to Middle Earth, the first step in a good correction might be to refer me to JRR Tolkien's Lord Of The Rings and JK Rowling's Harry Potter series. 

 

I'm no scientist but you couldn't test the creation account scientifically. Science doesn't test the supernatural. Most scientific explorations into the theological that I've seen have been laughable. First of all they don't even consider the most important linguistic elements, but rather the theological or traditional. They try to make sense of it in scientific terms. For example, a science minded skeptic will say that the celestial phenomenon in the book of Revelation is the product of a superstitious people. It isn't. It is figurative references to social and political upheaval. 

 

The same language is used to describe the same social and political upheaval in Jerusalem with earlier books like Daniel. New people, new government, new society. The old destroyed. So all governments will be destroyed as Jerusalem was and then replaced by God's kingdom. 

 

Quote

Then how do you interpret it?

 

Let's take the creation account. Genesis chapter 1. 

 

[Genesis 1:1] The Hebrew verb consists of two different states. The perfect state indicates an action which is complete, whereas the imperfect state indicates a continuous or incomplete action.

At Genesis 1:1 the word bara, translated as created, is in the perfect state, which means that at this point the creation of the heavens and the Earth were completed. Later, as in verse 16 the Hebrew word asah, translated as made, is used, which is in the imperfect state, indicating continuous action. The heavens and Earth were created in verse 1 and an indeterminate time later they were being prepared for habitation, much the same as a bed is manufactured (complete) and made (continuous) afterwards.

[Genesis 1:2] Though the sun and moon as part of the heavens were complete, at this point light had not penetrated to the surface of the Earth. Job 38:4, 9 refers to a "swaddling band" around the Earth in the early stages of creation. Likely there was a cosmic dust cloud of vapor and debris which prevented the light from the sun from being visible on the surface of the earth.

[Genesis 1:3] Here the Hebrew verb waiyomer (proceeded to say) is in the imperfect state indicating progressive action. This first chapter of Genesis has more than 40 cases of the imperfect state. The creative "days" were a gradual process of making Earth habitable.

The light was a diffused light which gradually grew in intensity. Some translations more clearly indicate the progressive action. The Hebrew word for light, ohr, is used. This distinguishes the light from the source of the light. Later, on the fourth "day" the Hebrew word maohr is used, signifying that the source of the light only becomes visible then through the swaddling band.

[Genesis 1:4] Light and darkness is divided between the eastern and western hemispheres as the Earth rotates on its axis.

[Genesis 1:5] Here the Hebrew word yohm translated day, indicates the daylight hours, but the term will be applied in the following verses to indicate various lengths of time. The word is used to describe any period of time from a few hours to thousands of years. (Zechariah 14:8; Proverbs 25:13; Psalm 90:4; Isaiah 49:8; Matthew 10:15)

The terms evening and morning are metaphoric. At this point there are no witnesses on Earth to a literal night and day, but there are witnesses in heaven. (Job 38:4, 7) The evening symbolizes the period of time in which the events unfolding were indiscernible to the angels in heaven. The morning symbolizes the period in which the angels could distinguish what had been accomplished. (Proverbs 4:18)

[Genesis 1:6] The word expanse is translated from the Hebrew raqia, which means "spreading out." Since the root word from which raqia comes is raqa, which is sometimes used in a sense of "beating out" some confusion has been caused by the Greek Septuagint translation of raqia as stereoma, which means "firm and solid structure" concluding when the Latin Vulgate used the term firmamentum because, at that time it was thought that there was a metallic dome surrounding the earth with sluice holes from which rain fell.

The International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia states: “But this assumption is in reality based more upon the ideas prevalent in Europe during the Dark Ages than upon any actual statements in the O T.” - Edited by J. Orr, 1960, Vol. I, p. 314. For example, at Job 36:27-28 the water cycle is described without any reference to the Dark Ages understanding of sluice holes.

[Genesis 1:7] In verse 6 and 7 part of the water that covers the Earth is lifted to the heavens to form a water canopy surrounding the planet. This canopy was used to flood the earth during the days of Noah. (2 Peter 3:5-6)

[Genesis 1:14] The light in verse 14 is different from that in verse 3. In verse 3 the Hebrew word ohr is used, meaning the light from the source. Light in a general sense, whereas the light in verse 14 the Hebrew word maohr is used, signifying the source of the light is now visible. See [Genesis 1:3]

[Genesis 1:16] The Hebrew waiyaas (proceeded to make), from asah, in verse 16 is different than bara (create) in verses 1, 21 and 27. Asah is the imperfect state indicating progressive action. The luminaries as part of the heavens had already been completed in verse 1, but now they were visible on Earth and prepared for their intended use. Asah can mean make, or appoint (Deuteronomy 15:1), establish (2 Samuel 7:11), form (Jeremiah 18:4), or prepare (Genesis 21:8). Also see [Genesis 1:1]

[Genesis 1:26] God refers to his son, Christ Jesus in his heavenly pre-human existence. (Genesis 11:7; Proverbs 8:30; John 1:3; Colossians 1:16) Being made in the likeness, image or semblance of God reflects mankind's potential for being like God, possessing his qualities of wisdom, power, righteousness and love.

The creative days, each of which may have lasted thousands or even millions of years, and had taken place an indeterminate period of time after the creation was complete in verse one, are not indicative of any speculation regarding the age of the Earth and universe. The Bible simply doesn’t say.

Period 1 - Light; a division between night and day (Genesis 1:3-5)

Period 2 - The Expanse; a division between waters above and beneath. (Genesis 1:6-8)

Period 3 - Dry land and vegetation. (Genesis 1:9-13)

Period 4 - Heavenly luminaries become visible from Earth. (Genesis 1:14-19)

Period 5 - Aquatic and flying creatures. (Genesis 1:20-23)

Period 6 - Land animals and man. (Genesis 1:24-31)

 

Quote

By the way, do you know ancient greek and hebrew and latin and aramaic or just some words from it? Bk one can make quite the argument that without knowing ancient languages the Bible cannot be properly understood.

 

To me that's like saying evolution can't be understood by someone not a scientist. My favorite translation, the New World Translation, was produced by laymen who had no training in those languages. Whereas scholars would be heavily influenced by tradition the JWs took a good translation and researched each word. I use the same method in study. It's a fair criticism and I have my limits, but I'm leery of scholars too heavily influenced by tradition or steeped in academia.

 

Quote

Where does it say  Samuel's spirit was a demon or that Balaam's ass was an angel or that the serpent was a puppet of the devil?

 

You are asking me to do what it is I told you you shouldn't do. Hacking like a blind woodsman. Not seeing the forest for the trees. You would ignore a lengthy answer with the necessary scriptural references. Who is going to be thrown into the lake of fire for bringing sin into being? Satan of a literal snake? Did you read the references to Balaam in Numbers 22? 2 Peter 2:16: "but got a reproof for his own violation of what was right. A voiceless beast of burden, making utterance with the voice of a man, hindered the prophet’s mad course." In Samuel's case you have to understand spirit and spiritism. Why were witches to be burned? Because they were influenced - controlled - by demons. 

 

For the word spiritism Paul uses the Greek pharmakia, which is where the English word pharmacy comes from. Why? Drugs were used to gain access to the spirit world. Demons. I could write much more than you would care to read (if I haven't already). So often translations will put Samuel's name in quotation marks. "Samuel."   What doesn't make sense about that story in 1 Samuel 28? Samuel had died. The Bible says when you die your spirit leaves you. Samuel had refused to talk to Saul before he had died because Jehovah had rejected Saul. So why would he come back in spirit form to talk to him? 

 

Quote

And it says - And when Philip had run up, he heard him reading Isaiah the prophet, and said, “Do you understand what you are reading?” 31 And he said, “Well, how could I, unless someone guides me?” And he invited Philip to come up and sit with him - does not this contradict your principle of personal interpretation and that you need a guide? Which was basically THE whole history of bible interpretation -with guides. 

 

I use guides. You are even a guide to me. For some reason people equate personal responsibility in interpretation as arrogant claims of infallibility. 

 

 

[SemmelweisReflex]

1 hour ago, midniterider said:

 

Not sure what you mean. Havent had my coffee yet (like that matters. haha)

 

Religious people tend to think of their gods as cosmic cash machine. What's in it for me. I thought you were making a joke. 

 

1 hour ago, midniterider said:

 

If you're talking about me turning down some valuable thing like heaven, I guess I dont find it that valuable if bibleGod is in charge of it. 

 

I don't understand why heaven would be valuable to anyone except for that it becomes a product of ones own imagination. Earth was created for man. Man wouldn't be happy in heaven. 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

54 minutes ago, midniterider said:

DB, Semmelweis is not a Christian. He's just someone who worships Jesus the Christ. I guess.

 

44 minutes ago, DarkBishop said:

 

Hes just another christian with a different interpretation... His is just another brand of Christianity made up in his mind with his personal interpretation. Nothing new or awe inspiring. 

It raises the question, for me, at least: if he's this confused about who he is, might he also be wrong about who jesus is?

[SemmelweisReflex]

1 hour ago, midniterider said:

 

Adolf Hitler has done a few things I disagree with. So has Charles Manson. Really though they are great guys. At least they didn't flood the world killing 99.9% of the population. 

 

But why? And what would have happened had God not done that?

 

1 hour ago, midniterider said:

 

No, I think the bible is fiction, really. I assume you believe the stories contained in the bible actually occurred? And if so why do you think God is good? 

 

Good is a relative term, but with that in mind because he created us, knows what is best for us.

[florduh]

"Everyone before me who worshiped Jesus or studied/interpreted the ancient texts was simply wrong. I alone know the truth." - - says every goddam Christian who comes here.

[☆ DarkBishop ☆]

17 minutes ago, SemmelweisReflex said:

But why? And what would have happened had God not done that?

 

God didn't do it. Archeology has only found evidence of localized flooding. They have also found underwater human structures that obviously weren't always under water of course. These flood stories did stem from actual flooding but not a world wide flood. If you put yourself in the shoes of these people that did suffer the floods from the melting ice that caused it. The event would have been horrific. Their whole world was destroyed. As time progresses the stories became bigger of course. And by the time we reached the Era of written human history. The flood was this massive world wide flood that destroyed everyone. 

 

Science has proven the creation theory false. All your ideals of how the creation "actually" happened would make for some entertainment but in the end none of it is true. We are a fortunate result of a ball of elements landing in the right orbit around the sun. Archeology and science has documented very well the evolution of species on earth since the first single celled organisms. All of which is contradictory to the bibles version of the creation of life. No matter how one tries to twist scripture to make it fit. It just can't be done. Its all a fabricated ideal from an ancient people without the knowledge we have today.

[Myrkhoos]

Why do you think the Bible was inspired by the being you call Jehovah?

[☆ DarkBishop ☆]

18 minutes ago, florduh said:

"Everyone before me who worshiped Jesus or studied/interpreted the ancient texts was simply wrong. I alone know the truth." - - says every goddam Christian who comes here.

 

Oh I'm sure he'll end up in a lions den debate. Trying to defend his own personal interpretation just like the others. Then the argument will devolve into a circular argument going nowhere. 

 

You know how it goes. Time after time. Hell he may even be another repeat troll changing his name again. Mr. Jukes # 3 lmao