Noah's Ark

[Paulhoff]

they are defending an amoral god.

But you know it loves us, because it beats us so well.

Paul

 

[Paulhoff]

Madalch my faith is not endangered it’s yours that’s is endangered.

Not believing in a so-called god is not a faith edge, I don't belong to a religion because I don't believe in Peter-Pan.

Paul

 

[Madalch]

Not believing in a so-called god is not a faith edge, I don't belong to a religion because I don't believe in Peter-Pan.

I'm sure edge considers Apeterpanism to be both a faith and a religion.

 

[edge]

Additionally, I notice that you have not responded to my comment on the utter lack of historical evidence for Herod slaughtering the innocents,

Just because you see a ancient manuscript that's recounting a story and so far it's the only one doesn't mean that's it's not true, I have faith that this will be verified just as other things have been, possibly even through archeology.

Theirs a whole list of things that were thought to myth that have come to light.
You take it on faith that's it's a myth I take it on faith that its true along with other proofs that have come to light.

And they have come about through science/archeology.
Even if they found a second source you would say that’s not enough there's only two sources, this is where your faith is lacking to believe, it is written that many will not come around.

If there’s an after life then this is a dream in time and nobody’s really dead.
There’s plenty of proof for that.

 

[Paulhoff]

Please edge, show me one thing in the bible that would help me to grow food, make something like building a house, fix a broken bone, and explain the inner workings of the universe that I can use. There is a lot about killing people and a lot of BS about a self centered so-called god that just can’t get people to do what it what’s and its only solution to this is kill them, but with great love.

Paul



How can anyone support with a smile on their face such a childish so-called god, it really makes me question their intelligence.

 

[Safe-Keeper]

You take it on faith that's it's a myth I take it on faith that its true along with other proofs that have come to light.

Burden of proof. Disbelieving in a myth with zero evidence has nothing whatsoever to do with faith.

"I contend that we're both atheists - I just believe in one less god than you".

Just because you see a ancient manuscript that's recounting a story and so far it's the only one doesn't mean that's it's not true

What's with your stance on Quetzalcoatl's, then?

Soooo this ark thing...

a floater or a sinker?

Probably floats just as well as the two 40- and 60 room longboats owned by two chieftains or whatever in Olav the Holy's saga. Or the flying ship in H.C. Andersen's fairy tale. Or the Millenium Falcon. Or any other made-up vessel of myth or fiction.

 

[joobz]

Just because you see a ancient manuscript that's recounting a story and so far it's the only one doesn't mean that's it's not true, I have faith that this will be verified just as other things have been, possibly even through archeology.

So you hope that one day, it will be proven that god committed genocide?

 

[Beerina]

So you hope that one day, it will be proven that god committed genocide?

Nominated.

 

[Foster Zygote]

Ya but you don't know that for sure and who's to say it isn't?

As anyone from a faith that you are convinced is wrong could easily say to you.

There are too many details in that story if you ask me.

There are a lot of details in the Harry Potter books too. In fact, I find fiction is often richer in detail than is fact. Have you ever known a pathological liar?

Even a king of the Jews was willing to sacrifice his own.
The three wise men had sight, enough so they avoided the deception and on their way back to their homelands they avoided Herod, they were able to see past his deception because of his history.

Edge, you can't use an element that only appears in a historically unsupported story to prove the historical veracity of said story.

If you did such a despicable thing and as a king would it be part of your history?

You mean like in the Old Testament with its tales glorifying the genocidal slaughter of whole cities?

And we have histories that were not written by Herod that make no mention of such a slaughter.

So to figure out who’s a false profit you then look at their works and what was Hitler’s works?
They the false ones will be judged for their works we are not if we accept Jesus.

So judging by the works of Moses and Joshua, they must have been false prophets. I mean they massacred little children after all.

 

[X]

Just because you see a ancient manuscript that's recounting a story and so far it's the only one doesn't mean that it's not true. I have faith that this will be verified just as other things have been, possibly even through archeology.

One manuscript. Among two that deal with the birth of Jesus. Two books which are liberally copied from an earlier work, attributed to Mark, which does not mention anything about jesus' birth. Among four gospels that don't agree on much of anything and are rife with contradiction and are known to have been altered throughout their history.
In this case, it is more than justifiable to ask for more sources. In fact, it would be negligent of me not to do so.
You cite one gospel, on the assumption that because it is in the Bible it is therefore true. You have now put yourself in the position of proving the Bible to be true, and thus a valid source for your claim.
As I said before, Josephus, who lived in that time, recorded nothing of the slaughter. Nothing at all. He recorded every crime or transgression of Herod that he could find. But he says nothing about the slaughter of the innocents. Neither do other contemporary historians and writers. Their silence is louder than Matthew's plagiarized and modified testimonies.
I would be amiss if I did not doubt the veracity of one book of questionable heritage in light of the deafening silence of recognized recorders of history.

There's a whole list of things that were thought to myth that have come to light.
You take it on faith that's it's a myth I take it on faith that its true along with other proofs that have come to light.

No, Edge, I do not take it on faith. I merely point out that there is absolutely no evidence for it, outside of one book known to be filled with additions, modifications and errors, among many books know to be filled with additions, modifications and errors.
Assuming truth on such a foundation is not rational. Asking for evidence is not faith. I presume nothing. I merely take the position that unless strong evidence can be accrued, the reasonable position is one of doubt.
If historians of the period record absolutely nothing about what would have been an incredibly widespread and violent act of mass-murder, then doubt becomes more than reasonable. It becomes necessary.

And they have come about through science/archeology.
Even if they found a second source you would say that’s not enough there's only two sources, this is where your faith is lacking to believe, it is written that many will not come around.

If there’s an after life then this is a dream in time and nobody’s really dead.
There’s plenty of proof for that.

If they find a second source, I will take it on its merits.
I find it ironic that you talk of many not seeing the truth, given that you have admitted that all you have is faith. Blind belief, without or in spite of evidence, that your opinions are true.
Me, I like to know my opinions are true, not merely assume them.



Edge, I'm going to give you some advice:

If all you have is faith that the Bible is accurate and true, then I strongly recommend you avoid entering into debates about its veracity.
Regardless of whether the discussion irks you because it does not align with your beliefs.

In a debate on the matter, you need substance. Basing your arguments on the faith that your particular fundamentalist flavour of Christianity is correct and others are false because you believe the Bible is correct because it says it is the word of God and therefore is correct is not substance. It is an embarrasment.

By doing so, you cripple yourself in the debate arena. Your willingness to consider new information, to learn, to educate, and to support your arguments is hampered by your preconcieved conclusions. By putting yourself in such a position, you are forced to defend outrageous claims, like genocide being good or historical events occuring that have left no viable evidence whatsoever.

Faith does not matter in such an arena. Only fact, evidence, and reason matter. Faith will convince nobody, and only results in you backing yourself into a corner, and turning to "I believe it to be so therefore it is so!" as a safety net. It is not convincing, and, honestly, rather pathetic.

If you are not willing to discuss, to learn, or to engage, withdraw. Do not engage in debates when you have "faith" as your only foundation. You will not learn anyhing, you will not gain anything, you will definately not convince anyone else of your views, and you will succeed only in lowering other peoples opinions of you.

I'm serious. Either come prepared and ready to educate and learn, or don't engage in discussions about elements of your faith. It is a waste of your time, and a waste of the time of those discussing things with you.

I'm not telling you to stop posting, merely to stop enterring debates about aspects of your beliefs, because by declaring it all based on faith, you have rendered yourself incapable of any meaningful discussion on the matter. Do keep posting, please. You do bring forward informative and interesting discussions, like the 2000 year old tree (very cool). Just, avoid theological tangling until you can defend yourself without needing to resort to faith alone for your defence. Because one you declare "Faith", you have admitted that no amount of evidence or reason will sway you. You have admitted that you have no solid factual grounding for your beliefs. You have made further debate pointless.

Because of this impasse we have reached, I will not be responding to your arguments on this particular subject until such time as you are actually willing to engage in a meaningful exchange of ideas.

Peace, [X]

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

As I said before, Josephus, who lived in that time, recorded nothing of the slaughter.

Could you change "in" to "shortly after" because it sort of reads like you're saying he lived at the time of the supposed incident when he wasn't born until 40 years after.

 

[X]

Could you change "in" to "shortly after" because it sort of reads like you're saying he lived at the time of the supposed incident when he wasn't born until 40 years after.

Yah, you're right. I had meant "that time" to cover that, but it does seem very unclear, in retrospect.I apologize, and request readers change "in" to "shortly after".

 

[plumjam]

I suggest a home experiment... Take a salt water fish and put it into a fresh water tank and then take a fresh water fish and put it into a salt water tank.

As far as I understand it the flood occurred due to lots of rainfall; not the oceans invading the land, or the rivers filling the oceans with fresh water.
So, normal procedures would apply. The fresh water would run down from higher ground towards the sea. The sea certainly wouldn't run uphill, deluging all the inland lakes and rivers.
Clearly, I don't believe the whole globe was underwater, if the flood did happen.
So most fish would have survived, whether freshwater or saltwater varieties.

 

[joobz]

Clearly, I don't believe the whole globe was underwater, if the flood did happen.

In which case, there's no debate. All of the logical problems arise from the biblical literal interpretation which says that the world was completely covered in water.

 

[plumjam]

In which case, there's no debate. All of the logical problems arise from the biblical literal interpretation which says that the world was completely covered in water.

Is there enough water in the world to completely submerge the land? Someone must have done some calculations.

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

Yah, you're right. I had meant "that time" to cover that, but it does seem very unclear, in retrospect.I apologize, and request readers change "in" to "shortly after".

For any readers or lurkers, I wasn't disagreeing with X's point, I was just being pedantic about the verbiage that was used. While Josephus didn't live contemporaneously with the supposed slaughter of the innocents, he wasn't temporally removed enough to have glossed over such a supposed incident during his writings of Antiquties - especially given the fact that he was writing for a Roman audience about a long dead and deposed Jewish figurehead ruler.

 

[X]

Is there enough water in the world to completely submerge the land? Someone must have done some calculations.

Is the land completely submerged?

Quick math

An article on more math (although calling creationists "cretinists" seems petty and childish)


Most flood-literalists get around this detail by saying that
a. There was a layer of water high above the Earth
b. The water came from beneath the Earth
c. Godidit
d. Any combination of the above

Unfortunately for them, options a and b raise more problems than they solve (which are ultimately explained away by reverting to c).

 

[I Ratant]

Is there enough water in the world to completely submerge the land? Someone must have done some calculations.

.
Not now, not ever.
Look at the Global Warming stats... even if all the ice melts, the oceans will never rise enough to cover even the low mountain ranges like the Appalachians.
The amount of rainfall in the myth is many -feet- of rain per hour, when computing for the height of Everest. (something like 30 feet of water per hour.)
This is an ungodly (no pun) amount of water which no wood vessel could have been constructed to withstand for an hour, much less 960 of them.

 

[Mashuna]

What about the evil ducks?

Quack quack quaaaaaaaack.

 

[Madalch]

.
Not now, not ever.
Look at the Global Warming stats... even if all the ice melts, the oceans will never rise enough to cover even the low mountain ranges like the Appalachians.

If you're invoking the "Goddiddit" hypothesis, you could imagine that, pre-flood, the mountains were much lower and the ocean trenches much shallower. Or the bit about waters coming from the deep actually referred to the Earth's crust being smoothed out so the trenches rose up to push the ocean up while the mountains dove beneath the waves.

Ick- I sound like edge saying that. I'm going to go shower.