Noah's flood story, did it happen?

rational experiences · Jun 10, 2021

Basic advice science lied.

The sun light and sun body was all science theories for earth science. Law sun body only.

Mind says nothing deep below as sub is the deepest sub not atomic state as first law was/is pressure change plus consuming only equals emptiness itself. The highest known coldest state in creation.

Science says it wants the coldest state knowing what they theory for.

Fallen Prophet · Jun 11, 2021

Jose Fly said:
That's not surprising. People are oftentimes eager to share their beliefs. Those of us who don't believe....not so much.

Aw - c'mon - I know you like sharing your opinions just as much as the next guy.

Why else be on a forum?

Jose Fly said:
I think you need to re-read what I wrote, and pay particular attention to the "desperate and hurting" part.

Oh - then I'm confused.

This entire time I thought the experience you have been referencing was you seeking revelation - communication with God - seeking answers to the deep questions - but instead it was you seeking comfort?

That changes the entire dynamic of our conversation and I couldn't properly comment on it without further context.

Jose Fly said:
LOL....and by the same token, I wasn't saying you were crazy, I was just saying I wouldn't be surprised if you were.

Do you buy that?

Point taken - but I think there has been extensive research that proves that people often harbor anger and resentment toward their loved ones.

Not so much proving that people cannot have spiritual experiences.

Jose Fly said:
First, I'm not an atheist.

My mistake - I could have sworn that "Atheist" appeared under your religion before - but I think I got you confused with another RF member.

Jose Fly said:
Second, I'm not adamant about not being a Christian.

I've read a few of your posts here - especially those with whom you seem to agree - and I would consider you to be pretty adamant.

Yet - I do understand the power we feel under the guise of anonymity that the internet brings - so you may not act that way in person.

Jose Fly said:
Third, my wife is very understanding about how I am simply not a religious person. As she puts it, "He doesn't have a religious bone in his body".

I'm very impressed.

I don't think that I would be able to marry someone without the common ground of beliefs and the values that spawn from it.

I'm not saying my wife and I don't disagree on stuff - we sometimes have the same "discussions" about certain matters like abortion and homosexuality.

But we tend to share the same - or at least similar - beliefs and values.

You guys must be a match made in Heave...I mean...a good place.

Jose Fly · Jun 11, 2021

Fallen Prophet said:
Aw - c'mon - I know you like sharing your opinions just as much as the next guy.

Why else be on a forum?

I joined this place years ago, primarily to engage in the evolution vs. creationism debates. To be honest, debating religion kind of annoys me.

Oh - then I'm confused.

This entire time I thought the experience you have been referencing was you seeking revelation - communication with God - seeking answers to the deep questions - but instead it was you seeking comfort?

That changes the entire dynamic of our conversation and I couldn't properly comment on it without further context.

It's all of the above. Like I described, my entire life I'd heard things like "Pray about it" when I had problems, when I needed advice, or even when I just needed comfort. I genuinely tried and never once heard, felt, or "received" anything.

I also know other folks who've had the same experiences (or lack thereof), some of whom were very desperate.

I've read a few of your posts here - especially those with whom you seem to agree - and I would consider you to be pretty adamant.

Yet - I do understand the power we feel under the guise of anonymity that the internet brings - so you may not act that way in person.

Huh. Perhaps I'm more vocal about not being religious than I realized.

I'm very impressed.

I don't think that I would be able to marry someone without the common ground of beliefs and the values that spawn from it.

I'm not saying my wife and I don't disagree on stuff - we sometimes have the same "discussions" about certain matters like abortion and homosexuality.

But we tend to share the same - or at least similar - beliefs and values.

You guys must be a match made in Heave...I mean...a good place.

Well she wasn't a Christian when we got married; she converted about 6 or 7 years later. It wasn't a big deal for me, since I was very used to being around Christians.

And yeah, our marriage is wonderful. Thanks.

rational experiences · Jun 11, 2021

Humans know elitism over lording control took earths natural family unity working together away from them. Natural life equal life.

Which led to invention for trade for control and for the lazy rich who wanted slaves to work yet wanted production for greed.

Theirs a Non mutual equality basic work ethic is ours to support the aged who cared for the young. The elder had toiled for their family it was mutual.

Science against the law of God. Man had to introduce human laws against liars.

Pretty basic human advice.

The same theist today says basically the same as a God theist as a man first living on planet earth.

I am a know it all.

Stone was not instantly manifested when some form of being decided to think God a planet ours into presence.

Rational common sense. Mass cooled after its self consuming mass burning as a hell thesis opened more space so pressure changed cooling ensued.

We say spiritually an eternal being in the eternal had sung out God O bodies not with purpose. They never meant to change their owned body.

Unconditional love no judgements no status. I had that experience. They held no communicated status. Did not communicate to my life that I was less as a human.

Knew I was unconditionally loved.

That status says creation owned no purpose. It was not meant. The condition change. Was instant once only. Was not about earth God.

As why would a spirit entity want to leave its highest place when it only owned it's highest place?

Humans quote it by human words. Human voice. Human meanings. Quote God O the spiral movement was how mass in origin form left the eternal was not by speaking.

It had been sung out as the eternal does not speak.

In its lower burnt form singing is now heard as change is involved so we cannot hear the eternal.

Science is looking for the eternal for science. It never was science. Science chosen to continue to force change.

Correct natural awareness.

Living on earth God as a human science machine was change then imposed another instant moment. As the science of God.

Common sense says you cannot believe that a microbe in water the same form today was first human consciousness total self wisdom.

It never studied itself as a human studied it. First records you man talking discussing microbe bodies is heard back recorded talking is no God being.

A human caused the ark. Their ark reaction broke the covenant of God as stone. How it was taught.

Science is an irrational liar. Human law imposed don't change gods laws theirselves.

Fallen Prophet · Jun 11, 2021

Dan From Smithville said:
That doesn't mean they are not two stories merged into one. I saw that when I was young and learned more about it with formal study as an adult.

I hate to sound like Jen Psaki - but let's "circle back" to this.

Dan From Smithville said:
Do you actually comprehend what you respond to?

You were the one who claimed that Genesis recorded "two different stories" and then later claimed that multiple versions were "molded into one".

So - does Genesis record "two different [Creation] stories" or does it record a single Creation story that had been "molded into one?"

This isn't that difficult of a question.

Dan From Smithville said:
I said that there were probably a number of oral traditions for this creation story and TWO were fused into the first two chapters of Genesis.

So - again - are you claiming that there is only one Creation story recorded in Genesis or two?

I see a single Creation story described in Genesis 1 and a different Creation story described in Genesis 2.

I don't see any "molding" or "fusion" - but two separate Creation stories - because they are describing two separate Creation events.

Dan From Smithville said:
You see the same thing in parts of the story of Noah and the flood.

Perhaps you do - but I don't.

Dan From Smithville said:
I am not argue against the validity of the Fall.

I didn't claim that you did.

I claimed that you were arguing against "the validity of the Fall recorded in Genesis."

You are arguing against the Genesis account of the Fall - claiming that it is mere allegory.

I understand that you claim to believe that Man is fallen - but you have yet to offer any explanation for how that is so.

All I have been doing here is pointing that out. You have no explanation. What you claim makes no sense.

You understand that the term "Fall of Man" implies that Man had to have been placed in a "non-Fallen" condition before said Fall?

Otherwise - it would not have been possible for them to "fall".

Meaning - God would have had to first create Man in an "elevated" condition - before the Fall.

The story of Adam and Eve claims that Man was first created in an "elevated" condition - and they chose to Fall.

It makes more sense than the - nothing - you have been offering.

Dan From Smithville said:
Can try and keep this honest or are you really that obtuse?

Really? You asked me this immediately after you claimed I said something that I never did?

How about you try and keep this honest?

Dan From Smithville said:
Chapters 1 and 2 are two different stories of creation.

Agreed - yet that still has nothing to do with the Fall of Man - which is the topic of our conversation.

The Fall was recorded in Chapter 3 - and there is only the one story of that.

Dan From Smithville said:
You can flip flop like a fish on the beach, but you are not going to hit water by claiming they are not.

Wow - again with the dishonesty.

Did I not claim in Post #478,

"However - I believe that the first two Creative chapters can be explained as not "two versions" - but as a spiritual organization first and a physical formation second."

I do not believe that Chapters 1 and 2 are "two versions" of the same event - but rather accounts of two separate and distinct events.

You were the one you erroneously claimed in Post #471 that there were "two different versions of oral tradition" after I asked you to explain the Fall (not the Creation).

You made a mistake and when I corrected you - explaining that you were referring to the Creation and not the Fall - you erected this strawman - based on lies.

I never claimed that Genesis 1 and 2 were two versions of the same story - but rather two different stories for two different Creations - and you erroneously claimed that there were two versions of the Fall.

Dan From Smithville said:
You did. You were yammering about how you know that Genesis is a literal retelling of actual events and but my reading things as allegory is not valid.

Without going back and rereading everything - I'm pretty sure I didn't.

What I have been saying from the beginning is that if you can explain away the story of Adam and Eve as mere allegory - then you can explain away the story of the Lord Jesus Christ.

And I have maintained that His story of offering us a literal Redemption and Salvation would make no sense without a literal Fall.

And I have asked you - a few times - how you explain the Fall of Man without the story of Adam and Eve (the only explanation offered in the Bible) - and you erect strawmen to burn.

Don't get me wrong - I do believe that Adam and Eve were real people - but I haven't used that as a basis for my arguments here.

My arguments have been that what you claim makes no sense and you offer no explanation.

Dan From Smithville said:
I would agree, but I have never said that there wasn't. My only claim is that Genesis should be viewed as allegory. Have you ever heard of a straw man argument. You seem to have a natural talent for them.

You have claimed that the only explanation for the Fall of Man is fictional - while offering no alternatives or reasons to reject it as mere allegory.

You have also claimed that you believe in a literal Fall of Man - without any explanation on how Man Fell outside the story of Adam and Eve.

I am not erecting strawmen - I am exposing holes in your logic that you cannot explain and asking questions that you are running away from.

Dan From Smithville said:
The fact that He is real.

Yet - how can you make this claim when there is no evidence that He ever existed?

Why do I need evidence to believe that Adam and Eve were real people - but you don't need any evidence to believe that the Lord Jesus Christ was a real person?

Also - isn't belief without evidence the definition of faith?

This is an issue I take with a lot of Christians - because they believe things simply because they have been told to believe them - without really thinking about it.

You have been told that Adam and Eve were fictional characters but that the Lord Jesus Christ was real - so you don't require evidence for either of those claims to believe them.

Why not try to look at it from the opposite viewpoint.

What if I was a person who believed that Adam and Eve were real people - but I didn't believe that the Lord Jesus Christ was real?

Yeah - I believe that the Adam and Eve story explained a literal Fall of Man - and I also believe that God has offered us a literal Redemption through the Sacrifice of His Son - but I don't believe that the Son - the Lord Jesus Christ - was a literal person.

His story is a mere allegory. Just a work of fiction. Adam and Eve were real - but the Lord Jesus Christ wasn't.

But - I still believe that God has offered us Redemption through His Son (who actually doesn't exist) - but that's okay - because fictional people are just as valuable as real people - am I right?

You see how that would make no sense?

This is what you are offering.

Dan From Smithville said:
That doesn't support your claim that viewing things as allegory makes them mere.

Sure it does - they were "mere" parables - not accountings of real people who existed or events that literally happened.

Dan From Smithville said:
I didn't claim it was presented as a parable. I reference parables to rebut your claim about allegory diminishing the value.

Of course a person being real or fictional affects their value.

How could you possibly believe otherwise?

Dan From Smithville said:
I have a view. I have not trouble.

You got lots of troubles here friend. Lots.

Dan From Smithville said:
Except with those that claim knowledge they cannot share and likely don't possess.

That's the pot calling the kettle black.

I have asked you repeatedly to explain the Fall of Man outside of the story of Adam and Eve - and you gave me nothing.

You are the one claiming to have knowledge that you are not willing to share - because you don't have it.

You were just told that Adam and Eve were fictional - and you believed it - no need for an explanation.

Dan From Smithville said:
I never said I didn't. You are making a straw man argument again. If you are a Christian, you would try to keep your comments on the up and up.

You are rejecting the only Biblical explanation for the Fall of Man - based on nothing - and offering nothing in its place.

And when it comes to strawmen - you got the one about two versions of the Creation, the one about you lying about something I said, the one about you using your "two versions" argument of the Creation against the story of the Fall - which made no sense - and the one about parables and fictional people having the same worth as actual events and real people?

That's a lot of strawmen.

Yes - I believe that Adam and Eve were real people - but that hasn't been my argument.

My argument has been that your beliefs make no sense and you offer no reason for anyone to agree with them.

Dan From Smithville · Jun 11, 2021

Fallen Prophet said:
I hate to sound like Jen Psaki - but let's "circle back" to this.

You were the one who claimed that Genesis recorded "two different stories" and then later claimed that multiple versions were "molded into one".

So - does Genesis record "two different [Creation] stories" or does it record a single Creation story that had been "molded into one?"

This isn't that difficult of a question.

So - again - are you claiming that there is only one Creation story recorded in Genesis or two?

I see a single Creation story described in Genesis 1 and a different Creation story described in Genesis 2.

I don't see any "molding" or "fusion" - but two separate Creation stories - because they are describing two separate Creation events.

Perhaps you do - but I don't.

I didn't claim that you did.

I claimed that you were arguing against "the validity of the Fall recorded in Genesis."

You are arguing against the Genesis account of the Fall - claiming that it is mere allegory.

I understand that you claim to believe that Man is fallen - but you have yet to offer any explanation for how that is so.

All I have been doing here is pointing that out. You have no explanation. What you claim makes no sense.

You understand that the term "Fall of Man" implies that Man had to have been placed in a "non-Fallen" condition before said Fall?

Otherwise - it would not have been possible for them to "fall".

Meaning - God would have had to first create Man in an "elevated" condition - before the Fall.

The story of Adam and Eve claims that Man was first created in an "elevated" condition - and they chose to Fall.

It makes more sense than the - nothing - you have been offering.

Really? You asked me this immediately after you claimed I said something that I never did?

How about you try and keep this honest?

Agreed - yet that still has nothing to do with the Fall of Man - which is the topic of our conversation.

The Fall was recorded in Chapter 3 - and there is only the one story of that.

Wow - again with the dishonesty.

Did I not claim in Post #478,

"However - I believe that the first two Creative chapters can be explained as not "two versions" - but as a spiritual organization first and a physical formation second."

I do not believe that Chapters 1 and 2 are "two versions" of the same event - but rather accounts of two separate and distinct events.

You were the one you erroneously claimed in Post #471 that there were "two different versions of oral tradition" after I asked you to explain the Fall (not the Creation).

You made a mistake and when I corrected you - explaining that you were referring to the Creation and not the Fall - you erected this strawman - based on lies.

I never claimed that Genesis 1 and 2 were two versions of the same story - but rather two different stories for two different Creations - and you erroneously claimed that there were two versions of the Fall.

Without going back and rereading everything - I'm pretty sure I didn't.

What I have been saying from the beginning is that if you can explain away the story of Adam and Eve as mere allegory - then you can explain away the story of the Lord Jesus Christ.

And I have maintained that His story of offering us a literal Redemption and Salvation would make no sense without a literal Fall.

And I have asked you - a few times - how you explain the Fall of Man without the story of Adam and Eve (the only explanation offered in the Bible) - and you erect strawmen to burn.

Don't get me wrong - I do believe that Adam and Eve were real people - but I haven't used that as a basis for my arguments here.

My arguments have been that what you claim makes no sense and you offer no explanation.

You have claimed that the only explanation for the Fall of Man is fictional - while offering no alternatives or reasons to reject it as mere allegory.

You have also claimed that you believe in a literal Fall of Man - without any explanation on how Man Fell outside the story of Adam and Eve.

I am not erecting strawmen - I am exposing holes in your logic that you cannot explain and asking questions that you are running away from.

Yet - how can you make this claim when there is no evidence that He ever existed?

Why do I need evidence to believe that Adam and Eve were real people - but you don't need any evidence to believe that the Lord Jesus Christ was a real person?

Also - isn't belief without evidence the definition of faith?

This is an issue I take with a lot of Christians - because they believe things simply because they have been told to believe them - without really thinking about it.

You have been told that Adam and Eve were fictional characters but that the Lord Jesus Christ was real - so you don't require evidence for either of those claims to believe them.

Why not try to look at it from the opposite viewpoint.

What if I was a person who believed that Adam and Eve were real people - but I didn't believe that the Lord Jesus Christ was real?

Yeah - I believe that the Adam and Eve story explained a literal Fall of Man - and I also believe that God has offered us a literal Redemption through the Sacrifice of His Son - but I don't believe that the Son - the Lord Jesus Christ - was a literal person.

His story is a mere allegory. Just a work of fiction. Adam and Eve were real - but the Lord Jesus Christ wasn't.

But - I still believe that God has offered us Redemption through His Son (who actually doesn't exist) - but that's okay - because fictional people are just as valuable as real people - am I right?

You see how that would make no sense?

This is what you are claiming.

Sure it does - they were "mere" parables - not accountings of real people who existed or events that literally happened.

Of course a person being real or fictional affects their value.

How could you possibly believe otherwise?

You got lots of troubles here friend. Lots.

That's the pot calling the kettle black.

I have asked you repeatedly to explain the Fall of Man outside of the story of Adam and Eve - and you gave me nothing.

You are the one claiming to have knowledge that you are not willing to share - because you don't have it.

You were just told that Adam and Eve were fictional - and you believed it - no need for an explanation.

You are rejecting the only Biblical explanation for the Fall of Man - based on nothing - and offering nothing in its place.

And when it comes to strawmen - you got the one about two versions of the Creation, the one about you lying about something I said, the one about you using your "two versions" argument of the Creation against the story of the Fall - which made no sense - and the one about parables and fictional people having the same worth as actual events and real people?

That's a lot of strawmen.

Yes - I believe that Adam and Eve were real people - but that hasn't been my argument.

My argument has been that your beliefs make no sense and you offer no reason for anyone to agree with them.

I don't see any profit in continuing this discussion. You straw man a lot of what I say. If my being Christian with a brain offends you, I don't see this as going anywhere.

Fallen Prophet · Jun 12, 2021

Jose Fly said:
I joined this place years ago, primarily to engage in the evolution vs. creationism debates. To be honest, debating religion kind of annoys me.

Yet - you want to argue Creationism with religionists?

Seems that you are a glutton for punishment. Sadist.

The only value I see in debating religion is learning more about other's beliefs - as well as your own.

I mean - no one is going to convince anyone of anything - so we just need to chalk it all up as learning experiences - nothing more.

Jose Fly said:
It's all of the above. Like I described, my entire life I'd heard things like "Pray about it" when I had problems, when I needed advice, or even when I just needed comfort. I genuinely tried and never once heard, felt, or "received" anything.

Again - it will be difficult to address this properly without the context.

However - even though revelation comes from God to us - comfort can be sent to us from all kinds of places.

Are you telling me that you never found solutions for those problems? Never got good advice? Never had any source of comfort?

God can send us these things in all kinds of ways - usually in the best of ways - and we have no right to specify how we receive them.

It's like that story about the guy on his roof because his town flooded and he was praying for God to save him - remember this one?

Boat after boat came with people telling the guy to get in and get to safety - but he told them all that he didn't need them because God was gonna save him.

Then when he drowned and went to Heaven he asked God why He didn't save him - so God told him that He had sent boat after boat of people to save him - but he refused all the help God had sent.

I understand that we may be disappointed in the way God chooses to answer our prayers - but that doesn't mean He doesn't answer them.

I know you've heard all that before - but I still believe it's true.

Besides - from what I've been hearing about your wife - you did alright.

Jose Fly said:
I also know other folks who've had the same experiences (or lack thereof), some of whom were very desperate.

We all suffer from unreasonable expectations sometimes.

Maybe because they viewed prayer as nothing more than a "wish list".

Jose Fly said:
Huh. Perhaps I'm more vocal about not being religious than I realized.

Perhaps Creationism is just your "hot button"?

I believe that the Earth was....ya'know what...we don't need to get into it.

Jose Fly said:
Well she wasn't a Christian when we got married; she converted about 6 or 7 years later. It wasn't a big deal for me, since I was very used to being around Christians.

My wife wasn't converted until a couple years after we started dating.

I told her she didn't have to - because I was quite smitten - but she was intrigued by what I offered her.

I'm not talking about that! You perv!

Jose Fly said:
And yeah, our marriage is wonderful. Thanks.

I love hearing that.

Sometimes I feel like my life didn't even start until I was married. Or was it when my first kid was born? The second? Third?

Either way - I've had a lot of events that made me feel that my life was new and exciting and I'm always glad when people can relate with that.

Fallen Prophet · Jun 12, 2021

Dan From Smithville said:
I don't see any profit in continuing this discussion. You straw man a lot of what I say. If my being Christian with a brain offends you, I don't see this as going anywhere.

Yes - you not reading my post for fear of questions you can't answer does tend to derail a conversation.

Dan From Smithville · Jun 12, 2021

Fallen Prophet said:
Yes - you not reading my post for fear of questions you can't answer does tend to derail a conversation.

That is completely the sort of response I was expecting to get from you. Very kind and Christian of you to judge me and find me wanting.

Dan From Smithville · Jun 12, 2021

Fallen Prophet said:
I hate to sound like Jen Psaki - but let's "circle back" to this.

You were the one who claimed that Genesis recorded "two different stories" and then later claimed that multiple versions were "molded into one".

So - does Genesis record "two different [Creation] stories" or does it record a single Creation story that had been "molded into one?"

This isn't that difficult of a question.

So - again - are you claiming that there is only one Creation story recorded in Genesis or two?

I see a single Creation story described in Genesis 1 and a different Creation story described in Genesis 2.

I don't see any "molding" or "fusion" - but two separate Creation stories - because they are describing two separate Creation events.

Perhaps you do - but I don't.

I said that it is and is known to be two different stories. I never claimed that it was more. You keep saying that I did, so what is the point of discussing something with someone that does not read what I post and comes back at me about claims I never made.

Fallen Prophet said:
I didn't claim that you did.

Posts so long that I have no idea what this references.

Fallen Prophet said:
I claimed that you were arguing against "the validity of the Fall recorded in Genesis."

You were wrong. And you repeated that error. So what is the point supporting continued discussion with someone that argues against things I never claimed.

You are arguing against the Genesis account of the Fall - claiming that it is mere allegory.

I understand that you claim to believe that Man is fallen - but you have yet to offer any explanation for how that is so.[/QUOTE]I don't have to offer an alternative explanation, I am not claiming one. The point is the fall and how it happened. You refuse to listen to what I am saying, so what is the value for me to continue a discussion with you.

Fallen Prophet said:
All I have been doing here is pointing that out. You have no explanation. What you claim makes no sense.

Pointing out something that I am not claiming as if I am claiming it.

Fallen Prophet said:
You understand that the term "Fall of Man" implies that Man had to have been placed in a "non-Fallen" condition before said Fall?

Otherwise - it would not have been possible for them to "fall".

Meaning - God would have had to first create Man in an "elevated" condition - before the Fall.

The story of Adam and Eve claims that Man was first created in an "elevated" condition - and they chose to Fall.

It makes more sense than the - nothing - you have been offering.

Really? You asked me this immediately after you claimed I said something that I never did?

How about you try and keep this honest?

Agreed - yet that still has nothing to do with the Fall of Man - which is the topic of our conversation.

The Fall was recorded in Chapter 3 - and there is only the one story of that.

Wow - again with the dishonesty.

Did I not claim in Post #478,

Again, rattling on and on and on about something I am not claiming is not helping me to find a reason to continue feeding you.

"However - I believe that the first two Creative chapters can be explained as not "two versions" - but as a spiritual organization first and a physical formation second."

I do not believe that Chapters 1 and 2 are "two versions" of the same event - but rather accounts of two separate and distinct events.

You were the one you erroneously claimed in Post #471 that there were "two different versions of oral tradition" after I asked you to explain the Fall (not the Creation).

You made a mistake and when I corrected you - explaining that you were referring to the Creation and not the Fall - you erected this strawman - based on lies.

I never claimed that Genesis 1 and 2 were two versions of the same story - but rather two different stories for two different Creations - and you erroneously claimed that there were two versions of the Fall.[/QUOTE]No. I NEVER DID. I don't care at this point if YOU get that through your head or not.

Fallen Prophet said:
Without going back and rereading everything - I'm pretty sure I didn't.

I see little evidence that you read or understood what I posted the first time.

Fallen Prophet said:
What I have been saying from the beginning is that if you can explain away the story of Adam and Eve as mere allegory - then you can explain away the story of the Lord Jesus Christ.

And I have maintained that His story of offering us a literal Redemption and Salvation would make no sense without a literal Fall.

And I have asked you - a few times - how you explain the Fall of Man without the story of Adam and Eve (the only explanation offered in the Bible) - and you erect strawmen to burn.

Don't get me wrong - I do believe that Adam and Eve were real people - but I haven't used that as a basis for my arguments here.

My arguments have been that what you claim makes no sense and you offer no explanation.

You have claimed that the only explanation for the Fall of Man is fictional - while offering no alternatives or reasons to reject it as mere allegory.

You have also claimed that you believe in a literal Fall of Man - without any explanation on how Man Fell outside the story of Adam and Eve.

I am not erecting strawmen - I am exposing holes in your logic that you cannot explain and asking questions that you are running away from.

Yet - how can you make this claim when there is no evidence that He ever existed?

Why do I need evidence to believe that Adam and Eve were real people - but you don't need any evidence to believe that the Lord Jesus Christ was a real person?

Also - isn't belief without evidence the definition of faith?

This is an issue I take with a lot of Christians - because they believe things simply because they have been told to believe them - without really thinking about it.

You have been told that Adam and Eve were fictional characters but that the Lord Jesus Christ was real - so you don't require evidence for either of those claims to believe them.

Why not try to look at it from the opposite viewpoint.

What if I was a person who believed that Adam and Eve were real people - but I didn't believe that the Lord Jesus Christ was real?

Yeah - I believe that the Adam and Eve story explained a literal Fall of Man - and I also believe that God has offered us a literal Redemption through the Sacrifice of His Son - but I don't believe that the Son - the Lord Jesus Christ - was a literal person.

His story is a mere allegory. Just a work of fiction. Adam and Eve were real - but the Lord Jesus Christ wasn't.

But - I still believe that God has offered us Redemption through His Son (who actually doesn't exist) - but that's okay - because fictional people are just as valuable as real people - am I right?

You see how that would make no sense?

This is what you are offering.

Sure it does - they were "mere" parables - not accountings of real people who existed or events that literally happened.

Of course a person being real or fictional affects their value.

How could you possibly believe otherwise?

You got lots of troubles here friend. Lots.

That's the pot calling the kettle black.

I have asked you repeatedly to explain the Fall of Man outside of the story of Adam and Eve - and you gave me nothing.

You are the one claiming to have knowledge that you are not willing to share - because you don't have it.

You were just told that Adam and Eve were fictional - and you believed it - no need for an explanation.

You are rejecting the only Biblical explanation for the Fall of Man - based on nothing - and offering nothing in its place.

And when it comes to strawmen - you got the one about two versions of the Creation, the one about you lying about something I said, the one about you using your "two versions" argument of the Creation against the story of the Fall - which made no sense - and the one about parables and fictional people having the same worth as actual events and real people?

That's a lot of strawmen.

Yes - I believe that Adam and Eve were real people - but that hasn't been my argument.

My argument has been that your beliefs make no sense and you offer no reason for anyone to agree with them.

I could go on, but what is the point. A person that doesn't read what I post and puts things in my posts that I never said is not someone I consider honest or worth discussing with. You can count it as a win if you like. But I see no value in continuing to talk to you on this. Personally, I think the entire reason you make these extra long, repetitive and boring posts is to win in your mind by overwhelming the other person. Again, no value to me to see this go further.

Fallen Prophet · Jun 12, 2021

Dan From Smithville said:
That is completely the sort of response I was expecting to get from you. Very kind and Christian of you to judge me and find me wanting.

There is nothing un-Christian-like about judging others appropriately. Only the ignorant would think otherwise.

And you judging me and my post without even reading it is worse - isn't it?

Judging people before you even meet them is un-Christian-like.

Judging someone's ideas before you hear them is un-Christian-like.

Running away from the questions you can't answer is un-Christian-like.

Dan From Smithville · Jun 12, 2021

Fallen Prophet said:
There is nothing un-Christian-like about judging others appropriately. Only the ignorant would think otherwise.

And you judging me and my post without even reading it is worse - isn't it?

Judging people before you even meet them is un-Christian-like.

Judging someone's ideas before you hear them is un-Christian-like.

Running away from the questions you can't answer is un-Christian-like.

I am not running away from anything. I see no profit in continuing a discussion with you. I still remain on this forum. I will engage with honest people that read what I post and do not use logical fallacies and a false superiority to tell me that I am sayings I did not.

No profit for me in a continued discussion with a person claiming a set of values they do not apply.

You have a great day and take a hike.

rational experiences · Jun 12, 2021

Science human expressed.

A human thinking today just like before I know it all.

Says cosmic beginnings.

Notice one only as a condition once began as the beginning. As a theist.

Science as a thesis. Says the creators movement upon the great deep of space was O as GOD.

Exactly the thesis movement only forming a word just GOD.

GOD moves as O from DD back to OO.
God is GOOD as theme.

Story said humans as humans owned life human due to gods pre existing spirits.

However holy water formed in space womb owned our life.

No man is God that answer.

Reason to describe thesis first you choose the subject. Then you have to describe via a lot of words the thesis answer.

So the first answer theorising says no man is God. By information.

Then the thinker says man evicted by female notice man male statement his Sophia womb maths science belief from earths garden. Not a real female in any thesis.

Garden water support oxygenation.

Science changed what nature interacted heavenly with.

Man always stood on the ground can't fall anywhere.

Fall out attacked his man self by female male man science was the statement. What I personally activated. As the man men brothers who did it. Explaining how I hurt man body holy via attack of man science on my brother.

Fe iron inferred male science about machine status.

Just because a human said I will now call the other human a female you would wonder why. As his female first fake term spatial womb thesis.

The eternal theme where we came from fits that descriptive analogy as men as a group as scientists first thinkers forced the spirit to change in heavens so animals came out of it as new form as did the human woman.

Reason because I wanted to return back into the eternal form. I was forced manifested and was alone. I wanted to go back.

The human reason why converting science was invented claiming irrationally to return to a moment before the beginning.

As factually science places the before the beginning as what they want first so that beginning would not be active.

As taught science was irrational.

Thesis I always wanted the most highest placement in my thought.

Father said his brother invented science.

Mother and father came out as new life after animal spirits. He was innocent. His brother was not by causes

Babies born innocent. Babies however grow into evil minded adults claiming innocence by body only not by mind or choice the ignored teaching.

If anyone ever asked how could such cruel humans be allowed to exist if we are innocent. Now you know why.

Dan From Smithville · Jun 12, 2021

rational experiences said:
Science human expressed.

A human thinking today just like before I know it all.

Says cosmic beginnings.

Notice one only as a condition once began as the beginning. As a theist.

Science as a thesis. Says the creators movement upon the great deep of space was O as GOD.

Exactly the thesis movement only forming a word just GOD.

GOD moves as O from DD back to OO.
God is GOOD as theme.

Story said humans as humans owned life human due to gods pre existing spirits.

However holy water formed in space womb owned our life.

No man is God that answer.

Reason to describe thesis first you choose the subject. Then you have to describe via a lot of words the thesis answer.

So the first answer theorising says no man is God. By information.

Then the thinker says man evicted by female notice man male statement his Sophia womb maths science belief from earths garden. Not a real female in any thesis.

Garden water support oxygenation.

Science changed what nature interacted heavenly with.

Man always stood on the ground can't fall anywhere.

Fall out attacked his man self by female male man science was the statement. What I personally activated. As the man men brothers who did it. Explaining how I hurt man body holy via attack of man science on my brother.

Fe iron inferred male science about machine status.

Just because a human said I will now call the other human a female you would wonder why. As his female first fake term spatial womb thesis.

The eternal theme where we came from fits that descriptive analogy as men as a group as scientists first thinkers forced the spirit to change in heavens so animals came out of it as new form as did the human woman.

Reason because I wanted to return back into the eternal form. I was forced manifested and was alone. I wanted to go back.

The human reason why converting science was invented claiming irrationally to return to a moment before the beginning.

As factually science places the before the beginning as what they want first so that beginning would not be active.

As taught science was irrational.

Thesis I always wanted the most highest placement in my thought.

Father said his brother invented science.

Mother and father came out as new life after animal spirits. He was innocent. His brother was not by causes

Babies born innocent. Babies however grow into evil minded adults claiming innocence by body only not by mind or choice the ignored teaching.

If anyone ever asked how could such cruel humans be allowed to exist if we are innocent. Now you know why.

Are you using some sort of random paragraph generator?

Fallen Prophet · Jun 12, 2021

I was impressed at first for you continuing to comment - cause I know I was being...corrosive...with my comments about you lying and running away.

However - this entire post was just you running away again - and I've realized that you may not be so much a liar as you are irresponsible about the things you say.

I say this in rebuke - and I mean it - but I also understand that I have been quite the pill.

I have a few "pet peeves" - and two of the worst are when people claim that I am being dishonest and when I am having difficulty getting people to understand what I am trying to say.

This discussion - if it could still be considered one - has all been about getting my point across - not trying to convince you that Adam and Eve were real people.

I just believe that my argument is sound and so far - based on your comments - I feel that you either really don't understand my arguments or you are just being irresponsible.

I apologize for my added vehemence to this discussion - but I still believe that the questions I posed to you are valid and should be considered.

Now - I am going to try and make my questions and arguments clearer - but I am also going to point out times when I feel that you were behaving irresponsibly.

Dan From Smithville said:
I said that it is and is known to be two different stories.

I agree with that.

Dan From Smithville said:
I never claimed that it was more.

This is what led to my confusion - because in Post #483 you said,

"The fact that there are two different stories going on there. There were probably a number of different versions and those were the two that got written down and molded into one." (Bold and italics added)

I referenced this post in my earlier comment - and it is what led to my confusion.

I am of the opinion that Chapters 1 and 2 are describing different events.

What you said there at first made me believe that you agreed with me - that there were two different stories.

But then your comments about the different versions being "molded into one" made me believe that you considered the first two chapters to be two versions describing the same event.

Dan From Smithville said:
You keep saying that I did, so what is the point of discussing something with someone that does not read what I post and comes back at me about claims I never made.

Yet - I contend that you did say two conflicting things - which led to my confusion and my need to ask the question.

I would consider this an example of you being irresponsible - because I referenced this post before - and you were unwilling to go back and check it - to verify that you had not in fact said it.

So - rather than me not reading your posts and claiming that you said things you never said - you had forgotten what you had said earlier and was unwilling to refresh your own memory.

Dan From Smithville said:
Posts so long that I have no idea what this references.

I would consider this another example of you being irresponsible.

Our entire conversation is saved here and any reference you need is a simple click away.

In Post #495 you claimed that, "I am not argue against the validity of the Fall."

Which led me to say in Post #505,

"I didn't claim that you did.

I claimed that you were arguing against "the validity of the Fall recorded in Genesis."

I got these references from two mouse clicks.

Look - no one has a gun to your head. You don't have to respond to my posts if you don't want to and there is no expiration date on when you can reply.

But if you are going to reply - make the effort. Stop wasting our collective time.

Dan From Smithville said:
You were wrong. And you repeated that error. So what is the point supporting continued discussion with someone that argues against things I never claimed.

You see - I believe that a responsible person would take this opportunity to explain how their opponent is wrong - what the error was - and mention what exactly they claimed that you had said which you never said.

However - throughout this discussion - you have maintained that you believe in a literal Fall of Man - yet you also believe that the Genesis account of the Adam and Eve story is mere allegory.

So - I didn't say that you were arguing against a literal Fall of Man but rather "the validity of the Fall recorded in Genesis."

You disagree with the version of events described in the Genesis account - and I believe that that is a fair assessment on my part.

I have asked you numerous times to explain the literal Fall of Man outside of the Genesis account of the Adam and Eve story - but you have yet to do so.

So - not explaining your claims and not remembering your stance on these issues leads me to believe that you are not being responsible.

Dan From Smithville said:
I don't have to offer an alternative explanation, I am not claiming one.

You don't need to have an alternate explanation if you weren't currently claiming that I was wrong.

If you are going to claim that someone is wrong - you need to attempt to prove it - don't you?

This whole thing started with you claiming that the events in Genesis were mere allegory - to which I replied that Adam and Eve being real people was critical to Christianity.

We obviously disagree - which is fine.

However - you replied to my stance by saying, "Your logic in this is pretty shaky."

You did not say that you simply disagreed with me - but that I had made an error in logic.

This led me to make my arguments and ask my questions - with the intent of getting you to explain how my logic was "shaky".

And - honestly - you haven't done this at all. You don't answer the questions. You don't consider the arguments.

You made a claim about me and have done everything in your power to not substantiate it.

Fallen Prophet · Jun 12, 2021

Dan From Smithville said:
The point is the fall and how it happened.

That has been my point exactly - which is why I have been asking you to share your explanation for the Fall of Man outside the Genesis account of Adam and Eve.

You believe that there was a literal Fall of Man - but how did it happen - according to you?

Your belief that the literal Fall of Man happened - yet Adam and Eve were fictional - would be like claiming that the Redemption of Man accomplished by the Sacrifice of the Son of God is literal - but the Lord Jesus Christ is a fictional character.

It makes no sense to me and I have asked you to explain it many times.

Dan From Smithville said:
You refuse to listen to what I am saying, so what is the value for me to continue a discussion with you.

I have been the one quoting you though - not you me - and I have been asking questions about your expressed stance.

You have presented no evidence that I am not reading your posts or not listening to what you are saying.

I believe that is because there isn't any and you just are not prepared to answer my questions.

Dan From Smithville said:
Pointing out something that I am not claiming as if I am claiming it.

What are you talking about?

I believe that I responsible person would have pointed out how I claimed they said something they didn't - rather then make a mere accusation.

What I said was, "I understand that you claim to believe that Man is fallen - but you have yet to offer any explanation for how that is so."

Haven't you been claiming that you believe in the literal Fall of Man?

Have you shared an explanation for this Fall - outside of the Genesis account of Adam and Eve - that I somehow missed?

When did I claim that you said something that you did not?

Dan From Smithville said:
Again, rattling on and on and on about something I am not claiming is not helping me to find a reason to continue feeding you.

Again - a responsible person would offer an explanation along with the accusation.

I believe that you have claimed that both the Creation and Adam and Eve stories as recorded in Genesis are mere allegories - yet you maintain that Man has suffered a literal Fall.

This led me to say what I did - that Man would have needed to first been created in an "elevated" state - before they could Fall.

Your vague claims about "biology" disproving the existence of Adam and Eve does not take into account that fact.

If all Mankind is a product of some form of evolution - then where is the Fall?

We don't Fall "up" - you Fall "down". And climbing up the evolutionary ladder is not a Fall. Where is the Fall?

You claim to believe in a literal Fall - while maintaining that Adam and Eve are fictional - and all I've been asking you to do is explain how you believe the Fall happened outside of the Genesis account of Adam and Eve.

Dan From Smithville said:
I NEVER DID. I don't care at this point if YOU get that through your head or not.

C'mon bro - I literally referenced the post where you said this (#471).

In Post #469 I said, "Which leads me to ask you - yet again - how you would explain the literal Fall of Man."

To which you directly replied in Post #471,

"There is no historical record of it other than two different versions of oral tradition written together as a single story in the beginning of Genesis. You can keep asking. I am not claiming to know the actual events or pretending I do." (Bold and italics added)

I'm sorry - but you made this mistake.

You made a claim about the Creation narrative in Genesis in an attempt to justify your unwillingness or inability to offer your explanation for the literal Fall of Man outside of the Adam and Eve narrative.

The fact that there are two different Creation narrative stories in Genesis 1 and 2 is immaterial to the subject of the Fall of Man.

And there is nothing wrong with making mistakes - as long as we own up to them.

Dan From Smithville said:
I see little evidence that you read or understood what I posted the first time.

This comment makes no sense.

I was responding to your claim that I said something when I did not - and now you are claiming that that is evidence that I'm not reading your posts?

No - it is evidence that you are not reading my posts - not the other way around.

The fact is I never said that I "know that Genesis is a literal retelling of actual events" - I do believe it - but that has never been an argument I've shared.

My points have been that your beliefs are inconsistent and that they make no sense.

I have given you several opportunities to better explain your beliefs - but you don't seem to want to do that.

Dan From Smithville said:
I could go on, but what is the point. A person that doesn't read what I post and puts things in my posts that I never said is not someone I consider honest or worth discussing with. You can count it as a win if you like. But I see no value in continuing to talk to you on this. Personally, I think the entire reason you make these extra long, repetitive and boring posts is to win in your mind by overwhelming the other person. Again, no value to me to see this go further.

Again - no one has a gun to your head.

You can take as long or as short a time as you want to respond.

My addressing all your points and coming up with counter-points is not a disservice to you.

You don't ever have to respond - but if you decide to - get it done - stop making excuses to not explain your beliefs and to not read my posts and to not make any effort.

And stop making unfounded claims about me to try and justify your responsible behavior.

gnostic · Jun 12, 2021

This thread is about Noah's Flood, not about Adam and Eve and the Original Sin.

Both are large subjects, but I think one of you, should start a new topic.

rational experiences · Jun 12, 2021

Dan From Smithville said:
Are you using some sort of random paragraph generator?

I was born a human from sperm and an ovary
I grew into a adult human body from being. Human baby.

Are you a lying human scientific theist who built machines...control machines...chose to direct your machines in atmospheric studies already human programmed by humans to study humans and lie?

Fallen Prophet · Jun 13, 2021

gnostic said:
This thread is about Noah's Flood, not about Adam and Eve and the Original Sin.

Both are large subjects, but I think one of you, should start a new topic.

True - we have been focusing on Adam and Eve - but the discussion is more about what should or should not be considered allegorical - and if a story being allegorical has less value than a story that is considered literal.

gnostic · Jun 13, 2021

Fallen Prophet said:
True - we have been focusing on Adam and Eve - but the discussion is more about what should or should not be considered allegorical - and if a story being allegorical has less value than a story that is considered literal.

Of course it is allegory.

Do you seriously think that fruit of one tree can give knowledge and fruit of another tree can give everlasting life?

Or that a serpent can talk, like humans do?

Such things only happened in myths, fables and fairytale.

The allegory is not about literal, AND MORE ABOUT CONVEYING MEANINGS through stories, just like Jesus' parables.

Meaning that are meant to teach lessons to people.

What do both Creation and Flood teach?

It teach them not to sin...for instances, the sins of disobeying God.

That's the true value of the allegory, Fallen Prophet.

If you are going to treat allegories as literal and factual, then you have a problem of portraying God as evil and conniving, or worse stupid and evil.

For instances, was the whole Eden story was simply a test?

Then why would he test them at all if God is omniscient, knowing that they would fail anyway? Here, it make God sadistic, because he has set a trap where they were bound to fail.

And if God really wanted them not to eat from the Tree of Knowledge, then why plant them within easy access to the fruit?

God could have planted this Tree where it is inaccessible to them, like placing that angel to guard the tree with fiery sword. Why did God in all his omniscient failed to plan ahead? It make God look stupid and incompetent.

On the surface, people take the story for granted, and accept it without thinking. But when you really look deeper, there are a lot of little holes that make God look "literally" evil, incompetent or just plain stupid, especially if you treat such story as literal truth.

Noah's flood story, did it happen?

Veteran Member

Well-Known Member

Fisker of men

Veteran Member

Well-Known Member

Recently discovered my planet of origin.

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Recently discovered my planet of origin.

Recently discovered my planet of origin.

Well-Known Member

Recently discovered my planet of origin.

Veteran Member

Recently discovered my planet of origin.

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

The Lost One

Veteran Member

Well-Known Member

The Lost One