I can see that. They are calling God a liar. By their dogmatic adherence, they are saying that God is lying for leaving nothing behind, but evidence that the flood never happened.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
If your holy book fails to match reality ...
- Thread starter Looncall
- Start date
If they were so perfect, then why did they break the rules in the first place. That is hardly speaking to perfection.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Yet they never understand this, nor even want to learn how they are doing this. For that sort of believer ignorance is bliss.
And it goes beyond not leaving anything behind. The "God magic" would have had to continue for generations to install the needed genetic variations to make it look as if there were always thousands of people alive at once. Not to mention other species that do not have a relatively recent population bottleneck. Ours was about 50,000 years ago and reduced the population to about 10,000, if I remember correctly. A species where that never occurred would have even more genetic variation than we do. Meanwhile what the Bible predicts is diversity like we see in cheetahs where any two cheetahs are probably more closely related to each other than you are to your brother or sister. Incest is unavoidable for them.
Audie
Veteran Member
Oh, it is worse than that. A little deception? Pshaw.
Anyway, ifn he left sign, then, who needs faith?
No, what is so awful is that they are believing,
teaching their kids or others that this here
"god" is a mass murdering psycho monster.
Were they to ever meet this "god", they
might find they have some accounting to
do.
Some third world illiterate who has no chance
to learn better, I am sure they'd be excused.
BUT, anyone with resources to get access to a
computer and persists in such idiocy, such
arrogance as to think they somehow know
better than every freakin' reseracher on
earth, and a bit of common sense besides-
Well, they might need to do a stint carrying
honey buckets till they see their error.
What is 200 years out of eternity?
Of course. I forgot to extend that to the biggest part of that story. It is one of the biggest contradictions that literalists break their backs trying so hard to rationalize. A loving God that is described and often venerated for genocide and acts that are not loving at all.Oh, it is worse than that. A little deception? Pshaw.
Anyway, ifn he left sign, then, who needs faith?
No, what is so awful is that they are believing,
teaching their kids or others that this here
"god" is a mass murdering psycho monster.
Were they to ever meet this "god", they
might find they have some accounting to
do.
Some third world illiterate who has no chance
to learn better, I am sure they'd be excused.
BUT, anyone with resources to get access to a
computer and persists in such idiocy, such
arrogance as to think they somehow know
better than every freakin' reseracher on
earth, and a bit of common sense besides-
Well, they might need to do a stint carrying
honey buckets till they see their error.
What is 200 years out of eternity?
When the demand is that the Bible is infallible, the effort is back breaking to demonstrate that to be the case, when it cannot be demonstrated or even shown why it is to be considered.
I have seen at least 30 different points--there are more, I just stopped counting--that must be addressed and explained in order for the flood to have taken place. Several of those points deal with the physical impossibility for a flood of the Genesis-description to have taken place. The genetic bottleneck is one of those bits of evidence that should be there, but is not.
As far as I am concerned, the flood is mythic and all the evidence supports that view. To consider otherwise is to declare all that evidence moot and without bothering to explain it or recognize it.
Audie
Veteran Member
I cannot believe someone spent hours of their life creating this fallacious video that does not address observations, but merely creates a story and declares it is real.
He starts off with a non sequitur that revealing the flood to be false would destroy the Bible and leave it without reason to be used.
This is just a propaganda pieced that keeps repeating its own conclusion without establishing it.
I love how this assumes that every other aspect besides the scale of the flood are accepted facts. The questions he is asking make no sense when you consider that none of the claims of the story are established fact. It is not just whether the flood was local or not.
I wonder if the narrator realizes that he is not providing answers, but only conjecture that he is calling answers. He assumes that existing mountains were either not there or smaller in size. Something that is not established by any science.
This thing is so full of holes, the only thing it is lacking is a slice of ham and some mustard.
You have to love this. It uses the word theory that many creationists disavow as just someone's opinion, but here they will latch onto like it was a life preserver. Leaving aside that recognized hypocrisy, they latch on here, when in this instance, it is just an opinion and not based on some evidence. This is pure conjecture with the word theory attached.
Don't you just love how the narrator squishes all that science into one bundle and calls it evolutionary theory? It is a hallmark of the sort of shoddy scholarship that is the handmaiden of these attempts to force belief into reality. The theory of evolution is not a theory of how the planet was formed. Yet, this guy keeps referring to it as a theory for pretty much anything he disagrees with.
Eve was deceived, remember? (I think we’ve gone over this before.)
Based on Luke 10:21....If you sincerely pray to the Author of Genesis for help to understand it, you might discern answers to other aspects of the account.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
In the myth who created the deceiver? Who allowed the deceiver in the Garden?
Lol. You’re the one calling Him a “mass-murdering monster”! Not me.Oh, it is worse than that. A little deception? Pshaw.
Anyway, ifn he left sign, then, who needs faith?
No, what is so awful is that they are believing,
teaching their kids or others that this here
"god" is a mass murdering psycho monster.
Were they to ever meet this "god", they
might find they have some accounting to
do.
Some third world illiterate who has no chance
to learn better, I am sure they'd be excused.
BUT, anyone with resources to get access to a
computer and persists in such idiocy, such
arrogance as to think they somehow know
better than every freakin' reseracher on
earth, and a bit of common sense besides-
Well, they might need to do a stint carrying
honey buckets till they see their error.
What is 200 years out of eternity?
I understand the reasons for His actions. You don’t even want to try. That’s on you.
Audie
Veteran Member
I dont call it anything but non existent. You, on t he
other hand, do seem to believe that, what ever
delicate vocab you use, it, or "He" as you might
have it, is t he perp of genocide.
Your claim that you "understand" god is ludicrous.
So not perfect. Capable of being deceived. What you consider perfection does not sound so much like perfection.
Wow! You claim to understand God. Amazing. What other feats of omniscience are you capable of?
Audie
Veteran Member
These goddies know what he likes, wants, can and cant do
all kinda things.
It is pretty remarkable, the more so with so
many infallubles knowing such different things!
Almost like the old goat has as many personalities
as he does worshippers!
It is very arrogant to claim to know the will of God and deliver it as an absolute assertion as if it cannot be challenged as the truth. Yes. Very arrogant.
Man says a lot about God. Not all of it can be true. When it is two or more people claiming very different things, one of them certainly cannot be true.