3 good questions for christians/creationists

Originally posted by Nightaudit
reply to post by undo

 

If you are willing (or able) to use basic spelling and punctuation like a grown up, then I´ll think about answering you.

I am too buzzed at this point to argue on that level.

But all the best for you, Sir!

edit on 18-4-2013 by Nightaudit because: (no reason given)

Well now, THAT, was a cop out!

how's that for basic spelling and punctuation?

reply to post by MikeHawke


OMG, you ARE cuddling dogs in those pics!


Sweeeeeeet!

reply to post by MikeHawke


Yes, you SHOULD explain yourself. If you think animals are devoid of emotion, thought, spirit or 'souls', you should absolutely explain yourself!

'Empty vessels,' eh? Gha. :shk: ESPECIALLY if you live among them and STILL have that attitude!!

Take that back, and say that animals are worthy of respect and consideration, and we MIGHT be able to communicate.
If you won't do that, then, no, I won't respect, nor admire your "thinking."

Perhaps you accidentally portrayed yourself as you did, but if that is the case, then you very much need to explain yourself if you expect continued respectful attention.

reply to post by undo


Almost perfect!

The "how" in the second line should have been a "How" though, if we´re being picky.

But if you like, give me a real, concret argument and I´ll gladly answer it.

www.conspiracycollege.com...[/url]I want to address number three because it is only now that I have created an understanding of it. You are basically asking how a loving and all knowing God could destroy the plants animals and people of the Earth in the flood. Although I accept the King James version of the Bible, I do not always understand it. It goes back to the "Mother of all Conspiracies." when the sons of man came down unto the daughters of men and bore children with them. Basically, the fallen angels (co-conspirators of Satan) interbred and created the Nephilim or the Giants as told in the lore of the Titans. These fallen agels taught mankind/womankind metalurgy, herbology, cosmetics, etc. The "watchers" were supposed to look out for humankind, but instead interacted with us. The ultimate plan of the fallen ones was to corrupt our dna to prevent the birth of Christ. When the corruption or interbreeding of plant, animal and human life became so prevelent, God saved Noah who was "perfect in his generations." Being perfect in his generations is a huge clue that the flood was to destroy those with hybrid dna. This explanation is the only one that makes sense to the reason why God would destroy his creation and start again with Noah and his family. For more information on the "Mother of All Conspiracies," go to www.conspiracycollege.com... Please check out Mike Hoggards videos for more answers to your questions. He has helped me to form my thoughts on this - www.conspiracycollege.com...

reply to post by MikeHawke

lol you dont even know me

No, I don't, and just a heads up -- your earlier posts in this thread portrayed the OPPOSITE of what you show in those pictures.

So, what is up with that??!!

reply to post by conspiracycollege


And you think all that old testament "porn" is a valid answer to that?

How?

How do you personally feel about the god that did this? Would you kill your son for god? Even if he would change his mind in the middle of it?

Originally posted by Nightaudit
reply to post by undo

 

Almost perfect!

The "how" in the second line should have been a "How" though, if were being picky.

But if you like, give me a real, concret argument and I´ll gladly answer it.

edit on 18-4-2013 by Nightaudit because: (no reason given)

It's "concrete".

Originally posted by wildtimes
reply to post by undo

 

i can answer the questions but they require you relinquish the grip you have on papal interpretation. pretty much everybody views the bible according to how the popes interpreted it, over 1000 years ago, before science or even archaeology. before the discovery of sumer. before comparative cultural studies. before translation of ancient language variants and on and on.

if you're willing to take an eraser and wipe off everything you knew about the bible, and start over, i'm willing to answer your questions.

Please. Go for it.

Be reminded, however, that I have not seen ANYONE on this thread claim or indicate a "grip" on 'papal interpretation.'

And furthermore, I have seen non-Catholic Christians decline into a mess of authoritarian dictatorship and obscenely repressive and oppressive stances and think it is right.

The new Pope seems to me like a good guy....with his head on straight.

We start with the basics:

1. Was Adam a solitary man?

No, he was not. Adam is a plural word. There were an entire race of Adam, both male and female. Adam is the name of a RACE of beings. They are not homo sapiens at first. And get this--they were ALL created in the image of Elohim. Elohim is also a plural word. That means God(s) created female Adam in their image, too, which means the story of Eve is not about the first female, and it also means there were female Elohim, too.

Let's just start with that little tidbit.

kid.. your clearly queer. you flirting with girls on ats..

im going to play zombies and get high

aint nobody got time for this bull# argument.

and btw when i kill the turkeys for thanksgiving i dont really care. i dont feel like im murdering someone.

reply to post by Nightaudit


I think they were goats.
But yes, indeed, MikeHawke is saying one thing (animals are empty vessels and we should not show them compassion, respect, or give them credit for who they are) and showing in those photos (holding hands with a monkey, cuddling goats, nurturing a chick) another completely different thing.

Weird.

reply to post by MikeHawke


Who the hell are you talking to??? I'm a grown woman with adult kids, "kid".

Explain yourself or don't, I don't care. The fact remains that your posts DO NOT ALIGN with the pictures you posted.

Another FAIL.

Don't be a smartass.

reply to post by wildtimes


First Rule:

Don't feed em, Wild!

double post

reply to post by undo


So, you are changing the meaning of the story of creation to make it "fit" better, right?

And how does that work for you?

How old do you believe the earth is?

Do you believe in evolution?

Do you believe in the flood?

And btw, I think that a kinda drunk german missing an "e" at then end of the word "concrete", is kinda not worse than you not being able to spell "summer".

I know it´s a hard word, but you should try anyway...

reply to post by Nightaudit

What possible difference does that make to your statements you made earlier?

None. It makes no difference whatsoever.
He said what he said, and has not retracted it.

reply to post by MikeHawke


Aaaand you just proved my point by leaving this discussion. Again.

So, go on Mike. Kill zombies. They are just like dogs anyway, aren´t they? Soulless and empty?

reply to post by MikeHawke


Oh, Mike, I just missed an important bit. What IF I am queer? Do you have problems with that? Would you want to stone me to death like the bible says?

reply to post by micmerci

First Rule:

Don't feed em, Wild!

!!!! Yeah, thanks for reminding me.
I gotta log off now, friends.
See you tomorrow.

I don't have to change it. I just tossed out everything I knew about it, and started reading the words as they actually occured. Let me give you an example:

Gen 1:26 And God 430 said 559, Let us make 6213 man 120 in our image 6754, after our likeness 1823: and let them have dominion 7287 over the fish 1710 of the sea 3220, and over the fowl 5775 of the air 8064, and over the cattle 929, and over all the earth 776, and over every creeping thing 7431 that creepeth 7430 upon the earth 776.
Gen 1:27 So God 430 created 1254 man 120 in his [own] image 6754, in the image 6754 of God 430 created 1254 he him; male 2145 and female 5347 created 1254 he them.

note how there are numbers in this quote. Every number correlates to its original word in a biblical concordance. The original word for God is Elohim. The original word for man there was adam. Note how it says IN OUR IMAGE, AFTER OUR LIKENESS. our is a big clue.

Note also how it says in the second verse, that ELOHIM CREATED ADAM but it also adds the word "his" to it. That is an example of translation bias. The translators assumed that Elohim was a singular male god, and therefore, had to flat out ignore what came next: male and female. How does a singular male god, create a female in his image and after his likeness? Easy. Elohim is a plural. Female Elohim existed as well.
So some adam were copied after male elohim and some female adam were copied after female elohim.

It's quite simple. Entire answer is there in two verses.