Question for Dustin...and all other Christians [Archive] - Page 2

Elizabeth I

16th June 2007, 03:00 PM

Jesus_Freak knows his bible and as I, realizes that most of the confusion comes from mistranslation of Hebrew and Greek to English. Many times when you see these so called "contradictions" they are nothing more than mistranslations from Hebrew or Greek to English which can easily be explained if one uses concordances to read the actual passages.

So God the omnipresent and omnipotent allows the book that's his holy word, that contains all the truth the world will ever need, that would be the salvation of us all if only we would read and understand it, to be MISTRANSLATED? How in the world could that make sense to you?

Let me ask you a few questions. Answer "Yes" or "No" to them.

Do you frequently take things that don't belong to you? Irregardless of their value.
Do you ever "lust" after some people you see? I'm assuming women. Do you ever lust after attractive women?
Do you ever judge people prior to knowing anything about them?
Have you ever voted for anything other than republican?
Do you believe there is a meaning to life?
Is your only justification for doing good to others (assuming you do good to others) simply a pragmatic decision for what's "best for society" or a personal choice based on empathy?

Irregardless is not a word. The word you want is regardless.

Firstly, You're confusing what "lords name in vein" actually means.

That's "the Lord's name in vain."

Careful. You're awfully close to breaking kayfabe here.

I actually know what that means!

Dustin Kesselberg

16th June 2007, 03:06 PM

So God the omnipresent and omnipotent allows the book that's his holy word, that contains all the truth the world will ever need, that would be the salvation of us all if only we would read and understand it, to be MISTRANSLATED? How in the world could that make sense to you?

Men mistranslated it. Men with free will.

Irregardless is not a word. The word you want is regardless.

It's a word.

Dr Adequate

16th June 2007, 03:08 PM

Burn the believer with spelling flames!

But no, it isn't a proper word.

Dustin Kesselberg

16th June 2007, 03:09 PM

Burn the believer with spelling flames!

But no, it isn't a proper word.

"Proper"? It's "non-standard" but that doesn't mean it's not an English word.

Foster Zygote

16th June 2007, 03:15 PM

It's an English word, a bad (http://www.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/irregardless.html) English word.

joobz

16th June 2007, 03:18 PM

"Proper"? It's "non-standard" but that doesn't mean it's not an English word.
While I hate it, it is a word that has entered the lexicon. I always thought it was similar to flammable and inflammable. Why do we need both?

RecoveringYuppy

16th June 2007, 03:26 PM

While I hate it, it is a word that has entered the lexicon. I always thought it was similar to flammable and inflammable. Why do we need both?
As a kid I assumed for quite a while that inflammable had to be the opposite of flammable. It's not just unnecessary, it's potentially confusing in a dangerous way.

Foster Zygote

16th June 2007, 03:27 PM

While I hate it, it is a word that has entered the lexicon. I always thought it was similar to flammable and inflammable. Why do we need both?

It's a superfluous redundancy.

RecoveringYuppy

16th June 2007, 03:33 PM

As a kid I assumed for quite a while that inflammable had to be the opposite of flammable. It's not just unnecessary, it's potentially confusing in a dangerous way.
Actually, thinking back about it, that confusion probably stopped me from playing with a lot of things I assumed to be "uninteresting".

andyandy

16th June 2007, 03:39 PM

It's a superfluous redundancy.

it's irreuseless....

athon

16th June 2007, 04:13 PM

Men mistranslated it. Men with free will.

But it was penned by the hand of men in the first place. Hell, most of it was passed down orally through generations...passed down by men. Men with free will. So how does that ensure that even the old Hebrew scriptures are any more accurate?

It's a word.

And using it demonstrates poor literacy and understanding of audience. It suggests you don't know that it is technically incorrect. So much for relying on a dictionary, huh?

Athon

thaiboxerken

16th June 2007, 04:18 PM

"Proper"? It's "non-standard" but that doesn't mean it's not an English word.

The man who uses dictionaries to defend himself is defending the use of a word that isn't in it?

Complexity

16th June 2007, 04:26 PM

Using 'irregardless' is uncouth and reveals one's ignorance.

Dustin - So your god allows his big book-o-words to be translated by men who are exercising their free will...

Did your god allow men, exercising their free will, to make mistakes about which works get to be in the 'Bible' and which are left in the cold?

Are the right books in the 'Bible'?

How do you deal with the apocrypha?

Complexity

16th June 2007, 04:33 PM

"Stamp out, eliminate, and abolish redundancy. "

Anon.

slingblade

16th June 2007, 04:57 PM

"Irregardless: Not a word." --James J. Kilpatrick, The Writer's Art.

joobz

16th June 2007, 05:40 PM

As a kid I assumed for quite a while that inflammable had to be the opposite of flammable. It's not just unnecessary, it's potentially confusing in a dangerous way.As a kid, I amused myself by explaining it's meaning as really really flammable.
I used the same logic found in the movie, Three Amigos.

"He's not just famous, he's IN-famous."

The Grave

16th June 2007, 06:43 PM

Corsair 115

16th June 2007, 06:45 PM

I was thinking about K_Kathy and how ***** awesome the world would be if the God that she believes in were real. Can you imagine looking out your living room window and saying "that tree blocks my view of the river. Tree, I command you to be uprooted and thrown into the sea." How amazing would that be? Or if the neighborhood kids were teasing you, then you could call on God to send some bears to devour the kids.I believe the Krell managed to build machines which effectively let them do that, but then the monsters from their subconscious minds destroyed them all in one night.

That's from the KJV. NIV says it as:"Take with you seven of every kind of clean animal, a male and its mate, and two of every kind of unclean animal, a male and its mate".Gen7:2 And therein lies a major problem in taking the Bible as literally true: which version does one use? Each version is a little bit different, so which one is the right one for literal interpretation purposes?

Let me ask you a few questions. Answer "Yes" or "No" to them.
<snip>
Have you ever voted for anything other than republican?
<snip> As to this question, I'd answer no, I've never voted Republican. I've never voted Democratic either - but that's because I'm not an American. This indicates the problem with the question: it presumes the posters here are all U.S. citizens. Many are not, such as myself.

If you wish to restate that question in terms of the options available to Canadian voters in federal elections, then I might be more receptive to it.

Nope. Lust is bad. Before marriage, all sexual behavior is called fornication, and it can happen in your mind (or your hand) as easily as anywhere else.

After marriage, lust is adultery.

It never gets legitimized. All you can do is ask to be forgiven, and then it's as if it never happened.Does that mean it's time to break out in a rendition of Every Sperm is Sacred?

Don't pretend you have sunbathing beaches in Canada! You have polar bears and snow :DHey, in the province of Ontario, it's completely legal for a woman to go topless if she wants. Not that many actually take advantage of that law though...

The Grave

16th June 2007, 06:47 PM

"Irregardless: Not a word." --James J. Kilpatrick, The Writer's Art.

He wouldn't be related to Mike Kilpatrick, now would he? Only the self proclaimed greatest philosopher in the whole of 'god's' great Earth!?:confused:

Griff...couldn't be bothered to look...:boggled:

Foster Zygote

16th June 2007, 07:22 PM

:eek: :eek: I've just scanned these pages and realised that Jesus_Freak has one thing in common with his/her precious bible...:jaw-dropp

He/She doesn't actually answer a go-damn question...:crowded:

Thought a few smileys would get attention...

Griff...:cool:

P:) L:D E:o A;) S:p E:( S:confused: T:mad: O:rolleyes: P:cool: :eek: :blush: :boggled: :eye-poppi :jaw-dropp :boxedin: :covereyes :crowded:

slingblade

16th June 2007, 07:31 PM

He wouldn't be related to Mike Kilpatrick, now would he? Only the self proclaimed greatest philosopher in the whole of 'god's' great Earth!?:confused:

Griff...couldn't be bothered to look...:boggled:

Sling....can't be bothered to care....

I've no idea, never heard of a Michael. Kilpo is simply my recognized authority on English and usage.

Dr Adequate

16th June 2007, 08:21 PM

"Kind" is defined that way? Created Kinds

I just threw it together, please point out any spelling mistakes.

gorillapaws

16th June 2007, 09:08 PM

Did your god allow men, exercising their free will, to make mistakes about which works get to be in the 'Bible' and which are left in the cold?

Are the right books in the 'Bible'?

This has always been the biggest concern with the Bible for me. If Jesus was real and the stories told of him are true, I still believe it to be extremely unlikely that the Bible would be a flawless representation of exactly what was said and done during the time of the new testament. That being said, I think much of what is said in the Bible is very valuable (in its own right). Many of the moral philosophies in the New Testament seem to be good ways to live ones life, but not because it's divinely endorsed.

wolfgirl

16th June 2007, 09:57 PM

For the last time please tell me where it says that he took each species!?!?!?!?!
Heres a clue it doesn't....He brought each kind! kind is different than species....and guess what some of the kinds were fish, no need to bring fish or other creatures that live in water on a boat during a flood...Man it really gets old answering the same stupid arguments over and over and over...40,000 is actually a very high estimate of the number of animals on the ark.Well, you ignored all of my other questions and only addressed the one you could come up with an answer for...

And as for fish, you apparently didn't even read what I said about them. Most fish (and other marine life - mammals, etc.) are adapted to a very specific salinity. Fresh-water fish can't live in salt water and salt-water fish can't live in fresh water. So when this massive flood happened, it would have drastically changed the salinity of the water so that few of the creatures that live in the water would have been able to survive.

wolfgirl

16th June 2007, 10:17 PM

I would NEVER support killing 1 human to save a thousand. I have no right to take the life away from that one person just to save the thousand. The only time I believe killing is justified is in self-defense matters, to prevent someone from destroying you. In most cases I would simply turn the other cheek, however if it came down to me vs them and they are the aggressors then I would defend my life.Let me make sure I understand this.

You would not kill a person to save a thousand other people.

But you would kill a person to save yourself.

Nice.

gorillapaws

16th June 2007, 10:38 PM

Let me make sure I understand this.

You would not kill a person to save a thousand other people.

But you would kill a person to save yourself.

Nice.

ROFL. That's very clever how you put that. But in Dustin's defense there are "legitimate" moral theories that will support claims like this depending on the exact circumstances. These would involve arguments that say things like a person trying to kill you is no longer a moral agent, as such you have no grater moral obligation to let him live than you would any other creature such as a mosquito. There are several others as well.

jesus_freak

16th June 2007, 10:44 PM

Dustin, I have this recommendation to you: Pick up a copy of Steven Jay Gould's Wonderful Life (http://www.amazon.com/Wonderful-Life-Burgess-Nature-History/dp/039330700X). Some of the science is outdated now, but it remains one of the best stories of evolutionary research ever written.

Don't do it Dustin that book is written by man!!!!!! and I'm sure it has an agenda!!!!!:D

jesus_freak

16th June 2007, 10:45 PM

Well, you ignored all of my other questions and only addressed the one you could come up with an answer for...

And as for fish, you apparently didn't even read what I said about them. Most fish (and other marine life - mammals, etc.) are adapted to a very specific salinity. Fresh-water fish can't live in salt water and salt-water fish can't live in fresh water. So when this massive flood happened, it would have drastically changed the salinity of the water so that few of the creatures that live in the water would have been able to survive.

There you answered your own question!

wolfgirl

16th June 2007, 10:48 PM

ROFL. That's very clever how you put that. But in Dustin's defense there are "legitimate" moral theories that will support claims like this depending on the exact circumstances. These would involve arguments that say things like a person trying to kill you is no longer a moral agent, as such you have no grater moral obligation to let him live than you would any other creature such as a mosquito. There are several others as well.Well, sure, I understand that there are always mitigating circumstances and justifications that make each scenario different, but here is what Dustin said:

"I would NEVER support killing 1 human to save a thousand. I have no right to take the life away from that one person just to save the thousand. The only time I believe killing is justified is in self-defense matters, to prevent someone from destroying you."

He didn't say it depended on the circumstances, he said "never." So if somebody was going to blow up a building that contained a thousand people, he would not feel justified in killing that person to stop them. But if they were going to blow up a building containing only Dustin, then he could kill them.

Zep

16th June 2007, 10:52 PM

Don't do it Dustin that book is written by man!!!!!! and I'm sure it has an agenda!!!!!:DMore likely, it's got a Table of Contents and an Index! Oh, and validated references.

wolfgirl

16th June 2007, 10:54 PM

There you answered your own question!Huh? If you mean that they have adapted since the flood, what did they do before?

Pur simply:

Before the flood, there was salt water, and there was fresh water. There were creatures that lived in each, each adapted to their own habitat's salinity.

During the flood, that salinity would have been drastically different for all of them, probably making it impossible for them to survive.

Also, you've never addressed my (and others') response to your hibernation theory, in that the vast majority of animals don't hibernate. It's not just something you decide to do; your body has to be capable of it. If you didn't have enough food, you couldn't just lie down and lower your metabolism and hibernate until food came along. You would simply die. As would most animals.

jesus_freak

16th June 2007, 11:01 PM

gorillapaws

16th June 2007, 11:01 PM

Well, sure, I understand that there are always mitigating circumstances and justifications that make each scenario different, but here is what Dustin said:

"I would NEVER support killing 1 human to save a thousand. I have no right to take the life away from that one person just to save the thousand. The only time I believe killing is justified is in self-defense matters, to prevent someone from destroying you."

He didn't say it depended on the circumstances, he said "never." So if somebody was going to blow up a building that contained a thousand people, he would not feel justified in killing that person to stop them. But if they were going to blow up a building containing only Dustin, then he could kill them.

I still think you could kinda wiggle out of this by saying the bomber looses his humanity when he wills to commit murder. As such, Dustin wouldn't be killing a "human" but simply an animal when he shoots the bomber to save the people. Of course this is kinda shady, requires an interesting definition of "human," and is not likely the belief Dustin actually holds.

jesus_freak

16th June 2007, 11:02 PM

More likely, it's got a Table of Contents and an Index! Oh, and validated references.
All which are written by man and therefore unreliable!!!!

gorillapaws

16th June 2007, 11:11 PM

well theres at least one other guy who agrees with me!

Uh... that's a fallacious statement that adds nothing to your argument. Furthermore, the idea of a moon pool in the arc would've required a pressurized compartment within the arc. Given the tools available at the time this seems highly unlikely, unless noah was able to create an airlock within his arc, and some means of re-pressurizing the chamber as oxygen escapes whenever the airlock is used.

laxmatt

16th June 2007, 11:15 PM

So here's a question.

The reason pain and suffering exist in the world - according to Christianity - is basically because of man's rebelliousness. God did indeed make the world perfect to begin with, but because Eve listened to that dastardly serpent she bit into the apple, and then Adam bit into the apple, so God punished us with an imperfect world - pain, suffering, ect. But here's what doesn't make sense - if God did indeed make a perfect world to begin with, how could it turn into something imperfect? The presence of a cunning serpent, Eve's credulousness, and God's absence in that event seems like a mistake in itself. So either God is incapable of making a perfect world, or he deliberately created a world that would fall into pain, suffering, ect. Thougths?

jesus_freak

16th June 2007, 11:16 PM

yep you got it all figured out...congrats!

gorillapaws

16th June 2007, 11:24 PM

All which are written by man and therefore unreliable!!!!

I'm still new here on the boards, and maybe you've clarified this point somewhere else, so forgive me if this has already been addressed. I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "unreliable." Do you mean (A) it's not absolutely certain? or (B) that you can't even rely on it for day to day things. Or do you have a different meaning in mind?

To A, I would respond: It is not possible that something be both true and not true at the same time and in the same context. This is a statement written by man (me on this forrum) and it is completely reliable.

to B, I would respond: I hope you don't hold this view when you read the "harmful if swallowed" label on that bottle of bleach.

laxmatt

16th June 2007, 11:25 PM

yep you got it all figured out...congrats!

I sure hope you aren't replying to my post

gorillapaws

16th June 2007, 11:26 PM

I sure hope you aren't replying to my post

or mine for that matter! lol

slingblade

16th June 2007, 11:44 PM

He's trying to be smart. Unfortunately, you can't just choose to be smart, any more than you can choose to hibernate.

QED.

Anyway, he's trying to "insult" us: his bible has been referred to as unreliable, since people wrote it, even though the bible is supposedly written by god. Or inspired. Or dictated. Cut-and-pasted. One of those.

Therefore, all other books must be unreliable, since people wrote them, too.

Ha. Ha. Ha.

He doesn't get how the whole "unreliable because an invisible supernatural being is supposedly credited with authorship" is kind of....well...unreliable.

Ha.

Kopji

16th June 2007, 11:49 PM

Don't forget to count the weight of the dinosaurs on the ark.

SezMe

17th June 2007, 12:24 AM

What about microscopic "kinds". In the alimentary canal of every mammal there are millions of bacteria. So it's neither 2 nor 7. And they would not survive if these millions of bacteria weren't there. So, Dustin and jf, how did god handle this problem in a way consistent with the bible?

wollery

17th June 2007, 01:48 AM

Q: How did Noah take all those animals on the ark?
A: It is reasonable to assume that the larger types of animals on the Ark were young animals because they would weigh less, eat less, and sleep more. Also, after the flood they would live longer to produce more offspring. No one knows for sure how many animals were on the Ark. Limiting it down to two of each kind does not mean there were two of each species or variety that we have today.Is that a tacit admittance of macroevolution?

Oh, and there were 7 of each of the "clean" animals.

Which is odd because God doesn't lay out the laws about which animals are clean or not until Leviticus (well after Noah's time), and besides, as noted below, there was no meat eating before the flood, and after it God tells Noah "Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you", so which clean animals was God referring to before the flood, and was every animal "clean" afterwards?

Talk about confusing!

Also, many animals become dormant, lethargic or even hibernate during stormy weather.Which ones.

Through the instructions that God gave or through the wisdom of Noah he was given the ability to provide a watering mechanism to disperse water to the animals throughout the Ark and possibly even a food distribution system. In Genesis 1:29-30, the Bible teaches that before the flood all the animals were vegetarians so there was not a problem with, for example, the lion trying to eat the lamb.So why did carnivores, like the lion, become carnivores after the flood?

The digestive tracts, teeth, eye positions and general behaviours of herbivores and carnivores are very different. So how did lions survive as herbivores before the flood? Or did God change them afterwards, and if that's the case, where they really lions before the flood?

Some have suggested that there was a moon pool, a hole in the center of the floor, which would provide a place for fishing and if necessary a way to dispense animal waste from the Ark.
The moon pool isn't mentioned in the bible, and as others have noted, it would require a pressurised, airtight compartment. But beyond that, the previous section tells us how everyone (humans included) was herbivorous until after the flood, so by that reasoning there was no need for a moon pool! Whoever wrote this can't maintain a consitent thought for more than 2 sentences!

The minor problems that the Bible believers cannot always answer are nothing compared to the problems and questions that the evolutionist cannot answer.
Minor problems? Is that what you call the huge gaping holes in this self contradictory apologetic twaddle?

Although I do not know exactly how Noah took care of all the animals on the Ark I am going to believe the Bible until it is proven wrong instead of doubt the Bible until it is proven right.
http://home.sprynet.com/~eastwood01/qflood.htm Just how much more of the bible needs to be proven wrong?

well theres at least one other guy who agrees with me!You must feel so vindicated that someone else is so self-deluding.

athon

17th June 2007, 02:21 AM

The digestive tracts, teeth, eye positions and general behaviours of herbivores and carnivores are very different. So how did lions survive as herbivores before the flood? Or did God change them afterwards, and if that's the case, where they really lions before the flood?

Ultimately this is the retreat zone for all fundamentalists. Like I said earlier, I don't understand why they bother trying to use science at all. In the end any problems can be dismissed with 'God interceded'.

How did all animals change? God changed them. What of the fact we have fish which are both salt tolerant and fresh water swimmers, if the entire planet was mostly fresh water during the flood? God changed them. What of problems x, y and z? God...

You get the point. So why bother pointing out evidence at all? Lack of evidence is accounted for by God, so having no evidence at all can also be accounted for with the God Interference.

Athon

grayman

17th June 2007, 03:30 AM

More likely, it's got a Table of Contents and an Index! Oh, and validated references.

All which are written by man and therefore unreliable!!!!

Just like the Bible.

wollery

17th June 2007, 03:56 AM

Ultimately this is the retreat zone for all fundamentalists. Like I said earlier, I don't understand why they bother trying to use science at all. In the end any problems can be dismissed with 'God interceded'.

How did all animals change? God changed them. What of the fact we have fish which are both salt tolerant and fresh water swimmers, if the entire planet was mostly fresh water during the flood? God changed them. What of problems x, y and z? God...

You get the point. So why bother pointing out evidence at all? Lack of evidence is accounted for by God, so having no evidence at all can also be accounted for with the God Interference.

AthonJF and DK are arguing that there's evidence that God did it. This is patently a complete load of garbage, and I don't expect them to stop believing in God, but it would be something to at least get them to admit that all the evidence is for evolution, that the bible is not literally true, and that their God must be taken purely on faith.

That at least is honest.

athon

17th June 2007, 04:33 AM

JF and DK are arguing that there's evidence that God did it. This is patently a complete load of garbage, and I don't expect them to stop believing in God, but it would be something to at least get them to admit that all the evidence is for evolution, that the bible is not literally true, and that their God must be taken purely on faith.

That at least is honest.

Hey, I fully agree. But they aren't honest, for that very reason. They claim that evidence exists, and then cherry pick small facts, filling in the multitude of gaps with manipulation of the evidence in light of an interceding deity.

Evidence is a junk-mail catalogue which they use to pick what suits.

Athon

Dr Adequate

17th June 2007, 04:44 AM

It is reasonable to assume that the larger types of animals on the Ark were young animals because they would weigh less, eat less, and sleep more. Growing animals eat less?

Also, after the flood they would live longer to produce more offspring. No one knows for sure how many animals were on the Ark. Limiting it down to two of each kind does not mean there were two of each species or variety that we have today. How many animals were there?

Also, many animals become dormant, lethargic or even hibernate during stormy weather. How many animals hibernate during stormy weather? How do most animals react to being on a boat in a storm?

Through the instructions that God gave or through the wisdom of Noah he was given the ability to provide a watering mechanism to disperse water to the animals throughout the Ark and possibly even a food distribution system. Which is not mentioned in the Bible, which you invented ad hoc, and of which you can give me no details.

In Genesis 1:29-30, the Bible teaches that before the flood all the animals were vegetarians ... It does?

Did God magically change their digestive systems after the Flood?

Does the Bible mention this?

Is there some passage in there that says "And lo, God had killed nearly everything, but he was still feeling pissy, so he decided to make the animals eat each other"?

The minor problems that the Bible believers cannot always answer are nothing compared to the problems and questions that the evolutionist cannot answer. This would be a tu quoque if it was not also a lie.

Imaginary "problems" with evolution don't make the myth with the magic magic flood any less dumb, do they?

Although I do not know exactly how Noah took care of all the animals on the Ark I am going to believe the Bible until it is proven wrong instead of doubt the Bible until it is proven right. Fine. The Bible has been proven wrong about hundreds of different things. Start doubting it.

well theres at least one other guy who agrees with me! Yes, your mistake is not original.

Now, would you like to tell us how many animals Noah needed to take on to the Ark?

Foster Zygote

17th June 2007, 09:02 AM

I am going to believe the Bible until it is proven wrong instead of doubt the Bible until it is proven right.

Except for that part where it gives two contradictory genealogies for Joseph. We'll just ignore that part.

Ladewig

17th June 2007, 10:41 AM

The minor problems that the Bible believers cannot always answer are nothing compared to the problems and questions that the evolutionist cannot answer. Although I do not know exactly how Noah took care of all the animals on the Ark I am going to believe the Bible until it is proven wrong instead of doubt the Bible until it is proven right.

In addition to the questions that the evolutionists cannot answer, are there also questions that the geologist cannot answer? I ask because geologists have an abundance of evidence that the earth is billions of years old and dearth of evidence supporting a world-wide flood in the past 10,000 years.

As I said earlier, I have no problem with the number of animals on the ark - a being that wrote the laws of physics and biology can also break them at will. The issue I have is why did God go to so much trouble to hide all the evidence of both a world-wide flood and a young earth.

wolfgirl

17th June 2007, 11:23 AM

Did God magically change their digestive systems after the Flood?

Does the Bible mention this?

Is there some passage in there that says "And lo, God had killed nearly everything, but he was still feeling pissy, so he decided to make the animals eat each other"?And did he change their digestive systems immediately after the flood or quite some time later? Because if he did it immediately, what stopped the newly released and newly carnivorous lions from eating the two sheep and the two deer and the two cows, etc. as soon as they were changed? Which would have messed up God's whole plan! D'oh!

(The really important question in all this, now that I think about it, is why did God have to have this really elaborate plan to flood the entire Earth, moving mountains and valleys, making herbivores carnivores, teaching Noah how to provide a running water system, etc.? If he had all this power and ability, why didn't he just destroy all but two of every animal in one single "poof" moment? That would at least make sense.)

SezMe

17th June 2007, 11:31 AM

See, wolfgirl, there you go again wanting god to make sense. That's where you went off the rails. :)

thaiboxerken

17th June 2007, 11:39 AM

Let me make sure I understand this.

You would not kill a person to save a thousand other people.

But you would kill a person to save yourself.

Nice.

Dustin's "i wouldn't kill a human" argument doesn't take into account that an embryo isn't a person.

Beleth

17th June 2007, 12:21 PM

Oh, and there were 7 of each of the "clean" animals.

Which is odd because God doesn't lay out the laws about which animals are clean or not until Leviticus (well after Noah's time), and besides, as noted below, there was no meat eating before the flood, and after it God tells Noah "Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you", so which clean animals was God referring to before the flood, and was every animal "clean" afterwards?

Talk about confusing!

The author of the "two of every animal" parts of Noah's story (Gen 6:19-20, 7:8-9), commonly referred to as P, belonged to a tradition which believed that no sacrifices were necessary until after Aaron became High Priest. The author of the "two unclean, fourteen clean" part (Gen 7:2-3), commonly referred to as J, was not an Aaronite and so had a tradition of sacrifice that predated Aaron.

Source:
Friedman, Who Wrote The Bible?, pp. 190-191.

RandFan

17th June 2007, 12:41 PM

All which are written by man and therefore unreliable!!!!The book does not require that you take Gould's positions because his positions are in the book. Gould relies on logic and evidence that can be checked.

Big difference.

RandFan

17th June 2007, 12:46 PM

The really important question in all this, now that I think about it, is why did God have to have this really elaborate plan to flood the entire Earth, moving mountains and valleys, making herbivores carnivores, teaching Noah how to provide a running water system, etc.? If he had all this power and ability, why didn't he just destroy all but two of every animal in one single "poof" moment? That would at least make sense. Yes, and it would have been more humane. God wouldn't have had to torture to death infants. God likes to see children suffer and die though. He really, really likes it. If he had snapped his fingers instantly vaporizing all but a handful of animals and humans he couldn't have heard the joyous sound of his enemies (including babies) crying out in pain and torment.

Ahhhhhh...... the joy of torture.

Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones. --Psalm 137:9

God, the ultimate mass murder.

Cleon

17th June 2007, 01:23 PM

Q: How did Noah take all those animals on the ark?
A: It is reasonable to assume that the larger types of animals on the Ark were young

You can assume whatever you like, but there's no mention of this in the Bible.

Limiting it down to two of each kind does not mean there were two of each species or variety that we have today. And yet, the Bible says exactly that.

Also, many animals become dormant, lethargic or even hibernate during stormy weather.Eh? Like what?

Through the instructions that God gave or through the wisdom of Noah he was given the ability to provide a watering mechanism to disperse water to the animals throughout the Ark and possibly even a food distribution system.

Again, no mention of this in the Bible.

so there was not a problem with, for example, the lion trying to eat the lamb. Some have suggested that there was a moon pool, a hole in the center of the floor, which would provide a place for fishing and if necessary a way to dispense animal waste from the Ark.Once again, no mention of this in the Bible.

The minor problems that the Bible believers cannot always answer are nothing compared to the problems and questions that the evolutionist cannot answer.

And yet, so far the two questions that you posed were answered conclusively so quickly that the responses almost went up before you posted.

Although I do not know exactly how Noah took care of all the animals on the Ark I am going to believe the Bible until it is proven wrong instead of doubt the Bible until it is proven right.It has been proven wrong. Repeatedly.

Creation? Busted by geology, anthropology, astronomy...Well, pretty much every branch of science.
Flood? Busted by geology, history, archaeology, and so forth. To say nothing of the impossibility of fitting two (or seven) of every creature in the ark. To say nothing of feeding them (vegetarian or not, 40 days and nights would require a ****load of food that is not provided for in a literal interpretation of the Bible).
Tower of Babel? Conclusively busted by history, archaeology, and a healthy dose of "duh."

And so on.

well theres at least one other guy who agrees with me!Agree all you like. But this is not a literal interpretation of the Bible.

thaiboxerken

17th June 2007, 01:31 PM

It's funny how biblical literalists can't even take the bible literally.

Dustin Kesselberg

17th June 2007, 02:35 PM

Well, sure, I understand that there are always mitigating circumstances and justifications that make each scenario different, but here is what Dustin said:

"I would NEVER support killing 1 human to save a thousand. I have no right to take the life away from that one person just to save the thousand. The only time I believe killing is justified is in self-defense matters, to prevent someone from destroying you."

He didn't say it depended on the circumstances, he said "never." So if somebody was going to blow up a building that contained a thousand people, he would not feel justified in killing that person to stop them. But if they were going to blow up a building containing only Dustin, then he could kill them.

No, That's not what I meant. I shouldn't have said "never". If one person is actively attempting to kill 1,000 then I would stop them if I could.

Dustin Kesselberg

17th June 2007, 02:39 PM

Giggywig

17th June 2007, 02:44 PM

I don't see the point in arguing the spatial dimensions of the ARK and the estimated amount of room the supposed number of species would fill. When we're dealing with an omnipotent God here, Why does it make a difference? God aided probably aided Noah in getting the animals to the ark from other parts of the world as it would have been impossible otherwise, and he also probably aided Noah in the spatial dimensions of the Ark, possibly shrinking the animals to a small size so they could all fit and then increasing their size when they got off the Ark.
It's an interesting stance you've taken. No further arguments are required. If anything you believe is incompatible with logic or any scientific observation it doesn't matter, because "probably aided" in making it so.

joobz

17th June 2007, 02:45 PM

I don't see the point in arguing the spatial dimensions of the ARK and the estimated amount of room the supposed number of species would fill. When we're dealing with an omnipotent God here, Why does it make a difference? God aided probably aided Noah in getting the animals to the ark from other parts of the world as it would have been impossible otherwise, and he also probably aided Noah in the spatial dimensions of the Ark, possibly shrinking the animals to a small size so they could all fit and then increasing their size when they got off the Ark.Then why did the bible bother to mention the dimensions?

RecoveringYuppy

17th June 2007, 02:46 PM

You just can't parody religion.

Dustin Kesselberg

17th June 2007, 02:47 PM

It's an interesting stance you've taken. No further arguments are required. If anything you believe is incompatible with logic or any scientific observation it doesn't matter, because "probably aided" in making it so.

When an omnipotent God is at the wheel, anything is possible. That includes suspending the laws of physics and biology. Attempting to explain biblical miracles within the confines of science is missing the entire point of divine intervention. If something could easily be explained by the laws of science then it's no longer a "miracle" but simply a natural phenomena. I don't believe in indulging in any "God of the Gaps" scenarios or pseudo-scientific explanations for occurrences in the Bible.

andyandy

17th June 2007, 02:50 PM

God aided probably aided Noah in getting the animals to the ark from other parts of the world as it would have been impossible otherwise, and he also probably aided Noah in the spatial dimensions of the Ark, possibly shrinking the animals to a small size so they could all fit and then increasing their size when they got off the Ark.

as has been mentioned, why didn't god just snap his celestial fingers and commit his genocide/mass slaughter in a much less troublesome way? Also, doesn't mass genocide/mass slaughter trouble you at all? You were moralising about seals being killed not too long back - but god can wipe out virtually every animal on earth, and that's ok? And surely human genocide is truly unforgivable - let's say just for arguments sake, that every adult was a really bad sinner, and god believed in capital punishment, ok, how about all the children? Does god believe in capital punishment of minors? A god who indulges in infanticide surely isn't worthy of your worship is he? And it's not just a one off - he's a repeat offender throughout the bible. Egyptian, Midianites, Amalekites - you've got children, god wants to kil them. What a lovely chap.

Dustin Kesselberg

17th June 2007, 02:58 PM

as has been mentioned, why didn't god just snap his celestial fingers and commit his genocide/mass slaughter in a much less troublesome way?

He likes to be dramatic I guess. What's more dramatic than a massive flood destroying everything?

Also, doesn't mass genocide/mass slaughter trouble you at all?

It was his creation to do what he wanted with it.

You were moralising about seals being killed not too long back - but god can wipe out virtually every animal on earth, and that's ok?

I was wrong. I now believe animals should be subjected and exploited for human needs because Humans are the point of Gods creation. Only humans have souls and only humans think and suffer. The beasts of the field and wilderness are here for our purposes and entertainment.

And surely human genocide is truly unforgivable - let's say just for arguments sake, that every adult was a really bad sinner, and god believed in capital punishment, ok, how about all the children?

They were tainted as well. But remember, Death isn't a bad thing if you go to heaven.

Does god believe in capital punishment of minors? A god who indulges in infanticide surely isn't worthy of your worship is he?

It's not about being "worthy" of my worship. He is God and he is who he is. He sets the rules for right and wrong, who am I to disagree? Who are you to disagree? If he says action A is unethical then it's unethical. If he says action B is ethical then it's ethical. I'm not going to argue with the creator of the universe about what's "right and wrong" :rolleyes:

wolfgirl

17th June 2007, 03:04 PM

I don't see the point in arguing the spatial dimensions of the ARK and the estimated amount of room the supposed number of species would fill. When we're dealing with an omnipotent God here, Why does it make a difference? God aided probably aided Noah in getting the animals to the ark from other parts of the world as it would have been impossible otherwise, and he also probably aided Noah in the spatial dimensions of the Ark, possibly shrinking the animals to a small size so they could all fit and then increasing their size when they got off the Ark.Ah. So just as we've said all along, your answer to the logical inconsistencies is simply "God did it." If anything doesn't make sense, don't question it, just say "God did it."

Well, that pretty much makes any further arguments moot, doesn't it?

wolfgirl

17th June 2007, 03:07 PM

I was wrong. I now believe animals should be subjected and exploited for human needs because Humans are the point of Gods creation. Only humans have souls and only humans think and suffer. The beasts of the field and wilderness are here for our purposes and entertainment.Okay, now I am about 99% certain that your "conversion" is just a joke, a parody, or a way to pull our chains. I know that I could never suddenly believe in all that religious nonsense, but I suppose it happens. But I know even more strongly that I could never ever suddenly not care about animals, not care if they suffered, even believed that their suffering was for my amusement. If you do indeed suddenly believe this, and it's because of your so-called xian conversion, then I hate xianity even more than I did before.

Foster Zygote

17th June 2007, 03:12 PM

Okay, now I am about 99% certain that your "conversion" is just a joke, a parody, or a way to pull our chains. I know that I could never suddenly believe in all that religious nonsense, but I suppose it happens. But I know even more strongly that I could never ever suddenly not care about animals, not care if they suffered, even believed that their suffering was for my amusement. If you do indeed suddenly believe this, and it's because of your so-called xian conversion, then I hate xianity even more than I did before.

Yeah, I'm with the growing crowd that suspects Dustin's deeply held convictions are whatever will cause the most shock and opposition.

Dustin Kesselberg

17th June 2007, 03:14 PM

Okay, now I am about 99% certain that your "conversion" is just a joke, a parody, or a way to pull our chains. I know that I could never suddenly believe in all that religious nonsense, but I suppose it happens. But I know even more strongly that I could never ever suddenly not care about animals, not care if they suffered, even believed that their suffering was for my amusement. If you do indeed suddenly believe this, and it's because of your so-called xian conversion, then I hate xianity even more than I did before.

The bible clearly states that humans have dominion over the animals of the earth and should subdue them and exploit them for their own purposes. This is Gods word and I'm not going to question it. Non-humans don't have souls and we should not care about them anymore than we should care about hammers or pliers. They are to be exploited purely for human needs. It's God's purpose for them.

andyandy

17th June 2007, 03:15 PM

He likes to be dramatic I guess. What's more dramatic than a massive flood destroying everything?

great, God is a drama queen :)

It was his creation to do what he wanted with it.

parents can kil their child? It's their creation after all.

I was wrong. I now believe animals should be subjected and exploited for human needs because Humans are the point of Gods creation. Only humans have souls and only humans think and suffer. The beasts of the field and wilderness are here for our purposes and entertainment.

the fact that you have completely changed your very strongly held conviction - a belief that you were absolutely convinced was right only a few weeks ago, doesn't that leave even a little doubt that you can't trust your convictions absolutely?

They were tainted as well. But remember, Death isn't a bad thing if you go to heaven.

if they were sinners and needed to be killed why would they be going to heaven? And what about all the kids who didn't believe in god?

It's not about being "worthy" of my worship. He is God and he is who he is. He sets the rules for right and wrong, who am I to disagree? Who are you to disagree? If he says action A is unethical then it's unethical. If he says action B is ethical then it's ethical. I'm not going to argue with the creator of the universe about what's "right and wrong" :rolleyes:

if you want to worship a genocidal dictator then that's your perogative. :)

joobz

17th June 2007, 03:16 PM

He likes to be dramatic I guess. What's more dramatic than a massive flood destroying everything?
Then god isn't very creative in his methods of destruction. He could have selected
1.) a zombie uprising,
2.) had people's feet melt into the ground preventing them from moving and starving to death,
3.) covered every one in honey and released Bears with bees in their mouth,
4.) Turned off gravity for all sinners, having them float off into the solar system,
5.) demon rapings,
6.) Captain Trip's Superflu
7.) Released Cthulu
8.) Bring forth an orb of hate and blood that which should not be but is. A fear machine of pure blackness with one sole, consuming purpose; to boil the hope and love out of the souls of the wicked. What would remain would not be human nor dead, but stark reminders of what those who disobey god would face.

IN all of these scenarios, animals wouldn't be killed for the sins of man.

Paul

17th June 2007, 03:17 PM

Why does it make a difference? God aided probably aided Noah in getting the animals to the ark from other parts of the world as it would have been impossible otherwise, and he also probably aided Noah in the spatial dimensions of the Ark, possibly shrinking the animals to a small size so they could all fit and then increasing their size when they got off the Ark.Guess all you like, but don't pretend there's any biblical support:

the size of the ark, specifically stated by god:
Gen.6
[15] And this is the fashion which thou shalt make it of: The length of the ark shall be three hundred cubits, the breadth of it fifty cubits, and the height of it thirty cubits.

gathering creatures and food*, Noah's job says god:
Gen.6
[19] And of every living thing of all flesh, two of every sort shalt thou bring into the ark, to keep them alive with thee; they shall be male and female.
[20] Of fowls after their kind, and of cattle after their kind, of every creeping thing of the earth after his kind, two of every sort shall come unto thee, to keep them alive.
[21] And take thou unto thee of all food that is eaten, and thou shalt gather it to thee; and it shall be for food for thee, and for them.

and just to add to the food problems, god killed the fishes and all the plants too:
Gen.7
[4] For yet seven days, and I will cause it to rain upon the earth forty days and forty nights; and every living substance that I have made will I destroy from off the face of the earth.
This would appear to entail storing enough plankton to feed 2 whales, unless they're clean, for 11 months and not forgetting to leave 2 to repopulate and feed the whales after they're released.

*that's food for 11 months, by the way

Dustin Kesselberg

17th June 2007, 03:23 PM

parents can kil their child? It's their creation after all.

No, Not in the same way God made mankind. Parents gave birth to children but that's not the same thing.

the fact that you have completely changed your very strongly held conviction - a belief that you were absolutely convinced was right only a few weeks ago, doesn't that leave even a little doubt that you can't trust your convictions absolutely?

I was wrong then, I'm right now. I was confused.

if they were sinners and needed to be killed why would they be going to heaven? And what about all the kids who didn't believe in god?

It was different in those days. The land was "infected" with sin and there was no avoiding it. They really couldn't be faulted for it. This was before the time of Christ.

Dustin Kesselberg

17th June 2007, 03:27 PM

Guess all you like, but don't pretend there's any biblical support:

the size of the ark, specifically stated by god:

gathering creatures and food*, Noah's job says god:

and just to add to the food problems, god killed the fishes and all the plants too:

This would appear to entail storing enough plankton to feed 2 whales, unless they're clean, for 11 months and not forgetting to leave 2 to repopulate and feed the whales after they're released.

*that's food for 11 months, by the way

I don't see any problems here. He could easily have re-created the plant life on earth for the animals to feed off of and made the carnivores not need food until their prey were replenished.

RecoveringYuppy

17th June 2007, 03:34 PM

Then god isn't very creative in his methods of destruction. He could have selected
1.) a zombie uprising,
He saved that for later. Matthew 27:52-53

thaiboxerken

17th June 2007, 03:34 PM

Hokulele

17th June 2007, 03:36 PM

No, That's not what I meant. I shouldn't have said "never". If one person is actively attempting to kill 1,000 then I would stop them if I could.

What is the difference between killing the one person actively attempting to kill 1,000 (or even trying to kill just yourself), and an act which could save 1,000's? Why is one justified but the other isn't?

Dustin Kesselberg

17th June 2007, 03:39 PM

What is the difference between killing the one person actively attempting to kill 1,000 (or even trying to kill just yourself), and an act which could save 1,000's? Why is one justified but the other isn't?

If the act which could save 1,000's didn't harm anyone in the process then I would do it. However I don't have a right to take the life from one person to save a thousand.

If you saw a bus rolling down the road out of control about to crash into a mine-field and could save the 50 people on the bus by pushing an extremely fat man in front of it to stop it, would you? Would you kill the fat man in order to save the 50 people on the Bus?

Hokulele

17th June 2007, 03:46 PM

If the act which could save 1,000's didn't harm anyone in the process then I would do it. However I don't have a right to take the life from one person to save a thousand.

But in the post of yours that I quoted, you said you would do exactly that in the case of killing one man intent on killing 1,000.

If you saw a bus rolling down the road out of control about to crash into a mine-field and could save the 50 people on the bus by pushing an extremely fat man in front of it to stop it, would you? Would you kill the fat man in order to save the 50 people on the Bus?

In certain circumstances, I might. It would depend on the odds of success of the fat man stopping the bus, the odds of the fat man dying, the fat man himself and what he might think, and the chances are that the fat man is the only method of stopping the bus. Who knows, I might even dive in front of the bus myself if I had loved ones on board.

Dustin Kesselberg

17th June 2007, 03:48 PM

But in the post of yours that I quoted, you said you would do exactly that in the case of killing one man intent on killing 1,000.

What do you mean?

In certain circumstances, I might. It would depend on the odds of success of the fat man stopping the bus, the odds of the fat man dying, the fat man himself and what he might think, and the chances are that the fat man is the only method of stopping the bus. Who knows, I might even dive in front of the bus myself if I had loved ones on board.

100% chance of stopping the bus.
100% chance of dying in the process.
100% the only method to stop the bus.

Do you push the fat man in front of the bus to save the 50 passengers?

Dr Adequate

17th June 2007, 03:49 PM

as has been mentioned, why didn't god just snap his celestial fingers and commit his genocide/mass slaughter in a much less troublesome way? He likes watching people drown?

Foster Zygote

17th June 2007, 03:51 PM

Then god isn't very creative in his methods of destruction. He could have selected
1.) a zombie uprising,
2.) had people's feet melt into the ground preventing them from moving and starving to death,
3.) covered every one in honey and released Bears with bees in their mouth,
4.) Turned off gravity for all sinners, having them float off into the solar system,
5.) demon rapings,
6.) Captain Trip's Superflu
7.) Released Cthulu
8.) Bring forth an orb of hate and blood that which should not be but is. A fear machine of pure blackness with one sole, consuming purpose; to boil the hope and love out of the souls of the wicked. What would remain would not be human nor dead, but stark reminders of what those who disobey god would face.

IN all of these scenarios, animals wouldn't be killed for the sins of man.
Or he could have sent Gozer the Traveller!

During the rectification of the Voldrani, the traveller came as a large and moving Torg! Then during the third reconciliation of the last of the McKetrick supplicants, they chose a new form for him; that of a giant Slor! Many shuvs and zuuls knew what it was to be roasted in the depths of the Slor that day, I can tell you!

D'rok

17th June 2007, 03:53 PM

The bible clearly states that humans have dominion over the animals of the earth and should subdue them and exploit them for their own purposes. This is Gods word and I'm not going to question it. Non-humans don't have souls and we should not care about them anymore than we should care about hammers or pliers. They are to be exploited purely for human needs. It's God's purpose for them.

This is priceless. Dustin, I tip my hat to you. You really know how to work a room.

Remember these hammers and pliers you posted just a few weeks ago?

Warning..Graphic...

http://media.portland.indymedia.org/images/2005/04/314911.jpg

Note: The second picture is not a baby seal.

You are a master of your art. We are your canvas. You are the Troll King.
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_139414675ba10bb3b5.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=6426)

I still think Scientology would be a good choice for Act III.

Hokulele

17th June 2007, 03:54 PM

What do you mean?

This is what I mean.

Well, sure, I understand that there are always mitigating circumstances and justifications that make each scenario different, but here is what Dustin said:

"I would NEVER support killing 1 human to save a thousand. I have no right to take the life away from that one person just to save the thousand. The only time I believe killing is justified is in self-defense matters, to prevent someone from destroying you."

He didn't say it depended on the circumstances, he said "never." So if somebody was going to blow up a building that contained a thousand people, he would not feel justified in killing that person to stop them. But if they were going to blow up a building containing only Dustin, then he could kill them.No, That's not what I meant. I shouldn't have said "never". If one person is actively attempting to kill 1,000 then I would stop them if I could.

The implication of "I would stop them if I could" based on wolfgirl's post is that you would be willing to kill the person.

100% chance of stopping the bus.
100% chance of dying in the process.
100% the only method to stop the bus.

Do you push the fat man in front of the bus to save the 50 passengers?

I would stop the bus if I could.

Dustin Kesselberg

17th June 2007, 04:05 PM

Note: The second picture is not a baby seal.

Actually it IS.

You are a master of your art. We are your canvas. You are the Troll King.

Do you have anything original to say other than name calling? You're unable to reply to me so your only resort is to conclude I must be a "Troll"? :rolleyes:

This is what I mean.

The implication of "I would stop them if I could" based on wolfgirl's post is that you would be willing to kill the person.

Yes. I would stop someone about to murder 1,000 people by killing them if I could.

I would stop the bus if I could.

You would murder the innocent fat man to stop the bus?

thaiboxerken

17th June 2007, 04:09 PM

Remember these hammers and pliers you posted just a few weeks ago?

I do. He claimed it was objective fact that the canadian seal hunt was wrong. Now, he's claiming it's fact that it's ok because his god said so. I guess the forum is rather slow, though, so the troll will be kept satiated.

I get the feeling the troll ignores posts like this because it ruins the joke for him.

joobz

17th June 2007, 04:11 PM

I do. He claimed it was objective fact that the canadian seal hunt was wrong. Now, he's claiming it's fact that it's ok because his god said so. I guess the forum is rather slow, though, so the troll will be kept satiated.

I get the feeling the troll ignores posts like this because it ruins the joke for him.
I am interested to see how long he can maintain it.

andyandy

17th June 2007, 04:12 PM

The seals are killed for their fur and sold by the hunters. The hunters argue that seal hunting is their livelihood and they have nothing else to do, but since when was being ignorant and uneducated an excuse to slaughter helpless animals by the millions?
snip
We can't allow ignorant untalented individuals with a thirst for blood and greed to go out slaughtering millions of innocent animals simply because they're too stupid to do anything else with their lives.
snip
Let me put it this way, If you are totally indiscriminate in the way you treat other thinking creatures then I'm going to be totally indiscriminate in the way I treat YOU.

ignorant and uneducated isn't a sufficient excuse, but "God okayed it" is :)

Dustin Kesselberg

17th June 2007, 04:16 PM

I think I'm done posting in religious oriented threads or even threads that could result in a heated discussion because I'll probably be banned. The amount of 'warnings' from moderators I have received since I converted to Christianity has increased significantly even though my style of posting hasn't, just my religious views, and I'm afraid that if I continue discussing this I'll find myself banned. If anyone wants to ask me questions about my religious beliefs or about Christianity they can private message me.

Hokulele

17th June 2007, 04:18 PM

Yes. I would stop someone about to murder 1,000 people by killing them if I could.

OK then, back to my previous question. What is the difference between killing the man attempting to murder 1,000 people and harvesting stem cells with the potential to save 1,000 people? Why is one justifiable and the other isn't?

You would murder the innocent fat man to stop the bus?

Depends on the fat man. Who said he was innocent? ;)

Besides, I am not the one claiming to be an evangelical christian.

ETA: Darn it, too late. Looks like he won't answer this.

D'rok

17th June 2007, 04:18 PM

Actually it IS.

No it is not. That is a completely different shot from the one that precedes it. The two have been combined into a composite to try to create an emotional impact. This is the kind of dishonesty that you seem to enjoy propagating on these forums.

Do you have anything original to say other than name calling? You're unable to reply to me so your only resort is to conclude I must be a "Troll"? :rolleyes:Actually it's more of a compliment than an insult. You had me going for quite some time. I appreciate a good performance. You are not a garden variety troll. Your commitment and perseverance are really something.

thaiboxerken

17th June 2007, 04:19 PM

Ahh, the "persecution of christians" card. Well played, Dustin, you are very good at playing fundamentalist. I agree with the others here that think you should try your hand at being a scientologist.

andyandy

17th June 2007, 04:20 PM

If anyone wants to ask me questions about my religious beliefs or about Christianity they can private message me.

you're going to have to stop bringing up your beliefs if you want people to stop questioning them.

Perhaps it's time to move to a new board - how about this (http://www.rr-bb.com/)one? :)

Dustin Kesselberg

17th June 2007, 04:30 PM

you're going to have to stop bringing up your beliefs if you want people to stop questioning them.

Unless the mods decide to dig up posts days old and then ban me for them claiming they've already issued me warnings which occurred after the posts had been made then I probably won't be banned and I'd prefer to keep it that way. I don't see the point in debating Christianity with people who throw insults and personal attacks and then get banned for replying in a vaguely aggressive way (or simply a misunderstanding, intentional or not, of what I even posted).

Perhaps it's time to move to a new board - how about this (http://www.rr-bb.com/)one? :)

Thanks, but no thanks. I don't believe in that nonsensical interpretation of Revelation. No, I won't explain why here either. If you really care, you can private message me.

andyandy

17th June 2007, 04:36 PM

I don't see the point in debating Christianity with people who throw insults and personal attacks and then get banned for replying in a vaguely aggressive way (or simply a misunderstanding, intentional or not, of what I even posted).
.

don't worry - god likes martyrs. :D

Foster Zygote

17th June 2007, 04:38 PM

I don't believe in that nonsensical interpretation of Revelation.

There's always tomorrow.

Beleth

17th June 2007, 04:39 PM

The bible clearly states that humans have dominion over the animals of the earth and should subdue them and exploit them for their own purposes.

Ahh yes, Psa 8:4-8.

dominion, n. Supreme authority; absolute ownership.

all, adj. The whole extent of; as much as possible; every member or individual component of.

I put it to you, Dustin, that Psa 8:4-8 also says that humans have dominion over themselves and their own souls, and that ownership that can be taken away is not absolute ownership. Therefore, if Psa 8:4-8 is the true word of God, then there is no reward or punishment after death.

This is Gods word and I'm not going to question it.
But what if it isn't?

wolfgirl

17th June 2007, 04:41 PM

wolfgirl

17th June 2007, 04:43 PM

I was wrong then, I'm right now. I was confused.Not buying it.

Complexity

17th June 2007, 05:01 PM

I don't think Dustin ever was a skeptic. Look over the threads he's started - he doesn't sound like much of a skeptic and his style of being objectionable hasn't changed. He's been getting more religious over time.

I think he simply wanted more attention.

His 'god' is contemptible.

The whole 'dominion' over animals thing continues to anger me.

Ceritus, a purported skeptic, has, in the past few days, posted his beliefs that other animals are of value only to the extent that they are of use to man. Search out his posts - they are truly foul. He has earned my contempt.

The following quote (emphasis added) is an example of how Ceritus regards all animals:

If the situation is that my dog is killing a prowler and the prowler is no threat to me I will kill my dog. If the prowler is a threat to me and my dog is killing him I would kill the prowler. If the prowler is holding my dog hostage and a threat to me I would shoot through my dog to kill the prowler. If the prowler is holding my dog hostage and is no threat to me I will just call the police. The dog is nothing more than a TV set, Sofa, Robot, Computer to me. It is a commodity and it performs a fuction it relieves stress as I pet it and it would play with me occasionally. If the prowler broke into my home and there is a natural disaster and we both could not get out for a couple weeks I would try to work with him to survive and offer him pieces of my dog to eat. SHEESH what don't you understand everything is circumstantial. The dogs life means nothing only the prowlers and my own.

Paulhoff

17th June 2007, 06:01 PM

noblecaboose

17th June 2007, 06:19 PM

He likes to be dramatic I guess. What's more dramatic than a massive flood destroying everything?

God the drama queen.

It was his creation to do what he wanted with it.

God the petulant child.

I was wrong. I now believe animals should be subjected and exploited for human needs because Humans are the point of Gods creation. Only humans have souls and only humans think and suffer. The beasts of the field and wilderness are here for our purposes and entertainment.

God the grocer.

They were tainted as well. But remember, Death isn't a bad thing if you go to heaven.

God the innkeeper.

It's not about being "worthy" of my worship. He is God and he is who he is. He sets the rules for right and wrong, who am I to disagree? Who are you to disagree? If he says action A is unethical then it's unethical. If he says action B is ethical then it's ethical. I'm not going to argue with the creator of the universe about what's "right and wrong" :rolleyes:
God der fuhrer.

Dustin? Could you do God a favor and stop trying to speak on his behalf? You're not making him look good.

Dustin Kesselberg

17th June 2007, 06:46 PM

Translation: You guys have caught on to my false conversion. I am finding it increasingly difficult to keep up the delusion, so I will simply stop talking about it.

Cowardly...

I think I'll be disincorporated soon. (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2697707&postcount=175)

Foster Zygote

17th June 2007, 06:54 PM

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2697707&postcount=175

Again, you're starting to sound like David Jay Jordan.

Paulhoff

17th June 2007, 07:31 PM

Again, you're starting to sound like David Jay Jordan.
Starting? If it wasn't for lies they would have nothing to talk about.

Paul

:) :) :)

They are not looking for the truth, they are just kissing up to their so-called god and saying, looky looky god, see what a good boy I am.

edge

17th June 2007, 07:40 PM

God has blessed you Dustin.
Remember persecution in the end times.
As far as the bus question I would have to think of something else like, am I heavy enough to stop it.
Your scales have been lifted and now you can see rejoice! :)

Paulhoff

17th June 2007, 07:48 PM

edge

17th June 2007, 08:08 PM

Where is the barf bag.

Paul

:) :) :)

Oh look it's Pophoff!

athon

17th June 2007, 11:35 PM

When an omnipotent God is at the wheel, anything is possible. That includes suspending the laws of physics and biology. Attempting to explain biblical miracles within the confines of science is missing the entire point of divine intervention.

Then why try? Why bother with evidence, or logical arguments of any sort? Ultimately 'Goddidit' is the answer to any of it. When you're stuck for an answer, it's readily available.

If something could easily be explained by the laws of science then it's no longer a "miracle" but simply a natural phenomena.

But how would you know? The reason we understand nature as we do is because people stopped using God as an answer for all their questions and started to challenge the accepted literalist approach.

I don't believe in indulging in any "God of the Gaps" scenarios or pseudo-scientific explanations for occurrences in the Bible.

But you did just that very thing.

Athon

SezMe

18th June 2007, 12:34 AM

I'd like to give Dustin some credit here. He says the answer to all these questions is "goddidit". Fine...end of discussion. He now has faith in god and I, for one, am not prepared to question his faith. (Don't ask me about his miraculous conversion. :) )

That said, Dustin, don't you ever mention the words "evidence" or "logic" or "thought" (or its many derivatives) again. You've abandoned these useful words and, more importantly, these useful concepts. Your posts here are now worthless.

As others have already suggested, from now on, go to one of the many Christian fora where your illogic is welcomed. Buh-bye. :w2: