-->
@K_Michael
As an atheist, I clearly believe they're both wrong.
They are contradicting one another.
In prayer with Jesus last night, He said Atheists are going to heaven! WTF?!
Posts
Total:
61
-->
@BrotherDThomas
Stephen,YOUR REVEALING AND CORRECTLY ANSWERED QUOTE: "Brother, it appears that once again you (and Timothy) have, with one single verse, blown the idea that none believers won't be going to heaven , clean out the water."Yes, with the correct syntactical reading of 1 Timothy 4:10, EVERYONE is truly saved whether they believe in the serial killer Jesus or not. Look at the good side of this biblical axiom, you and I will meet again in the Christian 1400 square mile Heaven with it's 60 high walls, that should keep out the Mormons and JWs! Just think of getting together again, where in Heaven there will be NO WOMEN, where this alone is worth the free ride to the Pearly Gates!Yes, it will be a glorious day when we are there, but the only aspect that I regret in the future of Heaven, is there will be so sex since there will be no women. Whereas, I followed Jesus' words while upon earth in being fruitful and multiplying (Genesis 1;28), and in doing so, I went through many wives because their life ambition was to be able to sit up. :(.In any event, praise Jesus' TRUE words!
I also notice that the apologist here have given the OP a very wide birth.
-->
@Tradesecret
Infants need their mothers. And while I certainly agree that infants do need their mothers - as a general principle. I also know that many infants in our world survive without their mothers so far as their are others who are willing to take on that role. And in the story of Noah - there are 8 people who are willing to take on that role. AND who would do well in the circumstances.
What do you think an infant lion or leopard need their mothers FOR, exactly? Why would eight people who were not biologists or zoologists "do well" in taking on the role of, say, "Bear's Mom" AND "Chimp's Mom" when both have extremely different requirements? Where in the bible does it say they had the skills to sustain these animals, literally at least two of every kind on earth, so there must have been something like 700K beetles alone on board? Chances are the writers of this cribbed tale didn't have any idea how many animals there ARE on earth, right? Please explain "would do well." My guess is your answer likely has some element of magic in it that's undemonstrated and not in many of the bibles: "God gave them the knowledge" or "God removed those needs from the animals" or "God made magical food for them and it showed up every day in the food room".
As for the notion that mothers need to be their to protect them - eh what? a new world with only animals from the ark - not a heck of a lot of other animals to protect them from - and ah what - the other animals are infants - so not too dangerous yet?
How quick do you think a baby lion, without the nourishment required from mother's milk, would figure out to grab the weakest baby antelope, who can't run, because it hasn't eaten? They need protection from EACH OTHER.
-->
@Stephen
Yes they are. What do you want from me?
-->
@Tradesecret
.
TRADESECRET, The Debate Runaway on Jesus' true MO, Bible denier of Jesus being the Trinity God in the OT, the runaway to what division of Christianity he follows, the pseudo-christian that has committed the Unpardonable Sin, and now the number 1 Bible ignorant fool regarding Noah's ark,
Barring Tradesecrets biblical ignorance in the numbers game relative to Genesis 7:2, therefore, we will use his exact numbers relative to his comical Bible rewrite of the amount of infant animals upon the ark. QUIT LAUGHING!
Tradesecet says there were 98,000 animals upon the Ark: https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/1097-why-should-we-take-the-story-of-noah-as-literal?page=5&post_number=105
TRADESECRET, YOUR EVER SO WANTING GRASPING FOR THAT LAST STRAW QUOTE: “You did not demonstrate that Noah did not put infants onto the ark.”
Listen, we know that you are embarrassed to the maximum with positing such nonsense where Noah supposedly put only infants on board the Ark, and the ramifications thereof is oblivious to you, to TRY and save your position subsequent to me enlightening you upon the TOTAL PICTURE of the Ark narrative. Therefore, you are bloodied up once again in trying to gain a modicum of respect within this forum! Unfortunately for you, you made your bed and now have to sleep in it with your comical position of Noah adding 98,000 “infants” upon the Ark! !!!ROFLOL!!! PRICELESS UNGODLY COMEDY!
In turn, you NEVER demonstrated BIBLICALLY where Noah put 98,000 infants upon the Ark in an absolute manner, do you understand this simple return deduction, or do you need further help, Mr. attorney?
YOU DIGGING YOURSELF DEEPER INTO YOUR HOLE BY USING A BACKHOE INSTEAD OF A SHOVEL: “I also know that many infants in our world survive without their mothers so far as their are others who are willing to take on that role. And in the story of Noah - there are 8 people who are willing to take on that role. AND who would do well in the circumstances.”
You just don’t know when to quit in making yourself one of the most Bible ignorant and Zoology fools at this prestigious forum, do you?! LOL!
In relation to your quote above, you are to answer the following to "TRY" and save what face you have left within this forum:
1. How did Noah determine clean and unclean infant animals upon the Ark X 98,000 “kinds?”
2. How many specific infants out of the 98,000 animals have the ability to survive without their mothers milk for 371 DAYS UPON THE WATERS with only one pair of unclean animal to feed upon?! How many Zoologist fool?!
3. Logically, how did the 8 people you mentioned upon the Ark take care of 98,000 infant animals for 371 days upon the waters in giving them food and the clean up thereafter, let alone themselves?
4. Within the 8 people upon the Ark, and with the said 98,000 infants you proposed, did the women folk BREAST FEED these 98,000 motherless infants 3-4 time per day as normal, and where said women DO NOT have the genetic antibodies that are needed for that specific "kind" of animals immune system?
5. Subsequent to the Ark reaching dry land, how are these 8 individuals going to teach 98,000 infant animals to hunt for their prey? Huh? Does drawing the short straw tell that person they have to head beyond the Arctic Circle to teach the polar bears how to hunt? Do you understand your laughable premise yet? Huh? MEMBERSHIP, QUIT LAUGHING!
YOUR GRASPING FOR STRAWS TO THE POINT OF YOUR FINGER NAILS BLEEDING: “As for the notion that mothers need to be their to protect them - eh what? a new world with only animals from the ark - not a heck of a lot of other animals to protect them from - and ah what - the other animals are infants - so not too dangerous yet?
OMG! You’re not kidding about your statement above, are you? The 98, 000 infant animals of various “kinds” upon the ark have to be the same animals that are present today, do you understand zoologist fool?! Therefore, as only one example, the gazelles upon the ark need protection from the lions, and so on and so forth, Then you take the remaining “kinds” where they have to be protected from their known predators as well! HELLO? WAKE UP TRADESECRET!
YOUR QUOTE WHERE YOU WANT IT TO BE TRUE SO BAD, BUT IT CAN’T BE BECAUSE OF YOUR POSTINGS:“Your argument is baseless and you know it. It sucks doesn't when a creationist - although I am not one - beats you up with logic.”
Your baseless circular reasoning is always entertaining to the membership upon this forum, and that is one of many reasons we laugh at you at your expense all the time. The ONLY position that is blatantly baseless is yours relating to REWRITING THE BIBLE relative to the Noah’s Ark narrative! We ask you, where do you get this authority to change adult animals for infant ones? TELL US!
YOU KEEP RUNNING AWAY FROM THIS LOGICAL CONCLUSION, ARE YOU TO SCARED OR JUST COWARDLY?: With your outright comical “98,000 infants were upon the Ark proposition,”you are saying to the membership that the following images within the links below of ADULT ANIMALS X 2 loading upon Noah’s Ark HAVE BEEN WRONG OVER THE YEARS!!!
Therefore, will you take it upon yourself to lobby your fellow equally Bible inept pseudo-christians throughout the world that what has been perceived in your opinion over the millenniums in only showing ONE PAIR OF ADULT ANIMALS entering the Ark is blatantly wrong, where you explicitly state it should be 98,000 "infant animals" loading upon Noah's ark instead! YES? MAYBE? LOL!
Tradesecret, you are now a well deserved joke upon this forum as shown within this post alone, whereas you DO NOT have the sense to feel embarrassed relating to your comedy acts regarding your ungodly Noahan Ark propositions! You will NEVER, I REPEAT, NEVER live this Noah’s Ark premise of yours down, NEVER, where I and others will make sure of that, understood? Its now time to change your moniker’s name to save further embarrassment! LOL
Tradesecret says that he is an attorney, and with his ungodly Bible rewrite and comical rendition of the Noah’s Ark narrative as a basis of his assumed intellect, I pity his poor clients! :(
NEXT PSEUDO-CHRISTIAN?
.
-->
@Stephen
@Tradesecret
.
Stephen,
YOUR TRUTHFUL QUOTE AT THE EXPENSE OF TRADESECRET: " I also notice that the apologist here have given the OP a very wide birth."
As I have shown in my initial post, I knew the Bible ignorant Tradesecret could never address the outright outcome of 1 Timothy 4:10, therefore I gave him an excuse to RUN AWAY from it without having to give his normal ungodly and comedic Satanic apologetic spin to this selected passage. I felt truly feel sorry for ol' Tradesecret, therefore not only did he not need to give another excuse to RUN AWAY from said passage, but, if he did engage with the Brother D, and subsequently, it would have added so much egg upon his face when I easily refuted him, that he probably couldn't see his computer screen for days. Therefore, he owes me! LOL.
I still say that Tradesecret is an outright POE/Parody of a pseudo-christian, because who other than a POE would make such fun of the Christian faith like he has explicitly done in his comical Noahan Flood posts?
.
-->
@Dr.Franklin
im not interested in the OP #29
Then you are willfully and purposefully agitating and trolling. Against the rules
-->
@K_Michael
Yes they are. What do you want from me?
What ever causes you to think that I want anything from you? You have addressed the op in a fashion as an atheist and also my question I will call on you in the future if ever I feel the need to . At the moment I don't want or need anything from you. So now you can go.
-->
@BrotherDThomas
As I have shown in my initial post, I knew the Bible ignorant Tradesecret could never address the outright outcome of 1 Timothy 4:10,
Indeed and after all his proud bragging to be one of only a few on the forum that he "always provides evidence for his claims" I have shown him to be a spinner of very tall tales #30
I still say that Tradesecret is an outright POE/Parody of a pseudo-christian.
I have to agree. He has failed miserably after all his claims and word salad, on this thread https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/4736-then-why-baptize-him?page=1
-->
@Tradesecret
Though you may not need the encouragement,
I find you a reasonable person, who can often speak of some aspect of their religion in an easy to understand, insightful way.
-->
@Lemming
[ -->@Tradesecret] I find you a reasonable person, who can often speak of some aspect of their religion in an easy to understand, insightful way.
Don't kid yourself. He will soon hit you with more word salad and filibustering than most can handle once you have posed him a prickly religious question.
-->
@Stephen
@Tradesecret
Stephen,
I checked those links you have given regarding Tradesecret being the #1 Bible ignorant fool on this forum. Didn't you love this outstanding statement when he said "For God to do supernatural things would be to suggest that God is some type of superman. He is not."
HUH?!!! The serial killer Christian God named Yahweh/Jesus only created the entire universe of billions of light years in size, flooded the entire world and murdered His entire creation, including innocent babies, caused sickness in His plagues, AND GOD IS NOT SUPERHUMAN? !!!ROFLOL!!! OMG! No pseudo-christian is this dumbfounded, therefore this proves once again that Tradesecret is a POE/Parody in being a fake Christian to make fun of the faith!
As shown in the following link, Tradesecret continually RUNS AWAY from my posts relating to Jesus' true words within the scriptures, where I have listed 8 of them at this time, and they will continue to grow in number because what he thought he knew about the faith, he embarrassingly didn't. LOL
.
-->
@Lemming
.
Lemming,
You are new to this forum, therefore you do not know the entire story of the Satanic Tradesecret. He is a minion of Satan sent here to disrupt dialog relative to Christianity, and he is also a RUN AWAY from Jesus' true words within the scriptures as the following link shows, and again, at his embarrassing expense.
A lot of the membership are coming to reason that Tradesecret is a POE/Parody of a pseudo-christian, and this is because like I said, his MO makes fun of the Christian faith as shown throughout his posts. If you need a good example of this proposition, just go to the "why should we take the story of noah as literal?" thread and you will see some of the most dumbfounded and comical statements you will ever see relative not only to the Christian faith, but to zoology as well! As as teaser, just read my post #35 above in this thread, and you will see an example of his lunacy regarding the scripture, his total ignorance of zoology, and his REWRITING of the Bible in a Satanic way.
.
-->
@Intelligence_06
omg I can't wait to go to hell can't wait to play with fire and hang out with people I like!
Certainly that is the perspective many ignorant people would like to think Hell is going to be like.
Yet the Bible paints a completely different picture.
I think to understand Hell properly, you need to understand sin properly. But you also need to understand the holiness of an eternal just God properly as well.
We live in a world full of mortals. We understand life through the lens of beginning and end. We all are born and we are die. We are finite creatures in our worldviews.
Hence, when we think justice - we tend to think beginning and end. Not always, admittedly, but it is a tendency we seem to navigate towards. We also tend to think that justice by God must work in the same way. We do this without thinking thoroughly about the differences between God and humanity. Between the eternal and the finite.
We ignore for the most part that the God of the Bible is eternal and has no beginning or end. That by itself is enough for most of us to fade out. We find it difficult to think in terms of eternals or infinites. It stands to reason that since he is eternal that his justice is also eternal. This includes both his love and his wrath.
I take the view that God sees sin as pretty significant. He views it seriously, indeed as the primary issue in the world. Humans on the other hand, find this strange, even amusing. Some think it is demented even ridiculous. God's take on it however required him to become a man and to die. If there was another way, he would have done it.
I take the view that most humans tends to misunderstand this completely. They think if God is God then he could do anything - just find another way. The problem with that logic however is it is similar to asking absurd questions like "Can God make a rock so big he cannot lift it". God's omnipotence is not diminished because he won't perform the absurd. God is not a magician. God is God. HIs character is Holy. It also ignores the reality that this is the solution God knew was the only solution which would complete what it was purposed to do. To suggest that there are other alternatives is simply "begging the question".
On the basis of the above argument and reasoning, it would be patently absurd to think Hell is going to be a place to play with your friends. Jesus often described this place such that there will be much "weeping and gnashing of teeth". He described it as an awful place that people would wish that "they had never been born in the first place". He described it as a place that offers no hope or joy. A place you can never leave.
I really think there won't be any playing. Nor enjoying the company of your friends.
Since the wrath of God is everlasting. And the sin which he views as being the significant issue is one you won't repent of in this life. Then it is just and reasonable to hold you to account. And for you to be sentenced to everlasting punishment. The offence is eternal. Sin is eternal. The punishment is equal to the offence. It is not finite. And since you will refuse to repent even in the midst of eternal punishment, you will therefore be committed to remaining there for eternity.
-->
@Tradesecret
Well, If God tells us to find hope in even the worst scenarios, then we could easily have hope in Hell. It is golden opportunity that I get to have a place such cozy and can help me to ingore the externals and achieve inner piece and achieve internal happiness. If a religion teaches us to be afraid of something, then sorry no. I would rather be an atheist, living liberal and myself.
-->
@ludofl3x
Infants need their mothers. And while I certainly agree that infants do need their mothers - as a general principle. I also know that many infants in our world survive without their mothers so far as their are others who are willing to take on that role. And in the story of Noah - there are 8 people who are willing to take on that role. AND who would do well in the circumstances.What do you think an infant lion or leopard need their mothers FOR, exactly? Why would eight people who were not biologists or zoologists "do well" in taking on the role of, say, "Bear's Mom" AND "Chimp's Mom" when both have extremely different requirements? Where in the bible does it say they had the skills to sustain these animals, literally at least two of every kind on earth, so there must have been something like 700K beetles alone on board? Chances are the writers of this cribbed tale didn't have any idea how many animals there ARE on earth, right? Please explain "would do well." My guess is your answer likely has some element of magic in it that's undemonstrated and not in many of the bibles: "God gave them the knowledge" or "God removed those needs from the animals" or "God made magical food for them and it showed up every day in the food room".
I never suggested that any of the 8 people on board would be perfect in their mothering. I pretty much indicated that having a mother figure is better than not having one. I used the word "well" which is quite apt as a description and I do not see any particular reason by you to resile from that position. If the situation was that Noah and his family took infants on to the Ark, then the question of room for large animals and large quantities of food changes dramatically. This by the way would be the case if the animal was anywhere between new born and fully grown animals. Opponents of the Ark theory always exaggerate the number of animals and their size in order to mock the notion completely. For some reason, ridicule is the primary weapon that an anti-Ark person likes to use in their fight. They tend to leave reason and logic behind.
Also as you point out the bible does not mention every little about what occurred. I think it does this on purpose as its purpose was not to provide such fine detail but a story about what occurred. Of course Noah and his family did have significant knowledge, accumulated over a significant number of years. Were they zoologists? Obviously not since the concept is a very modern one. The same with a biologist. But people knew animals back then as well. They did not have to go uni to learn how to look after animals. But to suggest that they were ignorant of the general needs of either of these animals is grasping at straws not reason. Many people ridicule the notion of the Ark. The entire story of course is a picture of God's judgment and of his grace. I personally think that is the bigger point of contention. It is why most skeptics tend to suggest it is a picture of God murdering people rather than justly punishing people for being entirely evil in all that they do. People want to excuse their sin - and to blame God. Hence any form of judgment is ridiculous - and no need for salvation.
As for the notion that mothers need to be their to protect them - eh what? a new world with only animals from the ark - not a heck of a lot of other animals to protect them from - and ah what - the other animals are infants - so not too dangerous yet?How quick do you think a baby lion, without the nourishment required from mother's milk, would figure out to grab the weakest baby antelope, who can't run, because it hasn't eaten? They need protection from EACH OTHER.
Gee how do baby lions do it now without adults around? They practice and the learn and they practice. I agree that all the animals need protection. But here we are after the flood and with just the live animals left. Can lions eat rotting flesh? Would there have any around? Can they eat other food? I accept there must have been ways to survive because survive they did. That is the a typical magic sort of response the evolutionist gives isn't? Despite the ridiculously absurd odds of life beginning - and evolving - all by itself - the typical answer is "well we are here aren't we? " And since they would argue there is no god - then there is no alternative solution. But don't question it. Just believe it. Believe the most fantastical odds occurred over and over and over again. It would take me more faith to believe that evolution is true than that a lion cub survived without a mother.
-->
@Stephen
No i am not
-->
@Intelligence_06
Well, If God tells us to find hope in even the worst scenarios, then we could easily have hope in Hell. It is golden opportunity that I get to have a place such cozy and can help me to ingore the externals and achieve inner piece and achieve internal happiness. If a religion teaches us to be afraid of something, then sorry no. I would rather be an atheist, living liberal and myself.
While it is true that God can ask us to find hope in even the worst scenarios, I would think that the qualification is that it refers to the finite life we live in. I do not take the view that it is referring to Hell.
I do not take the view that the Christian religion is about causing people to fear Hell. In fact it is more about fearing God who has the power to put you into Hell.
Yet I would add that I take the view that the topic of Hell is not a means to be used to try and scare people into Heaven. I would personally be against such an idea - because then the reason to be religious is built on guilt manipulation and not faith. Guilt manipulation is unfortunately used by many well meaning religious people - but the problem with such a tactic is that it does not really work. Yes, it might guilty some gullible people into going to church, saying a prayer but it does nothing to deal with sin and a change of heart. In other words, it does not achieve lasting change. People who think they become Christians in this sense have not really become Christians. They have simply been manipulated into thinking that all they need to do is say a prayer and go to church and then they will be saved from Hell. It is nonsense. And the reason it is nonsense is because it is not faith. It is guilt manipulation and does great harm to the individual and to the church's reputation.
I love God, not because I want to go heaven. I don't particularly care about heaven. I care about God. And there is a significant difference. A good test to find out about what people really think is to ask them, who do you really want to see in Heaven? Or who would be the one person that must be in heaven for you to want to be there? And if the answer is anything but Jesus, then there is a really good reason to think that their so called Christianity is not real Christianity.
Life teaches us to be afraid of lots of things. Being afraid is not wrong. Using it however as a tool of guilt manipulation is.
As for why I responded to your thought - it was not because I want to guilt you, but rather because I think you are ignorant. You raised Hell as a good place. I think that demonstrates a profound ignorance. And is reckless as well. What it is not - is humorous.
-->
@Tradesecret
Opponents of the Ark theory always exaggerate the number of animals and their size in order to mock the notion completely. For some reason, ridicule is the primary weapon that an anti-Ark person likes to use in their fight. They tend to leave reason and logic behind.
I'm not the one abandoning reason and logic. It only feels like ridicule to have it pointed out to YOU, because you're the one who believes it happened in spite of both logic and evidence being so firmly against your position.
So wait a minute: the story says two of EVERY animal. Right? Sometimes, in some accounts, it's actually more, but let's stick with two of every animal. How is it possible for someone to "exaggerate" the number of animals, or their size? And god must have sent these animals, right? That's how I remember it. So infant animals from all over the earth walked from wherever they were, to wherever the ark was, AS INFANTS in heterosexual pairs? How long do you think it would take, say, a kangaroo baby to walk from Australia to wherever Noah was? Would the kangaroo baby still be a baby when it arrived? Provided it didn't get eaten by any predators, I mean. The concentration of which, by the way, would increase exponentially as they got closer to the ark, right? And how, do you think, or in the Scripture, even better, do you think these animals were fed, considering all their dietary needs are so various? If god didn't send the animals, then the 8 people must have gathered them the old fashioned nonmagical way. How long do you think THAT would have taken?
Of course Noah and his family did have significant knowledge, accumulated over a significant number of years.
I presume you mean of animals, and not just like goats and sheep and the animals that would have been of real concern to people at this time. But also of monkeys, who didn't live in Israel. And koalas, and lemurs, and elephants, and other geographically specific animals. But they had "a significant number of years" to accumulate this knowledge, like where does the 100KG per day of food for one elephant come from if you're on a boat and all it eats are plants. Where do we get he numerous berries that a gorilla requires, and how do we prevent prey species like the only two rabbits left on earth from being eaten by the innumerable forest and plains predators who'd smell them and want to eat them since they can't have any other food? When and where did they acquire this knowledge, do you think, because logically, more than one of them would have to be an expert wood hewer (to make the massive construction materials required), and more than one of them would have to be a master shipwright to be able to build, by hand, a boat that's 450 feet long, 75 feet wide and 45 feet high, well enough to stand up to a global flood. The book says it took a 600 year old man and his family six months to build a boat. Do you really want to say you're using logic to support this as a fact? Let me guess: people were somehow different back then! Please support this claim if you make it. Like how you know they were. Which graves have we discovered containing the bodies of people who were hundreds of years old. What DNA study demonstrated this was possible, for example.
Gee how do baby lions do it now without adults around?
Uh, they don't. Baby lions without an adult around get eaten by hyenas. Hyenas would be on the boat, too, right? How fast does a hyena reach maturity compared to a lion?
Can lions eat rotting flesh?
They wouldn't need to. Stand at the end of the ramp from the ark and it's like a buffet line, right?
Are you a guy who believes in evolution? The reason I ask is you either subscribe to an insanely fast version of evolution, because it would have to start after the ark (therby reducing the 9 million species of organisms in the animal kingdom to something more manageable), or you believe that every animal today was actually on the ark.
Please don't say you believe this tale because of logic. You believe it for a lot of reasons, but "it makes logical sense given all we know today"is furthest from the truth.
-->
@ludofl3x
.
ludofl3x,
Barring the fact that Tradesecret and you are clogging up my thread in being OFF TOPIC, where it should be continued in the Noah's ark thread to make him the continued Bible fool, you made a great point in your following statement:
"So infant animals from all over the earth walked from wherever they were, to wherever the ark was, AS INFANTS in heterosexual pairs? How long do you think it would take, say, a kangaroo baby to walk from Australia to wherever Noah was? Would the kangaroo baby still be a baby when it arrived? Provided it didn't get eaten by any predators, I mean."
As you are aware, do not expect a cogent response from Tradesecret to your astute statement above where he is now using a backhoe to dig himself into a hole instead of a shovel.
.
-->
@Tradesecret
.
TRADESECRET, The Debate Runaway on Jesus' true MO, Bible denier of Jesus being the Trinity God in the OT, the runaway to what division of Christianity he follows, the pseudo-christian that has committed the Unpardonable Sin, and now the number 1 Bible ignorant fool regarding Noah's ark,,
Why do you conintue to clog up my thread with your OFF TOPIC comical acceptance of infants were placed upon the ark in the number of 98,000 like you said, and the direct ramifications thereof?! YOU COULD HAVE STOPPED AT YOUR RUNAWAY POST #8 TO THE MAIN TOPIC! When I posted my #9 post in response, the only thing that I did was casually mention my number one favorite of your comical rewrites of the Bible was said infants were loaded on the Ark. You could have said to take the conversation to the appropriate thread to make you the continued Bible fool that you are!
Why do you conintue to clog up my thread with your OFF TOPIC comical acceptance of infants were placed upon the ark in the number of 98,000 like you said, and the direct ramifications thereof?! YOU COULD HAVE STOPPED AT YOUR RUNAWAY POST #8 TO THE MAIN TOPIC! When I posted my #9 post in response, the only thing that I did was casually mention my number one favorite of your comical rewrites of the Bible was said infants were loaded on the Ark. You could have said to take the conversation to the appropriate thread to make you the continued Bible fool that you are!
NOW, SINCE YOU REMAIN IN MY THREAD REGARDING EVERYONE IS GOING TO HEAVEN, INCLUDING NON-BELIEVERS AND YOU AS A CHRISTIAN POE IN MAKING FUN OF CHRISTIANITY, THEN CHAIN UP AND DISCUSS THE THREADS TOPIC! DO NOT, I REPEAT, DO NOT RUN AWAY LIKE YOU USUALLY DO, UNDERSTOOD?
BEGIN:
.
-->
@Tradesecret
.
TRADESECRET, The Debate Runaway on Jesus' true MO, Bible denier of Jesus being the Trinity God in the OT, the runaway to what division of Christianity he follows, the pseudo-christian that has committed the Unpardonable Sin, and now the number 1 Bible ignorant fool regarding Noah's ark,
What part of my post #51 above didn’t you understand? Do you need help with the english language once again? Since you are in my thread pertaining to the biblical axiom that EVERYONE is going to heaven without believing in Jesus the Christ, then why are you running away from the JUDEO-Christian Bible AGAIN?
Since you got your pseudo-christian ass paddled by our notable moderators in closing your thread relating to me that violated the COC rules AGAIN of harassment, are you taking time off to lick your wounds of embarrassment? Huh? Not only do you RUN AWAY from Jesus' true words, now you are known for DEBATEART rule violations X2! Satan must be so proud o you! LOL
You don’t realize in what an outright RUN AWAY joke you are in this forum, where your equally Bible ignorant pseudo-christian cohorts stayed away from you in this thread, where even they are “abandoning ship” with you because you're an embarrassment to the faith of Christianity because of your Devil Speak and RUNAWAY status!
I ask you, what is your next EXCUSE for not discussing Jesus’ inspired words in 1 Timothy 4:10 within my initial post of this thread? SCARED AGAIN? LOL
Put your sophomoric little excuse here: _________________________________________________________ then let your silent friends towards you now watch you RUN AWAY for the umpteenth time in total and complete embarrassment! LOL
.
.
26 days later
-->
@BrotherDThomas
There is nothing to thank you for.
-->
@BrotherDThomas
Barring Tradesecrets biblical ignorance in the numbers game relative to Genesis 7:2, therefore, we will use his exact numbers relative to his comical Bible rewrite of the amount of infant animals upon the ark.
Tradesecet says there were 98,000 animals upon the Ark: https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/1097-why-should-we-take-the-story-of-noah-as-literal?page=5&post_number=105
In turn, you NEVER demonstrated BIBLICALLY where Noah put 98,000 infants upon the Ark in an absolute manner, do you understand this simple return deduction, or do you need further help, Mr. attorney?
“I also know that many infants in our world survive without their mothers so far as their are others who are willing to take on that role. And in the story of Noah - there are 8 people who are willing to take on that role. AND who would do well in the circumstances.”
In relation to your quote above, you are to answer the following to "TRY" and save what face you have left within this forum:
Actually I don't have to do anything of a sort. This is your bugbear. Not mine. What occurred in that previous post - was that you were attempting to mock the story because you could see no way that any of the large beasts and fish in this world could fit into the Ark. My response was simply to counter with the idea that there was no commandment that they had to be adults - but could be infants. This befuddled you - because you had never even considered that idea.
I had previously indicated I did not have all of the answers to all of the questions about the ark and even indicated the language might be poetry. https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/1097/post-links/196502; https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/1097/post-links/196723.
1. How did Noah determine clean and unclean infant animals upon the Ark X 98,000 “kinds?”
The same way that Moses determined it years after this time. God told him.
2. How many specific infants out of the 98,000 animals have the ability to survive without their mothers milk for 371 DAYS UPON THE WATERS with only one pair of unclean animal to feed upon?! How many Zoologist fool?!
I don't know. How many non-adult animals require milk?
3. Logically, how did the 8 people you mentioned upon the Ark take care of 98,000 infant animals for 371 days upon the waters in giving them food and the clean up thereafter, let alone themselves?
I don't have an answer and I don't need to answer it. It changes nothing for me either way. It is your bugbear, not mine. How is it possible for evolution to occur? Statistically impossible. Does the fact that you can't answer that - mean you throw evolution away or think it is less of a fairy tail?
4. Within the 8 people upon the Ark, and with the said 98,000 infants you proposed, did the women folk BREAST FEED these 98,000 motherless infants 3-4 time per day as normal, and where said women DO NOT have the genetic antibodies that are needed for that specific "kind" of animals immune system?
Same as for the last answer. I had said well before this that I don't have an answer - and that I don't particularly need one. No one has all the answers for all the absurdities about philosophy or science or evolution - we just say - let's just wait a bit longer and perhaps - an answer might present itself. We don't however just throw out our entire doctrine just because there are some difficulties to do with it. My doctrine is not dependent upon being able to answer every question about Noah's Ark.
5. Subsequent to the Ark reaching dry land, how are these 8 individuals going to teach 98,000 infant animals to hunt for their prey? Huh? Does drawing the short straw tell that person they have to head beyond the Arctic Circle to teach the polar bears how to hunt? Do you understand your laughable premise yet?
A laughable premise - do you mean like the odds or probability that evolution might occur? Like someone winning tatts every second of every day for a million years. That is not at all laughable - LOL! But hey let's go with Noah's Ark being laughable.
“As for the notion that mothers need to be their to protect them - eh what? a new world with only animals from the ark - not a heck of a lot of other animals to protect them from - and ah what - the other animals are infants - so not too dangerous yet?The 98, 000 infant animals of various “kinds” upon the ark have to be the same animals that are present today. Therefore, as only one example, the gazelles upon the ark need protection from the lions, and so on and so forth, Then you take the remaining “kinds” where they have to be protected from their known predators as well!
My response is that I don't need to respond to every detail about every incident. I really don't and I do not plan too. This is not about avoiding the question it is about saying I don't have an answer - but that it does not matter to me, presently. It may well be that someday, someone might address it - I do not have to be the one to do it. Just like you won't be the one to figure out evolution. Or how nothing was there and then for no particular reason - nothing exploded. And no one is expecting you to answer that question or even have an inkling about it - because it does not matter whether you have every answer - for you to believe it. Which you do blindly and by faith.
:“Your argument is baseless and you know it. It sucks doesn't when a creationist - although I am not one - beats you up with logic.”We ask you, where do you get this authority to change adult animals for infant ones? TELL US!
My point was simple - the bible does not command that there must be ADULT animals. You assumed adult animals because you so much wanted to mock. The notion of the animals being infants did not even enter your brain - and when it did - it bamboozled you. That's ok. All this really shows is your bias - and your inability to actually think things through by yourself. Not that you cannot think - but that you just read what others have written and when someone goes away from their narrative - it bamboozles you. Again that is ok. But it is bias.
Therefore, will you take it upon yourself to lobby your fellow equally Bible inept pseudo-christians throughout the world that what has been perceived in your opinion over the millenniums in only showing ONE PAIR OF ADULT ANIMALS entering the Ark is blatantly wrong, where you explicitly state it should be 98,000 "infant animals" loading upon Noah's ark instead! YES? MAYBE? LOL!
Why? It is not my bug bear - I am quite happy for people to come to their own conclusions. They don't need my help.
-->
@BrotherDThomas
" I also notice that the apologist here have given the OP a very wide birth."As I have shown in my initial post, I knew the Bible ignorant Tradesecret could never address the outright outcome of 1 Timothy 4:10,
Can you explain what that verse has to do with anything?
Therefore, he owes me! LOL.
I don't owe you anything.
I still say that Tradesecret is an outright POE/Parody of a pseudo-christian, because who other than a POE would make such fun of the Christian faith like he has explicitly done in his comical Noahan Flood posts?
I am not a parody. That is your character.
-->
@BrotherDThomas
Why do you conintue to clog up my thread with your OFF TOPIC comical acceptance of infants were placed upon the ark in the number of 98,000 like you said, and the direct ramifications thereof?! YOU COULD HAVE STOPPED AT YOUR RUNAWAY POST #8 TO THE MAIN TOPIC! When I posted my #9 post in response, the only thing that I did was casually mention my number one favorite of your comical rewrites of the Bible was said infants were loaded on the Ark. You could have said to take the conversation to the appropriate thread to make you the continued Bible fool that you are!NOW, SINCE YOU REMAIN IN MY THREAD REGARDING EVERYONE IS GOING TO HEAVEN, INCLUDING NON-BELIEVERS AND YOU AS A CHRISTIAN POE IN MAKING FUN OF CHRISTIANITY, THEN CHAIN UP AND DISCUSS THE THREADS TOPIC!
I did not run away from the topic. I thought it was simply bait. And I did not feel like engaging with you since you don't actually engage - but shoot from the hip.
I think probably you had too much pizza the night before - which is why in your prayer you heard God talking to you. I don't believe in fresh revelation - so there is nothing for me to add to your so called prayer - except it contradicts the Bible. John 3:16 is a good example.
-->
@BrotherDThomas
What part of my post #51 above didn’t you understand? Do you need help with the english language once again? Since you are in my thread pertaining to the biblical axiom that EVERYONE is going to heaven without believing in Jesus the Christ?
I ask you, what is your next EXCUSE for not discussing Jesus’ inspired words in 1 Timothy 4:10 within my initial post of this thread? SCARED AGAIN? LOL
Timothy 4:10
And for this we labor and strive, that we have put our hope in the Living God, who is the savior of all men, and especially of those who believe".
You it seems are arguing that since Paul indicates that Jesus is the savor of all men - that this must mean salvation from Hell. Ok. So if this is the case - can you prove it please?
And when you do - please comment on the qualifier in the verse which talks of "especially, those who believe"? After all, this must mean something. I would take the view that this especially is talking of special grace - and the the former is talking of common grace. In other words, JEsus coming to this world has saved all people from the previous and total sin of the world - enabling his grace to shine into the world in a new way. And this is true, isn't? Slavery has been seriously dented. Longer life is apparent all over the world. Freedoms have started which would never have been known without Jesus. Females have rights. Children have rights. Blacks have rights. So from the time of Christ until now - and while there is life on this planet - the world is being saved - not from Hell of course, but from sin.
And then because the second part of the verse - talks of especially of those who believe - which must have some meaning so as to make it "especially" refers to the special grace that Christians receive by trusting in Jesus. Special grace and common grace,
But not that everyone goes to Heaven - I think you should stop eating pizza before you go to bed.
That's the beauty of being atheistic.
You are ALLOWED to believe in a place that can be best described as heaven.
The atheist are all more then aware that not knowing what happens when ONE passes is locked in. One can never know.
The theistic bunch however no EXACTLY what happens when one passes.
And They know this in fine details what happens.
Lucky theists.
But I doubt they would feel so smug if God didn't do that book for him.
You guys are so lucky god did that.
You really should be all bragging and talking about this ummmmmm, lucky fact.
I'd have brilliant arguments against the existence of God if he didn't do the book for ya.
You are ALLOWED to believe in a place that can be best described as heaven.
The atheist are all more then aware that not knowing what happens when ONE passes is locked in. One can never know.
The theistic bunch however no EXACTLY what happens when one passes.
And They know this in fine details what happens.
Lucky theists.
But I doubt they would feel so smug if God didn't do that book for him.
You guys are so lucky god did that.
You really should be all bragging and talking about this ummmmmm, lucky fact.
I'd have brilliant arguments against the existence of God if he didn't do the book for ya.
-->
@BrotherDThomas
I checked those links you have given regarding Tradesecret being the #1 Bible ignorant fool on this forum. Didn't you love this outstanding statement when he said "For God to do supernatural things would be to suggest that God is some type of superman. He is not."
HUH?!!! The serial killer Christian God named Yahweh/Jesus only created the entire universe of billions of light years in size, flooded the entire world and murdered His entire creation, including innocent babies, caused sickness in His plagues, AND GOD IS NOT SUPERHUMAN? !!!ROFLOL!!! OMG! No pseudo-christian is this dumbfounded, therefore this proves once again that Tradesecret is a POE/Parody in being a fake Christian to make fun of the faith!As shown in the following link, Tradesecret continually RUNS AWAY from my posts relating to Jesus' true words within the scriptures, where I have listed 8 of them at this time, and they will continue to grow in number because what he thought he knew about the faith, he embarrassingly didn't. LOL
I repeat God is not superhuman. He is God. He is divine. To say he is superhuman is the dumb response. Do we say birds are superhuman because they fly? No. Do we say fish are superhuman because they can swim underwater for hours? No. Do we say that Chameleons are superhuman because they change their color to adapt to their surroundings? No. God is not superhuman because he does things which Gods do. It is just dumb to say otherwise. At least try and given an explanation - that might provide some reason. But no and true to form - the Brother just asserts - never answers a question.
ATHEISTS TALK TO GRAVES OF PASSED LOVED ONES.
They frequently chat at plaques.
As a atheist I've tried ever so hard to not talk to GRAVES.
BUT
BUT
I fail.